-
Posts
11,729 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Everything posted by Provost
-
PLAY THE KIDS
-
[GDT/PGT] Vancouver Canucks @ Ottawa Senators l April 28, 2:30 p.m. l SNP
Provost replied to -SN-'s topic in Canucks Talk
Next season starts now... let’s see Lind, Rathbone, and Juolevi get some minutes now. It will be good for them to get a taste and see what they need to work on, and for us to see if they are even close to ready to take the step. -
[Rumour]. Zadorov in Chicago.. may not stick .
Provost replied to SilentSam's topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
Sold! Some of those were big boys he was laying out. I don't care that he isn't a fighter, if he can make a few forwards think more about their health than making fancy plays in our zone that is good enough for me. Him, Tryamkin, and Myers would complement the smaller/skilled guys in Hughes, Schmidt, Rathbone, Juolevi. -
I don't particularly care either way really. It depends on the relative returns available to me. If Ottawa gives us a 2nd and Tierney for Schmidt... but the only offers for Myers is a 4th round pick and a middling prospect... I move Schmidt. Either way, things shake out fairly similarly.
-
The expansion fee isn't part of HRR so doesn't have any impact at all on the cap. The players will owe somewhere north of a billion dollars to owners by the middle of next season as revenues will still be down until at least the end of the calendar year in most Canadian markets. The cap was already artificially high pre-Covid due to the NHLPA escalator clause.. somewhere between 10-15% too high as players had to pay that much back each year in escrow from being overpaid. That means the salary cap should really have been around $70 million if it were really the 50% player share. On top of all of that, the calculation for the cap changed and is now based on an average of the previous two seasons of HRR, not just the last season. The current two years of almost no revenue don't clear off the calculation until the 2023-24 season and THEN the players have to start paying back that billion dollars. Their share of that additional TV revenue is about $162 million per year... so how long will it take to pay back that billion dollars even with a flat cap? My guess is a a flat cap for 5 years, maybe with a $1 million rise in a couple of years just for optics.
-
I do still think the salary pressure will be there as the cap isn't moving up for the next 3-5 years... There is a little relief from Seattle adding another bunch of available money to the overall pot... but how that money will be allocated will depend on what positions are needed and valued. You will pay a lot more for D and centres than you will for wingers. I don't think there is much risk in a $2 million x 2 year deal for Tryamkin at all. He needs to just be an upgrade on Benn for that price. Folks railing on about how we won't be an impact player are honestly just spreading manure... we aren't going to be paying him to be that. If he is a legit 3rd pairing D who can play 11-15 minutes a night and do some penalty killing... we get our money's worth. If he exceeds expectations, we have a great bargain. If he is just terrible and can't keep up, we assign him to the minors and he asks for a release back to the KHL or we bury most of the contract. The potential upside is greater than the, as yet imaginary, potential downside of the opportunity cost of missing out on a better player who decides to sign with us at a cheaper price. If there are some good players looking for a home on cheap contracts, why the hell would anyone believe they would sign with us? They will go sign with a contender like Schenn did, not come to a bottom feeder... they would be dumb not to. I have said repeatedly, that I think our best move is to test the market for a Myers/Schmidt trade after the expansion draft as a bunch of teams would have lost a top 4D. Their value will be as high as it is ever going to be, and the opportunity of freeing up that amount of cap space will be worth a lot more than what we could save by not having signed Tryamkin for a million or so over league minimum. Edler and Hamonic are likely going to be under market value contracts to sign with us and that is an opportunity most teams won't have. We can use them as stop gaps for another year or two as we filter in a couple of young players. Edler and Hamonic at no more than $6 million combined represent a better deal than Schmidt and Myers at $12 million. The latter two are better, but If you add another $6 million dollar player to the team with the saved money and then include what return you would get for moving out one of the higher priced guys... that more than makes up for the difference. Hughes-Hamonic Edler-Tryamkin Juolevi/Rathbone-Myers Bowie
-
Hamonic was a special case and that wasn’t market rate at all. Even with his personal limitations to only sign with a couple of clubs, I don’t expect him to be on the same contract going forward. There “could” be deals to be had again this offseason, then again maybe not. It falls in the probably not this offseason because Seattle will be taking a bunch of defencemen from teams that will need to replace those guys. There aren’t just a bunch of spare NHL calibre D hanging around the league, you see guys way past their prime still hanging on because no one is pushing them out. D are going to be more valuable this offseason because of supply and demand. The timing of when we need a a Tryamkin decision due to the KHL and him needing to know whether he is getting a contract offer from us means we have to do it sooner rather than later. Whether he is better or worse than Myers doesn’t factor into it as we aren’t planning on giving him a $6 million dollar contract with a bunch of term. It will be a Benn type deal. Pearson was the player we didn’t need to sign so soon, he is already under contract with us and couldn’t negotiate with other teams. We could have waited on him with no likely downside.
