HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Vancouver Canucks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

The Armchair GM Thread - Part XXX - Naughty Edition

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-05-2012, 12:26 PM
  #151
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,717
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
The Sedins got absolutely slaughtered defensively in the 2011 playoffs
No, they didn't. They got really unlucky and ended up with a .885ish save percentage when they were on the ice.

Scurr is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 12:27 PM
  #152
Mr. Canucklehead
Mod Supervisor
Kitimat Canuck
 
Mr. Canucklehead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Kitimat, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,586
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shareefruck View Post
Burrows is a non-streaky 20-30 goalscorer.
It's pretty silly to measure how under-appreciated someone is by how much scorn they get.

Alot of it is deserved as well. I think most of us are optimistic about what Booth will do going forward, but he was truly awful in the playoffs. No reason to make excuses for the guy.
I'm not saying he wasn't awful, nor was I saying that they (Booth and Raymond) were underappreciated. I was just pointing out that Hansen is certainly well liked, and deservedly so - he works his kit off, he's improved statistically each year, and he's on a low value contract. What's not to like?

Raymond and Booth have both had their ups and downs. I think objective criticism of their games is warranted, for sure. But some of the negativity heaped upon them (Booth moreso, IMO) is a little unfair. I think Booth struggled mightily at times last year, but he also showed some potential of what he could bring. Being on pace for 23 goals in a Canuck uniform in spite of joining a new team, bouncing around the lines and returning from a knee injury has some promise.

Raymond is a different kettle of fish, but he's a little difficult to judge as well as he has had a pretty rough time with injuries. Then again, the same could be said for Kevin Bieksa at the end of the 09/10 season.

Mr. Canucklehead is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 01:07 PM
  #153
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,299
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luck 6 View Post
Do you really think either Sedin or Kesler *****es if they trade for Vanek because he makes more than them? I don't think they care, in fact I think they'd be ecstatic that they have another elite player to help shoulder some of the offense. These guys all want to win, that's their priority. I have to think they're above whining over something so trivial. Vanek brings them an extra inch closer to the Stanley Cup, they'd embrace that for sure. When it came time to re-sign Vanek 2 years later, he'd be taking a cut like everyone else or he'd be walking. Simple as that.


I don't think the twins care so much as Gillis does. Just like Ehrhoff had the Hamhuis/Bieksa cap, so too will forwards have a cap based on Sedins/Kesler. Look at what Burrows just signed for: a number under Kesler. Booth's contract still fits under Kesler's as well. Point is, the cap-covenant rules are still being followed by MG whether he feels the Sedins/Kesler will take offense or not.


It's not trivial. Ehrhoff walking was not trivial.


If MG wanted a solo-sniper for 7m, why didn't he pursue Semin? Same price point. Great skill. Yet I didn't see many rumours there, if at all...



Not to mention it's unsustainable... Vanek taking a pay-cut? Doubtful. I don't think people who sign offersheets from EDM have that mind set. Then there's the fact that Edler and Higgins need to re-up first, and the money goes away fast. Still a "no" for me for Vanek.


Last edited by Bleach Clean: 10-05-2012 at 01:13 PM.
Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 01:11 PM
  #154
DJOpus
Registered User
 
DJOpus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,754
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
No, they didn't. They got really unlucky and ended up with a .885ish save percentage when they were on the ice.
To be fair a lot of the goals against while they were on the ice were 2 on 1s and breakaways and there were likely a lot of empty netters.

They were -4 (each, not in total) in game 7 of the finals, so you can watch that game as an example (I still can't watch it).

DJOpus is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 01:12 PM
  #155
Tim Calhoun
Tim Calhoun
 
Join Date: May 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,032
vCash: 325
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
No, they didn't. They got really unlucky and ended up with a .885ish save percentage when they were on the ice.
That's an indication of how poor their defensive coverage was.

Tim Calhoun is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 01:16 PM
  #156
DJOpus
Registered User
 
DJOpus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,754
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
I don't think the twins care so much as Gillis does. Just like Ehrhoff had the Hamhuis/Bieksa cap, so too will forwards have a cap based on the Sedins/Kesler. Look at what Burrows just signed for: a number under Kesler. Booth's contract still fits under Kesler's as well. Point is, the cap-covenant rules are still being followed by MG whether he feels the Sedins will take offense or not.


