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

Bruce this place up a bit. [proposal]


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

A few things. 

Having available salary cap, and wanting to spend it is two different things. 

Given we're still in the midst of a pandemic. Given that some cities are playing at 50% capacity. 

There's a lot of uncertainly going on. I don't think too many teams are looking to take salary, even 50% off. 

Look at Kane. Nobody took the bait on 50% retained by the Sharks. 

I have a feeling the savvy GM's are wanting to see what pans out in Edmonton and even Toronto. 

If McDavid or LD wants out of Edmonton. No one is going to want to spend money on Canucks players then.

They might even want to see what happens when Vancouver gets an actual GM. 

 

 

I think you're probably quite right. Really like Brandt Clarke though I had him 1st OA last year on my draft board at the time. He's currently leading all D in scoring in the OHL with 32 points in 27 games. IMO people are way undervaluing him in here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Coconuts said:

Bruce did just fine with the young talent he had in Washington, don't see why he wouldn't be capable of the same here as a more experienced coach

 

Hoglander's a second year player, of course he's got a lot of work to do 

 

I think the Hoglander thing is overblown

BB challenged him to be a 200' player, which means he likely see's him as a fit on the future 3rd line. He didn't bench him, even after taking that penalty last game. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, hammertime said:

I think you're probably quite right. Really like Brandt Clarke though I had him 1st OA last year on my draft board at the time. He's currently leading all D in scoring in the OHL with 32 points in 27 games. IMO people are way undervaluing him in here.

LAK went into a rebuild to pick a player like Clarke.  Seems unlikely that they would part with him.  They even asked Doughty and Kopitar if they wanted to be traded when they decided to go the rebuild route.  

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JM_ said:

BB challenged him to be a 200' player, which means he likely see's him as a fit on the future 3rd line. He didn't bench him, even after taking that penalty last game. 

Seems like an odd challenge Hoglander has traditionally been a very good 200ft player for us. Seems odd to single him out    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, hammertime said:

Seems like an odd challenge Hoglander has traditionally been a very good 200ft player for us. Seems odd to single him out    

might have been under Green? he has struggled a bit under BB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

A few things. 

Having available salary cap, and wanting to spend it is two different things. 

Given we're still in the midst of a pandemic. Given that some cities are playing at 50% capacity. 

There's a lot of uncertainly going on. I don't think too many teams are looking to take salary, even 50% off. 

Look at Kane. Nobody took the bait on 50% retained by the Sharks. 

I have a feeling the savvy GM's are wanting to see what pans out in Edmonton and even Toronto. 

If McDavid or LD wants out of Edmonton. No one is going to want to spend money on Canucks players then.

They might even want to see what happens when Vancouver gets an actual GM. 

 

 

Agree with all except: They might even want to see what happens when Vancouver gets an actual GM. 

 

I think JR is Acting GM, and very capable of the position; he said that even when he decides on a GM, it will be someone that he will mentor, so I believe we are already seeing what the new GM will be doing.

 

It seems that almost all trade proposals assume players are going to get raises, and big contracts, and I don't think the cap space is out there.

A lot of talent coming cap in hand soon, ready to take a cut, especially older players, unless the league opens up on the cap.

 

Teams are going to have to rely on ELCs, and then first (show-me) real contracts, and talented but older players willing to take a hit in order to afford the contracts they already have for stars like Mickey-D and Underpants at about 14m, and next tier guys at about 10-13, and Nurse at almost 10m.

 

As you imply, cap space is a very valuable commodity and GMs (and Presidents et al) absolutely have to get it and keep it on hand while we wait out Covid, the Flat Cap, and Escrow.  I am so tired of management always having their hands tied; I like that ownership is willing to foot the bill, but keep some room.

 

This is, to me at least, one of the biggest things JB got in the Yotes deal, i.e. cap space: 3 big old contracts off the books, OEL's salary partly retained, young stud Garly on a good deal for a good term.

Cap space is like opportunity; like Buffet said about cash, it is ok to hold your investments in cash, as it represents opportunity, and you then hold the opportunity to use it at the best time (not the actual quote).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, hammertime said:

Bruce and Hoglander don't mix IMO he is hurting Hoglander's development. But Bruce has enough problems trying to re build Pete and Brock into top 6 ers that it's completely understandable.  I have an incredibly hard time penciling Hog into our top 6 while Garland and softies like Pete and Brock are under contract soo in the end it's more of an issue with fit. I have a really hard time moving Hoglander because he is one of my favorite canucks but in the end It may be the best thing for both parties hopefully we don't end up on the wrong end of the Naslund trade.

 

 

I am of the mind that project re"building  Brock" has more to do with his trade value than it does long term aspirations. Lets face it Brock isn't Jeff Carter if we want a cup here and that is our goal we aren't doing it with slow 210 lb guys who have 14 hits on the season or whatever. Brocks a leaner not a lifter just doesn't have the huevos. 

 

To the trade. Bruce has expressed explicit interest in acquiring another offensive defenseman. IMO LA's core is looking to retool on the fly I am aware they used 8oa on Brandt last year however he may still be a ways out from playing pro's. He was left off team canada at the WJC and LA already has Sean Durzi and Helge Grans in the pipe at the position. Possibly they have soured on Brandt juuuuuust enough to consider this. I think Nils and Brock get them back to the dance and they are young enough to be a key part of their re tool.  

 

To LA 

Nils + Brock50%

 

To Van

Brandt Clarke 

Clarke would be a good start to a deal but LA would have to be adding more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/22/2022 at 8:57 PM, hammertime said:

I really disagree. IMO at 7+M he's a negative value player. On the market right now JR would be lucky to get a pick in the 25-35 range with retention. At the draft last year you would have had to pay astronomically more to acquire the pick to draft Bandt than this. 

Not how this game works.   If this was true, how come we don't see this sort of thing every single draft?   We don't.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/22/2022 at 7:21 PM, eeeeergh said:

7 million isnt a elite salary anymore, thats 11-12 million (Matthews, McDavid, etc.). 7 million is what you pay to a top 6 player thats going to get you 30 goals.

JT Miller is going to get 8.5m+ as a UFA this year. 

Do you think Barzal, Keller, Matthew Tkachuk, Landeskog are negative value players? Because they're all comparable to Boeser in production and command 7m+. 

 

Those guys all drive the play. Boeser doesn't even come close to them in that regard. I would trade him way before Miller or Horvat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...