63
Photo Credit: Matthew Henderson

Mailbag Part 2: Draft Talk, Offer Sheeting Mitch Marner, and Organizational Weaknesses

Obviously he should want to play for the Canucks, because no one can appreciate a pair of brothers like Vancouver; but unfortunately knowing Canuck Luck he’d just end up going one spot before Vancouver picks anyway. Elias Pettersson is a franchise player, and that means the team has probably used up all their draft luck for the next 15-20 years.

It’s been surprisingly quiet on that front so far. By this time last season, I had started to hear speculation on how the team felt about different players at the top of the draft, but that hasn’t been the case this season. I’d imagine that’s because there’s a lot less certainty about where the Canucks will be picking this year.

I think it’s a little of Column A and a little of Column B. I think it would be fair to say his development was rushed and that he could have benefited from at least another full year in Liiga or with AHL Bakersfield before making the jump to the NHL. That having been said, it’s possible there were some holes in the analysis that lead to him being widely considered the best prospect in the 2016 draft after Auston Matthews and Patrik Laine. I wonder if being so closely compared to Laine oversold his abilities somewhat. Laine’s season was genuinely otherworldly, behind only Aleksander Barkov and Mikael Granlund in scoring by a U18 player, whereas Puljujarvi was lagging behind somewhat, lodged between less impressive names like Joel Armia and Juuso Ikonen. Over the course of just 50 games, it’s certainly possible something conspired to make him look better than he actually was, and since he’s been up and down between Bakersfield and Edmonton for most of his career, he hasn’t had a chance to prove he can be an elite offensive contributor at any other level.

I do. I imagine this situation will play out similarly to the one with Ben Hutton last summer. They’ll look around, see what’s out there, and not be impressed with the offers. Then they’ll be rewarded for their inaction.

To be completely honest, I think the Goldobin situation is overblown. There are issues there for sure, but if they could repair the relationship with Hutton, Goldobin is going to be fine. I’d imagine they’d have already moved on if they were that unimpressed and there were any real offers for him.

A big part of the reason we never see offer sheets is because as the dollar figures get higher and higher (and into the territory where a team is unlikely to match), so does the amount of draft picks a team has to give up. At the highest level, not only are you paying the player over $10 million, but you’re also giving up four first-round picks. That’s just an insane amount of value to give up for any player unless you’re a cup contender, and chances are you probably aren’t if you have over ten million dollars in cap space. How many players are truly worth four first-round picks on the trade market right now? I would estimate less than 5. I’m not sure Marner is one of them.

As far as the Canucks are concerned, I just don’t see how it makes sense. They probably aren’t going to be a great team for at least another year or two, which means the picks they’d be giving up are likely to be in the top 20, and that’s a conservative estimate. For that reason alone I think they should pass, and that’s before considering salary cap implications.

I was surprised to discover that Ryan Biech is the only one of us that’s currently blocked by McCagg. I was blocked very briefly but it didn’t last long and he’s been oddly patient with me so far. I hope he never blocks me again because honestly his tweets are one of the few things on this earth that truly bring me joy.

I’m not completely certain because the Canucks’ coaching staff all have very nondescript titles. For example, Malhotra is just listed as an assistant coach, which doesn’t seem very descriptive. Doug Jarvis’ role isn’t specified apart from being a “senior advisor” which could mean anything. They have a skills coach, Glenn Carnegie, and Dan Cloutier’s position as Director of Goaltending is a rarity among NHL teams, but I have no idea how much they differ from the rest of the league on an operational level.

It’s very close, but I think I would stick with Quinn Hughes. Some of that is probably the endowment effect, or the fact that Quinn Hughes was “my guy” in that draft and they picked him, which is a rewarding experience; but I’m also pretty convinced he’s the superior prospect. He had a more impressive rookie season despite being younger than Makar was and he’s one of the most dynamic skaters I’ve ever seen (although Makar is no slouch in that department, either). I’d hate to actually be faced with that choice in real life for fear of making the wrong call but from the comfort of my armchair I feel fairly confident saying I would pass.

Without knowing where they’re picking and who’s available I would say Anttoni Honka, since he’s a right-shot defender and the Canucks could desperately use one of those, but I’m not entirely convinced he should be taken in the top 20. My other answer is Cole Caufield, who has top-ten skill but stands at just 5’6″ and will likely be taken much later than he ought to be based solely on his stature. If the Canucks make the playoffs and are selecting in the middle of the first round, he’d be a worthy target.

Their biggest weakness by far remains on defense, as evidenced by the fact that the organization appears to believe that their two best defenders are the same as they were five years ago. There’s a pretty solid argument to be had that Troy Stecher is really their best defender, and everyone expects Quinn Hughes will take up that mantle in short order, but there really isn’t a lot of help coming and the current crop of defenders have struggled for the past few seasons.

As far as how they address the issue, they could throw a bunch of money at Erik Karlsson, but I don’t imagine he’d be that interested in Vancouver when there will be a multitude of other teams lining up to sign him. Apart from that, there isn’t really a quick fix. They can acquire picks and prioritize defensemen in the middle of the draft, and hope Jett Woo continues his impressive development path. There are no quick fixes.

    • Braindead Benning

      Karlsson is only cash and term, Marner would cost 4 first round draft picks + cash & term… he is not a generational player which is NOT worth the picks

      • TheRealRusty

        Thats why I am leaning to as well, but 7 years at $12 for a older player is scary. If we do make an offer it better be one of those front end loaded contracts so that we can pawn him off to a cap floor team when his production starts to slide and we need the cap room.

          • Nick Lidstrom was a freak of nature. Most players, even most elite players, are not Nick Lidstrom. Most players begin to decline around the age of 30, particularly when they have an injury history.

          • Beer Can Boyd

            He’s missed 18 regular season games in the last 6 years. Not bad for a #1 defenseman. Given the Canucks current situation on defensemen, I’d sign him if I was Benning.

          • bobdaley44

            Lidstrom played a more cerebral game and was way better positionally and defensively not to mention playing in a stable puck moving system suited to his game. If Karlsson loses his skating it’s all over.

  • jaybird43

    Marner will get about the same as Matthews: 10 mill a year for 5 years. Karlsson will probably get about 12 mill a year for 7, possibly 8 (if San Jose signs) years. Toughie. Canucks need D, but the dollars are aspirational killers due to cap. Despite the additional dollars and length, I’d say Karlsson though, as I think he’s still likely to be a #1 pairing into his mid 30s. And the Canucks need here is desperate.

  • Puck Viking

    Better off offer sheeting kapanen at 7 x 4 he would only cost a 2nd rounder. He easily slots in with Horvat and wouldnt upset the salary structure with Petey.

      • Puck Viking

        I meant 7 years at 4 million. Anything over 4.1 requires a 1st and 3rd for compensation. Carlo would also be good to offer sheet. RHD at 22 is exactly what we need although I dont believe Boston will have the same problems matching that Toronto would have.

    • Ty Webb

      Since Kapanen is likely headed to a 3 year bridge deal you’d have to offer sheet him high enough and long enough for Toronto to not match. On the low end, 7 years – 4.5M for his four remaining RFA years and 6.75M for 3 UFA years. Total contract value 38.25M, AAV of 5.46M. On the high end 5.0M per year for the RFA years and 7.5M for the UFA years. Total contract value of 42.5M – 6.07M AAV. Both cases the Canucks would have to give up a 1st and a 3rd in 2020. If you’re going swing, swing for the fences. Offer the latter deal and see what happens. If kapanen continues on his development path towards a high 2nd line/low 1st line winger, giving up a 1st and a 3rd is a reasonable price to pay.

      • DJ_44

        Toronto would struggle to match 4. In a nutshell, barring trades (specifically thinking of Zaitzev, Nylander) they will have $18M to sign 4F, 3D and 1G. Marner will eat what …. $10.5M…maybe $10M. That leaves $8M for 7 players. Take 1.0M for a cheap backup goalie. $6.5M for 6 players including Kapanen, Johnsson, Lindholm …. and assumes no Gardiner, Hainsey and Oshiganov.

        Yep Puck, $4M would do it.

        • DJ_44

          The obvious reason for not doing an Offer Sheet, is that while Toronto will be in tough to match and keep Kapanen, they can certainly match and trade for a value greater than the second rounder on offer. ….and you are pissing off a lot of GMs.

    • Jamie E

      Smart thought. The cost of a Marner-type is too high in terms of draft picks you lose and there is every chance Toronto would match unless you do something extraordinarily stupid in terms of cap hit/term (which isn’t, you know, a good idea). The truly vulnerable players on a team like Toronto (or Tampa for instance) are those who sit one tier underneath – who are very good, but not core. Kapanen is a good example.

