-
Posts
11,729 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Everything posted by Provost
-
Getting Pouliot was a good idea. We got some use out of him, but he didn't work out, but that doesn't mean doing the same sort of experiment again doesn't work out. I think Rafferty is probably the RD on our farm with the most likelihood of becoming a regular NHLer, but in no way guaranteed. Sautner and Brisbois play the other side. I hope to see Tryamkin by the end of the season, but am not counting on it.
-
Ya, I think the people demanding he be a saviour are pretty off the mark. Starting as a 7/8... moving to a third pairing when we get an injury... if a team gets really lucky, he can find his way to be a #4 at some point. His salary is nothing and he isn’t in a poison to ask for a big raise. He has a good resume as a third pairing guy in Washington... he has been terrible in Detroit playing more minutes. It is probably a function of too much responsibility and a terrible team that doesn’t let him play within a structured system. I will be surprised if he doesn’t get picked up by someone, but there may be things we don’t know about. For is, he seems like he can fit within a Green style system. He can play a fast game that pushes the pace as well as a heavy, hard to play against game. We also may be looking at not being able or willing to re-sign one of Tanev or Stecher in the offseason, so some added club control depth on that side helps us in negotiations. It feels like Benning probably wouldn’t want to add more bodies right now, so his scouts would really have to push the idea. I don’t know how Ottawa and Winnipeg don’t put a claim in anyways... we will see in a few minutes.
-
You keep changing your tune with every post. You Are honestly ridiculous at this point. Teams pick up waiver wire players all the time. Their only consideration is whether those players are an upgrade to their existing roster. The decision will be made on whether the pro scouts decide he has enough upside to carry on the roster compared with our other depth guys... not that his low salary cost is too much to bear.
-
None at the moment. Bowey has faltered in Detroit as a 17-18 minute guy but did just fine in Washington as a 13 minute 3rd pairing guy. None of our depth guys have done close to that level of play and resume as of yet.
-
Again, you are confusing cap space with actual dollars. I never suggested that we would sign Bowery just to save cap space... I just told you that you are wrong in saying we couldn’t pick him up because we didn’t have enough space and would have to make a trade to fit him in.
-
We are not in cap hell at all. I would suggest that you go out and play with an armchair GM program. Any iteration of a healthy 23 man roster leaves us under the cap, regardless of who we have to bury to get down to that mandated roster. Don’t conflate actual dollars with cap space, it seems to confuse you and you are all over the map. This is all math, not opinion. Do the actual math rather than spouting off. The stuff you are saying about a Bowey making our cap worse is literally mathematically impossible, so yes you are wrong.
-
According to the practice lines today: Miller-Petterson-Boeser Pearson-Horvat-Leivo Roussel-Gaudette-Virtanen Ferland-Beagle-Sutter Until they have a bad game, they aren’t going to split up that 3rd line.
-
Basically any iteration of a healthy 23 man roster with extra guys partially buried leaves us with cap space. No emergency at all. The only worry is trying to keep well under the cap so we don’t have to push ELC bonuses into next year and cost us cap space next season.
-
Benn not on the ice today. Initial word is “illness” and will be re-evaluated later on. Things get scary on D pretty quick with a couple injuries, especially on the same side.
-
That is pretty much the decision. It has nothing to do with cap implications and only about what specific bodies are on your 23 (or 22) man roster. The short term decision would be whether Bowey is better to have than Eriksson. Pretty easy decision in my mind who I would rather have. The longer term decision is exactly what you suggest, the other bottom end roster players Schaller or Fantenberg... except that decision may never have to happen as it would necessitate us being fully healthy without anyone on LTIR. If anyone has been following the team for the last decade or so, they know that is quite possibly never going to happen. IF that decision ever has to be made, we still have the ability to ditch Bowey instead of Schaller if we don't like what we have seen to that point. I would argue that Fantenberg has looked fine and we are better off dropping forward, we have carried 8D for years because of how often our players have gotten hurt and how difficult it is to get an extra body here from our farm team in the case of a last minute illness or injury. Today is a perfect example. Edler is not back for next game, and Benn is now ill and a question mark to be re-evaluated later... which uses up our 7th guy Chatfield already. If anyone else gets sick or can't suit up for any reason on short notice, we have to start the game with 5 D and pray no one gets dinged up during the game. Compare that with the same situation on forward and it is really easy to cover the 4-8 minutes of that 12th forward.
-
Yes... Detroit possibly claims him back... which means no negative implication to us at all if it doesn't work out.
