-
Posts
11,728 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Everything posted by Provost
-
[Rumour] Canucks getting calls on Conor Garland
Provost replied to -Vintage Canuck-'s topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
We would definitely need Pearson to do us a favour by agreeing to go on LTIR for all of next season and do it before the start of the summer signing season. Team doctors can’t unilaterally shut him down for a full year without bulletproof medical evidence that it is impossible for him to come back. He has his own specialists now, and they would also have to agree that is the case, and his agent would have to agree not to grieve them prematurely shutting him down, it being a convenient answer for the team cap debacle is irrelevant to them. It isn’t an injury that will obviously prevent him from playing. It was an infection… once it gets under control (and maybe it is already), then it is just determining any permanent tissue or functional damages and then rehabbing it. It is “possible” there is so much damage that he will never have enough use of the hand to ever play again, but of the range of possibilities but knowing that to be the case in the next month or two is much more unlikely than just having to let it play out with healing and treatment and see how it is by September or even next February. -
[Rumour] Canucks getting calls on Conor Garland
Provost replied to -Vintage Canuck-'s topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
Oh the naivety of youth…. Thinking the new regime actually had a plan. Recent (and not even remotely unexpected) reports that it will cost big sweeteners to get rid of players with term mean that our brass yet again completely miscalculated the economies of the cap. I like Kuzmenko, Miller, and Hronek as players… but we gave up on what would have been good returns at the deadline, and actually giving up our own assets in the case of Hronek. Teams were getting stupid at the deadline in hopes for a long playoff push, and we didn’t take advantage of it. Many reports said teams were willing to give a really good package of picks for Miller. Kuzmenko on an ELC contract producing like he was would have been worth a boatload to a contender… more than any other rental around. In this offseason with a flat cap again, a bunch of teams are going to be trying to get rid of really good players they can’t afford for pennies on the dollar. There will be good young RFAs who aren’t qualified because teams can’t afford qualifying offers or possible arbitration awards they aren’t allowed to walk away from. Trading Miller and Kuzmenko last deadline probably nets us several high picks and blue chip prospects. Not acquiring Hronek gives us another mid 1st rounder and a bunch of cap space. This summer, just watch the players available and think how much major surgery we could have done with the $18 million in cap space we would have had. Almost no teams with the capability and interest in spending to the cap actually have cap space this summer. Think about what our roster would look like with those players PLUS having a bunch of high picks and prospects we would have gotten. Chicago, even beyond Bedard, will be able to completely retool their team in one season just by having cap space. If they decide to spend it now (and they should after winning Bedard), they will be a playoff team next year with a bright future having a bunch of high picks to create a pipeline of cheap ELC players for many years to come. It isn’t rocket surgery… how does our management not get this after so many years of the same mistakes. -
[Rumour] Canucks getting calls on Conor Garland
Provost replied to -Vintage Canuck-'s topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
You can’t just put in a bunch of “ifs” and say that all is good. Pearson being ruled out for the season is likely not going to be confirmed until long after we have to make moves to buy out players or make moves to trade them to be under the cap. This is especially the case when all the reports and messaging has been that he isn’t particularly happy with how his treatment went from the team. Not like he is going to do any favours and rule himself out for the whole season just in order to rescue the team from their cap mismanagement. He hasn’t retired, and getting back to play some games this season to show he is healthy would make a vast difference on whether he can get another contract from someone beyond this year. Why would he give up on that chance at a few more million dollars? We can’t sign new players and still have to try to exit a few million just to fit under the cap next year. “IF” Poolman and Pearson end up on LTIR for the entire season, we can use that freed up money at that point. You can’t act like it will happen until it does because then you have no way to be cap compliant at the start of the season if they don’t go on LTIR for the whole season. -
Great idea, we can trade our 2024 and 2025 1st round picks to get rid of OEL, Myers, Garland, Poolman, and Pearson. Then we will have the cap space to afford a good player that we can give up this year’s 1st round pick to get. Done and dusted… plan the parade route.
-
With the 11th overall, we select…. …. trading it to get out from a bad contract and create cap space…
-
Sure… we would all be crying in our beers being stuck with Fantilli, Carlsson, Michkov. All players who would likely be a #1 pick most draft years. Give you head a shake. These dumb made up strawman arguments are nonsense. Bedard is amazing, but everyone was talking about a high pick, there are other elite players at the top of the draft. Few superstars, or even top of the lineup players come out of the #11 pick.
