Recommended Posts

On 2/22/2019 at 2:26 PM, canuckledraggin said:

I know Sid has been saying that, but every other pundit is saying it's 10 games. I'd still like to know definitively what that rule is, because 10 games is manageable if we want to keep him under that number, but he will for sure get 1 game.

I feel like this must have been talked about in detail somewhere in this thread, but I am honestly concerned with this.

 

Brock Boeser played 9 games and burned a year on his contract.  Benning is treating Hughes the same way here.  I do not understand why Benning is always so eager to get the college guys straight into the NHL, especially when the team isn't a playoff contender.

 

The only reason we are pushing this year is because the West is incredibly weak.  If things go right the rest of the season (so far it hasn't), then we will be a wild card.  But we really need one more year to finish that rebuild.  We do not need Quinn Hughes to be this year's 11th hour hero.  To burn his first year would be as pointless as what Benning did with Boeser.

 

My other concern is whether Hughes plays out the rest of the year with the Comets and plays 10+ games.  Will that burn his first year?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Bob.Loblaw said:

Brock Boeser played 9 games and burned a year on his contract. 

That can work for, or against you. Boeser did not break out for 50 plus goals this year.

 

He might next?

 

Seattle expansion is a factor. That aside, I think Benning is correct to let his player decide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Canuck Surfer said:

That can work for, or against you. Boeser did not break out for 50 plus goals this year.

 

He might next?

 

Seattle expansion is a factor. That aside, I think Benning is correct to let his player decide.

I dont see your point with Seattle.

 

I do understand that Boeser would demand more money after three successful seasons as opposed to just two.  I get that he will probably earn a little less because Benning burned the first year....

 

... is what I would like to believe.  Benning is a mercurial GM.  Sometimes he is really good and sometimes he just isn't.  If burning the first years of Boeser and Hughes means we save a bit of money when we re-sign them to 8-year big boy contracts, then that's a win.  But it has to make a difference or otherwise the first years were burned for no reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Bob.Loblaw said:

I dont see your point with Seattle.

 

I do understand that Boeser would demand more money after three successful seasons as opposed to just two.  I get that he will probably earn a little less because Benning burned the first year....

 

... is what I would like to believe.  Benning is a mercurial GM.  Sometimes he is really good and sometimes he just isn't.  If burning the first years of Boeser and Hughes means we save a bit of money when we re-sign them to 8-year big boy contracts, then that's a win.  But it has to make a difference or otherwise the first years were burned for no reason.

If he does not play till next year, he will be exempt fpm Seattle selecting him & we can protect a separate D.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bob.Loblaw said:

I dont see your point with Seattle.

 

I do understand that Boeser would demand more money after three successful seasons as opposed to just two.  I get that he will probably earn a little less because Benning burned the first year....

 

... is what I would like to believe.  Benning is a mercurial GM.  Sometimes he is really good and sometimes he just isn't.  If burning the first years of Boeser and Hughes means we save a bit of money when we re-sign them to 8-year big boy contracts, then that's a win.  But it has to make a difference or otherwise the first years were burned for no reason.

It’s pretty common practice. I think it’s done as a show of good faith to get the player-management relationship off on the right foot and as a means of enticing the player to sign. 

  • Hydration 1

Share this post


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

It’s pretty common practice. I think it’s done as a show of good faith to get the player-management relationship off on the right foot and as a means of enticing the player to sign. 

Yeah, I think the main thing honestly isn't management being incompetent or anything like that. It's really just saying, "hey, we're not gonna be petty and try to limit your games for our benefit, if you play 9 games, you play 9 games, if you don't, then you don't, simple as that, because your development is the only thing that matters."

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bob.Loblaw said:

I dont see your point with Seattle.

 

I do understand that Boeser would demand more money after three successful seasons as opposed to just two.  I get that he will probably earn a little less because Benning burned the first year....

 

... is what I would like to believe.  Benning is a mercurial GM.  Sometimes he is really good and sometimes he just isn't.  If burning the first years of Boeser and Hughes means we save a bit of money when we re-sign them to 8-year big boy contracts, then that's a win.  But it has to make a difference or otherwise the first years were burned for no reason.

