Canuck select Olli Juolevi - #5 pick

Welcome to the main forum of our site. Anything and everything to do with the Vancouver Canucks is dicussed and debated here.

Moderator: Referees

User avatar
Strangelove
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
Posts: 22802
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm
Location: Lake Vostok

Re: Canuck select Olli Juolevi - #5 pick

Post by Strangelove » Tue Jul 05, 2016 8:58 pm

damonberryman wrote: Jesus Doc.
No, but close. :wink:



damonberryman wrote: You are fucking strange. All that effort to educate someone. Either yoou are a saint...
This is why they call me Strangelove. Image
____
GO CANUCKS GO!!!

damonberryman
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 1098
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 9:07 am

Re: Canuck select Olli Juolevi - #5 pick

Post by damonberryman » Wed Jul 06, 2016 7:26 am

Strangelove wrote:
damonberryman wrote: Jesus Doc.
No, but close. :wink:



damonberryman wrote: You are fucking strange. All that effort to educate someone. Either yoou are a saint...
This is why they call me Strangelove. [img]http://www.picgifs.com/smileys/smileys- ... l/smileys-


angel-343110.gif[/img]
:lol: :lol:

User avatar
Todd Bersnoozi
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 2556
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 4:14 pm

Re: Canuck select Olli Juolevi - #5 pick

Post by Todd Bersnoozi » Thu Jul 07, 2016 6:42 pm

damonberryman wrote: You are fucking strange. All that effort to educate someone. Either yoou are a saint...
Strange wrote:This is why they call me Strangelove. Image
Even the devil desguises himself to be an angel of the light. *jk* *jk* Just joking buds. :lol:

Strangelove wrote: OMG I am soooo sick of you not being able to grasp Recapture Penalties + Compliance Buyouts. :scowl:

Of the players you mention, Ehrhoff, Lecavalier, Richards... were easily trade-able at the time.

However they were CBOed in order to escape future (crippling) Recapture Penalties.
Fine, if this point is so important to u. I'd point out that if those guys were so "easily" tradable, surely another team would have offered a similar contract to the one that was being bought out. However, fact is, all they could get were peanuts compared to their previous deals (a big decrease in annual salary and way less term). Maybe just 1-2 year deals. That is not a sign of a player that is highly coveted in the market place.

Strange wrote:I was trying to explain to you (yet again) about how Compliance Buyouts got rid of future Recap penalties

... and you responded saying these buyouts made ZERO sense.
It should be clear to you by now that I had ZERO interest to use the CBO on Lou and that I'm willing to take on any potential recap penalties. I think the cons heavily outweighs the pros in using the CBO. I'd only buyout Lou if he sucked, nobody wanted him and his cap was killing the team. Not if I know there are interested suiters out there, even if I have to pay a portion of the salary or get hit with a recap penalty. Getting nothing for a star goalie is a setback to the organization as well. U can afford to get nothing for guys like Burr, Higgy, Booth, but not a star calibre player. BTW: you conveniently leave out what I really said.
Bersnooz wrote:It makes ZERO sense to pay a guy like $22M simply to NOT play for u and u get ZERO assets in return.
Strange wrote:Ummm that article is from 3 years ago :scowl: almost a full year before Lou was traded

.... so the numbers are off.

You still don't get how the Recapture Penalty works.

The future Canuck Recap Penalty number was growing because Luongo was still playing for the Canucks.

By the time Lou was traded, that number had grown to $8,520,273 (spread over remaining years of contract)

Why would you chose a 3-yr-old article when there are thousands of more recent (read: relevant) ones?

(don't answer that)
Sure, the numbers might be a little off now, but I liked the Pap article because it beautifully summed up the pros and cons in using the CBO to buyout. The heart of this "debate".
Strange wrote:Whether it's $2.8M over 3 years... or $4.26M over 2 years... that is a harsh punishment.

