-
Posts
11,729 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Everything posted by Provost
-
[Proposal] Vancouver-Toronto
Provost replied to dough teeth's topic in Proposals and Armchair GM'ing
Were it not for expansion that could be a plan, but we will almost certainly lose one of our two goalies in expansion (because we have so many exempt and undesirable players in other positions). Actually, it there was no expansion, I would let Demko back up Markstrom for another year or two with an increasing workload... then auction him off for a solid return and then bring up Dipietro to be the back up and be ready to take over from Markstrom when his next contract expires in 3-4 years. -
I think I am a big Tryamkin fan and think. Is worth signing (at a reasonable price)... but slotting him in as a top 4 D with zero NHL games played in three years, and not even being in that spot when he left... that is banking a lot on very little resume. Stecher on the other hand has played an average of 20 minutes a game for whole seasons and has solid underlying numbers. Based on age, speed, cost, and injury history... I probably keep him over Tanev (but it is close). The other OP idea that Demko is the guy to go with right now... that is just insanity. This season Markstrom has the best adjusted/advanced goalie numbers in the entire league... not top 5, not top 3.... #1. Any goalie with better numbers is playing behind a defence that is way tighter. At the same time he wants to be here, and he is still relatively unknown outside our market, so his UFA numbers aren’t likely going to be Inflated.
-
[Proposal] Vancouver-Toronto
Provost replied to dough teeth's topic in Proposals and Armchair GM'ing
Miller plays a lot of centre, and we ha e Sutter. It would be one of them almost certainly and not bad extra options compared with most teams. I am not against Demko being traded at all, but I would far prefer in a package that sheds cap and/or brings us a top 4 RD that has some term left. -
[Proposal] Vancouver-Toronto
Provost replied to dough teeth's topic in Proposals and Armchair GM'ing
I think pre-expansion deals are going to be rarer after McPhee took everyone to the cleaners using them. As it stands we will probably lose a goalie in expansion, but that goes against your concern about depth. We won’t have it regardless after next season. An interim back up to play 20 games a year isn’t that hard. DiPietro is exempt so can’t be picked up and should easily be ready to be a backup in 2 more years, 3 on the on the outside . -
Yep, how many people would think that we win the trade if we had traded Petterson or Hughes for Miller. His play is only half the equation, that elite level of first rounder going Tampa’s way is still on the table. JB has gotten half of the equation right, Miller’s play is exceeding expectations, he is fitting in with the group, and he is having a career year. None of those things were guaranteed when the trade was made. The other half of the equation is the return, anyone who ignores that isn’t making any sense. I said right from the beginning we “probably win” this trade if the pick is in the 20’s or later in the round. We “probably lose” if it ends up being a top 3 lottery pick. Picks between that are messy and less clear on the outcome of winning or losing. Miller’s fit and play likely means that if we end up finishing with a 12-18th pick, then surrendering that probably still leaves us a winner... not something you could say right when the trade happened. If that is where we are this year we had better give up that pick. Everything has gone right for us this year with relative health and lots of players having career years. The likelihood of that repeating next year isn’t that high, and we are likely to have a worse roster “on paper” due to cap constraints.
-
[Proposal] Vancouver-Toronto
Provost replied to dough teeth's topic in Proposals and Armchair GM'ing
I am not certain that is true at all. Maybe not by the deadline, but if Markstrom’s contract ends up being 4-5 years, then Demko become a luxury. Nice to have, but could garner a return that helps us more than he does. A 5 year plan could easily include having a veteran back up for 1-2 years, and then getting DiPietro up to speed as a back up and getting ready to take over from Markstrom at the end of Markstrom’s new contract. The return needs to be more than a player who doesn’t upgrade us though. For the 20 of so games you would expect a backup to play, Demko probably wins us at least a couple more games than a pure veteran back up does. -
Cap Hell for Canucks!!! (GREAT NEWS from Daly re: CAP for next year!!)
Provost replied to HKSR's topic in Canucks Talk
Absolutely right... but current state is that we won’t be able to afford him, and if Petterson happens to get into the top 10 in scoring of reaches and schedule B bonus, then we face not being able to afford either Tanev OR Stecher. We can live with Benn, Rafferty, Juolevi, or Tryamkin As our #6-7 spots... we can’t have them in the top 4 and expect any sort of success. Hence my strong opinion that we should take the pain and use futures to get rid of cap so we can afford to sign who we need, not only to hold the lien... but maybe even take a step forward next season. -
Cap Hell for Canucks!!! (GREAT NEWS from Daly re: CAP for next year!!)
Provost replied to HKSR's topic in Canucks Talk
Yes, we “could” manage next year by not re-signing our impending free agents. I don’t see us trading “away” anything at the deadline though as it would be a terrible message to send to a team that is well positioned to make the playoffs. Intentionally making us worse at this point for the long term benefit just isn’t likely going to happen. Hopefully there is a move that gets rid of wasted/inefficient cap space though as we need it to pay bonus overages. Maybe we package up some futures or spare parts to get rid of cap and to get a player with some term left who will help us now if we dither this deadline and again in the summer about it, it makes us have to be even more extreme about it next season. Instead of having to get rid of just Eriksson or both Sutter & Baertschi like what would sort us out now, we will have to pay to unload them all before the following 2021-22 season... after having already gotten worse on paper for the 2020-21 season. If we don’t do that, we will be face with icing a team that Has no depth, or god forbid having to sign Hughes to a bridge few to get us past our crunch... but will cost us dearly in the future when he is better and the cap much higher with the new TV deal. Overpay to get rid of cap now, and reap the rewards immediately. -
Cap Hell for Canucks!!! (GREAT NEWS from Daly re: CAP for next year!!)
Provost replied to HKSR's topic in Canucks Talk
Quite rich from someone who has clearly been proven wrong numerous times just in the last few pages and has simply ignored those times and started arguing different irrelevant things instead. $150 and I will explain how contract interpretation works. -
Cap Hell for Canucks!!! (GREAT NEWS from Daly re: CAP for next year!!)
Provost replied to HKSR's topic in Canucks Talk
Etransfer me $150 for my consulting fee and I will explain it. That is giving you a break as it is normally a 3hr minimum. -
Cap Hell for Canucks!!! (GREAT NEWS from Daly re: CAP for next year!!)
Provost replied to HKSR's topic in Canucks Talk
I literally charge $150 an hour for consulting on labour relations, you have already received a lot of instruction for free. I am under no obligation to keep doing all your work for you unless you want to pay as much as my clients do (I would probably charge you more for the mental anguish). I have proven you massively uninformed on several occasions in the last few pages, and included citations of why you are wrong. if you did have a direct line to someone who actually understood this stuff, you wouldn’t even know what to ask them or what they told you if you stumble on the right question. PS. You couldn’t replace Ferland’s $3.5 LTIR cap hit with Peterson’s $3.775 cap hit even if Petterson was in the minors. His cap hit exceeds Ferland’s. You can’t even get the simplest things right. -
(Proposal) realistic trade!
Provost replied to captaincowbasher's topic in Proposals and Armchair GM'ing
It is New Jersey so you have to think about what buying really low on Subban at 50% retained costs you as part of a deal. Probably an offseason type of move. Is Subban @ $4.5 million for three years a better bet to give you good value for that stretch than re-signing Tanev @ $5 million for the same term at least? They are both the same age and playing around 20 minutes a night, and the only big knock on Subban is his contract. He is still a legit top 4 guy, and a good value at half the cost. Does the chance he rounds back into his form from a year ago outweigh the risk of messing with our team chemistry that Benning talked about? Is Tanev likely to be as healthy for the next three years as he has been this year? Having a veteran top 4 guy signed lets us say goodbye to Stecher and try out an up and comer on the 3rd pairing. Can we even afford to sign Tanev, since we would have to dump cap to make space for him. New Jersey is a realistic trading partner as they have cap space to spare (especially next season) for us to dump more than we take back, and the need for young talent, where we currently need NHL ready talent at a good value to keep taking steps. People can argue, but Madden is still a long shot to make the NHL (he would be the 2nd lightest guy in an already smaller league), and his only spot for us would be on the bottom 6 where small guys don't fit as well. Madden is probably at his high water mark in terms of asset value with his great season, and he is worth more to Jersey than to other teams because of his father. The other young pieces we can afford to give up are one of our young goalies, or any prospect not named Hoglander or Podkolzin who will almost certainly push the rest of our forward prospects downthe depth chart over the next two years when they arrive on the scene. If you could dump a bunch of cap and get Palmieri and Subban (50% retained) back, you are in a way better position as a team talent and cap wise for the next couple years. Sutter could be a player of interest to Jersey kind of like a veteran crutch for their kids like Beagle is for us. Between him and Zajac, they can take all the hard defensive minutes and put Hischier and Hughes in a sheltered position to succeed and learn. Jersey is also missing some 2nd and 3rd round picks over the next couple years, so a 3rd this year and/or a 2nd next year from us could be some enticement. -
Cap Hell for Canucks!!! (GREAT NEWS from Daly re: CAP for next year!!)
Provost replied to HKSR's topic in Canucks Talk
Especially since the benefit to Florida was pretty insignificant (just the added flexibility of not having to use his LTIR space and just having the pure cap space minus the $1 million in recapture they get dinged with) and the cost to us pretty huge. -
Cap Hell for Canucks!!! (GREAT NEWS from Daly re: CAP for next year!!)
Provost replied to HKSR's topic in Canucks Talk
Don’t expect us to get any reprieve as it will happen after we are done paying our penalty. Don’t assume Weber will be as willing to screw his old team as badly as Lou was willing to screw us. Lou could have easily medically retired, no harm no foul... he chose instead to give Florida extra cap flexibility at our expense. He also made a deal with them where he would still get paid most or all of his remaining salary. The only loser in the deal was the Canucks. As much as he is a funny guy on social media, he screwed our team worse than Kesler did, and it was because his loyalty was to the Panthers 100% and zero to us. It is straight up sleazy and wouldn’t have flown with the league if it was Toronto instead of us. Nothing indicates Weber wouldn’t play until his body won’t let him and then just choose the path most guys have and go on LTIR, saving any recapture penalties. -
Cap Hell for Canucks!!! (GREAT NEWS from Daly re: CAP for next year!!)
Provost replied to HKSR's topic in Canucks Talk
Nope, not the same at all. Entirely different calculations. The only similarity is some of the words start with the same letters which is a startlingly basic error for you to make... especially since the letters aren't even all the same. They aren't even referring to the sme currency...one is a pure cap hit calculation, the other is a real dollar calculation. ACSL is a specific lowered cap limit due to what is happening specifically with your cap space when you put a player in LTIR. It doesn't count used or unused LTIR space, it doesn't include bonus cushion. It has to do with what you are allowed to spend cap wise. Actual Club Salary is what you actually spend in real dollars including everything, it is done at the end of the year SOLELY to determine if the players' pay is greater than their share of the HRR. No relation to each other at all, the numbers and formulas are entirely different, the use of them is entirely unrelated. This is really important for folks to understand when thinking about future cap ceiling implications. Money paid to players while on LTIR counts towards their share of the HRR at the end of the year. This year so many teams are running into LTIR (and effectively dramatically overspending the salary cap), AND very few teams are running near the cap floor like in previous years to balance things out. Almost every team is either over the cap ceiling (using LTIR); over the cap ceiling once you include performance bonuses they will have to pay; or within a couple of million of the ceiling in actual dollars spent. The cap ceiling and floor is based on taking the estimated players share of HRR, dividing it by the number of teams, and then that is the salary cap midpoint. The ceiling is 15% higher and the floor is 15% lower. If you look at all the ACTUAL CLUB SALARIES this season, all of them are above the midpoint so escrow will be big even if the league meets their revenue targets (which is also not looking great). So at the end of the year when the portion of HRR spent on players salaries is calculated, it is going to be WAY over their share. That is going to mean a huge escrow hit to everyone with signed contracts. With that having just hit their wallets, what sort of mood do you think they will be in to artificially use their escalator clause to raise the cap ceiling next year... and steal money from their own pockets to be paid to those few players who are UFAs this summer. That is likely why the GMs spoken to after the December BOG meetings said to the media that they are anticipating a very modest cap increase for the next couple of years. A modest cap increase is very bad for us. -
Cap Hell for Canucks!!! (GREAT NEWS from Daly re: CAP for next year!!)
