canuckistani
Members-
Posts
2,769 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Everything posted by canuckistani
-
I used to think the same. Then i decieded to use my science education to analyze the data myself. Rise in GHG does not explain the rise in temperatures. This can be mathematically deduced, since the heat capacity of CO2 and CH4 are known and an application of integral to the known mass of CO2 & CH4 yeilds what should be the rise in temperature. Yet, the temperature has risen more than what can be accounted via GHG gases, which brings us back to Milankovich cycles. They are the prime driver for climate change, has been for at least the last 3 million years. And everything is fitting the Milankovich cycle time-frame. Ice age records of the last 4-5 ice ages show that the gap between Ice age maxima and Ice age minima ( ie, maximal ice coverage of the globe and minimal ice coverage of the globe) stand on a 20,000-25,000 year cycle. The last glacial Maxima was 20,000 BCE. The end of the Ice age was 11,000 BCE. We should be at the peak or entering the peak conditions of global ice minima and so we are.
-
Err, Benn skates well too and also moves the puck. Its not like he is a black hole for offense, the man had 5 goals and 22 points in 81 games this season, all without a shred of PP time. This is at a higher rate than Tanev, Biega and actually at a better rate than Hutton, given how much PP time Hutton sees and has similar points to Benn. FYI Hutton has 70 points in 276 games over the last 4 seasons and is a -75. While seeing a ton of PP time. Benn has 64 points in 293 games over the last 4 seasons and is a +11. While seeing practically zero PP time.
-
Err, I said he'd fit well with Stecher and IMO he's gonna fit better with Stecher than Hutton or Hughes, predominantly because he can take care of his own end really well, which is a scenario where Stecher normally has done really well ( paired with a D who can take care of his own end). Because of UFA options. There arn't that many UFAs in the market. This isn't about a bucket list on how to get/target one player, its about how best to serve the Canucks defensive needs via the UFA market. He is more important than Hutton, predominantly because our left side is going to need at least one defender who can be rock solid at defending in his own zone. Hutton isn't that guy and its too much responsibility for a rook like Hughes ( its his goddamn first season coming up. He is an offensive D. Defensemen typically take longer to round out their defensive game than offensive ones, especially the offensively gifted ones). This is the base reason - providing a solid left handed defensive D in the mix- is the reason why he is, by default, more valuable than Hutton to this team, significantly so. Well yes, thats the objective of this whole thread - to provide 'cover' for our D-core to mature and bridge them over. Hence all the deals proposed are 2-4 year deals. In terms of our defensive prospects filling 4 of the six playing spots, Juolevi is at least 2 years away, Woo & Rathbone are 3 years away. This is the minimum timeline because you cannot expect a D prospect to straightaway make it to the top 4 role in his first season of the NHL, Woo & Rathbone are at least 1 more year away from their first season at the NHL, making it a 3 year process. Juolevi is realistically not going to be our 2nd LD this season either, he is at best, going to be the 3rd LD by the time the season is 90% over or be a regular injury filler guy who gets in anywhere from 25-40 games. This is why the idea is to find guys in the UFA market that can 'tide us over'. Btw, if Schenn is to be our 7th D, as he should be, I'd like to know which RD in the UFA market would be your pick for the 2nd/3rd RD spot.
-
Ok, fair about McQuaid. Um, Benn would be a great fit with Stecher. I get it that the game is more about puck support, but at the same time, we need the good old defensive D-man, especially in the playoffs. A player like Benn playing 2nd pairing minutes is more valuable than a player like Gardiner playing 1st pairing minutes because that guy may be way more offensive than Benn, but also ends up costing the team far more goals than Benn. We have a definite PMD in Hughes. If Edler does sign, then Benn rounds off the 3rd guy on the left side extremely well, being the safest of the three in his own zone. IMO, Benn's value to our team would be far better than Hutton's.
