Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Bissurnette

Members
  • Posts

    2,500
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by Bissurnette

  1. Like Beagle Ferland can go on LTIR. Beagle plays 4C and has 2 more years remaining at 3 mill. Sutter has one year remaining after this year, he can play 4C and be that leader and faceoff guru. Plus he can still be an effective 3C in case of injuries. Sutter was playing 4C before games were suspended anyways. Sutter's contract expires at the end of next year when Hughes and Petey are due for a helluva contract, so you'd have both Sutter and Beagle off the books by that time. That said, I highly doubt they'd give 2 compliance buyouts. One buyout per team is much more likely imo.
  2. My apologies, some personal stuff going on and I was kind of taking a break from CDC. Stay safe everyone. Let's see if we can pick this discussion back up, if you are still so inclined. Rebuilding is changing of the guard and building a new core that gives the team a good shot at Lord Stanley with the right supporting cast. We've acquired the new core more or less, aside from one or 2 players that are still coming imo. Namely, Rathbone and maybe one of Juolevi or Podkolzin. We are on track - aka it's not done yet. This core is not ready to really compete for a cup yet. Even if they did have cap space to bring in good support players. The core is still too young and they're the ones driving the bus to win in the Playoffs. BUT imo we do have a very good young core that is capable of eventually giving us a good shot at winning the cup. Would you agree? That's why some of us are saying that the cap hits you are worried about are not as debilitating as you are making it out to be. They are all good character guys, no reports of any locker room cancers, just good leadership, most of whom were capable players when they were brought in. Eriksson hasn't worked out since the beginning but at the time he was signed he was supposed to be a top 6 player. Sutter and Baer were very capable players at first when they were brought in but injuries took their toll. Myers is a less than ideal #4 (#5 on a good team), but he also provides good leadership and deflects some attention off the young guys so they don't have to take on too much before they are ready. Seems to me like you are upset about the contracts themselves as opposed to the philosophy of bringing in veteran leadership in to usher in the new age. Am I on correct with that remark? I realize what you're saying regarding the contracts, but the thing is you can't bring in all 4th liners to show the kids how to be consistent competent players, and if you need to bring in good players, which we did, you have to pay $$ and term especially when you want them to come to a rebuilding team. And we did need to bring them in because again, we are NOT competing for the cup right now. Nobody thought Hughes and Petey would make the impact they have made so far in their young careers. Nobody thought they can elate the team like that right away. Young guys typically don't do that. Keep that in mind when you are thinking about those contracts, which again will be off the books when the team is ready to be a cup contender. Markstrom and Tanev are the priority imo. I'd rather keep Tanev than Stecher because we have a lot of young guys coming up on the backend that could replace Stech, but you can't expect any of them to match up against the opposition's top line right away. And we need someone to matchup against top lines if we don't want to take a step back. Virtanen is an RFA so we don't have to lose him for nothing if the cap doesn't allow us to re-sign him. While he's turned into a good player, he's not irreplaceable. There could be plenty of takers for Sutter at 30-50% with 1 year remaining on his contract so we could potentially also bring back Toffoli. I also firmly believe that Eriksson was not going to return next year... obviously I don't know for sure but retirement and "advising" could have very much been in his future. I don't think he's too keen on coming back and playing here for another year either. Who knows.... Anyways, yes the contracts could have an impact on us losing one player to free agency, but is it catastrophic enough to break the team or for it to be a "failed rebuild"? Not by a country mile. Which leads me to my next point. Do you think we are building a good enough core with key pieces that can eventually give us a shot at the Stanley cup? I called you impatient because of the "failed rebuild" remark. You called it a failed rebuild after 4 years of no playoffs. There is no way anybody should be saying that at this point, especially not someone like you who's been around for a while. I don't mind your attitude regarding the losing. It absolutely sucks. BUT it's not unexpected, and it's only been 4 years of no playoffs. If they don't make the playoffs this year - if we have playoffs with all this Covid19 BS - then that would be incredibly disappointing considering the position they were in before Marky went down, but again not something that unexpected in the grand scheme of things and not something that can't be rectified next year. But I think we're in a good position to come out of this rebuild in about 2-3 years. Sorry @The 5th Line, believe it or not I actually tried to keep it as short as possible
  3. Happy birthday Motter!! What a huge part of this team he's been. Hugely underrated, love his drive and his engine, he sets an example for the rest of the team.
  4. So it's a half-assed/rushed rebuild but you want the vets off the books so that we can compete now? It's not a rushed rebuild, because it's not over. You're misjudging the phase of the rebuild we are in now. I don't know why you or anyone else would think that. Nobody from the organization has mentioned anything other than we want to play meaningful games in March and make the playoffs if possible. That's the expectation. So far they're meeting those expectations as far as I'm concerned. It's a transition period. We're not competing for the cup now, so we don't need them off the books now. We need them off the books in a couple of years when we are out of the transition period and we're making an actual push for the cup. You seem like someone who's been around the block so I gotta say I'm a bit surprised that you are getting impatient after 4 years of no playoffs. And yes of course I'd be very disappointed if we lose out on the playoffs this year because we were in a good position to make it. But would I want them to clean house after 1 year of coming up short? HELL NO. Did we spend to the cap every year? I seem to remember 1 or 2 years there where we had 10+ million in cap space? Regardless, it's Aquilini's money and see my comment above for why I found the comment a little ridiculous. Probably shouldn't have used the term ridiculous though, I'd like to keep the discussion civil so I apologize. Once again the eternal pessimist in you just can't help but rule over you. What if we didn't get unlucky and move down 1 spot in the 2018 draft, and drafted 6th overall instead? Based on the JB fist pump in the video, I'm guessing we would have taken Hughes at 6 over Zadina. What if they took Hughes? Maybe we'd take Brady Tkachuk then, and end up trading a 1st and a 3rd for a young top 4 dman, instead of Miller. You think we keep getting lucky in the draft to get the players we got, I think we keep getting unlucky in the draft and keep making the best of it. Where would we be if we didn't keep moving down spots in the draft. Where would we be if we moved up 2 spots in 2016 and got Auston Matthews instead of moving down 2 spots. Where would we be if we even stayed at 3 and drafted Pierre Luc-Dubois? The what-ifs game goes both ways. But I don't like hypotheticals, and you're complaining about HOW we got Quinn Hughes. Sounds to me like you're going to find something else to complain about. I care that Hughes, Pettersson, Horvat, Miller, Demko, Markstrom, Gaudette, and Virtanen are here and the future is looking bright. Is there a GM that you were actually happy with since you've been a fan? All your complaints sound very picky to be honest. You want to be in the GM chair and you're upset that they didn't follow the exact formula you laid out for them, and therefore they're doing it wrong and therefore the franchise is in the sh*tter and it's a failed rebuild. Were there ANY moves that JB made that you approve of? Do you like the team? Do you think we can be a good team that can compete for the cup with the young players we have?
