Rob_Zepp Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 3 hours ago, aGENT said: Without some trades, the amount of waiver requiring bodies all but guarantee he at least starts the year in Utica IMO. Even more so if we sign any UFA's. Personally I think they're going to send OJ down to let Hutton and Pouliot duke it out for that last spot (my money is on DP) and trade whoever they like least (*cough* Hutton) part way through the year (hopefully after at least showing relatively well and raising their value). OJ likely becomes one of the first injury call ups and gets called up 'permanently' after we move MDZ at the TDL. Why all the concern about waivers? If a player isn’t a fit, what is problem exposing them to waivers? Further, most other NHL teams have full rosters and are not looking for players that cannot make what was a lottery team. Name a recent former Canuck lost on waivers that would a difference maker moving forward....... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boudrias Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 2 hours ago, Alflives said: I don't accept this sending a guy to Utica (like we did to Stecher) because of roster problems. It's Benning's job to make a spot for a guy who earns it. If Olli earns a spot on our big club then he should get it. It's should be that simple. Every time JB sends a guy (like Stecher) to Utica it sends the wrong message to future players about our team. "Play your best, and earn a spot, and you will still get sent to the minors (and make a lot less money, ride buses, and the rest of it) while some verteran - who you beat out - gets the perks to stay." We can't have any more" You're [Stecher] not supposed to be here" (WD) comments. The best players should make the team. JB needs to dump the others. If that means losing a guy to waivers, so be it. Depends what you mean by 'earning it'. One could argue that Ben Hutton earned his spot in his rookie season. IMHO what that did was deprive Ben of a solid AHL grounding which would have benefited him over his career. Players can look pretty good on the surface but have parts of their game that are not ready. A strong development program with time in Utica can give young players a better shot at sticking in the NHL. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 2 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said: Why all the concern about waivers? If a player isn’t a fit, what is problem exposing them to waivers? Further, most other NHL teams have full rosters and are not looking for players that cannot make what was a lottery team. Name a recent former Canuck lost on waivers that would a difference maker moving forward....... Not particularly a concern. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurn Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 10 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said: Why all the concern about waivers? Asset management 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 4 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said: Why all the concern about waivers? If a player isn’t a fit, what is problem exposing them to waivers? Further, most other NHL teams have full rosters and are not looking for players that cannot make what was a lottery team. Name a recent former Canuck lost on waivers that would a difference maker moving forward....... its one of the favourite complaints of the "asset management" peanut gallery that thinks every move should result in a 1st round pick otherwise Jim's dim. I think the 'logic' is if you lose a guy to waivers its = to a failed trade opportunity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 6 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said: Why all the concern about waivers? If a player isn’t a fit, what is problem exposing them to waivers? Further, most other NHL teams have full rosters and are not looking for players that cannot make what was a lottery team. Name a recent former Canuck lost on waivers that would a difference maker moving forward....... But...but...but Frankie Corrado!!!!!! 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 1 minute ago, Alflives said: But...but...but Frankie Corrado!!!!!! he's an RFA... we could offer sheet for him.... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurn Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 7 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said: he's an RFA... we could offer sheet for him.... Maybe, hopefully not. Wonder if Bure is still fit enough to play on the PP? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 3 minutes ago, gurn said: Maybe, hopefully not. Wonder if Bure is still fit enough to play on the PP? Could be. I saw Kirk McLean looking at a set of pads at Sports Junkies yesterday.... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Herberts Vasiljevs Posted June 4, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted June 4, 2018 29 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said: Why all the concern about waivers? If a player isn’t a fit, what is problem exposing them to waivers? Further, most other NHL teams have full rosters and are not looking for players that cannot make what was a lottery team. Name a recent former Canuck lost on waivers that would a difference maker moving forward....... Zomgggg Aaron Volpatti and Frankie Corrado!! Terrible "ass3t manag3m3nt"!!! 1 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 1 hour ago, Rob_Zepp said: Why all the concern about waivers? If a player isn’t a fit, what is problem exposing them to waivers? Further, most other NHL teams have full rosters and are not looking for players that cannot make what was a lottery team. Name a recent former Canuck lost on waivers that would a difference maker moving forward....... If you could move a player for an asset it’s better than not receiving an asset. even if it’s a late round pick it better than no pick. If it’s sept and your looking to move a player. Good luck most teams are fully stocked. But if it’s june 23 and your at the draft it’s much easier. Canucks were extremely lucky no one claimed marky. That was a risk canucks didn’t have to put themselves through and very well could have ended up costing us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob_Zepp Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 1 hour ago, gurn said: Asset management Good asset management includes knowing when to let go.... 