It's not trivial. Ehrhoff walking was not trivial.


If MG wanted a solo-sniper for 7m, why didn't he pursue Semin? Same price point. Great skill. Yet I didn't see many rumours there, if at all...



Not to mention it's unsustainable... Vanek taking a pay-cut? Doubtful. I don't think people who sign offersheets from EDM have that mind set. Then there's the fact that Edler and Higgins need to re-up first, and the money goes away fast. Still a "no" for me for Vanek.
I'd dump Maholtra ($2.5M), Ballard ($4.2M), and Raymond ($2.275M) in order to keep Vanek ($7.142M) + replacements ($1.8M).

DJOpus is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 01:16 PM
  #157
Reverend Mayhem
CRJ + RNH = Sex
 
Reverend Mayhem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Port Coquitlam, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,193
vCash: 940
Send a message via Skype™ to Reverend Mayhem
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJOpus View Post
To be fair a lot of the goals against while they were on the ice were 2 on 1s and breakaways and there were likely a lot of empty netters.

They were -4 (each, not in total) in game 7 of the finals, so you can watch that game as an example (I still can't watch it).
Which makes me wonder, how the hell were they -4, one of the goals were short-handed IIRC.

Reverend Mayhem is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 01:24 PM
  #158
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,717
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJOpus View Post
To be fair a lot of the goals against while they were on the ice were 2 on 1s and breakaways and there were likely a lot of empty netters.

They were -4 (each, not in total) in game 7 of the finals, so you can watch that game as an example (I still can't watch it).
So, which of the goals in that game were their fault? The puck bouncing off the stanchion right to Bergeron for a breakaway is pretty unlucky, no? Anytime a players on ice save percentage is that out of whack with the rest of the team, it stands to reason that there was some luck involved.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Calhoun View Post
That's an indication of how poor their defensive coverage was.
The Sedins aren't great defensive players anymore, they trade chances way more than they did early in their career's, but they were also unlucky. Luongo let in three goals from behind the net against Nashvile, for example, and played lights out the rest of the time. The Sedins were on for the goals he let in from behind the net, while the rest of the team got outstanding goaltending. That **** happens.

Scurr is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 01:25 PM
  #159
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,717
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reverend Mayhem View Post
Which makes me wonder, how the hell were they -4, one of the goals were short-handed IIRC.
IIRC, you can get a minus on the PP but not a plus. Seems a little unfair, but that's how I remember it anyway.

Scurr is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 01:27 PM
  #160
DJOpus
Registered User
 
DJOpus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,754
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reverend Mayhem View Post
Which makes me wonder, how the hell were they -4, one of the goals were short-handed IIRC.
NHL conspiracy?

Actually one goal was a shorty, one an empty netter, two at ES.

DJOpus is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 01:34 PM
  #161
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,299
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
If Mike Gillis shares the same view as you this team will never get out of its playoff scoring funk. You can't just turn down talented players because they make more than the Sedins (who's playoff performance, despite one series against San Jose, has really left a lot to be desired).

I'm not sure Vanek is the right player to be going after, but we shouldn't just avoid all high ticketed players.

The high-ticketed forward is unsustainable here IMO. Even for Doan, I think the rumoured MG offer was 5m per for 3-4 yrs. No cap hit pushing 6-7m.


On D it would work because I don't think they have set the high-water mark yet. Perhaps Edlers contract will be the new limit.

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 01:34 PM
  #162
Lundface
Registered User
 
Lundface's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,283
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reverend Mayhem View Post
Which makes me wonder, how the hell were they -4, one of the goals were short-handed IIRC.
Minuses still count if you're onn the pp. They don't count when you get scored on when you're shorthanded.

If you score when you're shorthanded, your team gets a plus the other team gets a minus.

Watching that game shows how stupid plus minus can be, especially when correlating it with defensive play. An empty netter, a freak bounce on the pp, a weak first goal and a terrible rebound for the 2nd.

