I'm hoping for something like $4M X 3?Ronning's Ghost wrote: ↑Mon Jan 29, 2018 7:19 pm If you'd rather keep him, what's the most you would pay in cap hit and term ?
GMJB did an awesome job with the Tanev re-signing...
Moderator: Referees
I'm hoping for something like $4M X 3?Ronning's Ghost wrote: ↑Mon Jan 29, 2018 7:19 pm If you'd rather keep him, what's the most you would pay in cap hit and term ?
McCann and Asplund are bums, so getting a better return will not be difficult for JimBroRonning's Ghost wrote: ↑Mon Jan 29, 2018 7:19 pm There has been speculation that Gudbranson is on the trading block. If he is moved, what would like to see in return ?
From an asset management perspective, anything better than a 24th overall, a 33rd overall, and a 94th overall would be a win. Do you think he will return that much ?
If you'd rather keep him, what's the most you would pay in cap hit and term ?
I think we've been here before, but:
I like Tanev's contract, but Gudbranson's agent may feel like he has more leverage.
I know you directed this to Dude but if GMJB is in fact a "genius"Ronning's Ghost wrote: ↑Mon Jan 29, 2018 8:21 pm - why does a drafting genius...
- why do you expect a drafting genius...
- if McCann is a bum, what grade do you give Canucks management for drafting and developing him
Oh yeah no doubt, but still...Ronning's Ghost wrote: ↑Mon Jan 29, 2018 8:21 pm I like Tanev's contract, but Gudbranson's agent may feel like he has more leverage.
Well he always says he likes "the room" but who ever knows for certain.Ronning's Ghost wrote: ↑Mon Jan 29, 2018 8:21 pm Do you know whether Gusbranson likes playing in Vancouver ?
It's a big universe, and many things are possible, and I'm not privy to the thought processes of genii myself, but wouldn't it have been of more value to the organization to just draft Pastrnack in the first place ? If Gudbranson was the goal all along, I'm confident Pastrnack would have returned Gudbranson in trade without the 33rd overall.
I consider the most fundamental questions of the rebuild to be "Is it in good hands ?" So far, I see only splotches on the canvas, and some intriguing colour mixes on the palette. Of course, that doesn't mean a Masterpiece won't emerge later.Strangelove wrote: ↑Mon Jan 29, 2018 9:36 pm BTW and no offense Cliffy, but you seem obsessed with the age old question: "Is GMJB a genius?"
If Gudbranson won't sign at a number Benning finds acceptable, what would you expect (or hope) to come back in trade ?Strangelove wrote: ↑Mon Jan 29, 2018 9:36 pmWell he always says he likes "the room" but who ever knows for certain....Ronning's Ghost wrote: ↑Mon Jan 29, 2018 8:21 pm Do you know whether Gusbranson likes playing in Vancouver ?
...It puts Jimbro in a difficult spot as far as trading him... but it could help in a re-signing.
(which may have been the plan all along)
That last question is rather important, no ?Ronning's Ghost wrote: ↑Mon Jan 29, 2018 8:21 pmI think we've been here before, but:
- why is it too early to give up on 21-year-old Jake Virtanen, if we can be sure that 21-year-old Jared McCannn is a bum ?
- why does a drafting genius draft a bum (McCann) in the 1st round ?
- why do you expect a drafting genius would have used a 33rd overall to draft another bum ? We (yes Doc, we) all like to think that he did well with the 33rd overall in 2017.
- if McCann is a bum, what grade do you give Canucks management for drafting and developing him, and what does that do to Benning's drafting and developing track record on NHL players to date (viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10892&p=296470&hilit=grade#p296470)?
In any case, what would be the asset you would be looking for that would be an upgrade on said bums ?
I like Tanev's contract, but Gudbranson's agent may feel like he has more leverage.
Do you know whether Gusbranson likes playing in Vancouver ?
Smells great, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
So, to return to the point of this thread, if this much sought after type of asset cannot be re-signed at a price the Canucks ownership/management group finds acceptable, what is the value you expect to see returned ? In what form would like it (picks, prospects, players) ?
McCann has an attitude issue that was having a bad influence on Virtanen and other rookies.Ronning's Ghost wrote: ↑Mon Jan 29, 2018 8:21 pm
I think we've been here before, but:
- why is it too early to give up on 21-year-old Jake Virtanen, if we can be sure that 21-year-old Jared McCannn is a bum ?
He was the BPA.Ronning's Ghost wrote: ↑Mon Jan 29, 2018 8:21 pm - why does a drafting genius draft a bum (McCann) in the 1st round ?
Statistically, McCann was a good pick. However, his attitude is the real problem.Ronning's Ghost wrote: ↑Mon Jan 29, 2018 8:21 pm - if McCann is a bum, what grade do you give Canucks management for drafting and developing him, and what does that do to Benning's drafting and developing track record on NHL players to date (viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10892&p=296470&hilit=grade#p296470)?
Perhaps, but in the scenario above the theory says the Cats were fixated on the the centre McCann...Ronning's Ghost wrote: ↑Mon Jan 29, 2018 11:11 pm If Gudbranson was the goal all along, I'm confident Pastrnack would have returned Gudbranson in trade without the 33rd overall.
Not sure if I want to go there in the Pipe Dream thread.Ronning's Ghost wrote: ↑Mon Jan 29, 2018 11:11 pm If Gudbranson won't sign at a number Benning finds acceptable, what would you expect (or hope) to come back in trade ?
Isn't it also alleged that Jake had (or still has) an attitude issue? Wouldn't a "genius" know that picking two young guys with similar attitude issues might be likely exacerbate said problem?Jovocop wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2018 9:11 amMcCann has an attitude issue that was having a bad influence on Virtanen and other rookies.Ronning's Ghost wrote: ↑Mon Jan 29, 2018 8:21 pm
I think we've been here before, but:
- why is it too early to give up on 21-year-old Jake Virtanen, if we can be sure that 21-year-old Jared McCannn is a bum ?
Perhaps at that single moment in time but I think that most would agree part of determining the BPA (at one’s draft position) is projecting how that player will do beyond the day of the draft and how they will rate among their peers when actually playing in the NHL. Using those goalposts, it's pretty clear he wasn't the BPA (attitude or not) and, using hindsight, we can definitely say that he was not a "genius" pick. That said, JB has made some stellar picks but he isn't immune to making mistakes as some would have you believe.Jovocop wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2018 9:11 amHe was the BPA.Ronning's Ghost wrote: ↑Mon Jan 29, 2018 8:21 pm - why does a drafting genius draft a bum (McCann) in the 1st round ?
Same response as above.Jovocop wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2018 9:11 amStatistically, McCann was a good pick. However, his attitude is the real problem.Ronning's Ghost wrote: ↑Mon Jan 29, 2018 8:21 pm - if McCann is a bum, what grade do you give Canucks management for drafting and developing him, and what does that do to Benning's drafting and developing track record on NHL players to date (viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10892&p=296470&hilit=grade#p296470)?
Except a genius should of known.Linc wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2018 10:37 am In terms of BPA and evaluating McCann, he was generally expected to be drafted in the Top 12 I think. Button rated him as #8. McCann fell hard on draft day and the Canucks got him at #24. It may be that GMs were spooked by his character; however, once a guy like that falls to #24, it gets harder and harder not to choose him for the potential. Evander Kane is similar and many hope that the talent is worth putting up with the character flaws. It is easier to assess in hindsight; however, I don't fault Benning for taking McCann at #24.