-
Posts
11,729 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Everything posted by Provost
-
[Proposal] Eriksson to Seattle
Provost replied to VegasCanuck's topic in Proposals and Armchair GM'ing
I would do that, but I seriously doubt Seattle would. They could get a lot better players for a lot less money for a lot bigger return. Many teams are going to be in cap trouble yet again this summer with no money to spend on re-signing UFAs or pending RFAs. -
(Rumour) Virtanen on the trade block
Provost replied to Wayne Glensky's topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
So you are saying that we can only vainly dream about Jake reaching the dizzying heights of Isbister's career? Sounds right to me. -
I am trying to think of another guy we had on the team who made a career out of wristers from the same spot.... Also... just watching these clips makes me happy.
-
(Rumour) Virtanen on the trade block
Provost replied to Wayne Glensky's topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
Do you have some sources for that? No redrafts I have seen have him that high, he is a late 1st rounder or later. None of them include his bad performance for the last calendar year and the most optimistic one had him at 22 and it was done right at the end of his big hot streak in the middle of last year, and doesn't account for the fact he has fallen off a cliff since last February which would absolutely drop him farther down in a redraft again. https://www.nhl.com/news/revisiting-the-2014-nhl-draft-david-pastrnak-replaces-aaron-ekblad/c-307746004https://www.nbcsports.com/washington/capitals/redrafting-2014-nhl-draft-jakub-vrana-top-10-pickhttps://theathletic.com/1584416/2020/02/06/pronman-re-drafting-the-nhls-class-of-2014/ -
That fat guy already got fired for being a Covid denier... stop flogging that dead horse. So glad your beer league participation has furnished you with the experience to lead an NHL franchise! Nobody has suggested that the players give up trying to win. The organization, however, needs to be about winning in the long term, and setting up to actually win a Stanley Cup and not trying to eke out an extra 2-3 extra wins this season when the playoffs are a pipe dream. It is a pipedream just to MAKE the playoffs and no team in the history of the game has come back from such long odds, at least according to a couple articles in the Athletic who referenced various proprietary stats sites. Don't forget the goal isn't just to make the playoffs, but actually to win the Cup...and this roster is far from that calibre right now. I think your perspective of ignoring the overall health of the franchise is actually a terrible one. Players and coaches have the job about worrying winning day to day. GMs and owners have to worry about winning month to month and year to year... your failure to recognize that difference would harm our team irreparably and have us continually sacrificing the future for immediate, short term wins. Doing our best to set ourselves up for winning next season and beyond is not "quitting"... it is doing your best to win, but having a longer horizon in mind. That is the GM's job. Moving out cap now and creating space for opportunities in expansion and the offseason would be smart and increase our chances of winning. Go ahead and cheer, and hope, and pray for a miracle...that is totally OK as a fan... but also hope that the people in charge are not doing that and are instead planning for the future and trying to offload rentals for picks and bad cap hits at a time when actual contending teams are thinking of how to increase their chances and may make decision which will help them in the very short term even if it effects them negatively in the long run.
-
(Rumour) Virtanen on the trade block
Provost replied to Wayne Glensky's topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
I did forget about the pro-rated bonus amount, but I certainly am not close to ready to assume Petterson won’t hit his Schedule B bonus. He is close enough in goals, assists, and points that an even mild hot streak puts him in there. I can’t believe the team will be as bad going forward as it has been to date (it is hard to be), so we should get a hot streak “sometime”. Not sure when all the GP even out, our players being high in the stats could just be an illusion based on playing more games than most other teams. We need to move the players fairly quickly. Virtanen, Benn, and Pearson moved “soon” drops us well below the cap, especially if we start running at a 21 man roster instead of 23. Right now we are just using LTIR so it doesn’t matter to be running with extra guys, once we start to be in the banking cap territory, we can run with 20 or 21 because the taxi squad can be called up immediately on game day if needed. That is $2-3 million in savings on its own. -
(Rumour) Virtanen on the trade block
Provost replied to Wayne Glensky's topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
Well, I think he meant we could have walked away from him for nothing before now... but that ship has sailed and we would be lucky if a team claimed him off waivers at this point. I think most folks agree that it would be doubtful. Who knows, it only takes on GM to be on the hot seat or think he needs to make a move to pick up a project. I mean Gudbranson got traded for and then traded again... so anyone can. Yikes... next year we will have bad cap/untradeable contracts of: $3.0 million Luongo recapture $4.7 million pushed ELC $6.0 million in Eriksson $3.5 million in Ferland $3.0 million in Beagle $3.0 million in Roussel $2.55 million in Virtanen $4.3 million in Holtby That is $30 million of the cap that on dead cap or players with negative value that would cost us assets/money to unload since no one would take them even on waivers. $30 MILLION -
(Rumour) Virtanen on the trade block
Provost replied to Wayne Glensky's topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
Yes absolutely! We are currently over the cap and pushing $4.7 million in ELC bonuses into next season. Next season is when we have to give huge raises to Petterson, Hughes, and Demko.... and we don’t have that much coming off the books to pay for it. Pushing the ELC bonuses means that our cap space next year is going to drop by another $4.7 million dollars. That is the difference between being able to sign Hamonic or being able to sign a $6 million top 4D. Or the difference between losing more depth. That is a pretty important use for cap in my books... we need to be shedding unnecessary guys right now, the earlier the better to have more of their pro rated cap make space for the bonuses. -
[Discussion] How Our Past Offseason Will Hurt Our Future
Provost replied to Noble 6's topic in Canucks Talk
I let Tanev and Markstrom walk and re-sign Stecher, Leivo, and hopefully Toffoli if we could have swung it. That would have cost at most $8.275 million (their new deals) for 3 roster spots... assuming we couldn’t have swung a little better deal to keep them. The money would have done from - trading or not qualifying Jake - not signing Hamonic - signing a cheaper backup to Demko - using an asset to move out a bad contract, or sending one out with money retained. That is savings of: =2.55+1.25+700k-3.00 depending on which goalie back up you go with =$4.55 - $6.8 million savings. That means you have to still move out a couple million give or take to sign those three guys. Moving out any of Beagle, Roussel, Sutter, Baertschi, Benn... does that. Say you can move out Beagle with 50% retained and Benn with a really minor sweetener like a late round pick end up with: Miller-Petterson-Boeser Hoglander-Horvat-Toffoli Pearson-Gaudette-MacEwan Roussel-Sutter-Motte Hughes-Schmidt Edler-Stecher Juolevi-Myers Demko Hutchison/Griess/Dell That looks pretty spiffy (in comparison) to me. -
[Waivers] Brett Connolly, Alex Stalock
Provost replied to -Vintage Canuck-'s topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
I do think there is a chance that being waived greases the wheels for him to be traded with some cap retention possibly. I am not against it if we move equivalent money or more that direction. They are well into a playoff position so a good trading partner to take rentals or even Beagle or Roussel from us to help with their playoff depth along with a younger guy like Virtanen or Gaudette. -
Great... At least there is some good news for the day, even if the game turns out badly. Edit... Narrator: What Provost didn’t know was that promise was going to last just a couple minutes before Dazzle started in on his tirade and insults again. Please stop as has been requested by the mod and you just promised.
-
(Rumour) Virtanen on the trade block
Provost replied to Wayne Glensky's topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
Can you quote all my crap talking about the Hansen Goldobin trade? I don't recall that at all. Again with the "if only it turned out differently in another alternate reality" alternate dimension arguments to support your position. The trade didn't work out, nor did it really not work out honestly. Goldobin didn't make it, and it turned out to be the right time to walk away from Hansen. No winners or losers really. No one said that a pick is a guarantee that a good player will be selected. No idea what alternate dimensions where that strawman argument was invented. I can tell you that NOT having a pick guarantees that you won't get a good player with it. Feel free to pull up my posts about the Virtanen pick at the time. I don't remember my exact quotes... but from memory it was something like. "Seems like Virtanen was a stretch, if they really thought they needed a power forward Ritchie was a better pick." and also "If they thought Virtanen was their guy, they could have traded down and probably still gotten him or another power forward in Ritche" -
Sorry for the long winded replies...it was as painful to be part of as reading, I can assure you. I agree with basically everything you said. I was pounding the drum at the time that Stecher was the loss we shouldn't accept. I can understand the decision to walk away from Tanev and Markstrom (if their asks for staying were close to what they got on the open market... which we can't be sure of, especially since Tanev outright said the team didn't bother negotiation with him, even days after free agency started). Stecher on the other hand certainly signs with us for the same or less than what he got in Detroit, which was even less than the $2.3 you suggested. If for some reason Benning thought Stecher wasn't wort qualifying at that $2.3 amount... at the VERY least say, "Hey, aside from our cap dilemma we love what you bring. See what you can get on the market and give us a call and we will see if we can match it." Anyone on this Board think Stecher doesn't sign with us instead of Detroit if a matching offer was out there? Stecher was our best shot suppression D for the last several years and always outperformed his low contract... getting him even cheaper would have been a great value for what he brings. Even if you only think he is a 3rd pairing D who can move up in the lineup in case of injury... that is still good value at that price tag. The buck does stop with Benning. I just don't understand giving him a pass on all the bad things while at the same time praising everything good he has done. At least use the same metrics to praise as criticize. He can do both bad and good things, it doesn't have to be that he is complete trash or a complete God. Petterson great pick... Virtanen bad pick... Virtanen was taken 2-42 spots higher than the other lists had him at, 7 years later and I don't think a lot of those lists think they made a mistake and should have ranked him at #6. Redrafts based performance have him as high as 22nd or falling out of the 1st round entirely. https://www.nhl.com/news/revisiting-the-2014-nhl-draft-david-pastrnak-replaces-aaron-ekblad/c-307746004 https://www.nbcsports.com/washington/capitals/redrafting-2014-nhl-draft-jakub-vrana-top-10-pick https://theathletic.com/1584416/2020/02/06/pronman-re-drafting-the-nhls-class-of-2014/
