Canucks & NHL News, Rumours, and & Fantasy GM | Countdown to play Resuming

[Mr. Canucklehead]

Last one was over 1,000. Continue here.

Click to read more...

 

[Mr. Canucklehead]

The Karlsson disrespect is real.

 

[ProviesGhost]

Anyone know how to fix a broken superstar?

 

[sting101]

The Karlsson disrespect is real.

He's not even worth picking up his first goal puck.

 

[Baby Pettersson]

Eww get Bains away from this team!

 

[sting101]

Anyone know how to fix a broken superstar?

Don't worry man its just a implicit cognitive bias that has existed through 4 of his 7yrs failure seasons.

He's really just fine and should be considered a young Wayne Gretzky. It's all clear as day

 

[Mr. Canucklehead]

Eww get Bains away from this team!

In fairness, he's been really good in Abbotsford of late. But IMO, Karlsson has been better.

Also, wonder if Silovs coming up means Demko isn't ready to go yet.

 

[Deeds26]

Practice is at 2pm today, so we'll find out then if Silovs is up because Lankinen is being given a few days to return and rest before Saturday. Or if Demmer is still out for a bit.

 

[valkynax]

Random rant here: Recently I find some of the talking points surrounding to team to be rather baffling.

First it's Bure coming out to shit on management for the Miller/Petey situation. I'm one of the first to say that our front office's PR team feels like it's run by Dimbo's clones, showing shocking incompetence and a complete detachment from reality. But attributing the failure of two multi-million dollar professional athletes' inability to simply put their petty feud aside and work towards a greater goal all on the management feels rather disingenuous at best. Like with many other things, this situation had multiple contributing factors. Miller's departure and team's string of decent games showed that he was certainly not free from blame.

And then of course is the oh Boeser didn't get his extension but Metey did oh that's such a slap in the face. Seriously? That's what these hockey media freaks are running with? Yeah never mind the fact that team might still be negotiating because it will be a pretty big contract. Never mind the fact that Boeser might be outside of the team's budget and the team is looking at all options. Never mind that Boeser himself may also be considering his options. No no, never mind ALL of that and let's just put these emotionally charged bullshit headlines out there and see what happens.

 

[Szechwan]

Anyone know how to fix a broken superstar?

We've tried yapping about it on message boards for a year without luck, I say we trying shutting the f*** up for a few weeks and see what happens

 

[Just A Bit Outside]

Anyone know how to fix a broken superstar?

 

[SopelFanThe3rd]

Happy D-Pet is back up... worried me they'd keep him down with Hughes back...

Also I think Aman deserved more time. He looked good with his buddy Hog.

 

[arttk]

how do you break your side mirrors so cleanly is the bigger question

 

[sting101]

 

[Bobby9]

Don't worry man its just a implicit cognitive bias that has existed through 4 of his 7yrs failure seasons.

He's really just fine and should be considered a young Wayne Gretzky. It's all clear as day

 

[Vector]

Practice is at 2pm today, so we'll find out then if Silovs is up because Lankinen is being given a few days to return and rest before Saturday. Or if Demmer is still out for a bit.

Yeah, I don't think today's practice is going to be particularly instructive. Whichever practice they have before Saturday's game will give us a better idea of Demko's health.

 

[kanucks25]

Skipped the entire previous thread 'cause of the league break.

Any actual rumors during that time or just random conversation?

 

[Vector]

Skipped the entire previous thread 'cause of the league break.

Any actual rumors during that time or just random conversation?

 

[Hodgy]

@Bleach Clean , I brought this post over from the last thread.

I don't think they should take on Lindholm's full cap hit either. It would be $7m/7yrs (the Canucks deal (BOS retention)) against $8m/5yrs. Norris is still favoured for less overall term, but these players aren't worlds apart in quality. And the downside risk for Norris is unmatched.

I mean, I doubt Boston retains anything on a contract with six more years on it, especially given that their current management signed that contract. But the 750K retention isn't going to tip the scales either way in this debate, in my view.

In terms of downside risk for Norris, there is also upside risk for him that isn't really there for Lindholm. Norris is 25 years old and could actually improve throughout most of the balance of his contract. He could become a point per game player. For Lindholm, the opposite is true. Its more likely than not that his play will continue to drop as he ages into his thirties, and his play would be dropping from a point where he is already a negative value asset. Obviously there is considerable risk with Norris' injury history, and as I have already said, I'm not even necessarily advocating acquiring him. But between the two players, I'd rather roll the dice on Norris.

