73 Percent Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 15 minutes ago, CanuckinEdm said: Leon Draisaitl is the perfect example for this. He played 37 games so the Oilers lost a year of his ELC (9 games) but because they sent him down at 37 games they didn't lose a year of his RFA status. Does anyone know why we would be burning a year of his ELC if he would be playing under 9 games is it because he isnt a Jr. player so we cant send him down to get the contract slide? Because he has the option to sign with us or not. It's a bargaining tactic on his part. Hey Brock. Sign with us. Okay. If you let me burn a year of my ELC. So I can make some money now. And more money in 2 years. No. Okay I'll play for Chicago then. See how that could play out? It's his one bargaining chip. He'd be stupid not to use it. He's our best prospect wed be stupid not to let him. that's why. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VanIslander89 Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 1 hour ago, Rollieo Del Fuego said: If Boeser signs now and burns a year off his ELC it could be good for the cap space....in 2 years he could be worth 3-5 million for say 5 years but in 3 years he could be worth 4-7 million for 5 or more years. Look at Horvat if we had signed him last year to a long term contract he might have taken 3-4 million and now he is worth north of 5 M. on a long term deal. I think you mentioned this reasoning to me in a couple pages previous, but you are aware that we could've signed Horvat last year anyways? July 1st he has been eligible for an extension, the same time he would be RFA in your theory. You can burn a year and it helps, you can burn a year and it bites. All this talk about trying to convince ol' Brock to sign here, for all we know he's excited as hell at the thought of even inking an ELC, let alone dictating where he's going to start etc etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanuckinEdm Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 19 minutes ago, Gooseberries said: Because he has the option to sign with us or not. It's a bargaining tactic on his part. Hey Brock. Sign with us. Okay. If you let me burn a year of my ELC. So I can make some money now. And more money in 2 years. No. Okay I'll play for Chicago then. See how that could play out? It's his one bargaining chip. He'd be stupid not to use it. He's our best prospect wed be stupid not to let him. that's why. Every prospect has the choice to sign or not to sign with their drafted team its not a thing that NCAA players are only able to do. The rule is at 22 years old a drafted player that is unsigned can become a UFA. This makes it much easier for a college player because they can play 4 years of NCAA making them 22. A CHL drafted player has less options they can only play until they are 20 years old. To become a UFA they have to re-enter the draft at 20, if they go undrafted they become a UFA but if they get drafted again they would need to sit around for a year until they turn 22 to become a UFA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruffy05 Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 59 minutes ago, CanuckinEdm said: Leon Draisaitl is the perfect example for this. He played 37 games so the Oilers lost a year of his ELC (9 games) but because they sent him down at 37 games they didn't lose a year of his RFA status. Does anyone know why we would be burning a year of his ELC if he would be playing under 9 games is it because he isnt a Jr. player so we cant send him down to get the contract slide? I believe it is an age thing since he is not 18/19 anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
73 Percent Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 13 minutes ago, CanuckinEdm said: Every prospect has the choice to sign or not to sign with their drafted team its not a thing that NCAA players are only able to do. The rule is at 22 years old a drafted player that is unsigned can become a UFA. This makes it much easier for a college player because they can play 4 years of NCAA making them 22. A CHL drafted player has less options they can only play until they are 20 years old. To become a UFA they have to re-enter the draft at 20, if they go undrafted they become a UFA but if they get drafted again they would need to sit around for a year until they turn 22 to become a UFA. Again looking at it through the eyes of Boeser if he can get to a real contract sooner why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 2 hours ago, Scruffy05 said: The point is kinda moot. He's 20 years old now so the 27-7 ruling comes out in the wash (he will be a UFA at 27 regardless if he burns this year or not, I believe). So because of his college past we, as long as he doesn't Vesey out, have exclusive negotiating rights with him until he is 27. You can make a sound argument that he is likely to be a lot cheaper to sign after 2 years + 1 game of pro experience at the age of 22 then at 3 years of pro experience at the age of 23 and averaged out it is actually a bargain for us. And if he lights it on fire and forces our hand to pay him bank then that is a very nice problem to have. Yup. Vancouver's also not bound to be a good team the next couple years either which could/should keep his production down somewhat as well. That third year we could very well be back on an upswing, with him also being more developed, increasing his production and hence increasing his pay day. If he re-signs after his 2nd year instead, it could very well work out far better for us. So I don't really care if we burn a year or not. Both have their pro's and cons and if that's the cost of ensuring he signs now I'm not losing any sleep over it. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rollieo Del Fuego Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 2 hours ago, VanIslander89 said: I think you mentioned this reasoning to me in a couple pages previous, but you are aware that we could've signed Horvat last year anyways? July 1st he has been eligible for an extension, the same time he would be RFA in your theory. You can burn a year and it helps, you can burn a year and it bites. All this talk about trying to convince ol' Brock to sign here, for all we know he's excited as hell at the thought of even inking an ELC, let alone dictating where he's going to start etc etc. Horvat was just an example, his situation is different because he is actually playing 3 years of his ELC, I was just using him as an example of what can happen if he was in Brocks' shoes....so...not sure what your talking about..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
