Sign in to follow this  
GoldenAlien

Brogan Rafferty | D

Recommended Posts

Nothing spectacular. Could use a year in Utica. Good skating but looked overwhelmed today. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Probably the only way to convince them to sign with the Canucks.  Burning a year of the ELC is a selling point.

Because of their age Teves and Rafferty can not have their ELCs slide and they had to be signed to one year contracts so they burned off their ELCs as soon as the ink hit the paper for a contract in the 2018-19 season.  They never had to play a single game to become RFA on July 1st of this year.  That is how the ELC rules are in the CBA but the waiver rules (as capfriendly describes them below) are different.  The first year for the number of seasons played kicks in when the player plays in his first professional game.

 

  • For players whom are 20 or older, the year in which they play their first Professional Game (e.g. NHL, AHL, ECHL, KHL, European Leagues) is the year which is considered their first year towards the waiver exemption; however, the player must be under an NHL contract.

 

So by playing in one meaningless game both Teves and Rafferty burn off one full season of waiver exemption which is poor asset management.  Who knows if this will be an issue two years from now but there certainly is a possibility that we will look back and regret it.  I haven't read a single scouting report that would indicate that either one of these players projects into a near term every day NHL player so a NHL/AHL tweener depth defenseman is a real possibility.  For an organization that never has enough depth in the system to cover all of the injuries in both Vancouver and Utica protecting assets into the future should be a priority.

 

It is rare that burning a year off of waiver exemption comes back to hurt you but it does happen.  The Canucks burned a year off of Frankie Corrado's waiver exemption by playing in a total of 7 games at the end of the season which burned a year off.  If he played in one less game he would have kept that year of waiver exemption and he would never have been claimed by the Leafs only to sit in the press box for almost an entire season which killed the development of a young defenseman.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Because of their age Teves and Rafferty can not have their ELCs slide and they had to be signed to one year contracts so they burned off their ELCs as soon as the ink hit the paper for a contract in the 2018-19 season.  They never had to play a single game to become RFA on July 1st of this year.  That is how the ELC rules are in the CBA but the waiver rules (as capfriendly describes them below) are different.  The first year for the number of seasons played kicks in when the player plays in his first professional game.

 

  • For players whom are 20 or older, the year in which they play their first Professional Game (e.g. NHL, AHL, ECHL, KHL, European Leagues) is the year which is considered their first year towards the waiver exemption; however, the player must be under an NHL contract.

 

So by playing in one meaningless game both Teves and Rafferty burn off one full season of waiver exemption which is poor asset management.  Who knows if this will be an issue two years from now but there certainly is a possibility that we will look back and regret it.  I haven't read a single scouting report that would indicate that either one of these players projects into a near term every day NHL player so a NHL/AHL tweener depth defenseman is a real possibility.  For an organization that never has enough depth in the system to cover all of the injuries in both Vancouver and Utica protecting assets into the future should be a priority.

 

It is rare that burning a year off of waiver exemption comes back to hurt you but it does happen.  The Canucks burned a year off of Frankie Corrado's waiver exemption by playing in a total of 7 games at the end of the season which burned a year off.  If he played in one less game he would have kept that year of waiver exemption and he would never have been claimed by the Leafs only to sit in the press box for almost an entire season which killed the development of a young defenseman.  


Thanks for the explanation.  

 

Could that have been negotiated by their agents.  Playing that one game could have them graduate to the NHL earlier to avoid being picked off waivers.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought he had an ok game. Made a couple decent plays but coughed up the puck as much as pouliot and looked a little lost in the defensive zonep and got hemmed in a few times. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt because he has not been involved in a full practice, but he'll need some work this offseason 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DS4quality said:

I thought he had an ok game. Made a couple decent plays but coughed up the puck as much as pouliot and looked a little lost in the defensive zonep and got hemmed in a few times. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt because he has not been involved in a full practice, but he'll need some work this offseason 

His first game, 99% of prospects are nervous and struggle in their first game...especially at game 81 when teams are battling.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

 

 

This:

 

 

You don't burn the year, you don't get the player. It's pretty simple.

I'm going to borrow a thought from Bad Goalie on hfboards.  Last night during the between periods interview with Dan Murphy and Ian MacIntyre, iMac stated that the reason why so many NCAA free agents were interested in signing with Vancouver is that they see the young core of talented prospects in Vancouver and they want to be part of that future success.  So if that statement is true why does Benning have to add in the extra incentive of playing in one NHL game this season to burn off a year of waiver exemption to get these guys signed?  There are plenty of college players signing contracts signing contracts that don't start until July 1st for the 2019-20 season that do not burn either a year of their ELC or waiver exemption.

 

If Vancouver is a good destination for these college free agents based on the current state of the rebuild then Benning should be negotiating from a position of strength not a position of weakness.  

Share this post


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

Opportunity is certainly part of the picture but I can guarantee you that we're not the only team offering to  burn a year (or offering opportunity). 

 

Less opportunity? Probably don't sign here.

 

Not burning a year? Probably don't sign here.

 

At some point the Canucks need to be viewed as the team that doesn't always give up everything in a negotiation to get a free agent signed.  This goes from throwing in a fourth year to guys like Beagle and Roussel to burning off ELC and waiver years with every college player they sign.  That reputation is used against them by agents in every negotiation with the current management and will not change until there is new management.  Other teams can get free agents signed without giving away the store so why can't Vancouver? 

