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

[Rumor] Boeser Camp Eyeing 4 Year Deal Worth $28M


Recommended Posts

Just now, mll said:

1.075M can be buried this season.  It's league minimum + 375K - league minimum is 700K.

 

As long as he is in the minors 1.075M can be deducted from his cap hit.  If he is recalled the full cap hit is then back on the books.  

Thats what I thought, Thanks bud 

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, MattJVD said:

When recalled to the NHL, he'll be back at the original salary, but that would be offset by LTIR relief from Rousell. When Rousell is healthy again and is activated, we have to waive that player again.

 

Say we waived Eriksson, Shaller, and Biega (just an example). We would recieve 1.025 (Eriksson), 1.025 (Shaller) and 825k (Biega) in cap space. That would land us at 4.16+ 2.875= 7.035 million in cap. 

 

Boeser can be signed for 7.035, Rousell can be placed on IR, Shaller can be recalled and we'd receive 1.9 million in LTIR relief from Rousell to fit Shaller on the roster. When Rousell is healthy again, Shaller gets waived again and Rousell is activated and we're still under the cap.

 

Edit, looks like it's actually 1.075, not 1.025.

Cheers Matt, thought that's how it worked... appreciated.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mll said:

 

Roussel is going to come off IR at some point.  They will need a roster spot for him too.  Once he comes off IR sending a player down will create another 1.075M in cap space.  

 

So the absolute max Boeser can sign for is with a healthy Roussel and 3 players waived to have a 23 player roster with Boeser and Roussel.  If you don't account for that 3rd player being waived you'll have an additional 1.075M in cap space once Roussel is activated and that 3rd player gets sent down.   

 

You can use LTIR for that 3rd player as long as Roussel is injured.  It doesn't allow for a lot of flexibility if you sign him to the absolute max but in theory that's what you can offer him.

 

Exactly. That 3rd player won’t be waived until Roussel is back. Roussel cap hit is 3 million where the max we can save on that buried salary is 1.075. Which is exactly why it’s unlikely for Brock to sign long term. I’m not sure why so many are struggling to understand that.  

 

But I guess when some people @aGENT think Brock going to accept 7x7 or 6.5x6 it starts to add up why it isn’t clicking for them. 

Edited by ForsbergTheGreat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

 

It will be 7.135 but do people really believe Brock is going to sign long term for that. Again Keller just got more than that. Why would Brock who’s been a far more superior player up to this point take less than Keller?  

 

Yes, thanks for the correction. I had originally had 1.025 and not 1.075 million as the max cap relief for sending a player down. I was just using it as a maximum bound for a possible signing, with no assemptions made on contract term.

  • Thanks 1
  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, stawns said:

if that were the case, he'd be signed already, imo.

Its very possible that Canucks are trying to push him into a 1 or 2 year 5 - 6 million deal based on his injury history in the first 2 years.

 

Ideally, 2 summers from now, even though we have to re-up with Hughes and Pettersson, we are in a much better position as that's when its forecasted that the cap will start to significantly jump again.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MattJVD said:

Yes, thanks for the correction. I had originally had 1.025 and not 1.075 million as the max cap relief for sending a player down. I was just using it as a maximum bound for a possible signing, with no assemptions made on contract term.

Ok sorry I was under the assumption you were thinking we could land him long term for that. 

 

 If we’re talking a bridge I fully agree we could lock him in under that. Problem with a say 3 year bridge is if Brock hits 40 goals he’s going to be asking for a lot more come his next contract. Add that into what petey and Hughes could be looking for and we might run into a bit of trouble. 

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Ok sorry I was under the assumption you were thinking we could land him long term for that. 

 

 If we’re talking a bridge I fully agree we could lock him in under that. Problem with a say 3 year bridge is if Brock hits 40 goals he’s going to be asking for a lot more come his next contract. Add that into what petey and Hughes could be looking for and we might run into a bit of trouble. 

Yeah, it's a risk for sure. If there is any truth to the $7 million x 4 that he is looking for, I'd be comfortable in that range. But it's really hard to tell what our cap situation will be like when that deal expires. Like you said, we could be in trouble then. 

I'm really high on Petey's potential, imo he could be an 8 figure signing when his ELC is done. I think he'll be earning Eichel money

Edited by MattJVD
  • Cheers 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Ok sorry I was under the assumption you were thinking we could land him long term for that. 

 

 If we’re talking a bridge I fully agree we could lock him in under that. Problem with a say 3 year bridge is if Brock hits 40 goals he’s going to be asking for a lot more come his next contract. Add that into what petey and Hughes could be looking for and we might run into a bit of trouble. 

