[Speculation] Canucks exposing Biega as a forward?!

[Canuck Surfer]

On ‎3‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 7:36 AM, mll said:

They need 2Fs that are under contract for next season and who have played the 40/70 games.  Right now they have none.  Dorsett might not qualify because he missed too many games.  So they need to get 2 Fs who have played the minimum games under contract by expansion draft.

 

Megna and Skille are UFA and they might not want to bring them back.  Boucher and Shore are RFAs but don't have the minimum games.  
Edit: Boucher needs 4 more games.

 

So it leaves to sign 2 between Cramarossa, Chaput and Gaunce (all three RFAs) by the expansion draft.  They might not want to bring back Cramarossa (apparently he was claimed to replace injured Skille and not recall someone from Utica).  Chaput has arbitration rights - so if he elects arbitration he won't be signed on time.

I'm pretty sure unsigned RFA's still count. As their rights are still retained.

 

[mll]

6 minutes ago, Canuck Surfer said:

I'm pretty sure unsigned RFA's still count. As their rights are still retained.

 

There is a different wording for the goalie to be exposed and the 2Fs + 1D.  They specify that the goalie can be qualified but for the 2Fs + 1D they write that they have to be signed.  CapFriendly has been clarifying a few things with the league (re Nylander, Shinkaruk) so I would guess that they verified that too.

 

On 3/23/2017 at 10:15 AM, mll said:

For the minimum requirements the 2Fs + 1D have to be signed to a contract for 2017/18 and a qualifying offer is not sufficient.  The qualifying offer is only sufficient for the goalie.

 

This is from CapFriendly, I have protected the 7Fs + 3Ds and you can see that the Canucks have not met the requirements on F.  The only one they have meeting the requirement is Dorsett but he might not qualify as he will miss more than 60 games so they probably need to sign 2Fs and not just 1F by expansion draft. 

 

PROTECTED	F EXPOSURE REQ	D EXPOSURE REQ	G EXPOSURE REQ
7F / 3D / 1G : 7/3/1 8FD / 1G : 10/1	1/2	2/1	1/1

 

 

 

[Canuck Surfer]

Just now, mll said:

There is a different wording for the goalie to be exposed and the 2Fs + 1D.  They specify that the goalie can be qualified but for the 2Fs + 1D they write that they have to be signed.  CapFriendly has been clarifying a few things with the league (re Nylander, Shinkaruk) so I would guess that they verified that too.

 

I stand corrected, thanks Mll

[CeeBee51]

12 minutes ago, Canuck Surfer said:

I stand corrected, thanks Mll

Is not  Mll our resident capologist and general rule person? 

[Baggins]

5 hours ago, lmm said:

First off I do not think this is a mountain, but rather a situation where preparedness is again being exposed.

Baggins I thought you had a better grasp of the rules and what it means to run a "class organisation"

Correct me if I am wrong but I do not believe that a team can qualify a player and impose a time limit of June 18 on it.

Megna and Skille are both UFAs and can choose to take their services where ever they like. That narrows it to 3 players the Canucks can "Hardball" with the threat of banishment, but (I believe) not if they are qualified. Is the threat of banishment a sign of character that JB wants to show potential incoming players? JB has not shown himself to be a "My way or the Highway" type GM, that is more Burkie's style.  

Again it is not a mountain, but a position of power is not the position of potential banishment to the detriment of both the player and the team, but rather the position of power comes with the position of preparedness.

Hardball is a possibility but as I said, most of those guys will be happy to have a contract for next year. None are exactly "high ticket" free agents with a lot of bargaining power. I don't think Benning will have a problem signing any of them prior to the expansion draft and he only needs one. As it stands Sbisa is the most likely target for Vegas anyway. Possibly Miller if he's interested in moving. Miller would be a good short term solution in goal for an expansion team.

[hammertime]

On March 21, 2017 at 2:06 PM, ForsbergTheGreat said:

It's purely a meet guidelines move

 

Forwards	2	under contract in 2017-18, AND played in 40 or more NHL games last season, OR played in 70 or more NHL games in the last two seasons
Defense	1	under contract in 2017-18, AND played in 40 or more NHL games last season, OR played in 70 or more NHL games in the last two seasons
Goalies	1	under contract in 2017-18, OR who’s contract is expiring & is an RFA in 2017-18

 

 

Gaunce is the only forward we have in that criteria to meet the forward requirement,  Dorsett is LTIR so he becomes exempt.

