-
Posts
11,729 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Everything posted by Provost
-
[Speculation] Canucks interested in Wayne Simmonds
Provost replied to -Vintage Canuck-'s topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
I would like to spend some time seeing Bailey before the deadline and seeing how Ferland is health wise. I think anything we do will be last minute, and hopefully it involves cap going out as that will improve our team more than rental additions. -
So you are both inventing a strawman argument that no one is making, and also moving the goalposts from your previous position. 1. First you didn't believe that there were reports about it and that it was only fan speculation. I posted links and even said I knew your response would be "well, I don't believe those reports." You putting quotations around "reports" suggests you don't think they exist, yet the links are there and if you feel those aren't enough, you can go listen to the two radio station streams from the last week and hear them talk about it even more. I have done 90% of your work for you, if you want to be intransigent then you go go do the rest yourself. 2. Saying that reports are that he is concerned about his role and autonomy as the main part of his contract negotiations aren't taking them as gospel. You invented that argument because you were wrong in your previous one. It is saying that there are reports to that effect, and that is a fact. The reports exist. 3. The hockey reporters and writers have to fill hours of time with content and they speculate and talk about ideas all the time. There are times though when they say "I have spoken with sources on the team who say XX". They don't make those things up, they aren't speculation. The reporters have long term relationships with the team and if they started lying about quoting things, they would lose those relationships and their jobs shortly after. In this case they have said they have heard from sources on the team that the issue is around role and his influence in decision making. 4. It is fact that Brackett has been offered a two year contract and he didn't take it right away. Benning said that publicly. It is also a fact that Benning said he and Weisbrod want to become more involved in scouting directly, because he said that publicly as one of the reasons for promoting Gear. Anyone reasonable can take those stated public facts and add them with the directly reported sources saying that it isn't sitting well with Brackett... and connect the two. 5. You only require a high standard of absolute proof when it is something you don't agree with. We talk about reports and discussions all the time here, it is literally the point of most of the forum. As much as you want to denigrate all the professional reporters who cover the team, they know a ton more than you or I do.
-
As much as I appreciate the massive compliments from FakeNews about being able to magically tell the future and post about reports a week before they actually came out (and just happen to turn out to be right on the money). I just listen and pay attention to the various news outlets who have been talking about it for some time. They haven’t just been filling time, but have mentioned team sources actually telling them, which is a different ball game than normal speculation. There are reports as far back as last week about the subject. Wanting assurances about having autonomy seems reasonable in light of Benning saying he wants to get more involved in scouting. As usual, FakeNews goes on a rant, deciding that he knows better than the various beat writers.... regardless of ample historical evidence to the contrary. https://www.google.ca/amp/s/theprovince.com/sports/hockey/nhl/vancouver-canucks/patrick-johnston-are-the-canucks-judd-brackett-headed-in-different-directions/amp
-
When Gear was promoted, Benning said publicly to Johnston from The Province that it would free him and Weisbrod up for more scouting. https://theprovince.com/sports/hockey/nhl/vancouver-canucks/patrick-johnston-benning-believes-canucks-now-headed-in-right-direction-despite-lapses There have since been reports (like this one below from Friedman) that Brackett wants assurances that he is going to have the same autonomy and say with the scouting department before signing an extension (with Benning publicly stating that he is going to get more involved in that side, it certainly makes sense). It was also discussed on both 1040 and 650 today with them saying that they have directly heard the same thing from folks on the team. They added that Brackett was one of Trevor Linden's guys, and his voice has carried less weight in the organization since Trevor left. It has been long reported that Brackett (along with Inge Hammarstrom) as the one to argue very forcefully for picking Petterson over Cody Glass and that there was a lot of heated internal debate on it. https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/31-thoughts-dustin-byfuglien-winnipeg-jets-contract/ I now await you changing your goalposts to "Well, so what if those reports exist... the writers are stupid and know less about hockey than I do!"
-
Lots of real reports. It is fairly specific even, he wants to know what sort of autonomy he will have running his show and how much weight his voice has within the organization. There is a feeling that he has a reduced say since Linden left. Every report is about role. Promoting Gear and not promoting him (instead or as well) is a good clue as to where he sits. Gear isn’t taking on different roles, he is being promoted but keeping his same role. Brackett has led the biggest successes the organization has had over the entire Benning tenure. Our drafting since Brackett took the lead has been excellent. There is also a great clue in Benning’s public comment. Some low key shade saying that they promoted Brackett from part time and gave him a full time job (...inferring he should be happy with that, there was no other reason to say that part aside from to set the fan’s expectation that Judd was being unreasonable if they actually part ways).