Re watch the highlights of that game 7. I know we think we got slaughtered ( mainly because of the scoreline, and what the media fed us) but we easily had as many chances as the Bruins. Thomas outplayed Luongo in a big way.

Lundface is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 01:37 PM
  #163
Reverend Mayhem
CRJ + RNH = Sex
 
Reverend Mayhem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Port Coquitlam, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,193
vCash: 940
Send a message via Skype™ to Reverend Mayhem
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
IIRC, you can get a minus on the PP but not a plus. Seems a little unfair, but that's how I remember it anyway.
Well, I definitely just confused being on the PP and PK. I thought they were killing a penalty. I was like, wtf were they doing killing a penalty in a game 7 for the Cup?

Reverend Mayhem is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 01:40 PM
  #164
Reverend Mayhem
CRJ + RNH = Sex
 
Reverend Mayhem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Port Coquitlam, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,193
vCash: 940
Send a message via Skype™ to Reverend Mayhem
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lundface View Post

Re watch the highlights of that game 7. I know we think we got slaughtered ( mainly because of the scoreline, and what the media fed us) but we easily had as many chances as the Bruins. Thomas outplayed Luongo in a big way.
By games 4-7 you could really tell how fatigued the team was. By then we were still getting scoring chances, but the B's were getting better ones and were able to capitalize on our battered and bruised defenseman.

We needed to win game 3 to win the Cup, I think. 2-0 would just not cut it. Too bad the Bruins came out like gorillas out of a cage in the 2nd, otherwise I think we would have had it.

Reverend Mayhem is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 01:41 PM
  #165
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,717
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
The high-ticketed forward is unsustainable here IMO. Even for Doan, I think the rumoured MG offer was 5m per for 3-4 yrs. No cap hit pushing 6-7m.


On D it would work because I don't think they have set the high-water mark yet. Perhaps Edlers contract will be the new limit.
I agree with a lot of what you are saying but IMO, they view contracts that they trade for a little differently than contracts they sign themselves. I think Gillis would bring in a player that broke the cap if he thought the net gain was worth it, I don't think he would sign a player that broke the cap unless they were a better player. Speculation on my part, they haven't done that yet.

Scurr is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 01:43 PM
  #166
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 46,488
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
IIRC, you can get a minus on the PP but not a plus. Seems a little unfair, but that's how I remember it anyway.
So? They were on for every goal against in game 7. And yes, they had a sub .900 SVP when they were on the ice, while everyone else was above .900 (not really looking at 4th liners with limited minutes). That tells me that they were eaten alive defensively, especially in the Boston series. It's gotten to the point where if they aren't scoring they have become liabilities.

__________________
http://www.vancitynitetours.com
y2kcanucks is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 01:45 PM
  #167
dave babych returns
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,365
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
I agree with a lot of what you are saying but IMO, they view contracts that they trade for a little differently than contracts they sign themselves. I think Gillis would bring in a player that broke the cap if he thought the net gain was worth it, I don't think he would sign a player that broke the cap unless they were a better player. Speculation on my part, they haven't done that yet.
I think I would agree with this, ie. they wouldn't turn down Rick Nash solely for his cap hit.

Nor would they for Thomas Vanek per se, but he just has not come anywhere near performing up to his cap hit so I'm not sure how you justify making a deal like that.

dave babych returns is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 01:47 PM
  #168
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 46,488
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lundface View Post
Minuses still count if you're onn the pp. They don't count when you get scored on when you're shorthanded.

If you score when you're shorthanded, your team gets a plus the other team gets a minus.

Watching that game shows how stupid plus minus can be, especially when correlating it with defensive play. An empty netter, a freak bounce on the pp, a weak first goal and a terrible rebound for the 2nd.

Re watch the highlights of that game 7. I know we think we got slaughtered ( mainly because of the scoreline, and what the media fed us) but we easily had as many chances as the Bruins. Thomas outplayed Luongo in a big way.


Maybe if Thomas had Henrik standing in front of him screening him that first goal on Luongo would have been scored on Thomas?

Or maybe if Thomas had Daniel plowing over top of him that second goal would be on Thomas and not Luongo?

