[GDT] Vancouver Canucks vs New York Rangers, Oct 28 7PM, Rogers Place - Give the Blueshirts the Blues Game

[DavidGoliath]

1 minute ago, Blue said:

The bookies got their result 

 

 

Ah. Very interesting observation. Glad I didn’t have money on that. I’m already furious!

[Pickly]

2 minutes ago, Kurtis said:

Yup. Re watching it, it definitely seemed to be that instant. 

It’s pretty bizarre that Ron is even still on tv. He’s dislikes everywhere including in Ontario.. 

Ron McLean is a hack whose best before date expired years ago. Canadian icon my ass. He’s a punk who sewered Burrows and Don Cherry who made him who he is no matter your opinion of Don.
 

Don’t even come at me with the Don is a racist/bigot bullshit either if you want to guy had an opinion and stuck by it until the very end which I forever respect.

[copperlynx]

Marginal call on Pete (5:3) that could decide the game. Almost... well, not enough for refs - sure, let's decide the game on 3:3 non-call. 

[Vancan]

Scott Oath better not make this awkward.... Of he will, creeper always does. Louie has his work cut out every Saturday.

[24K]

11 minutes ago, DavidGoliath said:

Ah. Very interesting observation. Glad I didn’t have money on that. I’m already furious!

People need to stop betting and the bookies will force Bettman to fix officiating. This game proves betting on nhl games are nonviable.

[Pure961089]

Ive never seen refs spring into action as quick as when the Canucks got their short handed goal.  Like white knights, they protected the spread like she were a damsel in distress.  

[copperlynx]

18 minutes ago, 24K said:

People need to stop betting and the bookies will force Bettman to fix officiating. This game proves betting on nhl games are nonviable.

Actually, quite viable. Always bet on the original 6 and you will be sure in green on average.

[brilac]

42 minutes ago, Cerridwen said:

 

Hunter's Moon

Thanks! I was out, but it was smaller than it was today! It was bright and big. I was in all awes at it earlier today. But now, no aweing. 

[Huggy Bear]

17 hours ago, wai_lai416 said:

how the fuk is that whining? i'm only pointing out facts. they are still producing well just not in terms of scoring goals. go block me or something instead of feeling the need to quote me everywhere with ur useless trolling

Because while the Canucks are playing well, and have lots of different players scoring, you’re pointing out that our stars have fewer goals than other NHL rando’s. 
 

Your posts have often been critical, negative or smug (starting and ending with ‘lol,’ for example). So maybe I’m projecting an opinion based on your past posts. If that’s the case, then I apologize. 
 

I’d rather not ignore anyone, and I can appreciate you’re a knowledgeable fan. 

 

I’ll quote you if I feel like it. It’s a hockey discussion board. If I’m overstepping, the moderators can let me know. 
 

 

[Pure961089]

The refs made the NHL look like a bush league.  And I have no confidence in the integrity of the NHL.  it was like when Myers scored the refs had their eyes peeled.  The refs no longer saw 2 teams playing, there was only 1 team and the refs reaction to Myers scoring was something akin to an antibody reaction. Desperation and flailing until the spread was covered.  Crooked. 

[wai_lai416]

2 hours ago, Huggy Bear said:

Because while the Canucks are playing well, and have lots of different players scoring, you’re pointing out that our stars have fewer goals than other NHL rando’s. 
 

Your posts have often been critical, negative or smug (starting and ending with ‘lol,’ for example). So maybe I’m projecting an opinion based on your past posts. If that’s the case, then I apologize. 
 

I’d rather not ignore anyone, and I can appreciate you’re a knowledgeable fan. 

 

I’ll quote you if I feel like it. It’s a hockey discussion board. If I’m overstepping, the moderators can let me know. 
 

 

I like typing lol coz it’s a habit thing I think coz gaming too much back in the days. Im not being critical of the Canucks and if u look at my post in all the gdt or pgt I’m going to say it’s been 95% positive so far this season. Im only pointing out the top guys ain’t putting in goals well coz it’s the truth but at the same time that means others are chipping in which is a good thing. Hughes Myers and soucy all with 2 each this early is like a pipe dream. Im just hoping ep start potting in 1 or 2 here to get off the goal “slump” and the team would be even scarier 

 

trade threads maybe not as positive coz I still dying for them to free up cap space via a trade that most likely won’t happen till TDL 

Edited October 30, 2023 by wai_lai416

[Huggy Bear]

2 hours ago, wai_lai416 said:

