Coconuts

That depends on whether he wants to use his leverage or not. Hronek is in the scenario Hanifin was the season before last, a D in the last season of being an RFA. The difference is that Hanifin was signed whereas Hronek is a pending RFA with only one RFA year remaining. He could just take his qualifying offer, which would walk him right to UFA. He's not a young RFA. Hronek also has other leverage. If the Canucks want to compete going forward he's the in-house devil they know, there's no guarantee that they'd get a player who'd fit as well if they were to trade him, particularly if they were looking to bring a younger player or two back in return. Hronek also controls his destiny to a degree in any trade, because teams aren't going to trade for him unless he's willing to sign an extension, which would likely eliminate some interested parties and narrow the list of potential trade destinations. The Canucks will be buying UFA years the same way Vegas did, but while Hronek can't simply choose to walk, he does have an out if he wants to get paid more than the Canucks are willing to offer. I don't think it'll come to that, but I do think there's a good chance his deal comes in a bit higher than Hanifin's.

I figure he'll get somewhere between 7-8M, less never seemed realistic to me. I wouldn't be surprised to see him come in at say.. 7.5-7.75M. But 8M wouldn't surprise me either.

I wouldn't be surprised if they trade Karlsson, maybe allow Marchessault to walk Although I could also see Marchessault taking close to what he's getting now if he really wants to stay, him and his agent will know Vegas's cap scenario Karlsson only has a 10-team NTC, Eichel and Hertl will likely be 1-2, Karlsson's been productive and only has three seasons remaining so he's probably not negative value Mantha and Martinez are almost certainly gone

That's a solid deal for the Knights though, although tax shenanigans play a factor no doubt. 7.3M gets Hanifin just over 4.3M take home, he'd earn $637,107 less by signing the same deal with the Canucks. https://www.capfriendly.com/income-tax-calculator/7350000/goldenknights

That was likely always the plan, Martinez will be 37 in July and his expiring 5.25M pays for most of Hanifin's deal

There's a good chance they do though, although this could just be an attempt to draw more attention to the potential move https://news.sportslogos.net/2024/04/09/jazz-owner-asks-fans-for-possible-utah-nhl-team-names/hockey-2/

This team is better than either of those teams, certainly. They're an actual competitor who've legitimately made the playoffs, whereas we probably would have missed out on the bubble experience entirely had Covid not canceled that season, Markstrom had gone down and we were trending down. The Desjardins team was the Sedin's last gasp, it went downhill from there. I don't think they'll do it this season, but as you've said, they've got a legit chance.

Aye, but I also reckon we could lose to any first round matchup in seven. When it comes to the Canucks, and the chances of other teams, I'm generally pretty pragmatic. I'm not arguing that the Canucks couldn't go on a cinderella run, I just believe it's a lot likelier they don't. Runs like that are rare, and generally they've been done by teams who've been punted out consistently beforehand. St. Louis had a helluva run in 2019, their run to simply make the playoffs is a well known anecdote. They missed the playoffs the season before but they'd made the playoffs 6/7 seasons prior to winning the cup and made a conference final run and then went out in the second round the two seasons prior to missing. They'd been in the mix. Washington finally broke through in storybook fashion in 2018, finally overcoming Pittsburgh, but they'd lost in the second round the previous three years and made the playoffs almost every season of Ovi's career up until that point. Vegas was a playoff regular from the get going and went deep repeatedly prior to winning. Tampa had been a playoff regular forever, Pittsburgh too. Chicago had a shorter runway as I mentioned, but were a consistent playoff regular from 2008-2009 onward as they won their cups. LA had a two season runway, Boston had been a playoff regular prior to beating us. It's tough to step in and win a cup after a lengthy absence, it typically hasn't happened. Which isn't to say it can't, of course. The last team to almost do it was probably the 2002-2003 Ducks, who lost in the cup final after missing the playoffs for three seasons. Habs almost did it, but still had a one season runway prior to meeting the Bolts in the final. Some folks have argued this season is our best window to try and go deep for cap reasons, whereas I believe this team has a fantastic chance to be a contender over the next few years. The summer before last, when the whole sign/trade Miller thing was going on, I was arguing that we were probably at least four years out from contention, we're getting closer. I'm not interested in the team going "all-in" because I'd rather try and maintain a more lengthy competitive window, it's part of why I wasn't interested in emptying the coffers for Guentzel. I think the Canucks are a team who will be in the mix, and their making the playoffs this season is a fantastic first step towards that. They'll get some playoff experience and know what to expect going forward. I wouldn't be surprised if they regress a bit next season, but I reckon they should still be a playoff team. A lot has been said about the OEL cap hit, the raises we're going to have to give out, and so on, but every GM has to navigate the cap realities they're dealt. Hell, Minnesota was in playoff mix up until recently with nearly 15M in dead cap. I think the Canucks will be in the mix, and by being in the mix they'll give themselves a chance to break through. There's a lot to be optimistic about going forward, which is a nice chance of pace from the past several years.

