[Signing] Tyler Myers to Vancouver

[Rob_Zepp]

1 hour ago, kanucks25 said:

I'm honestly confused. Someone please clarify.

Yes, to clarify, you are honestly confused.        Probably comes from your picture of Toews and constantly staring at it in some sort of a "glory days" nostalgia.

 

Back on topic, Meyers is a nice addition for the Canucks and looking forward to all those who wish to be negative having to invent even more inventive narratives to explain why the success the team having is "not real" or similar.    

[Bubble Man]

1 hour ago, Spoosh said:

Aaaaaand this is where I have to start my summer vacation away from CDC. 

 

CDC members, why don’t you try some mindfulness exercises while I’m gone and try relaxing a bit. It’s a long summer and nothing you say or do will chance the outcome.

 

JT, EP, JB, BB, OJ and Jay-Z will all be here when camp starts and all you do is tarnish real Canuck fans reputation in between now and then.

 

Jim Benning is doing a mighty good job and we’ll have a terrific team this fall!

 

Have a real good summer! 

This hurts more than neglecting to shake my mustard bottle prior to applying it to my ham sammich a few minutes ago. So much regret and fury. I’m ready to throw rocks at my own house. 

[5Fivehole0]

5 hours ago, Pure961089 said:

The way LE’s contract is structured it’s a lot easier to buy him out now than it was before July 1st.   As you can see, looking at the far right column the last 3 years are a lot less than his first 3.  

But we only gain 1M cap relief so instead of 6M for LE get 5M for no one!

[aGENT]

4 hours ago, gameburn said:

The issue is the "insulation" question -- the justification for some of these contracts to the likes of Beagle. 

Pettersson's 70% ozone starts say hi. Not sure where you think those come from?

[mll]

7 hours ago, Pure961089 said:

The way LE’s contract is structured it’s a lot easier to buy him out now than it was before July 1st.   As you can see, looking at the far right column the last 3 years are a lot less than his first 3.  

 

The buyout cap hit is 'cap hit'  less 'salary savings'.  A bit of more complex formula but that's the underlying idea.

 

So the lower the base salary left to pay, the lower the salary savings and therefore the higher the buyout cap hit.  Bonuses are always due and count against the buyout cap hit.  

 

The cap gain after buying out Eriksson is minimal until the final year of his contract given how it is structured.

 

It would be too easy for teams to front load contracts to reduce the cap hit and then buyout the player once salary starts to drop.  Eriksson earned an average of 9M but only had a 6M cap hit. 

 

 

[gameburn]

4 hours ago, aGENT said:

Pettersson's 70% ozone starts say hi. Not sure where you think those come from?

Horvat took more faceoffs than Beagle and more than the rest of the league.  Horvat (young) is insulating Pettersson.  Does this make us both half right or half wrong? 

[aGENT]

7 hours ago, gameburn said:

Horvat took more faceoffs than Beagle and more than the rest of the league.  Horvat (young) is insulating Pettersson.  Does this make us both half right or half wrong? 

And he only took that many because Sutter was injured most of the season. Never mind not really being a rookie/kid any more He's 24 now with 5 seasons under his belt.. So let's go with me being at least 95% right  

[JeremyCuddles]

9 hours ago, gameburn said:

Horvat took more faceoffs than Beagle and more than the rest of the league.  Horvat (young) is insulating Pettersson.  Does this make us both half right or half wrong? 

Now imagine Bo's faceoffs and zone starts if we had no Beagle. He'd be in the 20-30% ozone start range, maybe even lower. Beagle is not only helping insulate Petey and Boeser but taking the workload off Bo and allowing him to play a more two way role opposed to a purely shut down role. People complain about Sutter and Beagle' scoring/contracts. But they were never brought in to score 20 goals or anything.

 

Petey's great season, don't you guy's think that might be because guys like Beagle and Sutter are taking damn near all of the defensive possessions? Beagle had 18% ozone starts. Sutter had 31%, probably would have been lower if he play more than 26 games. Bo had 40%, with Sutter that's probably closer to 45-50%. So imagine we lose Sutter, and we have no Beagle. Where is Bo's defensive deployment? Now, where are his offensive totals after that? They are having an effect on the game even if you don't see it in the box score.

