Kristoffer Gunnarsson | D

[The Lock]

1 minute ago, Horvat is a Boss said:

 

We would get the picks by moving out contracts.

 

Also, players we draft don't have to be signed right away. We hold their right for a while until they prove their worth the contract slot. Not all of them would prove good enough anyway.

But those contracts we move out can arguably become just as good as the new contracts we sign. We then end up at a conundrum of who leaves.

[RetroCanuck]

1 hour ago, The Lock said:

Problem is, we can't sign them all. We are almost at the contract limit, so having more of these picks would be great, but then who doesn't get signed out of them?

 

Or do we then not sign the Stechers and the Tanevs on this team? (and my prediction is Rafferty might be another one of those from the little bit I saw at the end of the season, just throwing that out there).

Well there are about 8 contracts coming off the books this offseason and likely another 5 next offseason. Plenty of wiggle room for contracts.

[The Lock]

30 minutes ago, RetroCanuck said:

Well there are about 8 contracts coming off the books this offseason and likely another 5 next offseason. Plenty of wiggle room for contracts.

Yeah, but how many of those are going to prospects we already have, how many are going to this year's draft picks and how many are going to tryouts like Rafferty, etc?

 

Is there really as much wiggle room as you say after all of that is said and done? How many free contracts do we end up before the end of each year? Sometimes we even reach our max 50/50.

 

I like draft picks too but quality over quantity will always put us in a better situation. While you might be able to argue that more picks equals more quality, it also means we had to give something up to get those picks. People seem to think getting draft picks is easy and I totally understand that because they are not in that position. It's easy to look at trades that actually happen but there's always the negotiations we don't know about.

Edited May 18, 2019 by The Lock

[The Lock]

15 minutes ago, The 5th Line said:

 

You're saying having too many draft choices can be a problem because we can't sign them all?  Really?

 

Quantity can equal quality like you said, and these players don't take contract spots right away and when they do they come in on an ELC's which we all know is crucial in today's salary world.  How can we be a team that drafts a league minimum amount of times and have too many many prospects?  Having a quantity of prospects isn't a conundrum, that's when the quality ones rise to the top.

They don't take contract slots right away, but they still need to be signed 2 or 3 years down the road. Not to mention, that entire point gets thrown out the window if you want this to happen every year.

 

I know you are a big proponent to wanting to get more picks, so I'm not surprised you are replying here, but you still have to give things up to get those picks. While the overall quality of your prospect pool might go up, your overall quality of your team might not due to trading for those picks. If you are in a cap situation like Chicago for example, this could work because you need to trade players to stay under the cap anyway, but we aren't in that situation at the moment and the players that people are calling for us to trade likely won't get us what you guys think we'd get.

 

It's all about who you pick in the end over how many you pick. If you trade for more picks but don't pick them right.... well then you've made your team worse.

 

Basically, I'm of the stance where if we get more picks than great, but if we had to pay the price to get those picks then I wouldn't be as happy. I guess it would be me then being bitter while you getting excited. Wouldn't that be a switch.

Edited May 19, 2019 by The Lock

[The Lock]

Just now, The 5th Line said:

 Okay I couldn't disagree more with all of this. 

 

Again you're making it sound like having too many young players who are worthy of contracts is a bad thing.  Those are called assets, they are good for many reasons

 

The problem is we have been worrying about how good our team is when we should of been worrying about restocking the cupboards. That's what a rebuild is.  We have went with the older player strategy and it has failed, we still have been near the bottom every year.  Now the excuse is they are here for mentorship...all those millions spent and draft picks squandered for veteran leadership eh.

I think perhaps you're making too big of a deal out of this.

 

We went with the older players while not having a young team ready for them. If anything, now is the time where we could actually use veteran players and insure us not going the direction of something like Edmonton.

 

Perhaps you couldn't disagree more with that either, but I don't see how your strategy even gets us those picks to begin with if I'm being honest. It's easy to be all gung-ho saying "let's get those picks". Great. You've made a decision like some young guitarist saying "I'm going to get signed and be in a rockband." So.... what now?....

[RetroCanuck]

10 hours ago, The Lock said:

Yeah, but how many of those are going to prospects we already have, how many are going to this year's draft picks and how many are going to tryouts like Rafferty, etc?

 

Is there really as much wiggle room as you say after all of that is said and done? How many free contracts do we end up before the end of each year? Sometimes we even reach our max 50/50.

