Two dudes blogging and podcasting about the San Jose Sharks, straight from sunny California.

post DOH 111 – Uhhhhh…..

August 18th, 2010, 8:39 pm

Filed under: podcast — Written by Mike

Not a whole lot happening in the world of the San Jose Sharks, so Mike and Doug move scattershot over the barren news landscape for crumbs.  Tomas Kaberle, Kevin Bieksa, Antti Niemi, and your emails will do nicely.


35 Comments to “DOH 111 – Uhhhhh…..”

  1. Tom says:


    I have some insight for you regarding the comments by EJ Hradek. I saw EJ tweet basically the same quote regarding Niemi the other day.

    I asked him via Twitter how he thought DW could justify signing Niemi when he just signed
    Nitty, already has Griess, and has three highly rated G prospects in the talent pool?

    This was his answer:
    EJHradek_ESPN Niitty has nevr played more than 52 NHL gms in a season & w/ injury history. greiss not more than 16. niemi cheap/available. it makes sense

    While I do not agree with EJ nor with the idea of signing Niemi… I think EJ was saying that it would be unwise to expect Nitty to be a clear starter if he hasn’t started more than 52 games a season… And that Griess hasn’t either.

    I think EJ just doesn’t realize that the Sharks are loaded with Goalies. And why would DW sign Nitty in the context he did, if Nitty wasn’t envisioned to start or at least share the start job…

    Just to play devils advocate… But is DW modeling the job sharing aspect that Chicago and Philly did that got them into the finals rather than just reallocating top dollars from the goalie position over to the D?

    I think it should be argued that in Philly’s case they had tons of injuries and were frankly luckly they got good performances from their depth.

    With Chicago… I still say that Niemi just isn’t that good and was more of a product of one of the best D core I’ve seem in years…

    But I’m also finding it strange that these Niemi to SJ rumors are still persistent. I keep wondering if we are missing an angle DW might be shooting for…

  2. Biekeek says:

    We don’t want to take Huskins.

    “2 bad. You better figure that out, (if you want to do us, your conference rival, a favor, and give us Kevin Bieksa, for AHL defenseman Joslin, who you don’t need, and who will never make your team, and for Kent Huskins, and his 1.7 mil cap hit, which makes sense because the only reason you’re trying to trade Bieksa is alleviate cap space, and Zalewski, who, if he really hits his stride, might crack your 4th line someday!”

    You guys are on crack lol. I couldn’t believe what I was hearing. You’re asking what the Sharks would have to give Vancouver to acquire Bieksa, and the answer is “Ken Huskins, and too bad if you don’t want him.”

    One, you’re making Doug Wilson out to be a god, who has naked pictures of Mike Gillis, and two, you’re making the situation out to be that Vancouver has to trade Bieksa, no matter what (which is incorrect), and that the Sharks are their only option to offload him to (also incorrect).

    I haven’t finished the podcast yet, so I’m hoping in ten seconds one of you will say “but this is just our fantasy, and completely ridiculous. there’s no chance they take Kent Huskins. no chance in hell,” but so far it seems like you’re actually serious.

    • Mike says:

      You guys took Lukowich. Is Huskins really a bridge too far? Oh, and I deleted your other two comments which just had “Hello Guys” and “kent” as the total message. I’m assuming they weren’t there for dramatic effect.

    • Nathan says:

      “You’re making Doug Wilson out to be a god, who has naked pictures of Mike Gillis…” Damn, that’s funny as hell.

  3. Biekeek says:

    How the hell is Benn Ferriero, Huskins, and a 3rd a hefty price? Ferriero, an undrafted, 23 year old, marginal NHL player, who is undersized at 5’10, maybe less, 185 pounds, yet who doesn’t have the top end skill that a smaller player needs to succeed in the NHL, Huskins, 1.7 cap hit, which they wouldn’t want when they could just get Willie Mitchell, or other options via free agency, for a similar number, and a 3rd round pick.

    Basically what you’re offering is a 3rd round pick, a minor +, Ferriero, a minor +, and Huskins, a major -. The major – outweighs the two minor +’s. It’s an awful offer. You’re not dumping Huskins on a cap tight team, period. If anyone’s taking him, it’s going to be a team close to the cap looking for a veteran 5-6 defenseman to be a leader to their young guns. I don’t know what’s unclear about these things to you guys. Also Doug Wilson mentioned Huskins as well as the other d-men on a radio interview when talking about next season. Uusually he omits players when he’s planning on moving them. I still think he’ll try to move him, and there’s probably a GM out there who will bail him out for a future favor, but it won’t be the Canucks.

