- LordHumungous

well played

I hate Trump: thanks for the non sensical wall of text that no one will read. If Boeser has a somewhat competent agent his goal will be to accept his outrageous QO as it brings him closer to being A UFA. If he was willing to sign some fanboy fantasy discounted long term deal it would have been done. He will be traded because management won’t touch his QO with a 10 foot pole. Let’s see what happens at the TDL
- CanuckDon

Donny, youre out of your element

That was a good one. Very close. We both know your days at the top are numbered. I will not be denied.
- Load Management

Need more of my scraps? Lol

Not at all. I've already held 1st for longer than you would if you got it for the rest of the year. Not sure I'm done with it yet though
- NorthNuck

I warmed it up for you.

Your inability to actually comprehend what you read is astonishing, no wonder you're a Trump supporter. Teams will be more than willing to pay for a UFA of Brock's caliber, and I listed off what his market value would be. Nobody wants to pay Brock's 7.5m, but that is only if he plans to accept his 1 year 7.5 deal and run with it. A team will be willing to pay for a kid who is willing to sign around 6x6, even with a high QO. Just because he is qualified for 7.5 doesn't mean they have to sign him long term at 7.5 as a minimum. They can agree to longer term for a smaller AAV. This is why you let teams talk to the agent before making a trade, gives them an idea as to what kind of contract they are trading for.
Has management come out and said they have no plan to pay his QO if he plans to take the 1 year deal? Asking honestly, because I have never seen an interview where they say as such. I have only seen rumors of him being available, and JR/Allven saying they want to get faster, Brock has elite offensive skills, average defense and below average skating. That looks to be the main reason they want to be rid of him, if they do.
- Retinalz

You are absolutely right. I don't know why it's so hard for people to wrap their heads around the idea that a player might prefer term to the 1 year pay off of a high QO.

Boeser has a history with injuries, his agents job is to get him as much as possible. A long term deal with lower AAV is more in Boesers interests than a year or two at 7.5m and Boeser getting injured and only getting 4-5 as a UFA. 36m over 6 years is better than 7.5 over 1 or 2 and then unknown. Who knows, maybe it is 6.5x6 which gives him 39m over 6 years.
- Retinalz

Sure if some team wants to overpay Boeser let them. It just can’t be us. The only thing we agree on is his value being higher now than in the summer. So pull the (frank)ing trigger already as his leverage is only going to increase

You are absolutely right. I don't know why it's so hard for people to wrap their heads around the idea that a player might prefer term to the 1 year pay off of a high QO.
- NorthNuck

Tunnel vision. Easily hung up on the best negative they can find. Canuck fans tendency is easy to predict.

5/5.5m

Tunnel vision. Easily hung up on the best negative they can find. Canuck fans tendency is easy to predict.
- Nighthawk

It’s possible. If Boeser and his agent don’t believe he can live up to his QO. You don’t build around slow and streaky soft wingers. But to each their own. I’m confident he will be gone soon and then we can find another player to complain about. Loads of scraps on this team ❤️🎉

5/5.5m
- Nighthawk

Now boeser is taking a pay cut? Ok Nighty

It’s possible. If Boeser and his agent don’t believe he can live up to his QO. You don’t build around slow and streaky soft wingers. But to each their own. I’m confident he will be gone soon and then we can find another player to complain about. Loads of scraps on this team ❤️🎉
- CanuckDon

Lol

Well Garly is nearly 5m per year & my closest team comparison for this years production. Totally different playing styles though. If Garly had the same TOI situations it would be interesting to see who is better.

Tunnel vision. Easily hung up on the best negative they can find. Canuck fans tendency is easy to predict.
- Nighthawk

You post this and then in the next post you think Boeser should get 5/5.5?

Anybody ever tell you to take your own advice

Lol

Well Garly is nearly 5m per year & my closest team comparison for this years production. Totally different playing styles though. If Garly had the same TOI situations it would be interesting to see who is better.
- Nighthawk

Garland is a stud at 5v5 and Boeser relies on the PP. I certainly prefer Garland as a player even before taking his great contract into consideration. But to each their own

Garland is a stud at 5v5 and Boeser relies on the PP. I certainly prefer Garland as a player even before taking his great contract into consideration. But to each their own
- CanuckDon

One thing I have noticed as a difference between consistent and inconsistent producers is PP time. your more consistent producers get PP1 and go stretches where they produce on the PP but give nothing at 5v5, where as your inconsistent producers producer similar, or better, at 5v5 but don't get that PP1 time to pump their production stats. I wonder if there is a statistic that directly monitors this information.

