Schedule

June 22, 2023

55 minutes ago, SilentSam said:

OReily

Maybe.... but that's Freidman stirring the pot

June 22, 2023

6 minutes ago, Gurn said:

Did Drance say something about P.A. indicating that Miller is going to be a 'shutdown' guy next season?

I missed stuff as I was going between my car and my home computer

He said that Miller was used as a shutdown guy last season. They don't really have a shutdown centre. That's what they're looking for at 3C. It's going to be a tough find tbh.

June 21, 2023

2 hours ago, Hairy Kneel said:

Until we sign someone like Soucy we have Wooly, Breezer, Burrz, Hiho, and maybe Woo-zy

What's a better nick name? Woozy or Woops? Woopsy?

June 21, 2023

1 hour ago, DrJockitch said:

I wasn’t arguing for Hanifin. With Hronek here we can’t afford his $5M much less his raise.

I guess that I mis-understood.

I think that they'll be ok with Hughes, Hronek, a couple of mid level salaries and a couple for 2M or less. That's how I think they should structure the D salary-wise.

Of course Myers is likely gone at the TDL

June 21, 2023

4 hours ago, DrJockitch said:

In a pre-salary cap world that makes sense or if we are a team that was even close to being a playoff contender.

What does Hanefin want when he renews in a year? $4.95M next year and then what? The moon!

I'd rather pick up a couple of supporting defenders who could fit into the top 4 at $3M or so

June 21, 2023

2 hours ago, NUCKER67 said:

The Future?

Pettersson

Danielson

Raty

There's no telling about Raty but if this is the plan, whether Danielson is the pick or somebody else, it would be a good one.

In the short term, Miller would be the 2C and they still need a 3C until this years pick is ready to play in the NHL. Longer term, Miller moves back to wing.

I just hope there is a plan, not riding by the seat of someone's pants.

June 18, 2023

6 hours ago, Devron said:

He’s on the market because of cap constraints guys..

Remember when the Canucks picked up Hronek? Half of CDC lost it because they finally had cap space and immediately used it. Granted, they used it for a great need.

Is a depth forward a great need? No.

Whatever cap space the Canucks have, if they use it, it absolutely must be for a great need. 3C or top 4 D.

June 18, 2023

16 minutes ago, chon derry said:

I’m not saying smaller guys can’t do it what I am saying now that bears down and OELs gone we need some help on the back end more now than ever and since we already have what benson brings it doesn’t make sense. I mean they needed help on the back end with both bear and OEL in the lineup. positional need. Big dman please.

Ya, I read that Willander is likely. I'm ok with that

June 18, 2023

1 hour ago, Diamonds said:

You may be completely right that they explored all trade options and this was the last option remaining. However, if that's the case it just shows how incredibly poorly Allvin and Rutherford read the market when they told us at the trade deadline that they didn't make more trades because based on their talks they thought they could make them in the summer.

It's certainly possible that we get a better return now for Garland/Beauvillier/Boeser as we aren't as desperate, which would be nice, but that doesn't ease my mind that they read the market horribly.

I think that it's complicated. I am only guessing that they have been unable to make trades to free up cap. It makes logical sense and Allvin said that he'd rather not buy anybody out.

I think that normally, it is easier to make deals in the summer because cap restrictions are not the same as during the season. However, this year, Bettman has said that he's going to remain tight with the cap again and only allow it to increase by $1M which puts the Canucks in tough since they're the only team above the cap. So nobody is going to toss them a life preserver, they will try to take advantage of the situation. We'll see what happens moving forward.

June 18, 2023

6 hours ago, chon derry said:

I don’t disagree both bigger players as well as smaller players drafted are a gamble. The smaller player being the bigger gamble. The bigger player having the edge in making it. Now that’s something that’s been proved out over time. Avg height 6’1 200 lbs is a figure that’s been faily consistent over time.

Here's a website that has charted stats since 1915. 72" = 6 feet. Avg height has been around 73" for since the early 90's but weight peaked in 2003 at 206.3 and in 2014 was 201.2. I imagine this is due to changes in training.

