yeah.
... teams like that????????
I said as much the day they re-signed him. Not entirely sure why but this crop of GMs LOVE cost control.
yeah.
... teams like that????????
I don't think you watch much hockey. Willy is going to fill a top four position for years on this team. He is twice the skater that Jiricek is and will jump out of the gate once he arrives here. Hronek is the next euro purged? Once again, what in the hell are you talking about? You don't make a team better by subtracting your top players.I just can't figure out this Willander love.
He is tied with 13 dmen for 42nd in college dmen scoring with many teams having games in hand, 2nd on his own team. This is a good year for him compared to last year?
Tied with 17 players for 54th in blocked shots.
There is nothing in his game stats showing superiority in anything. If anything it shows a few years in the AHL.
Anyway Jiricek was stolen by Brackett and Minny.
Who is next that the Canucks can afford and fit in under the cap?
Definitely looks like Hronek is the next Euro purged from the team so that might open up a bit more cap space.
Will the curious Miller issue be resolved tomorrow as the team has stated?
Will Swifty news overshadow other news?
I didn't say you did but there's many many posts on how trash Hogs value is including some about waivers, which was always ridiculous.I've never said he would clear waivers.
The comparison to Garland is instructive. He is (and was) a vastly superior player to Hoglander. But given that he is small, and was perceived as a one-way soft-skilled player (thought not true), he held very little trade value.
I think this is part of the problem, you and others seem to think this extension is a (big) negative.I think absent the extension, this argument would be more valid. I think the $3M AAV extension weighs down his value. You can find guys to play bottom-six, sheltered offensive minutes off the scrap heap every offseason.
He wouldn't be getting $3M after this season.
About Tom Willander.
Haha well, this is very true.I just don't think some of these GMs are thinking through this logically.
I said as much the day they re-signed him. Not entirely sure why but this crop of GMs LOVE cost control.
there's probably a lot of budget stuff behind the scenes that compounds GM concerns beyond simple cap management. GMs are terrified of their young players having a career contract year.I said as much the day they re-signed him. Not entirely sure why but this crop of GMs LOVE cost control.
I mean, if you're not going back to discuss Brock/Garland, why did you bring up Boeser? You're using them as examples of people being "wrong" on stuff, and you are replying directly to me, thus implying I was wrong on them. I am simply rebutting you, that my opinions on those players were proven correct.I didn't say you did but there's many many posts on how trash Hogs value is including some about waivers, which was always ridiculous.
I'm not going back years to brock and Garland rn..
The Garland comparison is not instructive, it's irrelevant for many reasons clearly, they're vastly different situations aside from both being small & skilled.
I do think the extension is a net negative to his value. For what Hoglander is (perceived) to bring, GMs can find that on the scrap heap every offseason for $1M. $3M is overkill.I think this is part of the problem, you and others seem to think this extension is a (big) negative.
It is not, in todays nhl climate three million isn't much, and less every year. Organizations value cost certainty to young players with proven nhl skills to atleast some degree.
There's tons of older junk in the league making ~3M, kampf, jarnkrok, connor brown, etc etc.
Maybe hog doesn't get three mil after this year, maybe he does, we don't know. Maybe he gets 3x2.5M, close enough.
Only takes one gm to give him domi or trenin contract (not directly comparing players).
Point being Hoglander is and always has been valuable, a relatively small struggle this year doesn't change anything, he will return a valuable asset, atleast late first equivalent imo, we'll see who's right in a few weeks.
The most persuasive argument about Hoglander returning something decent is from @Vector: some GMs just aren't rational or smart.
3M in a flat cap world is bad.I mean, if you're not going back to discuss Brock/Garland, why did you bring up Boeser? You're using them as examples of people being "wrong" on stuff, and you are replying directly to me, thus implying I was wrong on them. I am simply rebutting you, that my opinions on those players were proven correct.
The Garland comparison is instructive. Smallish, (perceived) middle-six offense-only wingers don't hold much value. Look what just happened to Sprong. Look at what just happened with Tomasino. We see this time and again.
I do think the extension is a net negative to his value. For what Hoglander is (perceived) to bring, GMs can find that on the scrap heap every offseason for $1M. $3M is overkill.
Yeah, there are a lot of bad contracts in the NHL. They are bad. Everyone knows they are bad. What do disimilar players on bad contracts have to do with Hoglander? The guys you mentioned have no trade value and everyone knows it.
There's no world where Hoglander is returning a 1st. I see his value as closer to the Tomasino deal (but not as low).
The most persuasive argument about Hoglander returning something decent is from @Vector: some GMs just aren't rational or smart.
Lol at Dhaliwhal suggesting Sillinger for Hoglander.
He also struggled mightily in the playoff last season (although it is his first taste of playoff) and was fading down the stretch last season (but maybe you can excuse it for being dragged down by Petey). However you explain it, he has been struggling for awhile now and it isn't a small sample size anymore.I didn't say you did but there's many many posts on how trash Hogs value is including some about waivers, which was always ridiculous.
I'm not going back years to brock and Garland rn..
The Garland comparison is not instructive, it's irrelevant for many reasons clearly, they're vastly different situations aside from both being small & skilled.
I think this is part of the problem, you and others seem to think this extension is a (big) negative.
It is not, in todays nhl climate three million isn't much, and less every year. Organizations value cost certainty to young players with proven nhl skills to atleast some degree.
There's tons of older junk in the league making ~3M, kampf, jarnkrok, connor brown, etc etc.
Maybe hog doesn't get three mil after this year, maybe he does, we don't know. Maybe he gets 3x2.5M, close enough.
Only takes one gm to give him domi or trenin contract (not directly comparing players).
Point being Hoglander is and always has been valuable, a relatively small struggle this year doesn't change anything, he will return a valuable asset, atleast late first equivalent imo, we'll see who's right in a few weeks.
I love Hog but I will fly him to Columbus myself eventhough I have no license and no ideas how to fly a planeCole Sillenger for Hoglander would be incredible lol.
So I guess that makes Pettersson a trade asset then. Or one of the other RHD prospects.
Pick out the one's that are tradable.
I said as much the day they re-signed him. Not entirely sure why but this crop of GMs LOVE cost control.
Any new GM in any sport will look objectively at prospects. No personal attachment. Benning was tied to Virtanen til his legal issues. Another GM probably cuts bait earlier.I love Hog but I will fly him to Columbus myself eventhough I have no license and no ideas how to fly a plane
Love Waddell is basically getting rid off all the players and prospects from previous regime