(upbeat music) - Can I have Central Thursday, Dan Reicho, Satyarsha, here in the Kintec Studio. Can I have Central is for Enza and Pacific. Vancouver's premier concert, Todd Ram and Jeep, Superstore on Second Avenue between Canby and Maine, and Maine, or at Enza and Pacific Chrysler.ca. I think I added an and Maine in there for absolutely no reason. - You did. You like to add things to words. That's your thing. Reicho on words. - Yeah, just like to add something to my content. (mumbling) - No, your mic's not on. Are you on now? Try to speaking? - Can you hear me now? - No, we can't. - We probably should speak this before. Knowing our great radio studio, working in full capacity. - It's never in disrepair. - Never, never has it before. - It's always fine. Always completely fine. - All right, it is Canucks Central. Dan Reicho, Satyarsha. That was supposed to be Biknazar. We'll get his microphone situation figured out here in just a second as producer Josh Elliott-Wolf is now being Tim the Toolman Taylor under the table. - Bigger meltdown. The studio or the Canucks in the third period. (laughing) I'm still going to say the Canucks in the third period last night. - Yeah, do we have Bik? - I'm not sure. - No, we definitely don't. - We absolutely do not. (laughing) It's funny because like when he turns his mic on there's like a weird static that starts to come but then all of a sudden the mic doesn't actually work. - No, somebody texted and said radio player doesn't work so no one can listen to so I mean. Everything's going swimmingly right now. - Does that mean I get the rest of the day off? Can we text Cam? - Isn't he a waste still? - Yeah, he is. He was a coward at Madison Square Garden. (laughing) Cheering for Matt Rempy a couple of days ago. - Yeah. - That picture of him with the black guy. - With the black guy. (laughing) - You know those like court drawings? - Yes. - That are always like really bad? - Yes. - Matt Rempy's face looks like that. (laughing) It's like he got beat up so bad that it's like his face looks smudged and he's got his black eye. - Yeah, like remember the Tom Brady one? - Yeah. - That's like Tom Brady one, yeah. - He looks like Tom Brady's court picture. - He looks like that. - Why is Tom Brady the first thing I think of when I think of court pictures? - Yeah, I don't understand. - We are, all of our minds went to the same thing. - Well how would he talk about us? - What does that say about us? - He looks like that creature from that show, the outsider, remember? - Yeah! That's exactly what he looks like. - The biggest court case I could-- - That show had so much potential. - Yeah, it ruined. - The biggest court case I could remember in my entire life. Outside of OJ is Tom Brady into flake games. - But, okay, how many court sketches do you remember of OJ's trial? - No. - None, right? Like there's famous pictures on it. - You remember the gloves. - Yeah, but not sketches. - No, no, you're right. 'Cause they had it like live. You got to watch it. - Yeah. - But, I mean, I've watched like every OJ thing too possible after that. - Yeah. - So strange. - Can you tell we're doing anything to not talk about the 4-3-0-T last night? - So the Canucks blew a three goal lead last night. Let's get through the open. (upbeat music) - Welcome to the open. (screams) - That's your home. Are you too good for your home? Answer me! - Yeah, the Canucks were not too good for their home last night. Couldn't close it out against the Colorado Avalanche. And, well, it is spurring a lot of questions about the team. By the way, of course, it is Dan Richel, Satyar Shah, and Bik Nazar, in case you hadn't realized, Canucks Central post game, most alongside Sat, and of course, the host of The People Show, week-day afternoons here on Sportsnet 650. So, since the all-star break, the Canucks now have the third worst point percentage in holding a lead after the second period. Five, one, and three in that time for a 556 point percentage. Their pre-all-star break was 29-01. So pretty good. Maybe the law of averages is coming to bite the Canucks to a certain extent. But also, last night felt maybe bigger or different than the others because of who the opponent was. Are we overthinking, over analyzing what happened last night to the Colorado Avalanche, or is there something to be concerned about here? - I don't know if there's something to be concerned about in terms of like, you know, an existential problem for the Canucks and the post-season against a team like Colorado and other teams. However, as much as the Canucks have hung with Colorado in these games, and in some parts outplayed them, although last night overall, I'd say Colorado did end up having the edge, they've shown they can hang with them, they haven't shown they can match their high end, which obviously is not confidence inspiring, but it's nothing that we didn't know yet either. Like we said, okay, Hughes, when he's at his best, can he play like McCar in this year he kind of has. Although last night, I think McCar probably ended up being the more impactful player overall, but nobody can match McKinnon right now. And when he decides to go another level, it's kind of like McDavid, now that doesn't mean you can't beat that team. It just means you're going to have to be far more resilient than the Canucks were last night and have shown to be against Colorado. - What's frustrating though is? - And it happened again. - Yes. - Speaking of frustrating, I think you're good now. - Speaking of frustrating. - I didn't do anything there. - There we go. - All right. What's frustrating though is for two periods, like they did a great job of forcing Nathan McKinnon to navigate differently around the ice. They connected to him early, they pushed him early. Like there was a play where McKinnon even released the puck in his own zone early and Besser tracked with him and kept his eyes on him and didn't even reattach himself to the plate 'cause he wanted to make sure, okay, which way is McKinnon going first? And in through two periods, they did pretty good with that. And it's really just a power play. That's it. McKinnon gets his goals there and it's, I look at that and I say five on five. They kind of did their job against him. - They didn't give up a ton. In the third though, especially when the onslaught happened after the five on three goal went in to make a three two, the ice was dominated by Colorado, I'd say, right? The Canucks really didn't show they could belong at that same level of pace and ability. But up until that point, they didn't give up much. I know if you looked at the natural statric chances, they had like the first period was a five or six high danger chances. - Six I think, yeah. - And they came in two sequences. And a lot of them were off rebounds from Casey the Smith, who was making a few good saves, but none were like the types of chances you would look at and say they're coming off the rush, they're breaking down defensively. So I'd say it was somewhat misleading if you looked at the numbers 'cause overall the Canucks suffocated Colorado for much of the first 40 minutes. - What's probably most frustrating for me in losing last night's game is that you did do a good job against Nathan McKinnon, Miko Ranten and Valerian Nachushkin have five on five. JT Miller's line matched up against that line, one going away, right? JT played over 10 minutes last night, 11 minutes against McKinnon and at five on five was totally fine. You had the better of the matchup. They scored twice in the first period and they were doing great. And JT was dominant all over the ice and it probably was the one that contributed to the best five on five opportunity in the third period as well with the pass from behind the net that went out to McKev and it was good stop by Jorgev. Really the only chance I can remember the Canucks generating in the third period. So that wasn't the problem. But with this setup, you have Patterson and Lynn Holm on other lines, like that's where you've got to win then, you know? And the Canucks got crushed with Patterson on the ice yesterday at five on five. But his own admission, he had a bad game and there was two goals against with Lynn Holm on the ice. You know, of course, the one at the end of the second period where they stacked up the forward line and then the tying goal, he has the giveaway that leads to the extended zone time that eventually leads to the Ross-Coulton tying goal. So like to me, you know, we've always had this conversation of should JT be the matchup guy. Well, last night he was great as the matchup guy. It was the rest of the lineup that didn't hold up their end of the bargain. Do they not win the game if Patterson has a decent performance? Yes, they should. And I think that's the positive outlook. You say if Patterson can play a bit better, you probably win that hockey game? Yes and no, like, yeah, you're right. But also, like Lynn Holm passes the puck right to an avalanche player. 