Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

VanGnome

Roy is not a rental, Booth won't be bought out next year

151 posts in this topic

Worst case scenario, having a team take one of Ballard's or Booths contracts could be an alternative to a late pick coming our way (to even up the value in a trade).

Question: Is there any rule preventing this kind of scenario? (assume, for sake of argument, both players waive NTC)

TRADE:

PHI - Booth

VAN- Briere

Both players bought out

Van signs Booth to a cheaper contract

Phi signs Briere to a cheaper contract

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There should be

F the cap decrease... wtf is this bull... as soon as canucks become a wealthy organization they put a cap? F the NHL ...

All those years I watched Detroit n avs hammer us and we spent half the money they did and now we get screwed because of the cap ...

Sorry had to vent. I hate the cap

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it possible Booth may take a pay cut since he has had injury plagued seasons here and has not really played to his potential? Arbitration much like Raymond? Or do I have the whole concept wrong?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it possible Booth may take a pay cut since he has had injury plagued seasons here and has not really played to his potential? Arbitration much like Raymond? Or do I have the whole concept wrong?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

florida will not take luongo without dumping a crap contract back on us ...they dont have the money .. luongo is set to make more money next year than all 3 of their goalies made this year.... if luongo goes to florida we are going to end up with jovo or campbell... and gillis and the coaching staff didnt think Kconn was as good as us fans think he is or else they wouldnt have went out and signed barker when most of us believed kconn could easily be playing over barker ballard and alberts and never got his chance. so as we might see it as gillis gave up alot to get Roy im sure gillis doesnt see it that way.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But won't that get in the way of your argument?

At one point during the game (around the second period mark), when Derek Roy was on the ice, the Canucks had 11 shots for and 0 against. I'd say he was just fine. Kind of hard to get scored on when you don't allow the other team to get a shot....

Dan Murphy@sportsnetmurph12h

Nice first impression. "@ThomasDrance: #Canucks up to 11 shots for and 0 against with Derek Roy on the ice."

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd rather keep Raymond than Booth. Furthermore, I'd rather keep Ballard than Booth.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do people keep insisting we keep Booth? He is no where near worth the 4.250/yr. Just get rid of his contract, and use that money on someone that is more of a guarentee, rather than someone who MIGHT.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All we got to do is get rid of Edler for a guy that can play defence and we'll fine, both player and cap wise.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a lot of assumptions in there. What if the young guys aren't ready?

Also, I'd rather have Raymond at 2.5-3.5 than have Booth at 4.25

Booth will need to go if you want to keep Roy.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gillis kept Luongo because he thinks he is going to cash in prior to the draft.

That marks one full year where Gillis has tried to dump his contract.

If I were the owner there is no way I am paying out Ballard and Luo just so the GM can continue on.

It is now the draft or bust for Gillis. Don't be surprised if the owners express their opinion should Gillis blow it again.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only problem is that once you buyout a player, you don't have the ability to trade them. You could do it if you had an understanding but they wouldn't be legally bound to do what you hope. You could just end up buying out a guy who goes elsewhere and you get nothing in return. The only reason I think a deal could be done this way is if both players are genuinely interested in playing for the other team because they're contenders/they have a relationship with some staff or players/etc. Bad contracts or not, we're not talking Gomez or Redden contracts here. Guys might be over-paid but that hardly means their bad and other teams won't want them.

So yes it's possible, and yes it could work really well but a few things have to fall into place to have it happen. I think the redeeming factor is that because guys are going to be bought out league wide and every good team is going to have holes, there will be deals to be made that fit this model.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me break it down to you: (and the other guy that didn't get it)

Vancouver trades Booth to Philadelphia in exchange for Danny Briere.

Vancouver buys out Briere. Philadelphia buys out Booth.

Vancouver signs Booth to a lower cap hit contract.

Philadelphia signs Briere to a lower cap hit contract.

Neither player actually moves from one team to the other, it's just a shuffle of contracts with a couple of amnesty buyouts and being re-signed by their "former" teams. It's kind of ingenious really.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like it. But could the league crack down on the Canucks for cap circumvention and we lose draft picks?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's going to be unrestricted, not that it wouldn't be a good idea to have three good centers, it's just that he is unlikely to choose vancouver if he's getting third line mins.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man, wtf are you blethering about with "behind the keyboard" garbage?

I say what I think. If it's too much for you then find another forum or stop stalking me and get a life. If you have a hard on for Roy after one OK game.......fine but don't girn at people who prefer to see how a player pans out after a few games before they start wetting their pants and dolling out $6M/ contracts.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that its only one game.. But Roy is a seasoned veteran. What we see is what we can expect. His biggest contribution is that of balancing the Canucks offence and allowing Kesler to fully commit to playing a shutdown role if need be, aswell as being a center that will help his wingers to generate offence.... THis is something that Kesler lacks.

I also think he'll be re-signed as long as he likes it here and the Nucks find a way to free up the necessary $$ and term, which they will as long as theyre happy with the on ice results. HOWEVER, there also looks to be a few other centers available... Ribeiro, Bozak, Weiss to name a few.... could water down Roys options.

I also see Booth returning next season. He'll be next years May Ray, especially given the opportunity to play with Roy, he could put up some very respectable numbers while having a strong physical and net presence.

Ballard, Lui, Alberts and MayRay will all be gone next season, should be enough there to re-up with Roy, Lappy, Tanev, and Lack

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm looking forward to seeing Roy, but I think it's a little too soon to be saying we need to ship off proven Canucks to keep him. Let's wait a bit and see. Even he hasn't said for sure he wants to stay here. Everyone just needs a little time to test out the fit.

Even still, why would you keep Booth but get rid of Raymond? Raymond will likely be cheaper but with more point production. I like Booth's game this year and I fully expect him to continue to improve when he returns, but so far he can't find the back of the net with a treasure map. He needed 2 shots and an assist to get an empty netter! Raymond is the way better option.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.