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

[Signing] Islanders re-sign Scott Mayfield


Recommended Posts

Who the expletive, is his agent?!?! What an awful contract. Mayfield is a 5-6 Dman now, but could easily becoming more.

 

If they want you for 5 years, that means they like you... and would pay a hell of a lot more than that!!

 

When did Garth Snow start becoming such a good GM? A lot of good trades and drafting the last couple years. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that's an odd, team-friendly contract.

 

He's really emerged this year - really solid defensively, big, physical guy with very good underlying numbers - and producing offensively.

He's worth that cap hit now.

A bit strange that he'd settle for that right through to aged 30 - and give up his ability to test the market for that long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Art Vandelay said:

Who the expletive, is his agent?!?! What an awful contract. Mayfield is a 5-6 Dman now, but could easily becoming more.

 

If they want you for 5 years, that means they like you... and would pay a hell of a lot more than that!!

 

When did Garth Snow start becoming such a good GM? A lot of good trades and drafting the last couple years. 

Term over AAV. His agent convinced him on long term security. People...don't forget he has only played a grand total of 65 NHL games so far. In my mind, he hit the jack pot. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, RRypien37 said:

Term over AAV. His agent convinced him on long term security. People...don't forget he has only played a grand total of 65 NHL games so far. In my mind, he hit the jack pot. 

Stecher is 1.5 years younger (only 1 draft year part). Has 27 points in 97 games (0.28 Pts/g) and is an RFA with arbitration rights.

 

Mayfield has 20 points in 65 games (0.30 Pts/g) and was an RFA with arbitration rights.

 

Both have very similar advance offensive and defensive numbers. If Stecher accepted this deal, you would not say he hit the jackpot.

 

My point being, Mayfield left a lot of money on the table already... plus a lot of potential money on the table.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good deal. I remember Poile signing some of his guys to great contracts, Josi, Forsberg, Ellis, ekholm, Jarnkrok to long term deals

 

I would like to see the Canucks try this a bit with some of our guys. Could pay huge dividends down the road. If we could get Stecher for similar and Granny for a Jarnkrok deal that could be real good for us when it comes to having some cap space in a couple years when we are more competitive

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/4/2018 at 12:02 PM, Art Vandelay said:

Who the expletive, is his agent?!?! What an awful contract. Mayfield is a 5-6 Dman now, but could easily becoming more.

 

If they want you for 5 years, that means they like you... and would pay a hell of a lot more than that!!

 

When did Garth Snow start becoming such a good GM? A lot of good trades and drafting the last couple years. 

This is why I think we need Benning long term. Snow started out meh but grew into his job quite well. There's no need to think Benning couldn't do the same (unless if one just likes to be pessimistic lol).

 

I'm tired of us firing GMs after 5 years or less. I want to see someone here longterm for a change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, The Lock said:

This is why I think we need Benning long term. Snow started out meh but grew into his job quite well. There's no need to think Benning couldn't do the same (unless if one just likes to be pessimistic lol).

 

I'm tired of us firing GMs after 5 years or less. I want to see someone here longterm for a change.

uncertainty surrounding benning notwithstanding, dave nonis is the only canucks gm to last 5 years or less in the last 30 years, and he lasted 4. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, tas said:

uncertainty surrounding benning notwithstanding, dave nonis is the only canucks gm to last 5 years or less in the last 30 years, and he lasted 4. 

Sorry, if you really want to nitpick like that then I'll say 6 years or less (a whole year and it changes everything, imagine that ). The last GM we had long term really was Quinn. Since then, we've seen the outcome of Burke's tenure during the Nonis and Gillis tenures (and arguably even now), the outcome of the Nonis tenure during the Gillis tenure, and the outcome of the Gillis tenure (if you think in terms of drafting which Gillis was supposed to be good at theorizing about) now.

 

Meanwhile, we've seen long-term GMs like Lamoriello, Poille, Lombardi, etc actually stay long term. Interestingly enough, it took 6 seasons for the Predators under Poille to make the playoffs, it took 6 or 7 years for Lamoriello to win his first stanley cup, 6 years for Lombardi to win the cup in LA. It takes time to build a good team.

 

Now, obviously if we were looking at having someone like Mike Milbury as the GM, then there's a point at which we might want to change things up, but we are not in that situation. Benning's obviously had his flaws (I still don't like the Eriksson signing for example), but I think a GM who's good at drafting, having one long term could work wonders for us. Every GM makes mistakes and it's easy to focus on those mistakes and assume we have a "bad GM" but, if you focus on the entire league, these kind of mistakes happen everywhere.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, The Lock said:

Sorry, if you really want to nitpick like that then I'll say 6 years or less (a whole year and it changes everything, imagine that ). The last GM we had long term really was Quinn. Since then, we've seen the outcome of Burke's tenure during the Nonis and Gillis tenures (and arguably even now), the outcome of the Nonis tenure during the Gillis tenure, and the outcome of the Gillis tenure (if you think in terms of drafting which Gillis was supposed to be good at theorizing about) now.