  5. Most of these vets will be off the books in 2 years when we are ready to really compete. I don't even know where to start with your second statement. I like you as a poster because you're a straight shooter, but I can't think of another term to describe it other than ridiculous. See first line re Louis Eriksson (he might be gone even sooner).
  6. @189lb enforcers? Answers below. Well on this Canucks forum most of us are Canucks fans But fair enough, and that's probably a very key point that drives your perspective. Can't argue too much with your points here, I was also not too happy with the direction they were taking at first. I think we all had the term rebuild in mind but there was the entire ridiculous saga of not acknowledging that we need to start the rebuild. I'm honestly not too sure who's to blame for that one. You can probably point the finger in every which direction. Ownership, Linden, JB, management team, rabid market etc. The ridiculous quote by Linden about "owing it to the Sedins to make another push" still bugs me. But ownership is the biggest culprit imo so I've moved past it. I also agree that the moves to have this team play bigger and tougher are MUCH needed moves to supplement the skill. You need size and grit up and down the lineup to win in the Playoffs when the refs put the whistles away. Ah, that's where we disagree. I believe the philosophy used in the rebuild is a very effective one and the fact that you like this current team tells me that you're not that bitter towards it. It's not the one you, or many others - including me - had in mind at first, but I can see that it's working. And looking back on the years, I can see a plan and I can definitely make sense of the approach they're taking. I believe you're assuming the worst about management if I'm being honest. Seems like you think they are hapless individuals that just lucked out with building the new core and the new culture of the team. I don't think it's by accident that they took the approach of always pushing the team to win. That's the rebuild approach and that's why they kept acquiring all these free agents you really have a disdain for. Instead of bringing a Kole Lind up to play top 6 minutes and inevitably fail because he is not ready, they brought in a Vrbata or a Vanek to shoulder the expectations of this market while someone like Lind is marinating in the minors until he's ready to come up - and if he never shows signs of being a capable top 6 NHL'er while he's developing in the AHL, instead of having a bust we could have a potentially useful asset in a bottom 6 secondary scoring role or in a trade. Part of it is also dictated by the empty cupboards he was left with after Gillis was gone (thank GOD). LOL at Gillis saying he would have taken Larkin... But I digress. Believe it or not, again the market plays a role too. You are 100% in that not all owners would support this rebuild model but then again, other owners and markets and franchises come with a different set of circumstances surrounding them. So I'm not as sure as you that JB would follow the same approach.
  7. @189lb enforcers? I know you've had a lot of posters coming at you with replies, but I haven't had a chance to read too many of them because it's a long thread and I don't want to go through all of it well because I'm lazy Can your stance be essentially captured by the following statement: "Look at both the negatives and the positives of what this regime has done in their tenure, not just the positives?" - or something along those lines. Am I correct? Or do you want to elaborate more? Maybe there's a post you can direct me to that more accurately represents your stance?
  8. Many of us forget, that this is the first year the team was aiming for the playoffs coming out of a rebuild. Oh, and also we are STILL in a playoff spot. I made a post regarding getting rid of Baumgartner after the loss to Arz, and instantly regretted it. Thank you for the very reasonable and calm approach. It is a much needed perspective on these boards.
  9. Problem isn't green. Problem is the defensive system and that's on Baumgartner. If they can get rid of him I think that would go a long way into fixing our woes. Our defense corps isn't bad. Edler, Tanev, Hughes, Myers, Stecher and Fantenberg are all pretty competent defenders but the system they're playing isn't enabling them. The forwards play a decent style of hockey that gets us a decent amount of goals most games, but other teams are playing tighter checking games down the stretch and we're not which is the difference. That's on Baumgartner, not Green.
  10. I appreciate what you're trying to do here VH, but he's done. Let's move forward here.
  11. 3 very young centers who are all well above the 0.5ppg mark. Madden didn't have any room on this roster. Pod and Hog are taking winger spots, and JB saw him as a winger because let's face it there aren't too many 150lb centers in the NHL. I'm just seeing he's probably an NHLer but his projected ceiling is probably a very undersized middle 6 winger. Useful, but nothing irreplaceable. That's why I'm happy with the trade. Toffoli is a gamer, and he doesn't disappear in the playoffs.
  12. I don't know I could have sworn he was listed as 5'11" or something like that at one of the sites I checked and then I went on NHL.com (which gets their height and weight listing from the team's websites) and he was listed as 6'1" there. Who knows, who cares... Wasn't Bieksa listed as like 6'2" 215 at one of the "tale of the tape" size comparisons in one of his fights at the Garden?
  13. We better play them physical. We're not winning if we get into a skills competition/track meet with them.
  14. I'd like to see Tryamkin play with Hughes for a bit this year when he comes over to see what we have. Tryamkin could fill in Tanev's shoes fine nicely next year then we don't have to bring in help from the outside to replace Tanev in case he walks. Then it wouldn't be a huge loss if Tanev walks either. Plus we have some dmen knocking at the door such as Juolevi, Rafferty and Rathbone, I'd like to see them get some time with the big club if not this year, then next year for sure. EDIT: That's not to say that they might not go out and try to find outside help, and I would get it if they want to shore up the depth, but I'd like to see them look internally before spending assets.
  15. Clearly not, nor should he. We have enough prospects ahead of him on the depth chart and we were in a position to deal one to get some reinforcements. Really good trade. Also kind of glad we didn't get Barrie. We have an offensive stud in Hughes and Stecher is a lot better defensively than Barrie which will help more in the playoffs. We have Myers as well as Edler who are all puck moving Dmen. No need for Barrie. Hope we don't go after him this summer either - no cap anyways.
  16. Holy trades galore :o

