I was arguing against retaining salary. Its redundant and counter productive. To me what they're arguing was like consolidating short term debt. Its stupid.

Prust is what he is. If he gets us any return fine. The move for him with Kassian was sound.
- thundachunk

Retaining salary this year to improve a return on a deal is well worth it IMO.

http://www.rollingstone.c...ew-psych-pop-duo-20160120

Claypool and Lennon!

"Primus was about to take some time off and I was gearing up a new project so I asked Sean if he'd like to come to Rancho Relaxo and see if we couldn't get some interesting sounds on tape. Next thing I know he's staying in my guesthouse over the holidays and we're drinking vino, hunting mushrooms and throwing musical pasta at the walls.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.c...uo-20160120#ixzz3xoQ0qiTF
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook

I was arguing against retaining salary. Its redundant and counter productive. To me what they're arguing was like consolidating short term debt. Its stupid.

Prust is what he is. If he gets us any return fine. The move for him with Kassian was sound.
- thundachunk

Yup.

Wow, if only we can take a picture of how things change here on a daily basis we can make some really great show. Everyone is all over the board. That said I was all on getting Prust. It was a calculated risk. Kassian had league wide know issues and no one was going to give Benning anything more then a 7th for him. He was not going to play so Benning made the move that made the most sense. He sold Kassian for futures. Players like Prust usually go for 4th or 3rd to contending team during TDL. So getting rid of a players that was not going to play and inprove your draft position is always a good move.

Too bad that Prust has not lived up to his potential and now Benning might lose this trade. But would we rather have Kassian and his issues taking up a spot or have Prust to bring some snarl to the team?

The other thing that makes me laugh is how people here want to trade everyone and retain salary. As per CBA we can only retain 3 salaries. We already have Lou and if we trade Burrows and Higgins then we are keeping 3 contracts that we cannot retain any more salaries for another 2 years. Are we ok with that?

We all want more rookies and less vets but when that happens most people here will be up and arms about our play. We will become the new oilers. This years we have Beiga, Hutton, JV, JM, Bear, Vey, Etem as rookies. If we add more we will be absolutely brutal to watch. That is the reason we will see Burrows and Hammer here next year. I think next year we will see at most 1 or 2 more rookies added., I wont be surprised if JV is in Utica.
- Linden_4_Capt

disagree with this - these guys have only gotten better with time.

Biega and Hutton are improving rapidly and are sources of light nightly.

Vey, Etem and Bear are not rookies and are clearly beginning to show signs of their potential.

Horvat (partially) JV & JM have the biggest learning curves but are dealing with it as best as they can, remember these guys are still teenagers.....I barely knew how to brush my teeth at that age.

by next year, we are gonna get rid of some vets but their will still be plenty around to mentor

Like Billy bean said "Its a process man" - patience

Retaining salary this year to improve a return on a deal is well worth it IMO.
- golfingsince

Its not to me. Buying a new house and consolidating your remaining 20000 dollars on a vehicle you have into your new mortgage because you're "improving" is not worth it to me when you are still paying for something for years to come. Differing money is not a sound practice. It isn't the same thing I get that but getting money off the books is the whole point. Financially its counter productive.

Its not to me. Buying a new house and consolidating your remaining 20000 dollars on a vehicle you have into your new mortgage because you're "improving" is not worth it to me when you are still paying for something for years to come. Differing money is not a sound practice. It isn't the same thing I get that but getting money off the books is the whole point. Financially its counter productive.
- thundachunk

It's not all about money. We're talking about a league where revenues are shared, and improving the value of an asset or acquiring one vs losing it for nothing.

So as an owner of an NHL franchise you think a draft picks isn't a few hundred grand?

Its not to me. Buying a new house and consolidating your remaining 20000 dollars on a vehicle you have into your new mortgage because you're "improving" is not worth it to me when you are still paying for something for years to come. Differing money is not a sound practice. It isn't the same thing I get that but getting money off the books is the whole point. Financially its counter productive.
- thundachunk

For the right deal, it is like buying a better pick or return. It would be good to get it off the books, but if it is only there for the balance of the season, 4 months or so, might just be the cost of doing business.

The improving is the point, building a better team, getting better players into the system and developing them for a playoff run and a run of being competitive. Lots of risks though, maybe we have different risk tolerances?

