King Heffy Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 Just now, canuck73_3 said: We're better off for it, and I was against it when it was first proposed. Let's see if you feel the same in a couple of years when we're actually dealing with the irreversible impact. Any GM who even considers long-term dead cap is unfit for any job in hockey ops. The price to pay for one season of benefit is simply not acceptable. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 6 minutes ago, King Heffy said: Permanent damage like multiple years of dead cap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrammaInTheTub Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 19 minutes ago, King Heffy said: Permanent damage like multiple years of dead cap. “Permanent” and “multiple years” does not compute 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coryberg Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 (edited) 19 minutes ago, King Heffy said: Let's see if you feel the same in a couple of years when we're actually dealing with the irreversible impact. Any GM who even considers long-term dead cap is unfit for any job in hockey ops. The price to pay for one season of benefit is simply not acceptable. Lol in 2 years time when we would have been using 7.26 million on a bottom pairing dman? At that point we will be able to sign a dman for the 2.5 million difference who will be as good if not better than a 35 year old OEL who already has mobility issues. The only thing that makes the buyout painful is the 2.1 mil over years 5-8. At that point the cap will be over 100 million and it will be a drop in a bucket. Calm down chicken little. Edited January 4 by Coryberg 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Heffy Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 2 minutes ago, GrammaInTheTub said: “Permanent” and “multiple years” does not compute Irreversible might be more accurate then. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostsof1915 Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 38 minutes ago, King Heffy said: Permanent damage like multiple years of dead cap. So in the outside chance the Canucks win the Stanley Cup, you're still going to pout about this? Benning did far more damage than PA/JR will ever do. 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Heffy Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 1 minute ago, Ghostsof1915 said: So in the outside chance the Canucks win the Stanley Cup, you're still going to pout about this? Benning did far more damage than PA/JR will ever do. Highly doubt it will happen, and still won't make me pretend to respect the parasites in our front office. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PureQuickness Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 I can see the arguments to sell off our 1st round pick (probably a very low one at this point for us), but I'd rather keep it. Gillis made the biggest mistake of being a poor drafter/developer, despite making the main team so good, and the result was a lack of depth after he was fired. We cannot make that mistake. Allvin has shown that he can pick up value without necessarily needing to pay out of the nose. He's also made one expensive trade (Hronek), which has worked out well. There's no harm in keeping the 1st round pick if one day we can be the one trading a Hronek (a fully developed player) for a king's ransom. Drafting and developing is still important, even if we do have players like Lekkerimaki, Willander, and D. Petterson. We need some homegrown talents and the 1st rounders/2nd rounders are nice places to bolster those talents. We also need the late round picks to pan out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post N4ZZY Posted January 4 Popular Post Share Posted January 4 55 minutes ago, King Heffy said: Permanent damage like multiple years of dead cap. Think you're thinking of Benning? He's the reason why the Canucks are in the cap mess to begin with. There's nothing Rutherford and Allvin could have done with all the dead cap situation. They had to buy out OEL, but that wasn't on them, that's Benning's mess that they inherited. 2 1 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostsof1915 Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 41 minutes ago, King Heffy said: Let's see if you feel the same in a couple of years when we're actually dealing with the irreversible impact. Any GM who even considers long-term dead cap is unfit for any job in hockey ops. The price to pay for one season of benefit is simply not acceptable. So six years of over $6 million a season for a struggling defenceman, is better than: 2023-24: $147,000 2024-25: $2.347 Million (Rounded up) 2025-26 $4.767 Million. 2026-27 $4.767 Million. 2027-28 $2.127 Million 2028-29 $2.127 Million That's six years. $16.282 cap space vs. 6 years at over $36 million. That is not permanent. It's six years. No draft picks lost. Looks to me like we're saving give or take $20 million in cap space. All for a 32 year old defensman who's best year in Vancouver was 29 points. Maybe you should focus your rage on Benning for making the trade in the first place? Yeah if he's lucky he might get 40 points in Florida. But would get 40 points in Vancouver, and would he be defensively reliable? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post PureQuickness Posted January 4 Popular Post Share Posted January 4 15 minutes ago, King Heffy said: Highly doubt it will happen, and still won't make me pretend to respect the parasites in our front office. I've been anti-Allvin from the beginning because his first year was terrible as a GM, but it's time to reassess. Allvin HAS done well. I thought he'd be a puppet for Rutherford, but he's shown to be a very shrewd GM. There's no shame in claiming victory when you're right at the beginning and admitting that you're wrong when it turns out differently than expected. I was wrong about Allvin. 2 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PureQuickness Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 (edited) 4 minutes ago, N4ZZY said: Think you're thinking of Benning? He's the reason why the Canucks are in the cap mess to begin with. There's nothing Rutherford and Allvin could have done with all the dead cap situation. They had to buy out OEL, but that wasn't on them, that's Benning's mess that they inherited. And they also inherited Pettersson, Hughes, Demko, and so forth. This is no different than Gillis inheriting Luongo, Kesler, the Sedins, and so forth. Benning had made plenty of mistakes and I will admit that the OEL trade handcuffed Allvin essentially into the buyout. However, credit is due where it's due. Allvin would not be where he is without clearing up Benning's mistakes and building off the strong core pieces that Benning (and his regime) set up. Edited January 4 by PureQuickness 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barn Burner Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 5 hours ago, Boudrias said: Who are you waiving to take him? Myers? (half kidding!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barn Burner Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 2 hours ago, Rekker said: I'm good with trading the first if it's for a non-rental. Add if need be for the righ player and age of player. Exactly. If it's similar to a Miller or Hronek type trade, 1st+ for an excellent 24-26 year old player just entering their prime, go for it. Especially if it's a top end D. Otherwise, save it. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 45 minutes ago, King Heffy said: Highly doubt it will happen, and still won't make me pretend to respect the parasites in our front office. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smithers joe Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 wasn't it heff that wanted benning and gillis fired and tried to get champlain's voyages cancelled? he isn't a fan of history unless it is made by him or her. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N4ZZY Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 3 hours ago, Ghostsof1915 said: So six years of over $6 million a season for a struggling defenceman, is better than: 2023-24: $147,000 2024-25: $2.347 Million (Rounded up) 2025-26 $4.767 Million. 2026-27 $4.767 Million. 2027-28 $2.127 Million 2028-29 $2.127 Million That's six years. $16.282 cap space vs. 6 years at over $36 million. That is not permanent. It's six years. No draft picks lost. Looks to me like we're saving give or take $20 million in cap space. All for a 32 year old defensman who's best year in Vancouver was 29 points. Maybe you should focus your rage on Benning for making the trade in the first place? Yeah if he's lucky he might get 40 points in Florida. But would get 40 points in Vancouver, and would he be defensively reliable? Benning was the reason this current management is in the bind that they're in. If he didn't sign some of the worst contracts for bottom six players, or trade for OEL, who's contract had to be one of the worse in the league, and he still made the deal and gave up our first to do it. What is Allvin and Rutherford supposed to do? I think they really did try to get rid of some of the bad contracts, but nobody was budging or willing to take it on without the Canucks parting with more 1st round picks. I don't think any fan would have wanted more 1st round picks leaving the organization. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Vanderhoek Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 7 hours ago, King Heffy said: Let's see if you feel the same in a couple of years when we're actually dealing with the irreversible impact. Any GM who even considers long-term dead cap is unfit for any job in hockey ops. The price to pay for one season of benefit is simply not acceptable. If it removes the player and allows your team to grow and be molded into a winner and has the backing of ownership than its a smart move. Its aggressive and shows determination to get your club to where you want it to be. This was not a Rutherford job either, he would have been in a collaborative process here so your essentially saying the management group to the coaches and the team owner are not fit for their jobs. This is where you lose all credibility. Being smart with finances and being safe keeping the books in order is smart in business absolutely but as a tool that can be utilized in the NHL the buyout process while being a major commitment by ownership is something that can benefit teams. The Canucks will not jeopardize signing or retaining any core pieces with the OEL buyout. Its going to be ok. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Vanderhoek Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 Good defensive defenseman with upside. On a deep club in LA where he got injured then stuck behind too many other players. He needs to play to shake the rust off but he would be a definite target if he made it past poorer teams. Would be shocked if he cleared. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Heffy Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 3 hours ago, N4ZZY said: Benning was the reason this current management is in the bind that they're in. If he didn't sign some of the worst contracts for bottom six players, or trade for OEL, who's contract had to be one of the worse in the league, and he still made the deal and gave up our first to do it. What is Allvin and Rutherford supposed to do? I think they really did try to get rid of some of the bad contracts, but nobody was budging or willing to take it on without the Canucks parting with more 1st round picks. I don't think any fan would have wanted more 1st round picks leaving the organization. Trading picks was still a smarter option than what the idiots in the front office have done. They've taken Benning's mistake and compounded it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rypien-Punch Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 7 hours ago, PureQuickness said: I can see the arguments to sell off our 1st round pick (probably a very low one at this point for us), but I'd rather keep it. Gillis made the biggest mistake of being a poor drafter/developer, despite making the main team so good, and the result was a lack of depth after he was fired. We cannot make that mistake. Allvin has shown that he can pick up value without necessarily needing to pay out of the nose. He's also made one expensive trade (Hronek), which has worked out well. There's no harm in keeping the 1st round pick if one day we can be the one trading a Hronek (a fully developed player) for a king's ransom. Drafting and developing is still important, even if we do have players like Lekkerimaki, Willander, and D. Petterson. We need some homegrown talents and the 1st rounders/2nd rounders are nice places to bolster those talents. We also need the late round picks to pan out. I agree to keeping the first. I hope they draft EJ Emery. He would be a welcomed prospect addition to our RD depth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N4ZZY Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 1 hour ago, Mike Vanderhoek said: Good defensive defenseman with upside. On a deep club in LA where he got injured then stuck behind too many other players. He needs to play to shake the rust off but he would be a definite target if he made it past poorer teams. Would be shocked if he cleared. You think Bjornfot makes it to the Canucks? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N4ZZY Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 1 hour ago, King Heffy said: Trading picks was still a smarter option than what the idiots in the front office have done. They've taken Benning's mistake and compounded it. I disagree with that. How have they taken Benning's mistakes and compounded on it? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuck73_3 Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 (edited) 12 hours ago, N4ZZY said: I disagree with that. How have they taken Benning's mistakes and compounded on it? By becoming 1st in the conference instead of talking about lottery chances in November obviously. Edited January 4 by canuck73_3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron Fist Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 11 hours ago, N4ZZY said: I don't see how many chances they have given OEL's cap constraints that'll be on the team in the coming years. I mean, it's getting worse next year even with the cap supposedly to rise, but it'll be even worse down the road at like 4M isn't it on the cap? Gosh, the cap better go up a ton, or else the team's chances of becoming contenders shrinks by a large margin. I wonder what the strategy is from management's perspective? its only bad for 25-26 season. can't do much that season with the space. but in 26-27 trade deadline we can start being aggressive again because its drops to 2 million after that. its not that bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.