SalarySwishSalarySwish
Avatar

GM_moode

Vancity
Membre depuis
5 août 2017
Équipe favorite
Canucks de Vancouver
Messages dans les forums
116
Messages par jour
0.0
Forum: Armchair-GM14 mai 2023 à 17 h 39
Sujet: Offseason moves
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Koskinen_The_Great</b></div><div>Boeser isnt worth close to a 2nd making 7M AAV for a 18 goal scorer with bad skating and term that guy is delusional</div></div>

Although, I agree that Boeser is not worth his current contract (6.650 million, NOT 7 million), it is important to keep in mind various points of context. For starters, Boeser had the lowest avg time on ice of his career this season and was nearly a full minute lower than his career average. Additionally, Boeser's shooting percentage was down nearly 2% from his career average. However, the biggest impact is likely on the powerplay, where Kuzmenko has moved him off the top unit. Boeser's power play time on ice to finish the season was roughly 2.52 per game, down from 3.05 last season and 3.39 the year before.

Essentially, this is all to say that Boeser still managed 55 points in a career low year in a number of offensive categories. While nothing is guaranteed, it would not be surprising in the least if Boeser posted better numbers next year.

For the sake of comparison, Armia avg ice time this season was higher than his career norm (14.57 this season, 14.30 career). His shooting percentage was higher than his career norm (10.1 this season, 9.1 career). Finally, both his power play time on ice and short handed time on ice were up from last year (0.48 pp and 1.25 shorthanded). In this instance, its probably fair to say if any of these regress to career norms/below career norms your probably looking at a hit in overall production (which was already only 14 points in 43 games)
Forum: Armchair-GM14 mai 2023 à 16 h 49
Sujet: Offseason moves
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Koskinen_The_Great</b></div><div>Boeser isnt any less of a cap dump than Armia tho. Armia is an easy buyout, Boeser is not. The 2nd round pick is going the wrong way</div></div>

While, I agree that both players can be viewed as cap dumps to an extent, I'm not sure if value wise the Canucks would be adding a pick. For starters the buyout cost for Armia would be roughly 1.43 million over 4 years, compared to Boeser who would be roughly 2.21 million over 4 years. The difference in terms of buyout cost is only about 800k.

Production wise, Armia had 14 points in 43 games played (this is about 28 points over 82 games). Meanwhile, Boeser had 55 points in 74 games (this is about 60 points per 82). In addition, Boeser has a points per 60 of about 0.78, while Armia has a points per 60 of about 0.35 over their careers thus far. Finally, Armia is also an older player (3 years older) and far more likely to have his production taper off further compared to Boeser.

Essentially, I think Boeser has far more utility, and frankly upside, than Armia at this point in time.
Forum: Armchair-GM14 mai 2023 à 16 h 24
Sujet: Offseason moves
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>dickie_boon</b></div><div>Boeser is worth around a late second (although i think hes worth more) and Armia costs around a mid second to dump, so you could get more for him. Also is studnicka on the team or no?</div></div>

I'm not so sure if Boeser is worth a late second round pick (especially without any retention/taking back of a bad contract). I think if he was worth that much he would have already been traded. The Bjorkstrand trade is an instructive comparable as both players are wingers with a similar impact overall. Columbus (who was also in a cap bind) moved him for a 3rd and 4th and took no money back; however, Bjorkstrand is also making 1.2 million dollars less than Boeser. If anything I think the Canucks may be able to get a 4th or a 5th instead of a 6th, but this feels like a relatively realistic value for Boeser given the term and caphit associated with his deal.
Forum: Armchair-GM17 avr. 2021 à 1 h 50
Sujet: Last few runs at a cup
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>GM_moode</b></div><div>Yeah, I still think Tuuka has a few years left as a solid goalie option, but given his age and the variability of a position like goaltending from year to year I was more willing to bet on a younger goalie who has posted solid numbers on a bad team. I think Boston's defensive structure could benefit a goalie like Ullmark. I also figured Ullmark would cost a lot less and could be had at a low term deal as well. Also in terms of the Nashville offer I could see why Nashville might want more as the two players the Bruins would get are extremely useful. I especially like Jarnkrok as a versatile bottom six option with some offensive skill.