100% Susie puts the puck over the glass, right? Like there's ways for them to win that game even despite a not average performance from Elias Patterson. Absolutely. But I'm just saying you play win the game. I'm just saying you probably win that game. And now me saying that isn't me saying, I don't think you can do it against Colorado. It's just against Colorado, you can't shoot yourself in the foot. If you do, you need to get bailed out by your top guys. Yeah, yeah. You know, now there were a couple horrendous calls. Like, you know, the call on, that to me the two calls, forget the Manson hit from behind. Like we don't need to talk about this today. Can't believe there isn't even any, any note from the NHL Department of Player Safety. It's an absolute joke, okay? But the two like grew just to me game changing moments 'cause the connects, you know, they took the three nothingly. They were fully in control. Was the hooking call on Ian Cole, which is a horse believe call at that point. And then if you make that call and then to miss the high stick on coin hues when the connects were on the power plate late in the third during a tie in game was cowardly to not call. Now there's also a high stick on Macar I think in the first period that also didn't go called, but still it's like these things like, there's no consistency among them. No, so those two things for sure. Like those things win against you, right? I agree. I agree that you had some bad bounce. But you also still have to find a way to overcome. In the playoffs, hey, they don't, it doesn't care. You know, you have to be resilient to respond. And when those things happen, your top guys have to be able to step up and pull one out. I think Patterson can do it 'cause we believe in the player. I believe in giving him the contract. And if you believe in the player, you're not gonna sell your stock based on one regular season game, right? Can he learn? Yes. Should he be better? Yes. Is there something preventing him from being where it needs to be? We don't know. He didn't answer the question, but clearly agrees that needs to be better than he has been. He's gotta be better. There's no doubt. But I do think if you are going to beat Colorado in the playoffs guys, yeah, you have to be more resilient and your top guys have to be on their game. Like there's no other way. Otherwise you're not beating Colorado in the playoffs. Yeah. And there was, there was an interesting quote from Rick Talkett today at practice. And it's basically alluding to what happened in last night's game and how it didn't go well for them, right? They didn't have enough pushback is essentially one of the things that he mentioned. And when Colorado started going, we didn't have anything to throw back at them. And that's on all of us he said, but it alludes to something you said earlier, Sat, where Colorado had another gear in the first meeting between these two games, two teams this season. They had another gear last night and both times the Canucks didn't really have an answer. Didn't find a way to make a play, relieve some of the pressure, relieve some of the momentum. Until it was 3-3, like the Canucks were shell-shocked. Yeah. And then after 3-3, it felt like more of an even period where the teams were almost happy to play it out for a point of peace and then see what happens in overtime. But, I mean, you can't let it get to that point where Colorado is just absolutely all over you tilting the ice for the first half of that third period. Oh, the team that played the night before. Yeah. That found that other gear in the third period. So, okay, is that what you're chalking up the first 20 minutes then too? Because that they were a little bit tired. 'Cause the gear that we're talking about, Miller had a better gear than the abs in the first period and generated two goals in the first two minutes and was fantastic throughout the course of the 20 minutes. And so, we're just detailing the first 40 minutes. And then, was that 'cause the abs were tired? I don't know, I thought the Canucks were really good in the first. Right, but if we're talking about gears that they can't get to, like they had a three-goal lead last night. So, clearly, they showcased a gear to get a three-goal lead game set. For sure, but when the game's on the line in the third period, there's been two games where that's, I mean, it's about to me, the big moments in the games that you have to be able to match. I agree that they did a great job of the first couple periods, sure, right? And Colorado was able to dig deep and find that later in the game. But if you can't find it when it matters, that doesn't matter. Like, you hear the coaches respond to how you viewed it. Like, in the third period, in big moments come playoff time, that's when the game's on the line. Like, how many times do you see in the playoffs a team have a lead? How many teams cough off leads in the playoffs? A lot, a team's cough up leads a lot because it's a lot of pressure because it's a lot harder in the third period. That's where you have to be able to find out other level. I think the Canucks can. I'm not saying they can't. I don't think they haven't shown an inability to. But all we can judge them on is a three games against Colorado and the two critical times in the third period and two of those losses, Colorado went to a level the Canucks couldn't match. And they have to be able to find a way to do that in third periods against a team like this in the playoffs. It's, you know, the way the Canucks built their lead, just, I kind of wanna dispute your point a little bit, Bick, in that the way they built their lead, it felt like it was just JT Miller. Like, they played a strong defensive game but I don't think they were all over Colorado in the first period in the way that Colorado had the ice completely tilted in the third period on the Vancouver Canucks. Right, but then I would also say, it's like a puck goes off the camera hole, it's a five on three and it's a goal and overtime on a power play. Yeah, right, like it's fair to point it out both ways. That's fair, yeah. You know what, that's, that is a fair point. Both ways like there was some luck involved in building the lead. The Canucks were in dominant and the Canucks were dominated for a 10 minutes stretch in the third. Yeah. And, you know, that's where, you've built out these four lines, you've built out this structure, you've built out these staples and there are still times where it alludes the Canucks, right? And we've seen that in recent games in, you know, the Detroit game where they couldn't really stop the bleeding in that third period and Detroit comes all the way back. The Pittsburgh game where Pittsburgh just turned it up and the Canucks could not stop the tide from, from flowing against them. And it's become a little bit of a recurring theme but the thing that worries me most about this team right now going into the playoffs isn't this mini trend of giving up third period leads. It's, they're special teams that have been a problem for a few weeks, a couple of months now. And I know like it's a five on three goal that they give up and a four on three goal. So, you know, five on four, maybe they were, they were okay last night on the penalty kill. Prior to the Cole penalty, like they were doing a fantastic job on the penalty. Was the softest penalty you will ever see given to allow a five on three? Maybe outside of the Lindholm one in Minnesota a couple of weeks ago. But like generally, like, and in the playoffs, you probably have to murder somebody in order to get a five on three. You know, that's the way it's going to change but penalties are still going to get called. Actually penalties get called to a higher amount in the playoffs by the numbers than they do in the regular season. - I think a lot of that is awaited in the first round. - Yes. - In the first couple and then it kind of-- - Yeah, I've looked at myself in months past. I don't know by round by round so I can dig into that myself. But it is, it does tick off a bit. In game situations, like tie game in the third, 10 minutes left, like good luck. You're not getting a penalty. - Yeah, exactly. - You know, so things are different in those ways. But the special teams is the thing that worries me the most because even at three three, you get a power play there in the third period and generate, yeah, they got the whole Glonder chance eventually it was kind of a flooky one but that power play felt pretty impotent for most of the power play. And they didn't generate much of anything. They didn't generate momentum coming out of it which more than anything is something that you at least want to do in that moment. - So we've used this term too of, and we've seen it in years past like the 2011 team that they can play for 20 minutes and they've got that dynamic ability to just take over a game. We got our two points because we played 20 yard minutes and that's what Colorado did yesterday, right? They played their 20 yard minutes but in power play some moments, they can flip it on and they're so good and they win it. And we talk about this team, they have to play structure, they have to play sound hockey for 60 minutes to get the results. And yeah, there is that element at times that they don't really have those supercharged players that on a power play where you just need to inject urgency into it, it's missing. And that's the thing that like Garland has provided though, you're gonna quickly point out what he doesn't provide but like in moments he has provided a little bit of urgency. It's his nature to, Mark Sirelius there, you know, what's your nature? It's his nature to like launch puck towards the net and have a bit more urgency into it. But that game yesterday, that power play desperately needed some urgency. - It does, the thing is out of all the decisions the coaching staff has made, and you're right, I think the main reason why they're going for Garland is the tenacity, trying to add a little bit of urgency, add a little bit of spunk to it or whatever but I just don't see it. And the main reason I don't see it is 'cause the opposition does not give a, you know what, they's on the ice. They could not care less. Colorado could not care less than Connor Garland was on the ice. - But there's just like-- - He may as well be a garden, no, but it did not matter. - There's Miller, and then like, Patterson's just like waiting for his shot, and Quinn Hughes, I just heard that, it just occurred to be what he said. And Quinn Hughes moves around while Miller's the only one that's doing it with any sort of force. - Well and also, I mean, as great as Quinn is, his play star isn't like urgent. It's very much like very cool calm with the puck and you know, we'll look for the prop pass to make you know that that's how he plays. Whereas McCar's like on, like he's either attacking you, we're just attacking the pass. So I think that's part of it too. But you need to get somebody, I think, outside of Garland on that. Honestly, I'm at a point where it's like pretty much anybody. Just somebody that the opposition will respect 'cause right now-- - It's gotta be Lin Holm, doesn't it? - Sure, like honestly, I don't care who it is. I don't, honestly, I don't care who it is, just not Garland, and get back to having Garland, Miller, and Patterson on opposite wings. 'Cause right now, their galaxy braining, how to get a going, and it's getting worse. The power play is getting progressively worse with all the changes that they're making to it. It's not getting better. - It's been bad since October, November. But it's getting worse. - It's like bottom third of the league since the start of December. You know, that's not good enough for the amount of talent that they have, and we saw it earlier with Kuzmenko, where nobody was passing to Kuzmenko on the power play and teams just like, okay, whatever. Like, we don't need to really worry about this guy. If he beats us, then, okay, good, hats off to you. And it's now the same with Connor Garland. And they play man to man. It's like, you know, having a guy who's not a three-point shooting threat standing at the top of the key, and it's just like, well, okay, I guess-- - It's like satin high school. (laughs) - I guess you don't want to space the floor at all, so this makes a lot easier for us to defend. And that's what it feels like right now with the Canucks. They don't have that fifth option that relieves some of the pressure away from Patterson, that shades, teams shading towards him so that they take away the one timer. And for the life of me, I can't figure out why they've moved Miller off the left half wall and won't put him back there. Like, it's just, it doesn't make any sense. - No, honestly, it doesn't because they're not getting, if you've seen some progress and the things that you're trying, I'd say, okay, it's working, but you're not. - Like, are you waiting? Like, are you just like giving this for teams for their pre-scout, going into the playoffs, then you're gonna bring it back once the first round of the playoffs begins? Like, it just doesn't, something is not computing there for me on the on-power play one. - Okay, this is a galaxy brain thought, okay? - I feel like the Canucks are galaxy braining things right now with the power play. - I'm just workshopping this amongst friends here. - Okay, I like this. - Is like, Patterson's shot overrated? - No, no, not overrated. Like, it is so good that it's like, it's worth having them there. But is it appear with enough frequency that he should be stable to that spot? 'Cause like, the value of him being there is like, hey, we gotta work this shot, he's gonna blast it. We see it like, once a game maybe? - Yeah. - And we don't see it enough. - Yeah. - And this is what the issue was in prior years, that an issue that I thought was sort of eradicated early in the season. - Yeah, so he's essentially just working like a, a rook in chess, he's just going up and down that one side. And it's just like, eventually we'll get him the puck. But if you move him around, now he's not, he's not my first choice as net front, but does he need to move around to maybe allow some other opportunities for some other guys? - In the bumper, try him on the left half. Like, I want there to be fluid movement. Ultimately that's what works best. It creates angles, it creates chaos for the defensive, the defensive team, it makes it more difficult for them to manage how it's all going to work. And like, you know, you just watch, watch McKinnon on the power play. You know, he's moving from the right half wall and then rotating over to the left half wall before he takes the one timer and scores the goal. - Yeah. - You know, like he's never in a static position. The Euler's power play, I mean, McDavid is just always creating chaos because of what he can do. And that helps Dreycidal be able to stay on that low circle for that one timer, but you don't know where Dr. McDavid. So you can't do that on the Canucks power play. - Look at Tampa, same thing with Kucharov and you're looking for the stamp goal shot. They have the same things they go for, but they'll do it from different spots. I think honestly, the Canucks getting back to what they did best with movement is honestly the best thing that they can do. 