-
This is too simplistic. How many minutes someone gets, is also dependent on injury reasons and who else is in the team. If this team had someone like Hedman, Edler's PP time as well as PK time would plummet. McQuaid got less time in Columbus is because Columbus was beefing up for playoffs and wanted a 2nd pairing guy to play the third pairing ( as is routine in the playoff beefing up mode) , not replace a second pairing guy. Similarly, Benn played less minutes than Hutton because MTL distributed their LHD times evenly and Benn is not on the PP. Still, Benn is the clear-cut #1 in TOI for PK and in terms of TOI/GP he is on level terms with Shea Weber. And yes, their PK was worse, but its the east coast - they score way more goals than the west coast and that has to be a factor too. I'd say Benn is easily a much, much better defender than Hutton. Hutton is sligtly better in the offensive zone, but Benn is massively superior in his own end and that is primarily what the Canucks need to fill the void in.
-
Um, Benn and McQuaid are far superior to Hutton and Schenn. They both featured in top PK minutes for their teams, McQuaid for a playoff bound team no less. Benn has one of the best PK numbers last season in the entire league. Comparing them to Hutton or Schenn is like comparing Kadri to Bergeron really.
-
I said 9-12 because i am not sure the exact number. And yea, it makes sense, because playing a freak game here or there, like DiPietro played, shouldn't jeopardize a team's chances of holding on to you. In anycase, here is a link that talks about the NHL - NHLPA CBA on the definition of what a professional player is: https://scottshockeythoughts.com/2018/06/07/setting-up-seattle-an-in-depth-guide-to-the-expansion-draft-rules/ Relevant bit: "A Player aged 18 or 19 earns a year of professional experience by playing 10 or more NHL games in a given NHL season. A player aged 20 or older … earns a year of professional experience by playing 10 or more Professional Games under a standard player contract in a given League Year.” As you can see, Quinn Hughes' 18-19 campaign does not constitute a year of professional experience.
-
No. You must play 9-12 games at the NHL/AHL level for a year to be considered a pro for that year. Hughes played 5. He does not qualify for protection ( ie, he is exempt). If Hughes plays more than 9-12 games in 19-20 season at the NHL/AHL level, it will count as his 1st year as a pro. Only thing we did with Hughes by playing him 5 games this year, is burn a year off his ELC contract, thats all.
-
1 year deals are nearly impossible to fill a starting D-line roster with, unless they are the 6th-8th D. For 1st/2nd pairing D, you must have multi-year deals or play fringe players for the 1D role - which is suicide. I agree that if things go well, we should see OJ, Woo, Rathbone, etc. in the coming few years. However, we should not count them to be mainstays/regulars this season at the very least and not even next season. OJ is coming off a knee surgery and has missed the last 4-5 months of hockey. His goal would be to dominate in the AHL and be injury callup/6th D guy around Jan-Feb next year and hope to make it stick in the team by playing sheltered minutes in his first NHL season. Woo and Rathbone are near certainties to not be in the team this year and if they join the AHL team next year ( Woo will, Rathbone may as well) they will be on a similar trajectory as OJ is this year - play in the AHL next year to acclamatise to pro Hockey, do well and get call-up duties late in the 20-21 season. This means, except for QH and TS, we don't have any of the kids who are definitely on course to play a full NHL season the upcoming season and will most likely be transitioned into the top minutes (if everything goes well) over the next 2 seasons. Which means, at bare minimum we need cover for at least 2 seasons from the older Pros. Give them 3 year deals to provide more stability and if required, trade or waive them if the youngsters are really knocking on the door hard.
-
We don't need two year deals for some cases.We need it for Edler, unless he wants to re-sign something similar to a 3/4 year 5M deal with no NMC. Hainsey may agree to a 2 year deal, since he is 38 and he won't be seeing offers much longer than that, given the 35+ rule in NHL. Same goes for Schenn - a guy who made less than 1M and played in the AHL most of last year would be quite open to a 2 year 1.5M deal IMO. Coburn, McQuaid and Benn in my proposals are all 3 year deals, could be offered a 4 year deal. Their proposed salaries could be handled by the Canucks ( 3.5-5M), especially in the absence of Edler.
-
No $hyte sherlock. Until July 1 rolls around, we don't even know who is available and who isn't. I'd have liked to sign Polak but he just signed in Dallas. This is obviously a speculation as any prior to July 1st threads are. However, IF these players are available come 1st of July, we'd be in a stronger position than most teams to go after them, given we can over-pay them more than most teams can.
