MGMT Thread. The long, dark offseason of our discontent begins...

[TruKnyte]

No Eriksson for Lucic or Neal trades because Eriksson currently has lesser term.

I'd only take on those contracts if Edmonton and Calgary gave up significant assets for us to do so.

 

[TruGr1t]

No Eriksson for Lucic or Neal trades because Eriksson currently has lesser term.

This would effectively negate the point of trading for Lucic or Neal in the first place, which would be to have a high-ish draft pick(s) involved from the Flames or Oilers side to take the contract. If you're trading Eriksson you're getting nothing else in the trade and just shuffling the deck chairs.

 

[CanucksSTM]

I'm curious to see what comes of Ben Huttons next contract. He's an RFA over 1M which means his next contract has to be at minimum 100% of the previous contract which is 2.8M

Any thoughts on his contract ? 2 x 2.8M ?

 

[Hit the post]

No Eriksson for Lucic or Neal trades because Eriksson currently has lesser term.

Loui E, as much as I dispise him and his contract at least is an ok 4th line winger (or in temp cases, 3rd line winger). Lucic is awful no matter where you put him in the lineup.

 

[Phenomenon13]

No doubt in my mind we’re a playoff team next year with those guys added if we can stay healthy.

You cant be serious. Our holes on the roster are much bigger than filling it with those two plugs.

 

[Canucks1096]

I'm curious to see what comes of Ben Huttons next contract. He's an RFA over 1M which means his next contract has to be at minimum 100% of the previous contract which is 2.8M

Any thoughts on his contract ? 2 x 2.8M ?

If I was Hutton agent and JB gave Gudbrnason 3yrs at 12 M. I will try to ask for something like that.

 

[timw33]

If I was Hutton agent and JB gave Gudbrnason 3yrs at 12 M. I will try to ask for something like that.

He'd have much less leverage as he's an RFA (arbitration eligible however) instead of a UFA, but if you're his agent you wouldn't be doing your duty to your client if you weren't pointing out that Gudbranson contract.

 

[bandwagonesque]

He'd have much less leverage as he's an RFA (arbitration eligible however) instead of a UFA, but if you're his agent you wouldn't be doing your duty to your client if you weren't pointing out that Gudbranson contract.

I'm not sure comparing his client to Gudbranson is a road he should go down.

 

[timw33]

I'm not sure comparing his client to Gudbranson is a road he should go down.

Comparison: "My client is better than X player, here are the numbers and facts. X player made this. We think it's fair that we're at that level too"

 

[bandwagonesque]

Comparison: "My client is better than X player, here are the numbers and facts. X player made this. We think it's fair that we're at that level too"

Yes, it was a joke which made light of Gudbranson's shitty play.

 

[Cupless44]

Loui E, as much as I dispise him and his contract at least is an ok 4th line winger (or in temp cases, 3rd line winger). Lucic is awful no matter where you put him in the lineup.

Least physical 4th liner in the league..least physical player in the league actually...doesn’t score either...but there are the little things

 

[bandwagonesque]

Least physical 4th liner in the league..least physical player in the league actually...doesn’t score either...but there are the little things

Are you disputing that he's a useful player that should be on the roster based on his play? It seems like you're just criticizing him half consciously out of habit without reference to the context in which he's being discussed.

 

[VC]

Comparison: "My client is better than X player, here are the numbers and facts. X player made this. We think it's fair that we're at that level too"

The response should be that said player was moved out because he was worth that contract, does your client want to be dealt with the same kind of salary dump kind of move?

Edit: Didn't fully follow the conversation but that should be the response if that where it lead.

 

[timw33]

Yes, it was a joke which made light of Gudbranson's ****ty play.

Sometimes it's very hard to read tone on these forums

 

[bandwagonesque]

Sometimes it's very hard to read tone on these forums

Agreed.

 

[Jyrki21]

Hunh, I would have thought Boston's performance might suffer from losing a consensus "draft guru" rather than become the best in the league.

We'll see where Vancouver ranks when he publishes it, but we all know it sure as hell won't be up there.

 

[Jyrki21]

BTW, I 100% expect someone here (or on Twitter) argues that Benning gets credit for the Bruins drafting Pastrnak, when he literally had the opportunity to draft him in Vancouver one pick earlier.

 

[Fire Benning]

Hunh, I would have thought Boston's performance might suffer from losing a consensus "draft guru" rather than become the best in the league.

We'll see where Vancouver ranks when he publishes it, but we all know it sure as hell won't be up there.

My guess is that Pettersson will prop them up, much like how the Oilers are propped up by McDavid here.

 

[Jyrki21]

My guess is that Pettersson will prop them up, much like how the Oilers are propped up by McDavid here.

Yeah, it's expected value, so if a guy is just really good that's going to happen – like the McDavid thing is ridiculous but also a pretty extreme example. I don't really know what expected value for a 5th overall might look like – and also Pettersson only has one season under his belt, so his impact is more limited – so I'm curious.

 

[timw33]

BTW, I 100% expect someone here (or on Twitter) argues that Benning gets credit for the Bruins drafting Pastrnak, when he literally had the opportunity to draft him in Vancouver one pick earlier.

Benning would have known Boston's close to final list as of May 2014 too. It's very funny stuff.

 

[Krnuckfan]

Yeah, it's expected value, so if a guy is just really good that's going to happen – like the McDavid thing is ridiculous but also a pretty extreme example. I don't really know what expected value for a 5th overall might look like – and also Pettersson only has one season under his belt, so his impact is more limited – so I'm curious.

My guess is the canucks will be on the right side of the graph in terms of expected value, but dead average in terms of cumulative WAR. In between the coyotes and flyers on the graph.

This will go against the "benning is a draft god" mentality and will be attacked by benning stans. Expect the words "stats" "nerd" "flawed" in their reply.

 

[passive voice]

Hunh, I would have thought Boston's performance might suffer from losing a consensus "draft guru" rather than become the best in the league...

One of the strangest parts of this is how the Bruins look this good despite absolutely galaxybraining that 2015 first round.

 

[pitseleh]

My guess is the canucks will be on the right side of the graph in terms of expected value, but dead average in terms of cumulative WAR. In between the coyotes and flyers on the graph.

Yeah, I think that is bang on. Draft pick value is driven by the high picks, so I think they will be in the same ballpark as Philadelphia, New Jersey and Arizona. They will likely be at or just below the average line, depending on how negative WAR players are dealt with.

 

[Jyrki21]

This will go against the "benning is a draft god" mentality and will be attacked by benning stans. Expect the words "stats" "nerd" "flawed" in their reply.

One defense I've read is that our prospects are still up-and-coming so they haven't made an impact yet... you know, unlike the other 30 teams.

 

[Cupless44]

Are you disputing that he's a useful player that should be on the roster based on his play? It seems like you're just criticizing him half consciously out of habit without reference to the context in which he's being discussed.

Yes I am disputing it. A guy isn't useful when he costs 6 million to kill penalties and play on the 4th line. You can get players for one million who actually battle for pucks and engage in the play.

And "based on his play" last year he should have absolutely been sat out of the line up a lot more than 1 game.