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. Not even in the ballpark for what Domi would be worth in a trade... not that Montreal would be looking to trade him. Maybe something like: Virtanen Stecher Madden 2nd round pick
  2. This report says Tryamkin regrets leaving the NHL and blames it on “the emotional inexperience of youth”. I don’t know if he is going to come back, or if he can be a legitimate NHL player, or fit on a 3rd pairing... but having the option is better than not having it. https://www.traderumours.com/index.php?blog=11801&s=8
  3. Just because Sutter has “some” use, it doesn’t balance his usefulness against the cost of losing both Tanev and Stecher plus other players next year because we pushed those ELC bonuses into next year and costing us cap space in a crunch year. At this point over halfway through the season you would need to ditch over $7 million in cap to pay for those bonuses. Don't believe Me, believe Weisbrod who literally said as the first item on their plans was that they were actively trying to create cap space.
  4. I don’t think that Sutter, Eriksson, or Baertschi make a big impact on our playoff run or chances of success. The reason it has to happen now, is that as it stands we are going to have to push about $3.7 of Petterson and Hughes ELC bonuses into next year, effectively dropping our cap for next year by that much. If we ditched Eriksson now, we could pay most of this bonuses this year and not handcuff ourselves next year. Next year we also have to stay under the cap by the amount of the potential/likely ELC bonuses.... because we can’t afford to push those bonuses into the 2021-22 season when we are paying Petterson and Hughes on their next contracts.
  5. It does kind of seem to me that he is on that line solely to try to show he can still be a player and reduce what it may cost to dump his contract to some other team. It is nice to have a little positive news, but nothing has really changed with his fit. Having Boeser on the third line doesn’t make a lot of sense longer term, as much as you argue that Eriksson helps Horvat not have to be the defensive presence on that line. Listening to Weisbrod on the radio today the first thing he talked about was the need to clear cap space. I suspect we may see a move or two that sends out bad contracts at the cost of some futures.
  6. With taxes, cost of living, and escrow... he would probably have to make a lot more here to break even. If he had have stayed, he could have probably signed a $3 million x 3 year deal here. Now he is looking more like $2x2 to see if he can actually be a legitimate NHL solution.
  7. It is a pretty big error to cherry pick two players and say that is the normal trajectory for non elite players. Everyone develops differently and most never develop to the point of being NHL regulars and more specifically guys that play in the top half of your roster. Everyone stalls at different points too. Development isn’t linear. You really don’t know if either of these guys will keep getting better, or even fall off and this ends up being their career years. Even with 1st rounders, more fail than make it... so being in the NHL at all means they aren’t a bust.
  8. None of those moves were made in season or during a playoff run. They also weren’t all selling off players, they were making trades to either make their team better or to make cap space in order to make their team better. I didn’t say we should make trades, I said we shouldn’t be trading current valuable players for futures at this point. It would cost us a lot more in cap and assets in the long run than it gains you. Tryamkin won’t be available until after his team is done their playoff run so likely not in time to help us this season. There are also real question marks as to whether he is a legit NHLer. That seems like a thing to do after the season and decide whether we can afford to keep Tanev or Stecher. If we have to let one or both of them go, then we can look at Tryamkin and/or Rafferty. The market is also a lot different now. There are now always solid veteran players available for cheap to fill the bottom of your roster... so getting lower end prospects for those spots isn’t as important.
  9. And yet you keep commenting on posts referring to me and spending hours searching and reacting to old posts of mine. I am flattered by your obsession but I don’t reciprocate the feelings.
  10. ... aside from you editing the actual post, that was in the context of discussions about Boeser having turned down huge contract offers and if the talk at the time was true of him holding out and costing North of $8 million on a medium to long term deal. I can go back and necro a bunch of posts where I would literally laugh at the reported trade suggestion by Minny of Boeser for Zucker straight up. Nice try though, I guess you ran out of actual arguments about the topic at hand?
  11. Please quote the trade where I suggested Boeser for Zucker. Try not to edit it to fit your fake arguments as you often do. I spent a number rod posts literally laughing at the Minny suggestion. Of trading the 2 players one for one. I do recall saying that if Boeser’s contract demands were in the $7-8 million range that was being reported, Mik y was welcome to him for a good package in return.
  12. No we won’t. We will be spending extra to re-sign our RFAs because they will want nothing to do with wasting their prime years on a team that is intentionally trying to lose in several years of their very short careers. Any futures we get aren’t going to be ready to play for 2-3 years, and replacing the guys we sell off for equivalent UFAs will be more expensive than just keeping our own players. There is no such thing as a constant rebuild that eventually goes somewhere. Your players come off their ELCs really quickly and you have to pay them market rate.
