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

Jake's Contract..Looks Like What???


Nuxfanabroad

Recommended Posts

Just now, VegasCanuck said:

Bonuses on top of base salary happen all the time with players. Very few contracts don't include performance incentives. 

They have no cap issues they have plenty of room to do incentive laden contracts. It would be different if we were p against the cap ceiling

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, -AJ- said:

I think he gets $2M max, but probably a bit less. I'd guess between $1.6M and $1.9M for two years. He hasn't yet proven himself stable over a long period of time yet.

 

If by incentives, you mean bonuses, they can't be done on deals after the Entry Level Contract. The only options for bonuses are ELCs and one-year deals for players over 35.

Was actually not aware that they couldn't receive performance bonus after ELC. Thanks!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mackcanuck said:

Luongo cap recapture awaits us. :mellow:

 

CmTRhGiVUAAm4I9.jpg

 

Don't worry, in another year or two, Lu is going to develop a weird allergy to puck rubber making it medically necessary to not play any longer, just like Hossa did in Chicago!

 

::D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1- Nuclear war, ala Strangelove

2- Yellowstone goes full-Hillary

3- Alien Invasion(my Gawd! they resemble lil' Bettmans!)

4- Karma for western hegemony/crumbling empires

5- Moods of the Missus

6- Yearning for concubines

7- Lu's contract

 

It's far down the laundry list of worries..U guys gotta' relax.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, VegasCanuck said:

Don't worry, in another year or two, Lu is going to develop a weird allergy to puck rubber making it medically necessary to not play any longer, just like Hossa did in Chicago!

 

::D

yah there's no way Lu turns down the LTIR paycheques. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting thread.  For me we have too many prospects coming up to focus on one player who's been given every chance to make it work in the NHL and is still having difficulties making it all work.  His skating is outstanding.  He also has a hard accurate shot.  He can also crush guys but doesn't do it very often.  

 

I think he's done enough to offer him a two year bridge show me more deal only.  We can't worry about what he can become if he does than great sign him again for more money, if he doesn't than not a problem, trade him for what we can get or play him on the third line and steer his game more towards a Torres type role (which in fact could be his peak).  

 

1-1.5 million, two years is fair.

 

If he turns into a top six 50 point guy then great, he gets his pay day, if not give someone else a turn and flip him or extend him to play in the bottom six.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Nuxfanabroad said:

1- Nuclear war, ala Strangelove

2- Yellowstone goes full-Hillary

3- Alien Invasion(my Gawd! they resemble lil' Bettmans!)

4- Karma for western hegemony/crumbling empires

5- Moods of the Missus

6- Yearning for concubines

7- Lu's contract

 

It's far down the laundry list of worries..U guys gotta' relax.

Cloning could expedite this :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, LowerMainLander18 said:

As one of the worst teams in the league at the moment, it would be unwise to make comparisons within our group.. 

But I agree with you that we carry some of the worst contracts (beginning with Eriks)

 

So we shouldn't offer him a multi-million dollar contract just because there are other bad signings within the team that pays more than him.

Also, he is still a rough cut. Paying him too much wouldn't really give him incentives to get better. 

 

So, as few of us posted earlier in this thread, I think 1M/ season Bridge deal is fair. (1.5M max..)

 

And from what we have seen from him this season, I'd rather take the risk of paying him more after this bridge deal than to pay him handsomely for let's say 4~ 5 years. 

This year Jake has 17 pts in 65 games for 0.26 PPG. Last year his PPG was very similar (0.24). That is a 4th line level.  His +/- is -10 despite playing relatively easy minutes. He is not good enough defensively to play PK or shutdown (at least not on a decent team) and not good enough offensively to play top 6 on a decent team. And he cannot be counted on to provide consistent intensity of the type you want from 4th liners, although his consistency is improving.

 

He does have excellent speed and contributes to the physical game, so those are positives. However, right now, I do not see him as any more valuable than Archibald (0.29 PPG). Archie is a slow skater, whereas Jake has speed, but I think Archie provides more deterrence value as a tough guy and is better defensively. And Archie is close to  the NHL minimum (650K). When Gaunce is healthy (next year), Jake will also be competing with him for ice-time, and Gaunce is getting 750K.

 

My point is that right now, Jake is a 4th liner and, even on the Canucks, will be in competition with replacement level players for ice time next year. On most NHL teams this year he probably would have been in the AHL.

 

Of course, the hope is that he develops. He has much more upside than Archie or Gaunce. With his size, speed, physical play, and flashes of intensity, his potential is tantalizing. But, by the draft+4 year, most forwards are not all that far away from peak performance with only a small to moderate amount of additional upside. Some guys are late bloomers, and we can hope Jake is one of those guys. But right now it is just hope. He also has no leverage in negotiations.

 

I think 1 million per year for a two-year deal is about right. Anything more is too much, although it would not surprise me to see Benning overpay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jake Virtanen is a 21 year old prospect with high expectations.  He has not met those expectations yet, but there's is still a lot of room for improvement.  Why does anyone think he would agree to anything longer than a 2 year deal?

 

Let's say he gets offered $10 million for 4 years, 2.5/yr.  Why would he take this?  If he thinks he will improve and score 30-50 points in the coming years he will be worth more than just that.  Better to take two years at a cheaper rate and work his way towards the big payday.

 

On the office side, a shorter term deal is better if you're trying to trade the asset... for some odd reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, VegasCanuck said:

Was actually not aware that they couldn't receive performance bonus after ELC. Thanks!

 

Thats what I was thinking when I quoted you.  I was pretty sure it was just ELC and maybe 35+ but that may have been taken out in a previous CBA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Bob.Loblaw said:

Jake Virtanen is a 21 year old prospect with high expectations.  He has not met those expectations yet, but there's is still a lot of room for improvement.  Why does anyone think he would agree to anything longer than a 2 year deal?

 

Let's say he gets offered $10 million for 4 years, 2.5/yr.  Why would he take this?  If he thinks he will improve and score 30-50 points in the coming years he will be worth more than just that.  Better to take two years at a cheaper rate and work his way towards the big payday.

 

On the office side, a shorter term deal is better if you're trying to trade the asset... for some odd reason.

I understand what you are saying, but the risk runs both ways.  I am confident he will reach a high level of play, but it is just as likely that he is in the AHL or Europe in 2 years.  If he has a chance to sign a 4 year $10 million deal, I am sure he jumps at that.  Guaranntee your families financial future by the time your 25, with the chance for another huge contract after that.

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...