-
If a deal ended up with us saving cap dollars and the main swap is Eriksson for Subban...sure. In theory Subban is more useful than Eriksson so it works on that level. I would wait until we are sure that Eriksson won't just retire after getting his bonus though. Don't think we would want to get into something with a bunch of pieces and money retained on another contract.
-
That one is too ludicrous and far from any level of reality to entertain. I mean you might as well add to the joke and say the same Lawyer also suggested that he is a high profile advisor of a bunch of sports teams.
-
I think the valid point was that for the same cap dollars you can get a better player than Debrusk this offseason. Toffoli signed last season for not much more than that.
-
Great... you send the money to IBatch to hold. I will send him $0, and you can send him $10,000 to make up your 100-0 odds. If the Canucks are awarded 4 points by the NHL instead of the regular two for their next win you win otherwise I win. What are the odds he just takes the cash from both of us and spends it on authentic game worn Tryamkin and Linden Vey KHL jerseys?
-
Excellent point It is sad that it would come to it, but his buyout is minimal due to the calculation of his age being under 26. We only owe 1/3rd instead of 2/3rds, I had entirely forgotten about that. That means a $50k cap hit this coming year and a $500k cap hit the following year to buy him out. We could find a better value for the money even when you subtract the cap hit. Heck we could probably take on a player like Tierney from Ottawa who is a much better fit. He likely doesn't fit into Ottawa's long term plans with young guys like Stutzle, Miller, Norris, and Paul, Pinto in the picture... so they could move him to save money. I retract my trade proposal! :D
-
This was mentioned a long time ago and in the trade Virtanen rumours. Debrusk was scratched again by Boston. Would it be worth it to swap a project who needs new scenery for a project that needs new scenery? Debrusk has better numbers, but is also on a more expensive contract. Does that even out their value? I would propose: To Boston: Virtanen Mid level prospect or later round pick To Van Debrusk Boston saves almost $1.5 million in cap, and gets a winger back with some upside for a winger that seems to have worn out their welcome there. We get a guy who we can try in our top six and if he doesn’t work out, we can cut him loose or trade him next offseason when his contract expires.
-
That is pretty much it. The initial predictions based on history were that the cut off would be 63 points plus or minus a couple depending on the division and how much parity there was. Maybe it ends up being 60 points or still 63 points...heck, even 64 is still possible. Regardless of the exact cutoff it still doesn't really affect the odds greatly. Montreal can't win much in their remaining games and we can't lose much in our remaining games. Depending on tiebreakers that Montreal currently holds a huge advantage on us (6 more regulation wins right now), we have to get one more point than them... so if if both teams got the results you mentioned, they almost certainly get in instead of us. We have to not just win our all those games, but win almost all of them in regulation Really tough sledding....
-
Pick a lane... when I changed the title (at your behest), I modified the OP with an edit clearly stating our chances at the time were 2.5%... not impossible, not zero, not unattainable. Just only capable of being reached with great difficulty as per the above definition which is the only definition that could have fit in that context... you know 2.5% being more than zero and all.