 

That leaves canucks with 2 options

Sign a forward to an extension (megna, Chaput, Skillet) or,

qualify Biega as a forward

 

It has nothing to do with who will be protected, and it doesn't change that one of the following will still be claimed at the draft:

 

Gaunce, Sbisa, Larsen, Biega, Skilled,Chaput Megna, Miller, Rodin, Boucher, Pedan

I still don't get the advantage unless the plan is to trade Biega for a 5th to somewhere so they can expose him as a fwd? Seems like too much fumbling for what Biega would return via trade. I also don't think JB is crafty enough to be pulling some big ED circumvention scheme GMMG and Gillman I would certainly expect it from though.

 

I would think pre ED JB trades Eddie as he doesn't really fit the mould of the new team identity we are growing on the backend and expose Gaunce ;.( Chaput, Biega. Vegas grabs Gaunce which sucks because I think he will turn into one heck of  shutdown player but honestly not that hard to replace. As much as I like Gaunce if he is the biggest piece left for Vegas to grab JB has done his job. 

[elvis15]

On 3/24/2017 at 11:44 AM, lmm said:

First off I do not think this is a mountain, but rather a situation where preparedness is again being exposed.

Baggins I thought you had a better grasp of the rules and what it means to run a "class organisation"

Correct me if I am wrong but I do not believe that a team can qualify a player and impose a time limit of June 18 on it.

Megna and Skille are both UFAs and can choose to take their services where ever they like. That narrows it to 3 players the Canucks can "Hardball" with the threat of banishment, but (I believe) not if they are qualified. Is the threat of banishment a sign of character that JB wants to show potential incoming players? JB has not shown himself to be a "My way or the Highway" type GM, that is more Burkie's style.  

Again it is not a mountain, but a position of power is not the position of potential banishment to the detriment of both the player and the team, but rather the position of power comes with the position of preparedness.

It's not like they won't offer them a fair deal if the QO isn't enough. That's not to say it'll be much - they're fringe players after all, which is Baggins' point - but if they aren't willing to sign then there'd certainly be no worry about not signing them at all. It's not like we'll get a lot of offers to trade for their rights.

[lmm]

2 hours ago, elvis15 said:

It's not like they won't offer them a fair deal if the QO isn't enough. That's not to say it'll be much - they're fringe players after all, which is Baggins' point - but if they aren't willing to sign then there'd certainly be no worry about not signing them at all. It's not like we'll get a lot of offers to trade for their rights.

I don't understand your point here.

I did not realise Boucher was in this group, so that makes 6.

Rick Blight quoted Bill Daly back on page 7 that the potential penalty for not exposing the required players could cost a team picks or players.  Are you happy leaving this up to the league? 

We do need to sign two of the six to a contract for next year.

Possibly you could explain to me the value of leaving this situation unresolved until closer to the draft date. Does it increase Jim's negotiating stance?

[CeeBee51]

1 hour ago, lmm said:

I don't understand your point here.

I did not realise Boucher was in this group, so that makes 6.

Rick Blight quoted Bill Daly back on page 7 that the potential penalty for not exposing the required players could cost a team picks or players.  Are you happy leaving this up to the league? 

We do need to sign two of the six to a contract for next year.

Possibly you could explain to me the value of leaving this situation unresolved until closer to the draft date. Does it increase Jim's negotiating stance?

AHL/4th liners don't have much if any bargaining power. If you offered them all a one way one year deal they most likely all would take it.  You are worrying about nothing.

[lmm]

38 minutes ago, CeeBee51 said:

AHL/4th liners don't have much if any bargaining power. If you offered them all a one way one year deal they most likely all would take it.  You are worrying about nothing.

you are the third person to give me the exact same argument, so I will ask you the exact same question; Possibly you could explain to me the value of leaving this situation unresolved until closer to the draft date?

 

What me worry?

