-
Posts
11,729 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Everything posted by Provost
-
Who says he doesn't play on special teams? He has been playing 20 minutes a night in the KHL, including as a primary penalty killer.
-
I also considered the idea of platooning both Juolevi and Rathbone in that spot for the season and that idea has some merit. They probably each get 50 games at least, assuming that Edler or Hughes will miss some games over the season and need injury replacements. That should be enough for a balance between development time and not overloading them and setting them up to fail.
-
Assuming we don't expose Myers and he gets picked up by Seattle, someone has to go. To me, I just look at it dollar wise... we don't have much money and who will be the better bargains and/or fetch more return if they are the odd man out. It actually seems like we could trade Schmidt "IF" Edler and Hamonic were willing to sign for low dollars ($3 million each max) and short term contracts of 1-2 years then that is hard to pass up on. You could say to walk away from Edler, but he is still one of our best D even at his age... and with the particular circumstances of both he and Hamonic really limiting their own choices in free agency you need to leverage that for efficient value contracts. At the same time, we can't have all our D be over 30 and need to slowly insert younger guys into the mix but not all at one time. Myers wouldn't fetch much on the market, though worth a try before moving Schmidt. For me, get a return for Schmidt after expansion. Trade Juolevi for a pick and a cap dump. Defence will be worth more right after expansion once several teams have lost a top 4 guy to Seattle. Rathbone has a higher ceiling than Juolevi and is NHL ready. It would be hard to have both guys in the top 6 next year, on top of having a fairly inexperienced Hughes/Tryamkin. We can run next year with: Hughes-Hamonic Rathbone-Myers Edler-Tryamkin Bowie Hughes and Rathbone are the two PP choices. Edler and Tryamkin are primary PKers. We get Edler and Hamonic at the price of just Edler this year. Tryamkin is around $2 million, and Hughes is probably $6-6.5 million. We get some assets and cap relief from the Schmidt/Juolevi trades that can help us get a high end 3C. We pick a D with our 1st rounder this year and hope that guy starts being ready in a couple years when Edler/Hamonic are ready to be put out to pasture... or we can then afford to find another top 4D in free agency or trade.
-
That isn’t true, he can’t have just signed with someone else until his contract is up. He isn’t even allowed to talk to other teams until July 1st. Expansion is before free agency. The only team that would be allowed to approach him would be Seattle during their short window. Part of his deal reportedly includes a gentleman’s agreement that he will be protected in expansion,... doesn’t sound like he wants to move to Seattle... There would have been zero harm in agreeing to the contract terms with him and then not signing him until immediately after the expansion draft. If he wanted to sign with us today, what changes?
-
The Canucks have to give something mediocre to Tampa/Detroit. The benefit for us being involved has to do with the No Trade Clauses the Tampa players have. None of them (Palat, Killorn, Johnson) appear willing to waive from a contender with a low tax structure to go to Detroit, one of the few teams that has the cap space and interest in taking them on. There is (or at least was last offseason when there was a lot of good buzz around our team), a much better chance one of them waives to come here. So I think my trade proposal last offseason was: To Tampa: Rafferty or Gaudette To Detroit: Tampa's 1st round pick A Vancouver mid round pick Eriksson To Vancouver: Palat Basically our part was to take salary off of Tampa's hands and getting a useful player back for that salary. Again, we are only needed in the process to help work around the no trade clauses.
-
The 3 way Palat/Eriksson/1st trade between us, Tampa, and Detroit was one I made last year and it would still be a good idea for us. If we can do that, I still wouldn’t want to trade for Domi and use that cap space for a 3C or a top 4D upgrade We aren’t a desert on LW. After Miller, Hoglander is a natural LWer who is playing on the right side at the moment. Podkolzin shoots left and has played both sides but mostly RW. Then we have Pearson and Motte on the left side.
-
Yep... waiting to see, maybe this week or next... Canucks sign Nikita Tryamkin, 2 year deal @ $2 million per year.
-
In a vacuum sure... but it likely wouldn’t be as easy to move Myers, if we left him exposed in expansion there is at least even odds he doesn’t get take... it would probably be very easy to move Schmidt after the expansion draft (when a number of teams lose a top 4 D to Seattle). We also have a plethora of natural LD and fewer RD in the organization. I know Schmidt can play both sides, but that is suboptimal. To me, the return for Schmidt makes it worthwhile to move on from him and use that cap space elsewhere. We shouldn’t have four of our top 6D on them wrong side of 30 (Edler, Hamonic, Myers, Schmidt) that isn’t a recipe for success. We need to at least start filtering in some younger guys. We have Tryamkin, Juolevi, and Rathbone that are ready to start getting regular NHL minutes, and only one spot for them. To me, Myers should be exposed in expansion... if he isn’t selected, then make a deal to move Schmidt after expansion and get a high end 3C and and pick/prospect back.