NHL Player Size From 1917-18 to 2014-15: A Brief Look | Hockey Graphs (hockey-graphs.com)

June 17, 2023

59 minutes ago, chon derry said:

I’m not saying it’s impossible. But chosing smaller players when larger ones avail. Makes no sense. I’m old enough to remember Stan Jonathan kickin the crap out of Pierre Bouchard , Bouchard yielding 6 or 7 inch’s to Jonathan. That’s rare ! But back to the “ few” post. The average nhl player IS 6’1”. So taking the chance on the smaller player is the bigger gamble weighed against the majority of bigger players.

I'm going to chime in here because as a former rugby player (ya rugby, not hockey) and as a front row forward, size meant weight not height and the advantage went to the player who had more mass and a lower centre of gravity. So in hockey, height means reach which is important but so is strength with respect to board work and net front work. For example, Elias Pettersson is 6-2 176 and I consider him to be small. He's going to learn to deal with it like the Sedins did but he isn't pushing anybody around. On the other hand, Nils Hoglander is 5-9 185 and is much stronger on his skates. I don't see him knocked over nearly as much as EP.

As for winning Conn Smythe trophies, I think there's more to it than size. There are plenty of supremely skilled smaller players in the league today.

June 17, 2023

20 minutes ago, D-Money said:

Yeah, but he was 30 then, and finally getting a fresh start on a new team. He turns 32 next month. What is more likely? That he recreates that modicum of success? Or that he is somewhere in-between decent and horrible?

He's not starting the season with a buggered up foot like last year so he should be better. Having said that, the free cap space clearly outweighs the dead cap hit over 8 years

June 17, 2023

9 minutes ago, ilduce39 said:

I hate being a wet blanket but I didn’t spend the last few months saying this was a dumb move only to pretend to love it when it happens.

That said, there are for sure some positives.

-I rooted for OEL but never really his fit on the team as an LH PP guy stuck behind Hughes.

-Now we can keep (or at least not pay to give away) players I actually like in Boeser, Garland and Beauvillier

-this makes the offseason way more interesting as it really seemed like we were stuck before

-way less likely to move the 11OA as part of a trade down cap dump

-Maybe we can find the cap to keep Bear (I like Bear)

-most importantly: maybe Allvin has a master plan to leverage the league cap crunch and we get a key piece out of this somehow some way

I wasn't for the buyout but now that I'm getting used to the idea of it, I'm not as strongly against it as I was.

Allvin did say that he was against buying players out. This was after Rutherford said that if they couldn't free up cap in other ways, that buyouts would be on the table. I think that they have exhausted other ways to free cap space before taking this route.

I think that you're right, there is no longer a great need to "give away" assets for cap space. Whether this means draft picks, the 11th OA or prospects like Hoglander or Podkolzin.

I still think that future moves should be modest in light of the difficulty they've surely experienced in trying to free cap space. Make no mistake, buying out OEL is a big deal and maybe a last resort. They would be foolish to give all the free cap ($6.4M) unless they're adding more than 1 important piece who fits with their long term goals. What I mean is a top 4 D and/or a 3C.

June 17, 2023

Just now, Jaimito said:

This is what Sekeres wanted. He's not looking happy. Maybe he's stunned.

June 17, 2023

8 minutes ago, Drakkon said:

F it, Myers next please.

If there were takers on Myers, we wouldn't have seen this buyout.

At least now, they just need to add a LD which are much easier (and cheaper) to find than a Myers replacement.

June 17, 2023

2 minutes ago, Brad Marchand said:

It was honestly pretty damning that the Canucks could play AHL call-ups and college free agents in OEL's place and not look any worse.

I really don't have as much problem with this as other people do because I'm not at all optimistic that he'll ever be worth his most recent cap hit ever again. There was no universe where the Canucks were gonna get out of his contract for free. The dead salary from the buyout was gonna either stay on the roster in the form of OEL or be removed at the expense of other premium assets (picks + prospects). At least now they have the certainty of knowing they can use whatever space they have to put the guys they want in his place.

Are you saying that enjoying Wolanin, Hirose, Briesbois in the final months of the season was nothing but an illusion and that they really aren't any better than OEL. The only advantage would be their lower cap hit

June 17, 2023

1. The most cap relief comes in the first year, when the Canucks need it the most. In subsequent years, the cap is expected to go up a lot so the pain will be mitigated by that.