-
Let us tackle the issue of Canucks defense and see what would be the optimal results, both in terms of trading away the defense we already have and recruiting the ones we do not. As of now, there are only two players (D), who are a near-lock/certainty for starting the next season in Canucks uniform: 1. Troy Stecher (RD) 2. Quinn Hughes(LD) That, I am afraid, is only 1/3rd of the pie, less even, if you factor in the requirement for having 7/8 D who can fill in for injury. Our depth in injury-filling position constitutes of : Briesebois (LD) Sautner(LD) Chatfield(LD) Juolevi(LD) Rafferty(RD) Biega (RD) Elliot(RD) Make no mistake- these guys are not there yet in terms of playing extended games for top minutes, but at least, we have a bit of a revolving door for LDs to fill in. Rafferty is our only RD who is likely to be an injury call-up. Woo won't be, because due to his age and WHL rules, he either makes the team from the get-go, or he joins after his junior team has been eliminated/won the juniors. And though it'd be a welcome surprise, lets not count on a 19 year old D making the team from the get-go. The Canucks will not want to stall his development by making him the 7th D for many nights and not being able to send him down also hamstrings the team's roster management. So, back to the problem. Here are my solutions: 1. Keep Tanev for now. I know people want Tanev to be dealt, to get returns for him and not lose him for nothing, like we may lose Edler for nothing. But all said and done, the team needs him right now to not have the bottom fall out, he missed the last half of last season, so his trade value is low. At best, trade him around Dec-Feb window if the team is not in a strong playoff position for a higher value. This addresses the starting night roster issue. 2. Sign Schenn for a one year/two year deal at around 1.5 million. Schenn has proved that he can effectively offer what Gudbranson was offering, on a slightly more consistent basis, though his 'good nights' were not as good as Guddy's, his bad nights were, in fact, rarer. He shouldn't be a starting D, but should be a 7th D, used for rotational use in our lineup. 3. Sign Adam McQuaid. Lets get a skinny on him and why I like him: He is 32, will be 33 in October. He is 6'4 and 210 pounds and has consistently been in the top 4 for both Rangers and the blue jackets in terms of hits & blocked shots. Effective Penalty killer, too. He also occasionally fights and holds his own - IIRC he had two fights last season, both where he did quite well. He is in essence, the big, strong abrasive D we need for the immediate future, to balance out the team. He also made 2M/yr last contract. So offer him a 3 year 3.5M-4M deal. Yes, it may be overpayement, by a bit, but we can afford it and we'll need to sweeten the pot to come to a non-playoff/barely playoff team. This rounds out our Right D side as: Tanev Stecher McQuaid Schenn 4. Sign Jordi Benn. He is basically a left handed Tanev with slightly more hits thrown and slightly less blocked shots. Sees 2nd D minutes but is one of the top PK-ers in the league and is a safe guy in his own end. Decently mobile, pretty much average in the O-zone but takes care of his own side, which is more important. He made a measly 1.1M/yr last contract and is due a raise. Also a BC boy, so might be enticing for him to come home at the age of 32. I'd offer him a 3 year contract at 3.5-4M and that should do the trick. Its again, a bit of an overpayment but again, we are going to need a safe as a bank guy manning the left side, especially if Edler does not sign here. 5. Now the Big pickle. Edler. From what I've gathered, he wants to retire here and apparently wants a NMC to protect him from the Seattle Expansion draft. The Canucks definitely shouldn't hand that out, given that we can protect ONLY three D if we also want to keep our forward core intact, with two of those spots likely being Stecher and Juolevi ( hopefully). Thankfully, neither Hughes nor Woo qualifies for the expansion, so we don't have to worry. IMO, the ideal scenario for Edler would be to give him a 2 year 7.5M deal as an overpayment to keep him here till the next generation D-core is ready to take over and bridge the gap, while also giving him 'cash insurance' for having no NMC. IMO there is a conceivable way for us to give him a NMC, but ONLY if he takes a serious hometown discount - something to the nature of 4 years at 3.5M with a NMC can be worth it, IMO. However, if Edler is not there, we need a PMD who can munch minutes and play the left side. The pool is thin this year in the UFA market, but there are a few options: Hainsey and Coburn would both be a short term fit, as would Kronwall, though I don't think Kronwall will leave Detroit this late in his career. Gardiner will be too expensive, will require too much term and will be too error prone for the tighter western conference style. Both Hainsey is 38 and making 2.4M while Coburn is 34 and making 3.7M. Both can be lured potentially with a 2 year 5M contract, 3 year in case of Coburn. Kronwall, if a possibility, would be a 2 year 5M offer as well IMO. This gives us the D-core of: Edler/Coburn/Hainsey/Kronwall Tanev Hughes McQuaid Benn Stecher Schenn These are the 7 D-men who, IMO crack the roster, with the following AHL D-men filling in for injuries: Briesebois Rafferty Sautner Biega Chatfield Eliot Juolevi This raises the question of, what about Hutton ? IMO, its time to trade Hutton, especially if we can package him with another player to snag a high 2nd round prospect. IMO Hutton will be a good 3rd pairing defenseman going forward, who may peak out for a few years as a trusty 2nd pairing, but he will never be a solid 2nd pairing who peaks out to shoulder top pair minutes, because his defensive zone awareness is not very high. He has strength, he has decent speed and good reach but is predictable. What do you folks think ?
