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

[Rumour] Time's up! Finish your last sentence...


AngryElf

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, jyu said:

If he retires now, will there be cap-recapture?

 

6 minutes ago, AngryElf said:

For the Coyotes, yes. Not us. 

 

It's no longer possible to sign contracts with that kind of structure.  Every contract is now safe from a recapture penalty other than Quick (who is in the final year of his deal) and Crosby.   Those are the only 2 contracts left that could be subject to a recapture penalty.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said:

If the Canucks could have traded him but didn't, this management is totally lost.

If it was any other organization I would doubt this report. But this is 100% on brand with everything the Canucks have been doing since Gillis was fired.

  • Tanks a lot 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Barnstorm said:

Wouldn’t those picks come in handy as trade fodder come summer? 

One would think.

 

I hate Dreger and how he loves smearing the Canucks whenever possible, but I get the sense he has enough 'integrity' to only do it when he believes it to be true....which is often enough given the numpties running this team.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, awalk said:

It would but I wonder, 

1) risky assumption, but our C depth looks much less scary if we draft CB, AF, or Benson this year 

 

Or much more probable

 

2) after all this insanity deadline spending, lot of teams gonna be super pressed against the cap and forced to move good pieces for lower value and we could aim to re coup a center that way.

 

Either way I'm not upset at keeping Miller, but passing on 2x 1st round picks if true... oof that's tough.

I agree with you but maybe the Canucks wanted someone who could fill in at 2C (Poehling, Kotkaniemi, etc) for the balance of this year until they see if 1) comes to fruition and, if not, explore 2) and use that trade asset to play 3C.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, fanofvan said:

Mighty noble of you to stand up for Alf, I can respect that.  Like I've said in previous posts, Rutherford had absolutely no need to take this job; he has won championships, he has built teams, and he's fairly advanced in age.  He said during his introductory press conference that he would not have taken the position if he wasn't given full autonomy over all personnel decisions and I believe him when he said that. 

 

I'm absolutely fine with a full rebuild as much as I'm fine with the new regime being given a chance to execute their plan.  It may be similar to Benning's plan but, to me, it looks like they are being smarter about it. 

I will say that's a very good point, just because Benning couldn't do it that doesn't mean a different group can't. 

 

Even though I was/am on the full rebuild train, I have more confidence a Rutherford led front office can do it than an Aquilini/Benning tandem. Time will tell if they are successful or not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, kodos said:

If it was any other organization I would doubt this report. But this is 100% on brand with everything the Canucks have been doing since Gillis was fired.

I agree. Hopelessly confusing moves that seemingly ignore reality.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, fanofvan said:

I agree with you but maybe the Canucks wanted someone who could fill in at 2C (Poehling, Kotkaniemi, etc) for the balance of this year until they see if 1) comes to fruition and, if not, explore 2) and use that trade asset to play 3C.

You are probably right, unfortunately (I don't like that approach). But they get paid the big bucks to make these decisions not me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

Worst thing to happen to Edmonton was make the conference finals. It gives the illusion they are only a few pieces away from the Cup. The reality is conference finals I think is the best case scenario for them.

I love watching the Oilers squander McDavids career.

  • Cheers 1
  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, fanofvan said:

Mighty noble of you to stand up for Alf, I can respect that.  Like I've said in previous posts, Rutherford had absolutely no need to take this job; he has won championships, he has built teams, and he's fairly advanced in age.  He said during his introductory press conference that he would not have taken the position if he wasn't given full autonomy over all personnel decisions and I believe him when he said that. 

 

I'm absolutely fine with a full rebuild as much as I'm fine with the new regime being given a chance to execute their plan.  It may be similar to Benning's plan but, to me, it looks like they are being smarter about it. 

Totally agree with you there. I like what’s happening with this club in contrast to where it’s been. Definitely polarizing but when in recent memory hasn’t this organization acted in that way to a degree. 
 

And you’d think someone like JR would be given autonomy, but considering the cash flow going out between coaches, bonuses and long term high $ deals in just the last few years alone, it’d be very hard to insulate the Aquilini group from those transactions/approvals in what is being spent and where. In that sense alone there is definitely real-time integration between mgmt’s office and ownership, and we both know who calls the shots in that relationship. So, imho, it’s quite plausible that there is a continual cloud of influence over mgmt and their decisions. 

Edited by RWJC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said:

I agree. Hopelessly confusing moves that seemingly ignore reality.

PA made the trade we bitched about him not making last year with JT; he traded Bo for a top 4RHD + B+ prospect. I don't get the hate here; this in no way shape or form is a desperate move. This a move by a FO that realizes we have very good pieces already in their early/mid 20s; Hronek fits right in.

 

Trading the 1st is the cost it takes to secure such a player. I am more disappointed in the 2nd being included vs. TOs 3rd. This is a great trade that sets our rebuild/retool/whatever 3 years ahead vs. drafting a RHD at 12-20 OAL (and that is a prayer they work out).

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
  • There it is 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, RWJC said:

Totally agree with you there. I like what’s happening with this club in contrast to where it’s been. Definitely polarizing but when I’m recent memory hasn’t this organization acted in that way to a degree. 
 

And you’d think someone like JR would be given autonomy, but considering the cash flow going out between coaches, bonuses and long term high $ deals in just the last few years alone, it’d be very hard to insulate the Aquilini group from those transactions/approvals in what is being spent and where. In that sense alone there is definitely real-time integration between mgmt’s office and ownership, and we both know who calls the shots in that relationship. So, imho, it’s quite plausible that there is a continual cloud of influence over mgmt and their decisions. 

Your last point gives me further reason to support he was given full autonomy.  What cash conscious/meddling owner would allow a GM to fire a coach and replace him midseason, thereby putting 3 head coaches on payroll?  I'm sure the Aquilini group has some level of input over management/structure hirings, but when it comes to the actual players and on-ice product, I'd certainly hope they have autonomy.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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