     

  17. That's a Bruins 6'1" - I believe he's actually closer to 5'10" or 5'11" at best... that said he is a good middle six player but I would rather have Ritchie in my middle six especially in the playoffs. He's a nuisance to play against. Although if Heinen thrives with more ice time on the Ducks that could change my perspective.
  18. Oh I see what you mean, you're referring to Eriksson getting paid as a player but holding a front office job? I mean let's face it it's an exception but I don't think JB will think twice about it if it means getting his cap hit off the books
  19. Doesn't have to be... he can warm up the pressbox and slot in when there are injuries.
  20. Haha most players are paid more than the GM... I think GMs contracts are usually less than 2-5 million range... so there are a LOT of players already making more money than GMs (and coaches).
  21. It's honestly not as bad as people think. There are only 2 years left on his contract after this year. There are so many ways around it... 1- Your suggestion of an "office job" 2- Let him play out ONE more then buy him out in June 2021 - Cap hit would be 4 million for year 1, then 1 million for year 2. This is the best option imo aside from mutually agreeing to terminate the contract. 3- Let him play out one more year then trade him OR trade him this summer (50% retained for both options) - shouldn't cost an arm and a leg and we would still be saving 50% of his contract on the cap. Although if you do that this summer, he would still cost a 1st and a really good prospect to get rid of. 4- Mutually agree to terminate the contract and/or retire because let's face it he's pretty much done and I think he knows it. He could finish his career in the SHL as well. He gets to keep playing and be closer to home. 5- Make a deal with Seattle to take his contract and at that point he would only have 1 year left - although might be tough to swing that considering we might have a couple of good players exposed that Seattle would prefer. His contract turns into a modified NTC this summer where has can submit a 15 team no trade list. I don't think he'll have 15 teams on it... Opens up some options. That's just off the top of my head so I'm sure I'm forgetting other solutions...
×
×
  • Create New...