 

Meanwhile, we've seen long-term GMs like Lamoriello, Poille, Lombardi, etc actually stay long term. Interestingly enough, it took 6 seasons for the Predators under Poille to make the playoffs, it took 6 or 7 years for Lamoriello to win his first stanley cup, 6 years for Lombardi to win the cup in LA. It takes time to build a good team.

 

Now, obviously if we were looking at having someone like Mike Milbury as the GM, then there's a point at which we might want to change things up, but we are not in that situation. Benning's obviously had his flaws (I still don't like the Eriksson signing for example), but I think a GM who's good at drafting, having one long term could work wonders for us. Every GM makes mistakes and it's easy to focus on those mistakes and assume we have a "bad GM" but, if you focus on the entire league, these kind of mistakes happen everywhere.

 

 

it's easy to say those teams had success because they kept their GM's long term, but it's also easy to argue that they only kept their GM's long term because they had success.

 

if gillis had won the cup in 2011 or 12, he might have earned himself enough rope to still be there now. and you can't use poille as an example because it was an expansion team. the expectation for success isn't there and therefore the clock doesn't start ticking right away. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, tas said:

it's easy to say those teams had success because they kept their GM's long term, but it's also easy to argue that they only kept their GM's long term because they had success.

 

if gillis had won the cup in 2011 or 12, he might have earned himself enough rope to still be there now. and you can't use poille as an example.because it was an expansion team. the expectation for success isn't there an therefore the clock doesn't start ticking right away. 

Poille I only used as one example of really a number of teams who have had GMs long term with success. He's looked at as being a good GM, sometimes genius. Had he been fired halfway through he might not have been thought of as that, so you can argue that his success is partially due to being there long term. So yes, I still believe I can use Poille as an example.

 

As I said previously, most of the team Gillis had was what Nonis supplied, much like what Nonis had was what Burke supplied. Gillis obviously helped in moving the team to the SCF through adding the role-players. Perhaps Gillis would have been here longer afterwards, but that whole Tortorella and his handling of Luongo could also have got him fired anyway afterwards. One could argue though that had he won the cup, he would not have "lost his sanity", and we would have seen better moves after the cup, which would then support my argument.

 

Anyway, we haven't had a long term GM in a long while (and that depends on your view of Quinn in his 10 years here, the longest running GM) and, while I agree that it can be argued either way, clearly what we've been doing with hiring and firing GM's within 6 years hasn't earned us a cup. Is there a gaurentee Benning could win us the cup? Of course not, but given how many long term GMs have been successful at winning cups eventually in this league, I would rather take that chance than to go through an entirely different GM with an entirely different approach. I want to see us do things differently than just firing GMs at whim as if they are the "latest fashion trend". There's too much reaction and not enough consistency in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who is Scott's agent? Terrible signing for him...

 

A contract like this makes little sense... you'd think Scott would be less motivated when he knows he's not playing for money any time soon... and isn't making bank... as for the team, you want the player to stay hungry. Unless Scott's personality is the type that just wants stability and he thinks 1.45 mill is more than enough (which is)

 

Scott's agent is awful... this is absolutely dreadful. He's a good D-man and could have made way more in the next 5 years if I was his agent. 

 

For what it's worth... in all my day dreams I sign with the Canucks 8 years 1 mill AAV and hovering point per game production and maximizing our teams cap... being an integral part of the dynasty... but I doubt that's Scott's reasoning for signing so long and so cheap. In my interview after signing I say

 

"I'm not here to make money... I'm not concerned about my future. The only thing that concerns me is to help the worlds most glorious sporting franchise dominate while I'm here. Plain and simple. DYNASTY!" 

 

Man... it's a great day dream that gets me through skating practice! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/4/2018 at 1:28 PM, RRypien37 said:

Term over AAV. His agent convinced him on long term security. People...don't forget he has only played a grand total of 65 NHL games so far. In my mind, he hit the jack pot. 

I think his agent correctly assessed how out of fashion big, slow, physical D are at the moment.

 

It may not be fair and may swing back, but he is a slightly better version than Pedan and could similarly easily find himself out of the league entirely.

 

A long term protects him from that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Provost said:

I think his agent correctly assessed how out of fashion big, slow, physical D are at the moment.

 

It may not be fair and may swing back, but he is a slightly better version than Pedan and could similarly easily find himself out of the league entirely.

 

A long term protects him from that.

So you basically further elaborated on what I said. Not sure if you are agreeing with me or trying to explain to me what I said? lol 

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...