Calgary/Vancouver Evaluation - updated 3/29/21 - CAL TIED WITH VAN

[canuck73_3]

4 hours ago, canuktravella said:

like what break his foot or eat cap or get crunched in corners 

Just quit while you’re miles behind. 

[canuktravella]

2 hours ago, canuck73_3 said:

Just quit while you’re miles behind. 

  lol ok there bud   good thing benning didnt waste 4.5 mill more in cap on old vets but good for you for loving tanev 

[canuktravella]

7 hours ago, The Lock said:

What is "all he does" exactly?

 

I literally mentioned how he was our best defender often times and how he would often keep us in games. You merely stating that's "all he does" doesn't really say much here.

kool bro  well hesa flames now soo good luck with them missing playoffs  his none offense on d might help them miss playoffs 

[canuck73_3]

11 minutes ago, canuktravella said:

  lol ok there bud   good thing benning didnt waste 4.5 mill more in cap on old vets but good for you for loving tanev 

[DownUndaCanuck]

To try and bring a bit more optimism, there are some key aspects that mean we have a bit of a better chance of a decent 2nd half. Whether that's good enough to get into the playoffs is another question.

 

1) Pettersson finally scoring again, PPG in the last 20-odd games, he's finally playing better

2) Miller playing a bit better defensively (but nowhere near like last season still)

3) Hamonic back from injury and playing well

4) Demko finally playing like a starter and taking the ball

5) Not giving up as many odd-man rushes/breakaways against

6) Other teams going to have condensed schedules whereas we get more of a break and more practices

 

Right now we've got 22 points with 27 games played. Currently the 4th spot in the Division is sitting at 0.56% hockey. We're at 0.407%. Basically we have to play at slightly above 0.7% hockey (which is basically how good the Leafs have been) to make it into the playoffs. The caveat would be that if we win, we bring down the playoff bar a bit more due to the 4 point swing, so it might be arguable that 0.65% hockey would get us into the playoffs (if some of those wins are against Montreal/Calgary/Edmonton and losses against other teams).

 

Can this team turn it around and play at 0.65 hockey from now onwards? It's certainly possible. Even last season though when we were better than this season we were only a 0.565 team on the season and St. Louis were a 0.66 team.

 

It would be difficult, but with all these 4 point swing games and other teams going to be exhausted after condensing their schedule, anything could happen. We might not make the playoffs but I think it'll end up being much more competitive.

[Hairy Kneel]

After tonight's game versus Toronto, then it is our true midpoint. 

Let's win our halftime game. 

 

Edited March 6, 2021 by Hairy Kneel

[The Lock]

17 hours ago, canuktravella said:

kool bro  well hesa flames now soo good luck with them missing playoffs  his none offense on d might help them miss playoffs 

I'm perfectly cool. lol

 

I just don't agree with you and you have yet to really prove anything. You're entitled to your opinion, but it doesn't mean your opinion's correct.

Edited March 7, 2021 by The Lock

[lmm]

On 3/4/2021 at 4:20 AM, spook007 said:

True about the right pieces. But often this is only known with hindsight. 

The issue was the length of contracts bottom 6 players were signed to. If you are unhappy about them, you sure would not entertain the idea of signing Marky and Tanev to long term neither, just as you said. 

 

With regards to Tavares v Eriksson...  if only...... 

And with hindsight I would not have signed any $6M from 2017 (I can remember tbh who was available).

With regards Tavares vs Ericksson

i've received a lot of flack from the faithful who cannot understand a theoretical argument

 

I never said "could have"or should have" , but for me its a question of "would have"

I understand that not all deals are available to all teams, that was made clear back in Lindros' day

 

But IF Tavares is available you sign him, IF he is not you don't sign Loui Ericksson as a back up plan

you walk away, lick your wounds and keep that money for next time the deal is right.

 

This is where I have problems with JB.

 

As you recall, Jimmer went hard for Lucic in 2016, when that failed, Jim jumped for Ericksson. 

