Coconuts

No, likely not, which is precisely why the Canucks should generally be reluctant to hand out such extensive term. I don't care for longer deals that take players into their mid to late 30's, that ain't new. I'd argue that Zadorov is probably tougher to replace, I wouldn't lose any sleep over Joshua walking and I like Joshua. He was a project before he was what he is now, I reckon management could do something similar again. Would I like to keep him? Sure. Do I recognize that his price is probably going up? Yeah. Doesn't mean I'd be willing to give either of them whatever they want. Like I said previously, five years max for each, a higher cap hit to make up for less term wouldn't bother me. But I'm bullish on term, I'd rather the Canucks retain cap flexibility and part of that is being able to replace aging players sooner than later. I dunno why you're so pushy on Zadorov, I haven't been arguing that we shouldn't try to keep him, I'm just bullish on term. Seems the Canucks are too, which I view as a good thing. Five years would be the most I'd offer, that'd have his deal expiring at 34. Same goes for Joshua, five years would have him expiring at 33.

This is exactly how today's Joshua came about, if he does end up wanting more than management wants to give him I'm confident management will be able to find a capable player to slot into that spot. Zadorov's a bit tougher to replace than Joshua by virtue of him being a defenseman, but I wouldn't lose any sleep over Joshua going. Your bottom six is where you have more flex to tinker, bottom six players are much easier to find. Good, term is exactly where the sticking point should be. Folks can gush about how effective he is in this year's playoffs, he's been very effective, that doesn't mean he'll be the same player in 5-8 years. If he's willing to take 4 years, 5 years max, it probably gets done.

Depends on what they want, I'm not interested in overpaying either of them. I'd offer them both five years max. Five years would have Zadorov expiring at 34 so ideally it'd be a four year deal. Joshua will be 28 on the 15th, I'd offer him a five year deal that'd have him expiring at 33 as a maximum. I'm not interested in handing out 6+ year deals to bring the average down, I'd rather have the contracts expiring sooner than later and get the cap flex even if that bumps the average up. The Canucks should be careful about giving out deals longer than four years imo. At the end of the day if either of them want too much I hope management is prepared to let them walk.

Axing abortion is one thing, I'm not sure the cons would be able to get away with that. But the whittling away of LGBTQ+ rights? Or the rights and benefits afforded to other marginalized demographics? Or simply lower to average income Canadians? That wouldn't surprise me, that can be done gradually and with less coverage than an outright abortion ban would get. It also doesn't have to be done by the Feds, some things are done at the provincial level, but sometimes even provincial level stuff gets is publicly supported at the federal level. Needless to say, such rhetoric shouldn't be ignored. Goes for any party or politician, things should sometimes be taken with a grain of salt but it's still worth listening to what political folks have to say, and worth observing what they do or noting what they've done.

3-2 Canucks Pettersson

4-3 Edmonton Draisaitl

I don't think so Utah Heckin Chonkers

Sometimes you've just gotta decide it's not worth going around in circles, which is why I don't usually engage with them. They're capable of providing insight but I've found that historically their takes have generally been over the top and I just can't be bothered most of the time. At least when it comes to hockey talk.

If they're smart they'll trade Marner and let Tavares walk when his deal is up (unless he takes a very team friendly deal) Being top heavy hasn't worked for them They won Matthews and they've had so much success with him, and by success I mean regular season success

Joshua's too, dude gonna get paid

True, but he's been on the job for ten years now and the Leafs have a single second round win to their name

Could still be adjusted if that name gains momentum I'm leaning towards Outlaws, Utah Outlaws has a nice ring to it when you say it, but so does Utah Yeti/Yeti's And for sure, they won't have an actual brand for a while

Personally, I like Utah Outlaws, Utah Yeti, Utah Mammoth, Utah Swarm, and Utah Caribou, in no particular order

The survey won't decide the eventual name, just help narrow things down, but it's interesting to see what they're considering There will be another round of voting later this summer https://theathletic.com/5481343/2024/05/09/utah-nhl-team-name-survey/ You can access the survey here, but you can only vote once https://survey.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_0icZIBPBgCbymns Names include Black Diamonds Blast Blizzard Canyons Caribou Freeze Frost Fury Glaciers Hive Ice Mammoth Mountaineers Outlaws Powder Squall Swarm Utah HC Venom Yeti

An interesting choice, I thought Andersen played well last game If they lose this next one they're almost certainly dead in the water, Rags aren't gonna lose four straight

No matter how good a coach is at any given time, they aren't likely to be coaching there for long Franchises are more seemingly more willing to can coaches than ever

Game seven OT loss, not their usual kind of loss, or a collapse even given Boston had the series lead Their roster is flawed

He'll probably end up in Pittsburgh Shanahan will he on the block sooner than later if they continue to fumble things I'd imagine

Shanahan should have been axed years ago, don't know how he still has a job

True that, be interesting to see how they respond in the third

I thought we were the better team that period, Oil just getting timely goals I am concerned about our special teams though

Their powerplay wasn't overly impressive, agreed Rangers PK looked pretty solid though, hard to see Carolina winning 4/5 now but you never know