2. It's pretty clear that there is no market to move over paid players or otherwise poorly allocated cap on their own such as Boeser, Garland, Myers, Beauvillier etc. Management has deemed that the cost of moving such players would be prohibitive by stripping the team of draft picks or young assets like Hoglander, Podkolzin etc. These are things that the Canucks are still, 9 years since Benning was signed on, in short supply of prospects in the pipe line.

This is a case of, you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't. At least they now have some wiggle room. Here's hoping that they use it wisely.

June 17, 2023

All I can say is impatience got them into this mess and impatience is going to get them out of it..... in 8 years

June 15, 2023

Montreal is sitting with the 5th OA pick, taking Reinbacher would certainly not be BPA. Why wouldn't they set themselves up with a really good centre? They've been crying for centres for years. I just don't see it anyways.

The top 3 RHD's are going to be picked higher than they are ranked. The question is, how high?

I'd like to see the Canucks take one of the RHD's at 11 but a really good player may fall if teams go off the board and take one of the defenders and the Canucks will benefit. Most of the scouts that I've heard interviewed are predicting that at least 2 of the 3 will go in the top 10. Nobody is suggesting that the Habs might take one though

June 12, 2023

2 hours ago, chon derry said:

Acquiring hronek drops Myers need to play in the every situation role he was being expected. I don’t expect hronek to change OELs game with reduced expectation. Simply because of his position. But maybe? Bigger players tire Faster. Seeing Myers flop around in the slot area was pardon the pun getting tiresome. But that’s exactly what it was. Him playing to the point of exhaustion. Adding hronek will alleviate some of that. ( fingers crossed)

Agree, playing Myers 15-17 minutes instead of 22-24 mins might make a world of difference. They still need to move on from him though.

Does Hirose make it as a regular?

Looks like Bear is getting shoulder surgery.

June 10, 2023

6 hours ago, eeeeergh said:

He'd be ok 16-17 minutes a night if he wasnt part of the shutdown pair

Probably decent as Hughes' partner 5v5, and then Peeke takes some PK time as well

But i dont see him as a upgrade over Bear, except size/grit.

Only reason id do this deal is to shed cap. But if we did it, it means Bear is on his way out which i dont like.

I didn't realize that Bear was injured at the World Championships and is debating shoulder surgery vs physio therapy. Surgery would mean missing a couple of months of the season

June 10, 2023

8 hours ago, Dazzle said:

See, that's the thing, I did watch the video. These are my takeaways from that video:

He quickly pointed out the dangers of censorship from the government that he himself would largely be immune to, given his public profile.

He said there's a lot of interpretation to what "insulting" means, which I agree with him entirely. His examples included some incidents involving a horse being called gay, among other ridiculous situations, all of which I agree are ridiculous.

The problem is that he doesn't distinguish hate speech and its effects on people. He has emphasized that an insult should be allowed (I have no issues with this), but he goes on to talk about "intolerance" and how it's trying to be controlled. THIS is the section where he gets himself into trouble, in my opinion. Just as the logic is that "insulting" is too broad of a category to describe something, racist/hateful language is definitely offensive and insulting (depending on what is said), but Rowan talks NOTHING about this.

He makes some good points about "free speech" and mentions that we should take responsibility for what we say. Sure, that's a great message, but in this video specifically, the people who use racist language will not care about that so-called responsibility. I'm not saying the law should intervene either. It's worth noting that his speech which was originally intended for 'mild' insults is open to interpretation, just as his claim that "insult" is too broad. What is mild to one person may not be mild to another.

When you think deeper as to how he expressed himself, there are more problems than there are solutions to his talk here. So let's just say someone said something racist, which another person took offense to. The first person could easily claim "it's just a joke bro". In my opinion, that situation is absolutely garbage and we don't want to see that. Rowan should've defined the boundaries on what constitutes free speech, but he didn't. Are we to assume that racist language should be allowed? The fact that he was silent on that front is crappy.