-
Trans individuals are killing female sports
canuckistani replied to sam13371337's topic in Off-Topic General
Thats not what he is saying 'who cares' to. He is saying 'who cares' about identity. And he's right. Your own identity is irrelevant to other people, same as mine is irrelevant to other people. Our identities are complex,unique and not part of a group-think. -
Trans individuals are killing female sports
canuckistani replied to sam13371337's topic in Off-Topic General
I am not calling the person anti-gay, i am calling the position anti-gay. when it comes to potentially screwig up a kid's life, you better be sure your position is the right one. There are no take-backs in this, even at the mildest level. -
Trans individuals are killing female sports
canuckistani replied to sam13371337's topic in Off-Topic General
Mate, i am in my 40s. I am not always right. And i am happy to accept I am not right when the evidence demonstrates so. I can cite a whole host of psychologists and psychiatrists from the world over who strongly disagree with any gender reassignment drugs or surgery or such for teens. -
Trans individuals are killing female sports
canuckistani replied to sam13371337's topic in Off-Topic General
Sure, and that too, is 100% wrong. A transition for a kid is morally & ethically wrong, regardless of who makes the decision. Explain how its over the top. By doing gender-reassignment before their 20s, you are effectively telling the more than 50% of trans-curious teens, who de-transition and become homosexual (in most cases, very few stay heterosexual after self-detransitioning), that their option to be a cis-gendered homosexual is off the table. That is anti-homosexuality. -
word is Dahlen is headed back to Timra in Sweden and apparently someone in the Canucks brass 'suspected as much'. If so, this is a 'make lemonade from lemons' situation for us.
-
Make him an offer he can't refuse to 'tide over' the expansion draft concerns. Ie, give him 2 years at 7.5 million. yes,its overpayment, but it gives us a good PMD to mentor QH and potentially OJ, while it puts 8 mil in edler's pocket once taxes are paid. Thats a win-win.
-
Trans individuals are killing female sports
canuckistani replied to sam13371337's topic in Off-Topic General
Bingo. It doesn't matter what one thinks their identity is. Its their personal business and it concerns nobody but themselves and those in intimate relationship with them. What matters, is if identity gets in the way of fairness in competetive aspects of professions. Just because I am <insert identity here> doesn't make me any more/less entitled to a job i am going for. And if its in aspects of sports, well what one thinks their identity is irrelevant to the biological determinants that are acting as controls in the sport. Males should not be allowed to compete with females in a female sport for the same reason a fully functional personal shouldn't be allowed to compete in paralympics. -
No, they are both equally bad. The dump at ladner qualifies into top 5% of land in Canada for cultivation. No, that is the 'out of sight, out of mind' bias talking. Koreans don't exactly have a humongous domestic market to help out, but they dominate the global heavy industries scene. I agree we should be resource exporting nation. But why stop there and take the lazy way out ? we have decent education institutions for higher education, decently skilled labor force and we are one of the prime pro-immigration nations. We are primed for being a manufacturing powerhouse and that is the ticket to far greater economic wealth & stability in the long term.