Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
- - - - -

Why Are The Vancouver Canucks Signing/PTO All These "Reclamation Projects"?


  • Please log in to reply
43 replies to this topic

#1 Pasific Coluseum

Pasific Coluseum

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 171 posts
  • Joined: 29-June 12

Posted 16 January 2013 - 01:07 PM

Since Mike Gillis has taken over GM he has had this propensity to invite washed up free agents to tryout with the Canucks at training camp in the hopes they make the team. Year after year it's the same old story with none ever making the team. Excuse me, Peter Schaeffer made the team but only lasted like a month before he was cut!

I do not agree with this philosophy because it takes away one of the Canucks prospects from actually showcasing their skills. There's a reason why old, waived, free agent players who do not have a contract are "trying out" THEY ARE NOT USEFUL ANYMORE

Now I heard our genius GM signed Cam Barker and Jim Vandermeer, 2 players that couldn't even stick on the roster of one of the worst teams last year. Not to mention they were let go even with Edmonton's weak Defense lineup. I'm also hearing rumors that the Canucks are inquiring about signing Scott Gomez in light of Booth's injury. ARE YOU FRICKEN KIDDING ME HERE...

Stop PTO and signing players who have no shot in hell making the team thus wasting both the player's and the team's time. Give the young bucks a shot. That is the future not 35-40yr old veterans with nothing left in the tank.
  • 0

#2 CookieCrumbs

CookieCrumbs

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,023 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 11

Posted 16 January 2013 - 01:15 PM

Criticizing the Canucks? Take it easy man!

Can't wait to see the homers jump in on this one.
  • 0

#3 canucklehead44

canucklehead44

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,344 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 03

Posted 16 January 2013 - 01:18 PM

Schaefer used to be an excellent penalty killer. At the time Burrows was injured so the idea was to have Schaefer take his place and then get sent down unless he peformed well. Schaefer unfortunately sucked worse than anyone could have anticipated. He was solid in the preseason and more or less earned his spot.
  • 3
Sig too big.

#4 Shift-4

Shift-4

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,452 posts
  • Joined: 11-August 06

Posted 16 January 2013 - 01:18 PM

Why Are The Vancouver Canucks Signing/PTO All These "Reclamation Projects"?



Just for poops and chuckles
  • 2
Hockey is the only sport, the rest are just games.

#5 CookieCrumbs

CookieCrumbs

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,023 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 11

Posted 16 January 2013 - 01:20 PM

Why Are The Vancouver Canucks Signing/PTO All These "Reclamation Projects"?



Just for poops and chuckles


Haha. Poops and chuckles..
  • 1

#6 canucklehead44

canucklehead44

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,344 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 03

Posted 16 January 2013 - 01:22 PM

Also Barker is worth a shot at 700K. He could be a second pairing dman if he gets his act together. Last season Edmonton took a chance with him at over 2 million.

Vandermeer isn't a reclamation project. He is a 7-8 dman and always has been. He brings toughness and can fill in a relatively solid 12-14 minutes per night. He isn't a complete flop offensively either.

Fedoruk was one of the most feared fighters and had a bit of skill, Owen Nolan wasn't too far off a very productive season in Minnesota where he scored 25 goals in less than 60 games, Brendan Morrison went on to have a productive season with Calgary. PTOs are a great way to gauage a player as they take on no risk. If a player has personal issues but the skill to be a top performer an off season of hard work and lifestyle change can do wonders. Look at a guy like Wellwood. He is the perfect 2nd line guy for low income teams. He chipped in 47 points, is solid on faceoffs, and refined his defensive game (+3).

Edited by canucklehead44, 16 January 2013 - 01:23 PM.

  • 4
Sig too big.

#7 stexx

stexx

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,234 posts
  • Joined: 19-April 08

Posted 16 January 2013 - 01:31 PM

last year they brought in a bunch of tryouts/PTO's because they didnt want the canuck players playing in preseason so they needed extra bodies.

this year with the condensed schedule they needed some veteran help on the blueline. barker battled substance abuse issues for a few years but if he could ever come close to his years in chicago gillis will look like a genius.

these guys are stopgaps to fill in if 2-3 defenseman get hurt they arent going to play much if at all. and are only needed because of the poor play of connauton so far this year.
  • 0

#8 goalie13

goalie13

    Osgoodian One

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,097 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 07

Posted 16 January 2013 - 01:35 PM

There's a big difference between the guys that are invited for a PTO and Barker / Vandemeer this year.

Have you ever noticed that the PTO deals started around the same time that the Canucks started kicking off the exhibition schedule with a split-squad game? My theory is that these guys are signed to a PTO to help fulfill the requirement to have a minimum number of players with NHL experience in every exhibition game. If one happens to get a contract out of the deal, great. Or, in the case of Brendan Morrison, it was a professional courtesy, as a long time Canuck alum, to give him the opportunity to showcase his talents while looking for a new deal.

In the case of Barker and Vandemeer, those guys were signed to contracts and, I feel, are purely depth moves to support the team in this short season.

And... just because a guy is available on waivers, doesn't mean he's washed up. Martin Gelinas was huge in the '94 run and he was a waiver wire pick up. In fact, he played another 12 seasons or so after that. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples, but he's the first one to come to mind.
  • 1
Posted Image

#9 clynch

clynch

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 286 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 11

Posted 16 January 2013 - 01:39 PM

PTO's are fine. Aside from haveing the these players to push prospects and lower liners, sometimes you just need to have the extra bodies just to have a good scrimage. And you never know, you may find that guy that trained like a demon over the summer and made big strides.
  • 0

#10 freebass

freebass

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,302 posts
  • Joined: 16-February 09

Posted 16 January 2013 - 01:43 PM

Simple...... low risk high reward.


If only say 1 out of 10 worked out, you're still ahead of the game.

Edited by freebass, 16 January 2013 - 01:45 PM.

  • 3

I never thought this forum would ever be any good but this whole penis thing is pretty awesome.


I said we lost to USA because of ARE GOALTENDING!!! do you know how to read?


#11 keslerian one

keslerian one

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,287 posts
  • Joined: 27-April 11

Posted 16 January 2013 - 01:51 PM

Two things:

1. PTOs and "reclamation projects" are cheap bets for high rewards. If they turn out great (i.e. Lappy and Higgins) great, if not, whatever.

2. Argument that these PTOs and "reclamation projects" are hindering our prospect's development is also false. Some would even argue that getting quality ice-time and a change to play important minutes with AHL affiliate is better for development.

Also, dating back to about 3 years ago, Canucks have begun resting their regulars in preseason games (minus this year of course due to lockout), and have needed more bodies to fill out roster. There is a max number of "veterans" you need to dress for preseason games, so you can't play just your prospects. The PTOs (i.e. Nolan, Fedorouk etc.) have played for the Canucks during the preseason, largely because of this rule. Again, if they work out, then great. If not, no harm.

Similarly, this season, some 2-way contracts and PTOs have been handed out because we need bodies for scrimmages and full practices to simulate game situations. Calling up prospects solely for this purpose would not really be for their "development" unless you're Corrado and have what organization would identify as inside-track to making the team in not too distant future. In another words, Canucks simply don't have a lot of prospects outside of Tanev, Kassian, Schroeder and Corrado - all of whom are with the team now.
  • 1

#12 dorrcoq

dorrcoq

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,037 posts
  • Joined: 12-September 05

Posted 16 January 2013 - 01:55 PM

"...it takes away one of the Canucks prospects from actually showcasing their skills"

And who exactly isn't being given a chance to showcase whatever limited amount of skills they have.
  • 0

#13 5minutesinthebox

5minutesinthebox

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,675 posts
  • Joined: 27-November 09

Posted 16 January 2013 - 01:56 PM

Haha. Poops and chuckles..


Haha Coops and Puckles!
  • 0

#14 Wheels22

Wheels22

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,074 posts
  • Joined: 19-January 12

Posted 16 January 2013 - 02:02 PM

Was he serious when he said the Canucks were interested in Gomez.....?
  • 2

#15 SkeeterHansen

SkeeterHansen

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,140 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 11

Posted 16 January 2013 - 02:05 PM

"Reclamation Projects" or "Depth Additions"?