numb3r 16 Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 2 hours ago, Gooseberries said: Because he has the option to sign with us or not. It's a bargaining tactic on his part. Hey Brock. Sign with us. Okay. If you let me burn a year of my ELC. So I can make some money now. And more money in 2 years. No. Okay I'll play for Chicago then. See how that could play out? It's his one bargaining chip. He'd be stupid not to use it. He's our best prospect wed be stupid not to let him. that's why. First of all even if we decline signing him u to an ELC this year he only misses his paycheck for 1 year. Waiting to enter free agency wouldnt make sense because he would have to wait an additional 2 years to get to that point where he enters free agency. Brock is a character guy I don't see him ruining his great reputation by doing that. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancaster Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 6 hours ago, Freeridebc said: He'll sign. Say he for whatever reason doesn't though, the NHL will eventually have to do something to prevent that loop hole imo They should have it that the team that do sign that player needs to compensate the original drafting team with picks or choice of some prospects. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 1 minute ago, Lancaster said: They should have it that the team that do sign that player needs to compensate the original drafting team with picks or choice of some prospects. They already have the compensation rule for not being able to sign first rounders. I think it's a 2nd rounder? I guess they figure that's enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancaster Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 Just now, DeNiro said: They already have the compensation rule for not being able to sign first rounders. I think it's a 2nd rounder? I guess they figure that's enough. True, but the 2nd is worth less than the 1st on paper. A team shouldn't be forced to have their asset depreciate just because that player doesn't sign and is picked up by another team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post HomeBrew Posted March 22, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted March 22, 2017 (edited) 20 minutes ago, Lancaster said: True, but the 2nd is worth less than the 1st on paper. A team shouldn't be forced to have their asset depreciate just because that player doesn't sign and is picked up by another team. I think they should have a "offer-sheet" type of scale. For instance, Jimmy Vesey signed a 3.775 per year contract with the New York Rangers which includes a .925 base and a 2.850 bonus. If it was considered an "offer-sheet" this would of put the contract just barely in the $3,755,233 to $5,632,847 range and the Nashville Predators would be compensated a 1st and a 3rd round pick. Something structured along those lines might work better for these scenarios and deter players from not signing and teams from poaching. Edited March 22, 2017 by HomeBrew 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chickenman92 Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 23 minutes ago, Lancaster said: True, but the 2nd is worth less than the 1st on paper. A team shouldn't be forced to have their asset depreciate just because that player doesn't sign and is picked up by another team. I think GMs should do their homework when drafting a player and know what the likelihood of the player signing is before using a No. 1 pick on the player. I know that's not always easy, but that's what they are paid to do. As for the 2nd not being fair, most of the time when a team gets the compensation pick it's because they don't want the player, ie, Patrick White. An additional 2nd is worth way more than a player like White. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tas Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 just extend the amount of time a team owns the players rights for by a year, so that rather than graduating and immediately becoming a ufa they would have to sit out a year in order to get that status. if they sign in a different pro league, that extra year of rights control slides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HomeBrew Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 16 minutes ago, tas said: just extend the amount of time a team owns the players rights for by a year, so that rather than graduating and immediately becoming a ufa they would have to sit out a year in order to get that status. if they sign in a different pro league, that extra year of rights control slides. Some players will sit out regardless - look at R.J. Umberger for instance. Did not sign with the Canucks and sat out an entire year before we traded him to the New York Rangers on March 9th 2004. Ultimately, he ended up sitting it out three months longer until he was able to sign as a free agent with Philadelphia on June 16th 2004. We lost out on a drafted player, but managed to get some compensation before he left thankfully. Rangers lost out the most on trade, but ultimately both teams lost value because he walked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vancan2233 Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 (edited) 59 minutes ago, chickenman92 said: I think GMs should do their homework when drafting a player and know what the likelihood of the player signing is before using a No. 1 pick on the player. I know that's not always easy, but that's what they are paid to do. As for the 2nd not being fair, most of the time when a team gets the compensation pick it's because they don't want the player, ie, Patrick White. An additional 2nd is worth way more than a player like White. All players know they do not have a choose who drafts them. It an unwritten truth as a player you will do what it takes to help the team that showed the honor of drafting you. Lindros was a joke for what he was able to do to Quebec, but if the return for a player not signing was equal to the Lindros deal teams would not care. Could you image if all players were able to get away with telling teams they should not draft them. It should be a written rule that if a first round player ask for a trade before playing one game for the team that drafted him, then the team willing to take him in traded should have to over compensate. Called it the Lindros clause. Now a draft pick should also be protected if a team is not giving him every opportunity to succeed, a number of scenarios can happen in this case. Edited March 22, 2017 by vancan2233 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herberts Vasiljevs Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 Boeser is going to sign you guys. Lol. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tas Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 19 minutes ago, HomeBrew said: Some players will sit out regardless - look at R.J. Umberger for instance. Did not sign with the Canucks and sat out an entire year before we traded him to the New York Rangers on March 9th 2004. Ultimately, he ended up sitting it out three months longer until he was able to sign as a free agent with Philadelphia on June 16th 2004. We lost out on a drafted player, but managed to get some compensation before he left thankfully. Rangers lost out the most on trade, but ultimately both teams lost value because he walked. that's certainly true, but it at least creates risk on the part of both the player that's holding out and the team that signs him afterwards. a year of skating on your own is a year of lost development, a year of losing your edge and game shape, and a year where teams aren't watching you prove your worth. in the salary cap era, teams will be far more cautious than they were circa 2003. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vancan2233 Posted March 22, 2017 Share Posted March 22, 2017 Just now, Herberts Vasiljevs said: Boeser is going to sign you guys. Lol. Yes he well, but the argument has some what changed to how much or should a team be compensated for a player not signing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E. Lindros Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 If Boeser only signs to burn a year I won't agree with that but could live with it. Werenski signed an ahl deal after college last year and didn't burn a year off his elc. He then came to camp, earned a nhl spot and has had an amazing rookie season. Werenski was a top 10 pick. Boeser was a 1st rounder but not high end. Turn pro go join Utica for their playoff run then make our team next fall. That's my .02 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now