  13. It isn’t just about clearing out cap space, it is clearing out inefficient cap usage. That points to Eriksson, Baertschi, Schaller, Sutter, or Benn. Moving any of them costs us picks or prospects and that is just the price to pay at this point. Clearing put useful players who are efficient uses of cap space is just a bad idea. Tanev or Stecher make us better now and we shouldn’t be moving them. That would be a terrible message to a team currently fighting for top place in the division, and could have serious consequences going forward re-signing our own guys. Players have short careers and robbing them of a playoff run would be deeply resented by the exact guys we want to rely on going forward. Benning hasn’t shown a creative side to making moves, but if we can make a trade that clears cap and laterally moves some pieces in and out, that is the kind of move we could use. A roster player, a couple of futures, and a cap dump for a guy like Dumba would be exactly the kind of move that we should try to swing. ... or locking up Markstrom for 4 years at a decent cap hit and trading Demko packaged with a cap dump added.
  14. It just seems like the possible upside of having waived Eriksson (him possibly retiring) vastly outweighs the incremental improvement in our lineup by having him available for injury replacement over guys like MacEwan, Goldobin, or Schaller. That freed up money represents a massive difference in our cap situation over the coming three years and the ability to retain depth as well as possibly add players. That is a big fat hairy deal, especially when we are currently looking at pushing the millions of dollars of Petterson and Hughes ELC bonuses into next season; and then staying well under the cap next season so as not to push their next season bonuses into the year we are also paying them retail price contracts while still trying to carry Eriksson. Even a 5% chance he did retire would be worth having done it. There is almost zero harm in doing it either. So you bump up Virtanen or Sutter to the 2nd line for a stint, or you call up Goldobin for that spot and try to make it a scoring rather than match up line. The trickle down effect is just putting MacEwan on the 4th line rather than in the press box. There is nothing to say you can't bring Eriksson up if he didn't decide to retire or the other players were doing terribly. We may have passed that point now as he might kind of have some hope even if we do waive him, because he has had a short stint of mediocre play rather than his terrible play. Really you had to convince him that he was being demoted and would never have a sniff at the big league again. Anyone can handle a few weeks in the AHL, but three years looming ahead of you on the busses away from your family is a long long time.
  15. I hope he suddenly blossoms, he certainly seems to the eye to be a little more engaged now... really noticeable when Roussel came back and started playing with him. I think it is hard to take games off when you are playing on a line with a guy like that.
  16. Only in your world can you equate 58 games to 75 games, and then 43 points to 25 points as really being equivalent. By all means, suggest to the NHL that Virtanen gets to play 30% more games per season than the rest of the league so his numbers can be comparable... Or just credit him with two goals on the scoreboard every time he puts it in the net... because it is pretty much the same thing. ... or (as always) cherry pick and neglect to point out his 23 year old season when was was getting a startling low 43.7% oZone starts and being used primarily defensively (lower than Jake has ever had in his career) and Miller managed to score 56 points.... something Jake is not close to even being on pace for even while enjoying one of the highest oZone start % on the team at 54.9% ... or fail to point out that Miller was a massive +17 when having those defensive deployments and racking up points, while Jake was also badly on the negative side defensively as well as not putting up offence... and is still a negative player and defensive liability even when starting most often in the oZone (which appears to be the only stat you really seem to put any stock into even though it is deeply flawed in missing the bulk of the shifts that start on the fly). There is no comparison statistically between the two players, nor is there any stylistically. Even if there was, there is no reason to correlate them as having similar trajectories.
