• Announcements

    • StealthNuck

      Forum-specific Rules   07/11/2017

      These are board specific rules for the Trades and Rumors forum designed to provide organization and a better experience for everyone. Please review these rules before posting new threads. 
        THREAD ETIQUETTE   1. Please search for an existing thread before posting. This forum can be very fast moving, so it's understandable if redundant threads are inadvertently posted. In such a case, please use the report feature to request removal of redundant threads.    2. Provide a clearly identifiable topic title so that users can readily understand the content. The title should include any and all teams involved, as well as player names or other personnel involved as appropriate.   3. All trades, signings, rumors and other news MUST include a linkable source. Simply posting the name of the source is not enough. Effort should also be made to copy and paste the full article, or at the very least the relevant portion of text from the source to the first post of the thread. Moderators may remove low-quality threads in favour of high-quality threads. 

      Affixed to the front of your title should be a label that identifies the type of transaction that is taking place. For all trades use [TRADE]. For all signings use [SIGNING]. For all waiver-wire transactions use [WAIVERS]. For all rumours use [RUMOUR].
      For articles or news items that don't fit into the above categories, affix an appropriate label of your choice such as [NEWS], [ARTICLE] or [MISC].   4. When the status of a thread changes a new thread can be created. The new thread should reflect the change and help focus the discussion on current events. e.g. Someone may create a new thread when a rumor becomes a trades. The old thread will be locked by the moderating team.    5. Do not misrepresent the contents of your thread or post false trades or rumors. Trolling will result in a permanent suspension. 

      SOURCES   The following source types are considered INVALID. Any links to posts or threads on other message boards Any links to personal blogs Any news heard on the radio that does not have a link to an audio vault or podcast Any news seen on television that does not have a link to online video Any news spread by word of mouth
      Additionally, certain sources may be be blacklisted due to poor credentials, clear traffic-mongering etc. Blacklisted sources will be posted here. 
      Thank you for your co-operation and please PM the Administrator or Moderators if you have any questions, concerns or suggestions regarding this forum.
CRAZY_4_NAZZY

[Waivers] Bruins waive Matt Belesky

Recommended Posts

Pass... that contract is terrible, he barely even fights anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

is dorsetts $$ off our cap hit now?  he would be a cheaper grit option.  he clearly doesnt score or fight like dorse but he could be a solid p/u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 250Integra said:

Will they take Gagner for Beleskey? please?

Increase our cap hit by $0.65M in a trade of 11 points in 32 games for 0 points in 14 games? No thanks.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe we can pay them a pick once he clears to eat a portion of his cap hit.  Round it off to $3 million then we can rotate him in and out of the nhl window in that 30 day grace period :D  (It's 30 days right?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, -AJ- said:

Increase our cap hit by $0.65M in a trade of 11 points in 32 games for 0 points in 14 games? No thanks.

Let me ask you, what else does Gagner bring other points? a chewed up mouth-guard?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 250Integra said:

Let me ask you, what else does Gagner bring other points? a chewed up mouth-guard?

Beleskey would have to bring a whole heckuva lot to make up for the extra cap hit and lost offense. Belesky has 17 shots in 14 games (1.21 shots/game), Gagner has 65 shots in 32 games (2.03 shots/game). Even further, Gagner's having a lower-than average shooting percentage this year, at 4.6%, implying that he should tend toward his average, which in the last two years is 9.85%. Obviously, Beleskey is also shooting below average at 0%, but his average over the last two years is 7.29%. On top of the fact that he shoots much less than Gagner, he scores on less of his shots. Heck, Gaunce even shoots more than this guy (27 shots in 16 games, 1.69 shots/game). Beleskey is a bit better defensively than Gagner and obviously much more physical. He's basically Gudbranson, but as a forward and much smaller.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Rush17 said:

Maybe we can pay them a pick once he clears to eat a portion of his cap hit.  Round it off to $3 million then we can rotate him in and out of the nhl window in that 30 day grace period :D  (It's 30 days right?)

I'm sorry but the last thing canucks should be doing is trading a pick to save some cap space. That's bad asset management. We aren't in a position to be doing that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, King Heffy said:

I'd flip them Megna for Belesky at 50% retained.

How about straight up for Louie?

Yeah we get stuck with an expensive belesky for 2 years more... but we get rid of louies 4 more years.

Share this post


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

So if bruins placed belesky on waivers non-roster. Does that mean they are buying out his contract?

No, it just means that Beleskey was removed from the active roster.

 

This sometimes happens when a team is at risk of going over the 23 man limit (due to a player returning from injury or acquired in trade), so the team requests “non-roster” status for another player, so they can comply with the 23 man limit, and with the understanding that they will move that “non-roster” player (usually through waivers).

 

This is what the Canucks did with Wiercioch when they acquired Pouliot, and needed to immediately clear roster space, but didn’t have time to complete the waiver period. They designated Wiercioch “non-roster” and then waived him the next day.

 

EDIT: I’m assuming the Bruins had someone come off IR and needed to stay within the 23 man limit? I really don’t follow Boston at all (by choice) so I don’t know what’s going on with their roster. I previously mistook Beleskey’s 2016 injury for a current one (edited that part out now), which tells you how much I care about the Bruins.

 

But anyway, “non-roster” waivers just mean waiving a player who isn’t on the active roster.

 

Unconditional waivers would be used for a buy out.

Edited by SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME
Removed portion
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No surprise he cleared.  He looked good with the Ducks, but has been awful in Boston, especially at that contract.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wanted us to sign him when he became a UFA. A gritty player that will make any team more difficult to play.

 

But he is pretty bad now and even though we have that cap space, we might as well keep it saved for future.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway we could pick him up then offer like an 6x5M deal to help the other useless vets in trying to convince people this is somehow a playoff team?

 

I kid of course but I would not take a shot at Belesky at all.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 more years at nearly 4 mil? No thanks. Maybe if they retained 1.3mil. Puts him near the Dorsett dollar range. Figure he could somewhat bring what Dorsett brings. Although clearly he doesn't even bring that if Boston is waiving him. Unless they were really hoping someone was desperate AND very stupid.

Edited by N7Nucks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, khay said:

I wanted us to sign him when he became a UFA. A gritty player that will make any team more difficult to play.

 

But he is pretty bad now and even though we have that cap space, we might as well keep it saved for future.

CapFriendly shows the Canucks with 430K in cap space - and that's with Dorsett on LTIR. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just another example of a UFA signing that ended up being terrible. I hope JB is smart and doesn't sign any UFAs longer than 2-3 years until we're actually ready to contend. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/14/2017 at 3:09 PM, 250Integra said:

Let me ask you, what else does Gagner bring other points? a chewed up mouth-guard?

open ice hits and game-winning goals, g.

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.