LTIR'ing $8m AAV is the worst outcome. It pushes them to re-structure the roster beyond Norris in a way that is anathema to cap accrual. The very thing they've been chasing since Benning left.

For sure, its a bad result as I have acknowledged multiple times. But again, its a way better result than having a third line centre for next six years at seven million a year.

Next, it's disingenuous to now hand-wave EVPs as the main production tool by which to judge players. I've advocated for PPPs in the past, it doesn't fly here. (For whatever reason)

Its definitely not disingenuous since I have never taken that position, as far as I can recall. But I tend to agree with you that many posters seem to discount mostly or entirely powerplay production.

On PPPs: Last 3 years, Norris PPPs per 82 games: 17.5 PPPs (23PPPs/108GP), Lindholm's PPPs per 82 games: 16.6 PPPs (43PPPs/212GP).

In Lindholm's D+3 to D+8 years (2015-16 to 2019-20) he still beat Norris' EVPs/GP (36 EVP average to 32 EVP average) (169EVPs/386GP).

I don't really disagree that from a production perspective they are not comparable in some ways. But one is 30 with an extra year on his contract, and the other is 25. And that difference both affects projecting their future production, but also should colour our analysis of their past production (i.e., it isn't fair comparing Norris' 22-25 year seasons to Lindholm's 27-30 with the latter being closer to the players' primes._

The best argument against Lindholm is age related decline, but this does not usually happen at 30 years of age. Therefore, it's more likely to be poor play mixed with a bad fit.

That's the argument I have continually made. Its the extra year on the contract for Lindholm plus him being five years older that makes Norris much more desirable notwithstanding his past injuries.

Player decline, in terms of age, is pretty difficult to predict, and you are always going to have outliers and exceptions. But there is a massive difference in ages 30-36, and 25-30. I just have no idea why anyone would even entertain acquiring Lindholm, whereas I get the idea of acquiring Norris and rolling the dice on his injury history. And with Lindholm, we are literally already seeing his age related decline. And we saw it last year too. And sure, he could turn things around, but it actually looks like he has already had the big age related decline already. This isn't like JT Miller where you are hoping the drop comes much later into the contract, but instead, the drop has already come. Of course he can decline further, but that's a scary proposition. He's already only a 40 point player currently. Can you imagine what his production may look like for his 33-36 seasons. 20 points? Unplayable?

They're both cap dumps.

Lindholm is a massive negative asset, and Norris may actually have some positive value. They aren't really comparable on that front.

 

[krutovsdonut]

i infer the call ups are to run practices with missing roster players. plus they are going to give demko and maybe others a full rest.

 

[Mr. Canucklehead]

No Demko, is my guess. Not good news.

 

[Hodgy]

@bossram

1. The lesson of Jack Eichel is that you don't want to be the BUF end selling the high-end player. The Canucks are BUF in this scenario.

2. Reinhart has not played center in Florida.

3. Bennett is far from a 1C. Stephenson is not a 1C.

4. Miller is your only legitimate example here.

I've said it before, but the Eichel / Pettersson comparison isn't great in the sense that Eichel was never playing as poorly as Pettersson is currently. Eichel was still essentially a point per game player in his last year. The big problem for him, with the Buffalo Sabres, is that the team and Eichel couldn't agree how to best move forward with his neck injury which led to the relationship between player and team to deteriorate leading to the trade. Obviously it was a bad trade for Buffalo, and they shouldn't have made the trade, and the lesson is probably that you need to shutup an keep your star player happy. Or perhaps Eichel was always going to want out of Buffalo? Wouldn't surprise me.

So, with Eichel, you don't have this situation where a player is playing poorly and you give up on them because he is playing poorly, and then the player turns it around. That's the potential Pettersson situation, but not the Eichel one. Eichel was always playing well, and strictly from an on ice perspective, should never have been traded.

 

[SeawaterOnIce]

Anyone know how to fix a broken superstar?

Trade him to Vegas.

 

[bossram]

@bossram



I've said it before, but the Eichel / Pettersson comparison isn't great in the sense that Eichel was never playing as poorly as Pettersson is currently. Eichel was still essentially a point per game player in his last year. The big problem for him, with the Buffalo Sabres, is that the team and Eichel couldn't agree how to best move forward with his neck injury which led to the relationship between player and team to deteriorate leading to the trade. Obviously it was a bad trade for Buffalo, and they shouldn't have made the trade, and the lesson is probably that you need to shutup an keep your star player happy. Or perhaps Eichel was always going to want out of Buffalo? Wouldn't surprise me.

