We're back on Canucks Central, Dan Riccio, Satyar Shah, the final segment before we send you off for the weekend. What do we got coming up? J's and athletics? Is that what's happening? Oakland A's. Are they still in Oakland? I think so. It's not like the worst thing ever. It's like they were supposed to move, but now it seems like they're not going to move for like another, what, three years, four years or whatever it is. They're going to go play in San Antonio. Yeah, we're just going to like slowly like make our way to Las Vegas. Yes. Or is it Sacramento, not San Antonio? They're doing residency in various California markets. Yes. They're like a past it music artist going to Vegas to close out their career. Yeah. And the prime in the 70s and in the 80s and early 90s and still living off of it. Man, I would be so excited to watch J's baseball in a nice warm summer night. Not right now. No, I'd still be down. I'd be still be down. I mean, we don't get enough, we don't get enough chances to go out and watch baseball games. I'd be excited to go watch J's. That'd be fine. Yeah. Whatever. Yeah. Let's go do it. All right. Well, I'll take a couple of cosmic crisp apples with me and we'll be ready to go. Have you tried the cosmic crisp apple? I think we talked about this at work the other day. I do. I'm big on the cosmic crisp apples. It is out of this world. And I didn't know about this, but the cosmic crisp apple, a hybrid of enterprise and honey crisp apples that spent 20 plus years in research and development at Washington State University. So was it like it's an apple that was built in a lab? No wonder it's so perfect. Really, they're built in a lab. That's why they're cosmic. I guess that makes sense. And yes, imagine the possibilities and the apple of big dreams. Who knew the cosmic crisp apple had such marketing behind it? I just kind of stumbled upon it at the grocery store. It was on sale and I bought it and I was like, wow, this is a good apple. So should we not get them then? Or that like, are they like genetically modified apples? I don't know. It kind of sounds like they are. Right? So it sounds like it's like perfectly red. It's crisp, sweet, not too acidic. Like they did everything to this apple that they possibly could to try and make it the perfect apple that you imagine in your mind's eye. Yes. And then they delivered it straight to you. This is fake apple. All right, that's enough on cosmic crisp apples. We do have a lot of texts coming in. Yeah. One of the things that's coming up CP mentioned too and others is like, well, you can try trade as the door off later in his contract because if you're only paying him 4.75 or something, then, you know, he's the guy that can get moved. I mean, my answer to that is if he's a final year of his contract and he's been playing well as a rental and a team sucks or whatever, sure, you can move them. But how often do you see guys who are number four, five defenseman, making four, five million, age 34, age 35? We're talking about him signing a seven year deal or something like that. How many guys that age actually have a lot of trade value? Not a ton. I do, or guys with a ton of pedigree like Ryan McDonough still gets traded. But Ryan McDonough has been considered a premier top end shutdown defenseman for a very long time. He's had a lot of success throughout his career getting to that point. And I'm a big Zidaroff fan. I am. But like we're talking about a guy who's never played more than 19 minutes a game in a single season and he's 29 years old, like there is, I don't disagree that you can bank for him to be better and you think he can be a better player and more consistent. But it is a leap when you're talking about 29 year old and you're banking on him being a 20 plus minute player for you. And that's to have a player that has value into his 30s and him to maintain that level of play. It's a big leap, man. And you're allowed to take that leap. But I think the whole idea of, oh, there's no risk to this contract or risk is far mitigated. It's not. There's to me, there's a lot of risk on a contract. If you're signing him into his 30s, they have to be re into late into his mid to late 30s because he's a player who has not been the player you're paying him to be consistently yet. He hasn't been that. He's shown you flashes of it, but he hasn't done it consistently. But that means you're taking a pretty big leap hoping that he's going to get there. And I think that's when you have to keep it, keep in consideration. You are. Yeah. Like it's you'd be paying Nikita Zadorov a premium for a very small sample size. You know, like basically the second half of this season, sure, he scored 14 Calgary last year. You know, the way Zadorov played this year very much had like, I understand this is my chance to really hit the jackpot this summer, right? And he took every opportunity that he could, you know, he tried to force his way out of Calgary, seeing where that season was going quickly. And it's like, man, I got to get out of here. So I can put myself in a better spot to make the most of free agency next summer. He gets to Vancouver and shines brilliantly and takes advantage of his postseason opportunity. But you're right. Like Nikita Zadorov has never consistently shown to be the player that he was for much of the stretch and the playoffs for the Vancouver Canucks. He hasn't, he hasn't shown to be that player consistently through a decade now of NHL play. So why can you, why would you bank on that now after, you know, him being able to do it for six months? No, no, I'm okay with you banking on it. All I'm saying is like this whole idea of, oh, it's, it's not a lot of risk with the contract and it's not actually not that bad. Don't worry about it. It'll be okay. Like I think that's, that's, to me, not, not a fully logical way of looking at it. I think we have to be aware of what the actual risks are with it. And I think you can talk me into signing Zadorov. I'm not saying you can't talk me into it. I think you want to keep the guy, but I think the level of risk that comes into it. And I think you have to, if you signing Zadorov to a six or seven year contract, I think you have to be okay with him not being great in the final year or two. I think that's the way you have to approach that contract. Then if you're banking on him, maybe getting moved at, you know, with the year left to two years left on his contract, I'm just not sure that's realistic. Continuing mailbag overflow. Why is the final segment cut out from the podcast? Actually, lately we've been, we've been putting it in to the podcast. So yeah, we've, we, we want to make sure that we give you all the content you've been asking for. I've been complaining about it. Can Bear has been getting emails about it. I know other people have been getting emails about how they want every single segment of our show to be podcast. So the requests have come in, so we're going to prop podcast all of it, even the stupid stuff. You'll get it all. So don't complain about the stupid stuff being part of the podcast. Okay. Cause usually like being fully honest, usually by the end of the, the, the show, we're tired about talking of the Canucks and when the hawks kind of like shoot the breeze. Well, also like during, during the Canucks season, especially when we do pre game post game. And we're talking about like, you know, three or four hours. Oh, on game days, like, and then we get nine hour shift talking Canucks. Yeah. So it's like, you know, sometimes it's, it's a bit of a breather, but we don't need breathers when we do two hour shows at this time of year, we could less is, uh, uh, and originally the thought was less is more for the people, but now that they're knocking down the doors and being like, okay. We need the final segment of Canucks central. We need more water bottle jokes. You asking you shall receive, um, all right, continuing with the, uh, mail bag overflow. How about this one from Sean and Campbell river? How would you feel about trading PD for naychas and signing a Lindholm? More money to load up elsewhere and perhaps sign Roan against the door off. Uh, I hate it. I, I honestly can't believe how many of our texts are said. I don't for a second think that the majority of the Canucks fan base thinks this way, but I am shocked at just how many people actually would trade Alias Patterson away today. I will say this though, like my partner's not a big Patterson fan. Everyone bring up Patterson. She's like, you're bandy guy always falls over and it's your trade up. So I mean, I will say I hear it. I hear it at home too. So it's not like, you know, it's, it's just every, every once in a while, people texting in like I get chirped about Patterson all the time. I can't get away from it. At times myself this year, I have wondered about the frequency of which Alias Patterson falls over. Doesn't mean I would trade him for Martin a jazz. Right. That's the thing. And it's no idea. Jazz is best season is 41 points fewer than Alias Patterson's best season. You know, people complain on Patterson, that's scoring enough goals. Nate has never scored 30. People at Patterson has a score 40. They're like, well, at least you have 39. Yeah. This guy's not even touched 30 yet. And I like Nate jazz. But again, it's one of those things. I think people don't realize, you know, how talented the player is until they see other players come in and then like underachieve or like not be at that level. And I think that's kind of part of the problem. And I see like a lot of unironic questions and people, and I think people don't quite know how the no movement clauses work either. So if you have any RFA eligibility, you're not entitled to have a no trade clause. So the reason Elias Patterson doesn't have a no trade clause. This upcoming season is because he still has one year of RFA left. The rest is a UFA. So there is no like conspiracy behind the scenes here for the connection like, well, we didn't give him the no trade clause because we wanted to keep our options open. It's literally the situation they find themselves in, right? So when used does that have a no move clause, no trade clause? Yeah. Pretty surprising, right? Actually, not really because again, like RFA years that you're buying, right? It's UFA years when that kind of, that stuff can kind of come in. So just because they can trade him doesn't mean they will. And I would say this is probably not the time to trade him anyways. Yeah. Like it would be at the low of his value, so to speak, right? He just got this mega contract. He didn't have a great playoff. The Canucks are, you know, in a situation where they're trying to clear more cap space, like who's going to give Vancouver what they want for Peterson City, even if they wanted to trade him. And good luck finding the top 10 center, you're not going to, right? It's just not real. And that's what Peterson has been in his career. And you know, it's, it's the opposite of the Zadora thing. It's like, what has this guy been for the majority of his career? You know, top 15, top 20 center in the league, right? What is the key? Does the door have been for much of his career? Kind of a third pair of defenseman that has some big flashes, but also has some big oopsie daisy moments. And because of recency bias, you're willing to pay Nikita Zadora with a blank check. And at least Peterson, you can't get rid of him fast enough. It just, you know, you need to think for a second. This texts Dakota Joshua took bad penalties in the playoffs and cost us big time, 2.75 million tops or bye bye. It's a good comment coming in, you know, we haven't talked a lot about Dakota Joshua in all of this, you know, at, at, at a time, you know, he was considered, you know, maybe the highest priority of unrestricted free agents for the Canucks. And it's been very quiet around Joshua. I actually, I saw a story out of Toronto being like, uh, Dakota Joshua wouldn't or would be okay with returning to the Maple Leafs after being a draft pick of the Leafs. So why would he not be? And if you offer him the money that he's looking for, he's signed anywhere. And that's it Dakota, Joshua, what I took away from it. It's like his agent is basically saying, like, yeah, I'm willing to sign anywhere. And that means he's just, he's out to get the best contract for him possible. And that's his main priority and free agency. That's the way it looks like to me. Listen, if Bangladesh had an HL team, he would assign their fee offered him five months per year. Like I'm telling you, like he's going to go anywhere you're willing to offer him the most amount of money. Like it doesn't matter. Right? Like, and that's the way he should be approaching it. You're talking about a guy who, and listen, it's going to sound weird. It's like a couple million basically. Like not even like you're talking about a guy who's been well, he's made, he's made less than two million for his career. And when you factor in, you know, escrow and all that, it's not a ton of money. Right? Like you're not talking about a guy who's probably got like a million banked for the rest of his career. Like he doesn't have that, right? So you're talking about a guy who has earned very little money by NHL standards to the age of 27. Yeah. This is his chance to get paid. And he would be foolish to sign a Vancouver for a contract. That's worth a million less than what he could get elsewhere. Because he may never see that money again. And if I'm him and I and his agent, I tell him you sign anywhere that offers you the most money. If it's a money's close, sure, then we can start deciding. But if you're getting more money significantly somewhere, go there. It doesn't matter where it is. You think 16 million is out there for him and free agency? So I heard, and I don't know how true this is because people say stuff all the time now, nowadays, right? I heard that a team like Detroit might be really hot on his heels. And they may be willing to go four plus for him. Now, I don't know how true that is, right? But if these are the things that Dakota Joshua camp is hearing, why do you think to bring reluctance to give him the money? Why do you think, you know, he's not signing for what the connects are offering? Yeah. Right. And now whether Detroit does that, whether they're trying to maple leaves do that or not, we'll see if that happens or not. But if somebody's offering him four plus, it's just not going to be Vancouver. Yeah, it's and, you know, given the talk about Lynn Holman's Adora of again, you know, it doesn't feel like Vancouver's willing to go in that range. And given that there hasn't been much on that front with Joshua and the Canucks, it's almost as if there's an understanding that Joshua and the Canucks are pretty far apart. And he's going to test free agency and see what kind of contract is out there for him. Um, continuing down this road. Um, I'm not saying the Myers contract was good. I've got more confidence in a Zadora of contract than what the Myers contract was. Another one, do you think Patterson plays better with Lynn Holm as Lynn Holm is the center? Uh, I know we've talked about this quite a bit, but the value of like the value of the Canucks see in Lynn Holm. Is it strictly like we want the three centers as Rick Tockett, often gushed about down the stretch of the season when he had Miller, Patterson and Lynn Holm, all at his disposal, I think if we'd look at it from three lines, three centers, and they're going to have one, two, three in terms of deployment, I don't think that's the way you should be looking at it. And I don't necessarily think it's either necessarily the versatility of guys playing wing. I think that's, that's something obviously that can happen. To me, it's more about game situation, that if you have Lindholm, Patterson and Miller, you can, can you play all three guys 19 to 20 minutes a game or 19 minutes a game? I think you can easily. And they showed they could do that, right? Because you have Lindholm out on the power play, you have Lindholm out on the PK, you have them out late game situations, he's matching up, right? Critical spots taking phase sauce when you load up. So I think in terms of deployment, there are easy pathways for you to get all, get all three guys significant ice time. And I think that's the way to look at it. Not necessarily like, well, you're paying this guy seven million to be your third line center, playing 15 minutes a game. Lindholm's still going to play at least 18 and a half to 19 and a half minutes a game. All right. Oh, quickly one thing. Yeah. And I think, and I'm not trying to sit here and say Myers was worth the six year contract. But I think that people don't realize the track record Myers had when he signed that contract. And that's not to say that analytically, he wasn't a guy that people looked at and said, Hey, trouble broom here, don't give him the money, right? But you're talking about a guy who won the Calder trophy had a 48 point season as a rookie. He scored 10 or more goals twice