-
(Rumour) Virtanen on the trade block
Provost replied to Wayne Glensky's topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
That would only be true if his value to us on our roster was more than the cap hit he is eating up. Would we be better off if he just disappeared and we had that cal hit and real dollars gone from our books? Is the opportunity cost of NOT having those dollars available going to cost us something better than Jake? If either of those things are true, then the return is meaningless. It is also the problem of when is appropriate to move a player. When he is playing well everyone says he turned a corner and can't be traded... when he is playing poorly, everyone says don't trade him because his value is too low. -
(Rumour) Virtanen on the trade block
Provost replied to Wayne Glensky's topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
Yep... if the Heinen for Jake pretty much straight up rumour was real, that is a terrible idea and Benning needs to be removed without any more delay. Take a low pick and don't eat back another player that you would have to qualify in the summer at an inflated price tag relative to his performance. Cap space is more important than a handful of games from another bottom 6 winger in Heinen.. during a season where the playoffs are already out of reach. If the stark reality is that no one is even offering a low pick for Jake at this point, then at least try to waive him and see if someone bites.... at least before you take back bad money in return. -
So wait, it is hard to keep up with your moving goalposts... so now I am being misleading because 8 is really basically the same as 6... even though (in your words) the difference between 6 and 8 is not insignificant? If you give me $8 thousand dollars, I will give you $6 thousand back and we are square because, even though the difference between them is not insignificant, they are also the same because 6 and 8 are pretty comparable ? Sounds good to me. Yeeesh... keep stretching your logic even more. 6 is pretty much 8... ok. I absolutely accept that if in your world those mean the same thing then sure, he was ranked 6-8th and should have been picked as high as 6-8 according to Bob Mackenzie. You though, in turn, have to accept that in my world 6 is really the same as 4... and 4 is really pretty much the same as 3.. and that since those things are true, Benning should have explained that to everyone and selected Leon Draisaitl before the other teams above us ha da chance to pick. He is a terrible GM for not having been able to explain that properly to his fellow GMs. It is really a genius way to look at the world that we can totally take advantage of as a team!
-
Sorry for assuming you had figured it out earlier, my bad. You keep dancing around it and “almost” getting it though. My logic was not that Virtanen would have been rated lower if you included Europeans at all. My statement was that YOU can’t use a prospect list excluding Europeans to COMPARE with actual combined draft lists like you did. You can’t make that comparison without THE BACKGROUND DATA. You have no idea where Jake would have been drafted on an imaginary combined list... neither do I, because it doesn’t exist and your entire premise has been that it does exist and that it proves me wrong . Show that list, I have asked you repeatedly.... cite it from somewhere. You are the one claiming that because he is 6th out of just NA skaters, it is evidence that I am wrong about him not being rated that high in the (combined) draft. So you can’t use an imaginary list as evidence, which is your entire premise.
-
I can’t even follow that tortured logic... You are right in your own words... when making comparisons they have to be close to, or equal, otherwise they make no sense. (You forgot that they can be different as long as they are representative of each other.. but I will let that error slide). A list of just North American Skaters is not close to, equal to, or representative of combined draft rankings. It is just not, by literal definition. You are finally starting to get why you are wrong... it took a while. I am super proud of you for figuring it out and apologize for being a poor teacher. Knowing something and being able to impart it to new learners are different skills, apparently I don’t have the latter. The important thing is, with a good night’s sleep under your belt, you got there anyways and now face a new day armed with more knowledge than you had yesterday. A Prius (list of just North American skaters) is absolutely not the same as a Minivan (a combined draft ranking including all skaters). One seats a lot more people. Jake should not look like a better deal because of a list that excludes all Europeans... Also it would probably be better for you to find another analogy... a list of the top North American vehicle brands, probably doesn’t lead you to the same decision as a list that includes other foreign brands like Toyota, Honda, BMW, etc. Don’t get stuck with a Ford when you can have a Ferrari!! You are welcome...