 

I like draft picks too but quality over quantity will always put us in a better situation. While you might be able to argue that more picks equals more quality, it also means we had to give something up to get those picks. People seem to think getting draft picks is easy and I totally understand that because they are not in that position. It's easy to look at trades that actually happen but there's always the negotiations we don't know about.

When your drafting is quality and your in a rebuild phase I don't see what the problem is. Let me try to break down a hypothetical contract situation in the next 2 years.

 

This offseason will see Dorsett, Pouliot, Gaunce, Pyatt, Laplante for sure off the books with McEneny, Kero, Boucher, Leighton also most likely gone.

 

Therefore, lets assume we clear out 8 contracts. Currently there are no prospects ready for ELC's except a small chance our 20129 1st rd pick will be signed soon. One would assume Benning signs a few UFA's and therefore we have 5 contract spots open to start the season.

 

Spooner, Schaller, Tanev, Biega, Bachman will all most likely be gone within the next year. Edler, Kielly, Granlund, Hutton, Goldy could all possibly be gone within the next year.

 

Obviously there are a lot of moving parts but even after signing Rathbone, Lockwood, Madden etc we have at least 5 free contracts going into next offseason.

 

 

[86Viking]

22 hours ago, The Lock said:

Problem is, we can't sign them all. We are almost at the contract limit, so having more of these picks would be great, but then who doesn't get signed out of them?

 

Or do we then not sign the Stechers and the Tanevs on this team? (and my prediction is Rafferty might be another one of those from the little bit I saw at the end of the season, just throwing that out there).

While those players look like a decent pick, we need the non 1st round selections to be able to make the leap into the NHL sooner. Look at Vince Dunn in STL, man I wanted us to draft that kid. We have lacked any real contribution from any drafted player that wasn't from the 1st round. If we had some better luck or more picks to increase our chances, here is hoping soon some of those players mentioned can join us and contribute right away

[MeanSeanBean]

10 hours ago, RetroCanuck said:

When your drafting is quality and your in a rebuild phase I don't see what the problem is. Let me try to break down a hypothetical contract situation in the next 2 years.

 

This offseason will see Dorsett, Pouliot, Gaunce, Pyatt, Laplante for sure off the books with McEneny, Kero, Boucher, Leighton also most likely gone.

 

Therefore, lets assume we clear out 8 contracts. Currently there are no prospects ready for ELC's except a small chance our 20129 1st rd pick will be signed soon. One would assume Benning signs a few UFA's and therefore we have 5 contract spots open to start the season.

 

Spooner, Schaller, Tanev, Biega, Bachman will all most likely be gone within the next year. Edler, Kielly, Granlund, Hutton, Goldy could all possibly be gone within the next year.

 

Obviously there are a lot of moving parts but even after signing Rathbone, Lockwood, Madden etc we have at least 5 free contracts going into next offseason.

 

 

Oh wow... I totally forgot that was a thing.

[Kootenay Gold]

1 hour ago, shayster007 said:

Oh wow... I totally forgot that was a thing.

Tom and Taylor Pyatt.... Hope you have not confused them Lol.

 

[MeanSeanBean]

1 hour ago, Kootenay Gold said:

Tom and Taylor Pyatt.... Hope you have not confused them Lol.

 

Oh how could I forgot ol' blue eyes...

[J-P]

So unfair to rob us of the opportunity to see a future D pairing of KG and Tryamkin ;-)

[-Vintage Canuck-]

 

[dpn1]

Could KG still be signed in Utica?  I wonder if his game would be more suited to a smaller ice surface in NA.

[canuckpuckluck1]

3 hours ago, dpn1 said:

Could KG still be signed in Utica?  I wonder if his game would be more suited to a smaller ice surface in NA.

I think his game might be more suited to soccer....with a net that big he might be able to rack up a few more points!

[Rob_Zepp]

On 5/18/2019 at 5:35 PM, The 5th Line said:

How can we be a team that drafts a league minimum amount of times and have too many many prospects? 

Do you even follow hockey or simply post to appear obtuse?   If you have a maximum of 50 professional contracts (per terms of most recent CBA) and 23 of those are your NHL roster maximum, you can have, at most 27 professional contracts for "others" inclusive of all leagues.   Exact language from CBA is " A team may not have more than 50 players under contract at any point during the season. This limit includes players on injured reserve or long-term injured reserve."   

