wallstreetamigo Posted April 21, 2021 Share Posted April 21, 2021 4 minutes ago, gurn said: ' It was reported" By who? Lot's of people saying he has a verbal deal, nobody seems to know who it was first "reported" by. I cant remember who first reported it. I will see if i can find out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad_BOI_pete Posted April 21, 2021 Share Posted April 21, 2021 7 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said: Burrows was on a 2 mil per contract during 4 of his best years. Luongo's contract was within the rules at the time and several teams were circumventing the cap signing deals like that. It only looked bad after the fact when the Canucks were retroactively punished by the nhl (while teamslike the Hawks and Red Wings were allowed to further $&!# on the spirit of the cba). Had Luongo himself not decided to &^@# the Canucks by retiring and done what many others have done by going on permanent disability, his contract would be a non issue. At the time, the cap hit for a top goalie was actually very reasonable, not an overpayment cap wise. The Canucks are a bottom dweller operating at the cap while 2 of its stars are still on elc. It doesnt take an expert to see something clearly isnt working. And its not a stretch to look at all the overpriced contracts on the roster to see what it is. My goal is not to prove anything to people on cdc. Why would that matter even? I know better than anyone what I actually know or dont and I am conpletely comfortable with that. lol, luongo didn't owe the nucks a thing, they traded him. you see all the other teams kept thier mistakes on thier teams. and also canucks were not the only team that the league made a example with. i think the lightning got fined 20M in real dollars, florida got punished for the retention on lous salary. suter,parise,weber these contracts are poop and hurting these teams right now 7.5m for parise yikes. 10m for toews. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad_BOI_pete Posted April 21, 2021 Share Posted April 21, 2021 3 hours ago, spook007 said: Maybe we should just let Pearson become 30 before we speak about a 30+ third liner... He may very well end up on the third line in the future, maybe even near future, but I'm sure that will depend on the progress of our prospects. If any of them are good enough to dislodge him from 2LW good on them... Regardless, get what you're saying. Any team is in it to win it, but our window is still not really open. Think another 1-2 years before this team begins to make serious noises. At that stage Pearson can be traded if needed, but I think Benning likes to keep some players around with experience. This summer and next, most of the 'old timers' will be gone and Horvat and Miller will be the senior leaders, while we are still bringing in youth. At that stage, the fact he is so defensively responsible, that he would make a lot of third lines better, should just be an advantage for Canucks. what if pearson goes marchand on us and pots 30 next year. some players get better with age. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad_BOI_pete Posted April 21, 2021 Share Posted April 21, 2021 21 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said: Burrows was on a 2 mil per contract during 4 of his best years. Luongo's contract was within the rules at the time and several teams were circumventing the cap signing deals like that. It only looked bad after the fact when the Canucks were retroactively punished by the nhl (while teamslike the Hawks and Red Wings were allowed to further $&!# on the spirit of the cba). Had Luongo himself not decided to &^@# the Canucks by retiring and done what many others have done by going on permanent disability, his contract would be a non issue. At the time, the cap hit for a top goalie was actually very reasonable, not an overpayment cap wise. The Canucks are a bottom dweller operating at the cap while 2 of its stars are still on elc. It doesnt take an expert to see something clearly isnt working. And its not a stretch to look at all the overpriced contracts on the roster to see what it is. My goal is not to prove anything to people on cdc. Why would that matter even? I know better than anyone what I actually know or dont and I am conpletely comfortable with that. does making the playoffs last year, and then play well enough to be in a playoff fight with 17 games remaining count as bottom dweller.? is st.louis a bottom dweller too? we beat them last playoffs and they have a very similar record to us this year.? again keep using descriptors that aren't true and you will be made to look silly. the team is not full up of bad contracts, does the team have contracts that look bloated? sure, all teams do. even your precious gillis. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted April 21, 2021 Share Posted April 21, 2021 8 minutes ago, Petey_BOI said: what if pearson goes marchand on us and pots 30 next year. some players get better with age. That would be awesome. Some get worse with age too though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted April 21, 2021 Share Posted April 21, 2021 Just now, Petey_BOI said: does making the playoffs last year, and then play well enough to be in a playoff fight with 17 games remaining count as bottom dweller.? is st.louis a bottom dweller too? we beat them last playoffs and they have a very similar record to us this year.? again keep using descriptors that aren't true and you will be made to look silly. the team is not full up of bad contracts, does the team have contracts that look bloated? sure, all teams do. even your precious gillis. I HATED Gillis bud. The Canucks only made the playoffs because of points percentage and a play in bud. They rode lights out goaltending to mask serious roster issues. St Louis played like garbage against the Canucks. Lets keep it real. They did not play like they did the year before while winning a cup. The Canucks played well against them though. Then only stuck around against Vegas because of Demko. And I am sure its much easier for St Louis to tolerate a step back while they are shining their sc rings. The canucks as a rebuilding team took a huge step back, again. One thing I have noticed with you is the intense cherry picking of comparables. Most dont actually make any sense at all when even a superficial level of context is added. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad_BOI_pete Posted April 21, 2021 Share Posted April 21, 2021 Just now, wallstreetamigo said: That would be awesome. Some get worse with age too though. most do, nearly all of them. honestly, benning could have done a lot worse. and honestly I believe he has improved a ton from when he first started. I think this pearson contract is his some of his best work, if someone told me pearson would resign for 3.25 million at the begining of the year, i'd say shut the front door. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad_BOI_pete Posted April 21, 2021 Share Posted April 21, 2021 (edited) 39 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said: I HATED Gillis bud. The Canucks only made the playoffs because of points percentage and a play in bud. They rode lights out goaltending to mask serious roster issues. St Louis played like garbage against the Canucks. Lets keep it real. They did not play like they did the year before while winning a cup. The Canucks played well against them though. Then only stuck around against Vegas because of Demko. And I am sure its much easier for St Louis to tolerate a step back while they are shining their sc rings. The canucks as a rebuilding team took a huge step back, again. One thing I have noticed with you is the intense cherry picking of comparables. Most dont actually make any sense at all when even a superficial level of context is added. there not cherry picked, you made ridiculous claims and guess what? they just aren't true. stop making terrible arguments and i'll leave your posts alone. calm down, step back, and think. you don't like the contract? that's fine!!! but if your going to make jim out to be a villian and his predecessors angels? oh, yeah expect to get some negative responses. heck you could even say. i never liked LE, Sutter's, myers, roussels, beagles contract and i don't like this one either. because guess what, i respect your opinion. but the moment you make rapacious statements, thats where you cross the line. there is a big difference between most of the fans who support benning and the "haters" most of the supporters agree he is not without fault. but most of the haters think benning is living in their head rent free Edited April 21, 2021 by Petey_BOI Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook007 Posted April 21, 2021 Share Posted April 21, 2021 1 hour ago, Petey_BOI said: what if pearson goes marchand on us and pots 30 next year. some players get better with age. I doubt that, but it would be very welcome Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted April 21, 2021 Share Posted April 21, 2021 48 minutes ago, Petey_BOI said: there not cherry picked, you made ridiculous claims and guess what? they just aren't true. stop making terrible arguments and i'll leave your posts alone. calm down, step back, and think. you don't like the contract? that's fine!!! but if your going to make jim out to be a villian and his predecessors angels? oh, yeah expect to get some negative responses. heck you could even say. i never liked LE, Sutter's, myers, roussels, beagles contract and i don't like this one either. because guess what, i respect your opinion. but the moment you make rapacious statements, thats where you cross the line. there is a big difference between most of the fans who support benning and the "haters" most of the supporters agree he is not without fault. but most of the haters think benning is living in their head rent free There is nothing in my posts