You've done a good job pointing out highlights in lost seasons, why we slid during said seasons, and how those experience contribute to the current team doing what it's done. But ultimately they still haven't made the playoffs since 19-20 and there was a large gap prior to that. Our core is largely inexperienced come playoff time, the bubble was it for almost all of our current core. I'm of the opinion that there is no substitute for actual playoff experience, and that most teams will beat their heads against the playoff wall before breaking through. This doesn't mean I don't think the Canucks are good, but statistically they're much more likely to lose out than go all the way, regardless of the growth they've shown up until this point. Stats aren't the end all be all, but there's a long history of teams having to do their time. It ain't me being a debbie downer, it's simply the track record most cup winners have prior to winning. If you think they'll go all the way this season, great, at that point we can simply agree to disagree. Which isn't to say I wouldn't love to be wrong. As I said earlier, this season has already been a success regardless of what happens come playoff time.

Eh, it wasn't likely his norm either though. The real Kuzmenko is probably somewhere between last season's 39 goal scoring Kuzmenko and what we saw from him as a Canuck this season. He's probably more a player who's good for 20+ goals and 40+ points than a player who gets you 30-40 goals and 60-80 points. I don't think last season was a fluke, I think there's a better chance he simply peaked right away and had a lot of things go right for him. His shooting percentage was sky high and by season's end it was 27.3%. That was never going to be sustainable forever, regression was more likely. Hell, we probably see some similar regression from Miller and Boeser next season, possibly Hoglander and Joshua (if he's still here ) too. They likely won't fall off a cliff, and increased shot volume may mitigate some regression, but regression wouldn't be surprising. As of right now Miller's shooting percentage is 19.1, Boeser's is 19.6, Hoglander's is 19.7, and Joshua's is 20.5. Miller's career average thus far is 14.9, Boeser's is 13.8, Hoglander's is 12.4, and Joshua's is 16.4. The caveat is Hoglander and Joshua have smaller sample sizes, so their inflated shooting percentages probably drive their averages up. Kuzmenko's shooting percentage in Vancouver this season was 12.7, in Calgary it's been 22.2. He had plenty of opportunity in Vancouver, for whatever reasons he's just been better in Calgary. Fewer guys ahead of him, increased powerplay time perhaps, but he certainly started the season with plenty of opportunity in Van. He's only averaged roughly a minute more in Calgary. https://www.hockey-reference.com/players/k/kuzmean01.html

If you have to choose one game to watch today it should be this one, it's essentially a playoff game for both teams

Perhaps, but if you look at almost every cup winner over the past decade or so they've had to do their time before breaking through. It goes back further than that too. The closest things to exceptions are Chicago's one season runway before winning in 2010 (they went to the conference final), and LA's two season runway prior to winning in 2012. By and large most teams do their time, I couldn't tell you the last time a team consistently missed the playoffs, stepped back into the playoffs, and won a cup. It's likely been a good while though. More than likely the Canucks will have to do their time like most other cup winners have.