I think a larger takeaway from making this lineup is that the Bruins still have a few years to make hay with an elite core thats signed to reasonable deals. My lineup, as constructed has nearly 4 million dollars to spare, which could easily be converted into improvements throughout the roster for what is essentially a 1-2 year Cup or bust window.</div></div>

Oh and for Josh Levio, I think hes one of players that might be worth upgrading with the extra cap; however, depending on his pay and also if he is fully healed from a pretty devastating knee injury from while he was with the Canucks, he could provide good value as another useful bottom six scoring option.
Forum: Armchair-GM17 avr. 2021 à 1 h 48
Sujet: Last few runs at a cup
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>CMcAvoy73</b></div><div>Sign tuukka and beef up that offer to nashville a bit and this works. Oh, and ditch josh leivo.</div></div>

Yeah, I still think Tuuka has a few years left as a solid goalie option, but given his age and the variability of a position like goaltending from year to year I was more willing to bet on a younger goalie who has posted solid numbers on a bad team. I think Boston's defensive structure could benefit a goalie like Ullmark. I also figured Ullmark would cost a lot less and could be had at a low term deal as well. Also in terms of the Nashville offer I could see why Nashville might want more as the two players the Bruins would get are extremely useful. I especially like Jarnkrok as a versatile bottom six option with some offensive skill.

I think a larger takeaway from making this lineup is that the Bruins still have a few years to make hay with an elite core thats signed to reasonable deals. My lineup, as constructed has nearly 4 million dollars to spare, which could easily be converted into improvements throughout the roster for what is essentially a 1-2 year Cup or bust window.
Forum: Armchair-GM15 avr. 2021 à 15 h 33
Sujet: Offseason Ideally
Yeah I can see what you are saying. One of the big takeaways that I came away with is that this upcoming offseason is essentially all about locking up Petey and Hughes and about icing a respectable lineup, as opposed to actually making any significant improvements. Because of some bad contracts this team is gonna have to take some major kicks at the can in 2022-2023.

Yeah, ideally you would want a more defensively responsible third line centre-men so that Horvat and Petey dont have to match up against the top line. I think the way I saw it was that the Canucks may be better off just having a cheap, but offence oriented third line. I wouldn't consider Haula's line a traditional 3rd line as I would expect it to be sheltered and Horvat to still take on the toughest matchups. I was considering Lowery as well as someone like Nash or Soderberg, but ultimately I think Lowery will get more thant what is feasible cap wise and he would probably get term that pays him past his prime and into the Canucks window to contend.

Instead of Jensen I considered someone like Ian Cole in free agency or even Adam Larson or Dean Kukan in a trade, but ultimately Jensen seems like a guy that could be had at a low cost and could provide a reliable presence next to Hughes. i think Jensen is probably an upgrade to Hamonic and I think making the incremental improvement is worth the cost of acquisition. Also once again I think Jensen was interesting because his term is not super restrictive to the team moving forward.

I also dont know that much about Larson, but he appears to be a guy that is buried behind players in Anahiem. I also havent read anything about him being a particularly poor defensive player. Essentially, I view him as a low cost player the Canucks can try out. If he falls flat I think the cost of acquisition is low enough that the team could cut ties and give the opportunity to a player like Rathbone. As for Juolevi, I have little confidence that he is anything more than a 6-8 defensemen.
Forum: Armchair-GM15 avr. 2021 à 13 h 0
Sujet: Total Rebuild
As a Canucks fan I take the deal and run, just to get rid of Loui will most likely cost the team a first. Based on this trade the Canucks essentially get Sam Reinhart for a 2nd round pick. Also the Leafs trade makes little sense, I guess the Leafs may look to move on from Kerfoot for cap reasons but he is not a player with negative value that the Leafs will have to add an asset to move, its more likely that they will have to trade him for a diminished return than what he would have gotten otherwise (Id compare it to the Schmidt move by Vegas, where he's probably worth more than a 3rd, but since they needed the cap space they let him go for cheap). Also I think there is a limit to how many buyouts a team can have on the books.

