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. Ya, in my mind I am really only thinking of the pick as currency for another move... not really thinking about the player that would come out of it in a subsequent move. Maybe that is just a wrong way to approach it. If this move happened and the return was a decent middling “Madden level” prospect, I would still be happy about it.
  2. I honestly know nothing about the player. The scouting reports look pretty decent. I don’t know that we need another guy who is close to NHL ready but also projects to probably be a low end top 4 or a 3rd pairing for the foreseeable future. We have Tryamkin, Juolevi, Rathbone that could be in the 4-6 spots already next season and that is already too many younger inexperienced guys. We need a legit top 4 RHD in the near term to me, easier to flip a pick for that than Wilde... though maybe not. Wilde doesn’t need a protection slot, so we could trade him for a more veteran D that would take protection? I wouldn’t be fussed either way really.
  3. I honestly think a 2nd is a reasonable price, add in something else if we retain salary.
  4. ... and Toffoli returned a 2nd, 4th and a higher end prospect. Pearson scored more points last year than Toffoli had in years. If only Benning could wrangle a trade with that GM and we are golden!
  5. Have you ever paid attention at trade deadlines? 3rd round picks are what you get for complete scrub veterans. Pearson is a 3rd line winger on a really good team but can absolutely play injury relief time in the top 6 just like he would be asked to do.
  6. Not for a while. The new formula uses a 2 year average, so this year and next year season are still token to have depressed revenue as there is pretty much no chance all arenas will be allowed to be full even starting next season. That means the season AFTER next (2022-23) will still have this awful revenue year as part of the calculation to keep the cap down. That means 2023-24 will be the very first chance for the cap to rise. Then the players also have to start paying back the owners the billion dollars they now owe by virtue of getting overpaid this year, and that will keep the cap down longer. Plus the cap was already artificially inflated even before Covid by the players using their escalator clause and then their money being clawed back in escrow. It is unlikely that the cap rises at least more than a token amount for several years.
  7. Mine is the same but even fewer letters combined! People still mess it up. There was even an NHL player with the same two “first names” but reversed... clearly he was my evil twin.
  8. Yes... it can even work without retaining really. If the scenario happened that Lee came back just before the playoffs AND there isn’t another player on LTIR.... which is already only a “maybe”. that means there is about $1.7 million to fit in Pearson... because obviously someone has to go down to make room for Lee on the active 23 man roster as they wouldn’t be carrying 24 players. Probably Wahlstrom. They don’t have to carry a 23 man roster though, and it would literally only be for a handful of games. Dropping to 21 players banks you up to $2.15 million more in cap space to cover Pearson and you still can have a spare player in case of last minute injury during warmup. If you really wanted you could run with 20 players on your active roster if you only wanted to demote minimum salary guys for that stretch. Most likely this is a deal that makes sense if Lee is expected to be out in the 6-8 week range give or take a couple weeks. 6 weeks plus a conditioning stint takes you basically to the end of the season, close enough that you can do the easy roster maneuvering for a handful of games to make it fit. Anything longer and you are in the playoffs without cap concerns.
  9. It is a mild complication, certainly less than any of the other options mentioned. Presumably, but the time Lee came back it would be so late in the season that the remaining cap hit left would be minimal for carrying them both. Very much like we didn't activate Edler right a the end of the season once until we could fit him in. It all of course depends on what "Indefinitely" means for the injury and they probably don't know that for a few days. If he is done until next season... one of the bigger names might be a better fit... if he is just done for a few weeks and will be back well before the playoffs, then they just have to make do as they can't afford any material help at all. It could also mean they are willing to give up more premium assets in order to have us retain half the salary. Really, the Islanders could use a long playoff run and may be willing to go more "all in" than some other teams who are really contenders.
  10. Ya, retaining ups the value to a pretty good prospect in addition to the 2nd I would think... or a 3rd/4th thrown in. Really, one of the other benefits to us is if we can move our obvious rentals out before the deadline to the US teams... then if there is an arms race to load up amongst Winnipeg, Montreal, Toronto, and Edmonton at the deadline, they will only have us and Ottawa to get players from in time to actually be up to speed for the playoffs. That could actually put Roussel and Beagle into the equation as rentals where those teams have to eat the extra year for the benefit of the help in the short term. All Ottawa has as deadline rentals are Artisimov and Dzingel... both of whom are OK. If each of the contending Canadian teams wants an extra veteran forward.. there just isn't enough to go around, so maybe Roussel and Beagle might look more attractive if we have already moved Pearson and Sutter to US teams. They are somewhat overpaid for their performance, but not atrociously so. They bring the style of game useful in the playoffs. Beagle has won a Cup and been part of several deep runs, and Roussel has also been part of a couple of good runs... that experience is desirable for GMs.
  11. It is possible, I think they are better options if Lee is done until next season. If Lee is just out for most of this season but should be back for the playoffs, I think Pearson is an easier fit. I don't think Rackell is a great option for them because they have a ton of cap trouble looming for next year and can't afford to take on the extra year liability. He would also be REALLY pricey to acquire. Hall would be an option if Buffalo decided to retain half that huge ticket, and would also be trickier to fit in if Lee returns a little before the playoffs. Pearson is a fairly safe, lower impact bet... and probably is a better fit in their bottom 6 when Lee returns (if he isn't done for the entire year)
  12. News just came down that Anders Lee is injured and gone indefinitely. The Islanders are well ensconced in a playoff spot and organizationally would want to load up for a real run in the playoffs. Pearson would be an excellent fit for them as a LW fill in and then solid depth lower in the lineup if Lee comes back in time for the playoffs. The quarantine that direction is shorter than coming up to Canada. He could be playing for them in a week. A return should be a 2nd and a middling prospect. The Islanders have Colorado's 2nd this year and two 2nds next year, so have the picks to spend.
  13. Boeser, Petterson, Miller, Horvat, Lind, Motte Schmidt, Juolevi Demko I use the draft picks we gather from selling off rentals this season to pick up players that might not be able to be protected in expansion for less than market rates. We have a decent chance of finding a solid 3C and a top 4D in that process.
  14. Except that people who keep talking about 4 point games and how that makes it easier to come back are forgetting the other side of that which exists. All the teams we are chasing play each other more times combined than we play them. That means each of those is a "4 point game" with guaranteed points to at least one team we need to catch up to. It isn't a matter of chasing down a single team, it is chasing down a pack of 5 teams that are ahead of us. Like tonight for example where 4 of the 5 teams ahead of us are playing each other. Two of them AT LEAST will get points out of those games guaranteed. Winnipeg, Edmonton, and Montreal are all clustered together in a fairly tight pack once you correct for games played... so none of them are particularly more "uncatchable" than the others. Toronto is the only team with any separation from that pack. Calgary is also well ahead of us when you account for their 4 games in hand. If Calgary wins tonight they get further ahead of us, and if Montreal wins... that final playoff spots gets even more out of reach.... there is no 3rd option where we don't end up in a worse playoff position at the end of the night. Our only chance IN ADDITION TO playing crazy lights out good against the 4 teams we are realistically chasing... we also need them not to split games or have games go to OT. We could do everything right and play our brains out, but we also need two of those teams we are chasing to play well under .500
  15. I am definitely going to be watching the new show... I am definitely NOT listening to the Sekeres podcast
  16. Literally nowhere did I say we were going to miss the playoffs last season... I said "I hope we string a few wins together so this doesn't come into play more than just that one day that we fell out of the playoff picture". You are inventing a false narrative. I didn't predict anything, cry wolf, or anything along those lines. The 2nd thread is a great piece of evidence that I was right and able to do math better than you are.... reading in that thread, and this one... YOUR posts have turned out to be wrong... so some pretty serious gaslighting you are doing there rather than simply admitting you were wrong and some folks are better able to do math than you. I will make you one of your silly deals that you always propose. If the Canucks make the playoffs this year, I will sign off the board. If the Canucks don't make the playoffs this year you leave forever. Of course, I also know that even if you made that deal you would lie and not honour it... just like the one you made to stop stalking me and posting negative nonsense on all my posts. That one lasted about 15 minutes after I called your bluff... just like you lied about it the time before you proposed your silly gentleman's agreement and I put you on ignore and you kept talking nonsense smack. I know it makes you mad when someone provides evidence that you are generally completely full of crap... but take it as a learning experience instead of refusing to admit you are wrong. I know this ream of postings is as a result of me showing that your obsession with using oZone start % and Corsi comparisons to rate a player were entirely meaningless. I posted the link to presentation made at a hockey analytics conference by one of the most well regarded phDs in the field that directly showed the stuff you spout is meaningless... and you just ignored that and started posting more of this nonsense out of frustration for being wrong yet again. I know it is your schtick.... but I also know that you are sitting there filled with frustration about yet again being proven wrong, so now you are going through old threads to take out of context and lie about to make yourself feel better.
  17. Ok... keep making stuff up. Yawn. Math is math. The fact you can’t see it isn’t on me. If it makes you sad that we have less than a 5% chance to make the playoffs, don’t lash out on others. No one would be happier if we bucked the huge odds against, but also keeping actual objective mathematical reality in mind isn’t a character flaw. The house always wins in the end.
  18. If we could get a 1st and a prospect for him now, I would do that. We could get a decent RHD that might be a better fit for that haul in the offseason before expansion, probably less. Like if you could get Ristolainen from a Buffalo team looking to retool in the offseason for the same assets or less assets than we got for Schmidt... that is a win in my books. I have nothing against Schmidt at all, just a matter of it being an offer that is hard to turn down. He is a pretty fair value for his cap hit and shouldn’t decline dramatically, at least due to age, by the time it expires. Not sure who would really be in the market and have the cap space though.
  19. That “cap going up” narrative is just flat out wrong. We got hit with the recapture though. As of the December BOG meeting in 2019, the GMs were told to expect a flat cap or a modest increase of $1-2 million if the players used their escalator clause. That was long after Benning made all his UFA decisions the summer prior. He did not sign any contracts with the understanding that there would be a big increase in the cap. That $2.5-6 million possible cap increase number didn’t come out as a possibility until March 2020 just before Covid hit. That means he didn’t make any roster decisions with that information that was only in existence for about 2 weeks before being reversed. Folks are trying to excuse his contract signing in 2018 by using information neither he, nor anyone possessed at the time... and didn’t come out until the next year. It was incredibly short lived too. Here are a couple of articles referencing the BOG meetings, note the dates. https://www.prohockeyrumors.com/2019/12/latest-on-salary-cap-ceiling-for-2020-21.html https://www.nhl.com/news/nhl-salary-cap-projections-for-next-season/c-315855100
  20. That was a lot of text to explain that the stat means virtually nothing and can’t be used in the way you always use it. Virtanen playing just one more shift in the defensive zone every 2.5 games than he does in the offensive zone is not unsustainably high, nor does it indicate his relative merits defensively or even how the coaching staff want to deploy him. The icing stats say Jake was on the ice for 43 icings against this season. Meaning 43 times there was a face off in the defensive zone that Green wasn’t able to pull him off the ice. So the dZone Facebook stat is terrible too.
  21. Natural stat trick is excellent because you can see the “counts” instead of the zone starts %. That gives you a much clearer picture of how a player is used. You can see exactly how many shifts in all zones and on the fly... and then roughly divide them by the number of games played in your head to see how they are deployed without throwing out 80% of all their shifts and then correcting for ice time like the stat does. Horvat had almost twice as many dZone starts last year as Beagle. That shows that Horvat is leaned on more defensively. If you look at the oZone/dZone start % stat... it gives the exact opposite impression.
  22. Entirely possible. I also think 2nd-4th rounders are going to be the currency during expansion to get players from teams who can’t protect them and want “something” back instead of losing them for free. Potentially getting more of those would be good. I suppose I just no longer trust Benning to make the series of moves that you suggest to create better value out of that pick than Motte represents to us. I also worry about the optics and impact of taking one of the hardest workers out of the lineup and how that impacts the rest of the players.
  23. Not really at all. Is one shift difference in deployment every 2.5 games going to tell you something more about a player than you can see? Does it represent how they are used? You don’t have to trust me on this one, if you want to get into the weeds about it, go read the paper by a phD mathematician who is highly regarded in the analytics community.... link below. If you don’t want to get in the weeds, the summary is that even if you just take the players with the most extreme oZone/dZone start % difference and correct for where they start their shifts... less than 5% of those players see a difference of more than 1% on their Corsi. That is a tiny difference for just a few players on the extremes. If you take the whole population of NHL players and correct for zone starts, even that tiny difference disappears into random variation. Zone starts don’t actually impact Corsi in any statistically meaningful way, they just don’t. So anyone who puts Corsi and zone starts together to make any assessment of a player is just telling a tale, there is no correlation. Again, don’t believe me... go look for yourself. Zone starts is really only useful on a team level as it shows if a team overall has relatively good or bad possession numbers and if the ice is “tilted” in their favour. The reason it exists is because it is easy to infer from other data that is captured... mainly faceoffs. Just because a stat exists, doesn’t mean it tells you much and certainly doesn’t mean what people wrongly infer it does. https://hockeyviz.com/static/pdf/rithac.pdf
  24. Yep... we are not a good team right now, but we aren’t a tear down team like Buffalo. We should be adding pieces and trying out different role players to see who fits... while jettisoning the ones that don’t. Taking away useful players would be an odd step unless it is a hockey trade and we fill a need. Like if for some reason Buffalo wanted to shake thinks up and move Ristolainen out for Schmidt and Virtanen... I do that deal because a natural RHD in the top 4 would go really well with our team and depth... since we are relatively strong on the left side (Hughes, Edler, Juolevi, Rathbone). There are probably a dozen similar kind of moves that we could invent that would make moving either of those guys make sense... but in season, it is likely contenders calling and they will be looking to add roster players, not swap good players.
  25. That oZone start% is a meaningless stat. Out of 417 5v5 shift starts for Jake, only 50 (11.9%) were in the dZone, 40 (9.6% in the oZone... the rest (about 80% were on the fly or in the neutral zone which are discarded by this stat ). So 2.3% more of his shifts in the dZone than oZone. So he had .41 shifts a game more in the dZone than the oZone. That represents one shift difference every 2.5 games.... that is a meaningless distinction and in no way indicates he is being used in any sort of defensive role. If anyone uses oZone or dZone start % to describe how defensively a player is used, they are misleading you. It doesn’t represent what they purport it does. It is a fraction of a shift per game difference... and the difference between players is even a smaller fraction. For comparison, Hoglander has more dZone starts than Virtanen at 55 (versus 50) so is leaned on more defensively than Jake. Yet his oZone start % is 55%. As with every other player in the league, the vast bulk of his shifts are in the neutral zone or on the fly, which is completely ignored by that meaningless stat.
×
×
  • Create New...