If you think the Canucks real window is the next 3-4 years instead of the 3-4 after that then yes, you want the bridge deal.


If not, then you want the long term deal.


Although it can be argued that if you think their real window for a cup is during the next 3-4 years then that means you also think Brock is a legit star....
- Nucker101

Do I think Brock is a legit star? Not even close to that conclusion yet. Do I think he is a good player still learning ? Absolutely.

I think Petey and Hughes are legit stars and I think Pods was a steal at 10.
I think Benning has assembled a very legit team this year and I need to see them play before I say they have a good chance to win it all in 3-4 years.

Is it not time to sogn Brock now?

Remember when I said trade him for werenskinif your could. Well 3 x 15. Id take that over what brocks about to get all day

Do I think Brock is a legit star? Not even close to that conclusion yet. Do I think he is a good player still learning ? Absolutely.

I think Petey and Hughes are legit stars and I think Pods was a steal at 10.
I think Benning has assembled a very legit team this year and I need to see them play before I say they have a good chance to win it all in 3-4 years.
- VANTEL

Well, you brought up PIT/CHI and preferring to bridge Brock for 3-4 years so I assume you think this team has a decent chance at making a run at some point during the next 3-4 years. Obviously you can't say for sure, but you have to think it's possible fit you prefer to bridge Brock and pay him more later and save money now during the next 3-4 years.

I love Hughes and EP as well, I'm keeping an open mind on Pod, I don't see 1st line upside in him, but a 2nd line power winger would be sweet.

Not like that. If I had seen Nylander play the way he did in the playoffs he would be making 5 mil not 7.

I have no problem paying Brock 10 mil in 3 years from now if he has three 30-40 goal seasons and he is a well rounded player . I personally think too much is made over cap issues. If a team wants you they will find a way to get you the money.

So much is going to change in the next three years so why not make sure it is a good long term relationship.
- VANTEL

Plus the changes made to the cap earlier this summer.

Is it not time to sogn Brock now?

Remember when I said trade him for werenskinif your could. Well 3 x 15. Id take that over what brocks about to get all day
- Jkuzzi

Werenski would then bend you over on his next contract. Value-wise that trade is pretty fair, but that Werenski contract is going to come back to bite CBJ in the ass down the line unless his play somehow declines or if he gets seriously injured.

Well, you brought up PIT/CHI and preferring to bridge Brock for 3-4 years so I assume you think this team has a decent chance at making a run at some point during the next 3-4 years. Obviously you can't say for sure, but you have to think it's possible fit you prefer to bridge Brock and pay him more later and save money now during the next 3-4 years.

I love Hughes and EP as well, I'm keeping an open mind on Pod, I don't see 1st line upside in him, but a 2nd line power winger would be sweet.
- Nucker101

I am trying to be level headed but you know that is impossible


Of course I think they will win the cup in 3-4 years. I just didn't want to waive my pompoms too high

Plus the changes made to the cap earlier this summer.
- Marwood

Yes thanks for the reminder go smoke another joint now . Thanks for coming

Werenski would then bend you over on his next contract. Value-wise that trade is pretty fair, but that Werenski contract is going to come back to bite CBJ in the ass down the line unless his play somehow declines or if he gets seriously injured.
- Nucker101

Cant you just say yeah thats a good deal for werenski and go from there. People absolutely pumbled me in here lol. Oh well good for columbus great dman for the next 3 years all ready in camp. Brocks better though dont worry I get it....

I am trying to be level headed but you know that is impossible


Of course I think they will win the cup in 3-4 years. I just didn't want to waive my pompoms too high
- VANTEL

fair enough

I think the play was to really load up in UFA this year or next year with a true star or 2 and then bridge Brock to make it work cap-wise if Benning/FA wanted to go for it while the young core is still cost-controlled.

Right now I don't believe the supporting cast around the young core is anything like what a young Kane/Toews had, it's good enough to get the team into the playoffs with some luck health-wise and maybe win a round depending on the first round matchup but that's about it.

That's why I'd rather pay Brock more during the next 2-3 years and save during the 4-5 years after that.

Cant you just say yeah thats a good deal for werenski and go from there. People absolutely pumbled me in here lol. Oh well good for columbus great dman for the next 3 years all ready in camp. Brocks better though dont worry I get it....
- Jkuzzi

I'm not sure it is though, sure you fill a top pairing d spot, but now who's your best goal scoring winger? J.T. Miller? Michael Ferland? You just lost your only legit top line winger.

