Honest Conversation With Those Who Still Support Management

[JohnTavares]

2 hours ago, MaxVerstappen33 said:

You obviously haven't had a peep at the rest of the league if you think OEL is a #3/4 defensman on a "respectable" team. Typical bandwagoneer. You think everyone else's backsliding defense is better than your own.

 

We can cherry pick all day. OEL has more goals than PK Subban and Brent Burns.

 

 

 

It's funny because in a couple of years when OEL falls off a cliff, you'll probably be the first fan to say "OEL is TRASH that trade was SO BAD".

OEL is NOT a "solid #1 defenseman" as you described - not even close. The guy who is being outproduced by the likes of Luke Schenn and Tucker Poolman (relative to ice-time/opportunities) is NOT a "solid #1 defenseman".

Keep dreaming bud.  Jim and Travis will join you in fantasy land soon.

[JohnTavares]

2 hours ago, aGENT said:

That's ridiculous. Is Petterson also unmovable due to his contract? He's making over $7m and is barely staying out of the pressbox.

 

Team playing poorly =/= poor, immovable players.

Using Pettersson to compare to Myers, Dickinson, Poolman and Pearson is just honestly a travesty and shows how much you know about hockey.

 

Who the hell is going to take on Myers? A #4/5 defenseman that is turning 32 in a couple of months on a $6M deal with 3 years left?  Nobody would pick him up on waivers for free.

 

Poolman is a third pairing defenseman that is overpaid in both dollar amount and term and is completely replaceable. Given that there's 3 years left on his deal, he has no value at all.

 

Pearson's extension was a terrible deal by the time the ink dried. 3 goals in 23 games for a supposed "goal scorer" is unacceptable given that he plays almost 16 minutes a game. He is on pace for 10 goals and 25 points while playing top six minutes. Nobody would pick up Pearson on waivers for free. 

 

Dickinson is the new Pearson... just completely invisible and somehow managed to finesse another 3 year deal from Jim.  He has no offensive upside (and this is not something new - he never paced more than 30 points in a full 82 game season ever). He played 16 minutes a game last year and only managed 15 points in 51 games - that's atrocious for someone that played top six minutes last year.

 

The reality is that if all 4 of these players were waived, no team in the NHL would take them for free.  Guess who signed these contracts? Our beloved Jim Benning.

 

 

[kanucks25]

24 minutes ago, aGENT said:

I didn't lump him in.

 

I'm asking you (all) to think critically about player valuation as it pertains to our underperforming team.

 

The team and even Pettersson himself playing poorly doesn't tank his value entirely, does it? Why is that? Yes, some part of that is because he's younger and has shown star ability etc. But he's also now paid at that level and isn't coming anywhere close to it currently.

 

Poolman has also shown NHL level ability to play 3rd pair D quite competently both elsewhere and EVEN on this underperforming team. The exact level he's being paid at in fact. Yet we'd evidently need to 'pay to dump him'...?

 

That's not how this works. 

It is how it works because teams would be more willing to take a risk (contract cap-hit and term) on a younger player with real upside over a depth player with no/limited potential.

 

Using Poolman as an example, why would another team want to commit 4 years to a depth player for a roster spot that is ideally filled by a prospect/young player you are trying to develop that'll come at or close to league minimum?

 

That's how teams that understand the salary cap and general opportunity cost operate. We, instead, look for expensive band-aid solutions because we don't have prospects pushing their way into the lineup in positions where we can take advantage of their cheap/rookie contracts.

[JM_]

1 minute ago, kanucks25 said:

It is how it works because teams would be more willing to take a risk (contract cap-hit and term) on a younger player with real upside over a depth player with no/limited potential.

 

Using Poolman as an example, why would another team want to commit 4 years to a depth player for a roster spot that is ideally filled by a prospect/young player you are trying to develop that'll come at or close to league minimum?

 

That's how teams that understand the salary cap and general opportunity cost operate. We, instead, look for expensive band-aid solutions because we don't have prospects pushing their way into the lineup in positions where we can take advantage of their cheap/rookie contracts.

so if you're correct, then Evolving Hockey must have got Poolman all wrong. They pegged his deal at 2.4 mil. 

 

 

[JohnTavares]

Just now, JM_ said:

so if you're correct, then Evolving Hockey must have got Poolman all wrong. They pegged his deal at 2.4 mil. 

 

 

The dollar value is fine for Poolman for 1 or 2 years.

 

4 year contract for a bottom tier player?  Did Benning not learn from Rousell and Beagle???

[aGENT]

1 minute ago, JohnTavares said:

Using Pettersson to compare to Myers, Dickinson, Poolman and Pearson is just honestly a travesty and shows how much you know about hockey.

 

Who the hell is going to take on Myers? A #4/5 defenseman that is turning 32 in a couple of months on a $6M deal with 3 years left?  Nobody would pick him up on waivers for free.

 

Poolman is a third pairing defenseman that is overpaid in both dollar amount and term and is completely replaceable. Given that there's 3 years left on his deal, he has no value at all.

 

Pearson's extension was a terrible deal by the time the ink dried. 3 goals in 23 games for a supposed "goal scorer" is unacceptable given that he plays almost 16 minutes a game. He is on pace for 10 goals and 25 points while playing top six minutes. Nobody would pick up Pearson on waivers for free. 

 

Dickinson is the new Pearson... just completely invisible and somehow managed to finesse another 3 year deal from Jim.  He has no offensive upside (and this is not something new - he never paced more than 30 points in a full 82 game season ever). He played 16 minutes a game last year and only managed 15 points in 51 games - that's atrocious for someone that played top six minutes last year.

 

The reality is that if all 4 of these players were waived, no team in the NHL would take them for free.  Guess who signed these contracts? Our beloved Jim Benning.

 

 

This is why nobody can converse anymore. All hyperbole and nonsense. Zero nuance.

 

You can count this as your reply too @kanucks25

 

Team playing poorly =/= bad players and tanked value.

[kanucks25]

Just now, aGENT said:

This is why nobody can converse anymore. All hyperbole and nonsense. Zero nuance.

 

You can count this as your reply too @kanucks25

 

Team playing poorly =/= bad players and tanked value.

The team playing poorly isn't the reason the contracts look bad.

[JM_]

2 minutes ago, JohnTavares said:

The dollar value is fine for Poolman for 1 or 2 years.

 

4 year contract for a bottom tier player?  Did Benning not learn from Rousell and Beagle???

TP is younger tho. Nothing wrong with some cost certainly on the cap either with RHD. 

[aGENT]

Just now, kanucks25 said:

The team playing poorly isn't the reason the contracts look bad.

They don't.

[kanucks25]

2 minutes ago, JM_ said:

so if you're correct, then Evolving Hockey must have got Poolman all wrong. They pegged his deal at 2.4 mil. 

 

 

2.4M for Poolman, in a vacuum, is probably fair.

 

At 4 years? No thanks. In our specific situation where depth players tying up a massive amount of cap has been a major problem? No thanks.

[JM_]

Just now, kanucks25 said:

2.4M for Poolman, in a vacuum, is probably fair.

 

At 4 years? No thanks. In our specific situation where depth players tying up a massive amount of cap has been a major problem? No thanks.

but you just said the cap is fine, so whats he tying up if he continues to play to the level expected of him?

[kanucks25]

Just now, aGENT said:

They don't.

Well according to some nothing ever looks bad here.

 

Not that I can blame those people, as we're on the road to our 8th straight Stanley Cup victory.

[JohnTavares]

3 minutes ago, aGENT said:

This is why nobody can converse anymore. All hyperbole and nonsense. Zero nuance.

 

You can count this as your reply too @kanucks25

 

Team playing poorly =/= bad players and tanked value.

This is what you don't get.

 

This has nothing to do with "team playing poorly"

Myers, Poolman, Pearson and Dickinson are NOT "good players".  The only player that might have some value (like a late round pick) is Dickinson.  And that value is dwindling away game by game.

[MaxVerstappen33]

I still don't get what someone is saying about Petterson. Petterson is still the leading scorer out of the 2017 draft class. 

 

If anyone thinks Petterson doesn't have high value even on his current contract , they'd be delusional. 

[kanucks25]

Just now, JM_ said:

but you just said the cap is fine, so whats he tying up if he continues to play to the level expected of him?

Because:

 

8 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

Using Poolman as an example, why would another team want to commit 4 years to a depth player for a roster spot that is ideally filled by a prospect/young player you are trying to develop that'll come at or close to league minimum?

 

That's how teams that understand the salary cap and general opportunity cost operate. We, instead, look for expensive band-aid solutions because we don't have prospects pushing their way into the lineup in positions where we can take advantage of their cheap/rookie contracts.

The goal is to stack your team with as many value contracts (as in, players playing above their cap-hit) as possible.

 

Exhibit A: Tampa Bay Lightning

Edited November 30, 2021 by kanucks25

[JohnTavares]

Just now, JM_ said:

but you just said the cap is fine, so whats he tying up if he continues to play to the level expected of him?

Because Jim completely fumbled the cap for 8 years now?

 

If we had tons of cap flexibility, Poolman's deal wouldn't be an issue.

The fact Jim completely screwed our cap and this team still sucks is just another reason why this deal sucks.

[JohnTavares]

3 minutes ago, JM_ said:

TP is younger tho. Nothing wrong with some cost certainly on the cap either with RHD. 

In a flat cap environment - Poolman is not an attractive asset because teams can find a replaceable or comparable dman for 800k.

[aGENT]

2 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

Well according to some nothing ever looks bad here.

 

Not that I can blame those people, as we're on the road to our 8th straight Stanley Cup victory.

Usual smarmy nothing burger...

 

Player Name was BAD. THAT contract was negative and 'untradeable'. None of the contracts even comes CLOSE.

 

Usual, nonsense, panicky hyperbole.

 

[JM_]

5 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

Because:

 

The goal is to stack your team with as many value contracts (as in, players playing above their cap-hit) as possible.

 

Exhibit A: Tampa Bay Lightning

but you haven't proven Poolman isn't a good contract. In fact, you agreed his cap is fine. 

[JM_]

4 minutes ago, JohnTavares said:

In a flat cap environment - Poolman is not an attractive asset because teams can find a replaceable or comparable dman for 800k.

Evolving Hockey wouldn't have got it that wrong.

 

6 minutes ago, JohnTavares said:

Because Jim completely fumbled the cap for 8 years now?

 

If we had tons of cap flexibility, Poolman's deal wouldn't be an issue.

The fact Jim completely screwed our cap and this team still sucks is just another reason why this deal sucks.

imo the team is decent on paper, our problem is Green and his AHL level assistants.