Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

With the Leafs loss to the Habs, guys like Rick Dhaliwal,Thomas Drance, JD Burke, 650 Sportsnet, and HF Canucks have received VERY huge blows

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, King Heffy said:

The sweetener needed to move Eriksson will be significant, so that cost has to be added to the Larsson plan.  I'm not sure anyone takes LE for less than a first, which would be excessive for us to include.  I much prefer just letting our dead cap expire and use next year to see what OJ and Rathbone can do 

Agreed.   No way I move Eriksson with a 1st as a sweetener.  
 

While i definitely see a benefit in letting our dead cap expire, I think the players and fans also need assurance that management isn’t “standing Pat” and that this past season was not acceptable.   
 

My feeling is that Eriksson + 2nd + 3rd should get someone to take on Eriksson for his final year.  Marc Staal was able to be moved with a 2nd as a sweetener and he carried a 5.7 million dollar cap hit.   Staal is certainly more valuable than Eriksson, but not by a wide margin.  An added 3rd rounder should be enough to 2nd round sweetener should equate to similar value.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

1 hour ago, Patel Bure said:

Great points and I think this is something that bears worth mentioning:

 

The aforementioned “pundits” have all talked about Benning’s supposed “lack of direction” and how we are still in rebuild mode SEVEN (7!) years into his regime.  As mentioned, the biggest problem that I have with those comments is that......

 

1) They assume that other teams have rebuilt much faster than us.  Show me an example?   Who?    Calgary pretty much started rebuilding in 2009.  Oilers in 2007.  Leafs in 2008.  Winnipeg/Atlanta since what?  2008? Even all/most of the elite teams that we are seeing today, whether that’s Carolina, NYI, Colorado, Florida, etc., etc, all took YEARS to rebuild, and their progression was NOT linear. Tampa Bay from 2005 onwards is also an example of how an organization can “move forward” over a large period of time even Id there are some ‘dips’ at times.   
 

2) The “pundits” still don’t understand our long term cap structure very well, and how the Canucks will be in a GOLDEN position to make some major noise starting on October 1st 2022.

 

-Horvat, Miller, Schmidt, and Demko will still be making less than 6 million AAV.

-Boeser will still be a cost controlled asset

-Hoglander, Rathbone, Dipietro, and Podkolzin will be on ELC’s.

-Juolevi will be on a bridge.

-Pettersson and Hughes will likely be on shorter term cap friendly deals as well.  
-Our 2021 1st rounder from this coming draft *MIGHT* factor into the equation in 22-23.

 

-Myers will be our only “overpriced” contract at a 6 million dollar cap hit which isn’t that terrible.  All of our “transitional” contracts such as Beagle, Eriksson, Sutter, Roussel, Baertschi, Luongo’s penalty, spooner, etc., will be gonzo.     The Canucks will have a MASSIVE opportunity to be a major player in the Summer of 2022 UFA market.   
 

Some pundits often point to the fact that Toronto has overpriced superstars while the Canucks have overpriced 4th liners and non roster players, but fail to acknowledge the fact that Toronto is in their window RIGHT NOW while the Canucks won’t be entering their window until July 1st 2022 (due to what I mentioned above).  @wallstreetamigo.

 

Toronto looks like they will be headed for both short term and long term cap complications while the Canucks will be “in the black” in 22-23.   Heck, maybe they start this process as early as this summer.


Although it likely isn’t feasible, I would use a 2nd and a 3rd or a 2nd + middle prospect as a sweetener to move Eriksson.   That freed up money should allow us to sign a solid defenseman like Adam Larsson or David Savard.

Why do people care so much about what the pundits think? It actually proves nothing substantial about either the Canucks or Leafs situations.

 

What you are missing is that the Canucks have actually had a lot of cap advantage to use in prior years as well. How it was used has been the issue. 

 

The key to success will largely come down to whether or not Benning takes a more efficient approach with upcoming cap space. 

 

The issue isnt how long the Canucks have been rebuilding. Its an arbitrary number really. Its how they have rebuilt (which has been more like an annual retool that ends up not working so they draft high). Its also the complete lack of progress over all those years.

 

People can make excuses but at the end of the day, the team has not had on ice success with any consistency. The "no plan" comments probably speak more to the two above factors than anything.

 

EDIT: For the record, I have never been one who agreed Benning didnt have a plan. I just dont think it was an effective plan or the right plan based on where the team has been at. 