anywhere on this site to suggest I am a Benning hater that hates on everything he does. He is not a villain to me, I just think he is pretty incompetent at some very important parts of his job. Its not personal to me. He seems like a nice guy that genuinely believes his decisions are the right ones. I give him credit where I think it is due and criticize him when I feel it is warranted. Also, I have never said any other GM before him was perfect. Just like with Benning, I liked some things they did and disliked others. I have a long history on cdc that shows that. Gillis specifically was never my favorite. He drafted horribly and towards the end made a total mess of the team. But early on he did a lot of good things too. My biggest beef about this signing is the fact that, in my opinion, it shows Benning has not learned from all the previous signings you mention and keeps doing the same things that have not worked before snd are probablt less likely to work in a flat cap environment. I have said from the start my opinion is that the continuing cumulative effects of overpaying these players is the main issue here. If this was the first contract like this he signed i would be, oh well its necessary sometimes. The problem is when it apparently becomes necessary every time. I think extreme haters are just as bad as extreme supporters. Both are unrealistic and delusional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted April 21, 2021 Share Posted April 21, 2021 1 hour ago, Petey_BOI said: lol, luongo didn't owe the nucks a thing, they traded him. you see all the other teams kept thier mistakes on thier teams. and also canucks were not the only team that the league made a example with. i think the lightning got fined 20M in real dollars, florida got punished for the retention on lous salary. suter,parise,weber these contracts are poop and hurting these teams right now 7.5m for parise yikes. 10m for toews. I agree Luongo owed the Canucks nothing after how the organization treated him. The lightning recently solved a significant cap issue by having a guy go permanently on disability. Same with Detroit. Chicago. Etc, etc, etc. That circumvention should be treated the exact same way as Luongo. The retention to Florida was peanuts. Parise and Toees are still playing and when their contracts become a big enough issue both will suddenly need to spend the rest of them on ltir rather than retire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad_BOI_pete Posted April 22, 2021 Share Posted April 22, 2021 2 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said: You do realize that at the time the Canucks were also a top tier, competitive team that did not have a half dozen other dead money or overpaid contracts on the roster, right? They were not a bottom feeding team operating at the max salary cap with 2 young players to pay big money to in the offseason. They could afford to pay those guys because the overall cap management of the roster was solid top to bottom. Its an apples to oranges comparison. Comparing Pearson to Malhotra or Higgins is a ridiculous stretch. They were depth players added to a top competitive team to get them over the hump. Does Pearson get us over that hump? Obviously not since we are and have been a bottom feeding type team since long before he got here. Contenders sign those type of contracts, bottom feeders dont. Because he doesnt actually move the needle much at all in terms of making the team a contender. If you can argue that letting Toffoli and Tanev walk for nothing is smart but are defending having to hang onto Pearson, take your own advice. hahhaha, this is your new argument? that teams that are playing for the cup are allowed to over pay. And teams that are not contenders, should get discounts? this is your mountain you choose to battle on? i'm loving this debate, you sure are curious. also why are any ufa signed? is it not because they are needed to get you through a jam? would maybe you consider thinking that young players might develop better when not getting thrusted into the NHL. seriously the whole thinking before you speak is a real "keeper" motto to go by. also i'm pretty sure I never argued that letting toffoli and tanev was smart. I may have with tanev, because he was having trouble getting the puck out with possession. But I did argue that toffoli, tanev and markstrom would be on this team if it weren't for covid. I also argued that after schmidt was brought in toffoli was still lower priority than a goalie. after he knew how much money he had to work with he was put in a position of having to trade virtanen plus+ another 1.7m to make room. or pearson himself, but why? wasn't our problem, getting the puck out and not scoring? we would have had to sacrifice defence for offence, and thats not something we needed. again give some real thought before you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted April 22, 2021 Share Posted April 22, 2021 12 minutes ago, Petey_BOI said: hahhaha, this is your new argument? that teams that are playing for the cup are allowed to over pay. And teams that are not contenders, should get discounts? this is your mountain you choose to battle on? i'm loving this debate, you sure are curious. also why are any ufa signed? is it not because they are needed to get you through a jam? would maybe you consider thinking that young players might develop better when not getting thrusted into the NHL. seriously the whole thinking before you speak is a real "keeper" motto to go by. also i'm pretty sure I never argued that letting toffoli and tanev was smart. I may have with tanev, because he was having trouble getting the puck out with possession. But I did argue that toffoli, tanev and markstrom would be on this team if it weren't for covid. I also argued that after schmidt was brought in toffoli was still lower priority than a goalie. after he knew how much money he had to work with he was put in a position of having to trade virtanen plus+ another 1.7m to make room. or pearson himself, but why? wasn't our problem, getting the puck out and not scoring? we would have had to sacrifice defence for offence, and thats not something we needed. again give some real thought before you Not sure why insulting someone's intelligence is your go to. I always think about what I am saying. Having an opinion you dont like doesnt make me stupid or uninformed. It is possible to disagree with someone without having to be disagreeable. So, lets agree to disagree. In 3 years we cantalk again about how the contract ended up working out. We wont know until thenwho is "right" anyway. Have a good day bud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted April 22, 2021 Share Posted April 22, 2021 Now you can say I am only saying that because you dominated me with your superior opinion to declare victory! Lol In reality I had a lengthy response but you arent interested in actually engaging in a respectful discussion so there is literally no point keeping the conversation going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad_BOI_pete Posted April 22, 2021 Share Posted April 22, 2021 1 hour ago, wallstreetamigo said: There is nothing in my posts anywhere on this site to suggest I am a Benning hater that hates on everything he does. He is not a villain to me, I just think he is pretty incompetent at some very important parts of his job. Its not personal to me. He seems like a nice guy that genuinely believes his decisions are the right ones. I give him credit where I think it is due and criticize him when I feel it is warranted. Also, I have never said any other GM before him was perfect. Just like with Benning, I liked some things they did and disliked others. I have a long history on cdc that shows that. Gillis specifically was never my favorite. He drafted horribly and towards the end made a total mess of the team. But early on he did a lot of good things too. My biggest beef about this signing is the fact that, in my opinion, it shows Benning has not learned from all the previous signings you mention and keeps doing the same things that have not worked before snd are probablt less likely to work in a flat cap environment. I have said from the start my opinion is that the continuing cumulative effects of overpaying these players is the main issue here. If this was the first contract like this he signed i would be, oh well its necessary sometimes. The problem is when it apparently becomes necessary every time. I think extreme haters are just as bad as extreme supporters. Both are unrealistic and delusional. ntc/nmc? nope! 4 years? nope! over 30? nope! overpaid? nope!, just not given a discount. this seems like the near perfect UFA signing. also flat cap argument is old and dated, the cap will be going up just fine the year after next and for the considerable future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad_BOI_pete Posted April 22, 2021 Share Posted April 22, 2021 4 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said: Not sure why insulting someone's intelligence is your go to. I always think about what I am saying. Having an opinion you dont like doesnt make me stupid or uninformed. It is possible to disagree with someone without having to be disagreeable. So, lets agree to disagree. In 3 years we cantalk again about how the contract ended up working out. We wont know until thenwho is "right" anyway. Have a good day bud. i did'nt insult your intelligence, i insulted the lack of effort you put into your obvious hate towards jim benning. you consistently made arguments that made him seem like he is incompetent. YET i rebuke your arguments and you just move the goalposts or creating strawmans. I gave you plenty of times to pull back and rethink your obvious distaste. BUT everytime you doubled down, failing over and over again. don't call me bud, amigo. i don't need a friend like you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted April 22, 2021 Share Posted April 22, 2021 20 minutes ago, Petey_BOI said: i did'nt insult your intelligence, i insulted the lack of effort you put into your obvious hate towards jim benning. you consistently made arguments that made him seem like he is incompetent. YET i rebuke your arguments and you just move the goalposts or creating strawmans. I gave you plenty of times to pull back and rethink your obvious distaste. BUT everytime you doubled down, failing over and over again. don't call me bud, amigo. i don't need a friend like you. Like I said, I dont hate Jim Benning. I even like some stuff he has done (shocker!). But I do think he is incompetent in too many ways to be an NHL GM of the teamI want to see win a cup in my lifetime. I wasn't trying to be your friend so you are safe there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted April 22, 2021 Share Posted April 22, 2021 30 minutes ago, Petey_BOI said: ntc/nmc? nope! 4 years? nope! over 30? nope! overpaid? nope!, just not given a discount. this seems like the near perfect UFA signing. also flat cap argument is old and dated, the cap will be going up just fine the year after next and for the considerable future. Pearson has a full ntc in year one and a partial one in year two. So, you are 0 for 1 in the "think before you speak" mantra. He will be 30 in the 2nd and 3rd years of that contract. That matters a lot. Especially since 2 of the past 3 years he has been pretty sub par in the consistency department. Since you are big on backing up opinions with facts, did I miss where the NHL announced any significant cap increase after next year and for the future? Or is that simply your opinion? The effect on the cap could be much longer than one year. Near perfect ufa signing.....lol. Giving your own pending ufa above market value dollars, the term he wanted, trade protection, and, if true, an expansion guarantee, cannot be described as perfect. Perfect - in terms of whats best for the team not just the player - would be Pearson making some kind of concession somewhere in there to stay in his cushy roster role. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted April 22, 2021 Share Posted April 22, 2021 Lets put it this way. And yes, I have thought about it before posting since I have worked directly with hundreds of very similar situations before. In a contract negotiation, dollars, term, trade protection, and - this year anyway expansion protection, all have a certain amount of value attached to them for the player. Keeping the cap hit lower, acceptable term in the team structure, and more flexibility to trade or expose that player if necessary have a certain amount of value for the team. When a contract gives all of the consideration to one party, its not generally a good negotiation for the other one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad_BOI_pete Posted April 22, 2021 Share Posted April 22, 2021 4 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said: Pearson has a full ntc in year one and a partial one in year two. So, you are 0 for 1 in the "think before you speak" mantra. He will be 30 in the 2nd and 3rd years of that contract. That matters a lot. Especially since 2 of the past 3 years he has been pretty sub par in the consistency department. Since you are big on backing up opinions with facts, did I miss where the NHL announced any significant cap increase after next year and for the future? Or is that simply your opinion? The effect on the cap could be much longer than one year. Near perfect ufa signing.....lol. Giving your own pending ufa above market value dollars, the term he wanted, trade protection, and, if true, an expansion guarantee, cannot be described as perfect. Perfect - in terms of whats best for the team not just the player - would be Pearson making some kind of concession somewhere in there to stay in his cushy roster role. i'm not perfect, but usually I don't make these mistakes. pearson in the last 3 years for over 200 games has averaged 0.46ppg over his career 0.46ppg. his last contract where he made 3.75 million he was averaging less than 0.46ppg this ties into your age argument, because technically he is playing his best years right now. players go through slumps, looks like pearson broke out of his with 4 points in his last 5 games. the cap will go up the year after next, and besides why would it matter even if it didn't. the cap is still 81.5m it did not go down, so why would the players salaries go down? I get last year why they went down, everyone was losing money and they would be cap broke. BUT the NHL is expanding, technically there is going to be a raise in the pool of 3%. its very possible the owners profit next year and every year after till the next disaster. https://cdn.nhlpa.com/img/assets/file/NHLPA_NHL_MOU.pdf https://www.statista.com/statistics/193468/total-league-revenue-of-the-nhl-since-2006/ 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