Haven't you heard the Pee Squad SCREAMING about what they say is:

"$1.5M too much for Sbisa, $1M too much for Dorsett, $500K too much for Sutter"

And of course, change your $7.5M to $8.5M and increase your percentage estimates...
The recapture penalty sucks for sure, but I won't say it's a "harsh punishment". It can be overcome with some cutbacks and smart mangement of salaries. The players you mentioned that are overpaid are all the reasons more that we have to smart with our salaries, especially if we know we might get dinged when Lou retires.

The recapture penalty is basically to even out the fact that Lou's cap hit was pretty low compared to his actual salary early in the contract. We enjoyed the fruits of having him for a low cap hit when we were doing well in the playoffs (2011, etc). Now, it's now time for us to pay up and I have no problem with that.

Bersnooz wrote: b) Getting rid of some of the players who are not really contributing to the team like Booth/Ballards or more recent Burr/Higgy can help lower our salary to cover the penalty.
Strange wrote: In (a) you say the Recap penalties are no big deal, in (b) you talk about taking drastic steps because of them.

LOFL you're now talking about buying out contracts as a response to Recap! :lol:
I was not thinking about buying out guys as a response to the recap. I'd agree this would create a huge snowball effect and turn into a logistical nightmare. I was thinking more of trading them. I know, "getting rid" were probably not the best words. That's where smart mgmt comes in. You gotta trade those guys before their values plumet to nothing or better yet, don't sign them to those contracts in the first place.
Strange wrote: My sentence above was a response to you saying "CBOs make ZERO sense financially".

My sentence was about how Compliance Buyouts on Recap-contracts do in fact make sense financially.

(more future cap-room = better future chance to ice a better product = more fans/revenue)
My point with the Rangers and the time with no salary cap was to point out that teams could spend way above the average salarys of most teams, yet they did not have a better on ice product. A few million dollars spread out over 2-3 years will not be the end of the world. That's basically instead of having a Sbisa, we'll just have to settle for a Bartkowski/Stanton type. Instead of Dorsett, we'll settle for Cracknell. Instead of Sutter, we'll have to keep a Bonino type. These personel adjustments will not be the doom of our season. We're talking about 3rd-4th liners here, bottom 6 forwards + 6th/7th D-men with limited roles/minutes :lol:

I'll also disagree with your premise. I'd say:

Smart + purdent team mgmt = better on ice product = more fans/revenue

And I'd point out to get a better on ice product, you need to get stuff in return for your top assets. If u buyout Lou, u get NOTHING in return. In our case, we got Mattias and Markstrom for a valuable asset. Matthias was a big factor why we made the playoffs 2 years ago; he should have been kept, but mgmt didn't have cap room and decided to move elsewhere. Markstrom looks like he will be manning the crease for us for a long time. Two guys who have helped our team and will help our team going forward. They made our on ice product better and helped generate more fans/revenue. 8-)
Strange wrote:It's okay buddy, everyone already knew you hate the team.

The way you mock the great Todd Bertuzzi with your handle + avatar is a dead giveaway.
*LOL* I can counter with the fact that you blindly support GMs who makes bad trades/signings that hurt the team to compete for Cup, therefore you are not a true Canucks fan. True fans voice their displeasure when they see moves that they know will hurt their team in the long run. You really don't care if the Canucks never win a Cup, all you like to do is troll and mock those fans who speak up when bad moves are made. A devil disguised as an angel of the light; a wolf disguised in sheep's clothing. 8-)

I can also note that my name and avatar pays homage to a great Canuck, yet your name pays homage to a movie character. Therefore, I am a true Canuck fan, while you are really just a movie fan. :mex:

Some of us here see can see through your veil and we know what your really are. We see through your deception, lies, sorcery and witchcraft. We are the good sheperds of CanucksCornerdom and we beat you away with a stick, a hockey stick. *LOL* Begone demon! in the name of the mighty Saint Patrick Quinn, you are not welcome in this house! :lol:
Strange wrote:"Smart/rich ownership" that leaves you with "no confidence" because their team "won't win anytime soon". :hmmm:
There is a difference, ownership has great business sense, but they lack hockey team mgmt knowledge. The Lou move was more of a business transaction than just a hockey transaction.

