Canucks News N Notes 24-25

[donlever]

I believe Scooter has previously been annointed upon another by Topper .

[Carl Yagro]

$11.6 million

Scooter (Boy) is taken, Megster.

Flying Dutchman seems more appropriate.

[Strangelove]

https://sports.yahoo.com/canadian-race- ... ml?src=rss

How does Alleged Assaulter sound for a nickname?

The Dutch Decker?

[Carl Yagro]

Awesome! Dutch Double-Decker. He should be great in the scrums.

You know the Swedes on this club will never push back. It's written into the fine print of their contracts.

[donlever]

The throat grab, alleged dental work angle is a lovely side benefit...

And, Hank, the Sedins are watching for that excess scrum activity.

Which subsequently provides a response to at least a portion of inquiry with respect to Toppers post on the subject.

[Megaterio Llamas]

Yeah I've been reading about bad team mojo unrelated to that as well.

Hopefully the Baldies have a good handle on this.

[Carl Yagro]

Baldies thinking getting a Dutch football hooligan is necessary after losing the Big Russian deterrent.

Sprong looks like he's ready to headbutt someone or throw rocks at the opposition bench.

[Cousin Strawberry]

He game him the old Dutch Rudder

[Madcombinepilot]

Signing Sprong means PLG probably doesn’t clear waivers.

Also gives Allvin and co a nice piece (ie. Kuzmenko) to use in his annual late November trade should Hoglander claim the wing next to Petey again and Podkolzin takes a step up. Always teams looking for depth scoring after 20 games.

[Carl Yagro]

Noting Sprong's deficiencies and possible reasons why he's available at a bargain bin price. Also goes into some personality traits and baggage.

https://theprovince.com/sports/hockey/n ... ete-player

I think it's a decent gamble for the speed and scoring he provides, but there are flags that hopefully the coaching staff can address. Considering how some previous players were constantly demonized, I hope Tocchet isn't going to be hypocritical if he has to deal with similar issues with this player. I guess we'll see...

[Tciso]

Noting Sprong's deficiencies and possible reasons why he's available at a bargain bin price. Also goes into some personality traits and baggage.

https://theprovince.com/sports/hockey/n ... ete-player

I think it's a decent gamble for the speed and scoring he provides, but there are flags that hopefully the coaching staff can address. Considering how some previous players were constantly demonized, I hope Tocchet isn't going to be hypocritical if he has to deal with similar issues with this player. I guess we'll see...

If this was the old regime, I'd say we just got our new whipping boy for under a million. Good piece of GMing to not overpay the dog house attendant.

[Cornuck]

I would think that management and the coaching staff had time to plan and talk to Sprong to see if he would be a fit for Tocchet. Even at a bargain price, is it worth signing and then waiving the guy otherwise? He'll have some time to learn his place in the system.

[Lancer]

There's no way they would have signed Sprong without input from the coaching staff. It's a low-risk bet, and if he proves an ill fit, then they can waive him. At least he'll provide some competition among the forwards this training camp.

I suspect that the leadership in the room will be strong enough to deal with whatever personality traits of his rubbed previous teammates raw. Allvin did say that the guy has matured over the past. Question is what is it about him that rubs teammates the wrong way? Is he a hot-head (eg. punching out a race car driver) or just a misanthrope?

[UWSaint]

Any risk in the Sprong singing comes solely from its effect on other roster decisions. Because if he can't play the way he needs to play to get a pretty regular spot in the lineup, he's waived or traded. The upside is depth scoring and second unit PP depth (and it could use it) and first unit change of pace. The downside is as if it didn't happen.

So what are the effects on the other roster decisions:

(1) While Sprong's contract is small, it is still more than Aman and PDG. Presuming no more moves, if PDG is waived and Sprong and Aman make the a 14F-7D team, the team is (I believe) over the cap, thus needing to use LTIR. If Aman is waived, the team is still under the cap, allowing for non LTIR injury call ups (and use of LTIR) but with no real room to accrue for the deadline (which is going to be the case unless more salary (including Poolman's) is moved out.

(2) You have to think the team wants a 5th center on the roster or a guy that you feel very comfortable with moving in and out of the AHL who plays center. Pettersson, Miller, Suter, Blueger are not making 82 games each, and really you want the option to play Suter, Pettersson, or Miller on the wing. Perhaps Sherwood can play center (he has before), which would increase the Canucks lineup options considerably. Otherwise having Aman as an option is rather important, unless the club deems Raty ready to play a number of NHL games at the pivot.

