Player Discussion Brock Boeser | Still Unsigned

[Bleach Clean]

how is it incorrect?

(I sense another piss incoming it's quite sad). I can also anticipate what your probably going to say.

It's quite depressing, it still comes down to this argument over and and over and over and over again.

It’s incorrect because you have no way of accounting for every factor to a re-roll when arriving at your conclusion.

How do I explain probability to you?

Think of it this way: You choose to hold the draft lotto as a constant, but a re-roll of a possible future may result in a lotto win... because when you reset one factor, like Nylander, you have to reset all factors. Then you roll.

You cannot pick and choose what you hold constant from previous rolls onto this new roll.

And there are a great many factors. Each needing quantification.

So you see, you cannot possibly prove your statement to be true here. You’re guessing at best.

 

[lawrence]

It’s incorrect because you have no way of accounting for every factor to a re-roll when arriving at your conclusion.

How do I explain probability to you?

Think of it this way: You choose to hold the draft lotto as a constant, but a re-roll of a possible future may result in a lotto win... because when you reset one factor, like Nylander, you have to reset all factors. Then you roll.

You cannot pick and choose what you hold constant from previous rolls onto this new roll.

And there are a great many factors. Each needing quantification.

So you see, you cannot possibly prove your statement to be true here. You’re guessing at best.

this a very laughable response.

It’s incorrect because you have no way of accounting for every factor to a re-roll when arriving at your conclusion.

this poll of kind of full of shit, and instead of getting to the point, you re worded it to a snarky version of you are really trying to say. You really over complicated it. It feels I know what you want to say, but you worded it to a point where it complicated

It’s incorrect because you have no way of accounting for every factor to a re-roll when arriving at your conclusion.

It's really quite simple, having Nylander and Tkachuk to our line in 2017 will easily make that 2017 Vancouver Canucks a better team. It's quite simple and anyone who makes this anaylsis as them being a better team is mostly a correct and most people will probably agree due to the fact that, Nylander was already producing at a top 6 pace, and so was Tkackuk. So it's really simple an no need to use fancy words or sentences. They would have been a better team to a point where they would not be in position to draft Elias Pettersson. That is how I drawn that conclusion and it's absolute reasonable one.

You cannot pick and choose what you hold constant from previous rolls onto this new roll.

not sure what is going on here, but this based on a reply that implied him (We could have had Nylander and Tkachuk) right? So I am just basing not hat, well if we had them, there is no Pettersson because we would have been a better team, we would also be a better team in 2018 not in position to draft Quinn Hughes. Simple anaylsis.

You cannot pick and choose what you hold constant from previous rolls onto this new roll.

And there are a great many factors. Each needing quantification.

So you see, you cannot possibly prove your statement to be true here. You’re guessing at best.

why didn't you say this to the people who keeps claiming we could have had Nylander? Because we would be a better team with him and Tkachuk today? aren't they guessing too then? those don't need qualification? Very double standard don't you think?

you target me, for saying we would be better and not end up with Pettersson and Hughes, yet you keep a low down when the others come in and say we could have had Nylander and Tkachuk?

 

[lawrence]

I give Jim credit for Pettersson, Hughes and Boeser. Where have I not?

While I agree with how you parse the work among the staff, my point still stands: Ultimately, Benning wears or owns every pick. It doesn’t matter that his head scout recommends a player. Puts in the work. The first guy being looked at by media and fans is Jim.’

In the end, it’s on Jim’s record, just as Gillis’ picks are on his record.

in my opinion you really haven't, not that I've seen of, you might have, but the few time I drop by this depressed forum, you only emphasize on the negatives of Jim Benning, you make it loud and clear, Jim Bennings at fault for Juolevi, but I rarely see you do the opposite about the Boeser, Petterson and Hughes picks, thus I see it as a double standard. You seem to continue to use the stance Jim Benning owns the picks, he technically does but we gave you reason after reason after reason, that it's actually the scouts that did the draft, no Jim and you seem to ignore the fact it was the scouts, but you continue to not want to listen and pin it on Benning. Technically it's Trevor Linden who is his real boss at the time so please blame him for the Juolevi pick.

 

[Pip]

and not have Pettersson and Quinn Hughes. I wish we can get the right pick every time but no one is ever capable of doing that.

