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 L

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-21-2013, 08:43 PM
  #701
Shareefruck
Registered User
 
Shareefruck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,420
vCash: 500
Just for fun, what would we want the team to look like moving forward if everything worked out the way we would have wanted it to (within reason)?

I personally would have wanted to see something like this

keep Schneider/Torres/Ehrhoff/Lapierre/Sulzer,
lose Luongo

Sedin - Sedin - Burrows
Booth (healthy) - Kesler - Kassian
Higgins - Malhotra (healthy) - Hansen
Torres - Lapierre - Weise

Edler - Ehrhoff
Hamhuis - Bieksa
Garrison - Tanev/Corrado
Sulzer

Schneider
Lack

I think a lineup like this heading into next year could have matched/outperformed those President's trophy Canuck teams, personally


Last edited by Shareefruck: 08-21-2013 at 09:10 PM.
Shareefruck is online now  
Old
08-21-2013, 08:56 PM
  #702
I in the Eye
Registered User
 
I in the Eye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country:
Posts: 4,630
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
It's pretty clear that division play was the difference in 12 for what it is worth.
I linked to this earlier... http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...1&postcount=27

It was the difference of 1 point... About equal to random chance, or how many angels were dancing on the end of a pin... 1 point... About as significant as stadium noise, or watching the game in your favourite chair... So low in significance... 1 in a possible 164 points over the course of the regular season... Or, 0.61%... Very close to 0% importance... When something is so close to 0% (or absolutely no) importance, to me, it's not even worth mentioning... when considering everything else that is so close to nothing importance to determine Canuck success or failure... Such as the positive or negative thoughts of posters here... That has 0% importance... In comparison, the NW Division had just over 0.5% importance...


Last edited by I in the Eye: 08-21-2013 at 09:10 PM.
I in the Eye is offline  
Old
08-21-2013, 09:21 PM
  #703
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 51,202
vCash: 696
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shareefruck View Post
Just for fun, what would we want the team to look like moving forward if everything worked out the way we would have wanted it to (within reason)?

I personally would have wanted to see something like this

keep Schneider/Torres/Ehrhoff/Lapierre/Sulzer,
lose Luongo

Sedin - Sedin - Burrows
Booth (healthy) - Kesler - Kassian
Higgins - Malhotra (healthy) - Hansen
Torres - Lapierre - Weise

Edler - Ehrhoff
Hamhuis - Bieksa
Garrison - Tanev/Corrado
Sulzer

Schneider
Lack

I think a lineup like this heading into next year could have matched/outperformed those President's trophy Canuck teams, personally
Sedin-Sedin-Burrows
UFA-Hodgson-Kesler
Torres-Schroeder-Hansen
Higgins-Lapierre-UFA

Hamhuis-Bieksa
Edler-Ehrhoff
Garrison-Tanev

Luongo
Lack

__________________
http://www.vancitynitetours.com
y2kcanucks is offline  
Old
08-21-2013, 09:43 PM
  #704
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,504
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by I in the Eye View Post
Just a very quick search, but, looks right...

http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...1&postcount=27
what exactly is that?

here are what the top teams actually got in terms of points in their own divisions, which is really what matters, no idea on why one would complicate it

Canucks 37 division points

NYR 32
Blues 25
Pens 27

Seeing that the Canucks won the trophy by 3 points and they had 5,12,10 more division points than the next best 3 teams which were 3,3,and 4 points behind them where exactly does this random chance stuff come from?

Hardyvan123 is offline  
Old
08-21-2013, 10:45 PM
  #705
vanuck
#Gaunce4GM
 
vanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,222
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ddawg1950 View Post
Huh.

For me it's the lottery.
Obviously you must not be a true Canucks fan then!