It also only really favours Colorado, Utah, and the Cali teams. The travel would be roughly the same for Winnipeg but it would be worse for Minnesota, Chicago, Dallas, St. Louis, and Nashville. I don't see why any of these teams would be thrilled about the switch, their travel gets worse and they just swap MacKinnon and Rantanen for McDavid and Draisaitl. Calgary and Utah are probably a wash as far as being competitive goes. Calgary and Edmonton's travel also gets considerably worse.

Maybe, but the playoffs are a different animal and most of LA's current roster is playoff seasoned given this would be their third straight playoff appearance. Doughty and Kopitar have extensive playoff resumes as difference makers as well. I don't look forward to playing any of these teams, but it'll be fun to see how we do. I'm personally not expecting us to go beyond the second round, but playoff experience in itself will be extremely valuable going forward. But as you've said, gotta beat whoever you get, fans can go around in circles and hockey players themselves can have their preferences, but ultimately it doesn't matter. Given how the last decade has gone just getting to the dance in itself has been a step forward, the season has already been a success regardless of how things go come playoff time imo. Most teams have to do their time making the playoffs consistently and getting booted out before breaking through, getting in at all is the first step to becoming a playoff regular.

I'd be surprised if they messed with the divisions tbh Doesn't make sense to mess with the Canadian rivalries, Utah's right next to Arizona anyway so it's not as if the travel would really be much different if the status quo remained

Sure, they weren't your typical 8th seed, but the fact remains: there are no guarantees come playoff time regardless of who you play. Vegas has underwhelmed of late but they're also missing guys and remain last season's cup winner. Their cup winning roster is largely intact. Nashville has been one of the hottest teams down the stretch, sometimes being hot at the right time makes the difference. LA is built for the playoffs imo, they're a tough team to break through once they've got a lead and they're very committed to their systems. Their top guys don't have the high end production of our top end guys but they're a team that features good depth, they're also one of the best defensive team in the league even if their offensive stats are more middling. St. Louis has basically been playing playoff games for much of the past month and a bit, every game has been critical as they've tried to reel in one of LA, Vegas, and Nashville. I don't care who we play, I don't even care if Edmonton passes us and wins the division, because there will be no easy opponent. You've got to beat the best to be the best. Playoffs are a different animal entirely and our core is still relatively inexperienced when it comes to the playoffs.

There's no way Demko beats Hellebuyck this season, the injury cemented that. Hellebuyck's honestly been in a league of his own, being the runner up to such a tender is a compliment in itself. Plus, getting a nomination at all may help pave the way for him down the road. Hellebuyck himself was the runner up to Rinne in 17-18 before prior to winning in 19-20. He was a finalist again last season. Being in the mix for trophies matters because narratives matter, the power of a narrative will likely help MacKinnon win the Hart/Lindsay this season. What'll be really interesting to see is how Canucks fans will react if Demko comes back, steps in, and isn't lights out the way he was before he went down. Yes, he's been rehabbing and practicing and whatnot, but that ain't the same as playing games. He may need to shake off some rust, he's been out for a long stretch now.

I don't have a preference. Toronto wanted Florida and look what they got. Boston got punted in the first round after a record breaking season. There are no easy opponents to be had amongst Nashville, LA, Vegas, or St. Louis if they sneak in. We could beat any of these teams, or get punted out of the playoffs by any of these teams.

5-3 Edmonton Draisaitl

That's a lot of salt

https://www.nhl.com/ducks/news/silfverberg-announces-retirement-from-nhl-at-conclusion-of-season Bit surprised, but he's played a lot of games, maybe his body was telling him it's time

They got much more than a fair shake, no doubt about it

I get it and I don't disagree, but I can't imagine losing a team Even if they get one back it's not gonna feature their bushel of picks, prospect pool, or players though, they're losing the rewards for suffering through losing seasons as well