  4. Biekeek says:

    Hello Mike. I figured as is usually the case on forums like this people who disagree with you are always looking for some little thing they can use to try and undermine your whole argument. I thought i hit the “t” key at the end of Ken(t) but I didn’t.

    Lukowich is better than Huskins. We weren’t as near to the cap, or anywhere near as stacked on defense last season as we are this year. Lukowich had a legitimate shot at sticking with the team last season. Also, most importantly, the brilliant Doug Wilson handed us Ehrhoff for practically nothing, and that’s the deal Lukowich came along in. Maybe he said you have to take Lukowich if you want Ehrhoff, or maybe Gillis said he’d be happy to take Lukowich too. I don’t know. Either way it was a huge piece in Ehrhoff coming over, and that’s what made taking Lukowich along with him still a good deal for us. Ferriero is a far cry from Ehrhoff. That’s the difference. And the fact that we are deeper on defense now, and we have less cap space, so those are three reasons total why it’s completely different.

  5. Biekeek says:

    It would be like me saying, if we had Huskins, not u guys. If we had Huskins, and I said “I think what should happen is we’ll offer Huskins, our 14th best prospect, and a 3rd round pick, for Vlasic. And Doug Wilson will say we don’t want Huskins, but Gillis will say too bad, that’s your problem, you’ve gotta figure that out, and then the deal will go through.”

    It’s just nonsensical, really.

    • Mike says:

      Ferriero had 50 points in 58 games last year, his first year as a pro. Neither of us know where he will end up. But he’s younger and the same size as your guy Sergei Shirokov, and scored more in fewer games. I wouldn’t mind having either of them in my minor league system.

      Since Luko only played 13 games for Vancouver, I find it difficult to believe he was a guy the Canucks really wanted. And he wasn’t even brought up as a Black Ace in the playoffs. That deal is generally understood around here as a salary dump, so the Heatley deal could happen.

      As far as Huskins goes, he’s not worth the money he’s getting, no doubt about that. But Luko was getting 1.5, and Shane O’Brien is getting 1.6. If you believe in such things, Huskins’ GVT last year was 4.6, O’Brien’s 2.5. Trading Bieksa for a good prospect, a pick, and a better #6 defenseman than O’Brien may not be Mike Gillis’ first choice, but it’s not ‘nonsensical’. And keep in mind the Sharks would be taking more cap in that deal, actually providing some relief for Vancouver. You provide cap relief in a trade (like Vancouver did last year), you get something in return (like Ehrhoff).

    • Patrick says:

      You’re forgetting the part where Vancouver already has 9 defensemen signed (and for some reason is still looking at Willie Mitchell), and is over the salary cap. Vancouver isn’t exactly entering trade discussions from a position of strength.

      If starting a team from scratch, sure, I’d much rather have Bieksa than Huskins/Ferriero/3rd rounder. That’s not the situation we’re in, though.

      Doug Wilson is far from a god, but he is very shrewd at identifying when other teams are under pressure, and turning that situation to his advantage.

  6. Tom says:



    First off though, you’re assuming Doug Wilson isn’t a God. Have you seen how tan he is?

    Second. Given the price to aquire him, and how little Canucks fans seem to want to keep him, I’m not convinced we should trade for him.

    You can keep him IMO…

  7. Biekeek says:

    Mike, Shane O’Brien is 6’3, 220lbs, and he can skate. He’s 27 and still learning the game, but he’s got natural ability, and as his decision making improves he will continue to get better and better. Right now, and certainly in the future, he is better than Kent Huskins.