-
Yet here you are... Definitions of out of reachout of reach adjective inaccessibly located or situated synonyms:unapproachable, unreachable, unreached inaccessible, unaccessible capable of being reached only with great difficulty or not at all
-
You literally made a post saying I was wrong because the first definition of the phrase is really the right one, and then proceeded to NOT use the first definition because it didn't make sense to use it... if you can't see how that entirely invalidated your entire point, I don't know how I can explain it more. I was pointing out that, against the actual point you were making, you had the capability to entirely ignore the first (and most common definition) to use one that suited the context more for your purposes... so you are using a "less right" one too in order to illustrate that my definition is wrong because it isn't the first one listed either? Now you are mad because of course the first definition doesn't make any sense and it is silly for me to have brought it up? It was your entire point!!! Using your logic, if people were mad because they thought I meant "the team couldn't reach out and physically touch the playoffs with their hands"... I guess that could be true. You aren't even using your own logic though because that isn't how you defined the term either. If anyone has/had an issue with the definition I used, they could simply click on the OP and read it where it made it very clear what definition I was using. They could look it up for themselves and also see that they way I used it is also proper. Instead they are arguing I said something I explicitly didn't and ignoring the fact it is a proper definition. If I said "bear with me, this is going to take a while"... and folks started going hysterical that I was about to be eaten by a huge Grizzly, and then I pointed out that "bear" has more than one meaning, and I meant the other one (and showed links and proof). If they continued arguing and yelling "YOU SAID YOU WERE ABOUT TO BE EATEN BY A BEAR" , that would be ridiculous. That is what is happening here. I said I didn't mean literally completely impossible. My original post very clearly said that I didn't think it was literally completely impossible... I even laid out the specific paths that showed how it could be possible, however unlikely. I also have since showed clearly and repeatedly that the phrase doesn't always mean literally completely impossible The entire intervening two months has shown that what I posted was actually right, and that we STILL haven't made up enough ground to make the playoffs .... but here we are. People hanging onto that little nugget because they have zero substance or counter my ACTUAL post and position and have so heavily invested themselves emotionally, that they keep doubling down. People are still pretending otherwise because as you say... they feel they need hope, and they will yell and scream in impotent rage against anyone who presents information that affects that hope, however false that hope is. They do it because it makes them feel better, not because they are right. In my books, you can be a fan, cheer the team on, and still understand reality at the same time. You can still have hope for the future of the team without having much hope at all for the current season. I would have more hope if they played the kids the rest of the way out... because I think that would pay dividends in future years when it is far more likely to matter. I would have traded away rental players before the deadline because that would have had a chance of paying dividends in future years when it is far more likely to matter. Also not sure how I can be Captain Obvious and also wrong at the same time. Pick a lane. I am so right that I shouldn't be posting because it is obvious... oh but also I am wrong.
-
Yes.. they vary from bleak to really bleak. That is how statistical models work, they have slightly different methodologies but aren't just made up throwing darts at a board or crossing their fingers and wishing really hard which seems to be your methodology. If you bet on longshot horses with them only giving you even odds... you would deserve to lose your money. That is the analogy you are trying to make here. If someone bet me 20 to 1 odds of the Canucks making the playoffs, I would take it. The thing about longshots is that they almost never win... which is literally what I have posted. Not sure how that proves your point? You have also decided to ignore the definition of the title I provided for you because it doesn't suit your purposes to acknowledge it. Just like a couple of other posters, you got ahead of yourself and now feel like you have to double down. This reference will date me.... but it perfectly illustrates the reaction of some of you to being exposed to actual facts and dare I say it... math. I know in high school when people didn't pay attention because "hey I will never use this in real life"... but it turns out paying attention could have been useful. The sequel that they don't show in the clip is the common forum tactic here of throwing around their own feces when exposed to the cold harsh realities of the world.
-
Updated odds: MoneyPuck: 2.5% Sportsclub: 4.5% Hockey Reference: 8.9% Playoff Status: 8% Power Rankings: Not updated yet The Athletic: 9% As I said in the OP.... really difficult to make up ground once you fall behind with this format of all in division games. We have gone on a torrid 11-6-1 since the February 26th edit (a .639 pace which would translate into a 104 point season) which is as well as could reasonably be hoped for, and are still 10 points behind and our odds are still just as low as they were then. Most of that success was on the back of Demko who had a ridiculous month of performance. Unfortunately, to catch up we ALSO needed BOTH Montreal AND Calgary to completely fall off a cliff. Calgary obliged by going at a .426 pace with a 11-15-1 record. Unfortunately we needed TWO teams to fall off a cliff AS WELL as us playing lights out. Unfortunately Montreal has played exactly .500 since then at 11-11-5. Even if we keep those relative paces up, we still fall short. We need to go around 9-5-0 AND also have Montreal just go 3-5-1 to make it... hence the long odds. If Montreal maintains the .500 pace they have over the last 10 games (and last half a season).. then we need to go 9-3-2. We have to do that missing our best forward, our starting goalie, 10 of 14 games on the road, 14 games in 22 nights with 5 back to backs thrown in there. We can let another game or two play out, but basically once we lose a couple or Montreal wins a couple... we need to just play the kids and start to look at shutting down all the players who need surgeries/rehab to fix injuries so they can have a full summer of working out and be back ready for next season to start the dance all over again.
-
...and, I posted another definition that was also valid and correct. If you go back and read the thread, I posted numerous links to numerous dictionary definitions showing that. I didn't make it up. You are also wrong that people wouldn't have had an issue with it is I said "slim" or improbable in the title. Go back and actually read it... people did still have the exact same issues when the title originally read "Playoffs likely out of Reach" and were lashing out angrily about that and name calling about it... even though it was reality supported by reams of links by neutral 3rd party professionals who are smarter and more knowledgeable than anyone on this forum. Their issue is they didn't like that it was true or didn't believe it. That is still the issue. Even now, when it is still true, people are arguing against it. It is ludicrous that people were saying I was wrong about predicting that the playoff odds were slim... when THEY ARE STILL SLIM two months later, just like I (and every major hockey analytics model) predicted. Even though many things have gone right for us in the intervening two months, some of the exact things I said originally would have to go right for us to have any chance at all.
-
The first definition of the phrase in the dictionary actually is: "outside the distance to which someone can stretch out their hand". Which clearly doesn't apply to the context, so you skipped that and picked the 2nd definition. So, ya folks got their hackles up about it. Almost invariably their expressed issue was not with the title, but was taking exception with the actual math showing the chances were so slim so early (again, not my math... the math of neutral numerous professional analytics companies). The same hackles were there when the title read "Playoffs Likely Out of Reach", so that is just an excuse ... this most recent tempest in a teapot was just a couple of folks making up a semantic issue (that they were wrong about) to cover the fact they were also wrong on the actual substance. So yes, the folks who are wrong should let it go. I let it go several times, and people kept posting increasingly smarmy nonsense that was objectively not true even in the face of being shown they were objectively wrong. I know it is fandom and rationality isn't the order of the day. I am a fan too, and have been on this site longer than many of the posters have been alive.
-
Except, if you had read the thread that you admittedly couldn't be bothered to read before commenting... you would know what you are saying is just objectively wrong. I posted it half a dozen times... I will post it again for you so you don't have to go through the effort of reading the other half a dozen times. "capable of being reached only with great difficulty or not at all" Look at the definition. Look at the sentences that give examples of usage and meaning. "An unapproachable chalet high in the mountains" is out of reach. Except clearly it is within reach because someone built a freaking chalet there. "the unreachable stars"... the stars aren't unreachable at all, it is just really, really difficult to reach them. The price of university is out of reach for most people... yet many of them still manage to find a way to go to university. Out of reach means and is commonly used to mean really difficult.... not to just mean entirely impossible. If you weren't sure of that, then just spending a few seconds reading the OP would entirely clear up the definition I was using for the term. You say our chances are slim but take issue with me saying they can only be reached with great difficulty. It you had great difficulty with the title... then even reading the OP would have cleared up which definition of the term I was using. The Canucks are only capable of reaching the playoffs with GREAT DIFFICULTY OR NOT AT ALL. So take issue with it all you want. It is still true. Adj. 1. out of reach - inaccessibly located or situated; "an unapproachable chalet high in the mountains"; "an unreachable canyon"; "the unreachable stars" unreachable, unreached, unapproachable inaccessible, unaccessible - capable of being reached only with great difficulty or not at all
-
You are welcome to choose not to believe how words are defined in the dictionary... even when presented with proof of those definitions. If, as you say yourself, you can’t be bothered to read the thread to inform yourself... then it is totally uncalled for to come on and make this post. You are welcome to believe math doesn’t exist and that odds or probabilities can’t be measured. You just choosing to believe those things doesn’t make you right though. It certainly doesn’t give you any moral authority to tell people who do actually believe in objective reality that they are wrong... which is what a coupe of posters here have been doing to try to derail a valid thread with nonsense. Understanding that our odds are slim and posting that shouldn’t be controversial... yet a couple of people have gotten so invested in pretending that isn’t true, they have been making pages of ad hominem personal attacks against me that should have been shut down by moderators as against the forum rules.
-
It is amusing seeing people try to come up with inventive ways to parse out the odds in ways to make them look better ”We would literally need to play .500 plus win 1 or 2 games” is a pretty entertaining way to avoid saying we need to go 9-5 (if Montreal also only goes no better than 3-5-1 Artificially picking Montreal’s last “12” games (not 10, not 13) as representative is also an amusing way to try make things look as uneven as possible.
-
I honestly love the look of the third line I suggested. Motte-Miller-Podkolzin That line has an identity, and our bottom six hasn’t had one in a long time. Those three guys share the relentless puck hound, hard to play against style. All three together would be a handful, either matching up against top lines... or feasting on lower competition. It also naturally lets you have a primary PK unit of Motte-Miller. You are right, boy would Toffoli have looked good in that mix... maybe someone similar will shake out of things. Hoglander-Petterson-Toffoli Pearson-Horvat-Boeser Motte-Miller-Podkolzin Roussel-Beagle-Lind ... just have to fix the 4th line and that is a forward group that could compete every year.