HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Vancouver Canucks (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=36)
-   -   The Armchair GM Thread - LII (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1507055)

OgoBoHo 09-30-2013 11:15 PM

The Armchair GM Thread - LII
 
Continue.

ziploc 09-30-2013 11:38 PM

Again... Vinny Prospal.

I have no idea why he is not yet signed, and have yet to see anyone give a real solid reason why he would be a bad fit for the Canucks. No apparent issues with Torts. I understand from the trade rumours board that he is practicing right now in the Czech Republic (I think?) and wants to sign in the NHL. I'd love him on the second line.

What would people offer him?

Nuckles 09-30-2013 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziploc (Post 71776555)
Again... Vinny Prospal.

I have no idea why he is not yet signed, and have yet to see anyone give a real solid reason why he would be a bad fit for the Canucks. No apparent issues with Torts. I understand from the trade rumours board that he is practicing right now in the Czech Republic (I think?) and wants to sign in the NHL. I'd love him on the second line.

What would people offer him?

I would like to bring him in for cheap too, but with the acquisition of Dalpe (and Stanton) there just isn't room for him.

John Swartzwelder 09-30-2013 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziploc (Post 71776555)
Again... Vinny Prospal.

I have no idea why he is not yet signed, and have yet to see anyone give a real solid reason why he would be a bad fit for the Canucks. No apparent issues with Torts. I understand from the trade rumours board that he is practicing right now in the Czech Republic (I think?) and wants to sign in the NHL. I'd love him on the second line.

What would people offer him?

I'd rather MG wait until he signs for a different team and then trade for him at the deadline.

ziploc 09-30-2013 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nuckles (Post 71776601)
I would like to bring him in for cheap too, but with the acquisition of Dalpe (and Stanton) there just isn't room for him.

Surely someone could be waived?

23 man roster, (I guess cap would be the issue):

Sedin Sedin Kassian
Burrows Kesler Prospal
Higgins Schroeder Hansen
Booth Santorelli Weise
Dalpe, Richardson (waive Sestito)

Bieksa Hamhuis
Edler Garrison
Tanev Stanton
Weber (waive Alberts)

Luongo
Lack

Ched Brosky 09-30-2013 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziploc (Post 71776555)
Again... Vinny Prospal.

I have no idea why he is not yet signed, and have yet to see anyone give a real solid reason why he would be a bad fit for the Canucks. No apparent issues with Torts. I understand from the trade rumours board that he is practicing right now in the Czech Republic (I think?) and wants to sign in the NHL. I'd love him on the second line.

What would people offer him?

I would start with a 1 yr 1M offer and tell him he will get every opportunity to play lw/rw on the 2nd line with Kesler. If he declines for more money I'd ask what he is realistically looking for and as long as it's under 2M sign him for it (after bargaining a bit of a lower salary). If it's over 2M I tell him the best I can do is 1.75M if he declines say 2M but that's the final offer as we really don't have anymore space than that.

I doubt he wants to play in the west. He's always played out east I believe.

Vankiller Whale 09-30-2013 11:47 PM

It's too late now, but If he was looking for Raymond-type money, and we had already given up on trying to inject youth in the lineup, then I don't see why we didn't just sign him, since it wouldn't have cost us anything anyways.

He's still a pretty good top-6 player, and could have helped alleviate our need for scoring depth.

ziploc 09-30-2013 11:50 PM

He must be asking too much, because otherwise you'd think he'd be signed by now. He had a good year last year, seems to have gas left in the tank.

Nucker101 10-01-2013 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziploc (Post 71776555)
Again... Vinny Prospal.

I have no idea why he is not yet signed, and have yet to see anyone give a real solid reason why he would be a bad fit for the Canucks. No apparent issues with Torts. I understand from the trade rumours board that he is practicing right now in the Czech Republic (I think?) and wants to sign in the NHL. I'd love him on the second line.

What would people offer him?