Quote:
Originally Posted by thepuckmonster View Post
Praying that he signs for a bag of rainbows and his bonus is hopes and dreams?
Well, with the way things are right now in the UFA market... you just might be spot on.

vanuck is offline  
Old
08-21-2013, 10:59 PM
  #706
vanuck
#Gaunce4GM
 
vanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,222
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Catamarca Livin View Post
Malhotra was a good role player however he was not the driving force of that team. Lappy replaced him in the playoffs quite well and the next year as well. The problem is that no one replace Lappy. Gillis should have replaced him earlier and he should not have been back last year at all. Last year Lapierre was not as good as well as the injury to Kesler and no suitable replacement of Malhotra left a big void. Overall the Legend i am Manny grows and grows. He did his job well, he was not the reason for the Sedins, Kesler, and the goalies dominating. His loss does not compare with the Kesler injuries as a problem for this team the last 2 seasons and the series vs. Boston. Hopefully Horvat and Gaunce develop quickly before Henrik or Kesler falter. If so the Canucks could be true contenders again very quickly, just like Chicago dominated this season after two mediocre seasons with some good cheap depth.
For Kesler I'd venture that Malhotra's usage had a pretty big effect on his scoring, as it was the first time under AV that he didn't have to go up against 1st lines every single night. Whether they'll seek to replicate that strategy with a new 3C I don't know, but I don't think anyone can deny the positive effect it had on Kes' 40-goal season (SH% and all that notwithstanding).

vanuck is offline  
Old
08-21-2013, 11:08 PM
  #707
deckercky
Registered User
 
deckercky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,055
vCash: 500
If the team keeps Ehrhoff, no chance Garrison signs here. Yes, he technically can be afforded, but with 4 signed longterm top 4 defencemen, no chance he comes over.

deckercky is offline  
Old
08-21-2013, 11:13 PM
  #708
vanuck
#Gaunce4GM
 
vanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,222
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shareefruck View Post
Just for fun, what would we want the team to look like moving forward if everything worked out the way we would have wanted it to (within reason)?

I personally would have wanted to see something like this

keep Schneider/Torres/Ehrhoff/Lapierre/Sulzer,
lose Luongo

Sedin - Sedin - Burrows
Booth (healthy) - Kesler - Kassian
Higgins - Malhotra (healthy) - Hansen
Torres - Lapierre - Weise

Edler - Ehrhoff
Hamhuis - Bieksa
Garrison - Tanev/Corrado
Sulzer

Schneider
Lack

I think a lineup like this heading into next year could have matched/outperformed those President's trophy Canuck teams, personally
Seeing that just reminds me that for a short, glorious while after the 2011 deadline we could've had a tremendously strong forward lineup going into the playoffs:

D. Sedin - H. Sedin - Burrows
Raymond - Kesler - Samuelsson
Torres - Malhotra - Hansen
Higgins - Lapierre - Tambellini

With no scrubs like Desbiens or Bolduc as regulars. March 29 was the day it all started going downhill. A bounce of the puck + no visor... Just the luck of the draw, I guess. If anything, you could criticize that there wasn't another C capable of stepping in and playing, which again illustrates just how important having extra centers is.

vanuck is offline  
Old
08-21-2013, 11:26 PM
  #709
I in the Eye
Registered User
 
I in the Eye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country:
Posts: 4,630
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
what exactly is that?

here are what the top teams actually got in terms of points in their own divisions, which is really what matters, no idea on why one would complicate it

Canucks 37 division points

NYR 32
Blues 25
Pens 27

Seeing that the Canucks won the trophy by 3 points and they had 5,12,10 more division points than the next best 3 teams which were 3,3,and 4 points behind them where exactly does this random chance stuff come from?
What exactly this is, is a calculation explaining that there was only one point (0.9) for the Canucks being in the NW division, compared to if the Canucks weren't (if the Canucks were instead playing equal games with every western division and eastern conference team)... It means that the Canucks had the most points against teams in the NW division, because the Canucks played teams in the NW division the most... It means that you could put the Canucks in any division, and, the Canucks would have very likely still have been the best team in the NHL... It means that the Canucks playing in the NW division had, virtually and practically, no influence on the success they achieved that year...

That is why one would need to complicate it... You see the Canucks being the best team in the NHL that year, because the Canucks got more points in a weak division (compared to the NYR, Blues, and Pens who are in other divisions... who you see as being up against stronger competition than the Canucks had to face)... You see the Canucks success that year as a result of weaker competition, or else they wouldn't have won "best in league" award... When, in reality, this was because the Canucks were the best team - and therefore, whatever division the Canucks play the most games in, they would have gotten the most points in... The difference was 1 point... You are assuming that the other teams, if thrown into the NW Division, would have had similar (or better) success than the Canucks had...

Would you prefer to throw the Canucks into one of those divisions in the Eastern Conference, and see how the Canucks would do?

