Toggle sidebar

Around the League 47 Vancouver Collects All the Petterssons

Finlandia WOAT said:
What a deep year for the Calder. Michkov could end with 60 points and he and Blake likely won't be "finalists"
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone expected the kind of season Hutson is having. The one I feel terrible for is Wolf. It's so hard for goalies to get acknowledged in end of year awards that aren't specifically focused on them, and he's had a Calder-winning season, but so have a few forwards and defensemen, so he'll be pushed to the side
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stickpucker, bleedgreen and DaveG
AhosDatsyukian said:
I was and am still high on both Pono and Koivunen but we can pump the brakes a bit here. They are still likely just bottom 6 players and nowhere near the value (Necas) we gave up for Rantanen (of which we got quite a bit back).
Click to expand...
I don’t think it’s as dramatic as needing to pump the brakes. There’s nothing new going on, my view is exactly the same as it was the day we made the trade to get Jake. We paid a lot more than others do for a rental, it’s a big risk. So in my mind we whiffed pretty badly with losing Jake but that’s the price you pay for trying to get better sometimes. Tulsky already took the blame for this in the big interview he gave about the Rants situation. He said they misplayed the Jake situation because they were trying to sign everyone at the same time. He doesn’t say it but they also had a change in roles right then and he hadn’t much time in the role when he had to do it, but he did say if they could do it again knowing they were going to lose everyone anyways he would’ve just signed Jake early. He flat out said they misplayed it.

It’s ok to say we messed up the Jake situation a bit. If the GM says it, it’s ok for us to accept that too. This isn’t me picking on the guy but it was a painful transaction and it went the worst way possible. It isn’t franchise ending but it happened and it hurt at least a bit. In a way I’m glad he’s shown he’s still willing to take chances after it, even if chapter two got sloppy as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WreckingCrew and Discipline Daddy
bleedgreen said:
I don’t think it’s as dramatic as needing to pump the brakes. There’s nothing new going on, my view is exactly the same as it was the day we made the trade to get Jake. We paid a lot more than others do for a rental, it’s a big risk. So in my mind we whiffed pretty badly with losing Jake but that’s the price you pay for trying to get better sometimes. Tulsky already took the blame for this in the big interview he gave about the Rants situation. He said they misplayed the Jake situation because they were trying to sign everyone at the same time. He doesn’t say it but they also had a change in roles right then and he hadn’t much time in the role when he had to do it, but he did say if they could do it again knowing they were going to lose everyone anyways he would’ve just signed Jake early. He flat out said they misplayed it.

It’s ok to say we messed up the Jake situation a bit. If the GM says it, it’s ok for us to accept that too. This isn’t me picking on the guy but it was a painful transaction and it went the worst way possible. It isn’t franchise ending but it happened and it hurt at least a bit. In a way I’m glad he’s shown he’s still willing to take chances after it, even if chapter two got sloppy as well.
Click to expand...
100%.

I see it as a strength of Tulsky to take the L here and learn from it. We wouldn't be as deep a team if we signed Guentzel, and we may have had to bridge Jarvis, so there's a little silver lining in not signing him. But clearly he fit the team well and we goofed it to lose a quality 1st liner for only a 3rd in return. Especially given what we gave up to get him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stickpucker, cptjeff, Daeavorn and 4 others
bleedgreen said:
I don’t think it’s as dramatic as needing to pump the brakes. There’s nothing new going on, my view is exactly the same as it was the day we made the trade to get Jake. We paid a lot more than others do for a rental, it’s a big risk. So in my mind we whiffed pretty badly with losing Jake but that’s the price you pay for trying to get better sometimes. Tulsky already took the blame for this in the big interview he gave about the Rants situation. He said they misplayed the Jake situation because they were trying to sign everyone at the same time. He doesn’t say it but they also had a change in roles right then and he hadn’t much time in the role when he had to do it, but he did say if they could do it again knowing they were going to lose everyone anyways he would’ve just signed Jake early. He flat out said they misplayed it.

It’s ok to say we messed up the Jake situation a bit. If the GM says it, it’s ok for us to accept that too. This isn’t me picking on the guy but it was a painful transaction and it went the worst way possible. It isn’t franchise ending but it happened and it hurt at least a bit. In a way I’m glad he’s shown he’s still willing to take chances after it, even if chapter two got sloppy as well.
Click to expand...
It was a big amount to pay a rental but by no means unprecedented or like some insane amount that was a big mistake. It was a high price but it was still within reason for a rental and we gave it a shot and had a run with him and came up short. Pono and Koivunen are solid prospects and it's a bummer to lose them but I don't think it really hurt our team going forward much at all. We still have a lot of assets, great young core and prospects, cap space, etc. Lesser prospects like that just aren't really all that critical for this team and if we keep drafting like we have we can keep moving them for rentals.