    As for Ferriero vs Shirokov, Ferriero also only had 8 goals 37 games, and only 26 points overall, in 2008-2009, playing for Boston College, a much lower level of competition. He had a bad season, or at least bad in the sense that it’s not indicative of 20 goal potential at the NHL level, in 08-09, and a good season last year whereas Shirokov had a subpar one. You can take what you will from it, but prospects potential, and trade value, has much more to do with their abilities than their AHL stats. Shirokov has a much higher ceiling and probably just had a worse season because he’s not willing to pay the price yet, or doesn’t even know what that means. That’s not exactly a good sign for him or the Canucks, but he’s still the much more highly touted, and much more valuable, prospect. You have to remember that Ferriero’s value a few years ago was such that no team drafted him. The fact that Wilson signed him and put him in a few NHL games doesn’t skyrocket his value like you think it does, i don’t believe. Well, it does, from 0 value to minor. But it doesn’t skyrocket it to high value, is what I mean. I think there are so many things wrong with what you’re saying that it is nonsensical. There are too many assumptions here on your part. That Gillis would prefer Huskins over O’Brien, for example. Gillis would rather trade Bieksa for a 2nd round pick and nothing else than get back Ferriero but also Huskin’s 1.7 mil cap hit. Even if he does like Huskins over someone who’s been with the team and who has a higher upside, that would mean they’d have to waive O’Brien, and lose him, or trade him, and lose him. They don’t want to lose a guy who’s just coming into his prime, and who will only get better. So that’s flaw numero uno with what you’re saying. The other is “it may not be his first choice.” You seem to be assuming that it’s going to be his only, or best, option. That’s what it comes off like when one of you says “You don’t want Huskins? Too bad. The only way we’re going to take the player we desperately need is if you take our trash in return. That’s nonsensical. It’s unaware of the dynamics of the trade. The team with the asset has the bargaining power, not the team who desperately needs the asset. I’m telling you it’s completely naive to think Gillis would take Huskins. It’s not happening. Bieksa would be brought over to fill the #2 defenseman spot on your team. He may have had a bad year defensively last season, but so did the Canucks as a whole. This is defensemen who can put up 40 points per season regularly, and those are in high demand. He is on a very average, fair 3.75 cap hit. You’re suggesting the Canucks will take the Sharks (10th) best prospect, a 3rd round pick, and the Sharks absolute worst salary, who happens to be a defenseman, for Bieksa, a 40 point, physical defenseman, on an affordable salary? Like i said, it’s just ridiculous. I’m not a Canuck fan who is in love with Bieksa or anything. I don’t think of him the same way you think of Doug Wilson. But he is exactly what I said, a physical, 40 point defenseman, in the prime of his career, with room to still improve, and you think you’ll get him for spare parts and your worst salary. It’s not even a positive offer. It bleeds into the negative when you put Huskins in. Ferriero and a 3rd isn’t enough to offset Huskins to the point of even becoming a neutral offer. What this means is, if Doug Wilson was to offer Ferriero, a 3rd, and Huskins to Gillis for nothing, absolutely nothing, Gillis would still decline. It’s not even a good enough package to give away except to teams that aren’t close to the cap, not to mention to get Bieksa. That’s why it’s nonsensical. I’m plesaed with myself because I’ve tried about 10 different ways of saying it but now I finally got it right. It’s not a good enough package to give away to the canucks, so it’s ridiculous to think it would get Bieksa. There we are .>)

    Thnks Tom 4 the welcome. Hahahahaha that’s very good. It’s so unnerving to look at him whenever I see him on TSN. He just seems like someone who takes himself way, wayyyyy 2 seriously.

    As for Bieksa, I think the only reason we don’t mind losing him is because we’re set on defense without him. But the fact is we could keep him, and his presence alone would make our 3rd pairing the best in the league along with O’Brien. Since Salo is injured we have the cap to keep him, therefor we still have leverage. But we wouldn’t mind losing him. I don’t even really care personally what we get for him. But I’m sure Gillis does. I’m just trying to point out the facts here that he’s not getting traded for Huskins + spare parts. If Joslin + a 1st round pick was what was being offered for 1 season of Kaberle, and that offer didn’t cut it, then that might be enough to actually cut it for 1 year of Bieksa. There is also a better chance of Bieksa resigning with west teams than Kaberle, and he’ll cost less. I think most importantly is that Kaberle won’t be traded now. His NTC is back in effect so he’s not going to be moved. Bieksa is now the only thing available even remotely resembling a puck moving defenseman. He is in high demand. There were 10 offers or so for Kaberle. I’m not saying 10 good ones, but 10 nonetheless. That means 10 teams at least are looking for a puck moving defenseman, and they aren’t scared off of trading for 1 year of a player. I would not be surprised to see Bieksa moved for a late 1st round pick or a 2nd round pick and an above average prospect. You never know, Ferriero, a 2nd, and a 3rd for Bieksa and a 4th might work for a last resort for Gillis if he got nothing better, and this wasn’t the Sharks. If it was another team, maybe.