So, with Eichel, you don't have this situation where a player is playing poorly and you give up on them because he is playing poorly, and then the player turns it around. That's the potential Pettersson situation, but not the Eichel one. Eichel was always playing well, and strictly from an on ice perspective, should never have been traded.

Eichel wasn't playing as poorly as Petey at the time, yes. He was completely not playing, out with injury, and wanting a unique surgery that had never been done on a hockey player.

People are retconning the rhetoric there was around Eichel. People were calling him a disappointment, locker room cancer, entitled, and we can't forget the "GM Eichel" moniker. People thought he was a lazy, defensively irresponsible, one-way player. And then add in the risk from his injury and the rare surgery he wanted to undergo. There was a lot of perceived red flags on Eichel at the time of the trade. The consensus on the trade, at the time, was 50/50 that BUF actually won the trade. Of course, everyone retcons that too and pretends they always thought it was horrible for BUF.

You're trying to characterize the Eichel deal as BUF selling low on some, at the time, universally recognized elite player who was only being traded because of a rift with management. That absolutely was not how people thought of it at the time.

 

[Bleach Clean]

@Bleach Clean , I brought this post over from the last thread.

I mean, I doubt Boston retains anything on a contract with six more years on it, especially given that their current management signed that contract. But the 750K retention isn't going to tip the scales either way in this debate, in my view.

In terms of downside risk for Norris, there is also upside risk for him that isn't really there for Lindholm. Norris is 25 years old and could actually improve throughout most of the balance of his contract. He could become a point per game player. For Lindholm, the opposite is true. Its more likely than not that his play will continue to drop as he ages into his thirties, and his play would be dropping from a point where he is already a negative value asset. Obviously there is considerable risk with Norris' injury history, and as I have already said, I'm not even necessarily advocating acquiring him. But between the two players, I'd rather roll the dice on Norris.

For sure, its a bad result as I have acknowledged multiple times. But again, its a way better result than having a third line centre for next six years at seven million a year.

Its definitely not disingenuous since I have never taken that position, as far as I can recall. But I tend to agree with you that many posters seem to discount mostly or entirely powerplay production.

I don't really disagree that from a production perspective they are not comparable in some ways. But one is 30 with an extra year on his contract, and the other is 25. And that difference both affects projecting their future production, but also should colour our analysis of their past production (i.e., it isn't fair comparing Norris' 22-25 year seasons to Lindholm's 27-30 with the latter being closer to the players' primes._

That's the argument I have continually made. Its the extra year on the contract for Lindholm plus him being five years older that makes Norris much more desirable notwithstanding his past injuries.

Player decline, in terms of age, is pretty difficult to predict, and you are always going to have outliers and exceptions. But there is a massive difference in ages 30-36, and 25-30. I just have no idea why anyone would even entertain acquiring Lindholm, whereas I get the idea of acquiring Norris and rolling the dice on his injury history. And with Lindholm, we are literally already seeing his age related decline. And we saw it last year too. And sure, he could turn things around, but it actually looks like he has already had the big age related decline already. This isn't like JT Miller where you are hoping the drop comes much later into the contract, but instead, the drop has already come. Of course he can decline further, but that's a scary proposition. He's already only a 40 point player currently. Can you imagine what his production may look like for his 33-36 seasons. 20 points? Unplayable?

Lindholm is a massive negative asset, and Norris may actually have some positive value. They aren't really comparable on that front.

Norris is also a negative asset. Garrioch literally says this. $8m AAV/5yrs for a 50 point player that is a massive IR risk. He's a cap dump.

I'd rather roll the dice on Norris too, but I'm not lionizing what Norris is to make that case. They are both cap dumps to resolve the 2C position. That's the base case. He may be a better cap dump, but a cap dump he remains until proven otherwise.

The issue is that you are judging Norris/Lindholm via projection, not the data. At the same relative age, Lindholm was the better producer. In Norris' prime, he would be lucky to hit Lindholm's prime production. And now that Lindholm has struggled for 2 years (starting at age 29), his low end production almost matches Norris' current ES production. And his 3 year average for PPPs is 1 point/82 games away... That's very similar.

Last year, they were both 3Cs in terms of P/GP (0.60 for Norris (68th) and 0.59 for Lindholm (73rd)). This excludes Lindholm's 0.77 P/PG run in the playoffs.

Is Norris then a 3C? Or do you put too much stock into a 50 game sample of PPPs?

Last, you continue to judge this team's aversion to LTIR wrong. The cap dump 3C (Norris or Lindholm) is preferred to having to use LTIR.