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.
Tob said:
The whole reason why the buyout period is mid June well ahead of UFA period is to give players a heads-up. That's baked into the CBA by the PA.

The buyout is a unilateral decision of a contract termination as specified under the CBA. It's the same reason why agents don't call GMs and say politely, "hey big guy, giving you a heads-up we may be planning on signing a hostile offer sheet". If they do it it's for strategy and leverage, not manners.

Being surprised by a buyout isn't a problem. They didn't promise OEL that he wouldn't be bought out, that he should invest in a block of townhomes in Surrey. The Canucks also didn't leave OEL or his agent hanging or scrambling either, they did it on day 1 and gave OEL's camp and family as much time as possible.

This isn't someone being fired from an office job and left with no income out of the blue. It's his agent's job to expect a buyout and have a plan in mind for that since the possibility was real and widely speculated. OEL will land a job in 2 weeks and he certainly isn't going to have the power turned off at his house because of financial difficulties.

The team had no obligation to give them a multi-day heads up in case something changes. It would have been surprising to hear about the buyout 2 days earlier anyway.
Click to expand...

Also, it's not like this is unprecedented in the NHL. Bill Guerin surprised both Zach Parise and Ryan Suter when he bought them out in 2021 — it was widely reported that Suter was so upset he hung up the phone on Guerin.

Doesn't seem like it mattered at all or burned any bridges. A year later the Wild managed to sign Samuel Walker, one of the better college free agents available, who happens to be represented by Suter's agent.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BimJenning, Tob, Britton and 3 others
racerjoe said:
We have had this conversation before, but to get Marino, it would have cost us pretty damn close to what we paid for Hronek. It would have been last years 1st and a 3rd. We didn't have an asset as good as Smith, who looks like historically had a value of a first.

What about the College and European UFA's this year? I mean I am all for making those bets, but a roster can only carry so many players, and have so many contract slots. You can't take an unlimited number of them.
Click to expand...
I really don't think Smith had first round pick value, or was particularly coveted by PIT. He was straight up bad his last season in NJ. And even when PIT's blueline got wrecked with injuries, the organization thought so little of him that he was basically their last resort option to get in the lineup.

And even if it would have cost the same as Hronek, the fit in Marino is much better.

And no, you can't take an unlimited amount of low-risk bets. But you can take a lot. That's basically been the Zito plan since he took over in Florida. The Canucks haven't really done that. Rather than sign Mikheyev, they could have tried to find 2 more Dakota Joshuas and signed an Evan Rodrigues. You might end up with another cheap guy who can contribute to your team for a few seasons and another guy you could have liquidated into draft capital.

Yeah sure, they can keep signing undrafted college/Euro UFAs to fill out their prospect pool.
 
bossram said:
I really don't think Smith had first round pick value, or was particularly coveted by PIT. He was straight up bad his last season in NJ. And even when PIT's blueline got wrecked with injuries, the organization thought so little of him that he was basically their last resort option to get in the lineup.
Click to expand...
That's your own personal opinion though. The market for top4 D has been 1st+ 2nd/3rd and looking at the trade, that's exactly how Pitts valued Smith. Fact is Smith was a former 1st rounder who tracked as well as any 1st rounder would by playing in the NHL in his D+3 season and being good enough to be on the all rookie team. Its weird to single him out as being bad for NJ when the whole team was shit enough to end up 2nd last in the east.

Pit has a logjam of LD and has a long history of letting prospects cook in the A. They have a different developmental model and them keeping Smith in the A is similar to us putting Hoglander in the A.

Regardless of how you think of him, he has more value than any asset we have other than our own 1st rounder. Trading our 1st at that point in time for Marino would be a disaster level move. Marino is not going to be the difference and considering how management don't believe in BB, doing such a all in move would've backfired hard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MarkusNaslund19 and Hodgy
arttk said:
That's your own personal opinion though. The market for top4 D has been 1st+ 2nd/3rd and looking at the trade, that's exactly how Pitts valued Smith. Fact is Smith was a former 1st rounder who tracked as well as any 1st rounder would by playing in the NHL in his D+3 season and being good enough to be on the all rookie team. Its weird to single him out as being bad for NJ when the whole team was shit enough to end up 2nd last in the east.

Pit has a logjam of LD and has a long history of letting prospects cook in the A. They have a different developmental model and them keeping Smith in the A is similar to us putting Hoglander in the A.

Regardless of how you think of him, he has more value than any asset we have other than our own 1st rounder. Trading our 1st at that point in time for Marino would be a disaster level move. Marino is not going to be the difference and considering how management don't believe in BB, doing such a all in move would've backfired hard.
Click to expand...
No, it is not my personal opinion that the PIT organization did not elevate Smith to their roster until they basically had no other options. That is just a description of what happened.