Edited by wallstreetamigo
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Patel Bure said:

Agreed.   No way I move Eriksson with a 1st as a sweetener.  
 

While i definitely see a benefit in letting our dead cap expire, I think the players and fans also need assurance that management isn’t “standing Pat” and that this past season was not acceptable.   
 

My feeling is that Eriksson + 2nd + 3rd should get someone to take on Eriksson for his final year.  Marc Staal was able to be moved with a 2nd as a sweetener and he carried a 5.7 million dollar cap hit.   Staal is certainly more valuable than Eriksson, but not by a wide margin.  An added 3rd rounder should be enough to 2nd round sweetener should equate to similar value.  

That's still too much for my liking given how well Benning drafts in the second round.  I strongly prefer keeping the second and hope we get another Demko or Hoglander.

  • Like 1
  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Patel Bure said:

Agreed.   No way I move Eriksson with a 1st as a sweetener.  
 

While i definitely see a benefit in letting our dead cap expire, I think the players and fans also need assurance that management isn’t “standing Pat” and that this past season was not acceptable.   
 

My feeling is that Eriksson + 2nd + 3rd should get someone to take on Eriksson for his final year.  Marc Staal was able to be moved with a 2nd as a sweetener and he carried a 5.7 million dollar cap hit.   Staal is certainly more valuable than Eriksson, but not by a wide margin.  An added 3rd rounder should be enough to 2nd round sweetener should equate to similar value.  

Yes he is worth more than LE by a wide margin because staal actually plays. Guys that dont play arent worth a damn thing lol

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Patel Bure said:

Agreed to an extent but we will also have more cap coming off the books in 2022 (ie under my scenario in which we use a minor sweetener to move Eriksson in this off season, we then use the freed up money from Beagle and Roussel to target someone else). 
 

I don’t mind signing a guy like Parayko, but “waiting” for him is risky.  Furthermore, Canucks management needs to demonstrate to both fans, media, and personnel within the organization that they aren’t happy with “standing Pat” after a losing season.  They need to make *some* moves to reassure the players.

Benning could just trade for him. No waiting necessary.

17 minutes ago, Patel Bure said:

Last point - it’s not so much about “who is better than who,” but rather, “who is better value for the money?”   

I think if you a dynamic player like Hughes, the who is far more important than the bargain. The top defensive pair should be as good as possible. Better value players factor in once you get to the second and third pairings, and third and fourth forward lines.

17 minutes ago, Patel Bure said:

Parayko is better than Adam Larsson, but Larsson will likely cost between 6-6.5 million while Parayko will likely cost MUCH more.  With the freed up money that we’d save in signing Larsson over a guy like Parayko per se, maybe we could use a part of that freed up money to shore up other areas? (Like a better 3rd line center for example).   Just my thought.

Paying Larsson anything over $4.5 is a bad idea. Parayko may be the type of player who'll sign for a $7M to be on a contending team. As mentioned before a true top paring defenseman isn't something you should try to bargain on. Look at how that worked out for Toronto.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

I notice Dumb Nuck is not on here talking how great Toronto is, and how it's an example of a "proper" rebuild. 

Firstly, I hate Toronto, I was just drunk and bored, secondly, I had no internet access, I was drunk and in the NWT.

  • Hydration 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
38 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Leafs might soon get passed by a really good, young, and hungry Ottawa team.  

That's exactly what seems to be amping up again over here in Ontario.   For awhile at least in the East it was a big deal in the 2000's (back then i still lived in BC but it was hard not to notice it).   Sundin and Alfie teams.   OTT always the underdog spoiler at the start, then became one of the better teams in the league.    Battle of Alberta and Quebec used to be a thing.    These sort of rivalries are good for hockey and hope it does re-ignite. 

Edited by IBatch
  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, King Heffy said:

I remember seeing him destroy Myers after he hit a teammate.  Would be great to have him doing that for us.  

Hughes-Parayko

OJ-Manson

Rathbone-Myers

That's a solid group.

That's built for the playoffs. 

  • Like 1
  • Hydration 1
  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Dumb Nuck said:

Firstly, I hate Toronto, I was just drunk and bored, secondly, I had no internet access, I was drunk and in the NWT.

Wow.   That's ok.    Fire Green was a good luck mantra in the bubble  - we need you in top game shape for next season don't get eaten by a Polar bear ok.  