I know the team and many here wanted to keep Jake and I will give you that they "screwed up" that situation for those in that camp, but it's really just a net neutral. Personally I didn't want Jake long term and prefer having the cap space for Nikishin, other home grown guys and/or continued big game hunting. So I don't think it hurt at all and was actually better for us, but I know most here disagree with that. I think giving away Necas for what became scraps (albeit roughly equal value) hurt the team more. Not a drastic franchise changing or window shortening move, but I do think it hurts us not having Necas as a main piece in a potential trade for a top tier player. I get it, we tried for Rantanen, there were some shenanigans, we shot our shot and it didn't work out. I just didn't like doing it for a pending UFA without being pretty damn certain he'd sign long term. Hopefully Tulsky learned from that and doesn't turn around and flip Svech+ for a big name who walks in a year or we are again forced to trade for scraps.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WreckingCrew and bleedgreen
AhosDatsyukian said:
It was a big amount to pay a rental but by no means unprecedented or like some insane amount that was a big mistake. It was a high price but it was still within reason for a rental and we gave it a shot and had a run with him and came up short. Pono and Koivunen are solid prospects and it's a bummer to lose them but I don't think it really hurt our team going forward much at all. We still have a lot of assets, great young core and prospects, cap space, etc. Lesser prospects like that just aren't really all that critical for this team and if we keep drafting like we have we can keep moving them for rentals.

I know the team and many here wanted to keep Jake and I will give you that they "screwed up" that situation for those in that camp, but it's really just a net neutral. Personally I didn't want Jake long term and prefer having the cap space for Nikishin, other home grown guys and/or continued big game hunting. So I don't think it hurt at all and was actually better for us, but I know most here disagree with that. I think giving away Necas for what became scraps (albeit roughly equal value) hurt the team more. Not a drastic franchise changing or window shortening move, but I do think it hurts us not having Necas as a main piece in a potential trade for a top tier player. I get it, we tried for Rantanen, there were some shenanigans, we shot our shot and it didn't work out. I just didn't like doing it for a pending UFA without being pretty damn certain he'd sign long term. Hopefully Tulsky learned from that and doesn't turn around and flip Svech+ for a big name who walks in a year or we are again forced to trade for scraps.
Click to expand...
I get it. We’ve talked enough about the idea of saving cap space now for someone that doesn’t even play for us yet, no need to beat it up but I think we’ve shown we use our cap space and also make sure we have cap space. If you don’t sign a needed first liner because three or four years later you’re going to want to sign your defenseman you’re missing the point of all this imo. If you can’t figure out how to keep both in a rising cap world do something else for a living because everyone else figures it out and we don’t have that many high end players.

I agree the Rants debacle hurts us a lot more than we admit as a group. I’d be fine if we traded straight Necas in the summer for what we got but what we did was a shit show and we got out of it lucky to get the lower value we got. We also hurt our team this year for sure, no matter what we’re saying now. Flip side I do think we’re forced to play better as a team and it’s shown lately. I don’t see us as a big playoff threat, but we knew that in the summer.

Ps…I do think there isn’t much precedence in what we paid for Jake. Or Rants to be honest. There’s not a lot of good comparables imo and you have to look historically pretty deep to find the few that work at all. Pure rentals generally don’t cost that much. Especially ones with zero talk of extension prior to the trade.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DaveG and WreckingCrew
bleedgreen said:
I get it. We’ve talked enough about the idea of saving cap space now for someone that doesn’t even play for us yet, no need to beat it up but I think we’ve shown we use our cap space and also make sure we have cap space. If you don’t sign a needed first liner because three or four years later you’re going to want to sign your defenseman you’re missing the point of all this imo. If you can’t figure out how to keep both in a rising cap world do something else for a living because everyone else figures it out and we don’t have that many high end players.

I agree the Rants debacle hurts us a lot more than we admit as a group. I’d be fine if we traded straight Necas in the summer for what we got but what we did was a shit show and we got out of it lucky to get the lower value we got. We also hurt our team this year for sure, no matter what we’re saying now. Flip side I do think we’re forced to play better as a team and it’s shown lately. I don’t see us as a big playoff threat, but we knew that in the summer.

Ps…I do think there isn’t much precedence in what we paid for Jake. Or Rants to be honest. There’s not a lot of good comparables imo and you have to look historically pretty deep to find the few that work at all. Pure rentals generally don’t cost that much. Especially ones with zero talk of extension prior to the trade.
Click to expand...
It's not just "saving cap for Nikishin," it's having cap flexibility to make moves that keep us contending every year in the long run. Jake is 30 years old and got 8 years, sure cap may go up, it may not, who knows. But it's still a riskier contract. I'm not the biggest fan of his game and he got UFA $ at 30 on a long term deal that has a great chance of aging poorly. We've got lots of prospects and young players in the pipeline who could be hits and where we can allocate that cap space -- Blake, Morrow, Nikishin, Jarvis (already done but wasn't when we were trying to keep Jake), Nadeau, Artamanov, now Stank, etc. Investing big cap space long term makes sense for true core players hitting UFA (Aho, Slavin) and home grown guys we can get on bargain contracts in their prime years coming off ELCs or in RFA years. Also for premium positions (center, top pair defense).