I like the idea, only thing that concerns me is that he's apparently a pretty slow skater at this stage of his career and he's definitely not physical either. Would be great for the second PP unit and as a playmaker for Kesler though.

y2kcanucks 10-01-2013 12:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziploc (Post 71776555)
Again... Vinny Prospal.

I have no idea why he is not yet signed, and have yet to see anyone give a real solid reason why he would be a bad fit for the Canucks. No apparent issues with Torts. I understand from the trade rumours board that he is practicing right now in the Czech Republic (I think?) and wants to sign in the NHL. I'd love him on the second line.

What would people offer him?

I'll give the Gillis answer:

"He's a redundant use of our resources. We have young players like him who we feel in order to continue to develop will need the opportunity."

Vankiller Whale 10-01-2013 12:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobertKron (Post 71777777)
I don't get why they didn't just sign Roy to that 550k contract he kept asking for.


I'm not saying we could have signed Roy. Only that the team has only gotten worse since last year's sweep. Although, if we had been willing to cut Booth loose we might have a lineup like this:

Sedin-Sedin-Burrows
Raymond-Kesler-Roy
Higgins-Santorelli-Hansen
Weise-Richardson-Sestito

And eventually

Sedin-Sedin-Kassian
Burrows-Kesler-Roy
Raymond-Schroeder-Hansen
Higgins-Richardson-Weise/Santorelli

Which looks a whole lot better than what we have now.

Vankiller Whale 10-01-2013 12:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arsmaster (Post 71778461)
Roy didn't work here. Why would keeping him over booth provide anything different. I'd rather the power player for this team than he finesse one.

Roy only had like 12 games for us. Booth went the same amount of time where the only goal he scored was an empty-netter.

Roy is cheaper and there is less risk(1 year deal vs 2). Roy also has a much better track record of top-6 production, and gives us roster versatility in having someone who can play centre or wing.

Our current lineup has Burrows, Kesler, Higgins, Hansen, and Kassian as "gritty" forwards, while our only finesse players are the Sedins.

arsmaster 10-01-2013 12:51 AM

I said powerful not gritty.

Roy provided nothing if he wasnt scoring. Booth was hard on the forecheck and created the most chances on the team when he was in the lineup.

Hard hits, puck on offensive zone, puck near net.

David71 10-01-2013 12:51 AM

if only booth wasn't injured. buyhim out, could possibly use that money for something else.

Vankiller Whale 10-01-2013 12:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arsmaster (Post 71779307)
I said powerful not gritty.

Roy provided nothing if he wasnt scoring. Booth was hard on the forecheck and created the most chances on the team when he was in the lineup.

Hard hits, puck on offensive zone, puck near net.

Roy is better defensively, and is a lot better than Booth at generating actual offense. ( He's also no where near as injury prone.

The only thing I think Booth has on Roy is physicality, but the benefit of that is minimal compared to everything else Roy does better.

Our problem isn't that we don't hit hard enough. It's generating offense, preventing goals, positional depth, and staying healthy. All of which Roy does better.

vanuck 10-01-2013 01:20 AM

To continue from the last thread:

Quote:

Originally Posted by y2kcanucks
No they're not. But they appear fine because Gillis says they're fine. We'll be complaining about them during this season, and they'll get blamed for our playoff flame out again (despite the rest of our team not scoring, but hey, it's the bottom 6's fault).

But they are. Richardson played on the 4th line during the Kings' Cup run and has done well in a depth role there in the past, and Santorelli has a 40-point season under his belt.

Hardly your average stone-handed 4th-line grinder types that you would seem to love to complain about... only that they aren't red-headed twins who play on the top line.

Drop the Sopel 10-01-2013 01:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziploc (Post 71776555)
Again... Vinny Prospal.

I have no idea why he is not yet signed, and have yet to see anyone give a real solid reason why he would be a bad fit for the Canucks.

Because he can't skate. Tortorella likes a heavy, aggressive forecheck with all 3 forwards hounding the puck. I don't know if you could name a top 6 forward that would be a poorer fit at playing this game than Prospal...

In a vacuum, Prospal is an upgrade. In reality, he does nothing to give this team the identity Tortorella will look to instill.