-
Canucks and the Cap Over the Next Three Years
Provost replied to jammin_jk's topic in Proposals and Armchair GM'ing
Except it is your Proposal that is creating a future cap crunch.... Signing Hughes or Petterson to a bridge deal is going to cost much more against the cap going forward. The new TV deal will increase the cap, and the player will have more of a resume after a bridge deal. The way teams have been successful is to have their stars locked up long term, and then winning when those players become great bargains in the last half of those contracts. Your plans also mean we are significantly worse over the next two years, on paper at least. Players sign for less if they see a chance to win, just like our 2011 run. If we make the playoffs and even win a round or two this year, and then miss the playoffs for the next two seasons because our defence is worse than Toronto’s... then that costs us cap going forward. Not all prospects pan out or have a spot on the roster. We have a solid enough pipeline that moving out one guy and a high pick doesn’t bankrupt our future. If doing that means we can keep our current depth, that is a better return than those futures are ever likely to bring. -
Canucks and the Cap Over the Next Three Years
Provost replied to jammin_jk's topic in Proposals and Armchair GM'ing
Thoughtful OP, any way you slice it, it adds up to us being worse (on paper) for the next two years. The OP also needs to consider the pushed ELC from this year which we basically have no way to avoid at this point... but it is a very good idea to assume the bonuses next year into the calculation because he is right that we can’t afford to push those into 2021-22. I honestly say bite the bullet on Eriksson and Baertschi, and do it at the deadline this year. It basically solves most of the problems going forward. A premium in futures to give us two extra seasons of playoff contention and not regressing? Worth it to me. I have a significant worry that the cap isn’t going to go up at all, or just by a nominal amount. If you look at the League payrolls, basically everyone is at or over the cap. That means a huge escrow hit for players, as the cap is based on a midpoint average assuming half the team will be under the average. With a basically flat cap, we are in trouble and so are a lot of teams... and the price to shed cap will increase. -
The $6 million dollar figure doesn’t seem to be far off... but the term is basically the entire issue. $6x2, sure..... $6x6 no way. I see a lower cap hit with a medium term $5.25x 3 or 4 years, the using Demko at the draft as a trade piece.
-
Proposal: bold trades for a 2020 Cup Contender
Provost replied to kenhodgejr's topic in Proposals and Armchair GM'ing
That is called “asset management”... ever heard of it? yeeesh... -
That may be an "easy" decision because Markstrom jumps at the chance to be overpaid in both term and dollars.... it is a pretty objectively terrible decision though. 1. We can't afford to pay him $7 million without it having some significant ripple effects on losing other players on our roster. Markstrom trying to play with a defence in front of him that has removed Tanev and Stecher isn't the same goalie. 2. All the metrics suggest it is more effective to have a very good D core and an average goalie than have a great goalie with a bad defence. 3. Not a lot of goalies are great into their late 30's, it is a huge risk to have a highly paid starter who can't stop the puck.
-
Ya, I really don't see the dollars being crazy high. I see it as pretty set at between $5-6 million, a lot of the contracts above are regretted and the trend seems to be paying starters less and paying back ups more than league minimum. The real issue is going to be term. If we are offering 2 years, and the open market can get him 5 years... that is a big difference. Really tough decision, because if we go 4 years or more with him, then it means Demko probably gets traded. That means a veteran back up required to fill in for a couple years until DiPietro could be ready to play. Markstrom has also shown that he benefits from having a great back up, as he historically has started to get sloppy when overworked and needs some games off to practice/sharpen techniques with the goalie coach. If we don't have Demko, Markstrom suddenly has to start 60+ games, vs. 50-55. I fall on the side of signing him and seeing what kind of asset Demko is to help us ditch dead cap space. Markstrom's advanced numbers show him to the be best goalie in the league when measuring expected goals. The only goalies doing better are doing it because they have much better defence and play a defensive system.
-
[Discussion & Poll] Markstrom, Tanev & Virtanen - One has to go
Provost replied to grandmaster's topic in Canucks Talk
I totally agree with the premise, you can only base it on the current state. If it is any of those three and not involving moves, I have to say Tanev. I still have a lot of concerns that the Jake we have seen for the last 25 games isn’t sustainable and this might be as valuable as he ever is... BUT. I would like to see him in the playoffs as it seems to be the style of game he would excel. I also think Stecher is probably going to be better and cheaper than Tanev over the course of their next contracts, so we have more of a built in replacement. I would LIKE to see us trading away the dead cap even at the cost of solid futures in order to keep all three. We need to keep trending upwards and not have this year as the high water mark by losing key pieces over the next two years due to cap concerns. If Virtanen goes it needs to include a big cap dump too. -
"there is currently no chance of re-signing both Tanev and Markstrom" ...indeed there are ways to make moves and afford it, but it is generally important to read the actual words written. Neither player, nor their agents have said anything about giving the team a break in order to stay. If you are conflating them saying they like the team with "I want to be on the team at all costs and for whatever they can afford"... then that is your own fevered imagination at play and not reality.
