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

Nikita Tryamkin | D


Drouin

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, stawns said:

Baer is good defensively and can easily slide to the third line.

I don't disagree with you Stawns

 

But, I see Baertschi as expendable, as to me it is a saw off....he has value, he is offensive, he can play defense, but I do not believe he is what Benning wants to build around.

 

If he had not signed Ferland and Miller, and drafting so many forwards....also, age and concussions are coming into my position on him.

 

It is not that he would not help, it is just the line up is getting longer, and he isn't moving up, as players are passing him in a projection basis (aka looking forward)

 

No doubt he still contributes, but to me it is who we keep and who we move

 

I think as we get closer to a playoff team, Baertschi value to the team is loosing steam...…...he is not built to be a playoff warrior, IMO

 

His talent and playmaking abilities make him valuable, his age, durability, and our depth make him expendable

 

Same as Sutter, and Tanev to much the same degree...………….I mentioned Markstrom, which is just that he will want upwards of 5+ Million next contract, again IMO

 

So, although this is a Tryamkin thread, it is all inter connected IMO, and for every player we add, I think there will need to be a subtraction, and that is not just off the bottom end

 

as those players, don't necessarily replace the players on the first 2 lines, and visa-versa

 

The question is, how much does Benning value these next 2 years, because even Tryamkin is starting to have a shorter shelf life, considering he would be termed as 

 

unproven, again...…(that 3 years didn't help him at all, contractually $$$) 

Edited by janisahockeynut
  • Cheers 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/30/2019 at 10:12 AM, aGENT said:

Not sure where people get this thinking from...

 

 

It's weird that Gilman was so widely known as our capologist, but you have to do some serious digging to find out who our current capologist is. I Googled it and found nothing. Anyone know who this person is??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, VIC_CITY said:

It's weird that Gilman was so widely known as our capologist, but you have to do some serious digging to find out who our current capologist is. I Googled it and found nothing. Anyone know who this person is??

Gino Odjick. We're in good hands!

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, VIC_CITY said:

It's weird that Gilman was so widely known as our capologist, but you have to do some serious digging to find out who our current capologist is. I Googled it and found nothing. Anyone know who this person is??

Who ever it is should be replaced after the Ericksson contract. Gilman was way to smart. A lawyer by profession he read contracts with a jaundiced eye. One thing I always liked was I was told if an agent called to talk contract Gilman would never do it and would call the agent back after he had prepared and familiar with the terms. Only then would he discuss detail 

Edited by Fred65
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Fred65 said:

Who ever it is should be replaced after the Ericksson contract. Gilman was way to smart. A lawyer by profession he read contracts with a jaundiced eye. One thing I always liked was I was told if an agent called to talk contract Gilman would never do it and would call the agent back after he had prepared and familiar with the terms. Only then would he discuss detail 

Loui's deal was fair market value at the time

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, VIC_CITY said:

It's weird that Gilman was so widely known as our capologist, but you have to do some serious digging to find out who our current capologist is. I Googled it and found nothing. Anyone know who this person is??

I think “capologist” is mostly a media-created term anyway. I doubt you’ll find anyone listed as a capologist in an NHL front office/hockey ops. But Jonathan Wall originally took over many of Gilman’s duties. And Benning has also delegated most CBA related matters to Chris Gear. I’d imagine those two handle “capology” for the Canucks. If I were to speculate, Wall probably handles tracking (likely with some junior staff member doing day-to-day number crunching), and Gear is there for risk management and legal expertise, when it comes to finalizing contracts, and long term planning assessments, when it pertains to club salary/cap. I don’t think the Canucks have somebody on the payroll as a “capologist” but between Wall and Gear, and their subordinates, they have cap matters well in hand. Gear specifically has seen his role and influence grow in recent years, when it comes to contracts and CBA issues, as Benning continues to delegate many of the matters where he’s had some earlier missteps.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gilman was well respected  by the league hence when they looked at setting rules for the expansion ( Vegas) the league hired Gilman  to review and set the detail. That's why the Leafs hired him to review their Cap mess and he has for the most part done a lot to rectify that mess. One smart dude

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Fred65 said:

Oh yeah? what exactly did we get. A contract that was impossible to trade

You can't retroactively go back and judge a contract that was signed at market value at the time.  Whatever happened after the contract is signed is irrelevant to your statement on the management of the cap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, stawns said:

Seems to me like he never once considered the long term implications of his "genius".

Gillis and Gilman did not care about the long term as they were "going for it all" at the time. That was the goal, so the long term was deliberately sacrificed on the altar of "now".

Why consider the future when the organization was about winning now.

With different goals comes a different plan. Gilman was and is far from stupid.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, gurn said:

Gillis and Gilman did not care about the long term as they were "going for it all" at the time. That was the goal, so the long term was deliberately sacrificed on the altar of "now".

Why consider the future when the organization was about winning now.

With different goals comes a different plan. Gilman was and is far from stupid.

I understand that, for sure, and it was a magical time, but I don't agree with all this "Gilman was a cap god" crap.

  • Cheers 3
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, stawns said:

I understand that, for sure, and it was a magical time, but I don't agree with all this "Gilman was a cap god" crap.

If you understand that then why say this?

"Seems to me like he never once considered the long term implications of his "genius". "

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, stawns said:

I understand that, for sure, and it was a magical time, but I don't agree with all this "Gilman was a cap god" crap.

Yea I’m sure he was a smart guy but the job can be done by many people. I think his real attribute was his relationships with other GMs and agents. He was able to negotiate better than Gillis who was a little more rough around the edges. They were a good balance.

 

Also you can manage the cap all you want but if GM hands out NTC it kind of limits what a capologist can do.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I'm tired of hearing the revisionist history on MG and Gillman. They pushed the chips all in and burned the future for a cup run. Thats fine, it nearly worked, but lets not pretend these guys had any kind of vision for the future, they didn't. We're still paying for it 8 years later. 

...mmmm...I don’t disagree with this take, they were definitely all-in, but everything about the Horvat deal was around creating the future.

 

Also, does anyone remember the Funky for Larry tshirts from after that Moore’s commercial when Ryan Walter was acting like a dweeb?

Edited by nzan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, nzan said:

...mmmm...I don’t disagree with this take, they were definitely all-in, but everything about the Horvat deal was around creating the future.

 

Also, does anyone remember the Funky for Larry tshirts from after that Moore’s commercial when Ryan Walter was acting like a dweeb?

I think we got Bo by accident. Gillis couldn't move Luongo so he shocked the NHL and moved Schneider instead. I don't think that was the plan at all from the beginning. 

  • Cheers 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, gurn said:

If you understand that then why say this?

"Seems to me like he never once considered the long term implications of his "genius". "

 

 

I can understand why they did it, but that doesn't mean I think it was smart or forward thinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   1 member

×
×
  • Create New...