I like typing lol coz it’s a habit thing I think coz gaming too much back in the days. Im not being critical of the Canucks and if u look at my post in all the gdt or pgt I’m going to say it’s been 95% positive so far this season. Im only pointing out the top guys ain’t putting in goals well coz it’s the truth but at the same time that means others are chipping in which is a good thing. Hughes Myers and soucy all with 2 each this early is like a pipe dream. Im just hoping ep start potting in 1 or 2 here to get off the goal “slump” and the team would be even scarier 

 

trade threads maybe not as positive coz I still dying for them to free up cap space via a trade that most likely won’t happen till TDL 

Appreciate the context on the ‘lol.’ I’m not a gamer, so it just comes across as “the other person’s post is so laughable you that it made you LOL.” Cringeworthy.
 

I’ve noticed you’ve been more positive on CFF. You actually helped me understand trading LTIR contracts in one of the first threads here. Appreciate that.
 

While I don’t agree with some of your trade takes (like the cost of trading Garland increasing over time), I respect them. FWIW, I get your cynicism re. our current trade options - the flat cap is frustrating. 

 

On CDC, you used to troll trade proposals pretty hard, cynically picking them apart, without adding anything constructive, or making proposals of your own. Can’t respect that, and I’ll admit it affects how I interpret your posts.  Haven’t spent much time in the proposal section here. Maybe that’s a thing of the past, and I’ll let it go. 

 

As for myself, I know I lean positive (and that’s not for everyone), and I’m guilty of trying to call out negative posters. I’m also trying to be better on this forum, and I do ignore posters who are consistently negative attention- seekers, that typically derail PGT’s after a loss. I don’t consider you one of them. 

 

I also peek in on my ignore list from time to time, and try to upvote them when they make a good point or constructive comment. Like a certain poster who was (likely) born in ‘82. 
 

Anyways, I hope you and I can have good conversations and arguments on here going forward. 
 

I’ll stop reading your ‘lol’ s as condescending (context is everything), let the CDC shit go, and appreciate your more balanced takes on CFF. 
 

Would love to see you channel your hockey knowledge into devising an original Garland trade proposal. Just saying…

Edit - and if you do, please let me know so I can read it

Edited October 30, 2023 by Huggy Bear

[wai_lai416]

22 minutes ago, Huggy Bear said:

Appreciate the context on the ‘lol.’ I’m not a gamer, so it just comes across as “the other person’s post is so laughable you that it made you LOL.” Cringeworthy.
 

I’ve noticed you’ve been more positive on CFF. You actually helped me understand trading LTIR contracts in one of the first threads here. Appreciate that.
 

While I don’t agree with some of your trade takes (like the cost of trading Garland increasing over time), I respect them. FWIW, I get your cynicism re. our current trade options - the flat cap is frustrating. 

 

On CDC, you used to troll trade proposals pretty hard, cynically picking them apart, without adding anything constructive, or making proposals of your own. Can’t respect that, and I’ll admit it affects how I interpret your posts.  Haven’t spent much time in the proposal section here. Maybe that’s a thing of the past, and I’ll let it go. 

 

As for myself, I know I lean positive (and that’s not for everyone), and I’m guilty of trying to call out negative posters. I’m also trying to be better on this forum, and I do ignore posters who are consistently negative attention- seekers, that typically derail PGT’s after a loss. I don’t consider you one of them. 

 

I also peek in on my ignore list from time to time, and try to upvote them when they make a good point or constructive comment. Like a certain poster who was (likely) born in ‘82. 
 

Anyways, I hope you and I can have good conversations and arguments on here going forward. 
 

I’ll stop reading your ‘lol’ s as condescending (context is everything), let the CDC shit go, and appreciate your more balanced takes on CFF. 
 

Would love to see you channel your hockey knowledge into devising an original Garland trade proposal. Just saying…

Edit - and if you do, please let me know so I can read it

new forum new start i'm trying to be more positive here. occasionally i'll still come off as a prick arguing with others.. well not trying to be a prick but arguing in general.. i have no issues with ppl ripping my argument apart if they don't agree with it coz after all it is an opinion everyone is free to have their own. i usually only take issues with people that randomly quotes me with trolling post that have nothing to do with the post or just troll period without arguing the post or start getting mad and name call and stuff when people don't agree with them.