What the table shows, is that playing in the Eastern Conference (compared to the West) would have resulted in the Canucks getting a few more points, just by nature of being in the East, compared to if the Canucks played in the NW...

If you want to use Division as a noteworthy reason to help explain success that year, you need to show how the Canucks would have done if they weren't in the Division... If the difference was 10 points, 20 points, you're onto something... If the difference is less than 1 point - you just have to think, what are all the things that make the difference between one point in a single game - and then realize, the benefit of being in the NW Division was 1 point for the entire season... How many times does a win, become a tie... or a tie, become a loss? A player tripped? A lucky bounce? A stanchion? A starting goalie with diarrhea? A fan flashing a red pointer in the goalie's eyes? That is where random chance comes into play...


Last edited by I in the Eye: 08-21-2013 at 11:32 PM.
I in the Eye is offline  
Old
08-21-2013, 11:32 PM
  #710
Tim Calhoun
Jim Benning Fan
 
Tim Calhoun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Country: Mexico
Posts: 8,986
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by deckercky View Post
If the team keeps Ehrhoff, no chance Garrison signs here. Yes, he technically can be afforded, but with 4 signed longterm top 4 defencemen, no chance he comes over.
Should have left that bum Bieksa walk then. A Hamhuis-Edler-Garrison-Ehrhoff top-4 would have been brilliant.

Tim Calhoun is offline  
Old
08-21-2013, 11:39 PM
  #711
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,504
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by I in the Eye View Post
What exactly this is, is a calculation explaining that there was only one point (0.9) for the Canucks being in the NW division, compared to if the Canucks weren't (if the Canucks were instead playing equal games with every western division and eastern conference team)... It means that the Canucks had the most points against teams in the NW division, because the Canucks played teams in the NW division the most... It means that you could put the Canucks in any division, and, the Canucks would have very likely still have been the best team in the NHL... It means that the Canucks playing in the NW division had, virtually and practically, no influence on the success they achieved that year...

That is why one would need to complicate it... You see the Canucks being the best team in the NHL that year, because the Canucks got more points in a weak division (compared to the NYR, Blues, and Pens who are in other divisions... who you see as being up against stronger competition than the Canucks had to face)... You see the Canucks success that year as a result of weaker competition, or else they wouldn't have won "best in league" award... When, in reality, this was because the Canucks were the best team - and therefore, whatever division the Canucks play the most games in, they would have gotten the most points in... The difference was 1 point... You are assuming that the other teams, if thrown into the NW Division, would have had similar (or better) success than the Canucks had...

Would you prefer to throw the Canucks into one of those divisions in the Eastern Conference, and see how the Canucks would do?

What the table shows, is that playing in the Eastern Conference (compared to the West) would have resulted in the Canucks getting a few more points, just by nature of being in the East, compared to if the Canucks played in the NW...

If you want to use Division as a noteworthy reason to help explain success that year, you need to show how the Canucks would have done if they weren't in the Division... If the difference was 10 points, 20 points, you're onto something... If the difference is less than 1 point - you just have to think, what are all the things that make the difference between one point in a single game - and then realize, the benefit of being in the NW Division was 1 point for the entire season... How many times does a win, become a tie... or a tie, become a loss? A player tripped? A lucky bounce? A stanchion? A starting goalie with diarrhea? A fan flashing a red pointer in the goalie's eyes? That is where random chance comes into play...
I guess we are looking at it in different ways, the Canucks record in n the West was 40-16-8 and against the east it was 11-6-1, how exactly do the stats show that they would have done better in the east?

The only thing we really know for sure is that they won the President's cup by 3 points on 2 teams and 4 points on Pitt and they did much better than those other 3 top teams in their own division, fancy stats don't change that reality.

Perhaps Mark Twain might agree on this one.

It's in the past anyways, we won and it doesn't really matter how, the new division will be interesting coming up for next season.

It might spark new debate or not depending on how the Canucks do.

Hardyvan123 is offline  
Old
08-22-2013, 12:20 AM
  #712
K2B
HFBoards Sponsor
 
K2B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Vancouver
Country: United States
Posts: 42,639
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Calhoun View Post
Should have left that bum Bieksa walk then. A Hamhuis-Edler-Garrison-Ehrhoff top-4 would have been brilliant.
That same "bum" was much, much better in the 2011 playoffs.