I prefer the latter.
  • 0

/=S=/


#16 Kassian's Tooth

Kassian's Tooth

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,302 posts
  • Joined: 10-January 09

Posted 16 January 2013 - 02:09 PM

Simple really. Terrible drafting = terrible prospects. That is all.
  • 1

#17 disisdayear

disisdayear

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 528 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 16 January 2013 - 02:24 PM

Since Mike Gillis has taken over GM he has had this propensity to invite washed up free agents to tryout with the Canucks at training camp in the hopes they make the team. Year after year it's the same old story with none ever making the team. Excuse me, Peter Schaeffer made the team but only lasted like a month before he was cut!

I do not agree with this philosophy because it takes away one of the Canucks prospects from actually showcasing their skills. There's a reason why old, waived, free agent players who do not have a contract are "trying out" THEY ARE NOT USEFUL ANYMORE

Now I heard our genius GM signed Cam Barker and Jim Vandermeer, 2 players that couldn't even stick on the roster of one of the worst teams last year. Not to mention they were let go even with Edmonton's weak Defense lineup. I'm also hearing rumors that the Canucks are inquiring about signing Scott Gomez in light of Booth's injury. ARE YOU FRICKEN KIDDING ME HERE...

Stop PTO and signing players who have no shot in hell making the team thus wasting both the player's and the team's time. Give the young bucks a shot. That is the future not 35-40yr old veterans with nothing left in the tank.


Here are a few points to consider:

(1) Neither Barker nor Vandermeer are 35-40 year olds as you cite.

(2) It's obvious that depth guys like Alberts and Joslin need to be pushed; so why not add a couple of veterans with proven track records to do that? The thought of having Joslin as the no. 8 guy on the depth chart doesn't wreak a whole lot of confidence to me.

(3) It's an admission that kids like Connauton, Sauve and Corrado are not ready for the NHL. So, when you're trying to win now, wouldn't you rather have guys with more advanced competencies, especially NHL game experience as your depth guys vs. untried/unproven young guys?

(4) To point (3), bringing in guys like Barker and Vandermeer gives you a chance to develop the young guys in the system without rushing them (though I would agree if you made the argument that Connauton/Sauve have been around long enough to have shown what they can do).

(5) At the contract rates that Barker and Vandermeer (and others on PTO) are brought in, why not take the "risk"? If they turn out good, that's great...if they don't work out, what's the downside? Very little, and you still have your prospects to develop.

I'd sign Gomez at the league minimum in a heart beat if he were available and willing...what's the worst that could happen? He doesn't work out and gets sent to the minors with zero cap consequence...wow the sky is falling...Aquillini family's net worth is threatened by this...wooooo.
  • 0

#18 spentral

spentral

    K-Wing Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 59 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 12

Posted 16 January 2013 - 02:28 PM

barker isnt 35-40 and neither is vandermeer (32). the red wings have been doing the whole reclamation thing for years, to great success. and the fact you can add without subtracting for low cap, and even in vandermeers case a 2 way contract, is awesome!!! i think normally it would be just a camp tryout, not necessarily a contract, but watch how fast remaining ufa d-men are going to go to new homes. smart move to get the depth quickly, because those two players would be gone by now in my opinion
  • 0

#19 forklift_ole

forklift_ole

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 360 posts
  • Joined: 20-November 09

Posted 16 January 2013 - 02:30 PM

PTO doesn't mean they take a roster spot. There is plenty of room in the pre-season to see what players have left in the tank, they could turn out to be total steals. And it's not like the Canucks are the only team doing it, I'd be shocked if there was a team in the league that didn't hand out a couple of PTOs every year. As for Vandermeer and Barker, short seasons are notorious for injuries, you're gonna love that depth if Edler and Hamhuis go down with sprains, pulls, or breaks.

I'd totally take Gomez to take as a second line center. Yeah, he doesn't put up points like he used to, but he's a great center and a great leader with a ton of post-season experience. People think Gomez is terrible only because of his contract, if he was getting paid 2mil or less he'd be well respected.

Edited by forklift_ole, 16 January 2013 - 02:30 PM.

  • 0

#20 WeDreamOfStanley

WeDreamOfStanley

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 369 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 11

Posted 16 January 2013 - 02:34 PM

Well... looks like every response in here should shed some light onto your narrow point of view OP.
  • 0

#21 jatylo

jatylo

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 173 posts
  • Joined: 28-October 11

Posted 16 January 2013 - 02:39 PM

Only real answer i can give to this is "you never know". One teams philosophy might make or break certain players. Who knew Martin St.Louis and Datsyuk would have been a first line stars 10 years ago. Yes the majority don't become anything but a few do make an impact.