Jarvis would certainly have been kept on a bridge deal had we signed Guentzel and then his long term contract would've been considerably more expensive. Necas would've been gone for considerably less return before the season. And I'm not even convinced we'd be that much better of a team right now with Guentzel on it. He's a fine player but I don't agree with many who think he's a game changer.

Yeah losing Necas definitely hurt our team this year and going forward. I would've been thrilled to trade him to CBJ for 5overall (Demidov), or for big game hunting for a guy we could keep, or even just keep him long term. He is a great player even in our system.

What we paid for Jake comes down to how you value those prospects. It wound up being a 2nd round pick (very late 2nd), Pono, Koivunen and Bunting (net zero as his play for the Canes was not great and cap hit high, and the Pens have now already moved him. honestly wouldn't be surprised to learn that other teams would've been asking us to give a pick for them to take Bunting).

As high as I was on Pono and Koivunen, they were extremely expendable and a 2nd rounder is also not really worth all that much to us. We actually got a 3rd back from Tampa just for his rights for that 8th year anyways. I don't think our overall package was worth that much more than a single 1st to be honest. Plus most of the deadline deals aren't exactly apples to apples -- not often a player in his prime like Guentzel is getting traded as a rental.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chaz4hockey
AhosDatsyukian said:
It's not just "saving cap for Nikishin," it's having cap flexibility to make moves that keep us contending every year in the long run. Jake is 30 years old and got 8 years, sure cap may go up, it may not, who knows. But it's still a riskier contract. I'm not the biggest fan of his game and he got UFA $ at 30 on a long term deal that has a great chance of aging poorly. We've got lots of prospects and young players in the pipeline who could be hits and where we can allocate that cap space -- Blake, Morrow, Nikishin, Jarvis (already done but wasn't when we were trying to keep Jake), Nadeau, Artamanov, now Stank, etc. Investing big cap space long term makes sense for true core players hitting UFA (Aho, Slavin) and home grown guys we can get on bargain contracts in their prime years coming off ELCs or in RFA years. Also for premium positions (center, top pair defense).

Jarvis would certainly have been kept on a bridge deal had we signed Guentzel and then his long term contract would've been considerably more expensive. Necas would've been gone for considerably less return before the season. And I'm not even convinced we'd be that much better of a team right now with Guentzel on it. He's a fine player but I don't agree with many who think he's a game changer.

Yeah losing Necas definitely hurt our team this year and going forward. I would've been thrilled to trade him to CBJ for 5overall (Demidov), or for big game hunting for a guy we could keep, or even just keep him long term. He is a great player even in our system.

What we paid for Jake comes down to how you value those prospects. It wound up being a 2nd round pick (very late 2nd), Pono, Koivunen and Bunting (net zero as his play for the Canes was not great and cap hit high, and the Pens have now already moved him. honestly wouldn't be surprised to learn that other teams would've been asking us to give a pick for them to take Bunting).

As high as I was on Pono and Koivunen, they were extremely expendable and a 2nd rounder is also not really worth all that much to us. We actually got a 3rd back from Tampa just for his rights for that 8th year anyways. I don't think our overall package was worth that much more than a single 1st to be honest. Plus most of the deadline deals aren't exactly apples to apples -- not often a player in his prime like Guentzel is getting traded as a rental.
Click to expand...
I like Jake’s game for us a lot more than I likes Rants. I would’ve rather have good years of Jake that go bad down the road than Rants to be honest. I think we would get some good years out of him before it went south.

In general I agree with our philosophy of not giving the ufa big contract out. Sometimes you have to do something you don’t really want to do so you can improve. I don’t love either guys contract but I would’ve preferred Jake over Rants. Even before everything that happened with Rants.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cptjeff, WreckingCrew and AhosDatsyukian
Ugh, that Caps rook was about the only one who would have actually tried for that empty net and of course the puck's on that stick. Want this over with, please.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WreckingCrew
Surrounded By Ahos said:
He better f***ing do it against New York on Sunday I swear to god
Click to expand...

Sorokin is apparently one of the few goalies he hasn't scored on. That'd be a nice finishing touch

Also, it's wild to think that he's doing this in a career that also includes COVID seasons and two lockouts. If not for those, we could possibly be talking about 1000 goals for OV
 
  • Like
Reactions: cptjeff, WreckingCrew, geehaad and 3 others
If I were playing for the Islanders, I’d do the most petty shit next game. OV touches the puck, I’d put it into my own net intentionally. Completely take the pomp and hype over the record breaking goal, and also (technically) be the player who scored the one that broke the record.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: Stanky and Janky, Lucky Lindy, cptjeff and 6 others
Blueline Bomber said:
If I were playing for the Islanders, I’d do the most petty shit next game. OV touches the puck, I’d put it into my own net intentionally. Completely take the pomp and hype over the record breaking goal, and also (technically) be the player who scored the one that broke the record.
Click to expand...
Or just leave the goalie pulled the whole game
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: Stanky and Janky, cptjeff, WreckingCrew and 1 other person
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

  • ... and 1 more.
    • Total: 6 (members: 2, guests: 4)

    Latest posts

    Ad

    Ad

    Top Bottom