And EP is going to cost us better draft positions (and already has). Trying to use this convoluted argument to somehow justify drafting poorly in 2014 and 2015 has got to be one of the dumbest arguments I’ve seen on this board in my time here.

 

[absolute garbage]

If I had to guess I'd say he signs a 4 year deal at ~6.5M caphit with last year being ~10M salary. Then he either gets traded as RFA like Trouba when the contract ends or he signs the ~10M one year extension, becomes UFA and bolts to an US team.

 

[RobertKron]

in my opinion you really haven't, not that I've seen of, you might have, but the few time I drop by this depressed forum, you only emphasize on the negatives of Jim Benning, you make it loud and clear, Jim Bennings at fault for Juolevi, but I rarely see you do the opposite about the Boeser, Petterson and Hughes picks, thus I see it as a double standard. You seem to continue to use the stance Jim Benning owns the picks, he technically does but we gave you reason after reason after reason, that it's actually the scouts that did the draft, no Jim and you seem to ignore the fact it was the scouts, but you continue to not want to listen and pin it on Benning. Technically it's Trevor Linden who is his real boss at the time so please blame him for the Juolevi pick.

Holy shit, the rare “I’m a baby - when you cover my eyes, the world doesn’t exist anymore” argument.

 

[Motte and Bailey]

It’s incorrect because you have no way of accounting for every factor to a re-roll when arriving at your conclusion.

How do I explain probability to you?

Think of it this way: You choose to hold the draft lotto as a constant, but a re-roll of a possible future may result in a lotto win... because when you reset one factor, like Nylander, you have to reset all factors. Then you roll.

You cannot pick and choose what you hold constant from previous rolls onto this new roll.

And there are a great many factors. Each needing quantification.

So you see, you cannot possibly prove your statement to be true here. You’re guessing at best.

When I was in PE class in grade 8 I thought I had almost won a track and field race. You see, I had a huge lead with only 20 meters to go and I tripped on my shoelace which had come undone. I thought, if I didn’t trip I would’ve won the race! But now after all these years I realize how wrong I was for not accounting for all quantification of every variable. I could’ve been hit by a meteor or the planet could’ve been absorbed into a black hole or an endless set of possibilities could’ve happened to stop me from winning that race. Thank you for raising my consciousness with your enlightening post ROE!

 

[Baby Pettersson]

If I had to guess I'd say he signs a 4 year deal at ~6.5M caphit with last year being ~10M salary. Then he either gets traded as RFA like Trouba when the contract ends or he signs the ~10M one year extension, becomes UFA and bolts to an US team.

Any evidence he doesn't wanna play here?

 

[MS]

And EP is going to cost us better draft positions (and already has). Trying to use this convoluted argument to somehow justify drafting poorly in 2014 and 2015 has got to be one of the dumbest arguments I’ve seen on this board in my time here.

The Cam Neely trade was a huge win for Vancouver because it allowed us to suck enough to draft Trevor Linden! Great management!

 

[FroshaugFan2]

The rumoured bridge deal makes sense given the Canucks limited cap space. They don't have room to give him a big contract that buys UFA years.

 

[F A N]

When I was in PE class in grade 8 I thought I had almost won a track and field race. You see, I had a huge lead with only 20 meters to go and I tripped on my shoelace which had come undone. I thought, if I didn’t trip I would’ve won the race! But now after all these years I realize how wrong I was for not accounting for all quantification of every variable. I could’ve been hit by a meteor or the planet could’ve been absorbed into a black hole or an endless set of possibilities could’ve happened to stop me from winning that race. Thank you for raising my consciousness with your enlightening post ROE!

After losing the race did you have to listen to lectures about how you tied your shoe laces incorrectly? Just curious...

 

[absolute garbage]

Any evidence he doesn't wanna play here?

Obviously it's only an educated guess of what might happen in 4-5 years. If Benning gets fired and Canucks somehow have an elite team at that point it might be different and he might want to stay but other than that, I think it's easy to see a prominent US based played wanting to go play back there before it's too late.

 

[Motte and Bailey]

After losing the race did you have to listen to lectures about how you tied your shoe laces incorrectly? Just curious...

No. That was a fictional story that I used as a rhetorical device. I’ve never lost a race because my shoelace tying is on point. Double knotted every time.

 

[timw33]

The Cam Neely trade was a huge win for Vancouver because it allowed us to suck enough to draft Trevor Linden! Great management!