[lmm]

On 3/26/2017 at 4:01 PM, CeeBee51 said:

AHL/4th liners don't have much if any bargaining power. If you offered them all a one way one year deal they most likely all would take it.  You are worrying about nothing.

so I asked you a question a day ago, no reply?

[CeeBee51]

5 hours ago, lmm said:

so I asked you a question a day ago, no reply?

Sorry , didn't see this. Anyway I'm not Jim so I can't answer for him but I just don't see Shore, or Crammy or Skille turning down a 1 way contract. If you were Skille and you made the team at the last minute on a PTO would you not jump at the chance to have a contract for next year and not have to spend the summer trying to find a place to play?  Sorry but I just don't get your angst. If it was me maybe I'd have already signed one of them, maybe not. I have not talked to any of them so know where their head is at. Do you not suppose that maybe Jim already knows?

[Baggins]

On 2017-03-26 at 4:47 PM, lmm said:

you are the third person to give me the exact same argument, so I will ask you the exact same question; Possibly you could explain to me the value of leaving this situation unresolved until closer to the draft date?

 

What me worry?

Where's the panic? Even waiting until the end of the season they'll have two months to re-sign one fringe forward they don't really care about losing. It's not like they're going anywhere else any time soon.

[lmm]

8 hours ago, CeeBee51 said:

Sorry , didn't see this. Anyway I'm not Jim so I can't answer for him but I just don't see Shore, or Crammy or Skille turning down a 1 way contract. If you were Skille and you made the team at the last minute on a PTO would you not jump at the chance to have a contract for next year and not have to spend the summer trying to find a place to play?  Sorry but I just don't get your angst. If it was me maybe I'd have already signed one of them, maybe not. I have not talked to any of them so know where their head is at. Do you not suppose that maybe Jim already knows?

Baggins from a page back said: 

if the Canucks qualify any of them and they balk at signing - then don't sign them at all.

7 hours ago, Baggins said:

Where's the panic? Even waiting until the end of the season they'll have two months to re-sign one fringe forward they don't really care about losing. It's not like they're going anywhere else any time soon.

I am not feeling angst or panic, head clear, heart rate steady, slept well last night, not feeling the need for a smoke, drink or a dose of seratonin. I am making a case that you along with Elvis have said has no merit. I am pointing out errors in your arguments which you are not correcting or clariying.

I have asked you both what the advantage of waiting is, and CeeBee responds "Maybe Jim already knows". Not a convincing argument.

 

I quoted Baggins from a page back, where his premise is simply incorrect. Add the most recent quote where he says they only need one fringe forward. Wrong again, unless you can name the other 40/70 forward already signed. The Canucks have six choices on their roster from which they need to sign two. CeeBee, Drew Shore is not one of them and 4/6 are currently injured. 

 

Baggins adds  "they don't care about losing". The problem here is that they likely won't lose them and they will take up 2/50 roster spots through the free agency period and into next season. How good does Jim's character look signing players for the purpose of exposing them? There was pre-deadline concern that the Canucks would lose one of Sbisa, Granlund or Baertchi. But with the trading of Burrows and Hansen, Granny and Baer seem safe, however that leaves the problem that they might need to sign players that will not upgrade the roster. At least 4/6 available players have been waived this season.

 

So, no I'm not worried and I am not in a panic. I stated pre-deadline that I thought there was opportunity for a shrewd GM to make gains from other teams in the run-up to the expansion draft.

Now I'll just sit back and see if Jim is that shrewd GM or not.

 

[IBatch]

On 21/03/2017 at 4:27 PM, Where's Wellwood said:

What would that do? The expansion draft list isn't based on how many you expose but, how many you protect. Regardless if Biega is exposed as a forward, Gaunce is still exposed, and so is Sbisa.

No kidding.  I read this thread only to see what the fuss was about but there really is no fuss.  If they take Beiga is replaceable by most of the veteran AHL group who would do anything to get a chance and play hard too...Losing Sbisa would suck but only because he's one of our best Dmen now.  Better teams have more to offer Vegas and they have to pick more forwards so it's not a foregone conclusion that this will happen.  It is more likely that they would pick Biega as a forward than an defenseman so maybe Bennings made a deal already.  He would fit in with the proposed style of team they say they want.