Or if Thomas's team gave up a bad breakaway while on the PP and the player went into him the third goal would have been against the Bruins?

It's unbelievable how Luongo gets trashed for everything but the Sedins can do no wrong. At least I admit when Luongo craps the bed (game 6) but the Sedins get manhandled defensively, while doing absolutely nothing offensively and everyone accepts that.

y2kcanucks is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 01:51 PM
  #169
Scottrockztheworld*
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,301
vCash: 500
Oh great MORE 2011 Stanley Cup Final talk.........

Scottrockztheworld* is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 01:54 PM
  #170
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,717
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
So? They were on for every goal against in game 7. And yes, they had a sub .900 SVP when they were on the ice, while everyone else was above .900 (not really looking at 4th liners with limited minutes). That tells me that they were eaten alive defensively, especially in the Boston series. It's gotten to the point where if they aren't scoring they have become liabilities.
There were so many plays to point to in that run that were bad luck, along with the save percentage being so out of line with the rest of the team, and the twins historical average, your failure to acknowledge it shows your bias. I know you understand sample sizes and shooting/save percentages when it comes to these stats so it isn't ignorance. I have no idea what the twins did that could have you despise them so much, it's truly baffling.

Scurr is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 01:54 PM
  #171
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 46,488
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Imagine17 View Post
Oh great MORE 2011 Stanley Cup Final talk.........
Just pointing out an example of how bad the Sedins are defensively. This is an area they really have to work on, and perhaps scaling back their offensive zone starts would help in that regard? It would also help our secondary scorers improve their numbers too.

y2kcanucks is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 01:58 PM
  #172
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,717
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
Just pointing out an example of how bad the Sedins are defensively.
You are unbelievable. You're ignoring their entire career's and basing this on one unlucky run. How can anyone take you seriously when your extreme bias is so transparent?

Scurr is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 01:59 PM
  #173
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,299
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scurr View Post
I agree with a lot of what you are saying but IMO, they view contracts that they trade for a little differently than contracts they sign themselves. I think Gillis would bring in a player that broke the cap if he thought the net gain was worth it, I don't think he would sign a player that broke the cap unless they were a better player. Speculation on my part, they haven't done that yet.


I don't disagree. The key line here is "if the net gain is worth it". My contention is that the net gain from Vanek would not be because he is a very limited player. However, the net gain from a Weber would absolutely be.


So I guess I'm saying that Vanek isn't worth the stretch. Isn't worth them breaking that covenant.

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 02:02 PM
  #174
Scottrockztheworld*
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,301
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
Just pointing out an example of how bad the Sedins are defensively. This is an area they really have to work on, and perhaps scaling back their offensive zone starts would help in that regard? It would also help our secondary scorers improve their numbers too.
You constantly point that out though! Its either a Sedins are bad defensively post or a Luongo post....

I'm pretty sure I remember this almost exact discussion from a few months back to be honest!

You want their offensive zone time cut down to give to the second line, someone made a point about it might not being the best idea & that we should continue to utilize our best scoring forwards as best as possible or something along those lines. BLAH BLAH BLAH...etc

I'd love if the Sedins were a harder to play against in their own end, I wish they were better defensively but I really wish that we would stop obsessing about the 2011 SCF. I don't know about you guys but consistently being reminded that we lost the cup, our forwards couldn't score in the biggest game of their career & our goaltender was being blown out of the water is very depressing & not what I want to read about almost daily.


Last edited by Scottrockztheworld*: 10-05-2012 at 02:09 PM.
Scottrockztheworld* is offline  
Old
10-05-2012, 02:02 PM
  #175
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,717
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
I don't disagree. The key line here is "if the net gain is worth it". My contention is that the net gain from Vanek would not be because he is a very limited player. However, the net gain from a Weber would absolutely be.


So I guess I'm saying that Vanek isn't worth the stretch. Isn't worth them breaking that covenant.
That I agree with. I also agree with the point on Nash, I think they would have brought him in, in the right situation, even with his cap hit. I think Gillis could still convince the twins to take less than that, I'm not sure he could if he signed him to that contract as an FA.

Scurr is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:18 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.