[gameburn]

6 hours ago, N7Nucks said:

Now imagine Bo's faceoffs and zone starts if we had no Beagle. He'd be in the 20-30% ozone start range, maybe even lower. Beagle is not only helping insulate Petey and Boeser but taking the workload off Bo and allowing him to play a more two way role opposed to a purely shut down role. People complain about Sutter and Beagle' scoring/contracts. But they were never brought in to score 20 goals or anything.

 

Petey's great season, don't you guy's think that might be because guys like Beagle and Sutter are taking damn near all of the defensive possessions? Beagle had 18% ozone starts. Sutter had 31%, probably would have been lower if he play more than 26 games. Bo had 40%, with Sutter that's probably closer to 45-50%. So imagine we lose Sutter, and we have no Beagle. Where is Bo's defensive deployment? Now, where are his offensive totals after that? They are having an effect on the game even if you don't see it in the box score.

Your argument is solid.  My only point was that age isn't the issue.  If we could have picked up another player in between Horvat and say, Sutter, in ability, and 21-24 yrs of age, and that guy had done 60% of the d-zone faceoffs, Pettersson would still benefit, as he did with Bo.  If we'd had better luck in the lottery pick we would have that guy now: Dubois.  Or if Gaudette had shown better offense/ability earlier, he'd have provided that insulation too.  All I'm saying is that age isn't the issue: anyone can insulate.  Maybe the offensive players need it.

And we're back to Eriksson, Sutter and Beagle's contracts: albatross material.  I'm not convinced that we couldn't have found a decent d-zone faceoff and penalty guy that wasn't signed when he was already over 30.

[JeremyCuddles]

33 minutes ago, gameburn said:

Your argument is solid.  My only point was that age isn't the issue.  If we could have picked up another player in between Horvat and say, Sutter, in ability, and 21-24 yrs of age, and that guy had done 60% of the d-zone faceoffs, Pettersson would still benefit, as he did with Bo.  If we'd had better luck in the lottery pick we would have that guy now: Dubois.  Or if Gaudette had shown better offense/ability earlier, he'd have provided that insulation too.  All I'm saying is that age isn't the issue: anyone can insulate.  Maybe the offensive players need it.

And we're back to Eriksson, Sutter and Beagle's contracts: albatross material.  I'm not convinced that we couldn't have found a decent d-zone faceoff and penalty guy that wasn't signed when he was already over 30.

Not true, not anyone can insulate. You want them to ideally be good at what you are asking them to do otherwise you risk getting roasted defensively. And with Markstrom and Demko in net you'd rather not have them lose confidence in themselves because you have say a Gaunce or Gagner in a defensive zone faceoff 60% of the time. And we have some young defensemen too that you don't want getting overwhelmed by running a subpar player in a shut down role.

 

Not really relevant to the overall conversation but an interesting thing to note about Dubois since you brought him up, he's not actually all that good defensively in the NHL. He had 67% ozone starts last season and is a sub 45% faceoff guy. He would need the same deployment protection that Petey has since CBJ is actually deploying him the same way we are deploying Petey.

 

I won't argue Eriksson's terrible contract but I'd argue if not for injuries Sutter would be right in line with his paycheck. Beagle is maybe 500k overpaid, but from what I seen he could legitimately play 3rd line center full time and not be out of place. And he did play 3rd line center for a lot of last season and I'd say he was pretty good overall. And Beagle is not "decent at faceoffs" he's great at 56% win rate. He has leadership and some bite to his game. He's a premiere shut down guy that you win games with. Hence his nice little Cup ring. 3mil seems like a lot for things we can't see in box scores but for what he actually brings by the eye test and through the rippling effects in the lineup his 3mil contract is nowhere near "albatross" level.

 

Edit: Yikes, sorry for the long winded comment. Lol.

