-Vintage Canuck-

[Official] 2017 Training Camp Thread

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, J.R. said:

t. But let's not act like the people who are open to the possibility that it could also be good for the organization for him to spend part of the year in Utica are off their rockers.

no of course not (well maybe for other reasons but not this one).

 

I just think if you tell a kid "if you earn it you get a spot", and then don't make a spot thats poor management. I think guys like Burmy, Rodin, Boucher, and maybe even Vanek to some degree were all signed as hedges against guys like Jake and Brock not being quite ready. But if they are truly ready for the NHL then losing one of those guys to waivers shouldn't be the reason to keep someone in the AHL. I think Benning would love nothing more than for Boeser and Jake to be ready and would be just fine with a waiver loss if that was the outcome. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

no of course not (well maybe for other reasons but not this one).

 

I just think if you tell a kid "if you earn it you get a spot", and then don't make a spot thats poor management. I think guys like Burmy, Rodin, Boucher, and maybe even Vanek to some degree were all signed as hedges against guys like Jake and Brock not being quite ready. But if they are truly ready for the NHL then losing one of those guys to waivers shouldn't be the reason to keep someone in the AHL. I think Benning would love nothing more than for Boeser and Jake to be ready and would be just fine with a waiver loss if that was the outcome. 

Sure it should, since they'll still get tons of NHL games between injuries and TDL movement and we get additional assets at the TDL and have more depth for said injuries.

Edited by J.R.
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, stawns said:

Are you being serious?  If you are, where have you been since 2014?

no not really. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

no of course not (well maybe for other reasons but not this one).

 

I just think if you tell a kid "if you earn it you get a spot", and then don't make a spot thats poor management. I think guys like Burmy, Rodin, Boucher, and maybe even Vanek to some degree were all signed as hedges against guys like Jake and Brock not being quite ready. But if they are truly ready for the NHL then losing one of those guys to waivers shouldn't be the reason to keep someone in the AHL. I think Benning would love nothing more than for Boeser and Jake to be ready and would be just fine with a waiver loss if that was the outcome. 

Unfortunately it works both ways.  What does it say to other possible FA, when you sign them and tell them they'll have a spot on the team, and then put them on waivers?  You're damned if you do, and you're damned if you don't.  There is no pleasing everybody unfortunately.  But I believe it's a nice problem to have.  The more competition the better.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Canuck Surfer said:

I had forgotten how high we would be in the waiver order.

 

Maybe Sbisa will be available? B)

oh he's available. If his contract was a bit better I'd say go for it... oh right... thats our fault... :P

 

I wouldn't be surprised to see Jim pick up someone that beefs up the depth chart a bit, particularly if we're going to go with 8 D all year. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, J.R. said:

Sure it should, since they'll still get tons of NHL games between injuries and TDL movement and we get additional assets at the TDL and have more depth for said injuries.

so was JB full of bs when he said waiver status didn't matter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Viper007 said:

Unfortunately it works both ways.  What does it say to other possible FA, when you sign them and tell them they'll have a spot on the team, and then put them on waivers?  You're damned if you do, and you're damned if you don't.  There is no pleasing everybody unfortunately.  But I believe it's a nice problem to have.  The more competition the better.

I think really the only FAs that would have a gripe on that score would be Gagner and Del Zotto. Vanek knows he's TDL bait so an early departure for him in a trade wouldn't be the end of the world, or if he shows up fat and winded every shift then a demotion is on him.

 

All the other guys I think know all they got was a chance to compete and i think most are on 1 way deals to so they get paid at least. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

so was JB full of bs when he said waiver status didn't matter?

Nope.

 

Realistically, Vanek is Boeser's real 'competition' for a spot (though technically there's room for both if we want to).

 

Rodin's likely our 13th which isn't where we want Brock playing (sitting) anyway. Not real competition.

 

Burmy's more competition for the likes of Gaunce/Granlund.

 

Boucher, at this point, is a non-factor IMO.

 

How many points would you guestimate Vanek would be on pace for this year? Plus or minus 40-45? How many points would you figure Brock will have?

 

Pretty much a wash, isn't it? And that's if it goes well for Brock. So for basically zero net gain, you've reduced your organizational depth, ability to absorb injury and ability to gain assets at the TDL for...?

Edited by J.R.
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Viper007 said:

Unfortunately it works both ways.  What does it say to other possible FA, when you sign them and tell them they'll have a spot on the team, and then put them on waivers?  You're damned if you do, and you're damned if you don't.  There is no pleasing everybody unfortunately.  But I believe it's a nice problem to have.  The more competition the better.

Benning said two spots open for young players after signing Vanek.

Daniel Henrik Sutter Eriksson Baertschi Horvat Granlund Dorsett Gagner Vanek and Burmistrov - that's 11.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

no of course not (well maybe for other reasons but not this one).

 

I just think if you tell a kid "if you earn it you get a spot", and then don't make a spot thats poor management. I think guys like Burmy, Rodin, Boucher, and maybe even Vanek to some degree were all signed as hedges against guys like Jake and Brock not being quite ready. But if they are truly ready for the NHL then losing one of those guys to waivers shouldn't be the reason to keep someone in the AHL. I think Benning would love nothing more than for Boeser and Jake to be ready and would be just fine with a waiver loss if that was the outcome. 

That is also how a team attracts college free agents: if you earn a spot you make the team. In a cap world a college free agent may be a better option for a lot longer than a free agent (who after signing will be angry to be waived). 

 

For example college free agent Stetcher may help save the right side of Nucks D.