You're right, he could have defined the boundaries of his talk because they are pretty strict. The boundaries are limited to what the Reform of Section 5 dealt with. Insults alone. Not hate speech or racist speech. And I assume that the audience would have known this in 2012 UK. Most people don't have issues with most insults and people shouldn't be arrested for them. Section 5 was a poor law.

I understand that the part of the issue that you are more concerned about is hate and racist speech and Atkinson didn't even go there. But this is where all the real problems occur.

June 9, 2023

4 hours ago, J.I.A.H.N said:

I am so tired of all this.............

First off, our Canadian rights and freedoms are not Rights and Freedoms, but rather Privileges, that can be taken away if abused

Secondly....we have forgotten common decency, where you treat "All" people equally............not white, not yellow, and not green................all Human beings!

Thirdly........we do not punish according to the act, but rather the circumstance, it does not mater if you were born rich or poor, or white, or dark skinned, it simply should not matter

Fourthly......there is only 1 race.........and only 2 sexes, and you can think what you want, but you can only act as society wants or face the consequences.

5thly...........Societies rules are meant to be followed, and if you are an absolute minority, meaning there is not a major group of people wanting the same thing, then follow don't lead.

IMO, it all comes back to "Love thy neighbor" and what has happened is that has been distorted, to mean "Love those that agree with you"

All our troubles have occured because Race, Nationship, or religion

There is only 1 race

There is only 1 earth

and everyone is related to each other............all blood is red.............which is proven, decade, and eon, and millenia, over and over...............

Silly Humans!

Love thy neighbour

Thguac teg tnod tub

June 9, 2023

8 hours ago, Dazzle said:

We all understand censorship to be shutting down opinions that contradict a government's position. It is dangerous to allow censorship because it results in a one-way narrative (i.e. propaganda). However, this definition appears to ignore some elements, such as deliberate misinformation, especially when someone talks about COVID cures that have no scientific basis. Many websites (social media apps) have the ability to report that.

People say this is "censorship", but that is a very broad interpretation of that.

Being unable to use racist language is not censorship, buddy. What a crock position to take lol.

I've read on in the thread and have discovered that our opinions on the matter are not that different.

This video is from 2012 when in the UK, there was a Reform Section 5 campaign which, as it was written, allowed the police to arrest people for using insulting language which amounted to censorship. The campaign was about removing one word from the law, "insulting". It is not about racist language or hate speech at all. As a fan of Rowan Atkinson he is a master of the insult which is why he used his high profile as a celebrity to speak out on this matter. Atkinson prefers dialogue rather than censorship to deal with the matter and having the police arrest people is authoritarian and controlling. He goes on to say that dialogue is more useful at maintaining acceptable social norms than the heavy hand of the law.

I am in general agreement with Atkinson as far as he goes, but he doesn't discuss more extreme cases of hate speech. I can only assume, since he only wants to allow "insults", that he is in favour of allowing the arrest of people engaging in hate speech.

So when you criticize this video, and say he missed the mark, I think that maybe you hadn't seen the whole video at that point.

June 8, 2023

7 hours ago, Dazzle said:

I believe he spent some time deliberating how he should put these ideas into words; however, he missed the mark on some things.

Free speech does NOT mean racist language is acceptable. Racist rhetoric could potentially encourage violence and that is absolutely not acceptable. I seriously hate to use the word privilege, but he is out of touch because he is not one of the non-whites affected by racism.

Racist language, by itself, should not be tolerated by society. There is no benefit to bringing about racist language in a daily life. He might think this is a form of 'censorship', but that is absolutely a ludicrous position to take.

As for arresting someone for using racist language, that is obviously not justifiable, but arresting someone for foul language is not the same as intimidating someone with racist language.

Rowan Atkinson is an intelligent person, objectively speaking, but his position here is quite bad. Yes, he has the right to express himself, as he did here, but I thoroughly disagree with his lines of reasoning.

His position is NOT bad. Are you missing the point of the speech? He is arguing against a law that allows censorship. It is far more dangerous to restrict freedom of expression than for people to hear offensive language. We really don't need to muzzle hate speech because people on the whole are intelligent enough to recognize racist language when they hear it and will speak out against it. I for one, have no desire to live in a police state where I need to fear offending someone.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Events

Blogs

Gallery

Posts posted by Crabcakes