Now boeser is taking a pay cut? Ok Nighty
- CanuckDon

You have a good point there I just pick what I believe his worth is. He has potential to be a 6-6.5m player. I’m not one to pay potential. Taking last season when he produced & added this years offseason production into account he gets a similar deal as before. It’s definitely team friendly & I use it as a tactic to stay.

Do I really think a 5/5.5m deal is struck? No but it will drag out unless he’s traded. JB did pretty good on signings other than UFA’s & JR/PA are different cats who I hope continue to get players to sign contracts that are the best for the team. If Brock can get back to his top form being our top scorer then 5-6/6.5m.

Need more of my scraps? Lol
- Nighthawk

Send them over. Unlike you, I have the patience necessary for them to flourish.

You post this and then in the next post you think Boeser should get 5/5.5?

Anybody ever tell you to take your own advice
- manvanfan

I’m not hung up on a QO. That must’ve gone over your head. JR/PA are not beholden to JB’s last contract. 7.5m goes to players who are consistent & healthy imo. Paying for potential I’m against & Brocks drop off will cost him. If he balks then cap is better spent on top 4 D albeit they are older. RHD Klingberg & LHD Lindholm. That means a trade for assets & hopefully a free UFA D can be added.

Garland is a stud at 5v5 and Boeser relies on the PP. I certainly prefer Garland as a player even before taking his great contract into consideration. But to each their own
- CanuckDon

Exactly my point. Garland gives good value & more cap friendly. Drives play & more tenacious. After Miller we lack that. Petey is finding his groove but Garly is more elusive & enters the zone easier. Bo is a bull & not really a play driver or playmaker.

One thing I have noticed as a difference between consistent and inconsistent producers is PP time. your more consistent producers get PP1 and go stretches where they produce on the PP but give nothing at 5v5, where as your inconsistent producers producer similar, or better, at 5v5 but don't get that PP1 time to pump their production stats. I wonder if there is a statistic that directly monitors this information.
- Retinalz

I use the eye test. Garly stands out when he has the puck Brock doesn’t.

Send them over. Unlike you, I have the patience necessary for them to flourish.
- Load Management

My roster was fine til injuries & covid got to be too much. Goals & goalies suffered. Made room for D pick ups like McAvoy & Dahlin. JT & Boeser the main culprits.

I’m not hung up on a QO. That must’ve gone over your head. JR/PA are not beholden to JB’s last contract. 7.5m goes to players who are consistent & healthy imo. Paying for potential I’m against & Brocks drop off will cost him. If he balks then cap is better spent on top 4 D albeit they are older. RHD Klingberg & LHD Lindholm. That means a trade for assets & hopefully a free UFA D can be added.
- Nighthawk

Maybe you're confused because you go round and round in your own head.

The reason they would be trading Brock would also be to gain cap space. You would like to spend that gained cap space to make the defence a bit older. Also what the team is trying to do is get younger on D.

Maybe you're confused because you go round and round in your own head.

The reason they would be trading Brock would also be to gain cap space. You would like to spend that gained cap space to make the defence a bit older. Also what the team is trying to do is get younger on D.
- manvanfan

No. You don’t move a top 6 goal scorer for cap space you move dead weight as in Dlckinson types. As for D a bit older I see 1 key D needed added. Hamonic isn’t young & is expendable. Whether you use it or not I try my ideas out on CF & see how juggling works out.

My Zaida used to take us for Chinese food every time he visited. I’ve forgotten the name of the place, corner of Quadra and Johnson, they got shut down a few years ago for gross violation by the health inspector.

Sweet and sour spare ribs were always on the table.

You pick your battles I guess
- 1970vintage

Ming's

My Bubbe ordered from there so much they knew her order before she placed it but she never ordered anything made with pork. We had Ming's every Dec. 25th but I couldn't bring myself to tell her that everything on the menu has probably touched pork. I remember my ex making a thai dinner for all my family and she was grilled about pork in any of the dishes. If my grandmother knew that I would kiss her on the cheek after eating a bacon sandwich she wouldn't have lived to 106.

No. You don’t move a top 6 goal scorer for cap space you move dead weight as in Dlckinson types. As for D a bit older I see 1 key D needed added. Hamonic isn’t young & is expendable. Whether you use it or not I try my ideas out on CF & see how juggling works out.
- Nighthawk

You really think we are only 1 D short?

No. You don’t move a top 6 goal scorer for cap space you move dead weight as in Dlckinson types. As for D a bit older I see 1 key D needed added. Hamonic isn’t young & is expendable. Whether you use it or not I try my ideas out on CF & see how juggling works out.
- Nighthawk

So you want to use younger players or pick to trade out bad contracts to add some older contracts.