 

1 hour ago, Sean Monahan said:

It’s pretty common practice. I think it’s done as a show of good faith to get the player-management relationship off on the right foot and as a means of enticing the player to sign. 

Exactly. Making the players happy is definitely not "no reason".

  • Hydration 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay guys.  So be it.  Let Benning burn the first year for the sake of starting off on the right foot.  Then I suppose there's no point in even asking what the criteria is then.  The rules behind that are still very unclear to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bob.Loblaw said:

Okay guys.  So be it.  Let Benning burn the first year for the sake of starting off on the right foot.  Then I suppose there's no point in even asking what the criteria is then.  The rules behind that are still very unclear to me.

Plays even one game and he burns a year off ELC. Has to play 10+ to be elligible for expansion draft though. So ideally we play him 9 or less so he burns the year (makes player happy, gets him some experience so he knows what to expect next year) but keeps him under the threshold for needing an expansion slot.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Plays even one game and he burns a year off ELC. Has to play 10+ to be elligible for expansion draft though. So ideally we play him 9 or less so he burns the year (makes player happy, gets him some experience so he knows what to expect next year) but keeps him under the threshold for needing an expansion slot.

Yeah I'm not sure what people arent getting here.

  • Hydration 1
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, aGENT said:

Plays even one game and he burns a year off ELC. Has to play 10+ to be elligible for expansion draft though. So ideally we play him 9 or less so he burns the year (makes player happy, gets him some experience so he knows what to expect next year) but keeps him under the threshold for needing an expansion slot.

Ideally yes, 9gms then protect his ELC status, but I can't see JB doing that.

Hughes either turns pro at the end of Michigan's season and plays the reminder of the season with the Canucks - regardless of whether he burns his ELC year or not - or he doesn't turn pro at all this year.  That's just how I see it though, maybe JB has some sort of plan for Hughes we don't know about?  In the past JB has shown he's not afraid to move on from guys either from trades and/or waivers so I don't see him taking extra steps just to protect one possible player from expansion. 

 

Michigan isn't ranked in the top 16 NCAA teams so if I understand their system correctly, Hughes may be eligible to sign as soon as the 2nd week of March (if they're not included in the Frozen Four tournament).  The more I think about it, the more it seems the Quads trade was related (in part) to JB knowing something about Hughes coming here sooner rather than later. 

 

But I'll admit, with JB it's hard to tell what his direction is.  He keeps saying build through the draft, stay the course, but he hasn't been going out of his way collecting extra picks either so.....

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Fanuck said:

Ideally yes, 9gms then protect his ELC status, but I can't see JB doing that.

Hughes either turns pro at the end of Michigan's season and plays the reminder of the season with the Canucks - regardless of whether he burns his ELC year or not - or he doesn't turn pro at all this year.  That's just how I see it though, maybe JB has some sort of plan for Hughes we don't know about?  In the past JB has shown he's not afraid to move on from guys either from trades and/or waivers so I don't see him taking extra steps just to protect one possible player from expansion. 

 

Michigan isn't ranked in the top 16 NCAA teams so if I understand their system correctly, Hughes may be eligible to sign as soon as the 2nd week of March (if they're not included in the Frozen Four tournament).  The more I think about it, the more it seems the Quads trade was related (in part) to JB knowing something about Hughes coming here sooner rather than later. 

 

But I'll admit, with JB it's hard to tell what his direction is.  He keeps saying build through the draft, stay the course, but he hasn't been going out of his way collecting extra picks either so.....

Again:

 

15 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Plays even one game and he burns a year off ELC. Has to play 10+ to be elligible for expansion draft though. So ideally we play him 9 or less so he burns the year (makes player happy, gets him some experience so he knows what to expect next year) but keeps him under the threshold for needing an expansion slot.

The ELC isn't the issue. A year is getting burned short of Michigan going on a tear and winning it all and him basically being unavailable to the Canucks (unlikely).

