If someone gives Boeser a HUGE offersheets should we match or let him walk and collect the picks?

[mll]

27 minutes ago, Kobayashi Maru said:

Ah, thanks for the clarification as I missed that part.  I stand corrected.  Guessing that players like Laine or Provorov would not go for 5 years only but who knows.

They might actually prefer 5 years and bank on themselves.  They are then free agents and can get a new contract that accounts for the cap increase and will likely have their choice of teams.  

 

Edited June 27, 2019 by mll

[Kobayashi Maru]

1 minute ago, mll said:

They might actually prefer 5 years and bank on themselves.  They are then free agents and can get a new contract that accounts for the cap increase and will likely have their choice of teams.  

 

It's true and if their teams are offering them less AAV then it could work out.  For example if the Jets are offering 8.5 over 7 and we offer over 10.5 over 5 his earning potential with us would be higher long term.  Same with Provorov and Phili.  Obviously a risk of getting backlisted from GMs but definitely some examples that could put us over the top.

[iceman64]

On 6/25/2019 at 5:18 PM, gurn said:

That dog looks well cared for and very well fed.

Kind of reminds me of wellwood but i'm curious if that dog can actually get up, rule number one, don't over feed you dog!

Edited July 4, 2019 by iceman64

[Sbriggs]

On 6/25/2019 at 4:36 PM, BCNeil said:

I don't see any realistic offer we wouldn't match.  But as far as unrealistic I guess at over $10.6 you let him go.  

I'd let him go @ 8-8.5 mil. If we havn't learned this season, cap hit and term can kill teams, we all like Brock, love him to be a Canuck for life, but not if it hurts the team long term. Now if he brings us a few Stanley's like Toews or Kane brought Chicago then I'm ok with ending up like them but were not there yet

[Tomatoes11]

The sad thing about all of this is that it masks another terrible management decision. If we didn’t burn his first year with a meaningless 10 games we would have him for dirt cheap this season and could have used the 7 million for Nyquist and something else. 

 

We burned Hughes first year for no good reason either.

 

 

[Junkyard Dog]

Nobody can offer sheet him fortunately. 

 

Can’t go into arbitration. Could favour Canucks. I’d try to sign him long term. 

[Hindustan Smyl]

On 6/26/2019 at 7:26 AM, 10pavelbure96 said:

If anyone offers Boeser 70 million over 7 years they should be fired lol.

 

I would take the picks.

 

But we all know the Brock star is staying in Vancity!

Boeser can’t be tendered an offer sheet as he technically doesn’t have three full years in the NHL.

[BPA]

19 hours ago, Tomatoes11 said:

The sad thing about all of this is that it masks another terrible management decision. If we didn’t burn his first year with a meaningless 10 games we would have him for dirt cheap this season and could have used the 7 million for Nyquist and something else. 

 

We burned Hughes first year for no good reason either.

 

 

Perhaps it's to guage how far along they are in their progress at the NHL level.  Yes it's late in the season but it gives hope to the fans that the future (Boeser and Hughes) looks good.  After the 9 game stint, Brock was probably already penciled in as a top 6 forward.  Thus letting JB not focus on filling that slot during the off-season.  Same with Quinn.  QH looks so good that it's his spot to lose.  So now JB doesn't have to re-sign Hutton because QH seems ready.

[StanleyCupOneDay]

On 6/25/2019 at 4:28 PM, Master Higgins said:

Boeser cant be offer sheeted, so dont worry about it

 

Why has the thread continued past this?

[5Fivehole0]

On 7/4/2019 at 12:26 AM, Tomatoes11 said:

The sad thing about all of this is that it masks another terrible management decision. If we didn’t burn his first year with a meaningless 10 games we would have him for dirt cheap this season and could have used the 7 million for Nyquist and something else. 

 

We burned Hughes first year for no good reason either.

 

 

You're mostly a negative troll, but you are correct... They were trying to get fans excited for next season... There was no reason to play Boeser or Hughes at those points.

[spook007]

6 hours ago, BPA said:

Perhaps it's to guage how far along they are in their progress at the NHL level.  Yes it's late in the season but it gives hope to the fans that the future (Boeser and Hughes) looks good.  After the 9 game stint, Brock was probably already penciled in as a top 6 forward.  Thus letting JB not focus on filling that slot during the off-season.  Same with Quinn.  QH looks so good that it's his spot to lose.  So now JB doesn't have to re-sign Hutton because QH seems ready.