[Baggins]

5 hours ago, lmm said:

Baggins from a page back said: 

if the Canucks qualify any of them and they balk at signing - then don't sign them at all.

I am not feeling angst or panic, head clear, heart rate steady, slept well last night, not feeling the need for a smoke, drink or a dose of seratonin. I am making a case that you along with Elvis have said has no merit. I am pointing out errors in your arguments which you are not correcting or clariying.

I have asked you both what the advantage of waiting is, and CeeBee responds "Maybe Jim already knows". Not a convincing argument.

 

I quoted Baggins from a page back, where his premise is simply incorrect. Add the most recent quote where he says they only need one fringe forward. Wrong again, unless you can name the other 40/70 forward already signed. The Canucks have six choices on their roster from which they need to sign two. CeeBee, Drew Shore is not one of them and 4/6 are currently injured. 

 

Baggins adds  "they don't care about losing". The problem here is that they likely won't lose them and they will take up 2/50 roster spots through the free agency period and into next season. How good does Jim's character look signing players for the purpose of exposing them? There was pre-deadline concern that the Canucks would lose one of Sbisa, Granlund or Baertchi. But with the trading of Burrows and Hansen, Granny and Baer seem safe, however that leaves the problem that they might need to sign players that will not upgrade the roster. At least 4/6 available players have been waived this season.

 

So, no I'm not worried and I am not in a panic. I stated pre-deadline that I thought there was opportunity for a shrewd GM to make gains from other teams in the run-up to the expansion draft.

Now I'll just sit back and see if Jim is that shrewd GM or not.

 

Dorsett will one exposed forward. His injury isn't career threatening. So they only need one more. Speaking for myself, I'd rather see a fringe player sitting in the pressbox on the roster as the extra forward than a prospect that could be getting quality time in Utica. Therefore re-signing one of the fringe guys isn't a bad thing as far as I'm concerned.

 

You see the situation as poor planning on Bennings part because he's now a forward short for expansion. I see it as smart planning moving valuable forwards that could be lost for nothing when there's other easy options to fill the requirements.

[Whaleroad Train]

I'm wondering if listing Biega as a forward is a move started by Las Vegas.  I think they are limited to the number of defencemen they can take in the draft, so getting the Canucks to list Biega as a forward would allow him to be chosen.  They would, therefore, get an extra defenceman over their allotted number allowed.  In exchange the Canucks are guaranteed to retain Gaunce and Sbisa.  A win win situation for both teams. Could this be what is happening?

 

[Baggins]

On 2017-03-24 at 1:01 PM, Canuck Surfer said:

I'm pretty sure unsigned RFA's still count. As their rights are still retained.

 

The expansion rules stipulate you have to have two forwards signed through the 17/18 season with the required NHL experience exposed. Vegas could still go after an unsigned RFA instead if they want.

[Baggins]

1 hour ago, Whaleroad Train said:

I'm wondering if listing Biega as a forward is a move started by Las Vegas.  I think they are limited to the number of defencemen they can take in the draft, so getting the Canucks to list Biega as a forward would allow him to be chosen.  They would, therefore, get an extra defenceman over their allotted number allowed.  In exchange the Canucks are guaranteed to retain Gaunce and Sbisa.  A win win situation for both teams. Could this be what is happening?

 

As is they can take up to 13 d-men in the expansion draft if they want. The minimum at each position has to include:

14 Forwards

9 Defensemen

3 Goalies

 

Leaving 4 more players of any position they choose. Then of course they can make trades and/or sign players through free agency July 1st. I doubt they could give a rats tush about Biega as a forward or at D.

[19naslund19]

This may be a simple question to some, but just to clarify.....

 

With the 7f/3d/1g choices and assuming we have the minimum eligible exposed players, does it mean "everyone" other than the protected list is exposed as well regardless of RFA/UFA status? So if we sign Gaunce to a 1 year extension and leave him and Dorsett as the two forwards that meet all the required conditions, then by default does that mean the rest of the non-exempt forward (i.e. Cram. Skille, etc...) is exposed and a possible option for LV?

 

Thanks and sorry if I have missed this point elsewhere