Thorny

Really? I’m saying your use of “track record of excellence” is poorly, wantonly applied, and to the wrong players Though I realize now you said “with” excellence which does alter it. lol - admittedly, my mistake. Still, I disagree thoroughly with the subtext, the suggestion of your post, regardless of where you come down on it: no, I don’t think we benefit due to the “track record with excellence” of the players we brought in relative to the ones we sent out: it would be an incredibly small factor, if a factor at all, relative to the talent comp

I always love the “oh you folks will never be satisfied, not until “fill in the blank” happens” as if the goal posts are being moved on this end lol. The disgruntled side has called their shot a zillion times over: *make the playoffs.*. The entirety of the goal post moving is on the other side. There’s no stated expectation of when success is to be expected. It’s just, “wait.” It’s like how in football they eye ball where the ball finishes, and then measure with a literal chain. It’s a pretty hilarious juxtaposition edit: also, great new name. I’ll subscribe to your newsletter

Looks like I’m with the majority on 1 and 3. He may settle between options 2 and 3 within that first question, but he definitely has the potential of being a top 50 scorer at some point during his career, which last year was about 70 points. I think most likely he’s ~ mid 20s in goals this year, so I picked “just above 20” even though no option fit great If I had to say, Quinn ends up the standout of our youts, but it’s honestly a massive toss up. No one knows lol I swear I didn’t read yours first

2 teams spending the way we do have made the playoffs in the last decade. We are all incredible homers for saying they are 50/50 to make it. Logically it’s a bad prediction. If it turns out right, it’ll still have been a bad prediction. The only reasonable projection right now, talking gun to head, is for them to miss. Of course it is. We just choose to have hope because it’s sports and it doesn’t really matter

Your system is way too heavily biased if Skinner goes in the bad category and Lafferty and Aube-Kubel are in the good, relatively. What are we doing here? Like you are comparing track records and your conclusion is that Skinner’s is worse than the guys we brought in? You get that Skinner is better NOW than those players, never mind in his prime? I mention prime because you specifically said “track record” Was such an odd skewing of data, flabbergasting even

2 of the last 160 playoff teams spent in our current range of spending

More so the fact the positions/roster status are incomparable. An NFL QB touches the ball on every offensive snap - your best hockey player plays 25% of the game. If you have a great QB, your team ALWAYS has a shot. Eveything is funneled through the QB particularly in today’s game. The presence of that singular player essentially guarantees a playoff spot, especially when half the nfl is neutered by having a mediocre QB

A) this place is far more positive at large than say, Twitter. It’s sort of an odd juxtaposition that it’s also more knowledgeable, by far imo. I wouldn’t guess that the more you know about the franchise the more hopeful you’d be..but here we are. Both things appear to be true, here B) there’s pressure to fall in line with the more positive wave imo. That’s speaking from experience - I feel the need to tone down what I feel is earned pessimism to “fit in”. I’m not sure if that’s the Xs you get more often when you speak to the negative, but I feel that to be a thing

lmao. “You didn’t offer me 64 mil, you offered me 62.4!!!” derp

This is the first offseason in a while I feel that Adams has the goalies in a good spot to start the year. THIS is finally a “what could Adams have even done?” situation, if the goalies didn’t pan out. I don’t KNOW that UPL would replicate or come close to his performance last season, but logically we should be betting on him, in a team building /roster construction sense, to do so. I don’t really think we can afford to hedge, if you take my meaning. Levi is a fine backup under that prism, particularly supported by Reimer. Components A and B are confidence inducing at least the point I wouldn’t prioritize keeping Reimer at the expense of the roster as a whole Obv at end of day KA is still liable for the actual results at the position, but I don’t think one could argue Adams plan at G for this season was a misguided one *at the time he instituted it* - unfortunately for GMs the job description is to make the right choices - not merely choices that are defensible within the moment they are made

I think I agree. It’s sort of a “if BOTH Levi and UPL are incapable of shouldering a starter’s workload we are screwed anyways” type deal. It’s probably time to pick the best two and let it ride If they can’t make a roster move at G with conviction, by now, they have an issue with the stable of rostered goalies

It’s such a daunting consideration in a way, after hearing guys like Jake Allen talk first-hand about how difficult it makes performing on all 3 goalies in question. It doesn’t just suck, it’s risky.

I feel like we are way, way past “meaningful games in March” being a reasonably aim tbh, but to each there own obviously

How do you see the goalies shaking out?

Nope. That section refers to players who have been “loaned”. A CHL player signing a contract mid-season is by definition not on lone, according to cba as I understand it the player would have to be / could only be claimed under the designations I listed

I’ll agree to disagree, simply because every single place I see the rule listed it’s not what you say - so I don’t think I’m confusing anything. (the link has the full rule, one of the conditions of an emergency recall in general is being cap strapped), but if you post an updated version of the official rules I quoted, I’d be happy to change my mind if I’m simply wrong otherwise, we can always see how it shakes out in season

“NHL teams can perform an emergency recall if at any point they A) fall below either 18 healthy, game-available skaters or two healthy, game-available goaltenders on their active roster and B) have less than the league minimum salary plus $100,000 in available cap space.” it’s AND, not OR https://canucksarmy.com/news/how-emergency-recalls-work-see-canucks-current-roster-crisis#

This isn’t at all the rules I read One of the stipulations of using an emergency recall AT ALL is that you don’t have cap space for an ordinary recall Anyways this is SO BORING lol I apologize for my part in this discussion to the board at large. I defer to taro from here in

I can buy that; but in a time frame necessary to save the current season, as it no-doubt needs to be saved, given the reason we are making the move in your hypothetical? That’s Peregrin Took territory lol 3 of those are made up for sure Maybe 4

I spoke earlier in the summer though pre draft and FA and offseason moves about gaining an advantage on other teams where we can. The theory of rebooting the bottom 6 makes sense as a secondary play in theory. If we can be better than other others from guys 7 to 12, it’s still going to go a ways when the goal is merely mediocre ie 16/32 no stone unturned

We could be maximizing those deals right now, ya Alas We’d rather wait until none of them are cheap

Unless we don’t have the cap space for a regular recall, we won’t be calling up Ratzlaff

Sabres would also need to not have the cap space available for an ordinary recall - ie for all intents and purposes we can’t / won’t be doing an emergency recall Never mind 3. We aren’t emergency recalling a CHL player this year