If he hits 40 goals (consistently, say a couple of years of the contract, +/-3 goals), then pay the man. We will have a ton of contracts coming off the books and the cap will be increasing. In 3 years, LE (6), Sutter (4.38), Pearson (3.75), Baertschi (3.37), Roussel (3), Beagle (3) could be all gone. That's about 23 million. Of course they need to be replaced, but that's when our well drafted talent will be more vital.

 

I'm not concerned at this point if BB signs a bridge as long as he doesn't take full control by having a massively backloaded deal. If we cannot fit his price tag to our cap, he will be a very tradable player for good assets (assuming he's playing worth a crazy ask that we can't afford). Don't want to trade him, but if he's trying to take of himself (which is fair), we need to take care of our team and do what's best for us as well.

  • Cheers 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

 

26 including Roussel who will be on IR. 

Roussel on IR + 2 waived player equals a 23 man roster. 

 

If you waive 3 players. 3 + Roussel equals a 22 man roster

Perhaps that’s what they intend to do - run with 22 instead of 23 players, as long as we roster 20 it’s ok.   Also in the past some teams have been over the cap for a game or two - the penalty is they play with a shortened bench (one player) it’s not ideal but it’s not insurmountable either.   When JB says he has options he’s right, and if we lose a low level asset form basically nothing that’s ok too.  Nice to have real cap issues, it’s been a while. 

  • Cheers 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, aGENT said:

I'm not banking on anyone being claimed. I'm doing simple math.

a claim would be nifty tho, of Schaller in particular (no ones going to claim Loui). But he's more tradable once he clears too, could probably move him to Boston for "future considerations" :lol:

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

If he hits 40 goals (consistently, say a couple of years of the contract, +/-3 goals), then pay the man. We will have a ton of contracts coming off the books and the cap will be increasing. In 3 years, LE (6), Sutter (4.38), Pearson (3.75), Baertschi (3.37), Roussel (3), Beagle (3) could be all gone. That's about 23 million. Of course they need to be replaced, but that's when our well drafted talent will be more vital.

If it puts up the dollars for sure pay the man. I’m just concerned and don’t want us becoming a top end heavy cap crunch like the leafs and oilers. Part of being a successful franchise is having a number guys on team friendly deals. Maybe one or two super stars but having 3 or 4 guys take up a size able chunk makes it hard to build a winner. 

 

 

 

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, IBatch said:

Perhaps that’s what they intend to do - run with 22 instead of 23 players, as long as we roster 20 it’s ok.  

I could see 7D to start the year potentially. 

 

I'm not too worried. I still think Ottawa is making a mistake not picking up some prospects for Loui but what can you do? Suddenly Dorian comes to his senses with us. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

The puts us at 26 players. 

Down to 23 man

Down to 22 man

Puts us back to 23 but that cap is also brought back up giving us only 2 million is buried cap space. Roussel LTIR gives us somewhat temp relief. 

 

 

Thus adding another 2 million in cap space put us OVER the cap ceiling. 

 

Math is simple but clearly you struggle. 

 

 

The one who's struggling with math here is you. You should be embarrassed. You clearly haven't even though this out as well as you think.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No issue here,folks. A lot of people (mainly media types which in turn drives alot of CDC craziness)are predicting this and that based on what? The lack of information being thrown about. The only 2 parties with any true knowledge involving Boeser"s contract are boeser's manager and canucks management, everything else is hear say. I expect to see Boesers contract and signing information revealed by Vintage before this friday. Both parties would find it beneficial to start the season right. As for how it gets done is no concern to me as what has to happen will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Exactly. That 3rd player won’t be waived until Roussel is back. Roussel cap hit is 3 million where the max we can save on that buried salary is 1.075. Which is exactly why it’s unlikely for Brock to sign long term. I’m not sure why so many are struggling to understand that.  

 

But I guess when some people @aGENT think Brock going to accept 7x7 or 6.5x6 it starts to add up why it isn’t clicking for them. 

Except, this whole discussion was about how we would fit him in with around a $7 million cap hit, not about the term he'd get. It has already been explained to you how it would work, yet you still ignore the facts.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Camel Toe Drag said:

Given the reality and flexibility of the cap space we have to sign Brock, this whole saga has really caused me to dislike Dahliwal and his Chicken little attitude towards the negotiations. I don't know if it's tabloid mentality to spark conversation or just pure pessimism. Either way his shtick is tiresome.  

Amen brother, while I do appreciate his inside track with the team. Seems like he has gone to the Jeff Patterson school of reporting with melodramatic tweets. First it was the Edler camp “moving on” as a Canuck earlier in the summer and now this. Rick’s just upset because the doctor told him he can’t have rum and coke anymore. He never was this chicken little reporter he has transformed into this summer.

FA700412-F676-4D06-8E87-32A6C758DC2B.gif

  • Cheers 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...