-
Frankly, if you look at Button’s first round rankings for the last decade, he and Pronman outperformed every other list by a wide margin in terms of identifying the right guys. So many teams (Canucks included) draft poorly, I don’t know why they bother making their own lists. As for who we pick, if we don’t pick a centre or D, we are stupid. The difference between players in that tier is so slight, that you have no idea who is going to turn out better or worse. Pick the high value position and you are more likely to come out ahead. It is harder on the UFA market to find a really good 3C than it is a 2nd line winger. It is even harder to find a top 4D than a 2nd line winger (or even a first line winger). Look at the price we paid for Hronek, who is a serviceable 2nd pairing guy compared with not even being able to offload guys like Boeser and Garland for just the cap space.
-
Every team that wins the Cup has the top picks PLUS guys that would be top picks in a redraft. Heck even your example of Tampa Bay proves the opposite point than you think. In retrospective redrafts Kucherov goes to #1 in his year. He doesn’t win the Cup without Stamkos and Hedman, who on their own in their prime were still superior players to Petterson and Hughes Your logic just isn’t sound.
-
True, but even allowing for the fact he is almost certainly an upgrade to our top 4. So what… he is only under contract for another year and then we have to pay full market rate to keep him. Are we a contender next year? Who cares if he helps us go from a terrible team to an average team. That would be fine if he was free, but another high end pick has a better chance of being valuable to us when we might have a chance to compete. Heck that pick could have even had better value by using it as a sweetener to get rid of cap space. How is trading for him better than keeping the puck and signing a UFA who will also cost full market rate but not a high draft pick? Does anyone think Yzerman is dumb? He made the trade for that exact same reason. He doesn’t see his team as a contender next year, so the pick is better than the team friendly value Hronek has for one more season. Hronek would have been a good pick up for a contending team who he (if healthy) would provide a relatively cheap option for a playoff push next year. Then they don’t care if he walks as he would have done his job.
-
More nonsense random stuff. I will repeat, you win with superstars and the best way to find them is the very top of the draft. You can write a wall of irrelevant stuff, ignore all the teams and examples that don’t fit your narrative, and make all sorts of excuses and nonsense. None of anything you are spewing changes the fact that out of the last 20 Stanley Cup winners… every single one had a top 3 pick on their roster, often multiple top picks. 17 of the last 20 Stanley Cup winners had a 1st overall pick on their roster. You also need other good players, you also need to unearth gems in later rounds. None of that changes the fact that what Stanley Cup winners have in common is top draft picks. If you don’t follow other teams… just take a jog down memory lane to the Canucks teams that had the most success and made it to the finals. Where do you think Linden and the Sedins were drafted. Petterson and Hughes, if surrounded by the right pieces are probably good enough to make us an average team. I don’t care about being average and maybe winning a round or two of the playoffs every once in a while. I want my team to win a Stanley Cup before I die. We needed a couple more top picks who turned out to be superstars, and we missed the boat intentionally on doing that. Yay for us.
-
What nonsense WADR. Teams with bad top picks don’t win. That is entirely irrelevant to the fact that the teams that do win are doing it with the highest end superstars who were picked high. Here is a newsflash…. Even teams with the best players in the league don’t always win. This is a secret you might not be aware of…. But only one team wins each year. You are also inventing your own metric for how good a player is to make a random argument that has nothing to do with anything I said “considering their age and value” Every single Stanley Cup winning team for the last 20 years has had a top 3 pick on their roster. 17 of the last 20 have had a 1st OA pick on their roster.
-
Well, sorry reality hurts your feelings. No one in hockey would trade Mackinnon and Makar for Hughes and Petterson. Nor would they trade Stamkos and Hedman in their primes. Petterson and Hughes are high end players, and the best on our team… they aren’t superstars. The Cup winners had superstars they drafted in the top 1-4 OA picks AND players the calibre of our two best players as secondary pieces.
-
This is correct… “tanking” is a made up term without a real definition. Teams out of the playoff race at the deadline always moved out contracts and changed their sights to how to improve for the next season… playing and developing youngsters down the stretch, resting top players and shutting them down for treatments of their inevitable minor injuries over the season. This happened decades before the term “tank” was invented. Tanking first seemed to mean the very occasional time when a team went into a season with no intention of trying to win (knowing they weren’t a contender).
-
Virtually all the Cup winners do it on the backs of really high picks that they got from being terrible. Go look back at the Cup winners and see their top 5 picks driving the teams at the top of their production. Does Colorado win without guys like Mackinnon and Makar? Where were Hedman and Stamkos drafted? Pittsburgh, Chicago, Washington… all won from elite franchise top end draft picks. I like Petterson and Hughes a lot… but they are low rent versions of the superstars who won Cups for their teams.
-
I think you have some sort of Stockholm Syndrome and have forgotten what the point of the league is. Hint… it’s not doing everything you can to maybe be in a fight for a wildcard spot every year IF everything goes right for you. Go figure, you have genuinely forgotten that the point is to win the Stanley Cup. I know it has been years since it was even a remote dream… but this must be embarrassing for you.
-
We were 4th worst in the league…. We were tanking just fine. You are just making random assumptions about Petterson and slow starts. Do you really think that finishing 5th worst or 11th worst makes any difference to him? We miss the playoffs and are a losing team. We changed coaches mid year before for a coaching bump and we had a terrible start to the season. Listen to any ex player pundit and they scoff at the idea of some sort of momentum between seasons. As Bieksa said recently, games are a lot harder in October. A winning record beating purposefully tanking teams at the end of the season has no relation to being able to maintain the same winning percentage the next year…. We have already seen this movie play out before.
-
Do you keep having to get the same question answered over and over again? Is it an ESL issue or wilful ignorance at this point? Players don’t tank… organizations do. We could have moved more bodies out at the deadline, we could have shut down Demko longer or had him do a conditioning stint in Abby, we could have avoided playing Hughes 28 minutes a game, we could have played more kids to see who was close to NHL ready, we didn’t need to bring in a coach mid season (again)… many things teams do in order to get high draft picks. Maybe look at what the team who won the lottery did?
-
Umm, because the 3rd or 4th best player in this draft is very likely to be massively better than whoever is left at #11? Not sure how that is hard logic to follow, except for people who somehow think it is Bedard at #1 and then every other pick after that is interchangeable.
-
Ok that makes sense... it isn't any team behind us then, it is only if Ottawa wins 1st overall but gets pushed back to 2nd pick due to the 10 spot rule, and we win the 2nd lottery. If anyone below Ottawa wins the 1st lottery they get a lower pick and can't push us down.
-
You will have to lay that out a little more as it doesn’t make any sense. If we win the 2nd lottery we pick 2nd… not 3rd We are allowed to move up 10 spots… someone from behind us picking 1st doesn’t alter that… nor does it push us back. Each of the two lotteries is independent. If we win the 1st one, we pick 1st. Whoever picks first gets taken out of the running for 2nd. There is no lottery pick for 3rd anymore.
-
Tank Hard for Bedard - Playoff chances are already Slim
Provost replied to Provost's topic in Canucks Talk
Ugh… I am not looking forward to tonight. Can’t help but hold onto the forlorn hope that we beat the odds and pick #1 or #2 and the fates rescue the team from its own poor management. If that doesn’t happen and the 94% likelihood occurs, then that little hope is gone and the most realistic path to becoming competitive in the foreseeable future is stripped away. I will even take the dumbasses crowing about how dropping in the draft odds was a good thing. -
That would be a terrible plan. A good part of the value of a high pick is that you can hope for them to be performing in the top half of the lineup while on an ELC which gives you a big competitive advantage. We can’t afford Cozens, we would have to spend that extra pick to get rid of some cap. Any D we pick in the middle of the round is likely to not be playing in our top 4 for five years if ever. One of Bedard, Fantelli, Carlson means the ability to trade Miller to free up cap space to fix the defence. if we won either of the lotteries, we could trade Miller for an NHL ready RHD directly or a high pick (who we could trade for a RHD) and use the freed up cap space to sign one.
-
How do we have a .1% chance at 3rd? It isn’t a lottery draw anymore so we have zero chance at it as far as I can figure. 3% chance at Bedard… between 3.2-3.3% chance at #2. It is slightly higher than 3% just because one other team ahead of us is out of the mix having already gotten Bedard, so raises all the remaining teams’ chances up by a small amount. The only team with any chance of getting #3 by lottery win is Buffalo because of the rule about only being able to move up 10 spots. If they win either lottery they can only go up to #3rd instead of the pick they win.
-
No, we have a 3% chance at just #1. They do a lottery for the #2 pick as well. So slightly over 6%.
-
That doesn’t seem to be a problem. Even the top two guys are probably going to take some time to get up to speed, perfect to play behind Petterson who just seems to be hitting his prime. It is almost a perfect age complement, six years yoinger than Petterson. When they hit the age he is now and are likely hitting their prime, he will he 30 and ready to slot down into a 2C role as he moves into his 30’s. In the meantime we have a window to compete from next season for 6-8 years because we had the cap money to fix the defence.