It's maybe my favourite argument on the forum recently, and if we use that logic going forward, we should hope that Quinn Hughes busts/EP has a sophomore slump so that the team flails and we have the chance to draft an even better prospect in 2020/2022.

Now that we have EP no one is able to consider that a team with potentially Nylander McCann Point Boeser/Konecny Tkachuck Debrincat might have been a really good young team worth watching grow and we wouldn't even be thinking about all the other shiny prospects because our team was stacked full of exciting young NHL stars.

 

[Bleach Clean]

When I was in PE class in grade 8 I thought I had almost won a track and field race. You see, I had a huge lead with only 20 meters to go and I tripped on my shoelace which had come undone. I thought, if I didn’t trip I would’ve won the race! But now after all these years I realize how wrong I was for not accounting for all quantification of every variable. I could’ve been hit by a meteor or the planet could’ve been absorbed into a black hole or an endless set of possibilities could’ve happened to stop me from winning that race. Thank you for raising my consciousness with your enlightening post ROE!

You're most welcome RMB. And thank you back. It's always funny when someone confuses possibility with probability. I get a chuckle out of it too. Much appreciated.

 

[tradervik]

My take: Boeser doesn't have much leverage until and unless he demonstrates he is willing to miss training camp (and possibly the start of the season). I don't see him giving up UFA years so I expect they will agree on a bridge deal with a cap hit that starts with a '6'.

The wildcard in all this is Boeser's father's health and whether that adds pressure on Brock to get the deal done or, just the opposite, tips things the other way.

 

[Bleach Clean]

in my opinion you really haven't, not that I've seen of, you might have, but the few time I drop by this depressed forum, you only emphasize on the negatives of Jim Benning, you make it loud and clear, Jim Bennings at fault for Juolevi, but I rarely see you do the opposite about the Boeser, Petterson and Hughes picks, thus I see it as a double standard. You seem to continue to use the stance Jim Benning owns the picks, he technically does but we gave you reason after reason after reason, that it's actually the scouts that did the draft, no Jim and you seem to ignore the fact it was the scouts, but you continue to not want to listen and pin it on Benning. Technically it's Trevor Linden who is his real boss at the time so please blame him for the Juolevi pick.

You're seeing what you want to see.

Go through my post history regarding Boeser, Pettersson and Hughes. To be sure, all three were on my want list pre-draft. I have supported all three picks.

What this really comes down to is discussion time. That's where you perceive this double standard. We talk more about Juolevi because he was a controversial pick. There are people on both sides of this debate. That's why he remains a hot button issue. However, you are perceiving this as just choosing to slam the bad picks and not talking about the good ones. This is wrong, again. The bad picks just generate more discussion.

If someone came here to make a legitimate argument against Pettersson, there would be a horde of HFCanuck posters contesting it. Nobody has, and so, the talk isn't there. Does that mean that the majority of HFCanuck posters do not support Pettersson as a pick? Nope.

I'm fine with blaming Linden along with Benning. They were both in charge of hockey ops, after all.

 

[megatron]

If I had to guess I'd say he signs a 4 year deal at ~6.5M caphit with last year being ~10M salary. Then he either gets traded as RFA like Trouba when the contract ends or he signs the ~10M one year extension, becomes UFA and bolts to an US team.

Pure speculation on my part but he's going to an American team as soon as he can, same for Hughes.

 

[Jay Cee]

Pure speculation on my part but he's going to an American team as soon as he can, same for Hughes.

You know Quinn Hughes partially grew up in Canada right? Where does this "American factor" come from all of a sudden? Just because Trouba wanted out of one of the shittiest cities in Canada?

 

[TruKnyte]

You're seeing what you want to see.

Go through my post history regarding Boeser, Pettersson and Hughes. To be sure, all three were on my want list pre-draft. I have supported all three picks.

What this really comes down to is discussion time. That's where you perceive this double standard. That the talk is more about the controversial Juolevi pick does not mutually exclude my support for the other picks. It's just that the back and forth is occurring for Juolevi.

If someone came here to make a legitimate argument against Pettersson, there would be a horde of HFCanuck posters contesting it. Nobody has, and so, the talk isn't there. Does that mean that the majority of HFCanuck posters do not support Pettersson as a pick? Nope.