  17. You complain if he gets paid for performance he hasn't actually earned. No one complains about having Virtanen at $2.5 million on their team because that is paying his actual performance, a lot of people can complain about him at $4.0 million plus due to an inflated arbitration award because that is paying for a statistical blip and imagined future performance that may never materialize. That is especially the case when retaining him at that price tag could cost you significant depth next season. His trajectory has been slowly improving over time and that is totally fine. He went from being a 4th line winger to an average 3rd line winger in terms of production... though he is still a negative on the defensive side which you expect more of from a bottom six guy. You can't say the sky is the limit without also saying the gutter is also the floor on him, each extreme is less likely than his trajectory indicates. Some players exceed it and some are below it. What I have said and keep saying, is Jake has not done that yet. The numbers don't actually show him suddenly "arriving" like folks keep suggesting. If he gets back onto his December pace and sustains that for the rest of the season, you have some argument to say he is developing more than what his trajectory up to now has shown. It hasn't happened yet and you don't get to pretend it is inevitable, especially when he has already fallen off that pace even with averaging a minute more per game in January than December. A Sedin comparison is nonsense because they did have a huge jump and by January of their 4th season were PPG game players over a long stretch... at similar ages there were doing a lot better than Jake is, and were also defensively good while getting 3rd line minutes. Jakes got 13, 20, 25 points in his first three seasons (ignoring his AHL season) The Sedins were almost double that. They outperformed their initial trajectory and there were some indications that they could do that, their work ethic was unmatched and kept improving. They were an exception in that they blossomed, taking the unusual exceptions and assuming it is the rule and absolutely applies to Jake is based on fantasy and highly against the odds. With that logic you should throw money at Tyler Motte because he could possibly become the next Ovechkin. Virtanen on the other hand after 4 years in the league, showed up to camp out of shape and publicly earned the ire of his coach, and has not had a single long stretch of greatly improved play... that is certainly a warning sign that he isn't doing everything he can to keep getting better and could stall or regress. Looking at objective reality and not being emotional about a player isn't trashing them. Everyone wants him to be what he has the potential to be, but he has earned his doubters.
  18. I never said anywhere that he is on the decline. I said his improvement has been incremental and modest. That is not my opinion, that is reality. I am pointing out that there isn’t some sudden arrival like people are saying where he has proven himself to be a vastly different player than he has been before. Aside from a very short stretch of games, he has continued on that slow trajectory that you can easily plot out amongst his game to game performance. You need to take a large enough sample to mean anything or project any trends. A month or even a few months is not long enough to do that with any degree of confidence.
  19. Those numbers aren't right... it was actually .28 for Jake and .38 for Miller in their first four years in the NHL. Also you are including seasons where Miller as in the AHL and playing some games as a call up, which is disingenuous and not comparable to the way Jake progressed. Same way it would be disingenuous if I used Jake's 2016-17 year where he was in the AHL and player 10 NHL games (with 1 single point) and saying that represented a massive decline in his development. From the moment Miller became even mostly an NHLer in 2014-15 (58 games in NHL and 18 games in AHL) he has outperformed every single year of Jake's NHL career. The sentence "your argument only looks at what has happened" as some sort of error on my part may be the single most ludicrous comment ever made on this forum. That is literally the only way you can look at a player because none of us has the ability to see the future. You also don't seem to even understand the concept of projection. It is literally looking at "what has happened" and trying to extrapolate that into the future. That is exactly what I am doing. If you can't take onjective reality seriously and can only point to your ability to magically see into the future while ignoring everything that has happened with the player's performance AND ignore what the word projection actually means.... then me actually spending the time to do the work and explain reality to you has been fairly useless. Jake's trendline has been fairly flat with very modest improvement on what wasn't a great baseline. He had a single blip on that pretty even trendline in December of this year which has since corrected back to his regular level of production and small incremental improvement year over year since he was a rookie. In actual statistics that is called "special cause" variation, meaning that it is indicative of something OTHER than the normal trend. Sometimes that is just a random blip, sometimes it is caused by some other variable other than that player himself. So PROJECTING his development you effectively throw away the blip and instead only look at the common cause variation (his year over year development) and use that to project forward. So if you look at a reasonably large sample size of his most recent play, since the beginning of 2019 through to the present... if you exclude December (the special cause variation blip) he is at a .35 PPG average and that puts him at under 30 points per 82 games. Even if you include the blip of great performance which by all mathematical rules is not indicative of his true development... he only moves up to .43 PPG or 35 points per 82 games. Every single indicator so far says he had a short period of outperforming his actual level of play. That doesn't say there is no possibility that he suddenly takes off at some point and becomes a legit 2nd line winger, it means that hasn't been shown by his performance or projections at all.
  20. Agreed.... it really makes no sense that they didn't at least try this route. Nothing would have hurt by having Eriksson sent to the minors with the belief he would be stuck there for the next three years.... and there was a good chance (maybe not 80-90%) that he would have not reported or eventually decided to retire. The league is so capped out, if we had that $6 million in space, we could use it pretty darn efficiently. On top of that, we really don't have $6 million in space as we are currently going to push all of Petterson and Hughes ELC bonuses into next season and effectively dropping our cap for that year by over $3.5 million... which not only costs us the opportunity of improving our lineup, it costs us even keeping the existing players we want to keep.