__________________
K2B is offline  
Old
08-22-2013, 02:22 AM
  #713
SgtToody
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 677
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanuck View Post
Obviously you must not be a true Canucks fan then!



Well, with the way things are right now in the UFA market... you just might be spot on.
Would we make room for a 2nd or 3rd line veteran type, even a Grabovsky, if the price is right? Are we so locked into gifting a spot -- and that means signing the slightest fringe candidates like sesisto, Weiss and santorelli to offer"competition" -- to a green rook that we ignore a buyer's market? Yes, our cap space is precarious, our commitments is to the brim, but good GMs know how to create room, by hook, crook or waivers. I think if the management is frozen in this belief that its time for new, young blood, have they not seen the multiple evaluations over the past few years, placing Vancouver's talent near the bottom. There are also too many nightmare examples of young guys being rushed into a man's game, so Horvat and Gaunce are not in real contention, in my view...

SgtToody is offline  
Old
08-22-2013, 03:01 AM
  #714
Bourne Endeavor
Moderator
HFBoards: Night's Watch
 
Bourne Endeavor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,994
vCash: 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kesler2Burrows View Post
That same "bum" was much, much better in the 2011 playoffs.
Bieksa really does never get any credit it seems. Generalizing here, but even this past season despite his struggling, he was on pace to breakout offensive. I still think had been be paired up with Garrison or Hamhuis, the defensive lapses would have quickly dissipated. People also seem to forget Ehrhoff needed a babysitter too.

Bourne Endeavor is offline  
Old
08-22-2013, 03:31 AM
  #715
K2B
HFBoards Sponsor
 
K2B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Vancouver
Country: United States
Posts: 42,639
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne Endeavor View Post
Bieksa really does never get any credit it seems. Generalizing here, but even this past season despite his struggling, he was on pace to breakout offensive. I still think had been be paired up with Garrison or Hamhuis, the defensive lapses would have quickly dissipated. People also seem to forget Ehrhoff needed a babysitter too.
Exactly. People also don't realize the vast majority of the fan base wanted nothing to do with Ehrhoff at 5 Million, people are seriously forgetting how bad Ehrhoff was in the 2011 playoffs. Yes keeping Ballard in favor of Ehrhoff was a mistake but at the time keeping Bieksa over Ehrhoff wasn't.

K2B is offline  
Old
08-22-2013, 06:22 AM
  #716
King of the ES*
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,728
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by deckercky View Post
If the team keeps Ehrhoff, no chance Garrison signs here. Yes, he technically can be afforded, but with 4 signed longterm top 4 defencemen, no chance he comes over.
Which would mean that we would've just extended Salo for a short-term, which would've been smarter than giving 6 years to Garrison, anyway.

You're not seriously suggesting that Garrison > Ehrhoff + Salo, are you?

King of the ES* is offline  
Old
08-22-2013, 06:25 AM
  #717
King of the ES*
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,728
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by I in the Eye View Post
What exactly this is, is a calculation explaining that there was only one point (0.9) for the Canucks being in the NW division, compared to if the Canucks weren't (if the Canucks were instead playing equal games with every western division and eastern conference team)... It means that the Canucks had the most points against teams in the NW division, because the Canucks played teams in the NW division the most... It means that you could put the Canucks in any division, and, the Canucks would have very likely still have been the best team in the NHL... It means that the Canucks playing in the NW division had, virtually and practically, no influence on the success they achieved that year...

That is why one would need to complicate it... You see the Canucks being the best team in the NHL that year, because the Canucks got more points in a weak division (compared to the NYR, Blues, and Pens who are in other divisions... who you see as being up against stronger competition than the Canucks had to face)... You see the Canucks success that year as a result of weaker competition, or else they wouldn't have won "best in league" award... When, in reality, this was because the Canucks were the best team - and therefore, whatever division the Canucks play the most games in, they would have gotten the most points in... The difference was 1 point... You are assuming that the other teams, if thrown into the NW Division, would have had similar (or better) success than the Canucks had...

Would you prefer to throw the Canucks into one of those divisions in the Eastern Conference, and see how the Canucks would do?

What the table shows, is that playing in the Eastern Conference (compared to the West) would have resulted in the Canucks getting a few more points, just by nature of being in the East, compared to if the Canucks played in the NW...

If you want to use Division as a noteworthy reason to help explain success that year, you need to show how the Canucks would have done if they weren't in the Division... If the difference was 10 points, 20 points, you're onto something... If the difference is less than 1 point - you just have to think, what are all the things that make the difference between one point in a single game - and then realize, the benefit of being in the NW Division was 1 point for the entire season... How many times does a win, become a tie... or a tie, become a loss? A player tripped? A lucky bounce? A stanchion? A starting goalie with diarrhea? A fan flashing a red pointer in the goalie's eyes? That is where random chance comes into play...
Hardy's explanation is a lot more valid, and accurate.

Relative to other division leaders, the Canucks earned more points against their division rivals. Which is to say, that the Canucks were more dependent on their division rivals for points.

Which is not surprising, as 0 other teams from the division made the playoffs.

King of the ES* is offline  
Old
08-22-2013, 06:32 AM
  #718
King of the ES*
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,728
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kesler2Burrows View Post
Exactly. People also don't realize the vast majority of the fan base wanted nothing to do with Ehrhoff at 5 Million, people are seriously forgetting how bad Ehrhoff was in the 2011 playoffs. Yes keeping Ballard in favor of Ehrhoff was a mistake but at the time keeping Bieksa over Ehrhoff wasn't.
Ehrhoff was voted as our best defenceman in both years that he was here. He brought a unique skillset to the table. He fit in perfectly with this team.

The only thing about Bieksa's game that would've been missed is his toughness/edge, and, to be honest, that part of his game is typically pretty dormant, anyway. The perception of him (thanks, Grapes) is that he plays a lot tougher than he actually does.

I think MG probably got too caught up in locker room politics, Bieksa's been here forever, is friends with everyone, etc. And then there's the bogus issue of the "internal cap". Would've been smarter to keep Ehrhoff over Bieksa, and a no-brainer, obviously, to keep him over Ballard.

King of the ES* is offline  
Old
08-22-2013, 07:09 AM
  #719
vanuck
#Gaunce4GM
 
vanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,222
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SgtToody View Post
Would we make room for a 2nd or 3rd line veteran type, even a Grabovsky, if the price is right? Are we so locked into gifting a spot -- and that means signing the slightest fringe candidates like sesisto, Weiss and santorelli to offer"competition" -- to a green rook that we ignore a buyer's market? Yes, our cap space is precarious, our commitments is to the brim, but good GMs know how to create room, by hook, crook or waivers. I think if the management is frozen in this belief that its time for new, young blood, have they not seen the multiple evaluations over the past few years, placing Vancouver's talent near the bottom. There are also too many nightmare examples of young guys being rushed into a man's game, so Horvat and Gaunce are not in real contention, in my view...
I don't see why they wouldn't if he was available at a low price. Sure they might like to incorporate more youth but I doubt they would do so at the cost of having a good established two-way player who really fits what they look for in a player. The gripe with AV was never about actually giving young guys a chance to make the team, it was giving them a longer leash in the regular season so they could learn and improve without having to constantly worry about making mistakes.

vanuck is offline  
Old
08-22-2013, 09:12 AM
  #720
Tiranis
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Toronto, ON
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 22,113
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by King of the ES View Post
Ehrhoff was voted as our best defenceman in both years that he was here. He brought a unique skillset to the table. He fit in perfectly with this team.

The only thing about Bieksa's game that would've been missed is his toughness/edge, and, to be honest, that part of his game is typically pretty dormant, anyway. The perception of him (thanks, Grapes) is that he plays a lot tougher than he actually does.

I think MG probably got too caught up in locker room politics, Bieksa's been here forever, is friends with everyone, etc. And then there's the bogus issue of the "internal cap". Would've been smarter to keep Ehrhoff over Bieksa, and a no-brainer, obviously, to keep him over Ballard.
Paying Ehrhoff 5m+ would put the Canucks in a position where they would have to pay more to Garrison (would have to match the $5m+ offer he got from another team) and most certainly to Edler (looking at $6.5m easily). You would be looking at losing at least $2.5-3m in cap space. That basically means replacing Higgins with a minimum wage player and still having to shed another $1m.

Can't have your cake and eat it too.