I see the cap money as already spent, you bought the chips, and are in the game to win, cashing out with cap space at the end of the season is meaningless to JB if his job was to build a playoff team and is judged by the success on the ice more.

If the Canucks not eating salary is the deal breaker for a team wanting, say a player like Vrbata, does it make more sense to hold onto him and see him walk as a ufa in the summer?

Ideally we don't eat salary but if it means completing a deal when there is no other option for a pending ufa, we must eat.

The amount of money thrown around by NHL teams is obscene. Just had a realtor at my door asking if we wanted to sell, the housing market is nuts, I think the low dollar is driving foreign buyers. Realtor said house was for sale at 1.288 in my area and sold for just over 1.5

I dont see that happening, he isnt a Ronalds Kenins type player I think his roster spot is gifted to him

As for the Prust situation, I dont care if Benning loses his deal with him, he was a buy low situation as you say, dumping a problem out the door taking back an expiring UFA contract. I really didnt like Prust before but that was prior to knowing about Kassian's problems, so I understood the deal better. I just think you get whatever you can, and the roster spot is the big win in the deal
- WhiteLie

What roster spot? both players deals expire this year. I had no problem getting rid of Kassian and don't care either if Benning is perceived to of lost the trade now because of Prust's play.

He lost the trade from day 1 by acquiring an overpaid, over the hill , non intimidating enforcer and giving up a pick to do it.

What roster spot? both players deals expire this year. I had no problem getting rid of Kassian and don't care either if Benning is perceived to of lost the trade now because of Prust's play.

He lost the trade from day 1 by acquiring an overpaid, over the hill , non intimidating enforcer and giving up a pick to do it.
- belcherbd

Easy to say with hindsight.

I was arguing against retaining salary. Its redundant and counter productive. To me what they're arguing was like consolidating short term debt. Its stupid.

Prust is what he is. If he gets us any return fine. The move for him with Kassian was sound.
- thundachunk

I agree mostly, but if we trade Hammer/Vrbata this year we should look at retaining salary if only to expand the possible teams that may be in the bidding but can't afford at full cost. Doesnt hurt us this year or next if we do, just costs FA a little more money.

Its not to me. Buying a new house and consolidating your remaining 20000 dollars on a vehicle you have into your new mortgage because you're "improving" is not worth it to me when you are still paying for something for years to come. Differing money is not a sound practice. It isn't the same thing I get that but getting money off the books is the whole point. Financially its counter productive.
- thundachunk

So your advocating more money in FA's pocket? If we trade Vrbata/Hammer and retain salary how is that not worth it? Not like a retain for the last month and a half of this season will hurt our available cap next season. Your analogy is a bad example as it is a completely different scenario.

What roster spot? both players deals expire this year. I had no problem getting rid of Kassian and don't care either if Benning is perceived to of lost the trade now because of Prust's play.

He lost the trade from day 1 by acquiring an overpaid, over the hill , non intimidating enforcer and giving up a pick to do it.
- belcherbd

Now its about the roster spot for the remainder of the season. For next season I think most people assumed that spot wasnt going to go back to Prust as a UFA but Kassian was an RFA, and would hold that spot unless they could move him

EDIT: Yes letting Kassian walk away untendered would have been possible (and cost nothing), but Benning took a swing to get some benefits from Prust in the room and I cant fault him for sending a 5th to try it

What roster spot? both players deals expire this year. I had no problem getting rid of Kassian and don't care either if Benning is perceived to of lost the trade now because of Prust's play.

He lost the trade from day 1 by acquiring an overpaid, over the hill , non intimidating enforcer and giving up a pick to do it.
- belcherbd

By Prust's reputation and with the youth in the lineup, I can see the rationale of the move. I think it was a gamble just as much as any trade, but today, I think he lost it unless JB is able to recoup a pick from moving Prust before tdl.

and with what we have seen from Prust, I wonder what the Canucks scouts reported when they must have scouted him before the trade? maybe our scouting still needs to get better?