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, IBatch said:

Wow.   That's ok.    Fire Green was a good luck mantra in the bubble  - we need you in top game shape for next season don't get eaten by a Polar bear ok.  

No polar bears but got about 5’ from a bison and a grizzly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
34 minutes ago, Bertuzzipunch said:

U imagine a top 4 of 

 

Quinn-Parayko
Rathbone-Manson

 

that’s figgen money rite der

 

Truly would be. Imagine that with Demko behind them. BRUH!

 

And re-sign Gudbranson for $1M and pair him with Hamonic. Just a mean and capable defense right thur.

Edited by PhillipBlunt
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Bertuzzipunch said:

Yes he is worth more than LE by a wide margin because staal actually plays. Guys that dont play arent worth a damn thing lol

Yep.   And isn't a winger is he (Marc Staal),  neither so ancient.   LE likely isn't coming back next season.   At this point the shame has to be too much even for a Swede....ok that's bait.   But seriously it wouldn't surprise me at all of we've seen the last of him ever in the NHL again. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Dumb Nuck said:

No polar bears but got about 5’ from a bison and a grizzly.

Were they involved in some Mutual of Omaha wild kingdom type business? I'm thinking if you're within 5' of a polar bear, you're within about 5 seconds of being eaten alive.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, IBatch said:

Yep.   And isn't a winger is he (Marc Staal),  neither so ancient.   LE likely isn't coming back next season.   At this point the shame has to be too much even for a Swede....ok that's bait.   But seriously it wouldn't surprise me at all of we've seen the last of him ever in the NHL again. 

Loui Eriksson has reached George Costanza levels of having no shame.

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dazzle said:

 

And here we have you setting these 'conditions' when making a statement.

 

Montreal was better, but the sample size is too small, according to you, which translates to:  *I'm going to ignore the fact that Montreal came back from BEHIND 3 games to 1, and won in Game 7.


There are too many variables at play for the Canucks as well: A series of poor schedules, and a lack of practice; bad injuries to core players (i.e. Pettersson), but also to players like Ferland who could've made a difference; and COVID.

 

Seems like you're blatantly ignoring factors that are inconvenient to your position.

 

What would have happened if the Canucks were healthy? The Canucks' roster has (with Tanev/Markstrom/Stetcher) has gotten to round 2. Toronto with their superior, healthy roster did not. Different time frames, but the point remains the same. Is Toronto REALLY that good?

 

Apparently not. Because season success didn't translate into playoff success, otherwise we'd see a dominant performance from Toronto. Meanwhile, Montreal was nervously watching the scores towards the second half of the season because they kept losing, and teams like Ottawa and Vancouver were slowly climbing upward.

 Not even remotely true.  You said that we beat Toronto twice so they aren’t better.  I said that isn’t a remotely reasonable sample size to make that statement... it conveniently ignores our losing record against them going back a while now.

 

One series is also not enough to say one team is better... you can say they were better for that series.  
 

If you look at dozens of games over a span of years... that DOES give you an appropriate sample size to make conclusions from.  Toronto has been a top team in league standings for several years... we have been a bottom team over that span.  Coming up with lame tiny snapshots to tru to argue against objective reality is just pure homerism.

 

They lost in the playoffs again... yep, great I don’t like the Leafs.  We didn’t make the playoffs again... so I am not going to be taking a victory lap for being bad enough that we didn’t even get a chance to lose in the playoffs.

 

Be a grown up, the Leafs are a flawed team... but they are currently better than us.  We are a flawed team that is performing much worse.  Folks mock Toronto’s defence, but it performed a heck of a lot better than ours did.

 

I look forward to a couple of years from now when  (hopefully) we can get back to being regarded as the most likely team to bring the Cup to Canada.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Provost said:

 Not even remotely true.  You said that we beat Toronto twice so they aren’t better.  I said that isn’t a remotely reasonable sample size to make that statement... it conveniently ignores our losing record against them going back a while now.

 

One series is also not enough to say one team is better... you can say they were better for that series.  
 

If you look at dozens of games over a span of years... that DOES give you an appropriate sample size to make conclusions from.  Toronto has been a top team in league standings for several years... we have been a bottom team over that span.  Coming up with lame tiny snapshots to tru to argue against objective reality is just pure homerism.