  • Rodeobill

    Question for next week…
    In EDM fans threw jerseys and hats on the ice after giving up the ghost to CHI after a 2 goal lead. Could we call that a shat trick? or is there a better name for that?

  • 51Geezer

    Re Marner: TSN’s well-paid expert Darren Dreger said it is “100% certain” that he will be “offer-sheeted”. I think I’ll go with Jackson McDonald on this one.

  • Benning targets Pettersson = draft luck. Hughes falls to #7 = silence. so how exactly is Toronto’s current roster (and last year’s roster too) an example of a model rebuild, tying Lamouriello’s (and Shanahan’s, if you need to fudge yardsticks) transactions to the players on the ice?

    • Dirk22

      umm….what exactly do you think they could have done better?

      They tanked to get elite talent and have hit on all of their top-10 picks which has set them up for years (Matthews, Marner, Nylander), sold off virtually all their veterans for draft picks/assets (eg. Kapanen, picks and prospects of which they have used to help trade for players like Anderson and Muzzin), overhauled their entire roster apart from Kadri, Gardiner and Reilly, have an extremely healthy pipeline with the Marlies, and were able to attract the best free agent on the market in the last however many years (you think Tavares is coming home if he didn’t think the Leafs could win?!).

      And I know you can’t compare it to Vancouver since Benning took over as there are lots of variables to consider…..the Leafs had Kessel, Kadri, Gardiner, Reilly, Bozak and Van Riemsdyk to begin (around 2014) which is a better starting point than the Canucks had with the aging Sedins, aging Hamhuis and Bieksa, Kesler who was demanding a trade, Edler, Tanev, Hutton, Horvat, Markstrom.

      So yes the Leafs had a better starting point – but to pretend they haven’t executed a rebuild well is just covering up for all of the misguided blabbering on here about the ‘need to be competitive’ and ‘why would we want to model anything after Toronto’. Go back through the archives – you’ll see all of the usuals on here who were once claiming that Toronto was ‘doing it the wrong way’, now claim that they just got ‘lucky’.

      • North Van Halen

        I don’t recall anyone saying Toronto got lucky other than winning the Mattews lottery. Otherwise they’ve executed an excellent rebuild.
        I think the big difference is it’s hard to compare rebuilds for a few very important reasons:
        First, as you mentioned, they started with a much better base of assets to move. Vancouver had few and they were all tied to no-trade deals limiting their value.
        Second, Toronto does not have a meddling owner, apathetic maybe, especially in the Pension Plan days but the large corporations have generally hired presidents and let them run the show.
        Third, Toronto had gone through approximately 25 years (closer to 50 if you take out the Gilmour and some of the Sittler years) of terrible teams and management. The fans there were ready for any direction that didn’t include striving for mediocrity.
        Finally, a fan base that sells out buildings and buys merchandise trough thick and thin, Canuck fans have never been that dedicated.
        You just can’t compare the 2 rebuilds. Should Benning be looking at some of Toronto’s moves to replicate them, sure. Was this going to occur 5 years ago when the Canucks had just won a President’s Cup? No.
        So yes there are things we can learn but as long as FA is meddling and Canuck fans won’t sell out buildings for a rebuilding team, ours is going to be different.

      • What gets my goat is using Toronto as a justification for the tank strategy when Toronto was actually a long-term rebuild. They tanked and lucked out to get Matthews, so it worked *for them*. That doesn’t make them a model rebuild, a formula that other teams like the Canucks should be following.

        See “What We Talk about When We Talk About Tanking”

        Even the Toronto Maple Leafs, who are generally considered the prime example of how to execute a strip-it-all-down rebuild, retained Tyler Bozak and James Van Riemsdyk through the entirety of their rebuild before the numbers game forced them off the roster this summer.

        But if you read the narratives from Jackson and JD, they have *always* pushed for the tank, specifically citing Toronto without any supporting evidence. The strip-it-all-down rebuild yielded draft picks, none of whom are on the Toronto roster. See the inconsistency? I broke down the current Toronto roster based on acquisition method and timing to prove that this is a clearly false premise, see the comments in the same article.

        TL;DR – So, to clarify, I’m not saying that Toronto’s rebuild was bad. What I am objecting to is the use of Toronto as a model rebuild using the tank strategy when the evidence clearly shows it was a long, traditional rebuild (e.g. scoring with 1st rounders in Nylander, Marner, Rielly, Kadri) with some significant luck (i.e. winning the draft lottery for Matthews which had an 80% failure rate) and other non-highly improbable circumstances (i.e. getting an elite hometown player in his prime via UFA…oh wait, the “stats” say Tavares is over-the-hill because he’s over 26).