(3) Podkolzin needs to show up at camp or there's a real risk he's gone. I anticipate the Canucks could trade him for low value; I do not think he passes through waivers. (PDG and Aman probably will pass through waivers and I expect the team would prefer to have them in the organization; and if Sprong doesn't make the team out of camp, the Canucks could care less if he's claimed).

Those things seem pretty obvious, but let me posit the following claim for discussion -- signing Daniel Sprong signals the end of Nils Hoglander as a Canuck.

Hoglander is 23 years old, coming off a 24 goal campaign. He's not impressive defensively -- I don't know that I'd consider him the train wreck Sprong is reputed to be (through some sources say he's improved this aspect of his game), but Hoglander strikes me as below average for an NHL player when the other team has the puck. His tenacity and motor would suggest some ability to improve as a forechecker and in his own end, but he's been tenacious since he's been in the league and his improvements in these areas have been modest (size limited? defensive zone IQ limited?) -- he's better than he was 2 years ago, but it's modest.

Sprong's shown similar offensive contributions over the past couple of seasons to what Hoglander did last year, and while some of that has come on the power play, Hoglander's lack of power play productivity in admittedly limited ice time is an indication that his value is limited to even strength play and carried with him no unique special teams ability. If the Canucks think Sprong can contribute similarly to Hoglander next season and his 200 foot game is good enough to have enough trust from the coach (and I think they only partly trust Hoglander; the bar is not high), he's a Hoglander replacement for the lineup. He doesn't have to be exactly as good; he has to be good enough to where Hoglander's marginal "better" on the ice is not worth the relative "better" Hoglander is as an asset that can bring back other assets (and/or use to get rid of Poolman's contract).

It is quite possible that some organizations see Hoglander as a player who can consistently perform as he did last year and even has more upside given his age. I am skeptical of that analysis, but it doesn't matter if I am right about Hoglander -- it is a player's perceived future value to an acquiring team that influences the return.

But if the Canucks think Sprong can be 90% or better of Hoglander, here's why moving Hoglander can make sense *even if* Hoglander has untapped potential. Because next season, Hoglander is not only an RFA, but he's an arbitration eligible RFA. If Hoglander improves on last year's campaign in terms of points and scores 20 goals or more, he is starting to have the on-paper resume that Conor Garland had when the Canucks acquired him -- a pop gun shot undersized forward with good hands, a good motor, pestiness, and offensive ability -- second line forward entering prime of career. And his contract will start to look like Garlands (though obviously if Garland had gone to arb the offseason he was acquired, it would have been a one year deal at less AAV).

What does that resume get Hoglander in arbitration? What does it likely get him as a means of informing what a longer term deal might look like. Is that an amount the Canucks want to pay? Can Hoglander replace *Boeser's* role if Boeser walks? (I'll answer that, no). And if the plan is to keep Boeser and Hoglander's looking at that RFA arbitration salary (or RFA arbitration-influenced contract), do the Canucks have room for that, would it even be tradeable, is the trade value greater today while he presents as a very good value/$$ option? Would they want to make room for the 25-26 season, and give him the "Garland" spot, moving Garland at the end of this season for what Garland could bring on an expiring contract (as opposed to what Hoglander could bring now or next off season pre-arbitration).

Point is, there's a "logic" to moving Hoglander whether he will regress, will stay the same, or will improve. That logic is made possible by the Sprong signing, because it gives the Canucks secondary scoring at a million bucks next season, the same secondary scoring and salary as Hoglander. Before acquiring Sprong, I would have been against moving Hoglander because he was one of the players is likely to provide more-than-salary secondary scoring, and every team needs those guys. Now that guy can be Sprong.

Of course the return matters; but now the move can be made with limited marginal consequence to the Canucks next season.

[Megaterio Llamas]

Just for the record, the Canucks are still a hair under the cap without Poolman going on LTIR. It was a bit of wizardry on the part of the Baldies to fit Silovs and Sprong under that bar. This is with 14 forwards, 7 defensemen, Poolman on the roster, and Aman and Friedman in Abby, though I personally believe they will go with 13-8 swapping out PDG for Friedman which doesn't change the overall cap hit. Some darned impressive work by management there.





https://puckpedia.com/team/vancouver-canucks