It's your personal opinion that Smith was valued as a 1st rounder. You don't know how PIT valued him. I am basing my post-hoc valuation of Smith on how PIT themselves actually deployed him.

And if Marino wasn't going to be the difference, why does anyone believe Hronek will? And they moved the 17th + 2nd rounder for him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PuckMunchkin
bossram said:
I really don't think Smith had first round pick value, or was particularly coveted by PIT. He was straight up bad his last season in NJ. And even when PIT's blueline got wrecked with injuries, the organization thought so little of him that he was basically their last resort option to get in the lineup.

And even if it would have cost the same as Hronek, the fit in Marino is much better.

And no, you can't take an unlimited amount of low-risk bets. But you can take a lot. That's basically been the Zito plan since he took over in Florida. The Canucks haven't really done that. Rather than sign Mikheyev, they could have tried to find 2 more Dakota Joshuas and signed an Evan Rodrigues. You might end up with another cheap guy who can contribute to your team for a few seasons and another guy you could have liquidated into draft capital.

Yeah sure, they can keep signing undrafted college/Euro UFAs to fill out their prospect pool.
Click to expand...

It really is just your opinion though as @arttk pointed out. However especially looking at what other D prospects cost he had to be valued at a late first early second meaning for us to beat that cost would have been a 1st and a 3rd. or 16OA, and a 3rd.

Again your example would be adding 2 extra contract slots, and that means we we could not have made other moves. Including the College Euro UFA's.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MarkusNaslund19 and Hodgy
not that i know what pitt valued smith as, but this is a team that gave up assets for a washed mikael granlund, so i'm not entirely sure their evaluation metrics were totally sound (given that they are now fired lol)
 
  • Like
Reactions: arttk
Rutherford, last fall in one of his press conference, was very transparent about the fact that the Canucks were "in on" all of the available defensemen last summer and that they were out bid / teams preferred other players. The strong insinuation, in the Marino context, was that Pittsburgh much preferred Smith to Rathbone and that the Canucks were not willing to add their first.

The whole "Smith was bad in Pittsburgh" last year isn't overly relevant in determining his value last summer. It is quite possible that Pittsburgh expected Smith to play a mid-pairing role on their team this season, after acquiring him, only to realize he was farther behind on his development curve than they thought.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MarkusNaslund19, Vector, andora and 4 others
bossram said:
No, it is not my personal opinion that the PIT organization did not elevate Smith to their roster until they basically had no other options. That is just a description of what happened.

It's your personal opinion that Smith was valued as a 1st rounder. You don't know how PIT valued him. I am basing my post-hoc valuation of Smith on how PIT themselves actually deployed him.

And if Marino wasn't going to be the difference, why does anyone believe Hronek will? And they moved the 17th + 2nd rounder for him.
Click to expand...
the standard going rate for top 4 D is 1st + 2/3rd pick and Pitts got back Smith and 3rd rounder. From every perspective, in that specific trade, Pitts regarded Smith as the 1st round equivalent. You can argue that Pitts. made a bad evaluation but bad evaluation doesn't change the fact that in terms of market value, Smith was used as the 1st round equivalent.

JR mentioned that we were in talks with Pitts for Marino and from what we understand from this management group so far, our own 1st especially unprotected is a no go and we have a 2nd rounder and 3rd rounder at that point to make that trade. We got out bid, so what what is a better package than a 2nd and a 3rd, a 1st(Smith) and a 3rd.

You are looking at a perspective of, oh he got sent to the AHL afterwards and performance bla bla bla. Yes asset can depreciate but that doesn't mean that the original value is whatever it was at the time of the trade. For example, when you buy a car, the moment it hits the road the value depreciates by 20%. You don't argue that well the car is actually worth 80% all along and it wasn't worth that 100%. No, the car is worth whatever it was worth at the time you buy it, what it is worth after has no influence on the original price.
 
timw33 said:
Sounds like Boeser and Myers not actively being shopped....
Click to expand...
Well I hope this is just posturing on Allvin's part to show others were not desperate to move anyone now. I'd really prefer to at minimum trade one of Boeser or Garland though. If we can move one of them would prefer to keep Myers til the deadline and get some value from team looking to load up for playoffs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: arttk
Vector said:
Yeah that stood out. I also don't think it's going to happen.
Click to expand...

I think Allvin is just being calculated with all of his comments and not trying to erode his negotiating position, especially with comments about Boeser/Myers/Pearson. Didn't talk once about Garland by name so still feel like he'll be the one traded for more room though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: andora and Vector
timw33 said:
I think Allvin is just being calculated with all of his comments and not trying to erode his negotiating position, especially with comments about Boeser/Myers/Pearson. Didn't talk once about Garland by name so still feel like he'll be the one traded for more room though.
Click to expand...

Also didn't mention Poolman at all. I found it interesting that he brought up Pearson unprompted. The injury question was in-relation to Hronek.
 
  • Like
Reactions: timw33
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom