Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

[Signing] Canucks re-sign Jayson Megna


Recommended Posts

The price paid for Megna is a reflection of his standing within the org. He is simply an insurance policy. At some point a younger player will displace him. The usual bull crap about Desjardin's overuse of Megna is simply that crap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Boudrias said:

The price paid for Megna is a reflection of his standing within the org. He is simply an insurance policy. At some point a younger player will displace him. The usual bull crap about Desjardin's overuse of Megna is simply that crap.

Indeed, the amount of focus on a depth player on a very weak team that is trying to bring along its youth the right way is a frightening indictment of both vancouver fans and media, as it shows an immense lack of any hockey knowledge whatsoever for a canadian city

 

Anyone I read barking about willie during this transition, players like megna really, doesn't really "get much" when it comes to the game, the state of this franchise and what the 'goals' are long term of this team.

 

I saw an article today in the province talking about Goldobin and how Willie put Megna in over him. If you read the article you can see what the CANUCKS not just willie are trying to instill in their young players, offensive or not, its called compete level. 

 

Skill without compete, well there's a million washed up junior and AHL'ers who had a ton of skill and not enough compete now selling insurance in the world.

 

If you don't get your skill players all competing like Bo, you certainly wont make it to the post season and if you're lucky to squeek in you won't go far.

 

Seems that Willie's messages to players like Baer, Granny, and Try on compete level certainly worked. Hopefully, as Goldobin recovers from his weight loss, learns to build the parts of the game he needs to, that consistency of compete can force Wilie to not play Megna.


As I said prior, what should be of concern is why guys like Virtanen, Goldobin, Boucher even are not outcompeting a guy like Megna (or Chaput on the first line vs 4th) - Megna playing should worry people for THAT reason

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guarantee this contract is only for expansion purposes. You need to expose one D-man, one goalie, and two forwards. We have the the 1D (Biega/Sbisa), we have the goalie (Bachman), and assuming we're protecting Baer, Granlund and Sutter, that leaves Dorsett as the only forward who meets the minimum requirements. Even he might not even count because of his injury. So we either have 1/2 FWD, or none at all. We need this contract.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Qwags said:

I guarantee this contract is only for expansion purposes. You need to expose one D-man, one goalie, and two forwards. We have the the 1D (Biega/Sbisa), we have the goalie (Bachman), and assuming we're protecting Baer, Granlund and Sutter, that leaves Dorsett as the only forward who meets the minimum requirements. Even he might not even count because of his injury. So we either have 1/2 FWD, or none at all. We need this contract.

..... Gaunce

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Nicklas Bo Hunter said:

..... Gaunce

I believe players exposed for the expansion draft must be under contract for next season. Unless I am mistaken, Gaunce is exempt. Which is probably related to this extension. Who would you rather expose, Gaunce or Megna? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Qwags said:

I believe players exposed for the expansion draft must be under contract for next season. Unless I am mistaken, Gaunce is exempt. Which is probably related to this extension. Who would you rather expose, Gaunce or Megna? 

Exposure and exemption are two different things.. 

 

The league made exposure rules to make sure LV has a full enough roster for next season.

 

Quote

 All Clubs must meet the following minimum requirements regarding players exposed for selection in the Expansion Draft:

i) One defenseman who is a) under contract in 2017-18 and b ) played in 40 or more NHL games the prior season OR played in 70 or more NHL games in the prior two seasons.

ii) Two forwards who are a) under contract in 2017-18 and b ) played in 40 or more NHL games the prior season OR played in 70 or more NHL games in the prior two seasons.

iii) One goaltender who is under contract in 2017-18 or will be a restricted free agent at the expiration of his current contract immediately prior to 2017-18.

 

In terms of exemption,  All players not "protected" are able to be draft.

Quote

 Clubs will have two options for players they wish to protect in the Expansion Draft:

a) Seven forwards, three defensemen and one goaltender

b ) Eight skaters (forwards/defensemen) and one goaltender

 

 

In the end this signing only affects the Player Exposure Requirements and doesn't affect who vegas can or can't take. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Qwags said:

I believe players exposed for the expansion draft must be under contract for next season. Unless I am mistaken, Gaunce is exempt. Which is probably related to this extension. Who would you rather expose, Gaunce or Megna? 

Don't think that's how it works, it's not really a matter of who you expose vs. protect. It only matters who you protect, everyone else is technically exposed. There is just the caveat of the "everyone else" category where they are exempt if they are a prospect and there has to be at least 2(?) forwards with X number of NHL games and 1 D with X number of NHL games and they have to be under contract, etc in your "everyone else" category.. If Gaunce is left unprotected, he is still available to Vegas, they just get a player who is not under contract, which they are probably fine with. Also, if this were the case you would just wait to sign Horvat until after the expansion draft if players without contracts are exempt. 

 

The league is just requiring that in the "everyone who is not protected" category, there are at least some quality NHL experienced players who are already under contract so as to help Vegas be competitive. But for I think most if not all NHL teams, this doesn't really matter because you can protect so few players, that Vegas just basically gets to pick one NHL-er (not really AHL-er) from each team who isn't protected (unless they are in the prospect exemption category).

 

I would have to check this, but I think that also Vegas has first rights at extending qualifying offers to RFA's prior or during the expansion draft? But if they sign the RFA they can't pick a player from your team anymore, not sure if they would have to give up compensation though? That wouldn't make sense... I'm not too clear on that scenario. But I think there's something about if they sign one of your FA's during there negotiating period prior to the expansion draft they can't take one of your players? 

 

The Boeser6 post above is great. Megna is not very good and is used in peculiar situations, but his compete/effort is there and I'm okay with instituting a culture of requiring hard work to get the ice time. If you can't out compete Megna for a roster spot, then you should have your work ethic checked. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, tybarber said:

Don't think that's how it works, it's not really a matter of who you expose vs. protect. It only matters who you protect, everyone else is technically exposed. There is just the caveat of the "everyone else" category where they are exempt if they are a prospect and there has to be at least 2(?) forwards with X number of NHL games and 1 D with X number of NHL games and they have to be under contract, etc in your "everyone else" category.. If Gaunce is left unprotected, he is still available to Vegas, they just get a player who is not under contract, which they are probably fine with. Also, if this were the case you would just wait to sign Horvat until after the expansion draft if players without contracts are exempt. 

 

The league is just requiring that in the "everyone who is not protected" category, there are at least some quality NHL experienced players who are already under contract so as to help Vegas be competitive. But for I think most if not all NHL teams, this doesn't really matter because you can protect so few players, that Vegas just basically gets to pick one NHL-er (not really AHL-er) from each team who isn't protected (unless they are in the prospect exemption category).

 

I would have to check this, but I think that also Vegas has first rights at extending qualifying offers to RFA's prior or during the expansion draft? But if they sign the RFA they can't pick a player from your team anymore, not sure if they would have to give up compensation though? That wouldn't make sense... I'm not too clear on that scenario. But I think there's something about if they sign one of your FA's during there negotiating period prior to the expansion draft they can't take one of your players? 

 

The Boeser6 post above is great. Megna is not very good and is used in peculiar situations, but his compete/effort is there and I'm okay with instituting a culture of requiring hard work to get the ice time. If you can't out compete Megna for a roster spot, then you should have your work ethic checked. 

True, consistent hard work should be rewarded with more ice time. I just don't think Megna should be the pillar on which that idea is based.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At this point in the season it appears to be a housekeeping item.  As mentioned they likely needed to sign him for the expansion draft.  Next year is what counts now and the upcoming draft and expansion draft.  

 

I am expecting this will take a few years before the Canuck's can be expected to be a competitive team again.  I guess I have waited 42 years what's a few more.  GO CANUCKS GO!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, SilentSam said:

Maybe Megna will "look" like a better expansion draft pick up than Alex Biega..  hope we don't lose Biega.

Biega is one of the least-skilled players on one of the least-skilled teams in the league. And it's not like he's young and improving - he turns 29 tomorrow.

 

Who cares if we "lose Biega"? We need a better player in the spot he currently fills anyways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jack Fig said:

A one-way contract for someone who isn't an NHL player. Jim is losing the plot here.

Fairly common practice. Lots of depth veterans and AHL "stars" are signed to one-ways. Most AHL squads have a few of these on their rosters.

 

Megna has been on one-way deals since 2015-16. So it's not just JB who's been "losing the plot" on what kind of compensation this type of player deserves.

 

And while we can certainly debate his deployment by WD this season, Megna has shown enough NHL level reliability (at least as a depth/replacement/tweener option) that the status quo salary rate seems fairly reasonable for any extension.

 

Arguably a slight raise might even be deserved (which appears to be what's happened), based on his career-high season total for NHL GP.

 

Plus we needed to do some housekeeping for the expansion draft and get one of the pending FA forwards under contract through 2017-18 (to satisfy the exposure minimums). 

 

Linden says Megna is intended for Utica next year (as @Hutton Wink notes above).

 

That was supposed to be the plan this season. And I was fine with his 2016-17 contract (and most people were IIRC) when we expected him to be a fixture on the Comets. No reason to feel differently about this extension. 

 

And Megna's contract has never been the issue anyway. Deployment however... but that's a well worn topic around here.

 

Hopefully, we're healthy and deep enough next year to keep him with the Comets for the full 2017-18 season.

 

Willie might miss him. But there's always FaceTime. Or if Desjardins can't hack the long distance thing, he could always try to secure an AHL coaching gig next year.

 

:P I kid, I kid. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...