 

I would take more of him than risk not signing aging FA's who expect a spot.

 

Edit: I don't know if I am explaining myself clearly. I think sending the message that young players have an equal shot at the team as any FA (who is a past performer) bodes well for signing more college or junior FA's like Stetcher and Chatfield.

 

To me Stetcher is like a free first round pick. Why wouldn't GMJB give theSe guys a real shot in order to attract more of them?

 

I believe this is worth getting passed over by aging vets who are looking for one more deal.

 

 

 

Edited by Calvin's Dog
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I think really the only FAs that would have a gripe on that score would be Gagner and Del Zotto. Vanek knows he's TDL bait so an early departure for him in a trade wouldn't be the end of the world, or if he shows up fat and winded every shift then a demotion is on him.

 

All the other guys I think know all they got was a chance to compete and i think most are on 1 way deals to so they get paid at least. 

I think its a bit of a stretch to think Vanek wont be here to start the year. He scored 50 ish points last year.  Boeser will knock someone else out of the lineup if he makes it.

 

Yes he would be available at the TDL in most likelihood. Preference anyway. But Benning is also good to his word. I am guessing anyway.  Miller, who did not get traded at the last deadline, gave us a glowing recommendation according to reports. And we engaged, and did not engage other veterans in trade scenarios.  Did not trade Vrbata. I am estimating he is working with the players. Takes the flack from fans and media when we dont get the green light. All in the name of being a good destination.

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, J.R. said:

Nope.

 

Realistically, Vanek is Boeser's real 'competition' for a spot (though technically there's room for both if we want to).

How many points would you guestimate Vanek would be on pace for this year? Plus or minus 40-45? How many points would you figure Brock will have?

 

Pretty much a wash, isn't it? And that's if it goes well for Brock. So for basically zero net gain, you've reduced your organizational depth, ability to absorb injury and ability to gain assets at the TDL for...?

Agreed on Boucher, i never thought he'd pan out. 

 

But how much depth? 1 ageing RW that won't be here past Feb? I'd rather have Boeser have a 40 point year than have the 3rd round pick that we maybe get for Vanek. 

 

But I'm biased, I didn't want Vanek in the first place. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, J.R. said:

Nope.

 

Realistically, Vanek is Boeser's real 'competition' for a spot (though technically there's room for both if we want to).

 

Rodin's likely our 13th which isn't where we want Brock playing (sitting) anyway. Not real competition.

 

Burmy's more competition for the likes of Gaunce/Granlund.

 

Boucher, at this point, is a non-factor IMO.

 

How many points would you guestimate Vanek would be on pace for this year? Plus or minus 40-45? How many points would you figure Brock will have?

 

Pretty much a wash, isn't it? And that's if it goes well for Brock. So for basically zero net gain, you've reduced your organizational depth, ability to absorb injury and ability to gain assets at the TDL for...?

 

1 minute ago, Canuck Surfer said:

I think its a bit of a stretch to think Vanek wont be here to start the year. He scored 50 ish points last year.  Boeser will knock someone else out of the lineup if he makes it. (Which I think he will.)

2

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Calvin's Dog said:

That is also how a team attracts college free agents which in a cap world may be better options than free agents (who after signing will be angry to be waived). 

 

For example college free agent Stetcher may help save the right side of Nucks D.

 

I would take more of him than risk not signing aging FA's who expect a spot.

 

 

yah thats a good point as well, if the reputation here is you will get a chance to play if you're NHL ready that will help, particularly for a team that doesn't have a player named McDavid. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, coolboarder said:

We should not fear of losing the vet via the wavier if we are at #2 spot priority in the wavier list and there are better players that might be available after the training camp and snag them up.  The earlier we expose the veterans on the wavier, the better it will be so that we can assess the need of positional players that might be available when we are nearing the start of the season.   We will have the better choice on players via the waiver and we could replace the lost veterans via the wavier.  It also allows for young players on the training camp to make the team and sent them to the farm team if we pick up anything better from the wavier for depth lost to other team.  2 to 3 pick up wavier players is ideal and create for more depth sending players to ECHL if they are not ready for AHL.

7

JimBo went on a buying binge with all these free agents he brought in. He was like a drunk mom at $1.49 Day.

We're going to have to put some items back on the shelves.

Let's shop wisely with these next batch of waivers.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

no of course not (well maybe for other reasons but not this one).

 

I just think if you tell a kid "if you earn it you get a spot", and then don't make a spot thats poor management. I think guys like Burmy, Rodin, Boucher, and maybe even Vanek to some degree were all signed as hedges against guys like Jake and Brock not being quite ready. But if they are truly ready for the NHL then losing one of those guys to waivers shouldn't be the reason to keep someone in the AHL. I think Benning would love nothing more than for Boeser and Jake to be ready and would be just fine with a waiver loss if that was the outcome. 

2

I don't disagree with this. Like, at all!

 

But...

 

We also watched Skille, Magna, Chaput and others last year.  We're also hedging against atrocious hockey!

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

yah thats a good point as well, if the reputation here is you will get a chance to play if you're NHL ready that will help, particularly for a team that doesn't have a player named McDavid. 

'Chance to play' doesn't have to mean right this second.

 

Play in Utica with shot of being first call up and play 25+/- games with injuries/TDL while earning a full time role the year following - is still a more direct route than most teams can offer.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, stawns said:

you know everytime you call a vet up and then send him down that he has to clear waivers on the way down, right?

Every time a vet clears waivers an angel gets their wings.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.