 

the only reason i'm not that big on garland is i looked at his game logs the last 2 seasons. he was on pace for 40 points until the last 2 weeks of the season after the team was eliminated the 1st year.. and last season overall as a season he's not consistent and very streaky.. but one thing in common in both season is 5v5 his stats are not great vs good teams (playoff caliber teams) and a good chunk of his points comes against the bad teams. it is still important points are points... but he's like -15 or something 5v5 both years against the good teams.. he doesn't play PK and defensively he's blocking fewer and fewer shots for whatever reason. in arizona his blk/game been going up every season.. and since he came to vancouver his blk/game been going down significantly every season and we give up quite a bit of shots every game so you'd figure it would go up? he used to be blking at like .4 blocks per game.. and in vancouver he's blocking at like .25 and dropping each season. he needs to be producing to justify his cap hit.. being hard to play against doesn't really justify that... and the biggest concern i have is his production.. if he continues his slump. 2 points in 8 games that's like 20 points over a full season.. and majority of the first 6 games was playing on the top line. he no longer have the luxury of having a miller or horvat as his 3c so i see him struggling even more for production. if he continues to produce at a .25p/game clip imo his value will drop. and if he further struggles his value will drop even further. other teams are not going to look and say he's struggling coz of deployment so maybe he'll turn it around if deployed in other situation. those are usually like reclamation projects and i find it hard press to see anyone willing to take on the entire cap + give you anything in value in return. he forechecks hard and is hard to play against offensively but unless he's scoring it's really hard to justify his cap hit at anything close to his 5mil. so hopefully he goes on a mini streak gets back to .5p/game pace get some interest cut bait and move on if you can trade him at his full cap without retention even if the return is underwhelming. the cap space alone would be worth it. i'm sure we can get one of our prospect up to replace him at cheaper cost that can play hard on the forecheck and produce at his current 20 point pace. 

[Huggy Bear]

1 minute ago, wai_lai416 said:

new forum new start i'm trying to be more positive here. occasionally i'll still come off as a prick arguing with others.. well not trying to be a prick but arguing in general.. i have no issues with ppl ripping my argument apart if they don't agree with it coz after all it is an opinion everyone is free to have their own. i usually only take issues with people that randomly quotes me with trolling post that have nothing to do with the post or just troll period without arguing the post or start getting mad and name call and stuff when people don't agree with them.

 

the only reason i'm not that big on garland is i looked at his game logs the last 2 seasons. he was on pace for 40 points until the last 2 weeks of the season after the team was eliminated the 1st year.. and last season overall as a season he's not consistent and very streaky.. but one thing in common in both season is 5v5 his stats are not great vs good teams (playoff caliber teams) and a good chunk of his points comes against the bad teams. it is still important points are points... but he's like -15 or something 5v5 both years against the good teams.. he doesn't play PK and defensively he's blocking fewer and fewer shots for whatever reason. in arizona his blk/game been going up every season.. and since he came to vancouver his blk/game been going down significantly every season and we give up quite a bit of shots every game so you'd figure it would go up? he used to be blking at like .4 blocks per game.. and in vancouver he's blocking at like .25 and dropping each season. he needs to be producing to justify his cap hit.. being hard to play against doesn't really justify that... and the biggest concern i have is his production.. if he continues his slump. 2 points in 8 games that's like 20 points over a full season.. and majority of the first 6 games was playing on the top line. he no longer have the luxury of having a miller or horvat as his 3c so i see him struggling even more for production. if he continues to produce at a .25p/game clip imo his value will drop. and if he further struggles his value will drop even further. other teams are not going to look and say he's struggling coz of deployment so maybe he'll turn it around if deployed in other situation. those are usually like reclamation projects and i find it hard press to see anyone willing to take on the entire cap + give you anything in value in return. he forechecks hard and is hard to play against offensively but unless he's scoring it's really hard to justify his cap hit at anything close to his 5mil. so hopefully he goes on a mini streak gets back to .5p/game pace get some interest cut bait and move on if you can trade him at his full cap without retention even if the return is underwhelming. the cap space alone would be worth it. i'm sure we can get one of our prospect up to replace him at cheaper cost that can play hard on the forecheck and produce at his current 20 point pace. 

 

Pretty sure if you’re less of a dick, it will reflect in the replies you get.

 

Fair enough re. Garland. Your deeper dive into his stats match the eye test. There’s a consistent narrative out there that he’s great 5 on 5, but that’s less impressive given your research re. quality of opponents. Appreciate that.

 

I could live with a trade for just cap space, and can see an argument that it’s more valuable right now than trying to rebuild/recoup his value. 
 