-
[Rumour]. Zadorov in Chicago.. may not stick .
Provost replied to SilentSam's topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
The one thing we have going for us is extra protection slots on D. We could pick up Zadorov pre-expansion draft and protect him, Schmidt, and Juolevi. If Myers is exposed and picked up it gives us cap flexibility to add other pieces... if he isn't, then you can trade Schmidt post expansion to a team that just lost a top 4D. Both Zadorov and Tryamkin play both sides and would add lots of flexibility to the lineup. You can re-sign Edler if you lose Myers to expansion. As much as Zadorov isn't a top pairing guy, he is certainly a top 4D and would come at a relatively decent cap hit of under $4 million. Hughes-Hamonic Juolevi/Rathbone-Zadorov Edler-Tryamkin or: Hughes-Hamonic Juolevi/Rathbone-Myers Zadorov-Tryamkin -
It was not really implicit in the post... I read it the same way he did. I guess just the way it was written didn’t come across very clearly. Maybe “Wait to try to sign him after the ED....” would have had it make more sense?
-
Tryamkin plays both sides, and played predominately RD. If Edler and Hamonic want to come back, it should be in team friendly deals under $3 million. We should only bring one back really as we need to slowly bring in younger players rather than have most of our defence over 30 and then have to do a wholesale change a year or two from now. We won’t have both Juolevi and Rathbone as starting 6 next year. Maybe if we have 8 guys and rotate them out if everyone is healthy. I wouldn’t be adverse to trading Schmidt after the expansion draft as his value would be highest when several teams will lose a top 4D. I also wouldn’t be adverse to trading Juolevi as I think Rathbone just has a much higher ceiling and we can use Edler as a stop gap until Rathbone can be counted on for significant minutes.
-
Yep that is a really good point. There might be some better options available. Some of the teams with better goalie options might have another good piece to pick up instead that makes it a better value proposition than taking whatever dregs we are offering. There is also a wildcard of Vegas. They aren’t part of expansion, but will they create cap space for themselves by trading one of their goalies for pennies on the dollar to Seattle before the expansion draft? Could they even get a sweetener from Vegas to take a high end goalie that is using a ton of cap space... that is even possible. That is what I would do if I were Seattle. Make deals before expansion to solve cap issues for other teams... accruing a bunch of assets in the process. Then pick a lot of cheaper young players in expansion. If Seattle could get MAF, it would mean less of a chance for Holtby to be picked up.
-
I genuinely have no idea how it will turn out in the end. There are too few games for any predictive model to be very accurate as there isn’t enough runway for any unusual variation to even out. One team winning 5 games in a row or one team losing 5 games in a row is entirely possible. The road is still steeply uphill for us because we are well behind. Montreal and Vancouver have 7 more games combined against Calgary. We need Calgary to be good enough to win against Montreal but bad enough lose against us.... that is the path that has opened for us that wasn’t there beforehand. There ie overlap between the bell curve of possible end of season points predictions for us and Montreal... but most of their bell curve gives them an end of season that beats us. I am not actually fussed about it at this point. The OP was that we were far enough behind that it would have been smarter to try to move some assets out. Being proactive was the idea and playing the odds. Knowing that everything has pretty much fallen out way since, I would still do the same. The great thing is if you play the odds, you win more often than not. Now that point has passed so there are no real decisions to be made that can improve the team longer term... and nothing left aside from cheering for us to win. I think the new young bottom six gives us a better chance of of winning, and I would like to see how they fare and who we should keep going forward. I was in the stands the last time we played Toronto in the playoffs and there when we eliminated them. Just imagine our fan base and the sad Toronto Sports Network pundits if our pretty terrible roster that includes some of their cast offs gave Toronto another 1st round exit.
-
No thanks... for the cap hit there would be much better risks to take. They could waive him for a better deal than what I would give up. For me they would have to retain salary or take back equivalent money back... and that is worse for them than simply freeing up the cap space.
-
Not overly simplistic at all. Your response has nothing to do with my post at all. I was responding to a post where a guy called me a liar and then proceeded to lie and make up numbers. The guy said that “based on points percentage”, the projected cut for us to make the playoffs was 59-61 points. That isn’t true. Based on points percentage it would be 62 points (61.2 for Montreal and us needing to beat that to pass them). He accused me of lying in a post I made in mid February when I posted that the expected cutoff was 63 points and that I was artificially inflating it. He lied by making stuff up in his post. None of that has anything to do with what the actual cutoff might be in the end and how teams are playing right now. It was an estimate more than 2 months ago of 63 points and it will still almost certainly be that +/- a couple points.