In the end of this "debate", this is what it all comes down to:

Bersnooz:
$22M-$27M (American dollars I might add) + Assets (Markstrom + Matthias) > a potential cap hit of $7.5M-$8.5M cap hit spread over X (undetermined) number of years

Strange:
Perverving a $7.5M-$8.5M cap space spread over X amount of years > $22M-$27M + Assets (Markstrom + Matthias).

User avatar
Topper
CC Legend
Posts: 11321
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:11 pm
Location: Earth, most days.

Re: Canuck select Olli Juolevi - #5 pick

Post by Topper » Thu Jul 07, 2016 7:46 pm

Strangelove wrote: Image
Over the Internet, you can pretend to be anyone or anything.

I'm amazed that so many people choose to be complete twats.

User avatar
Strangelove
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
Posts: 22802
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm
Location: Lake Vostok

Re: Canuck select Olli Juolevi - #5 pick

Post by Strangelove » Thu Jul 07, 2016 8:32 pm

Todd Bersnoozi wrote:
Strangelove wrote: OMG I am soooo sick of you not being able to grasp Recapture Penalties + Compliance Buyouts. :scowl:

Of the players you mention, Ehrhoff, Lecavalier, Richards... were easily trade-able at the time.

However they were CBOed in order to escape future (crippling) Recapture Penalties.
Fine, if this point is so important to u. I'd point out that if those guys were so "easily" tradable, surely another team would have offered a similar contract to the one that was being bought out. However, fact is, all they could get were peanuts compared to their previous deals (a big decrease in annual salary and way less term). Maybe just 1-2 year deals. That is not a sign of a player that is highly coveted in the market place.
Fair point... but what took you so long? :lol:

(you just quoted an earlier post, not my most recent)

HOWEVER

... my overriding point was that those teams traded those players to escape Recap penalties.

(as I said, they wouldn't have traded those 4 players if they had trade offers -> they wanted to escape)

3 years ago I pointed out that Yzerman, Holmgren, and Murray all stated:

"The reason we are CBOing (player) is to escape future recapture penalties."

(or words to that effect)

Where were you 3 years ago old pal?? :lol:

You're a day late and a dollar short as per usual...

Also, you continually fail to grasp that these players were supposed to retire within 2-3 years

(all part of the wink-wink-nudge-nudge reason they signed these newly outlawed "cap circumvention" contracts)
Todd Bersnoozi wrote:
Strangelove wrote: Ummm that article is from 3 years ago :scowl: almost a full year before Lou was traded

.... so the numbers are off.

You still don't get how the Recapture Penalty works.

The future Canuck Recap Penalty number was growing because Luongo was still playing for the Canucks.

By the time Lou was traded, that number had grown to $8,520,273 (spread over remaining years of contract)

Why would you chose a 3-yr-old article when there are thousands of more recent (read: relevant) ones?

(don't answer that)
Sure, the numbers might be a little off now, but I liked the Pap article because it beautifully summed up the pros and cons in using the CBO to buyout. The heart of this "debate".
I told you NOT to answer that! :evil:

Lol, nice try but you used his wrong $7.5M number throughout the "debate" as part of your point.

In fact, as we will see, you STILL use that wrong $7.5M number! :crazy:
Todd Bersnoozi wrote:
Strangelove wrote:
Todd Bersnoozi wrote: b) Getting rid of some of the players who are not really contributing to the team like Booth/Ballards or more recent Burr/Higgy can help lower our salary to cover the penalty.
In (a) you say the Recap penalties are no big deal, in (b) you talk about taking drastic steps because of them.

LOFL you're now talking about buying out contracts as a response to Recap! :lol:
I was not thinking about buying out guys as a response to the recap. I'd agree this would create a huge snowball effect and turn into a logistical nightmare. I was thinking more of trading them. I know, "getting rid" were probably not the best words.
So 3 of the 4 players you chose just happened to have been bought out (4th guy talked as a buyout)

ImageImageImage

Yeah, not buying it Todd.

And again... the point is that Recap penalties cause problems.
Todd Bersnoozi wrote: My point with the Rangers and the time with no salary cap was to point out that teams could spend way above the average salarys of most teams, yet they did not have a better on ice product.
WRONG
Todd Bersnoozi wrote:
Strangelove wrote: "Smart/rich ownership" that leaves you with "no confidence" because their team "won't win anytime soon". :hmmm:
There is a difference, ownership has great business sense, but they lack hockey team mgmt knowledge. The Lou move was more of a business transaction than just a hockey transaction.
Your point was that you agree with the "Smart/rich ownership" that made this transaction

(inferring that you are "Smart")

... are you now inferring that buying out Lou was a poor hockey transaction?? :shock:
Todd Bersnoozi wrote: In the end of this "debate", this is what it all comes down to:

Bersnooz:
$22M-$27M (American dollars I might add) + Assets (Markstrom + Matthias) > a potential cap hit of $7.5M-$8.5M cap hit spread over X (undetermined) number of years

Strange:
Perverving a $7.5M-$8.5M cap space spread over X amount of years > $22M-$27M + Assets (Markstrom + Matthias).
It's not $7.5M-$8.5M cap space :scowl:

... it's $8.5M cap space.

It's not $22M-$27M non-cap real-dollars :scowl:

... it's $22M non-cap real-dollars spread over 16 years.

Also, you must count the retained $800K actual-cap + real-dollars spread over X number of years

(2.5 years thus far)

... that's how much it is costing them to have not bought out Lou.

Matthias was a dime-per-doz depth player who was here for a cup of coffee.

Markstrom took a lot of coaching to go from waiver-wire fodder to Demko-placeholder

(if we didn't trade for him, we could've likely have had him for free on waivers).

God is going to get you for mocking the great Todd Bertuzzi...
____
GO CANUCKS GO!!!

User avatar
Hockey Widow
CC Legend
Posts: 15345
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 8:52 pm

Re: Canuck select Olli Juolevi - #5 pick

Post by Hockey Widow » Thu Jul 07, 2016 9:35 pm

If we bought Luongo out, knowing now that MG was fired and Benning hired, we would have had Miller and Lack. Demko would still be the "next one"
The only HW the Canucks need

User avatar
Micky
MVP
MVP
Posts: 10337
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 6:27 am

Re: Canuck select Olli Juolevi - #5 pick

Post by Micky » Fri Jul 08, 2016 12:57 am

The hands of Aquilini are just so all over the Luongo situation from start to finish, (well, not quite finished), the only thing that matters now is did Aquilini learn anything?

I think he did, for the time being. ;)
"evolution"

Ronning's Ghost
MVP
MVP
Posts: 978
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 5:25 pm
Location: New Westminster

Re: Canuck select Olli Juolevi - #5 pick

Post by Ronning's Ghost » Fri Jul 08, 2016 3:01 pm

micky107 wrote:The hands of Aquilini are just so all over the Luongo situation from start to finish, (well, not quite finished), the only thing that matters now is did Aquilini learn anything?

I think he did, for the time being. ;)
I think that if he did, that would have been the last time we even heard a rumour about meddling ownership, so I'm afraid I must disagree.

User avatar
Island Nucklehead
MVP
MVP
Posts: 8354
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 2:27 pm
Location: Ottawa

Re: Canuck select Olli Juolevi - #5 pick

Post by Island Nucklehead » Fri Jul 08, 2016 10:31 pm

Ronning's Ghost wrote:
micky107 wrote:The hands of Aquilini are just so all over the Luongo situation from start to finish, (well, not quite finished), the only thing that matters now is did Aquilini learn anything?

I think he did, for the time being. ;)
I think that if he did, that would have been the last time we even heard a rumour about meddling ownership, so I'm afraid I must disagree.
HW continues to provide accurate rumours despite the change in management. How's that for starting a rumour?

BladesofSteel
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 1546
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2011 6:29 pm
Location: Lower left-hand corner

Re: Canuck select Olli Juolevi - #5 pick

Post by BladesofSteel » Fri Jul 08, 2016 11:48 pm

Steamer :?:

User avatar
Todd Bersnoozi
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 2556
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 4:14 pm

Re: Canuck select Olli Juolevi - #5 pick

Post by Todd Bersnoozi » Mon Jul 11, 2016 1:21 am

Strangelove wrote: Fair point... but what took you so long? :lol:

(you just quoted an earlier post, not my most recent).
Anxiously awaiting my posts I see? *hehe* Sorry man, don't have the free time like yourself to be so active on the board. :P Yeah, I didn't think it was a big deal and you kept bringing it up so I thought I'd address it.

Anyways, I'll try to keep this brief and just focus on the main issues.

Strange wrote:It's not $7.5M-$8.5M cap space :scowl:

... it's $8.5M cap space.

It's not $22M-$27M non-cap real-dollars :scowl:

... it's $22M non-cap real-dollars spread over 16 years.

Also, you must count the retained $800K actual-cap + real-dollars spread over X number of years

(2.5 years thus far)
So 800k out of his $6.7M annual salary, that's like 12%? That's fine, it's peanuts to his salary. It's like just having to pay the tax and getting someone else to pay the bulk of the cost to something that you don't really want anymore. :lol:

Strange wrote:Matthias was a dime-per-doz depth player who was here for a cup of coffee.
I'd disagree. Matthias was a great secondary scorer for us and a solid depth player. I remember I had this chat with you last year. For a 2nd-3rd liner to get close to 20Gs (like our 3rd leading goal scorer) with virtually zero power-play time, it's nothing to sneeze at. He's also cheap, which is huge in today's cap world. If you want to make the playoffs, you need a few of those guys in the lineup (cheap and a solid contributer). JB was close to the cap last year, went with a youth movement and got rid (doesn't mean buyout *hehe*) of a trio of those guys and we all know what happened this past season. Guys like Matthias are basically in their prime, not too much milage on them like Higgy/Burr and not green ass rookies like Virtanen/McCann; if you want to compete, those are the guys you want to make up the bulk of your roster. I'd say guys like Vey, Cracknell, Bartkowski are a dime a dozen players, a guy like Matthias is a proven solid NHLer.
Strange wrote:Markstrom took a lot of coaching to go from waiver-wire fodder to Demko-placeholder

(if we didn't trade for him, we could've likely have had him for free on waivers).
You never know. Another team may have grabbed him first on the waiver wire. Florida might have shopped him around as well and could have possibly picked up a mid round pick or a similar calibre prospect who was going through some similar growing pains that they liked. As of now, Lou got us back a pretty good young goalie who looks like he has not reached his ceiling yet. A guy who will cover for us when Miller is no longer here and he'll carry the load, so that we don't have to rush Demko.

We basically got someone else to foot the bill on Lou's contract and we got two solid returns in the trade, I'd say it's all plus. Sure, we may get dinged down the road with the recpature penalty, but I think it can be overcome with some smart mgmt. If it happens, it happens. We'll deal with it then. As my old buddy Bert would say, "it is what it is." 8-)
Strange wrote:God is going to get you for mocking the great Todd Bertuzzi...
*haha* At least I don't go around mocking his beloved children. :D
Last edited by Todd Bersnoozi on Mon Jul 11, 2016 1:23 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Todd Bersnoozi
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 2556
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 4:14 pm

Re: Canuck select Olli Juolevi - #5 pick

Post by Todd Bersnoozi » Mon Jul 11, 2016 1:22 am

BladesofSteel wrote:Steamer :?:
*haha* Good guess, never really thought he'd be the guy. :D

User avatar
Strangelove
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
Posts: 22802
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm
Location: Lake Vostok

Re: Canuck select Olli Juolevi - #5 pick

Post by Strangelove » Mon Jul 11, 2016 5:29 pm

Todd Bersnoozi wrote:
Strangelove wrote:
Todd Bersnoozi wrote: In the end of this "debate", this is what it all comes down to:

Bersnooz:
$22M-$27M (American dollars I might add) + Assets (Markstrom + Matthias) > a potential cap hit of $7.5M-$8.5M cap hit spread over X (undetermined) number of years

Strange:
Perverving a $7.5M-$8.5M cap space spread over X amount of years > $22M-$27M + Assets (Markstrom + Matthias).
It's not $7.5M-$8.5M cap space :scowl:

... it's $8.5M cap space.

It's not $22M-$27M non-cap real-dollars :scowl:

... it's $22M non-cap real-dollars spread over 16 years.

Also, you must count the retained $800K actual-cap + real-dollars spread over X number of years

(2.5 years thus far)

... that's how much it is costing them to have not bought out Lou.
So 800k out of his $6.7M annual salary, that's like 12%? That's fine, it's peanuts to his salary. It's like just having to pay the tax and getting someone else to pay the bulk of the cost to something that you don't really want anymore. :lol:
Just pointing out how fast + loose you were with the numbers in your 'summary'. :sly:
Todd Bersnoozi wrote:
Strangelove wrote: Matthias was a dime-per-doz depth player who was here for a cup of coffee.
I'd disagree. Matthias was a great secondary scorer for us and a solid depth player. I remember I had this chat with you last year. For a 2nd-3rd liner to get close to 20Gs (like our 3rd leading goal scorer)
Matthias was 13th on the team in points-per-game, 6th on the team in goals-per-game.

He has averaged less than 14 goals per 82 games throughout his career...
Todd Bersnoozi wrote: He's also cheap, which is huge in today's cap world.
"Cheap" - for a reason. Image

He's always earned less than the NHL average, there are always plenty of this kind of bottom-6 around.
Todd Bersnoozi wrote:
Strangelove wrote: Markstrom took a lot of coaching to go from waiver-wire fodder to Demko-placeholder

(if we didn't trade for him, we could've likely have had him for free on waivers).
You never know. Another team may have grabbed him first on the waiver wire.
*sigh*

Because it's Y O U... perhaps I should've added "or someone like him".

POINT is... the guy passed through waivers after playing just 3 NHL games post-trade = zero value.
Todd Bersnoozi wrote: We basically got someone else to foot the bill on Lou's contract and we got two solid returns in the trade, I'd say it's all plus. Sure, we may get dinged down the road with the recpature penalty, but I think it can be overcome with some smart mgmt.
Sooo "all plus".... except for that recapture penalty. :roll:

Why would "we" (as in you or I) care about "footing the bill" when it doesn't count toward the cap?

I'm not going to explain to you yet again why CBOing Lou made sense for the owners.

Use "smart mgmt" to mitigate the damage from dumb mgmt?

God got you long ago (preemptively) for mocking the great Todd Bertuzzi. :mrgreen:
____
GO CANUCKS GO!!!

Knucklehead
CC Veteran
Posts: 133
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 11:39 am

Re: Canuck select Olli Juolevi - #5 pick

Post by Knucklehead » Tue Jul 12, 2016 11:12 am

What the fuck does any of the last two pages have to do with Olli Juolevi.
You know the draft pick this thread was supposed to be about.

User avatar
Micky
MVP
MVP
Posts: 10337
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 6:27 am

Re: Canuck select Olli Juolevi - #5 pick

Post by Micky » Tue Jul 12, 2016 11:38 am

That page nine was the longest I have ever seen on a thread, like wow!

Here's to hoping Olli has a kick-ass camp!!
"evolution"

Post Reply