        Note that Toronto’s rebuild has clear flaws too. Specifically, the failure to draw a significant number of roster players outside of the 1st round. It’s in this respect where I think Benning will be the superior builder. He doesn’t win the lottery, he doesn’t get the elite hometown UFA but he a) builds through the draft, b) builds from the goal out, and c) builds a sustainable pipeline of prospects with what he has.

        • Dirk22

          Went back and looked at that comment and I have a couple of questions for you:

          1) You said: “I broke down the current Toronto roster based on acquisition method and timing to prove that this is a clearly false premise”

          How did you define the pre-tank and post-tank eras – those are just arbitrary dates that help your argument are they not? The word tanking itself is muddled – most generally use it as a ‘strip it down’ rebuild approach – for that reason you need to go further back. Why don’t you look back to when Shanahan was hired which was around the same time as Benning.

          2. You’re saying “The strip-it-all-down rebuild yielded draft picks, none of whom are on the Toronto roster.” Apart from dismissing the fact that they’re probably not on the roster because the Leafs are a contending team and many are part of a good Marlies team, stripping it down also yielded Kapanen but who’s counting.

          Also, its almost like by gaining extra picks they could then afford to part with draft picks/prospects to acquire significant pieces (Muzzin, Anderson…both acquired with the help of assets they got for veteran players).

          Asset Management – what a concept.

          • I used Lamouriello’s hiring date to when they won the lottery and drafted Matthews. You can move it back to when Shanahan was hired, I posted all of the dates there. You can look at the dates and move them around all the same, doesn’t matter. Those assets acquired during the strip-down are not playing.

            No, there are not on the roster because those players acquired via the “strip” period haven’t played a single NHL game. They aren’t ready yet the strip-down aspect of the tank is touted as the reason why Toronto is a “model rebuild.” Not true. Again, I did the work and traced all of the players on the roster to how and when they were acquired.

            Asset management – what a concept. So the cardinal rule of the tank is not to give up draft picks. Yet they traded a 1st and 2nd round pick for Andersen. Yet Benning still catches flack for something as simple as acquiring Baertschi (which is a win). Double-standard.

            Lemme put it to you another way: The way how Jackson and JD went on and on (and continue to go on) about how Toronto is the model rebuild because of the tank is like buying a lottery ticket and winning and then saying: “Look, it worked for me. Everyone should be doing it.”

            Toronto got lucky (Matthews). They got an incredibly favourable elite UFA signing (Tavares) – when does that ever happen? And then they did the right thing and scored with their *own* 1st round draft picks as every team should be doing. What they *did not* do is build the current roster using the assets from the strip-down.

            You can criticize my argument all you want but I proved my point with even the current roster. This false narrative has been going on for a while now so if I went back even further in time and repeated my work with a prior roster, it’s only going to make my argument vastly stronger.

          • Dirk22

            “What they *did not* do is build the current roster using the assets from the strip-down.” – Forever 1915

            ‘Stripping it down’ allowed them to finish poorly in 2015 and 2016 and gave them Marner and Matthews. You can spin this around all you want and if you want to believe the Leafs just had more luck or good fortune than the Canucks than have at it. Even if the Leafs don’t win the lottery back in 2016 who do they get? Laine? Dubois? They’re still going to be miles ahead of the Canucks. It also gave them Kapanen through the Kessel trade.

            “Asset management – what a concept. So the cardinal rule of the tank is not to give up draft picks. Yet they traded a 1st and 2nd round pick for Andersen.” – Forever 1915

            The cardinal rule of the tank is to stockpile picks. I’ll repeat what I said earlier as you must have missed it – the Leafs traded vets for a whole bunch of picks/assets. That allowed them the luxury of being able to use picks/prospects in the deals they’ve made for Anderson (the 2nd they used in the Anderson trade came from trading Polak) and recently, Muzzin (Grundstrom was from a 2nd rounder they got from trading Winnik). Those are two key players on their roster that they got, in part, by gaining assets from old vets. A difference with the Canucks is they used their draft picks (Baertschi, Vey, Dorsett) and didn’t have replacements for them whether it was prospects or picks (ie. no 2nd rounders in 2015 or 2016).