That is where the mistake was made

 

For your reference: 2016

Lucic

Backes

Ericksson

Okposo

Ladd

Nielsen

Campbell

 

the only good deal signed by a GM was Campbell for 1 year at $1.5M (his last year)

now I am not kidding myself into thinking that deal was available to Jim,( any more than Tavares) but it was the only deal that was good.

the rest you walk away from

 

Its like Jim had $6M in his pocket and he was going to spend it

If Loui signed elsewhere he probably signs Ladd

 

I only used Tavares as an example because no one else in that FA year was worth the $6M  deal either

[canuktravella]

3 hours ago, The Lock said:

I'm perfectly cool. lol

 

I just don't agree with you and you have yet to really prove anything. You're entitled to your opinion, but it doesn't mean your opinion's correct.

 doesnt matter if u agreee. 

canucks went with demko  and walked away from tanev they obviously werent willing to give him 18 mill over 4yrs and they probably miss playoffs in calgary

[Wolfgang Durst]

20 hours ago, DownUndaCanuck said:

To try and bring a bit more optimism, there are some key aspects that mean we have a bit of a better chance of a decent 2nd half. Whether that's good enough to get into the playoffs is another question.

 

1) Pettersson finally scoring again, PPG in the last 20-odd games, he's finally playing better

2) Miller playing a bit better defensively (but nowhere near like last season still)

3) Hamonic back from injury and playing well

4) Demko finally playing like a starter and taking the ball

5) Not giving up as many odd-man rushes/breakaways against

6) Other teams going to have condensed schedules whereas we get more of a break and more practices

 

Right now we've got 22 points with 27 games played. Currently the 4th spot in the Division is sitting at 0.56% hockey. We're at 0.407%. Basically we have to play at slightly above 0.7% hockey (which is basically how good the Leafs have been) to make it into the playoffs. The caveat would be that if we win, we bring down the playoff bar a bit more due to the 4 point swing, so it might be arguable that 0.65% hockey would get us into the playoffs (if some of those wins are against Montreal/Calgary/Edmonton and losses against other teams).

 

Can this team turn it around and play at 0.65 hockey from now onwards? It's certainly possible. Even last season though when we were better than this season we were only a 0.565 team on the season and St. Louis were a 0.66 team.

 

It would be difficult, but with all these 4 point swing games and other teams going to be exhausted after condensing their schedule, anything could happen. We might not make the playoffs but I think it'll end up being much more competitive.

another quality post from you. Thanks! Like reading your posts a lot.

[24K PureCool]

4 hours ago, lmm said:

With regards Tavares vs Ericksson

i've received a lot of flack from the faithful who cannot understand a theoretical argument

 

I never said "could have"or should have" , but for me its a question of "would have"

I understand that not all deals are available to all teams, that was made clear back in Lindros' day

 

But IF Tavares is available you sign him, IF he is not you don't sign Loui Ericksson as a back up plan

you walk away, lick your wounds and keep that money for next time the deal is right.

 

This is where I have problems with JB.

 

As you recall, Jimmer went hard for Lucic in 2016, when that failed, Jim jumped for Ericksson. 

That is where the mistake was made

 

For your reference: 2016

Lucic

Backes

Ericksson

Okposo

Ladd

Nielsen

Campbell

 

the only good deal signed by a GM was Campbell for 1 year at $1.5M (his last year)

now I am not kidding myself into thinking that deal was available to Jim,( any more than Tavares) but it was the only deal that was good.

the rest you walk away from

 

Its like Jim had $6M in his pocket and he was going to spend it

If Loui signed elsewhere he probably signs Ladd

 

I only used Tavares as an example because no one else in that FA year was worth the $6M  deal either

Pretty damn sure there was great pressure from both Aqua and Linden to do that deal from their comment at the time. Linden literally said it is not fair to the Sedins to not go for it.

 

That is a dead horse. I'll entertain the Sutter Beagle, Myers being overpaid though or Roussell and Ferland should never been signed. 

Edited March 7, 2021 by 24K PureCool

[spook007]

5 hours ago, lmm said:

With regards Tavares vs Ericksson

i've received a lot of flack from the faithful who cannot understand a theoretical argument

 

I never said "could have"or should have" , but for me its a question of "would have"

I understand that not all deals are available to all teams, that was made clear back in Lindros' day

 

But IF Tavares is available you sign him, IF he is not you don't sign Loui Ericksson as a back up plan

you walk away, lick your wounds and keep that money for next time the deal is right.

 

This is where I have problems with JB.

 

As you recall, Jimmer went hard for Lucic in 2016, when that failed, Jim jumped for Ericksson. 

That is where the mistake was made

 

For your reference: 2016

Lucic

Backes

Ericksson

Okposo

Ladd

Nielsen

Campbell

 

the only good deal signed by a GM was Campbell for 1 year at $1.5M (his last year)

now I am not kidding myself into thinking that deal was available to Jim,( any more than Tavares) but it was the only deal that was good.

the rest you walk away from

 

Its like Jim had $6M in his pocket and he was going to spend it

If Loui signed elsewhere he probably signs Ladd

 

I only used Tavares as an example because no one else in that FA year was worth the $6M  deal either

Cheers lmm...