-
Sure we can say he was a bad pick... he didn't work out. We have many years of history to show us this. Can you make an argument for why Benning ignored the overall consensus of Nylander as BPA in that spot? I guess you can, but it doesn't stop it from being a bad pick. You can't "forgive" decisions that turn out badly, but give credit for decisions that turn out well. That is just inventing things to support a preconceived opinion. Virtanen and Juolevi were bad picks (at least with any evidence we have up until now). Petterson was a great pick (at least with any evidence we have up until now).
-
Umm you might want to look up what fallacy means... I made no assumptions at all. I simply stated the irrevocable, true fact that Central Scouting's North American prospect list is not a list indicating overall draft rankings, and can't be used as such because that would lead you to make terrible drafting mistakes due to your lack of understanding that European players and goalies also exist in the draft... so you can't claim it is or that their scouting ranked Jake to go #6 overall, which you keep basing your entire argument on. They just didn't. IT ISN'T TRUE. You have made the assumption that being the 6th best N.A.skater on their group of lists means that they ranked him as 6th overall. That is simply not true. Please find any evidence that Central Scouting had a combined list that ranked Jake to go #6 or higher in the draft. You can keep posting their North American list over and over ad nauseum, but that doesn't make the argument you keep trying to make. I will hold my breath waiting for you to find your Combined Central Scouting Draft Ranking List showing Jake at #6 overall. You haven't provided it yet, even with hours of scouring the internet for some shred of back up to justify your mistaken understanding. So... your fallacy is that you have a mistaken belief, based on one unsound argument. That Central Scouting had him ranked going 6th overall in the draft. That is a mistaken belief from not understanding how they do their prospect lists, and an unsound argument because it is simply not true or at least you have shown zero evidence that it is (at least in this dimension, I can't speak to any theoretical alternate dimensions that you propose).
-
Brackett was a long-time part time regional scout on the NorthEast college beat since the Gillis days... he didn't become the Head of Amateur Scouting until 2015 (the 2016 draft would have been his first running the show). I don't think we can pin anything on him until then as he wasn't in any sort of decision making position. It is fair to put the responsibility on Linden as well as Benning though. Linden was the boss, and Benning was the guy who had been a head scout. If it turned out well they get the credit, if it turned out badly they get the blame.
-
If we didn’t have Beagle already committed... maybe. But we don’t have the money to spend on Sutter unless we get out from some bad cap. There are going to be a lot of UFAs that are squeezed by the flat cap again this summer. On the radio they keep talking about how agents are already looking forward and that it is going to be ugly for their clients. We should be able to find another 3C in that market for pretty cheap. I think it is clear we need to change the makeup of the bottom 6 and pay them less. Sutter is having a good stretch after a bunch of bad stretches... discretion is the better part of valour and we should try to escape from that contract if we can.
-
I have no idea who was pushing for the pick. He seemed like one of the players that fit the mold Jim always talks about.... “I like his size”. We can say it wasn’t Brackett... that is about it. That link with the various lists is part of what I used when I did that deep dive into how we would have come out by using all the other major lists. I excluded that Hockey Writers one as it was just a collection of some random bloggers/fans like Eklund’s guys. I couldn’t find them referred to anywhere but their site and no bios from any of the writers indicating any sort of hockey experience. It had bad picks all over. It was the one list that had Virtanen at 6th out of all the ones I saw. We would certainly have been better off using Button or Pronman as our draft experts. Worse if we used Mackenzie and some others.
-
Wait... so now that it is clear to everyone that Virtanen was pegged lower than 6th overall on ALL the other draft lists you provided as your “evidence” (your repeated silliness about North American Skaters aside).... and the consensus was that Nylander was the BPA at that spot.... You are now falling back on an alternate dimensions theory to support your argument? So to justify the pick we now have to imagine an alternate dimension that Virtanen worked out and scored like Ehlers... and Ehlers scored like Virtanen? ... and we have to use our imagination years later to support Jim picking him higher than the other lists would have back in 2014? That is getting next level crazy in Jake fanboy-dom. We all live in this dimension unfortunately, where Virtanen isn’t producing like an elite talent. It is pretty simple no matter how much you try to wriggle and weasel around. Virtanen hasn’t lived up to his draft position. All the other public lists you provided show him going either a little later or a lot later in the draft. The consensus pick of almost all those lists would have been Nylander. In this dimension Nylander is better than Virtanen. So that adds up to it being a bad pick by Benning. Is your next argument going to be that Petterson wasn’t a good pick by Benning because in an alternate universe Gabe Vilardi has been outscoring him? That is your logic.... and it is weird and dumb.