          • Your argument is not consistent with the facts. Here, I’m reposting the current Toronto roster and how they were acquired. Look at the dates and explain what you just wrote based on what I scrubbed from HockeyDB.com. All of this information is 100% credible. Go ahead and prove me wrong but at least do it with evidence and not conjecture. I did the work. I’m hoping that Jackson would do the same. Perhaps you can do it for him then.

            Post-Tank Era
            Michael Hutchinson (Trade, Dec 2018, 2020 5th)
            John Tavares (UFA Signing, July 2018)
            Tyler Ennis (UFA Signing, July 2018)
            Par Lindholm (UFA Signing, May 2018)
            Igor Ozhiganov (UFA Signing, May 2018)
            Patrick Marleau (UFA Signing, July 2017)
            Ron Hainsey (UFA Signing, July 2017)

            Lou Lamoriello Tank Period
            Auston Matthews (2016 1st, #1)
            Justin Holl (UFA Signing, July 2016)
            Trevor Moore (UFA Signing, July 2016)
            Frederik Andersen (Trade, June 2016, 2016 1st and 2017 2nd)
            Nikita Zaitsev (UFA Signing, May 2016)

            Pre-Tank Era
            Kasperi Kapanen (Trade, July 2015, Kessel)
            Martin Marincin (Trade, June 2015, Wolanin)
            Travis Dermott (Trade, June 2015, Carlsson)
            Zach Hyman (Trade, June 2015, McKegg)
            Mitch Marner (2015 1st, #4)
            William Nylander (2014 1st, #8)
            Frederik Gauthier (2013 1st, #21)
            Andreas Johnsson (2013 7th, #202)
            Morgan Rielly (2012 1st, #5)
            Connor Brown (2012 6th, #156)
            Garrett Sparks (2011 7th, #190)
            Josh Leivo (Trade, Feb 2011, Versteeg)
            Jake Gardiner (Trade, Feb 2011, Beauchemin)
            Nazem Kadri (2009 1st #7)

          • Dirk22

            If you’re going to say my argument is not consistent with facts at least do me the favour of pointing out where this is the case.

            My argument (Along with CA’s I’m sure) is based on the Leafs actions since 2014 when Shanahan took over – corresponding to when Benning was hired. I don’t know what the ‘Lou L. Tank period’ is that you’ve made up. It looks like it takes place over the span of two months in 2016 based on what you’ve shown here. Why you’ve chosen those dates only you know…well that’s not totally true as we all know it’s just so you can pretend you have any sort of case against ‘tanking’.

          • There, I got rid of the labels since you’ve been using it as a shield against proving how those transactions (Lamouriello, Shanahan, Nonis, attribute it to whoever you want) make Toronto the model rebuild. You want to go with Shanahan, fine, pick his hiring date, and start working up the list. I don’t care, the roster doesn’t change. Show me how the assets sold off became the roster that is today.

            Core guys like Matthews, Marner, Nylander, Reilly, Kadri, Dermott? All Toronto’s original picks. Fine, they won the lottery after tanking that one year. So that’s it? You just need to win the lottery once? See: Edmonton Oilers.

            Tavares? Lucky UFA signing. Show how that is reproducible in any context, specifically Vancouver. Other UFA signings? Anyone can sign a UFA. That has nothing to do with a strip-down / rebuild especially since none of those signings except the unique Tavares signing produced a core player.

            What does that leave? Matthews, Kapanen, Marincin, Hyman and half of Freddie Andersen? That’s your idea of a model rebuild using the scorched earth tank strategy?

            OK, Dirk22. I’m tired of doing all of the work and not seeing anything from you (or Jackson or JD). I’ve proved how the Toronto as a model rebuild by tanking strategy is a myth. Go ahead, debunk it. I’ll eat crow if you can. But you can’t. That’s why you’ve been avoiding a direct reply using the roster information and instead throwing out strawman arguments. And that’s why Jackson and JD never replied. Because they can’t dispute the facts.