 

If you draft 7 players per year, you would fill all those contracts in 7 years.   All of them.   That is without any trades and assumes no former players could have careers that lasted that long etc. etc.   That assumes no free agent signings (remember, though it always seems lost on you, that you can sign and trade for prospects too not just draft them).   The reality is that teams need to constantly shift contracts in/out and ANY NHL team that averages two NHL players from each draft, and four professional contracts, is doing very well.    NO TEAM averages 7 professional contacts out of a draft (your MINIMUM you keep noting for some bizarre reason - picks are assets and trading picks for other assets is still dealing with assets).    

 

I have no clue why I take the bait with you  - perhaps it is out of a sense of duty that hopefully some understanding may take root in the desert in spite of a lack of food and water to grow in.

[Rob_Zepp]

On 5/29/2019 at 6:47 PM, The 5th Line said:

Rob I've crushed you in every debate/discussion we have ever had.  You're a proven liar.  You have literally no credibility on this board.  

 

You are misinterpreting the context of my comment.  We don't have a loaded cupboard of prospects to the point where we actually need to draft less because we are overloaded..which is what the poster I quoted was claiming.  

 

Great insight as always.  I'm guessing your assistant contacted one of your sources who then personally sent you an email of those CBA rules.  You opened the email while travelling from Germany to Finland during your scouting assignment?  Something like that?

 

  I think you need a new dictionary for the word "crush" and to have a debate, the other party has to know you are debating.   With you, I just find your stalking around threads cute and your general lack of knowledge about the game kind of adorable given the number of posts you have made.    Please keep it up, pure comedic gold.

 

You now tracking my travel in addition to stalking on the internet?    Cool.    Nice to see you upping your game.     Just give me fair warning when the restraining order is worth considering - I think that would only be fair of you to do.   

 

Oh, and the Canucks are at/near their contract maximum so needed to make some hard decisions on kids they didn't see as part of their future given the contract number restrictions.   I know that is difficult to understand - sorry about that.   

[dpn1]

17 hours ago, Rob_Zepp said:

 

  I think you need a new dictionary for the word "crush" and to have a debate, the other party has to know you are debating.   With you, I just find your stalking around threads cute and your general lack of knowledge about the game kind of adorable given the number of posts you have made.    Please keep it up, pure comedic gold.

 

You now tracking my travel in addition to stalking on the internet?    Cool.    Nice to see you upping your game.     Just give me fair warning when the restraining order is worth considering - I think that would only be fair of you to do.   

 

Oh, and the Canucks are at/near their contract maximum so needed to make some hard decisions on kids they didn't see as part of their future given the contract number restrictions.   I know that is difficult to understand - sorry about that.   

My understanding is that they were at 50 contracts now and on July first the have a few coming off the list then

[EP Phone Home]

Can’t offer ELC’s to prospects when we are up against the contract limit and yes after drafting a player I believe you have 2 years to decide to give them an ELC or they become FAs or go back into the draft just as Matt Brassard is doing. And unfortunately picks like these have no value for trades so we end up cutting bait as every team does with their prospects that aren’t panning out. I remember there was a time that the forum was losing their collective poop about not signing Jordan Subban before he would be eligible to go back into the draft. We did sign him where he was serviceable in Utica but never able to make it to the show. Knowing what we know now, it’s worth a giggle to look back on. Anyhow I didn’t ever think Gunnarson was going to be an NHLer (mind you JB did say he will play) but you still have to pick someone with these late picks. Wish him the best in his hockey future or he could always become a model or some bad guy in a Steven Seagal movie. 

Edited June 1, 2019 by EP Phone Home

[Rob_Zepp]

On 6/1/2019 at 3:52 PM, dpn1 said:

My understanding is that they were at 50 contracts now and on July first the have a few coming off the list then

Yup, my guess down to about 45 to 47 to allow some room for moves (inclusive of signing 2019 picks that can sign).

[RetroCanuck]

9 hours ago, Rob_Zepp said:

Yup, my guess down to about 45 to 47 to allow some room for moves (inclusive of signing 2019 picks that can sign).

Should actually be quite a few more then that.

 

Dorsett, Pouliot, Gaunce, Pyatt, Laplante and Mazanec  all will be gone

 

Kero, Boucher, Leighton and McEneny   are all potentially gone as well.

 

Also the possibility of buying out one or both of Schaller and Spooner, but Id rather just waive them for Utica.

 

Therefore, we should be down to about 42-44 contracts at the beginning of July.

 

Plenty of room for UFA signings (Stralman+Connoly), NHL draft pick signings and other free agents (Priskie)