 

They lost in the playoffs again... yep, great I don’t like the Leafs.  We didn’t make the playoffs again... so I am not going to be taking a victory lap for being bad enough that we didn’t even get a chance to lose in the playoffs.

 

Be a grown up, the Leafs are a flawed team... but they are currently better than us.  We are a flawed team that is performing much worse.  Folks mock Toronto’s defence, but it performed a heck of a lot better than ours did.

 

I look forward to a couple of years from now when  (hopefully) we can get back to being regarded as the most likely team to bring the Cup to Canada.

It does have some bearing to this overall narrative. The Canucks DID NOT PLAY for a month, with limited practices, defeated Toronto, who had much more healthy roster, and was well positioned in the standings. Toronto had also been PLAYING during that time, thus we can safely say they were likely more prepared than we were. They were arguably more synchronized.

 

And Toronto failed against Vancouver during those games. This illustrates that Toronto isn't as good as they are portrayed, DESPITE being higher up in the standings. Some teams just simply do better than others, like Vancouver and Ottawa. Meanwhile, Calgary and Vancouver basically beat each other up equally, to the point that they were basically equal to each other in the standings.

 

The two games are a small sample, sure. But saying that a 7 game series was a "small sample" is dishonest to your position. You say if there was a bigger sample, maybe Toronto would've fared better. So I ask you this, if the Canucks had several factors going their way, MAYBE the Canucks would've fared better. Therefore, your conclusion that Toronto is better is arguable.

Are they ACTUALLY better than Vancouver? We have more playoff wins than they do during this time. Is that a small sample too? Canucks beat Minnesota, St. Louis and ALMOST Las Vegas. What about Toronto?

At what point will you take off the label that something is a 'small sample'?

 

Overall, Toronto isn't as good as popularly understood by media pundits and fans alike. Historically, they haven't proven any playoff success to be truly considered as a 'model' team to follow. That was what posters have said.

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

small business is great, but its not everything. I spent nearly 10 years in consulting presenting very well constructed plans to people in government that died on the desks of idiots. 

And you know my business is small how? Lol. You have no idea who I am yet making assumptions :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

 

Why do people care so much about what the pundits think? It actually proves nothing substantial about either the Canucks or Leafs situations.

 

What you are missing is that the Canucks have actually had a lot of cap advantage to use in prior years as well. How it was used has been the issue. 

 

The key to success will largely come down to whether or not Benning takes a more efficient approach with upcoming cap space. 

 

The issue isnt how long the Canucks have been rebuilding. Its an arbitrary number really. Its how they have rebuilt (which has been more like an annual retool that ends up not working so they draft high). Its also the complete lack of progress over all those years.

 

People can make excuses but at the end of the day, the team has not had on ice success with any consistency. The "no plan" comments probably speak more to the two above factors than anything.

 

EDIT: For the record, I have never been one who agreed Benning didnt have a plan. I just dont think it was an effective plan or the right plan based on where the team has been at. 

So what is the right plan? Tank it til you make it? Sure that worked for Tampa, but it took them 14 years after they started that plan before they won a cup. It still hasn't worked out for Toronto, Edmonton, Arizona or Buffalo. Carolina never had a plan like that they just failed for a lot of years because they had a terrible owner that wouldn't spend any money until Dundon bought the team. Hasn't worked for Florida either but they blew their cap space prematurely on Bobrovsky and screwed themselves. Colorado is looking good but they still haven't won anything and they have been rebuilding since 2007, just as long as Tampa.

 

So please enlighten everyone on this board, what is the right way to rebuild a franchise in 7 years? Especially after 7 years of Gillis having the worst draft record in the NHL in the new millennium. You would easily be the best GM in the NHL if you could do that. 

 

In 2019-20 the Canucks were on pace for 93 points in an 82 game season, they will do better than that next season.

  • Like 1
  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Viper007 said:

To compare your business to what you want with the Canucks, the question is .... Is your business the best out there?  That's how you're measuring the Canucks.  So unless that answer is yes, I guess you're failing.  The Canucks are a "successful" business.  They make money.  That's not what we're all after though now is it?

I'm not comparing my business to the Canucks. I'm just saying that if planning doesn't take into account the people who will be executing the plan - it's not good planning. Pure academic.

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Patel Bure changed the title to With the Leafs loss to the Habs, guys like Rick Dhaliwal,Thomas Drance, JD Burke, 650 Sportsnet, and HF Canucks have received VERY huge blows

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...