Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Provost

Members
  • Posts

    11,729
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by Provost

  1. He doesn't need protection regardless of signing as it will be a contract for next year. My suspicion is that it is bad form to sign a player's replacement when that player is still playing games for us.
  2. Either there is an issue making a deal, or it is made but they don’t want to announce it while we are still playing because it would mean one of our guys we expect to play for us over the next couple weeks isn’t going to be offered a job with the team next year.
  3. 30 goals... in how many years? He may never score 30 more goals in his entire NHL career
  4. Whenever someone uses "pace" it is an excuse for "not really that number"...that is someone trying to massage the data to make it look like something other than it is. He doesn't get paid per 82 games, he gets paid for whole seasons. You also neglect to note his points total... he gets virtually no assists. His goals are 10, 15, 18, and 5 over the past 4 seasons... not a perennial 18 goal scorer His points are 20, 25. 36, 5 over the past 4 seasons. That is despite getting plenty of looks in the top 6 and PP time. He isn't good at producing points... and that is his best attribute. How the goals are distributed is immensely important as you can predict repeatability. If Jeff Cowan gets 10 goals in 10 games... he isn't an 80 goal scorer. Jake has 22 points since the start of last February. in 72 games played.
  5. We don't really have to care about his off ice stuff to decide whether he should be back or not. He shouldn't, he has been terrible... folks pointing to his "success" last season conveniently neglect to recall that he was terrible in the first part of the season and terrible in the last part of the season, and he was terrible in the playoffs. He had about 6 weeks in the middle of last season where he went on a tear. When everyone was saying that he had finally turned a corner, I said it appears to just be a statistical blip and we should trade him at his high water mark... I got torn apart for my take on it. He has played for years, believe what you have seen for 6 years and not what you have seen for 6 weeks. Now he has negative value on his current contract and the opportunity cost of keeping him resulted in us losing a legit top 6 guy in Toffoli. He probably gets bought out in the summer and gets to be someone else's problem.
  6. That is ridiculous and completely disingenuous to say as well as being blatantly false. When we chose to qualify Virtanen, we had to keep the cap space available for his arbitration award. There was no option of walking away from Jake if Toffoli waited a few more days like you said. Teams aren’t allowed to walk away unless the arb award is greater than $4.5 million. Virtanen was qualified before Toffoli signed elsewhere. That was when the decision was made. We knew what cap space we had available and it could have been used on Toffoli had we not decided to qualify Virtanen. There was absolutely a choice to be had between them.
  7. Anyone defending this management and pretending they really have a plan is simply being ridiculous at this point. Please point out where Benning mentioned his 9 year plan to get back to the playoffs? A series of reactionary decisions that change year to year isn’t a plan. If there was a plan, it was a terrible one and executed poorly. I see folks defending him by saying it was too tough to move out money in one breath and then say we don’t really have bad contracts on the other. Guess what, it was and will always be easy to move out money. Anyone saying otherwise is lying. It is incredibly hard however to move out overpaid players who are bad values for their performance.... the fact that we “couldn’t move out money” is simply code for we have too many bad contracts that people don’t want. Beagle, Sutter, Ferland, Roussel, Eriksson, Baertschi, Virtanen... nobody wants those guys at their contract price. It is pretty damning if you could waive 7 veterans and likely have no one pick up any of them. We also didn’t have to clear money for Toffoli. We just had to not qualify Virtanen and pick a slightly cheaper veteran back up goalie. It was about Benning making a bad choice on who to keep. We signed Pearson before the expansion draft for no discernible reason except that we were told he is a pro and provides intangibles in the room. Was that the plan last offseason when not bothering to try to sign Tanev, Toffoli, or Stecher? I mean if you hear teammates speak... you heard them referred those guys... not Pearson. Nope... Benning realized he let the wrong guys go and screwed up the chemistry (and on ice) product, so he got gunshot and re-signed Pearson.
  8. If we have this GM still I suspect it is probably excluded. Zero faith in his ability to do anything but run a draft.... and even then, I just hope that he can get above his 50% success rate with his top 10 picks.
  9. Protect: Petterson, Miller, Horvat, Boeser, Motte, Pearson, Lind Schmidt, Juolevi... some player we trade for before expansion. Demko It will be really tempting for Seattle to take Myers from us, he is a little overpaid but there is a huge gap in level between Myers and any other possible picks... Maybe Holtby is their other possible choice, but then it is down to scrubs or guys outside the NHL. Once we picked up Bowie I knew that Benning wasn’t likely planning on doing anything bold in expansion like trying to free up cap space for other opportunities or get a player for relatively cheap like Zadorov pre-Expansion.
  10. It would sure be nice getting into Luke Hughes territory for a pick. There doesn’t seem to be much to choose between the top 5 or so picks, so why not pick the kid that may help connect our current star to the team a little more closely.
  11. This should be police matter if it isn’t already. Not really a topic for a hockey forum, especially since there aren’t even any allegations except some anonymous Twitter account with 11 followers posting something without any sources noted. It isn’t carried on any reputable outlets. If the allegations are substantiated, he should have his contract terminated. There are lots of rumours about his poor behaviour, but everyone deserves some sort of due process.
  12. Ya, that is why everyone has been talking about the possibility of him actually being available. It still doesn't make him anywhere near a low value that would be traded for Virtanen straight up. Being frustrated that he hasn't become a top pairing guy, isn't the same as him being no good.
  13. The people on the Zadorov thread suggesting a Virtanen for Zadorov straight up swap need to give their heads a shake. Virtanen has negative value with his contract and Zadorov has quite a bit of value. Of course I have no faith in it happening, but us leveraging our spare protection slot to get Zadorov makes all sorts of sense. I don't know exactly what value a trade would be, but it would be under market value since most teams couldn't trade for him because it would result in someone else getting exposed that they also don't want to lose. We protect Schmidt, Zadorov, and Juolevi... expose Myers. If Myers gets taken, we save a crap ton of cap money and we still have a lot of options.
  14. That is totally out of line... He wouldn't do it unless there is a way he can give up a 2nd round pick as well.
  15. Toronto is sitting a bunch of their regulars to rest them. Reilly, Muzzin, Foligno ...oh and they are giving us a chance by playing Rittich as well They don’t think much of us as competition.
  16. It was insulting to the guy it was offered to and rejected it. The guy who went on to sign with another team instead so was clearly valued more highly by the market.
  17. ... that doesn't mean much. They said they offered Brackett a contract too. It turned out to be an insultingly low offer that also included public statements that the Benning and Weisbrod intended on taking a bigger role in the day to day operations of his department (downgrading his authority). If they offered Green half of what he could get on the market... that doesn't go very far.
  18. I think he would be an excellent choice for several reasons: 1. He is a hockey hall of famer with one of the best NHL and international resumes in existence. Stanley Cup winner, multiple Olympic gold medallist, multiple world championship gold medals, multiple World Juniors gold medallist, hockey hall of fame, etc, etc, 2. He has experience as player, agent, coach, and GM. 3. Russian players are currently undervalued because of their KHL escape possibility. We could leverage that, especially in a time when the KHL salaries are dropping and players might be looking to make the jump. He will have massive amounts of intelligence on many Russian players. 4. We have our Russians coming onto the team, and he could attract more Russian players. Russians are nationalistic like we are, some guys could come just to play just to help a Russian led team win the Cup. It is hard for them to say know in free agency if a national legend is knocking on their door. 5. He would gain instant respect for the franchise, he is a legend. Other team brass like Shanahan, Yzerman, Sakic, and many others know him really well from their playing days... or would even look up to him from his place in the game. 6. His nickname of "The Professor" wasn't just because of his glasses.
  19. Earlier in the season I was assuming that Green wasn't extended because Benning was in the hotseat and unlikely to keep his job beyond this season. It would make sense for a new GM to pick his own coach... even if that turned out to be Green in the end anyways. There is no sign that Benning's job is in jeopardy though. If it was, they should have pulled the trigger already to give time for a replacement to come in and be ready for the draft. If you don't think Jim is running the team, he shouldn't be making the expansion and draft decisions and any trades that might come of them. Ideally as I have said many times, they put a President in place basically immediately and he does his own operational review and has oversight on any decisions Benning makes until he figures out who he wants as his GM. Larionov for President!