I'm fine with blaming Linden along with Benning. They were both in charge of hockey ops, after all.

Benning critics, on the whole, have been better acknowledging when Benning actually does something good, compared to his supporters who blindfold themselves for his mistakes or make up long convoluted excuses.

One of the best things when Benning is finally gone is not having to see the same arguments or gaslighting over, and over, and over, and over again.

 

[Bleach Clean]

this a very laughable response.

this poll of kind of full of ****, and instead of getting to the point, you re worded it to a snarky version of you are really trying to say. You really over complicated it. It feels I know what you want to say, but you worded it to a point where it complicated

It's really quite simple, having Nylander and Tkachuk to our line in 2017 will easily make that 2017 Vancouver Canucks a better team. It's quite simple and anyone who makes this anaylsis as them being a better team is mostly a correct and most people will probably agree due to the fact that, Nylander was already producing at a top 6 pace, and so was Tkackuk. So it's really simple an no need to use fancy words or sentences. They would have been a better team to a point where they would not be in position to draft Elias Pettersson. That is how I drawn that conclusion and it's absolute reasonable one.

not sure what is going on here, but this based on a reply that implied him (We could have had Nylander and Tkachuk) right? So I am just basing not hat, well if we had them, there is no Pettersson because we would have been a better team, we would also be a better team in 2018 not in position to draft Quinn Hughes. Simple anaylsis.

why didn't you say this to the people who keeps claiming we could have had Nylander? Because we would be a better team with him and Tkachuk today? aren't they guessing too then? those don't need qualification? Very double standard don't you think?

you target me, for saying we would be better and not end up with Pettersson and Hughes, yet you keep a low down when the others come in and say we could have had Nylander and Tkachuk?

I'm amazed at how difficult this has been, and how tightly people (not just you) hold to illogical theories.

Let's try this another way (Scenario):

1. You: Add Nylander and Tkachuk to the 2017 roster (they haven't graduated a prospect in his D+1 seasons since the Virtanen/McCann fiasco, but Ok).

2. Me: Ok, now re-roll the draft simulator. Where does the pick now land?

Do you see it? You changed 2 factors and I changed 1 factor. Can we predict the draft order? No, we can't. Can you? I'll stop right here if you can. Predict the exact order with absolute certainty. Tell me what number they finish.




Last, why don't I critique the posts that say "we could have had Nylander and Tkachuk"?

I feel like this comes up every time this cannot draft Pettersson BS comes up. These two statements are not the same. One is Logical Possibility and the other is Process of Elimination. Certainty vs. Uncertainty.

Saying that Pettersson could not have been drafted is eliminating a possibility outright with insufficient logic. It conveys a certain outcome. Or, the absolute absence of a certain outcome. While including the _possibility_ of adding Nylander and Tkachuk does not convey a certain outcome, it conveys a _possible_ outcome. One is certain and the other is uncertain.

It's the difference between saying:

"We absolutely do not get Pettersson in 2017 if we draft Nylander and Tkachuk"

And

"We maybe don't get Pettersson in 2017 if we draft Nylander and Tkachuk".

First statement is certain and requires a thorough proofing. Second statement is uncertain, speculative, and so does not require the same proofing.

 

[Megaterio Llamas]

 

[orcatown]

Time to give your final offer and a date Boeser must sign by or he forfeits the season (and no going back unless you can arrange a very good trade)). Offer should be fair but not one that screws the team looking to the future. In retrospect, Toronto should have definitely done this with Nylander. Canucks hold the cards so play them. Boeser shows up some time down the road this season, and probably has have a half-assed season as a result, what was the good of giving in to him?

There has to be buy-in to a team concept. You sacrifice a little for the sake of the team. That's how you build a team. Horvat is a great example. You get a team of players who can only stress the bottom line money wise, you lose anyhow - just look at the Jets. Character is huge here and it's important Benning set an example that he will not be bullied and that he insists on team before player. Good teams like Boston do this.

However, I don't see Benning having the gonads to do this.

 

[StreetHawk]

Benning is under the gun. So no chance.

I expect it to get done. 4 years is my expectation. Mid to high $6 mill range. Depending on the AAV he may or may not have a massive QO like Meier. He may want more money upfront.

 

[Billy Kvcmu]

I feel like they only meet once every week
Why can’t they just lock themselves in a room and get it done in one day.
Holiday is over