Edited July 7, 2019 by N7Nucks

[aGENT]

23 minutes ago, gameburn said:

Your argument is solid.  My only point was that age isn't the issue.  If we could have picked up another player in between Horvat and say, Sutter, in ability, and 21-24 yrs of age, and that guy had done 60% of the d-zone faceoffs, Pettersson would still benefit, as he did with Bo.  If we'd had better luck in the lottery pick we would have that guy now: Dubois.  Or if Gaudette had shown better offense/ability earlier, he'd have provided that insulation too.  All I'm saying is that age isn't the issue: anyone can insulate.  Maybe the offensive players need it.

And we're back to Eriksson, Sutter and Beagle's contracts: albatross material.  I'm not convinced that we couldn't have found a decent d-zone faceoff and penalty guy that wasn't signed when he was already over 30.

I'd also like to add to @N7Nucks excellent reply that:

 

1- No 21-24 year old players don't tend to be exceptional defensive players who win 50% + of their faceoffs and PK and start 50%+ of their shifts in the D zone. Just doesn't happen.

 

2- UFA's tend to be 27+ years of age. To get players in that age range you're looking at generally less stellar, undrafted UFA's or trade...Like say Linden Vey (that Benning gets routinely roasted for). And again, neither are generally of the exceptional defensive player type that would make them remotely comparable to the likes of Sutter/Beagle.

[JeremyCuddles]

6 minutes ago, aGENT said:

I'd also like to add to @N7Nucks excellent reply that:

 

1- No 21-24 year old players don't tend to be exceptional defensive players who win 50% + of their faceoffs and PK and start 50%+ of their shifts in the D zone. Just doesn't happen.

 

2- UFA's tend to be 27+ years of age. To get players in that age range you're looking at generally less stellar, undrafted UFA's or trade...Like say Linden Vey (that Benning gets routinely roasted for). And again, neither are generally of the exceptional defensive player type that would make them remotely comparable to the likes of Sutter/Beagle.

Agreed. Yes we can get bottom 6 players in free agency. But having top end ones is rare, as silly as it may sound calling a bottom 6 player "top end". We paid a premium for Beagle who was arguably the best bottom 6 player in his free agent class. But considering he can slot in at 3rd line center and can play with 18% ozone starts and not complain we got a real gem there. That's not even including all the other intangibles he brings. His leadership and professionalism is a huge boon for the kids.

[gameburn]

1 hour ago, N7Nucks said:

Not true, not anyone can insulate. You want them to ideally be good at what you are asking them to do otherwise you risk getting roasted defensively. And with Markstrom and Demko in net you'd rather not have them lose confidence in themselves because you have say a Gaunce or Gagner in a defensive zone faceoff 60% of the time. And we have some young defensemen too that you don't want getting overwhelmed by running a subpar player in a shut down role.

 

Not really relevant to the overall conversation but an interesting thing to note about Dubois since you brought him up, he's not actually all that good defensively in the NHL. He had 67% ozone starts last season and is a sub 45% faceoff guy. He would need the same deployment protection that Petey has since CBJ is actually deploying him the same way we are deploying Petey.

 

I won't argue Eriksson's terrible contract but I'd argue if not for injuries Sutter would be right in line with his paycheck. Beagle is maybe 500k overpaid, but from what I seen he could legitimately play 3rd line center full time and not be out of place. And he did play 3rd line center for a lot of last season and I'd say he was pretty good overall. And Beagle is not "decent at faceoffs" he's great at 56% win rate. He has leadership and some bite to his game. He's a premiere shut down guy that you win games with. Hence his nice little Cup ring. 3mil seems like a lot for things we can't see in box scores but for what he actually brings by the eye test and through the rippling effects in the lineup his 3mil contract is nowhere near "albatross" level.

 

Edit: Yikes, sorry for the long winded comment. Lol.

Okay, and Beagle has only been here 1 yr, so unlike Sutter and Eriksson who have proven themselves very disappointing in different ways, Beagle may not be an albatross.

[JeremyCuddles]

1 minute ago, gameburn said:

Okay, and Beagle has only been here 1 yr, so unlike Sutter and Eriksson who have proven themselves very disappointing in different ways, Beagle may not be an albatross.

The only thing disappointing about Sutter, for me, has been his health. But I guess my expectations are lower.

[gameburn]

29 minutes ago, N7Nucks said:

The only thing disappointing about Sutter, for me, has been his health. But I guess my expectations are lower.