By Prust's reputation and with the youth in the lineup, I can see the rationale of the move. I think it was a gamble just as much as any trade, but today, I think he lost it unless JB is able to recoup a pick from moving Prust before tdl.

and with what we have seen from Prust, I wonder what the Canucks scouts reported when they must have scouted him before the trade? maybe our scouting still needs to get better?
- hillbillydeluxe

So your advocating more money in FA's pocket? If we trade Vrbata/Hammer and retain salary how is that not worth it? Not like a retain for the last month and a half of this season will hurt our available cap next season. Your analogy is a bad example as it is a completely different scenario.
- Retinalz

Its JB's job as GM to keep money in FA's pocket also keeping as much money off the cap in the process. How often do you hear retaining salary on a trade deadline deal?

A few thoughts on the Prust situation as well as last night's game and the Sedins' role as mentors for the young guys, in the new blog:

http://www.hockeybuzz.com...n-the-Big-Apple/194/74160

Its JB's job as GM to keep money in FA's pocket also keeping as much money off the cap in the process. How often do you hear retaining salary on a trade deadline deal?
- thundachunk

In the cap world......all the time. It's absurd to think that a team that doesn't need the space and has the money wouldn't in order to secure a better deal. In the old days, cash used to be included in deals but it's no longer allowed. It still happens in baseball though.

What roster spot? both players deals expire this year. I had no problem getting rid of Kassian and don't care either if Benning is perceived to of lost the trade now because of Prust's play.

He lost the trade from day 1 by acquiring an overpaid, over the hill , non intimidating enforcer and giving up a pick to do it.
- belcherbd

So your logic, we should have kept Kassian around while trying to bring in young impressionable youth? Kassian had to go. It was not up for debate. Getting someone to play the role of Kassian that we always wanted was a plus. Like I said earlier, if Linden had kept his mouth shut we could have gotten a 5th for Prust at TDL and then the trade would have been a veteran leadership in the locker room for a known cokehead.

Easy to say with hindsight.
- Marwood

Of course, but that was what the complaint by many was at the time as well.

There were many UFA's available who could of filled a 4th liner role for a fraction of the cost and not a pick.

Yes and no. Having played and coached to the WHL level in defense I get a sense of what you are getting at and technically you are not wrong however...Lidster cannot 'make' this current personnel of D we have better. Sure Lidster can provide direction/first pass zone strategy/rebound coverage and what have you but ultimately if the personel cannot accomplish it no matter how many times they are told it becomes a player ability issue. This is where it stands for me on our D. They just don't have the talent level to make what coaching wants applicable.

Biega has been a nice surprise but Edler and Tanev are showing sign of wear and both of them are incredibly soft. Asking them to play tough isn't realistic cause it just won't happen. But they do providesome structure back there. Bartkowski ad Sbisa we know what we get. We know their ceiling. Asking them do also do more is unrealistic. Hutton is what a rookie is so no shock there and Weber is a lost cause. So I guess my point is that no matter how hard a coach tries to make this D core better they have basically hit their ceiling with the exception of Hutton and Biega. I highly doubt there is a D coach in the league that could 'make' Edler-Tanev-Bartkowski-Sbisa top 4 pairings. They are what they are personnel-wise. IMO anyway.
- LordHumungous

Ya I played D as well.

So we certainly agree on most of that. And I agree you cant force players to be better than they are. Bartkowski will not be Duncan Keith talent wise, etc. Im not expecting it to be transformed into boston or chicago D talent wise.

OK so you and I both played D, so we know that the position is different than for forwards. Scoring is more fee for all type play and requires vision of the play and knowing where the play will go in advance and well as talent in puck / stick handling. D is very different. Players need to be schooled on how to play D and its a longer process. Often a player needs to develop within a team system to become the player the team needs. Knowing what the system is, ingraining it in their heads...principals of zone clearance, forechecking, protecting the blue line, forcing dump ins, forcing offside calls etc.

So while I agree you cant turn a guy talent wise into a top pairing guy its not really the point. While our roster does need to improve no doubt, its still lacking a system. Simply watching a game shows there is none. A D system should ensure smooth play and easy zone clearing since every player knows where to be. This is missing. When your top pairing and bottom pairing are making the same blunders and same comedy of trying to clear the zone it says something. Clearly all 7 D cannot by any astronomical odds have exactly the same ailments performance wise. Thats a broken framework. Rebounds should be systematically placed and picked up.....but for us its Kaos out there. No organization, no system. Worst rated D in the NHL has to speak volumes. Encyclopedias actually.

Point is, regardless of talent we should be performing better than we are on the back end. The zone clearance issues are absolutely inexcusable. THAT right there is a lack of system.