'Cause that formation did put everybody in the best spot. They can be successful. Now, I know the right-handed shot is a big difference in the bumper as opposed to having the lefty. And I think part of it is they're trying to figure that out, but it's not like they didn't have two righties because Manko and Besser earlier this season too. And how much movement did you see with those guys all over the ice, right? But they still got enough looks in their traditional spots where they were at least able to provide you the value there and then also the unpredictability of popping up elsewhere and doing something. To me, just get back to trying to do that and try to force that to work. 'Cause whatever you're doing here, this is not applicable to the playoffs, there's no way. You're telling me you're gonna have Garland out there in the playoffs on your first unit power play? - And the entries are a problem too. - That's a problem. - And I thought maybe that's why they had Garland there because he is pretty adept at gaining the blue line in the offensive zone. - But you have Miller, Pedersen, and you shouldn't be a problem. - You shouldn't need that. - You shouldn't need that. - And the thing is, and we've defended the draw pass so much over the years and I'm all for it, but you don't have to force the draw pass. - Yeah. - Like when they're giving you the blue line by the wall, take it. - Yeah. - It's okay for you to walk it in. You don't have to do it the nice special way. You don't have to do it the way you drew up. Take what the defense is giving you. - You don't have to have Pedersen and Brock there behind Quinn Hughes and then they try to do that one too that goes through the neutral zone and right at the blue line and somehow somebody always screws it up. - Yeah. - Some tech's coming in here for Matt who says they, like they needed a lefty in the bumper to open up that crossing pass to Pedersen. So like they had bow last year, obviously. And is that something? Well, they just don't have candidates for that. - Yeah. - The only lefties are putting there are JT or PD. - Yeah. And you know, in Matt and Suri goes on to say, you know, that's maybe why Gensil was so appealing. Lefty shot. Yeah. I mean, they were up to Foley because Gensil wasn't going to happen and Gensil would have been a righty shot adding to it. So it's something you want to ideally have, but it's not rock and score from that spot. - Yeah. - Like we've seen them try to make that play work, but your point is like move guys around and look, we all know where Pedersen's going to end up. Everyone knew Reggie Miller's going to shoot threes, but he was going to go through a bunch of screens to get there, right? It's like you know where Pedersen's going to end up, but he doesn't move anywhere. - And if you have movement, you can get Miller in that spot too and guess what? - Yeah. - Miller's got a bomb. - Yeah. - And people are texting in like Pedersen's pretty good in front of the net and he can tip it. - Yeah. - Yeah. - Like Miller's got a bomb. Didn't he finish second in the hardest shot this year? - Yeah. - You know? - He's less accurate than Pedersen is with his shot, but you know if you're constantly moving, you can create chaos in the point where, oh Pedersen's not there, so maybe we don't have to shade and all of a sudden it's Miller there who has an opening to take that one timer. So there's definitely different things that they can do, but for me the power play and to a certain extent, the penalty killer right now, the biggest red flags for the Canucks as they prepare for the playoffs here down the stretch. Final thing here on the Canucks Central round table in the open, the 32 thoughts blog mentioning from Elliot Friedman that the Canucks will prioritize Blueger, Joshua, and Myers as unrestricted free agents they want to bring back. So there's a long list of unrestricted free agents. You know, you can throw in Sam Lafferty and Casey Dismith into there, but and Sat, you've talked about this too, Blueger and Joshua are high on the list and we've talked about Myers earlier this week. It seems as though these are at least the first cracks that the Canucks want to fill before they get into the offseason. - And it adds up, if you can get those guys signed to numbers that work for you, get it done. And then it takes away three spots you need to worry about potentially in the post in the offseason. And they're sizable positions. You're talking about roles, you know, Blueger and Joshua play big PK