As we all know, Sutter was originally slated to be a number 2 center, in fact he took the place of our number 2 via the Kesler trade for Bonino.  He quickly fell to 3rd center, in part because Horvat was pretty good even when he was young, and partly because Sutter didn't score enough.  He is paid in 2nd/3rd line money (at least at the time, things have inflated a bit since then.)   He hasn't earned his money. 

 

Re: injury.  Injuries matter.  The older a player is, the more they get injured.  

The Canucks have suffered a LOT of injuries, and most of these are, predictably, to the vets: Edler, Tanev, Dorsett, Beagle, Roussel, and Sutter.

 

A 3rd or 4th line center who can "insulate" our younger 1st and 2nd centers isn't much use if he misses a third of a season, because you need then need, predictably again, 3 insulators to the job of 2.  Add more older players to back them up?  It would just compound the situation.  If we didn't have salary caps and a limit to how many players can be in a lineup at a time, my guess is that old school gms would add yet more Sutter/Beagle/Edler types to insulate the insulators (from injury in this case.)

 

I just think that a rebuilding team that drafts as well as this team does should not saddle itself with so many 3,4 and 5 year deals for guys that are 30 or older.  Because with any luck at all those drafted guys can make an impact (and require pay!) before the longer contracts for the insulators have expired.  I mean we are starting to see it now: if Eriksson and Sutter (11 million between them I believe!) weren't on the books, I suspect we'd be able to pick up an under-30yrs old impact player in FA, e.g., Ferland. 

My fear is that Benning is old school: he remembers players from his own day (and from Boston 6 years ago) who really could play at 35 and really could be paid for.  Neither is true now, imo. 

 

[PuckFather]

So based on The USGS Earthquake Hazards Program of the U.S. (USGS), apparently the California earthquake was caused by aftershocks of HFBoards tank nation anger with Myers signing.

[Kanukfanatic]

46 minutes ago, gameburn said:

As we all know, Sutter was originally slated to be a number 2 center,

 

Sutter has never been a #2 centre and everyone knew that. Maybe he was going to be a placeholder for a short period and it turned out to be real short so he could play his real position - #3 c.

[gameburn]

22 minutes ago, Kanukfanatic said:

Sutter has never been a #2 centre and everyone knew that. Maybe he was going to be a placeholder for a short period and it turned out to be real short so he could play his real position - #3 c.

But he is paid as something in between a 2nd and a 3rd, and when he was signed, no one really knew if Horvat was going to be as good as he has turned out to be.  

[theo5789]

15 minutes ago, gameburn said:

But he is paid as something in between a 2nd and a 3rd, and when he was signed, no one really knew if Horvat was going to be as good as he has turned out to be.  

He's not the traditional 2nd line offensive producer, but when healthy, he was often on matchup duty so he took a lot of minutes and the harder ones. Pretty sure if he was healthy, this would've continued and he would've been logging 2nd/high 3rd line minutes against the top opposition.

[riffraff]

13 hours ago, N7Nucks said:

Now imagine Bo's faceoffs and zone starts if we had no Beagle. He'd be in the 20-30% ozone start range, maybe even lower. Beagle is not only helping insulate Petey and Boeser but taking the workload off Bo and allowing him to play a more two way role opposed to a purely shut down role. People complain about Sutter and Beagle' scoring/contracts. But they were never brought in to score 20 goals or anything.

 

Petey's great season, don't you guy's think that might be because guys like Beagle and Sutter are taking damn near all of the defensive possessions? Beagle had 18% ozone starts. Sutter had 31%, probably would have been lower if he play more than 26 games. Bo had 40%, with Sutter that's probably closer to 45-50%. So imagine we lose Sutter, and we have no Beagle. Where is Bo's defensive deployment? Now, where are his offensive totals after that? They are having an effect on the game even if you don't see it in the box score.

Sutter didn’t play this year but I agree with the idea.

 

we saw it in the leafs losing in the first round where Tavares is held to two way duty and all the scoring is left to a diminutive albeit talented and inexperienced marner,  overrated Matthews and flamingo.