 

The expansion draft is the part that matters. Has to play 9 or less games to not require protection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Plays even one game and he burns a year off ELC. Has to play 10+ to be elligible for expansion draft though. So ideally we play him 9 or less so he burns the year (makes player happy, gets him some experience so he knows what to expect next year) but keeps him under the threshold for needing an expansion slot.

Do you know the rules if they make the playoffs?

 

Do playoff games count towards expansion elligability

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, aGENT said:

Again:

 

The ELC isn't the issue. A year is getting burned short of Michigan going on a tear and winning it all and him basically being unavailable to the Canucks (unlikely).

 

The expansion draft is the part that matters. Has to play 9 or less games to not require protection.

That's what what I was referring to, but didn't obviously state correctly. 

 

I don't see JB/Green playing games with (no pun intended) Hughes.  If he signs here immediately after the NCAA season is done - then I see Hughes playing every game he's healthy for that the Canucks can get him into.  I don't see them picking and choosing which games he plays, or making him practice with the team for two weeks before playing or whatever the case may be, in order to keep him at the 9gm threshold. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Bob.Loblaw said:

I dont see your point with Seattle.

 

I do understand that Boeser would demand more money after three successful seasons as opposed to just two.  I get that he will probably earn a little less because Benning burned the first year....

 

... is what I would like to believe.  Benning is a mercurial GM.  Sometimes he is really good and sometimes he just isn't.  If burning the first years of Boeser and Hughes means we save a bit of money when we re-sign them to 8-year big boy contracts, then that's a win.  But it has to make a difference or otherwise the first years were burned for no reason.

Times have changed and college prospects need soft handling...  in Boesers case, it allowed him to earn some cash and help out his family.  Quinn might have similar needs.  Plus it's not like we cant use his services.  

 

These moves can help down the road with other contracts and establish a long mutual relationship.  It might not work everytime, but I see no issue in being a players GM during a rebuild/building a team.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Wanless said:

Do you know the rules if they make the playoffs?

 

Do playoff games count towards expansion elligability

 

I believe they do. I also don't believe that will be an issue :lol:

 

4 minutes ago, Fanuck said:

That's what what I was referring to, but didn't obviously state correctly. 

 

I don't see JB/Green playing games with (no pun intended) Hughes.  If he signs here immediately after the NCAA season is done - then I see Hughes playing every game he's healthy for that the Canucks can get him into.  I don't see them picking and choosing which games he plays, or making him practice with the team for two weeks before playing or whatever the case may be, in order to keep him at the 9gm threshold. 

Disagree. There's only going to be 13 games IIRC (at the most) left if his season ends at the earliest point possible. Probably closer to 10 when it actually ends.

 

And I doubt they'd have him play without ANY practice time with the coaches/players/systems.

Share this post


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

That's what what I was referring to, but didn't obviously state correctly. 

 

I don't see JB/Green playing games with (no pun intended) Hughes.  If he signs here immediately after the NCAA season is done - then I see Hughes playing every game he's healthy for that the Canucks can get him into.  I don't see them picking and choosing which games he plays, or making him practice with the team for two weeks before playing or whatever the case may be, in order to keep him at the 9gm threshold. 

Do you not remember Horvat, Virtanen and McCann’s management for the chl 9 game threshold? I doubt Hughes plays enough to become expansion eligible. JB knows what he’s doing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, HorvatToBaertschi said:

Do you not remember Horvat, Virtanen and McCann’s management for the chl 9 game threshold? I doubt Hughes plays enough to become expansion eligible. JB knows what he’s doing. 

I read here that the rules are different for Hughes' circumstance than those you mentioned though.  All Hughes has to do is sign and play one game with us, and it burns a full year off his ELC, and makes him eligible for the Seattle expansion draft.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Alflives said:

I read here that the rules are different for Hughes' circumstance than those you mentioned though.  All Hughes has to do is sign and play one game with us, and it burns a full year off his ELC, and makes him eligible for the Seattle expansion draft.  

I think the rules are different (don't know in what way) because  he's turning 20 years old this calendar year whereas Horvat, Virtanen, and McCann were all younger and coming of the CHL rather than college

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.