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob_Zepp Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 1 hour ago, Jimmy McGill said: its one of the favourite complaints of the "asset management" peanut gallery that thinks every move should result in a 1st round pick otherwise Jim's dim. I think the 'logic' is if you lose a guy to waivers its = to a failed trade opportunity. Uh, ok. Doubt many fans are that unknowledgeable but guess some newbies could see it that way. Sometimes losing a player to waivers is better than a trade - pro contract slots are valuable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 1 minute ago, Rob_Zepp said: Uh, ok. Doubt many fans are that unknowledgeable but guess some newbies could see it that way. Sometimes losing a player to waivers is better than a trade - pro contract slots are valuable. wait for it, the number of posts and/or threads on it at training camp time will surprise you. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob_Zepp Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 4 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said: If you could move a player for an asset it’s better than not receiving an asset. even if it’s a late round pick it better than no pick. If it’s sept and your looking to move a player. Good luck most teams are fully stocked. But if it’s june 23 and your at the draft it’s much easier. Canucks were extremely lucky no one claimed marky. That was a risk canucks didn’t have to put themselves through and very well could have ended up costing us. Pro contracts slot can be a valuable asset. Losing a player to waivers can be a good thing too. Every team gets “lucky” in the way you imply but, again, Vancouver has not had a track record of losing anyone either of long term value or even of likely to garner a pick value so, again, I think it is a vastly overstated concern by many. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 For the record, my concern isn't waivers (Hutton would likely pass if he's actually out played given his salary). Benning has worked hard to build up NHL capable D depth. I don't see him risking throwing it away on a 20 year old kid who likely won't be head and shoulders above those guys next fall anyway. Long term, absolutely. He'll only be 20. Part of the year, developing in Utica will be good for him imo. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 Just now, Rob_Zepp said: Pro contracts slot can be a valuable asset. Losing a player to waivers can be a good thing too. Every team gets “lucky” in the way you imply but, again, Vancouver has not had a track record of losing anyone either of long term value or even of likely to garner a pick value so, again, I think it is a vastly overstated concern by many. It’s not about the value of the player lost but about the opportunity for gaining value, missed by not moving a player prior. Would had it not been better to try and obtain even a 5th or a 6th round pick for Etem at the draft in 2016 rather than losing him for nothing 2 months later? Heck maybe he could have been added to a package in another deal to get a slightly better return. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanuck Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 1 hour ago, Rob_Zepp said: Name a recent former Canuck lost on waivers that would a difference maker moving forward....... I think the issue with losing players via waivers is that fact that generally speaking, in life, nobody likes to lose things they believe have value for absolutely nothing. And yes, I know your very next question/comment and it is a valid one - if they have no value then why are people concerned about it? That is the rub, you know as well as I do Rob that a LOT of people here, despite what they claim to know, have very little actual knowledge about the true value of any particular player - especially lesser known players who haven't been in the league long like the types of players generally put on waivers. These are the same fans that actually believe every guy we draft in every round has a legit chance of being a regular NHL player - the same guys that were, in all seriousness, penciling guys like Olson, Subban, Cassels (just to name a few) into our regular full-time line-up immediately after their respective drafts. So that's the problem, people's 'perceived' values of players directly impacts their concerns (or lack thereof in some cases) over losing players via waivers. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rollieo Del Fuego Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 If Joulevi is ready...and makes it hard to send him down, then he should play... They may still send him down for a few weeks until they can trade a D. or someone gets injured...or they may sit a veteran D. to get Oli into the top 6. Rotating Pouliot, Guddy and Hutton out of the lineup would make them more effective when they got back in and Oli could play 3 out of 4 games with the other 3 guys missing one each....that would be ideal in my mind ...and an injury to a D. is never far away....giving Oli more ice time. JB says he will be trying to get more picks so maybe this will be a mute point soon ....Tanev for a 1st is still possible... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob_Zepp Posted June 4, 2018 Share Posted June 4, 2018 21 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said: It’s not about the value of the player lost but about the opportunity for gaining value, missed by not moving a player prior. Would had it not been better to try and obtain even a 5th or a 6th round pick for Etem at the draft in 2016 rather than losing him for nothing 2 months later? Heck maybe he could have been added to a package in another deal to get a slightly better return. Always prefer something but these deals people imagine up are seldom there. Just because a fan base wants a pick for every player likely to move on, the reality is such moves are not easy to make nor are they common in terms of ratio of waived players to such trades. If you are a lower tiered team and you are thinking about waiving a player, chances another team will give up a future asset like a pick for it is not that high. It can happen but, again, it isn’t common. Compare waiver stats to picks for such players and it is a massive majority that just become waived. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now