  • Hydration 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

At some point the Canucks need to be viewed as the team that doesn't always give up everything in a negotiation to get a free agent signed.  This goes from throwing in a fourth year to guys like Beagle and Roussel to burning off ELC and waiver years with every college player they sign.  That reputation is used against them by agents in every negotiation with the current management and will not change until there is new management.  Other teams can get free agents signed without giving away the store so why can't Vancouver? 

Probably because we've been a bottom feeding team in rebuild.

 

Start winning and that changes.

Edited by aGENT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a depth defenseman I have no qualms of burning a year off a ELC, pretty sure it wont haunt the Canucks if/when it's time to resign.

 

Side note, OMG does this guy remind me of my former dealer lol.  Brogan is such a fitting name.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, DS4quality said:

I thought he had an ok game. Made a couple decent plays but coughed up the puck as much as pouliot and looked a little lost in the defensive zonep and got hemmed in a few times. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt because he has not been involved in a full practice, but he'll need some work this offseason 

Derek Pouliot 200 NHL games and 124 AHL games.  

 

Brogan Rafferty 1 NHL game.

 

I think this is why he gets the benefit of the doubt.

Share this post


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

The way I see it, there are three possibilities for guys like Rafferty/ Teves:

- They blow the door off next season like Hutton/ Stecher.  Therefore they will not be on waivers two years from now.

- They develop more into a Sautner or a Biega.  Guys like them pass through waivers every year.

- They develop into career AHLers.  Please do not re-sign.

While I do not profess to be a mind reader; I think the reasoning for signing both Teves and Rafferty had a lot to do with filling a pressing need for Defense men at both the NHL and AHL level. To me it makes perfect sense to target NCAA players as they are older and more physically mature; also I have no doubt that both players were scouted for some time prior to them actually being signed by the Canucks.

 

One could argue that the Canucks could have just signed a couple of NHL plugs to fill some of the holes on the D both in Utica and in Van. The problem with plugs is they usually have been around the track a few times, so to speak; and offer little to no upside IE: what you see is what you get. With these NCAA players there is the potential of them having a degree or two of upside to their games and that makes them much more appealing to the Canucks management

  • Hydration 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Kootenay Gold said:

While I do not profess to be a mind reader; I think the reasoning for signing both Teves and Rafferty had a lot to do with filling a pressing need for Defense men at both the NHL and AHL level. To me it makes perfect sense to target NCAA players as they are older and more physically mature; also I have no doubt that both players were scouted for some time prior to them actually being signed by the Canucks.

 

One could argue that the Canucks could have just signed a couple of NHL plugs to fill some of the holes on the D both in Utica and in Van. The problem with plugs is they usually have been around the track a few times, so to speak; and offer little to no upside IE: what you see is what you get. With these NCAA players there is the potential of them having a degree or two of upside to their games and that makes them much more appealing to the Canucks management

I probably should've been clearer, I agree that signing college free agents is more worthwhile than hoping some career journeyman can fill a hole.  I meant more in terms of the hoopla over waiver exemption, burning a year off makes little difference when the prospect is already 24 years old.  If they can't make the roster by the time they're waiver eligible, then let whichever team that wants a 26 year old AHLer take them.   On the other hand, if they surprise and become solid NHLers, then they won't end up on waivers anyway.  

  • Hydration 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, UticaHockey said:

Because of their age Teves and Rafferty can not have their ELCs slide and they had to be signed to one year contracts so they burned off their ELCs as soon as the ink hit the paper for a contract in the 2018-19 season.  They never had to play a single game to become RFA on July 1st of this year.  That is how the ELC rules are in the CBA but the waiver rules (as capfriendly describes them below) are different.  The first year for the number of seasons played kicks in when the player plays in his first professional game.

 

  • For players whom are 20 or older, the year in which they play their first Professional Game (e.g. NHL, AHL, ECHL, KHL, European Leagues) is the year which is considered their first year towards the waiver exemption; however, the player must be under an NHL contract.

 

So by playing in one meaningless game both Teves and Rafferty burn off one full season of waiver exemption which is poor asset management.  Who knows if this will be an issue two years from now but there certainly is a possibility that we will look back and regret it.  I haven't read a single scouting report that would indicate that either one of these players projects into a near term every day NHL player so a NHL/AHL tweener depth defenseman is a real possibility.  For an organization that never has enough depth in the system to cover all of the injuries in both Vancouver and Utica protecting assets into the future should be a priority.

 

It is rare that burning a year off of waiver exemption comes back to hurt you but it does happen.  The Canucks burned a year off of Frankie Corrado's waiver exemption by playing in a total of 7 games at the end of the season which burned a year off.  If he played in one less game he would have kept that year of waiver exemption and he would never have been claimed by the Leafs only to sit in the press box for almost an entire season which killed the development of a young defenseman.  

Thanks for that, really appreciated.

Share this post


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

It is evident that you have never been on the wrong end of a bidding war. So try this: go to an auction, and when several different people are bidding on something, try to negotiate with the auctioneer and see how far you get.

Benning is like a sales rep that is not capable of negotiating on the added value that his company can bring to the table and automatically resorts to offering the lowest price each time to make that sale. Every procurement manager knows it as soon as he walks in their door and starts salivating.

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...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.