I'm not a big fan of David Booth, but at least his strengths are in areas Torts can hopefully use to his advantage.

Derek Roy is another guy that would likely be a terrible fit in our system. That guy looked so completely unwilling to pay any price whatsoever to help the team win. Really disappointing showing from Roy last season IMO. In a word, gutless.

Bleach Clean 10-01-2013 01:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale (Post 71779623)
Roy is better defensively, and is a lot better than Booth at generating actual offense. ( He's also no where near as injury prone.

The only thing I think Booth has on Roy is physicality, but the benefit of that is minimal compared to everything else Roy does better.

Our problem isn't that we don't hit hard enough. It's generating offense, preventing goals, positional depth, and staying healthy. All of which Roy does better.


I would have preferred Roy over Booth too, but it's not as black and white as you are making it out to be.

First, how are you quantifying Roy is a "a lot better at generating actual offense"? Points yes, shots directed and possession no. I think the point arsmaster is making is that Roy was too reliant on his wingers to generate things, and he was. He could better use his linemates than Booth could, but he was still too limited by what they could achieve.

Of the two players, Booth impacts the game more from a possession standpoint. This argument is Clowe vs. Roy at the deadline all over again.

Bleach Clean 10-01-2013 01:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drop the Sopel (Post 71780487)
Because he can't skate. Tortorella likes a heavy, aggressive forecheck with all 3 forwards hounding the puck. I don't know if you could name a top 6 forward that would be a poorer fit at playing this game than Prospal...

In a vacuum, Prospal is an upgrade. In reality, he does nothing to give this team the identity Tortorella will look to instill.

I'm not a big fan of David Booth, but at least his strengths are in areas Torts can hopefully use to his advantage.

Derek Roy is another guy that would likely be a terrible fit in our system. That guy looked so completely unwilling to pay any price whatsoever to help the team win. Really disappointing showing from Roy last season IMO. In a word, gutless.


Bolded is understatement of the century. LOL (Couldn't resist)

Also yes, heavy + aggressive forecheck is the plan. That isn't Roy's game, but Booth fits that well. Plus it was interesting to hear Torts's praise of Booth from Booth's FLA days. Seems he saw a lot of him then, and liked what he could do.

Winroba 10-01-2013 01:43 AM

I think we're fine, people seem to be freaking out about dumb stuff but the past few days have been huge for the overall organizational depth of the team

y2kcanucks 10-01-2013 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winroba (Post 71780931)
I think we're fine, people seem to be freaking out about dumb stuff but the past few days have been huge for the overall organizational depth of the team

We'll see if your tone changes after we start losing several games.

dave babych returns 10-01-2013 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by y2kcanucks (Post 71786103)
We'll see if your tone changes after we start losing several games.

OMG, several games!

I love how anything but an extended playoff run is a monumental failure in your eyes and yet the potential of a sputtering start (with a new coach and 1/4 of the roster turned over) has you in a multi-day hissy fit..

As for a guy like Prospal, as DTS mentioned he's a poor fit and as others have mentioned the roster is full.

I think if we were going to see a FA signing here we would have seen it already, and if we're going to add a player it will be via trade (although I'm not holding my breath since we've added three players in the last two days - players likely won't start being marketed for a couple of weeks as teams give guys game time to see what they've got).

ItsAllPartOfThePlan 10-01-2013 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by y2kcanucks (Post 71786103)
We'll see if your tone changes after we start losing several games.

No team goes 98-0. Lots of teams are going to lose "several games"

Winroba 10-01-2013 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by y2kcanucks (Post 71786103)
We'll see if your tone changes after we start losing several games.

:laugh: I guess anything less than 95 wins is unnaceptable? :shakehead

tantalum 10-01-2013 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ItsAllPartOfThePlan (Post 71787901)
No team goes 98-0. Lots of teams are going to lose "several games"

Goes back to my post yesterday....it is simply easier to be the negative voice. If you are right you, get to crow about how right you were and, if you aren't, you get to, as fan of the team, crow about how well the team is playing. win-win.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:33 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.