Overall, I dont think these moves make the Sabres any better, yeah they get some high picks for the future but they sell low on prime assets like Reinhart, and also take on large contracts without getting enough assets for doing so.
Forum: Armchair-GM26 sept. 2018 à 23 h 8
Sujet: Canucks Lineup at the Deadline with trades
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>ItsBlowTime</b></div><div>Great proposals. Personally, I like Granlund and feel he fits better long term just because the Canucks are going to have an influx of young players coming up soon and Granny is a good two-way player. I'd honestly rather see Goldobin or Baertchi go for two reasons.

1: They would fetch more in return, setting the Canucks up a little better for the future
2: With Lind, Dahlen, and whoever they select at the 2019 draft (assuming it's a forward) in the system, the offence provided by either Bae or Goldy will be easily replaced in a year or two

Other than that, this is probably one of the most realistic proposals I've seen for the Canucks (especially Tanev) and I would 100% be thrilled if GMJB did all this.</div></div>

I personally like Granny too. I just think that with the additions this offseason the Canucks already added a ton of two-way players (although I think the Granlund is the best offensive player of the ones added). His role on the team for the next few years and spot on the team is kind of redundant, especially when the team is trying to incorporate younger players.

I can see what you mean with Baer and Goldobin, if a guy like Lind or Dahlen makes the team the offense that they provide would likely replace Baer and Goldy. In this case I would personally explore a trade for Baertschi. The Canucks would likely get more for Baertschi than Goldobin, and the aim at this point should still be to see what you have with Goldy (and regardless his trade value is probably terrible) . Even if he doesn't pan out the Canucks didn't give much to get him, this is the same with Baertschi, and I wouldn't be opposed to the Canucks cashing out on that trade with Calgary. What return do you think either Baertschi or Goldobin could get?
Forum: Armchair-GM24 mai 2018 à 18 h 27
Sujet: Playing the kids
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>wardbell92</b></div><div>I didn't realize Karlsson was worth so little......</div></div>

Although Karlsson is elite and one of the best defensemen in the NHL today, I cant see any team selling the farm for a single player. This is not including the fact that he's in for a significant raise that is likely in the 10-12 million dollar range, has a history of serious injuries and just had one of his worst seasons in recent memory, plus he isn't getting any younger either. As much as I love the way Karlsson plays the Sens should consider trading him, and people should realize he doesn't have this kings ransom value either.

The trade gives the Senators a first round pick in 2020, plus a couple of later picks in 2018 and 2019. The picks should help the Sens continue to stock up the draft cupboards with young affordable talent. Speaking of young affordable talent they get two significant pieces. I don't know about you but seeing as one of the Sens biggest deficiencies right now is at centre, they should be all over trying to add one that has top six potential in spades. Glass adds to a forward group that has Brown, White, Batherson, and Formenton. The other big piece is Brannstrom. Having watched this kid play I feel strongly that he might be a steal from last years draft. He's a smooth skater with excellent vision and breakout ability, could be Karlsson lite in a few years. The sens also get a stop gap option in Oscar Lindberg, who they can also elect to trade for picks down the road. They also get a 19 year old goalie prospect to boot. Sens also loose Gaboriks contract, along with two other players who don't have a future with the team.

I don't know about you but that seems like a reasonable haul for essentially one player
Forum: Armchair-GM23 mai 2018 à 23 h 36
Sujet: Ready to contend
I wouldn't "trash" something if it made sense, and I realize most posts have a very slim chance of actually happening and aren't the "expectation", only real issue I have with your post is that you undervalued a position that if anything is overvalued in NHL today, you also happen to do it four times. I don't mind the thought, because its fair, these players are available and the leafs need defence so it makes sense. I just feel that the value is wayyyy off and that you seem to really overvalue the players/prospects from the Leafs in the trade. This is something that you can choose to agree with or disagree with and whatever you choose to do is fine. If you think I was overly harsh than sorry, but I don't think I was doing anything more that suggesting you've grossly disvalued the parts of the trade