-
You are literally factually absolutely just wrong. There are no negative cap implications to picking up Bowey, it is just not true any way you spin it. I already explained it as fully as any person could possibly do. The only move we would have to make is a roster spot move to waive a forward... and we have the ability to do that easily. NO TRADES HAVE TO BE MADE TO FIT A GUY MAKING A MILLION DOLLARS! Biega was not traded because we couldn't afford him. He had already been waived and was costing zero on the cap. ZERO, nothing, nada. Benning even said he traded him to give him an opportunity. We actually took back a useless contract in order to be respectful and good to Biega who had been a great guy in our organization. The only even remote implication I already explained... if we ever become fully healthy we may have too many bodies and have to waive some guys. In that case you have seen Bowey for a while and can decide if he is better to keep than a guy like Schaller... if not then you waive Bowey. Even in that situation, you save money by keeping Bowey over Schaller... every possible situation equals Bowey being neutral (waived) or saving cap room rather than costing it. You are just completely missing the fact that Bowey is making less than what can be buried in the minors and anyone making more than him who is sent to the minors for that roster spot is going to save MORE than his salary.
-
Not true at all, we traded Biega because the team wanted to try to find him a landing spot where he could play in the NHL and not AHL. There are no cap implications to either Biega or Bowey. Their salaries are less than what can be buried in the minors so there is no cap downside at all. They simply replace another player who has that much or more salary buried and gets waived to the minors. As a matter of fact, there is slight cap relief by waiving a guy like Eriksson and carrying 8D instead of 14 forwards. You get to bury $1.075 million of Eriksson's salary and replace it with $1 million of Bowey's salary for a cap savings of $75,000. The only possible cap issue is if we find ourselves needing to only carry 22 players on the roster and not 23 players... so having both Fantenberg and Bowey would mean we couldn't carry a 13th forward. In that case, we can waive Bowey with no cap implication anyways and aren't worse off than if we didn't claim him.
-
Yep, that is absolutely the decision. I have no issue with someone who says they think our existing guys are a better bet... maybe true. I am more bullish on Bowey, thinking he has a pretty good chance of being a legit 6-7 guy and possibly even a 4-5 guy who can play in lots of different situations. I actually really like the idea of seeing how he and Benn would look as a pairing (assuming a RD injury).
-
Well after cutting out all the random Hughes and Bowey scouting reports you posted... It is not idiotic because it is a differing opinion, it is idiotic to use the logic that we shouldn't get players unless they are as good as Hughes. It isn't any sort of rational or reasonable standard to use. If Hughes was on waivers, teams would probably pick him up... if it cost a 7th overall pick to acquire Bowey right now... teams probably say no to that. It is apples to oranges and random nonsense to compare the two, the situations, cost, and expectations have zero overlap. The only meaningful comparison is Chatfield (or Rafferty/Teves) and Bowey... because that is the same spot on the roster we are talking about. Does Benning think Bowey has enough more upside than those guys to make a claim that otherwise costs us nothing. Also, the stuff about Gudbranson and "my" logic is pretty incoherent and also entirely unrelated to anything I said. Gudbranson is not a very good D, but if he was making a million dollars per year on an expiring contract.. he isn't a bad pick up for a team looking for a depth piece... AND he has had a lot more years of NHL development to show what he is. Bowey still hasn't had that time and still has way more upside than Gudbranson.
-
I could put up a video montage of mistakes any D made (including Hughes) as well, it is no sort of indication of the player. Especially since that video was made by a Washington fan right after he was traded out of Washington and in his first days on his new team. Making a comparison like you did to Hughes is honestly idiotic. No one has suggested that they expect Bowie to be a #1 NHL defenceman.... and guess what, the cost to get Bowie is not a top ten draft pick either! Let that sink in for a moment. No one is getting “a boner over this guy”, the question is whether there is more benefit than risk. Your post is simply making false straw men arguments that have nothing to do with the conversation anyone is having.
-
There is plenty of context, I literally put a bunch of it in my post. He has all the tools to be an NHL defenceman, and is of the same age range as our depth guys like Rafferty, Teves, Sautner, and Chatfield. The context of his NHL history is being on a really good team with no room for him to play much but was fine in the minutes he played, and then being on historically terrible team where a lot is being asked from him. On our team and on a lot of teams he would be in neither of those situations. The context from our side, I clearly stated. Zero downside risk... like absolutely zero. He gets carried as a depth guy to take a look at, and if we have an injury that necessitates him going in... the alternative to him would have been Chatfield who has a lot LESS of a resume. If he ends up being no good, he goes away with no lasting implications. The upside, a character guy that was a captain in junior, and could end up being a bigger, physical version of Stecher.
