Toggle sidebar

Management Threads | Structure. Standards. Habits.

  • Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
Status
Not open for further replies.
racerjoe said:
Isn't this pretty much we are doing though with the exception of signing Miller? The oldest player we have acquired is 27, flipped Horvat for a 25 year old?
Click to expand...
Horvat was younger than Miller, so they didn't get that much younger in that trade. I also would have preferred not to trade premium future assets for Hronek when Marino was available for a much softer price.

They also haven't taken a ton of bargain bin bets, outside of a guy like Dakota Joshua, which ended up as a nice base hit. They haven't tried to accumulate more liquid assets. They haven't really used any cap space creatively.
 
racerjoe said:
Isn't this pretty much we are doing though with the exception of signing Miller? The oldest player we have acquired is 27, flipped Horvat for a 25 year old?
Click to expand...

roster players brought in/resigned by jr/allvin:

miller 30
mikheyev 28
wolanin 28
kuzmenko 27
joshua 27
beauvillier 26
boeser 26 (*)
hronek 25
aman 23
 
God said:
sure but wasn't his point that they haven't re-signed/acquired players over 27 aside from miller?
Click to expand...

i wasn't really refuting him. just pointing out that the canucks aren't really acquiring young players. those are all nhl veterans probably on the downside of their career except aman and maybe hronek
 
  • Like
Reactions: geebaan, mriswith and m9
credulous said:
i wasn't really refuting him. just pointing out that the canucks aren't really acquiring young players. those are all nhl veterans probably on the downside of their career except aman and maybe hronek
Click to expand...
Thats a stretch...they are in their prime years....Miller hast shown any decline either.
 
credulous said:
i wasn't really refuting him. just pointing out that the canucks aren't really acquiring young players. those are all nhl veterans probably on the downside of their career except aman and maybe hronek
Click to expand...

maybe i'm a bit confused as to the topic at hand, but these are all ages of players in their prime years that fit within opening a contention window

and saying they're veterans on the downside of their career is a pretty big stretch
 
  • Like
Reactions: geebaan, racerjoe, arttk and 3 others
Other then retention/3rd party brokering and taking on a contract for an asset what are other creative ways to use cap space.. or moving around players

It pops up consistently enough.. terms like creative or innovative regarding players and cap space and it makes me think am i missing something.. or what cant i think of
 
God said:
maybe i'm a bit confused as to the topic at hand, but these are all ages of players in their prime years that fit within opening a contention window

and saying they're veterans on the downside of their career is a pretty big stretch
Click to expand...

it's a fact that the overwhelming majority of players peak in their early to mid 20s. i'm not saying they're washed and were bad signings but they're not young players that you should expect improvement from
 
credulous said:
it's a fact that the overwhelming majority of players peak in their early to mid 20s. i'm not saying they're washed and were bad signings but they're not young players that you should expect improvement from
Click to expand...
i mean, wolanin was probably the most improved from his previous season. joshua too. both are closer to 30 but thrived in a new opportunity - that's how most teams find their good bargain bin pickups. is that not improvement? most of the swings for mid-20s players are going to fail, but it's not a reason to not take them - maybe you end up with a verhaege or bunting.

like if i just look at the roster of players when they took over, every single one of these over 30 players is basically off the team

1687287841078.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: racerjoe
bunting and verhaeghe were both 24 when they broke out

and again, i'm not saying don't acquire 27 year olds. i just don't think you can really frame their acquisition as getting young players. young players - to me - implies players who are expected to keep improving
 
credulous said:
bunting and verhaeghe were both 24 when they broke out

and again, i'm not saying don't acquire 27 year olds. i just don't think you can really frame their acquisition as getting young players. young players - to me - implies players who are expected to keep improving
Click to expand...
no, bunting was 26 (broke out 21-22, born sep 95) and verhaeghe was 25 (broke out 20-21, born aug 95)
 
  • Like
Reactions: racerjoe
GET LOW said:
As someone that has ran businesses and had to fire numerous people, I can say that you do it when it suits your needs, not theirs. You dont give people a heads up, and in this case OEL was drastically underperforming and due a massive payday buyout- he isn't the victim here. Like what, they maybe could have told him a few days earlier? Cry me a river. What would that actually change? Nothing.

When it's time to let someone go, you just get it done. No coddling, no sugarcoating. Think Billy Beane in moneyball.
Click to expand...

Does your business operate on a buyout window of one or two weeks per year were you can sack people? Unless you run by something resembling the NHLs CBA it's a pointless comparison. The players aren't going to come in and download all the accounts and steal the office stationary

Giving a player a heads up on a buyout is no different from giving a UFA a heads up that you will be going in a different direction. You don't have to do it but it makes no difference if you do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PuckMunchkin
Peen said:
i think his phrasing wasn't soft but i don't think he was saying that as an attack at all lol
Click to expand...

someone could legitimately say "i am skeptical your business experience is comparable to the canucks' situation" or words to that effect, but the gratuitous dismissal of his "tiny" business and the further assertion that making such a comparison is f***ed is obviously intended to be personally demeaning and insulting and not a reasoned part of the debate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: andora
krutovsdonut said:
this is a dumb and regrettable ad hominem attack.
Click to expand...
It's not an ad hominem attack.

Ad hominem: that's wrong, because you're a small business owner and small business owners are idiots.

Not an ad hominen: that's wrong, because what's true for small businesses isn't true for very big businesses.
 
Lindgren said:
It's not an ad hominem attack.

Ad hominem: that's wrong, because you're a small business owner and small business owners are idiots.

Not an ad hominen: that's wrong, because what's true for small businesses isn't true for very big businesses.
Click to expand...

"Pretending your small business is the same as a NHL team is Pejorative Slured."

The ad hominem part was the "Pejorative Slured", the HFBoards euphemism for the "R" word.

Also, LOL at the misspelled word "Slured." Like, c'mon guys, get it together.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Peen
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom