SalarySwishSalarySwish
Avatar

davidnunnjnr

David Nunn Jnr
Member Since
Dec. 1, 2016
Forum Posts
40
Posts per Day
0.0
Forum: Armchair-GMSep. 15, 2017 at 6:09 p.m.
Thread: Tavares and Doughty
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>goldie078</b></div><div><div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>ON3M4N</b></div><div>Slight problem as your already 760k over the cap and you have no extra's</div></div>

2019-2020. It allows Tavares to be UFA (next summer), and Doughty (the summer after) while allowing the cherry on top to be drafting Rasmus Dahlin.

Technically possible, but we never see one team sign the biggest UFA 2 years in a row.

Minor suggestions: Granlund will get a bigger payday. Canucks will want to lock up Virtanen for some UFA years. Dahlen plays RW with Pettersson, Goldobin back to LW. Don't know where Gaunce ends up, but somebody good is going to win some bottom 6 spots in the next couple years with all the people we're trying. You could have added trade returns for Gudbranson and Edler, or Vanek/Burmistrov/etc. If everything is looking as smooth as this, I wouldn't be surprised to see the Sedins sign another contract with the Canucks but the team is better with Tavares+Doughty who ought to provide similar leadership/mentoring.

Realistically there will be more guys in the system winning jobs, we just don't know who yet and it's even harder to guess what would be coming back for any bodies shipped out. I don't know what they'll do with Subban and Pedan, but Brisebois and Chatfield will definitely play in the NHL.

The team you posted is a great cup contender on paper, and the real thing won't be too far from it. But I know the Canucks aren't 2 years away from the finals because there's so much trial and error getting the chemistry right. In light of that, I'm happy taking sure steps of letting guys internally win their spots and knowing we have the right chemistry and balance as a whole team. An idiot making direct comparisons of results is smarter than a genius trying to guess them.

I think if you're signing Tavares and Doughty, you should have a complete team first. It's like how Ryan Miller was too good of a goaltender for the Canucks and got them wins they didn't deserve, stopped them learning from the pain.</div></div>

Technically possible, but we never see one team sign the biggest UFA 2 years in a row?

Sutter and Parise in 2012.
Forum: Armchair-GMAug. 30, 2017 at 9:33 p.m.
Thread: How much will the Leafs pay the youngsters?
Paying Matthews more money than Kane and Toews with their three Stanley Cups is f*cking hilarious after one season.

Eriksson is not the rule, he is the exception to the rule.

Similar situation with Draisaitl, Oilers management grossly overpaid another player. 137 points in 191 game does not command 8.5 million.

Back to my original premise though, Stamkos does and as such, should be the aim for Matthews if his his trajectory continues.


<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>alpeters</b></div><div><div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>davidnunn</b></div><div>In an ideal world Matthews gets Stamkos money at 8.5 and Marner and Nylander get Forsberg money at 6.

As for the future team I ship similar playing styles for line mates.

RIEMSDYK - MATTHEWS - BROWN
KAPANEN - NYLANDER - MARNER
RYCHEL - KADRI - SOSHNIKOV
LINDBERG - GAUTHIER - MARTIN

RIELLY - LILJEGREN
GARDINER - ZAITSEV
RASANEN - CARRICK

ANDERSEN
SPARKS</div></div>

Thats hilarious. They are elite, but lets pay them louis Eriksson money</div></div>
Forum: Armchair-GMJan. 14, 2017 at 4:40 a.m.
Thread: Not Jim Benning
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>F50marco</b></div><div><i><div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>davidnunn</b></div><div><i>In my and popular opinion, Demko is projected to be a #1 goalie, Virtanen has the skill set to become a premier power forward and Cassels could likely be a formidable complimentary centre with his tenacity. At that, I would not trade one of them for Fleury. We could easily re-sign Miller or give Markstrom the reigns.

Also, as much as I like Nylanders ceiling, Hutton and Tryamkin could develop into a top 2 pairing.</i></div></div>

Agree 100% with statement #1. Statement 2, not so much. Hutton and Tryamkin are nice but top pairing? Come on.</i></div></div>

Suppose I am dreaming. I am relying on the Chara arc for Tryamkin. He certainly has the size and ability to develop into a mammoth, time will tell (5+ years by Chara standards). As for Hutton, I believe in the kid. Again defensemen take much longer to develop. In a few years I can see him dangling around most teams.
Forum: Armchair-GMJan. 11, 2017 at 5:18 p.m.
Forum: Armchair-GMJan. 10, 2017 at 12:19 a.m.
Forum: Armchair-GMJan. 9, 2017 at 1:57 a.m.
Forum: Armchair-GMJan. 4, 2017 at 6:32 p.m.
Forum: Armchair-GMDec. 16, 2016 at 3:16 p.m.
Thread: Avs Trade
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>bigbrit93</b></div><div><i><div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>BreKel</b></div><div><i>Unrealistic. And WAY WAY WAY too much going in that Avs package.</i></div></div>

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>davidnunn</b></div><div><i>The way I look at it is through Sakic' O'Reilly trade. For Landeskog you would need 2 ready made prospects, an up and coming prospect and a 1st rounder. Bringing the sum total of this trade to 4 NHL ready prospects, two up and coming prospects and two 1st rounders.</i></div></div>

Haha you guys have two different opinions.

BreKel: Why do you think it's too much? You're giving up a potential top-6 forward and top-4 D man, a top 6 forward, for an All-star top-6 forward and a top pairing guy.

David: So you think on top of Vatrano there would need to be say Czarnik &amp; Accari+ say Blidh? young prospects who have NHL experience and showed they have some skill there, and then the two high-end prospects and another 1st? For O'reiley, the Sabres gave up 4 players total Zadorov, Grigorenko, Compher and a late 1st round pick. So I don't necessarily think there would need to be any further prospect compensation.</i></div></div>

I am not particular to Sakic's approach. I would have kept O'Reilly. If I were to trade Landeskog (which I wouldn't unless it was too good to pass up) it would be a 1-1 deal. Concerning this deal, I don't know enough about Bostons's pool to comment on what I would do for Landeskog, just what I think Sakic would demand.

On a side note, I think Sakic has royally messed up the Avs. Giving away Stastny and letting O'Reilly go with no as of now game changes was despicable.