I don’t agree that the cost of trading him will increase over time. We’re at the end of the flat cap era, and GMs will resume spending like donkeys to save their jobs the minute they get new LTIR relief, or accrue a bit of salary cap. IMHO, the longer we hold onto him, the better return we’ll get.

 

Interested in your response to that. But please use more paragraphs - the wall of text is hard to read.

[wai_lai416]

4 minutes ago, Huggy Bear said:

 

Pretty sure if you’re less of a dick, it will reflect in the replies you get.

 

Fair enough re. Garland. Your deeper dive into his stats match the eye test. There’s a consistent narrative out there that he’s great 5 on 5, but that’s less impressive given your research re. quality of opponents. Appreciate that.

 

I could live with a trade for just cap space, and can see an argument that it’s more valuable right now than trying to rebuild/recoup his value. 
 

I don’t agree that the cost of trading him will increase over time. We’re at the end of the flat cap era, and GMs will resume spending like donkeys to save their jobs the minute they get new LTIR relief, or accrue a bit of salary cap. IMHO, the longer we hold onto him, the better return we’ll get.

 

Interested in your response to that. But please use more paragraphs - the wall of text is hard to read.

sry was typing on the phone so just went with a wall of text haha

 

cap is rising i agree but at the same time the top end players are getting massive raise to reflect that. i think in order to have a successful team and have cap space to sign all their star players and have a competitive team, they need to be wary on the cap with regards to spending on the medium level players. you are better off overspending on the top end players that can be a game changer. rather than overspend on the medium tier players. 

 

i still believe garland value won't go up and only down if he doesn't start producing until the final year of his contract as an expiring contract

[Huggy Bear]

45 minutes ago, wai_lai416 said:

sry was typing on the phone so just went with a wall of text haha

 

cap is rising i agree but at the same time the top end players are getting massive raise to reflect that. i think in order to have a successful team and have cap space to sign all their star players and have a competitive team, they need to be wary on the cap with regards to spending on the medium level players. you are better off overspending on the top end players that can be a game changer. rather than overspend on the medium tier players. 

 

i still believe garland value won't go up and only down if he doesn't start producing until the final year of his contract as an expiring contract

All good and thanks.
 

Yes to keeping cap space to be competitive, and flexible to add at the deadline. JR was explicit about offloading 2 more contracts before he could do “what they really wanted. “ Another top 4 D and a big checking winger please!
 

Also yes to and spending only on top players. Great approach to cap management, and trying to sign them early for value (eg $8M for Jack Hughes…filthy) can be hugely rewarding, or you can get Nurse or Jones for $9M+
 

I’ll bet you if we wait to trade Garland until the off-season, we won’t need to retain anything.  The cap rising $4M at once will drive prices up quickly, and his $4.95M salary for 40-50 pts will be better than market value, and more teams will have cap.

 

Hopefully they won’t look too closely at his analytics as you have. We just need some dinosaur GM who sees him as a top 6 option. 
 

Here’s hoping. I’d like to see him traded soon too, but can’t stomach more retention.would rather wait til the off-season, and check the market then. Could be wrong of course…
 

 

Edited October 30, 2023 by Huggy Bear

[Huggy Bear]

On 10/29/2023 at 3:47 PM, Pure961089 said:

The refs made the NHL look like a bush league.  And I have no confidence in the integrity of the NHL.  it was like when Myers scored the refs had their eyes peeled.  The refs no longer saw 2 teams playing, there was only 1 team and the refs reaction to Myers scoring was something akin to an antibody reaction. Desperation and flailing until the spread was covered.  Crooked. 

sorry dude. Wai and I bumped this thread hashing our shit. Think you meant to post in the recent GDT/PGT?

Edited October 31, 2023 by Huggy Bear

[Pure961089]

31 minutes ago, Huggy Bear said:

sorry dude. Wai and I bumped this thread hashing our shit. Think you meant to post in the recent GDT/PGT?

Do you want me to repost it there?  I'm not nearly as emotionally charged now as I was then.  It's past.

[Huggy Bear]

2 hours ago, Pure961089 said:

Do you want me to repost it there?  I'm not nearly as emotionally charged now as I was then.  It's past.

Haha, I can relate.

 

I wouldn’t recommend it. The venting is generally over there also, and there’s not much constructive debate on solutions any more.

 

If solutions (eg. Expanded video reviews) interest you, @JayDangles made a great suggestion that we discussed somewhere around p.21-23. @-dlc- and a few others weighed in with interesting tales (for me).

 

If not, on to the next one! See you on the next GDT?

Edited October 31, 2023 by Huggy Bear
Corrected page #’s