            Michael Hutchinson (Trade, Dec 2018, 2020 5th)
            John Tavares (UFA Signing, July 2018)
            Tyler Ennis (UFA Signing, July 2018)
            Par Lindholm (UFA Signing, May 2018)
            Igor Ozhiganov (UFA Signing, May 2018)
            Patrick Marleau (UFA Signing, July 2017)
            Ron Hainsey (UFA Signing, July 2017)
            Auston Matthews (2016 1st, #1)
            Justin Holl (UFA Signing, July 2016)
            Trevor Moore (UFA Signing, July 2016)
            Frederik Andersen (Trade, June 2016, 2016 1st and 2017 2nd)
            Nikita Zaitsev (UFA Signing, May 2016)
            Kasperi Kapanen (Trade, July 2015, Kessel)
            Martin Marincin (Trade, June 2015, Wolanin)
            Travis Dermott (Trade, June 2015, Carlsson)
            Zach Hyman (Trade, June 2015, McKegg)
            Mitch Marner (2015 1st, #4)
            William Nylander (2014 1st, #8)
            Frederik Gauthier (2013 1st, #21)
            Andreas Johnsson (2013 7th, #202)
            Morgan Rielly (2012 1st, #5)
            Connor Brown (2012 6th, #156)
            Garrett Sparks (2011 7th, #190)
            Josh Leivo (Trade, Feb 2011, Versteeg)
            Jake Gardiner (Trade, Feb 2011, Beauchemin)
            Nazem Kadri (2009 1st #7)

        • Toronto had a failed rebuild, and then when Shanahan came aboard they rebuilt again, which involved moving out big-contract players like Phaneuf and Kessel for picks and prospects and “tanking” for high draft picks several years in a row. With the exception of Reilly, Kadri, and Gardiner, they have *nothing* remaining from the pre-Shanahan era.

          So yes over the past four seasons, Toronto executed very well on an almost-complete tear down and rebuild.

          • DJ_44

            Almost a tear down rebuild, with their #1 and #2 fifty pt. young, cost-controlled dmen and the #2 (now #3 with Tavares ), their top six left winger and middle/ bottom six guys in on the roster (Brown, Johnsson, Gauthier) already in the fold. Post 2014 draft is their tear down rebuild date in my mind (maybe even immediately pre 2014 draft).

            They have done well for sure. But there is absolutely not denying: beating the 1:5 odds to land Matthews (which in turn landed UFA Tarvares) was the linch pin. If they had picked where probabilities dictated, they would have probably ended up with Puijuarvi instead of Matthews….. they would have a different look to say the least.

            In advanced stats terms; they rode a (the lottery luck) PDO of around 105.

    • Kootenaydude

      Sutter NTC til this summer. Eriksson NTC til next year. Edler NTC. Beagle, Tanev, Roussel all have modified NTC. Sutter, Eriksson and Edler aren’t going anywhere right now. Unless it’s a great offer to a great team.

    • Beer Can Boyd

      Consider it a hunch, but I think Sutter would waive his NTC for a trade to the right team. He knows he’s gone in the offseason anyway to make room for Gaudette. Also, IMO he’s worth more than Boyle, who is 5 years older. Boyle has 13 goals, but 9 of them came on the PP. I doubt he’ll be getting first unit time in Nashville.

      • Canuck4Life20

        Exactly. If you were Sutter, would you rather have some element of control over a trade now, or wait to open yourself up for 15 teams in the offseason.

  • Burnabybob

    Whether or not the Canucks make the playoffs, this season has already been a success for the Canucks as far as I’m concerned, with Pettersson a Calder trophy favourite, the improved play of Ben Hutton, and overall improved team play.

    My dream is that they play well enough to barely miss the playoffs somehow luck out and win the draft lottery and pick in the top three. I understand that it would defy past experience, but we can all dream, and far weirder things have happened.

          • I can think of two goalies in the modern era who went from below average to legit starter around the age of 30, and those are Tim Thomas and Dwayne Roloson. I can think of dozens of goalies who were below average and had a ten- or fifteen- game stretch of elite play.

            It’s incredibly myopic to assume the Markstrom has magically transformed into an elite starter, rather than that he’s just having a strong run in an average season, as all goalies do.

        • james

          He is the goaltender he’s always been but for he stopped giving up softies and that is the difference being good or above average as the best to the worst is a small ,small percentage

  • Kanuckhotep

    For TOR the way their situation is presently set up is: Win Now or Win It Very Very Soon. Otherwise they’d have an EDM scenario with some superb players (McD, Drai, Nuge) and piddly little else because of maxing out on cap and not being able to sign anyone of significant impact. Toronto is a good team now but the window might not be as open for as long as you would think. Dubas and Shannie have some tough decisions to make…and talent to dump.

  • rediiis

    After the trade dead-line the Canucks can bring up anybody on a contract as long as they pay them the NHL salary. Who do you see them bringing up for less than ten games or more than ten games played.