-
As much as people rag on the media.... Button is one of the top talent evaluators out there. He is consistently better than almost everyone else in his draft lists. His rationale of waiting is the exact rationale I expressed about the Pearson signing. It was the opportunity cost for that money, and that we don’t know what sort of Nate Schmidt types of opportunities could fall our way. At the sane time, I disagree with Button and I think we should sign Tryamkin. The reasoning is: 1. There was no deadline and compelling reason to lock up Pearson when we did. He is under contract until June 31st and can’t sign with someone else. Wait until after the expansion draft and regular draft dealings have all taken place. If nothing better falls our way for that money, then sure sign Pearson. He is a decent complementary player. 2. There is a deadline with Tryamkin. He needs to get a paycheque next season, and if we aren’t offering him one he has to sign in the KHL just like last season. We can’t just hold on to see if something better comes our way. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. 3. The opportunity cost is much smaller. We wouldn’t be signing Tryamkin to top 4 money. It is going to be in the $2 million range give or take a little. That is 3rd pairing/depth D pricing and you aren’t going to find a “difference maker” with that money. 4. With Pearson, there was an opportunity to flip him for an asset which could then be used as currency to create more opportunity, and not cost it. If we got a 2nd for Pearson we could have used that to move Virtanen or Beagle as an example. That would mean the freed up salary from not signing Pearson and moving other cap becomes around $5.5-6 million. That can get you a different maker in this economic reality... heck that could get you a difference maker like Palat AND another asset as a sweetener to do it.
-
If he plays like this the rest of the way out there could be a chance!
-
You not understanding what probabilities are doesn’t mean they aren’t real. We are talking probabilities, not statistics... if you are conflating the two, you should look them up before posting. It isn’t a good look that you don’t understand the difference when going on tirades about people being ignorant. Aside, from not knowing what the words you are using mean, your statements show your compete lack of understanding. It is hard to predict one game using probabilities, but the law of large numbers means it becomes increasingly easy to predict a full season as it progresses. A team can go on a 5 game winning streak or a 5 game losing streak... but over an entire season their performance is much more predictable. The opposite of what you posted. Also, stop lying. Based on points percentage it is currently sitting at 62 points for us to make the playoffs.... not 59. We still have about the same chance of making the playoffs now as we did when I started the thread... about 1 in 5 or 1 in 6... depends on the model. One has us as high as 1 in 4. Go take a walk and calm yourself down. Now that there aren’t any other choices or decisions to make regarding trades and asset management, we can all sit back and hope for the best for the team.
-
I don’t disagree that neither of them has any certainty of become a regular NHLer. That is irrelevant to the point. There is zero chance of them becoming an NHLer for the Canucks if they are taken in expansion. It cost us nothing to wait until after expansion to sign Pearson. He is under contract with us. If he wants to be here he could be here... that could have happened after expansion.
-
You are really on full tilt aren’t you? Maybe look at the dates of the posts you are quoting? More than two months ago. The things you are spouting off about being “lies” were simple statements of mathematical fact.
-
This is one reason why the Pearson signing, at least right now, didn't make any sense. He is under contract with us and we aren't competing with anyone until his contract is up. We could just have used the extra expansion slot for another prospect. Petterson, Miller, Horvat, Boeser, Motte, Lind, Gadjovich Schmidt, Juolevi, Myers Demko That leaves literally nothing very useful for Seattle to take, at least nothing that isn't overpaid and on a bad contract. They are welcome to Virtanen with his contract, but I doubt they will take him if they can take a cheap prospect.
-
Interestingly it was exactly 4 years ago to the day when he decided to go back to Russia. I had a Facebook memory come up from 2017. ”Well it has just been announced that my favourite new Canuck has decided to go back to Russia. Welcome to another few years of suck.”
-
It is interesting that he specified that it was Doug Lidster that wasn't communicating well with Tryamkin last go around and not a Willie D issue. Note that Lidster hasn't coached at any sort of high level since then... maybe it wasn't all Nikita's fault as some have suggested.
- 175 replies
-
- 10
-
-
-
-
I have wanted a Tryamkin jersey from their team for a long time but no idea how to get it
-
I think that is also code for... no we won't accept a two-way deal, and maybe that it will end up as just a 1 year deal to see how it goes. I hope it is a 2-3 year deal in the $2 million range. I don't want to bring him over and cost us signing someone else if we just lose him to free agency in a year or have to pay full market price in case we put him in a spot to blossom.