[Waivers] Bruins waive Matt Belesky

[canucklehead80]

1 hour ago, coryberg said:

3.8 million reasons not to

Not to mention 2.5 years too long

[Trebreh]

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

[Rush17]

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

[-AJ-]

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.

[Rush17]

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?)

[250Integra]

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?

[-AJ-]

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.

[Odjick_fan]

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

[NuckForReal!!!]

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

[King Heffy]

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

[coryberg]

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.

[SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME]

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.

[BCNate]

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

[khay]

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.

[Ronaldoescobar]

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.  

[JeremyCuddles]

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.

[mll]

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. 

[VIC_CITY]

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. 

[Ghostsof1915]

I'd rather trade for Brett Connolly in Washington, at least he has 6 goals, and hits. 

[oldnews]

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.