  20. Hmmm how do you expect a coach to make roster decision for "next year" when he hasn't even been given a job for next year? He has to eat his win loss record for his entire career as his report card. How should the brass expect him to sewer his own job prospects because they can't be bothered to sign him and chose to keep those veteran players at the deadline. The coach has one job and that is to try to win every night. It is the senior management that needs to make the longer term decisions.
  21. This recent one in particular drives me a little crazy. There was literally no reason to do it. Sometimes if you really want a player, you leverage the trade deadline to get an under market deal by basically threatening to trade them unless they signed a team friendly extension. That happens. Except we didn't sign him to a team friendly extension. Basically all the folks outside the market say we paid at best full UFA market rate, or at worst we overpaid for him. That was even reported as what several agents said. So really there was no deadline or need to sign him before the expansion draft. If we can have a gentleman's agreement not to expose him... we can't have a gentleman's agreement that we will sign him to that contract price and term but won't pull the trigger until the day after expansion in order to preserve an expansion slot? There is no jeopardy for Pearson, Seattle isn't likely to take him as a UFA and if they did take him, he can just choose not sign with them... and sign with us on July 1st if that was his desire. Nothing Benning and company has done seem to indicate they consider anything except if they like and want the player. They identify free agents they want, and then pay whatever price it takes to get them and don't seem to have a "walk away" number like other teams do. They decide they want Pearson, so just sign him without thinking about opportunity cost and other implications. They sign Virtanen because they think he still has upside, even though that ends up costing them Toffoli who has already realized more upside than even the most optimistic Jake lover could hope for. It is the reverse of the Gillis/Gilman era where they maybe tried to be too clever with managing things and got slapped by the NHL for it. This regime just seems reactionary and plodding.
  22. https://www.sportsnet.ca/nhl/article/canucks-kole-lind-make-nhl-debut-vs-maple-leafs/
  23. It would be hindsight if it wasn't for the fact that you could find at least half the posters here suggesting the exact same thing last offseason before all the signings happened
  24. That was caused by NOT moving out the rentals. If in Mid March we had have moved out Pearson, Sutter, and Benn which was what the thread was suggesting... we would have not only been able to audition the waiver wire pick ups, but also get good looks at some of our higher end farm players and taxi squad. It is really just a conversation about the point where you shift gears to playing for next year instead of this year. Some folks wants to drag it out until the bitter end, I am on the other side of the equation where I think if the odds are heavily stacked against us we should start aiming to improve ourselves longer term rather than just thinking about futile playoff runs. I think to prepare yourself with the best information possible to fashion next year's roster we need to know where some players are at, and the only way to do that is to get a good look of 10-20 games. What if Gadjovich's success isn't just the fact the AHL is much lower competition this year due to taxi squads taking their best players? Maybe he isn't really any better, but what if he came up and absolutely knocked Virtanen out of the lineup by being an effective 3rd line winger? What if Rathbone is really ready... do you re-sign Edler still? Do you think about trading one of Myers or Schmidt? Couldn't DiPietro get a few games so we didn't lose an entire year's worth of development? Can Juolevi be counted on as a 2nd pairing guy for next season? Could Lind be a centre pencilled into the lineup next year or do we have to make finding a 3C our biggest priority? I don't know any of these things, and neither does Canucks management now. In my mind, answering those questions would have been a bigger benefit than chasing remote odds of making the playoffs.
  25. That is a good point. I mentioned earlier in the thread, if your roster is playing really poorly... are you even that much worse off in your playoff chances by getting rid of the expiring vets for assets and bringing up some kids? I mean, it seems fairly obvious that it is more likely for a bad roster to keep playing badly than it is for them to completely turn things around. Maybe with some kids you hit lightning in a bottle and suddenly have an energized room.
×
×
  • Create New...