roles, they play a good 5 on 5 overall roles can play a little bit of matchup or whatever. And then, you know, Myers is always an interesting topic of conversation. - Can I play in that 4, 5, 6 defense man? - Yeah, and it depends on the number 'cause I can, I saw a lot of people mention yesterday why not just keeps the door off instead of Myers. I just think the number for Zadorov is going to be higher and also longer. - Right. - Yeah, so I think that's what gets in the way. If you have to pay 4 million plus, do you feel comfortable? And as good as Zadorov was last night and I think he's been really good at times but he will have like a 8, 9 and then he'll have people have a 2, 3. Like he does have some pretty, he's not quite as chaotic as Myers, right? - He's got wide ranges. Like when he's good, you notice it and you're like, wow. - Like last night, it was incredible, right? - He's got a player. - And if you get that consistent, I just hope you can get that consistent in the playoffs 'cause then that would be such a big help but he hasn't shown you can do it over 82. And that's why like, can you give him what he's looking for? - Well, the difference is two is you have Carson Susie. - Yeah. - So Zadorov, you'd be paying him more than Susie to play in a lower role. - Yeah. - Whereas Myers, it's like, we all have our issues and I'm just hearing that. I get a little like, I mean, he's on the priority list. I mean, he's third on that priority list but he's higher than Noah Juleson and you need a number two guy more than you need a number or a second pairing guy more than you need a third pairing guy. - Myers, because he's a right shot and because he's given you a baseline level of performance that you're pretty comfortable with this year and you feel like he's fit well into Rick Tockett's system. I could see why they're prioritizing him because of how difficult it is to fill a right shot despots. - I'd rather tempt fate though. I'd rather roll the dice going to the off season. - I don't disagree. That's kind of where I'm at too but it's also clear that his size is the other big thing for this coaching staff as well. And I think he's really won them over in some ways, right? And I think when they look at the types of blue lines you need to be successful in the West in the postseason, it's just hard, like you can't replace his size. It's impossible. Like you can replace him on the right side. You can't replace his size, the soft season on the right side. And I think that's a big driving factor in it and at least, you know, having him on the third pair and having that size is something that I think matters to them. But I'm with you, I'm not enamored with the extension. It would have to be to me, like can you get it? I don't know if he's size or under three million but can you get three million per year for two years? - To me, like two years, sure. I get squeamish at three, you know? - Yeah, it's got to be a very favorable number. - Any three, three million three years? - That's tough, that's tough. It's like two years. - I will say, I think the UFA right-hand de-market might be better than we, or at least have more names. - Actually, you know what, we have Brad Pechet's there, Matt Roy's another guy for instance. - Sean Walker's obviously someone that gets money, no, but someone's going to spend money on Sean Walker. - All those guys are going to cost five million bucks. - Yeah, and they're all 29. - They're about. - Well, Christina and I have Dylan D'Amelo are in there as well, so there's names. - And now he's 29, too. Yeah, you know, like Matt Roy. So those guys are looking for term. So these are 29 year old defense. When Pechet's 29, probably looking for one last contract. So they're probably looking at, can we get four years, five years? And are you comfortable paying those guys, you know, five million or something? 'Cause, I mean, that's probably what they're going to be demanding. - Yeah. - 'Cause Matt Roy fans himself a legit top four righty defense, but the same thing with Brad Pechet, right? Yeah. - Yeah, Matt Roy probably is eight. - And the mic doesn't work. - All right. - It's at the end of the segment anyways. - Josh wants to go to bed. - Man, I really, really, really, really want to ask Bick his take on Sam Howell being a Seahawks now. - Here, here, here. - I love it. - Yeah, me too. - That's all right. - All right, Canucks Central with a tidbit on the Seattle Seahawks, making a trade for a quarterback today. It is Canucks Central, more of your thoughts on the text box and more on the fallout from last night's game against Colorado Avalanche. That's next on Canucks Central. - Big opinions and good bets. It's the People Show with Bick Nizar. - Be sure to subscribe on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. (dramatic music)