Yes thanks for the reminder go smoke another joint now . Thanks for coming
- VANTEL

Damn

fair enough

I think the play was to really load up in UFA this year or next year with a true star or 2 and then bridge Brock to make it work cap-wise if Benning/FA wanted to go for it while the young core is still cost-controlled.

Right now I don't believe the supporting cast around the young core is anything like what a young Kane/Toews had, it's good enough to get the team into the playoffs with some luck health-wise and maybe win a round depending on the first round matchup but that's about it.

That's why I'd rather pay Brock more during the next 2-3 years and save during the 4-5 years after that.
- Nucker101

Chicago did have a lot of size and toughness . They of course had Hossa too.

Damn
- NorthNuck

fair enough

I think the play was to really load up in UFA this year or next year with a true star or 2 and then bridge Brock to make it work cap-wise if Benning/FA wanted to go for it while the young core is still cost-controlled.

Right now I don't believe the supporting cast around the young core is anything like what a young Kane/Toews had, it's good enough to get the team into the playoffs with some luck health-wise and maybe win a round depending on the first round matchup but that's about it.

That's why I'd rather pay Brock more during the next 2-3 years and save during the 4-5 years after that.
- Nucker101

Yeah, if we were trying to win now I think we would have signed Panarin

- Nucker101

Yeah, if we were trying to win now I think we would have signed Panarin
- NorthNuck

Panarin wanted to sign in NY . It probably came off the table really early.

With that reasoning why are we even trying to sign him? He sounds terrible!
- NorthNuck

Brock can score and obviously deserves a decent contract. But he is far too one-dimensional at the moment to warrant a huge long term deal. Nothing wrong with waiting

Yes thanks for the reminder go smoke another joint now . Thanks for coming
- VANTEL

Just finished one. I'm always happy to reminisce about your bullsh*t.

Brock can score and obviously deserves a decent contract. But he is far too one-dimensional at the moment to warrant a huge long term deal. Nothing wrong with waiting
- CanuckDon

It's fair to have the opinion of referring a shorter term deal, but to say that there's nothing to lose by doing so is false.

Just finished one. I'm always happy to reminisce about your bullsh*t.
- Marwood

I see that would explain this then

It's fair to have the opinion of referring a shorter term deal, but to say that there's nothing to lose by doing so is false.
- Nucker101

I said nothing wrong not nothing to lose. If you sign brock $7.5MM for 8 years and he plateaus at 25 goals/ 60 games per year it would be a disaster. A short term deal could end up being a win or a loss. No one knows. I’m not sold on Brock being a first line star so I’d prefer a bridge deal

I said nothing wrong not nothing to lose. If you sign brock $7.5MM for 8 years and he plateaus at 25 goals/ 60 games per year it would be a disaster. A short term deal could end up being a win or a loss. No one knows. I’m not sold on Brock being a first line star so I’d prefer a bridge deal
- CanuckDon

I agree 100%

I said nothing wrong not nothing to lose. If you sign brock $7.5MM for 8 years and he plateaus at 25 goals/ 60 games per year it would be a disaster. A short term deal could end up being a win or a loss. No one knows. I’m not sold on Brock being a first line star so I’d prefer a bridge deal
- CanuckDon

Fair enough, I'd say if there's something to lose with a decision then it's possible to end up being wrong as well then.

If the team didn't have guys like EP and Hughes to feed Brock, I'd be more open to a bridge deal.

I said nothing wrong not nothing to lose. If you sign brock $7.5MM for 8 years and he plateaus at 25 goals/ 60 games per year it would be a disaster. A short term deal could end up being a win or a loss. No one knows. I’m not sold on Brock being a first line star so I’d prefer a bridge deal
- CanuckDon

Thank you. Absolutely smashed this

Fair enough, I'd say if there's something to lose with a decision then it's possible to end up being wrong as well then.

If the team didn't have guys like EP and Hughes to feed Brock, I'd be more open to a bridge deal.
- Nucker101

Like we've both said, it's not the end of the world and has a non-zero chance of being the right call, however I agree, Brock is going to have those guys inflate his numbers big time as long as he is getting 1st line minutes and is on the PP#1.