in his career. He's had a nine goal season before. He's been over 30 points four times in his career had 29 this season. In terms of ice time, he's averaging 20. He had the first career, 21 minutes and 53 seconds in Winnipeg average 22 minutes a game and a Buffalo, nearly 23 minutes a game. And he's a right hand defenseman. And I'm not saying again, that right now is a drop is not more valuable, better than Myers. But what Myers got that contract is not like he was chopped liver in terms of a guy who never did nothing. And he only got the money because he's six foot eight and he's a right hand defenseman. Look at his track record. Look at his deployment. Look at his usage. Yeah. You can say he wasn't worth the money 100% but for every coach he played for played him 20 minutes a game or more. Never has a door. I've done that, right? And that's a thing to keep in mind. I'm not saying I like Myers more than the door of, but when he signed the contract, Myers was not chopped liver. So Myers this year was the third highest scoring unrestricted free agent defenseman that has a right shot. And he had 29 points going into his free agent year when he signed with the Canucks. He had 31 points. I don't know exactly who else was on the free agent market that year on the right side, but I would imagine Myers was one of the top guys offensively. Now it never really worked out the same way offensively for him in Vancouver, but you know, he really started to show in a more structured environment this year. He can play a lot better. And that's why there's interest in bringing back Tyler Myers calling from the caribou says, I'm actually more interested in hearing you guys do the stupid stuff, stupid stuff on the show. Oh, okay. Thanks, Colin. We'll see what happens. I will not be purposely dropping water bottles for everybody's enjoyment, but it was a fun moment for many that happened this week and thankfully outside of my confidence, it was mostly harmless. That's fine. No, it's no damage happen. Honestly, the cotton I didn't cause thousands, hundreds of thousands of damage to the studio. So I'm very happy with this. The only damage you cause was the therapy you got to pay for. Yes. Very much so. Thanks to the Rogers benefits that I'm going to have to now use. All right. Before we sign off for the weekend and get out and enjoy some sunshine for the night. Cup final, colors and Florida Panthers starts tomorrow. What's a big storyline in the series and who do you think is going to win? All right. So a big storyline, I think is going to be, honestly, it's going to be star players. Like I think it's this a series that's going to come down to Matthew Goodchuk and the pressure is on, you know, Florida too, because the second time they're in the cup final, right, lessons they learned and all that. And obviously, McDavid and Drycidal in terms of where I feel the series is going to go. Perhaps I've had too much time to think about it because I'm going Edmonton in six. Wow. I did not expect that. Yeah. Edmonton in six. That's a little bit surprising to me. I do like Florida in this series. I'm going Florida in six. I do think, you know, for me, the big part of this is as you say, star players, but I think legacy is a major storyline in the series. And I know, yeah, like it's unfair to talk about championships and all these kinds of things, but it is a reality of sports in 2024. And look, every greatest player in the game's history does have a cup ring. And Conor McDavid does not have one. He's not been this close yet to this stage in his career. He's 27. He's going to be two years out from free agency when this, you know, comes to an end when this series comes to an end. It's not like this will be his last chance at a cup, but you don't know when you are going to get back. And the Oilers, cat picture and Drycidal's number going up a year from now. It's just, you never know when you're going to get back. So legacy is a major storyline for me in this series. And for that, you know, I know a lot of people think this way. Yannick Hanson said it earlier as well. You'd like to see one of the greats of the game, at least statistically be able to lift the Lord Stanley's mug. And when he says that, he means Conor McDavid. Now on the flip side, you know, Sasha Barkov is trending towards being one of the best two-way centers the game has ever seen. Matthew Kuchuk trending is the best or one of the best power forwards in the modern history of the game. So like, there's a lot of greats of the game that are playing in this series. And it should be a lot of fun. I think the potential to have like an all-time great Stanley Cup final is certainly here with this kind of star power. Yeah, I think so too, right? And I'm just hoping that it's that it is not one of those kind of boring series, low scoring, boring series. Like, I mean, I really hope there's real intensity to the series. And I'm expecting that there will be like, I don't think any team is running away with it. You know, like, that's why I'm saying six or seven games here. I just, I just think that with the way Edmonton's played defense as a team and how their star players are going, I just think it, I just, I'll just bet on the best players in the series. We'll see how much Ford is able to get away with in this series. And that's one thing I always wonder about in the Cup final, refs trying to stay out of the way. And by doing that, they kind of get in the way by not calling the game to a fair level. We'll see. Tomorrow is game one. And we'll be watching. So will you. And we'll talk to you on Monday for producers, Zach and Eddie, my co host, sat. I'm Dan. You've been listening to Canucks Central.