    The only way i see it happening with the Sharkz is if Wilson says “You got a gift from us in Ehrhoff. We could have dumped him on someone else. You got a solid from us. now it’s your turn to give back.” That’s the only way, if maybe they’re friends, and Doug did him a solid last offseason. But if that’s the case, you Sharks have a whole new set of problems, Doug wilson doing whats good for his friends but whats terrible for his team. This is by far the most exciting season to be a canucks fan in recent memory. i wish they didnt have the luongo contract because then they could stack the team even more. but even with it, this is the best offensive team in the western conference from last year, + Hamhuis and Ballard, who will both help the offense a bit, and the defense immensely. And + an overpaid Malhotra, but Malhotra nonetheless, who will help the penalty killing. Vancouver is the team to beat, and the team who probably will beat the Sharks this postseason, no offense, and Doug Wilson has helped build the team that’s now in the Sharks way by gifting us Ehrhoff. He could have dumped him on any team in the league. I still can’t believe how lucky we are. Before Ehrhoff we were just a good top-6 forward group, with no offense on the back end. After Ehrhoff we had the higehst scoring defense in the league. Of course everyone came into their own but still u get it.

    • Mike says:

      I’m not sure what’s up with this blog and extremely wordy comments…

      We just don’t see eye to eye on this one. I hope you see how giving up the package mentioned for nothing is vastly different than trading it for Bieksa- in the former case VAN takes on salary, in the latter case they give up salary. And VAN needs to rid themselves of salary.

      It’s very likely that these two teams aren’t the best of trade partners, since they both will be gunning for the West. But it’s a podcast, it’s August, and the question was asked. Basically, it’s roughly equivalent to me saying, “the Sharks shouldn’t give up a good player, high draft pick, or a great prospect for Bieksa.” If that what Gillis requires, then lots of luck.

  8. Tom says:


    I bet Doug Wilson only keeps naked pictures of himself.

  9. Beeiekkekeek says:


  10. Beeiekkekeek says:


    For some reason my comments wont go through with my last name, so ive had to change it.
    I understand the difference you’re bringing up but that actually doesn’t apply here, so it’s not really a difference at all. Say the Sharks offer Ferriero, a 3rd, and Huskins for nothing. Gillis could accept that, then waive Bieksa, and he would certainly be claimed. This would bring the same result as if they traded him for that package. Are you following so far? The only situation where a team says “well, i wouldn’t take that package for nothing, but if it means I can unload this player I have, then I’ll take it,” the only situation that happens is a salary dump. What you are talking about is a salary dump, where you need to get rid of a player, and the only way to get rid of him is to take a package that includes a bad contract you don’t want. In other words, taking a negative offer, but one that isnt quite as negative to u as the player u want to get rid of. Again you’re just not understanding this concept when it comes to Bieksa specifically. Because Bieksa is not a salary dump in that sense, and there ways to get rid of him that don’t include taking a bad contract…. that’s why it’s nonsensical. That’s why if an offer isn’t good enough to take for nothing its not good enough for bieksa.

    to lay this out even more, i will put this in terms of +’s and -‘s. Let’s say Huskins is a -2, okay? 0 is neutral. +1 is good. +2 is very good. -2 is very bad. These values in terms of player vs their contract. The player, with his contract taken into account. That’s it. So if you’re being offered Huskins, say a -2, for nothing, what that means is you’re being offered a -2, and you’re giving nothing, which is neutral, or 0, back. So if someone offered you -2 in exchange for 0, you’d say no. Your 0, or nothing, is better than -2. 0 is higher than -2. You’d say why would I take your -2 when I can just keep my 0? Understand? Now what you’ve been trying to say regarding Bieksa is it’s different if you’re getting something back in return. What you’re failing to understand is it’s only different if what the team is trying to offload is worse than a -2, in this instance, since Huskins is a -2. For example, in terms of this scale, if Huskins is a -2, and say the Canucks had a moderately bad contract, but not terrible, that they were trying to offload to a team for nothing, but no one would take him? If Huskins, -2, gets offered to Vancouver, for say a -1 player|contract, Vancouver still says no, because they’d be taking on -2, and only getting rid of -1. So instead of being -1 like they were to begin with, they’re -2 with Huskins, which is even worse. So what you’ve been saying, is its different giving a player back for Huskins and other players, than it is taking Huskins and the other players by themslves for nothing in return. What I’m saying is that’s not true at all in this situation. The only way that would be true is if Bieksa is a -3 to Vancouver, on this scale. Like, Bieksa is this bad contract, that no one will take, and Vancouver would like to offload him for nothing to some team, but no one will take him for nothing, and the only way they can get rid of his -3 is to take Huskin’s -2 in return, and at least that way they go from a -3 to a -2, and -2 is better than -3. Do you understand? So the reason this is nonsensical is, at this point, Bieksa is somewhere between a 0 and a +2 to Vancouver. Other teams will take him for nothing, so they don’t have to take a contract they don’t like in order to get rid of him. That’s bottom line, Bieksa 101, and the core flaw in logic in what you’ve been saying. Other teams will give +1 for Bieksa’s +1, or +2 for his +2 if he’s a 2 to Vancouver, or Vancouver will just waive him, the equivalent of getting 0 (nothing, neutral) for him, before they’d ever take a -2. That’s why there is no difference between they wouldn’t take him for nothing so they won’t take him for Bieksa. If they wouldn’t take that package for nothing, then there is no reason to take it for the privilege of offloading Bieksa, when they could a. trade Bieksa for a package that they would take for nothing, or b., given that we’ve established the canucks value getting nothing over the sharks package, as evidenced by me writing “they wouldn’t take that package for nothing,” which means they’d take nothing, over that package, which means they prefer nothing, to that package, so b. when they could waive him, and get nothing. we’re getting into a=b and b=c means a=c territory here.