And maybe it was because it was part of their negotiations... Boesers camp may have said, that they wanted to see money early, or he could be tempted to stay in Uni another year... thus making him eligible to go to, whomever he wanted...

You don't want to screw over our biggest assets before they start their careers...

[Raspberries]

 so they've just signed Leivo.  The rate they are going they will have nothing left to sign Boeser.  This is getting ridiculous.

[WeneedLumme]

47 minutes ago, Raspberries said:

 so they've just signed Leivo.  The rate they are going they will have nothing left to sign Boeser.  This is getting ridiculous.

What a ridiculous thing to say. Of course they will sign Brock. Do you really expect anyone to take nonsense like this seriously?

[Gurn]

On 7/4/2019 at 12:30 AM, Junkyard Dog said:

Nobody can offer sheet him fortunately.  

 

Can’t go into arbitration. Could favour Canucks. I’d try to sign him long term. 

The fact that no one can offer sheet him is something JB knew when he allowed Brock to play at the end of that season, the same thing will occur with Hughes.

In other words JB PLANNED IT THIS WAY.

On 7/4/2019 at 12:26 AM, Tomatoes11 said:

The sad thing about all of this is that it masks another terrible management decision. If we didn’t burn his first year with a meaningless 10 games we would have him for dirt cheap this season and could have used the 7 million for Nyquist and something else. 

 

We burned Hughes first year for no good reason either.

 

 

The fact that no one can offer sheet him is something JB knew when he allowed Brock to play at the end of that season, the same thing will occur with Hughes.

In other words JB PLANNED IT THIS WAY.

[stawns]

1 hour ago, Raspberries said:

 so they've just signed Leivo.  The rate they are going they will have nothing left to sign Boeser.  This is getting ridiculous.

[cdubuya]

I think you only consider it at 4 first round picks....and even then its debatable

[coastal.view]

On 7/4/2019 at 12:26 AM, Tomatoes11 said:

The sad thing about all of this is that it masks another terrible management decision. If we didn’t burn his first year with a meaningless 10 games we would have him for dirt cheap this season and could have used the 7 million for Nyquist and something else. 

 

We burned Hughes first year for no good reason either.

 

 

i don't think you really understand the strategy

and you are horribly anti benning

so it clouds your judgment

 

how about if you see if you can figure out why jb in fact had brock and hughes burn a few games at the end of seasons

what upside do you think it gave the team ?

(i'll give you a hint... read the post by gurn)

 

Edited July 5, 2019 by coastal.view

[spur1]

1 hour ago, Raspberries said:

 so they've just signed Leivo.  The rate they are going they will have nothing left to sign Boeser.  This is getting ridiculous.

Why did they give Leivo 9 mil per?

[BCNate]

10 hours ago, 5Fivehole0 said:

You're mostly a negative troll, but you are correct... They were trying to get fans excited for next season... There was no reason to play Boeser or Hughes at those points.

I'd argue that that NHL experience after playing college is huge and sets them both up for the following season.  I'd also argue that it saves us money in the long run.  BB will be signed mid to long term this off season.  If he goes out and puts up 40+ goals next year and then negotiated his new deal, his contract is going to be at least 1.5-2 mill a year higher. 

[coolboarder]

On 7/4/2019 at 12:26 AM, Tomatoes11 said:

The sad thing about all of this is that it masks another terrible management decision. If we didn’t burn his first year with a meaningless 10 games we would have him for dirt cheap this season and could have used the 7 million for Nyquist and something else. 

 

We burned Hughes first year for no good reason either.

 

 

There are risks of them not signing with us at the end of 4 years of college so giving them 10 games guarantees that we will have his service for a few more  years and the right to match the contract.  If the price is too rich, i.e. 4 first round picks for next 4 years, we'd have to consider if he is worth that high price for an unproven commodity.  The question will become, is he worth the price if he regressed latter part of the contract?  Also, he is not eligible for an offer sheet or arbitration.  The same for Hughes, he doesn't have any rights to these either.  Drafting a college aged players bring risks because he can choose to stay in school and choose a team of his choice at end of 4 years.