-Vintage Canuck- Posted February 24, 2017 Share Posted February 24, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monty Posted February 24, 2017 Share Posted February 24, 2017 Great contract for the Blues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coryberg Posted February 24, 2017 Share Posted February 24, 2017 Market value @kingofsurrey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofsurrey Posted February 24, 2017 Share Posted February 24, 2017 17 minutes ago, coryberg said: Market value @kingofsurrey Probably a bit better of a player than Brandon Sutter and on a slightly cheaper deal / contract than sutter... Decent contract by the blues... I thought they were shopping him earlier this year... Maybe was a bargaining ploy.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glory_Days Posted February 24, 2017 Share Posted February 24, 2017 Good contract, especially since he was to become a UFA and not RFA. I thought Sobotka was wanting to come back over to Blues when his contract in KHL is done? Center position is a bit crowded there no? Stastny Lehtera Berglund Sobotka One of Berg or Sobotka takes Lehtera's spot on 2nd line and they just let Lehtera walk? He's been trending downward since his 1st year in league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Blight Posted February 24, 2017 Share Posted February 24, 2017 12 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said: Probably a bit better of a player than Brandon Sutter and on a slightly cheaper deal / contract than sutter... Decent contract by the blues... I thought they were shopping him earlier this year... Maybe was a bargaining ploy.... What part of Berglund's game is better than Sutter's? Really strange how CDC sees this as a good contract for the Blues but if the Canucks offer a 5 year contract to a 28 year old it is automatically a bad contract and our GM must have lost his mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofsurrey Posted February 24, 2017 Share Posted February 24, 2017 4 minutes ago, Rick Blight said: What part of Berglund's game is better than Sutter's? Really strange how CDC sees this as a good contract for the Blues but if the Canucks offer a 5 year contract to a 28 year old it is automatically a bad contract and our GM must have lost his mind. I said decent contract.... Not a good contract. I think Berglund is a bit bigger body that Sutter. Bit better stick handler..... Has more goals scored over his career but their numbers are not far off. Both have a great shot and good 2 way game / good versatility also. Primarily i don't see St louis and Vancouver in the same spot right now as clubs.. Vancouver is not competing at the same level as the Blues are for the next 5 years. Thats mostly why i think the contract is decent for the blues.... I think Vancouver needs to be collecting younger pieces....and many more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted February 24, 2017 Share Posted February 24, 2017 6 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said: Primarily i don't see St louis and Vancouver in the same spot right now as clubs.. Vancouver is not competing at the same level as the Blues are for the next 5 years. That's also likely one of the reasons Berg's contract is less. Guys sign on contenders for less money. #Context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smokes Posted February 24, 2017 Share Posted February 24, 2017 13 minutes ago, Rick Blight said: What part of Berglund's game is better than Sutter's? Really strange how CDC sees this as a good contract for the Blues but if the Canucks offer a 5 year contract to a 28 year old it is automatically a bad contract and our GM must have lost his mind. CDC likes to underrate thier players while they are playing for the team and over rate thier players when they are on the trading block. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Blight Posted February 24, 2017 Share Posted February 24, 2017 4 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said: I said decent contract.... Not a good contract. I think Berglund is a bit bigger body that Sutter. Bit better stick handler..... Has more goals scored over his career but their numbers are not far off. Both have a great shot. Primarily i don't see St louis and Vancouver in the same spot right now as clubs.. Vancouver is not competing at the same level as the Blues are for the next 5 years. Thats mostly why i think the contract is decent for the blues.... I think Vancouver needs to be collecting younger pieces....and many more. St. Louis has more players over 30 than the Canucks. Craig Button's list of top 50 not yet in the NHL has 4 Canucks, tied for most of any teams. Given this, I don't see the Blues being in a better position to compete for the next 5 years but 5 years out is pretty much unpredictable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tre Mac Posted February 24, 2017 Share Posted February 24, 2017 NTC/NMC? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coryberg Posted February 24, 2017 Share Posted February 24, 2017 59 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said: Probably a bit better of a player than Brandon Sutter and on a slightly cheaper deal / contract than sutter... Decent contract by the blues... I thought they were shopping him earlier this year... Maybe was a bargaining ploy.... -Sutter is almost a year younger. -Sutter is averaging 19:50 TOI Berglund is avergaing 15:38 -Sutter is 55.5% on the draw Berglund is 49.9% -Sutter is the better penalty killer of the 2 -points wise, shot blocks, injury wise they are pretty much a wash -Berglund hits more How is it that sutters contract sucks but this contract is decent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fanuck Posted February 24, 2017 Share Posted February 24, 2017 Blues trying to get a better handle on their financial cap situation before the trade talks heat-up I'm guessing. If unloading Shattenkirk means they'll have to take on a dead-weight contract as part of the return I'm sure they'd like to know what they have to spend on their current roster as best they can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofsurrey Posted February 24, 2017 Share Posted February 24, 2017 19 minutes ago, coryberg said: -Sutter is almost a year younger. -Sutter is averaging 19:50 TOI Berglund is avergaing 15:38 -Sutter is 55.5% on the draw Berglund is 49.9% -Sutter is the better penalty killer of the 2 -points wise, shot blocks, injury wise they are pretty much a wash -Berglund hits more How is it that sutters contract sucks but this contract is decent? Both contracts are bit an overpayment for a 3 C and both contracts are too much term. Both deals will probably not look great 2-3 years from now...... I don't see the Canucks competing for the next 3-4 years so i question why spend that kind of money on a 3 C for Vancouver... Hopefully in the next year or 2 Gaunce can move up to play 3 C. Love Gaunces defensive side of his game and his skating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-AJ- Posted February 24, 2017 Share Posted February 24, 2017 Similar kind of player offensively to Sutter and Granlund. Not a bad deal at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaudette Celly Posted February 24, 2017 Share Posted February 24, 2017 52 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said: I don't see the Canucks competing for the next 3-4 years so i question why spend that kind of money on a 3 C for Vancouver... Hopefully in the next year or 2 Gaunce can move up to play 3 C. Love Gaunces defensive side of his game and his skating. Because amongst other reasons, you cannot ice a team of players 23 and under with a payroll of $35mil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofsurrey Posted February 24, 2017 Share Posted February 24, 2017 Just now, Hutton Wink said: Because amongst other reasons, you cannot ice a team of players 23 and under with a payroll of $35mil. I would have rather seen that money go for a 1 C or a 2 C . Sorry teams like ours should be spending on top 6 forwards that we have such a shortage in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaudette Celly Posted February 24, 2017 Share Posted February 24, 2017 8 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said: I would have rather seen that money go for a 1 C or a 2 C . 1. Which 1 or 2C should we have got? 2. How many 1 and 2Cs make that salary? Sutter is perpetually one of the top players in icetime as it is, so he's a defacto 2C regardless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofsurrey Posted February 24, 2017 Share Posted February 24, 2017 5 minutes ago, Hutton Wink said: 1. Which 1 or 2C should we have got? 2. How many 1 and 2Cs make that salary? Sutter is perpetually one of the top players in icetime as it is, so he's a defacto 2C regardless. On a weak team like the Canucks yes he is. On a contender , Sutter would be 3 C. What is the point of spending to the Cap when you still finish 27th - 30th ? We have actually locked in too much dollars / long term cap space into Erickson and Sutter... over 10 mil a year for these 2. Long term deals.... That may hamper Canucks ability to bring in a more expensive Elite forward top line talent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaudette Celly Posted February 24, 2017 Share Posted February 24, 2017 26 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said: On a weak team like the Canucks yes he is. On a contender , Sutter would be 3 C. What is the point of spending to the Cap when you still finish 27th - 30th ? We have actually locked in too much dollars / long term cap space into Erickson and Sutter... over 10 mil a year for these 2. Long term deals.... That may hamper Canucks ability to bring in a more expensive Elite forward top line talent. Fine to make assertions, but you haven't answered any questions to substantiate your claims. Who is this 1C or 2C that you suggest we should have got instead, and for that amount of salary? Plenty of salary is coming off the books the next couple of years; a non-issue. And you simply cannot ice a roster of $1-2mil ELC players in the cap era -- Vegas will be no different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.