    continued in next post.

  11. ContinuedBeeiek33kekeek says:


  12. CntBeeiek3333kekeek says:

    1 will illustrate using the following representations……

    Huskins, Ferriero, and 3rd round pick = A.
    Bieksa = B
    Nothing, or no return = C

    The Canucks would not take the Sharks package of A. (Huskins and co.) for C. (nothing,) meaning they prefer getting nothing in return to getting that package.
    The Canucks have the ability to waive B (Bieksa) and get (C.) nothing in return for him, if they so desire, as a last resort.
    = The Canucks would not take Huskins and co. for nothing, or for Bieksa. There is no difference. I was right. If the Canucks were not interested in the package of Huskins and co. for nothing in return, then they wouldn’t be interested in said package for Bieksa, because Bieksa has a value equal to or greater than nothing, meaning, at minimum, they can get nothing for him, which has already been established as their preference over the Huskins and co package in this equation, so therefore they would go the route of getting nothing for him instead of trading him for Huskins. Simple mathematics here. Take a look.

    Since the Canucks are the ones deciding, or agreeing, to potential trades, this is all ‘to the Canucks,’ or how the Canucks see this, as we’ve set it up.

    (Huskins, Ferriero, 3rd round pick), or A, is less than 0, or nothing. As in, they would not take the Huskins package for nothing, or 0, because they value 0 more than the Huskins package, therefore, to them, the Huskins package is less than 0, or getting “nothing in return.”

  13. CnttBeeiek03kekeek says:

    So Huskins Package < 0, or "nothing in return"

    Now, because, ~at minimum~, the Canucks could waive Bieksa, and unload him for nothing, or 0, that means Bieksa, like I said ~at minimum~, is worth 0 to them. Bieksa will get a return of no less than nothing, or 0, to them. So Bieksa is therefore equal to, or greater than, 0. So so far we have:

  14. Tom says:

    Dude, You must chill!

    I have hidden your firebird keys… Chill!!!

  15. PleasegiveusHuskins4BieksaPLEASE says:

    Im trying to post the comment I wrote. seems only breaking it up into small pieces is working. was working…
    what’s wrong with your site?

    • Mike says:

      You’re getting flagged as spam. Try making your comments shorter.

      The Canucks have the ability to waive B (Bieksa) and get (C.) nothing in return for him, if they so desire, as a last resort.

      I seriously doubt the Sharks would agree to this deal.

      If the Canucks were not interested in the package of Huskins and co. for nothing in return, then they wouldn’t be interested in said package for Bieksa, because Bieksa has a value equal to or greater than nothing, meaning, at minimum, they can get nothing for him, which has already been established as their preference over the Huskins and co package in this equation, so therefore they would go the route of getting nothing for him instead of trading him for Huskins. Simple mathematics here.

      Clear as mud. I can certainly imagine a circumstance where getting a player with a contract you don’t like would be balanced by getting a player or prospect you do like and a draft pick. It happens all the time. It’s certainly possible, as I’ve said multiple times before, that the Canucks would not think this deal balances out properly for them. I understand you believe that as well. We disagree. Let’s leave it at that.