Tiranis is offline  
Old
08-22-2013, 09:17 AM
  #721
Tiranis
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Toronto, ON
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 22,113
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
The only thing we really know for sure is that they won the President's cup by 3 points on 2 teams and 4 points on Pitt and they did much better than those other 3 top teams in their own division, fancy stats don't change that reality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by King of the ES View Post
Hardy's explanation is a lot more valid, and accurate.

Relative to other division leaders, the Canucks earned more points against their division rivals. Which is to say, that the Canucks were more dependent on their division rivals for points.

Which is not surprising, as 0 other teams from the division made the playoffs.
I don't see what's so difficult to understand about the link above. It clearly shows that the Canucks play in their own division had little to do with the President's Trophy. Hell, we could just take out the NW games out of everyone's record (which isn't even fair since other teams benefit from not having Canucks in their record) and the team still would be 2nd or 3rd (separated by 1 or 2 points).


Last edited by Tiranis: 08-22-2013 at 09:23 AM.
Tiranis is offline  
Old
08-22-2013, 09:37 AM
  #722
Luck 6
\\_______
 
Luck 6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 7,769
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiranis View Post
Paying Ehrhoff 5m+ would put the Canucks in a position where they would have to pay more to Garrison (would have to match the $5m+ offer he got from another team) and most certainly to Edler (looking at $6.5m easily). You would be looking at losing at least $2.5-3m in cap space. That basically means replacing Higgins with a minimum wage player and still having to shed another $1m.

Can't have your cake and eat it too.
I'm not necessarily sure of that. Our team has set a bit of a cap for defensemen, but it wasn't considered a cap until both Bieksa and Garrison were signed for that amount. If we had Hamhuis making 4.5mil, and Ehrhoff making 5mil, I don't think we would have had to necessarily pay Garrison 5mil. I don't think Garrison would be too upset if he didn't make quite as much as a 2x 50 point defenseman, who was widely thought of as our best defenseman. The numbers wouldn't have changed, really. He'd still be taking only slightly less to play for the team of his choice, which is clearly what mattered to him.

Besides, even if we did lose Garrison as a result of re-signing Ehrhoff, I'd be fine with it. Would you rather our current group, or something like this...

Ehrhoff-Edler
Hamhuis-Bieksa
Salo-Tanev

I also really don't think Edler would have asked for 6.5mil if Ehrhoff got 5mil. The two should be getting around the same pay, realistically. Before Edler signed that steal of a contract, I would have thought having Ehrhoff signed at 5mil would actually offer some degree of leverage to get Edler to sign for the same pay scale.

This is all water under the bridge, of course, and we all have our different opinions on how things could have played out.

Luck 6 is offline  
Old
08-22-2013, 09:49 AM
  #723
Proto
Registered User
 
Proto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 10,812
vCash: 833
Quote:
Originally Posted by King of the ES View Post
In 2011-12, 30% of your schedule was played against your division. We had 0 other playoff teams in our division.

"Demonstrably" false, is it? Please demonstrate this.



Since Raffi Torres left our team, we've gone 1-8 in the playoffs. Oh, but that's AV's fault. And we were injured. And the refs were out to get us. And our travel schedule. And, and, and.

By the way, weren't you one of the guys that were calling Derek Roy a 1st line C? And weren't you the guy that put Roberto Luongo in the same sentence as Dominik Hasek, the other day? I'm equally charmed by your inability to remove bias when posting, so please do continue.
You're right. The team is losing because Raffi Torres left. Mind you, he would have spent half his time suspended if he'd stayed here, but I'm sure just by force of personality the team would have kept winning. I mean, his 7 points in 23 games in 2011 was hard to replace. Or have you moved off of just talking about points again?

Proto is offline  
Old
08-22-2013, 09:58 AM
  #724
Shareefruck
Registered User
 
Shareefruck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,420
vCash: 500
I completely agree that we should have let Bieksa go and went with

Edler - Ehrhoff
Hamhuis - Garrison

That would be a pretty dynamite top 4, and Tanev/Corrado fill it out nicely.

Shareefruck is online now  
Old
08-22-2013, 10:01 AM
  #725
arsmaster
semantic romantic
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 24,985
vCash: 500
Highest scoring doesn't equate to best.

arsmaster 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 09:52 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.