Provost replied to HKSR's topic in Canucks Talk
It is true that our cap hell is only two more seasons after this... but not quite true that we are good after next season. If we don’t re-sign Tanev (And maybe even Stecher) this off-season we can fit under the cap just fine. We are definitely worse off though roster wise. As much as you can be optimistic about Tryamkin, Juolevi, and Rafferty, it would be miraculous if they were as capable as NHL veterans. The next season we don’t have anywhere near the amount coming off the books that we need to re-sign Petterson and Hughes. We will be incredibly lucky to get them for under a combined $18 million. If we do, it likely means one of them is on a bridge deal which will cost us in the long term. In 2021-22 we will have to replace all our our expiring contracts with league minimum or ELCs to fit under the cap. Eriksson’s totally cap hit after this year is $12 million. Buying him out still costs $10.67 million in cap hit, which is less of a savings as it would cost us to fill that roster spot with a league minimum player... so no savings overall at all. It could slightly help out cap situation two years from now, but then cost us space for two years beyond that when we will likely need it badly as well if we have any intention on improving the roster and contending. -
You are right. When I looked at Sportsnet Box score right after the game It showed Tkachuk with only 1 assist the 2nd game (or I read it wrong)... and now it shows 2.
-
Cap Hell for Canucks!!! (GREAT NEWS from Daly re: CAP for next year!!)
Provost replied to HKSR's topic in Canucks Talk
So yet again a major flaw in your understanding. Not only do you not know what LTIR is... you also don’t know what ACSL is. It is not Actual Club Salary, you are mixing up two things. Actual Club Salary is what you use to determine the players portion of HRR and escrow. ACSL means “Accruable Cap Space Limit”. It has nothing to do with the several random copy and paste posts you made about Actual Club Salary. It has to do with your effective cap space dropping by how much under the cap you are when you place a player on LTIR. You think you are clever but don’t even understand the most basic concepts and can’t even comprehend the stuff you spam. -
Cap Hell for Canucks!!! (GREAT NEWS from Daly re: CAP for next year!!)
Provost replied to HKSR's topic in Canucks Talk
Reserve means the Injured Reserve List that the player is put on you nonsensical moron. It doesn’t mean reserved cap space. I can cite my sources, unlike you... go read the Definitions at the start of the CBA. yeesh, I am dumber just from reading your posts... -
Cap Hell for Canucks!!! (GREAT NEWS from Daly re: CAP for next year!!)
Provost replied to HKSR's topic in Canucks Talk
Ok good night... enough of your random nonsense. The replacement for Ferland is less than his salary = unused LTIR. That is a meaningless theory. Again, cite the obscure rule that says you can use LTIR space for bonuses. Maybe it exists, but clearly you don’t know it. -
Cap Hell for Canucks!!! (GREAT NEWS from Daly re: CAP for next year!!)
Provost replied to HKSR's topic in Canucks Talk
No it doesn’t. Click on the little question mark and it literally explains it. It says that when a team is in LTIR this number indicates how much LTIR they have left. LTIR and accrued cap space are not the same thing. That is why there is a number in much bigger font showing estimated cap space of $30k... not $2.8 million -
Cap Hell for Canucks!!! (GREAT NEWS from Daly re: CAP for next year!!)
Provost replied to HKSR's topic in Canucks Talk
Cite your source on that... I keep asking and you keep posting entirely irrelevant nonsense (over and over again) to try to hide the fact you haven’t done it. -
Cap Hell for Canucks!!! (GREAT NEWS from Daly re: CAP for next year!!)
Provost replied to HKSR's topic in Canucks Talk
You are deeply misunderstanding this in a fundamental way, as usual. ACSL is a reduction in your effective daily cap ceiling, it makes it virtually impossible to accrue cap space. If you are $500k below the cap when you put a player on LTIR, then your ACSL reduces by $500k. Once you replace that LTIR player with another player... like we have... you cannot bank cap space. The ultra rare circumstance where you could bank cap space when in LTIR would be say you were over the cap and using LTIR space, and then traded away a player that made more money than the LTIR you are using. ... and none of that is at all relevant to the fact you can’t use unused LTIR space to pay other players performance bonuses. Instead of spamming irrelevant WADR... cite one single valid source that says you can do that.