  16. PleasegiveusHuskins4BieksaPLEASE says:

    It’s not a disagreement. It’s factual inconsistency. Yes, it’s up for debate whether Ferriero and a 3rd would balance out the deal. That’s not the factual error. The factual error is you saying it’s possible the Canucks would not take the package for nothing in return, but could possibly take it for Bieksa. What I’m saying is if they wouldn’t take it for nothing they wouldn’t take it for Bieksa. You disagreed with that sentiment and I am explaining why it’s true, or attempting to. How am i being flagged for spam? The only reason there are multiple comments now is because it wouldn’t allow me to post one initial comment in the first place. Two (albeit lengthy) comments in the span of a couple hours prohibits a third?

    • Mike says:

      It’s an automated spam checker. Not sure what you are doing to trigger it. I can imagine the closeness in time to several posts could be a factor.

      The factual error is you saying it’s possible the Canucks would not take the package for nothing in return, but could possibly take it for Bieksa.

      I never said this. It’s possible the Canucks would not take the package in either circumstance. I certainly can’t imagine the former situation existing in the known universe, because then the Sharks are offering two players and a pick for literally nothing.

  17. Tom says:

    EvilDoug is that you?

    • Mike says:

      Seriously. I’m such a sucker sometimes.

      • evilducks says:

        Once it gets to be a 5 paragraph post you know it’s that idiot. He’s shown up several times in the past, always with a different name, same argument style and same scars on his arms from making himself feel alive.

        • Tom says:


          Do you guys notice how evildoug and real Doug are never here at the same time!!…

          I’m on to you Santana…

  18. PleasegiveusHuskins4BieksaPLEASE says:

    You did say that!

    “I hope you see how giving up the package mentioned for nothing is vastly different than trading it for Bieksa- in the former case VAN takes on salary, in the latter case they give up salary. And VAN needs to rid themselves of salary.”

    I am saying its not different at all in this particular scenario. I have the f%$@ing equation to prove it if it would just let me post it.

    • Mike says:

      Sorry, I meant ‘nothing’, as in nothing salary cap wise. It never really occurred to me that the Sharks (or any other team, for that matter) would trade a bunch of stuff for literally nothing. Salary cap wise, it would be worse for VAN to trade prospects or picks for the package I mentioned. Trading Bieksa for the same package would relieve their cap situation somewhat.

      I think we’ve pretty much nailed this one down.

      • Andy C says:

        Mike – you must have the patience of a saint to keep reading these posts and replying! I gave up caring at some up in his 2nd post.

        Either that or you’re just missing hockey…

  19. evilducks says:

    Also, Ferriero was drafted by Phoenix in 2006 (7th round 196 overall).

  20. LikeABossk says:

    If Wilson wanted to sign Niemi, he would have offer-sheeted him. He already knew about Chicago’s cap situation as evidenced by his offer sheet to Hjarlmasson.

  21. BeastlyChicken says:

    DW has said multiple times, “Niitty is our guy”. No way he goes out and signs Niemi.

  22. BeastlyChicken says:

    Some what off topic, but here is a highlight reel goal from Shane O’brien

  23. Ruben says:

    When did Huskins become this awful player? Worse than Lukowich? Worse than Shane O’Brien, a guy that scored into his own empty net on a delayed PP and had 8 points all last year? I must be the only guy who thinks he is not overpaid, his main problem is that the Sharks have multiple young guys who are 95% as good and make 30% of his salary. Derek Joslin and Mike Moore would be bottom pairing guys for 20 out of the 30 teams. I dunno, I think there is a good bit of value in a #5/6 dman who puts up 20-25 points, plays well against the weaker competition that all bottom pairing guys face, and won’t embarrass himself on special teams if needed.

    As far as the potential deal the dudes were discussing, the Canucks are in a difficult spot with their cap issues, similar to the Hawks. At this point, I have no idea how the Nucks are planning on keeping Willie Mitchell. I’ve seem comments on other blogs trying to fit him in, and almost all of them are based on some poor understanding of the LTIR or the cancellation of Luongo’s contract. They have to trade Bieksa just to get under, and I see almost no way they get that kind of value for Bieksa (not that Ferriero + is awesome) PLUS the cap relief.

    I do agree with Biekeek that, as of now, the top two teams in the West are Vancouver and San Jose. It will be interesting to see if Hamhius can replace Mitchell and Nitty can replace Nabby, but those two are the cream of the crop.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.