-
Well it is actually called a hard salary cap, so not a law of physics, only a contractual agreement for participating in the league.
-
We just have no way to sign him in the offseason, there is currently no chance of re-signing both Tanev and Markstrom... so there isn't enough to sign a much more expensive D man instead. For the remainder of the year, we have a good mix of offensive and defensive D men, moving out Tanev who is a great partner to Hughes and is 3rd in blocked shots in the league... would more likely cause issues than improve the team.
-
That doesn't really make it clear though. Would it only come off the cap "if" we went to an arbitrator and had the money returned? If that is the case, the dream of Loui pocketing his bonus, then retiring and us not getting hit with the cap is a fantasy. It seems like a big cap circumvention loophole to let a team pay a player most of their money but not get charged with the cap hit, so I am not sure if it is actually possible.
-
Melnyk, Sens Wound Up Looking Like Geniuses
Provost replied to Nuxfanabroad's topic in General Hockey Discussion
Like what Spitfire above said. There is a significant difference between getting players to take a discount so you can sign other players and ice a better team.... vs. getting them to sign at a discount and have him pocket the cash and not do everything he can to ice the best team possible. -
[Waivers] David Backes, Luke Schenn
Provost replied to -Vintage Canuck-'s topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
Of course with us on a winning streak, he isn’t likely to get waived.. but it is not so simple a calculation as you are suggesting. Eriksson’s contract is likely going to cost us one of Tanev or Markstrom in the offseason. It will cost us even more depth like Edler the year after. That has to be taken into account when making decisions. So, as soon as we lose a game or two, and there is some cover... we should do it. We should have done it at the start of the season or when he was sitting in the press box. We are probably no worse, or at most only incrementally worse... and possibly much better by having Boeser on that 2nd line and have Beagle and Sutter take the defensive responsibilities instead. We have a guy like Bailey to try on the roster as well who could give us some success with a 3rd line that is giving nothing right now. We are MUCH worse if you take away Tanev and Edler from our roster over the next couple years (and can’t afford to replace them) because you weren’t willing to play hardball with Eriksson and see if he is really willing to ride the bus for three years with no glimmer of a shot in the NHL. -
[Waivers] David Backes, Luke Schenn
Provost replied to -Vintage Canuck-'s topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
That is also possible, to avoid a surprise big Buff scenario... I would think that if he turned out to be "injured" permanently they would be happier than buying him out. -
[Waivers] David Backes, Luke Schenn
Provost replied to -Vintage Canuck-'s topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
The statement "at this time", "he is fit and ready to play".. lots of the details in that statement are clearly carefully worded and vetted through their lawyers. I suspect they are burning up the phones trying to figure out a solution. Clearly Backes doesn't want to volunteer to retire, and the team will give him to the trade deadline before forcing him to the AHL. It is probably a deal where he agreed to open up his NTC in exchange for not being forced to the minors in the short term. His agent is probably working the phones to find a landing spot too. If he is still with Boston at the deadline he is going to be forced to report or retire. -
[Waivers] David Backes, Luke Schenn
Provost replied to -Vintage Canuck-'s topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
That is in the short term while pursuing options, the Bruins are a cap strapped team near the top of the league who want to contend for the Cup. They aren't likely going to leave it like that long term. -
[Waivers] David Backes, Luke Schenn
Provost replied to -Vintage Canuck-'s topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
I wonder how long before we see him suspended so he isn't using up cap space for them. Their statement made it clear "he is fit and able to play", which gives them some protection/rationale for suspending him if he isn't reporting. Out of interest, he is owed a little under $6 million on the rest of his contract that he walks away from if he doesn't play in the minors. Less than what Eriksson would be leaving on the table in the same situation if he left after his signing bonus this summer. -
Well with both MacEwan and Bailey called you, I wonder if someone aside from Motte is out, or they just need to make sure they have enough bodies for the road trip. I think they were running with only 22 players on the roster.
-
You can imagine that with Benning’s strengths and background he is more involved in the scouting aspect and Brackett has less autonomy and decision making powers than he would under other GMs who weren’t scouts. I can see that being something that has to be negotiated more than the pure money. I can also see the allure of going to a team like Seattle where you have a bigger role and can invent your own processes to draft from the ground up.