You can lead a horse to water but doesnt mean it will drink it. Barker has shown he has talent but that doesn't mean he will use it effectively. Vandemeer is a solid 3rd pairing dman.

Again to answer your question You never know.

Edited by jatylo, 16 January 2013 - 02:44 PM.

  • 0

#22 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,875 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 16 January 2013 - 02:41 PM

Cheap low risk contracts?

Why not?
  • 0

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#23 WHL rocks

WHL rocks

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,615 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 16 January 2013 - 02:44 PM

For trying out for the team and for having extra bodies at practice.

No harm just benefits.
  • 0

#24 CowtownCanuck

CowtownCanuck

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,387 posts
  • Joined: 08-March 08

Posted 16 January 2013 - 02:47 PM

Watch the movie Moneyball, that's the theory that Gillis is working from. There was a lot of talk about the concept when we hired him, the movie helps put it into perspective, complete with the almost making it in the playoffs.
  • 0



#25 Gonz

Gonz

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 715 posts
  • Joined: 08-March 11

Posted 16 January 2013 - 02:58 PM

Maybe bc canucks don't have alot young prospects compared to other teams that contribute to the team, so they need ptos hoping be cheap salary that can contribute
  • 0

#26 sharnhayre

sharnhayre

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,615 posts
  • Joined: 20-July 07

Posted 16 January 2013 - 03:10 PM

Nothing wrong with bringing in NHL calibre players to push the existing players to be better. Internal competition is the best kind of competition. No job should ever feel safe on the team... Players need to know that if they dont perform, someone is waiting in the wing to take their spot... A little pressure is what they need to stay motivated.
  • 0

#27 DCR

DCR

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 329 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 10

Posted 16 January 2013 - 03:11 PM

It's simple enough: most of these players are just coming off contracts where they were overvalued, and their perceived value has dropped through the floor. The Canucks look at the underlying numbers and see if these formerly overvalued players might currently be undervalued.

It's a moneypuck game. The risk is low, and while a great reward isn't likely, if it does pay off it's worth it because the risk was so low.
  • 0

#28 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,024 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 16 January 2013 - 03:22 PM

Since Mike Gillis has taken over GM he has had this propensity to invite washed up free agents to tryout with the Canucks at training camp in the hopes they make the team. Year after year it's the same old story with none ever making the team. Excuse me, Peter Schaeffer made the team but only lasted like a month before he was cut!

I do not agree with this philosophy because it takes away one of the Canucks prospects from actually showcasing their skills. There's a reason why old, waived, free agent players who do not have a contract are "trying out" THEY ARE NOT USEFUL ANYMORE

Now I heard our genius GM signed Cam Barker and Jim Vandermeer, 2 players that couldn't even stick on the roster of one of the worst teams last year. Not to mention they were let go even with Edmonton's weak Defense lineup. I'm also hearing rumors that the Canucks are inquiring about signing Scott Gomez in light of Booth's injury. ARE YOU FRICKEN KIDDING ME HERE...

Stop PTO and signing players who have no shot in hell making the team thus wasting both the player's and the team's time. Give the young bucks a shot. That is the future not 35-40yr old veterans with nothing left in the tank.


1 - PTO's cost the team nothing. On occassion they even work out.

2 - How can MG sign Gomez when he's still under contract to Montreal?
  • 0
Posted Image

#29 Aladeen

Aladeen

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,312 posts
  • Joined: 22-September 07

Posted 16 January 2013 - 03:26 PM

Haha Coops and Puckles!

Shouldn't it be Choops and Puckles or Coops and Phuckles?
  • 0
Posted Image

#30 CCF4E

CCF4E

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,505 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 06

Posted 16 January 2013 - 03:47 PM

1 - PTO's cost the team nothing. On occassion they even work out.

2 - How can MG sign Gomez when he's still under contract to Montreal?

He's in the process of being bought out for this season.
  • 0
Posted Image

Ehrhoff isn't from europe....





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.