  21. You keep ignoring the things you don't like. He didn't just have a lousy November. He had a lousy September (training camp), he had a lousy October, he had a lousy November, and has had a lousy January. It isn't just struggling when the team struggles, that is objectively just not true. He also had a lousy January-April last season. There is no massive jump of him "finally getting it", there is a single month of great performance which has already petered off. You can't talk around that and just say you "believe" he has trended better when the math says it isn't true. Math doesn't care about your feelings, it cares about reality. His numbers look nothing like Miller's. Miller's worst season since becoming a full time NHLer is better than Jake's best season. When he was Jake's age he was outperforming him by a wide margin. There is no comparison between a guy that has always been greater than .5 PPG average (except for seasons when he was an AHL player with injury call ups to the NHL) and a guy that has generally been a .25-.35 PPG player in the NHL. Even if their numbers were similar, you can't extrapolate one player's progression and assume another player will progress the same way. Jake "could" become better more consistently, he hasn't shown it yet so the risk of that not happening is still much higher than the upside opportunity of it actually materializing.
  22. That is evidently NOT what I said. I said that he could quite possibly regress to his norm AFTER we pay him for his peak performance... making him a bad value. The slightly more ozone starts that Gaudette gets have nothing to do with Jake's performance at all as Jake wouldn't be on the ice with him for the times that make that difference. Jake gets the 5th highest ozone start % and the 5th lowest dzone start % on the entire team (with one of those 5 being Goldobin who played 1 game). He is being set up to succeed by getting premium minutes against lower competition compared with the rest of the team. He is also costing us on the defensive side of the puck even more than he is contributing on the offensive side. You also can make big mistakes by looking at season averages, look at his splits to see what season averages hide. If you break up his season, he wasn't faring any better than average in October, November, or now in January (which has so far been his worst month of PPG production this season which would put him on pace for a 30 point season). He had an excellent single month in December where he was almost a PPG that has skewed his season average higher. If you look at last year, his performance got worse statistically as the season went on, not better. He scored a full 7 points total after the New Year, and got most of his points (18) in the first half of the season before games got tougher and tighter. So you have a guy that is performing poorly for every month but ONE in more than a calendar year... so it makes it tough to make any claim that he is consistently improving. statistically it is absolutely pointing towards his December success being an anomaly. Just looking at the graph and removing any player or even it representing hockey, it would clearly show "special cause" variation rather than an improving trendline. I want him to succeed, and I really want to see how he reacts to being in playoff games and if it is easier for him to bring intensity in that type of environment. At the same time, he has absolutely earned his doubters and hasn't earned the praise he is getting for "turning a corner". There is even a great argument to be made that he is worth more in trade value right now than he would bring us in performance. The idea of a 1st round pick of his size with his wheels that "could" be a 20-25 goal scorer might be more attractive than the player he actually turns out to be which the numbers say is probably a 30-35 point guy. It is always risk and reward, and we certainly seem more risk adverse than reward focussed. We still lament Michael Grabner as the one that got away... and he has hardly been a stand out NHLer over the span of his career.
  23. Well, for several good reasons. One is that if we pay Jake that money, it means we are capped out and lose several other players like Tanev and Stecher and replace them with cheaper and crappier options which worsens our team. The other is that you could be paying that money for a disinterested guy who every year shows up to training camp out of shape and occasionally puts in some effort that gets him 25 points a season while costing more goals when he is on the ice than he produces.... Like what even his current high water mark numbers suggest. It is exactly the same reason you would have been rightly worried about Hutton getting a big top 4 D tier arbitration award after accidentally playing a lot of minutes due to injury. You are paying for a level of player that you don’t actually get. You can’t have success in the league with a bunch of players on inefficient contracts underperforming their cap hits. Beagle brings something different and is also clearly overpaid compared with his contribution.
  24. Says the guy who cherry picked a couple of stats to argue for years that Gudbranson was a top 4 D verging on top pairing territory. Between your history of being spectacularly wrong and JD Burke who has access to talk with many of the top analytic guys in the sport... I know who has more credibility. Using your favourite stats (Corsi and ozone starts) to defend Gudbranson, when all the other numbers that you ignored as unimportant, showed he was buried... Jake is getting oZone % starts higher than almost everyone on the team... higher than Boeser and Miller who are above him on the roster even. Combine that with a poor Corsi number and anyone with a passing knowledge of analytics would say the number show a lot of risk that it is a blip and not sustainable improvement. If you stratify pre-Roussel being put on his line in October and November, and then afterwards... it is stark how bad a season he was having until the last 5-6 weeks where he has been pretty great. That is a really short window to base your team’s cap future on. Everyone hopes he does well and can build on this. At the same time, if you consider the risk of a nasty arbitration award this summer that could cost us being able to re-sign either Tanev or Stecher... or replace them with anything more expensive than Rafferty and Benn... then there is real cause for concern and wondering if Virtanen is a guy you want to build as a core piece with.
×
×
  • Create New...