Yes I actually thought this was the point, you were making.

And yes I do agree... I was actually excited for the signing, but I was massively wrong in that. Agree it was a bag of garbage and should never have been touched at those numbers... lesson learned.

I think everyone including Benning learned from that mistake...

Think there were plenty of reasons and together with giving Sedins a final swan song, I also think it was to appease the fan base...

 

The point I was making, was that I understood, why Benning let Marky and Tanev walk, instead of signing them to those long term contracts... And felt that there were posters complaining about the length and size of contracts handed out to bottom six vets, while still also being unhappy about JB letting Marky and Tanev walk... as I said, don't think you can have it both ways... But yes regarding Eriksson it was a massive mistake.

 

Hope you have as big a smile on your face this morning, as I do 

 

 

[IBatch]

On 3/3/2021 at 11:17 PM, Dazzle said:

This is exactly it, and people have been talking about Sutter and Roussell being signed for too long - yet they were under 30 when signed.

 

The amount of hypocrisy in the fanbase is amusing. Bashing a GM for not committing long term money, but bashing the same GM for long term contracts that anchor a roster.

Best post i've read in awhile.   For sure there is a significant chunk of the CDC that swings one way then the next - depending on the way the wind blows - sometimes threads are created that age very, very poorly - and what you've said about the amount of whining of the pickle we are in right now as a result of the dead cap space and slightly overpaid vets (like we are going to find a better player then Sutter on the one marker for 50% of his salary...doubtful) but we didn't sign more of them?  Hilariously accurate.

 

..OTT and Detroit are doing the exact same thing as JB did by finding placeholders for their teams...4.5 million for Gudbranson lol.   Yet Myers is overpaid (and IMO our best D this year anyways - playing tougher minutes then QHs, both special teams etc - tutoring OJ and isn't nearly as bad in our own zone then our young star is etc) ... lol.    Said it many times and will say it again, i'm glad we didn't re-sign any of these guys.    The timing isn't right.   Maybe spender Jim would have but there isn't any point in going there - if he could that is.   I hope not but nobody really knows even if you piece the tidbits together - some of those end up as false news and supposition created by some bad journalism. 

 

JB will for sure be looking at free agency again this season.   We don't have a third C without Sutter.   We don't have a bottom pairing ... or Edler .. maybe.  And folks will complain.  Or Pearson.     Even when we win they complain we didn't win a certain way or we were lucky.   And the coaches are always the problem after a loss, and never part of the reason we won.   It's hilarious. 

[Gurn]

12 hours ago, lmm said:

As you recall, Jimmer went hard for Lucic in 2016, when that failed, Jim jumped for Ericksson. 

That is where the mistake was made

Going after Lucic was a mistake, all on it's own.

 

[The Lock]

9 hours ago, canuktravella said:

 doesnt matter if u agreee. 

canucks went with demko  and walked away from tanev they obviously werent willing to give him 18 mill over 4yrs and they probably miss playoffs in calgary

Doesn't mean he's not worth the money though. It just means we weren't willing to pay it.

[canuktravella]

12 hours ago, The Lock said:

Doesn't mean he's not worth the money though. It just means we weren't willing to pay it.

 im ok not paying him it  and probably benning as well otherwise he would have 

[Hairy Kneel]

16 hours ago, The Lock said:

Doesn't mean he's not worth the money though. It just means we weren't willing to pay it.

Considering is injury history,  no he's not. And I think the playoffs require more physical D, especially a grueling 7 game slugfest. 

[The Lock]

13 hours ago, Hairy Kneel said:

Considering is injury history,  no he's not. And I think the playoffs require more physical D, especially a grueling 7 game slugfest. 

The thing is though, he wasn't really injured that much last season. Also, I think history has shown us that players can still get paid even with injuries. We don't even have to look far for proof of this. We just need to look at the current contract of the very man we are talking about.

[Hairy Kneel]

1 hour ago, The Lock said:

The thing is though, he wasn't really injured that much last season. Also, I think history has shown us that players can still get paid even with injuries. We don't even have to look far for proof of this. We just need to look at the current contract of the very man we are talking about.

It wasn't just injuries but the harder playing conditions in the playoffs.  Bigger forwards had there way with us in the tougher going. When whistles get put away. 

[CanadianRugby]

On 3/7/2021 at 8:28 AM, gurn said:

Going after Lucic was a mistake, all on it's own.

 

I'd boo that guy even in a Canuck jersey.