-
He is young enough and this year is such a tire fire for their entire team, it could easily be something completely situational. They are using him as a top 4 and maybe he can't do that on a bad team that needs to get bailed out a lot by their D... or at least right now. Also, he could just be terrible... but considering the zero risk of picking him up, it is only possible upside. Worst case scenario we have to waive him eventually and no one else picks him up so he used a contract spot for the rest of the season. We have a few contract spots still so it shouldn't be much of an issue.
-
I honestly don't know why you wouldn't put in a claim. Young guy with all the tools, completely in the mold of a new age D. He is a great skater and puck mover and has good size. Only makes a million so no cap implication if he doesn't pan out. Having a bad year on a team that is just entirely falling apart, playing more than 17 minutes a night. A better team with more structure and reduced expectations on him and things could turn around. All it would cost us is waiving a spare part forward (I am looking at your Eriksson) or sending Chatfield down. Zero risk, and lots of possible upside. We happen to have three old D in their 30's (Well Tanev is there in a week), and almost no D prospects in the system (Juolevi and Woo are real question marks, Tryamkin is not part of the organization and may never be). If you can build up Bowey as a 3rd pairing guy who can move up the lineup in case of injury and that is a really good thing for us. I doubt he would fall to us, as lots of teams need cheap depth D. Who knows if there are other red flags we don't know about, but I haven't heard or read anything. Edler-Myers Hughes-Tanev Benn-Stecher Fantenberg-Bowie Bowie would probably work pretty well in a 3rd pairing complementing Benn when Tanev gets hurt.
-
Ok, Sutter close... Motte skating. We had better see this guy get waived soon! If he decides to retire rather than spending 3 years riding the busses, it suddenly makes us one of the teams with the most cap space available. It makes no sense that we haven’t done it yet. We could leverage that at the deadline by either adding a rental, or taking dead money from someone in return for an asset. As long as any money we bring in comes off the books before Petterson and Hughes get re-signed, we can weaponize that space.
-
[GDT] Canucks @ Oilers, November 30, 2019 -- B2B Part 1 Edition
Provost replied to therodigy's topic in Canucks Talk
Woohooo..... Eriksson finally showed up as something aside from a zero on the stats sheet! A minor penalty... -
[Rumour] Devils listening to offers on Taylor Hall
Provost replied to -Vintage Canuck-'s topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
In an ideal world this works... but he probably wants a max 8 year extension for big dollars and that is just something to stay away from since it will also cost a boatload of assets. If he doesn't agree to sign an extension with any team dropping his value significantly, I would be happy to pick him up as a rental in return for Virtanen and roll the dice that we had some postseason success/meshed with the guys...and he wanted to sign in the summer at a bit of a discount to stay. Gamble, but the upside of it working is a lot more than the upside of Jake becoming a regular impact player. -
[GDT] Nucks @ Pens 27/11/2019 - 4PM Pacific - Live on SNP
Provost replied to xereau's topic in Canucks Talk
This is the kind of game that gets me really frustrated with Virtanen. Easily his best game this season and maybe even for a couple seasons. He can be dominant. Unfortunately it is almost certain that he disappears for 10 games after this. -
[Signing] Bruins re-sign Charlie Coyle, Chris Wagner
Provost replied to -Vintage Canuck-'s topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
Seems kind of rich for Coyle, a 15 goal, 40 point guy at best, and probably not that as he hits the wrong side of 30 in the latter half of that contact. I guess he “can” play centre or wing so is fairly versatile... -
Van & Nash(Proposal-discussion)
Provost replied to Nuxfanabroad's topic in Proposals and Armchair GM'ing
Don’t know about this trade specifically, but some trade of Loui and Turris is something interesting to talk about. There is every chance Turris becomes a useful player again in another situation. No chance at this point that Loui does. Tough to guess the risk/reward on what else would have to go either way to make it work. Extra term on Turris but an easier buyout. Maybe it is a homer position, but Nashville would have to add a fairly big asset for the extra term and/or retain salary to make it more even. Putting Turris on the wing on one of our two top lines gives a natural centre who shoots right and can take face off on his strong side while Petterson and Horvat shoot Left. Could work... he has been a solid 50+ point guy fairly consistently.