Sign in to follow this  
Bert Diesel

The Great Salary Cap Conundrum

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Phat Fingers said:

For us, but if seeing as he just got his garuantee 8m bonus July 1st... whomever takes over the contract gets a buyout friendly deal as we have already taken the hit.  

You need to read the chart.  

 

We, or whomever takes him on in trade, achieve almost no cap savings the next 3 years buying him out.  

 

You are correct in understanding, there may be a cap floor team that trades for him. But he will most likely play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, stawns said:

thats almost entirely media/"fan" driven.  JB didn't seem to think it was anything to be concerned about, so I'm not sure why fans and media care.  

Some people like to get worked up over tempests in teapots, and many in the media do their best to create said tempests, to get attention.

Share this post


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

You need to read the chart.  

 

We, or whomever takes him on in trade, achieve almost no cap savings the next 3 years buying him out.  

 

You are correct in understanding, there may be a cap floor team that trades for him. But he will most likely play.

Oops.  My bad.  Thanks for the polite correction.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, IBatch said:

It would have to be in a different league. He won’t be allowed to sign another contract in the NHL until this one’s up.   I agree he’s worth that much here, maybe he can go back to Sweden and wait it out but doubt he’d get that much, in the KHL it’s possible I suppose.    Personally I think this thing is blown way out of proportion, Hull and Roenick said silly things about the game and sometimes about their teams all the time that we’re way more serious then answering a question honestly in a different country.  I know none of us are happy with his play, based on the cap hit at least, but really think we will be stuck with him for the duration.  Going to Utica could push him to leave, especially after a while, the Wedden rule keeps teams from burying bad contracts.   I’m not fond of guys retiring from the league still counting against the cap hit like Luongo.  But get that too.  Buying him out would be the worse possible scenario for the teams fortunes when everyone is in their prime and hate option the most.   Three more years.  Just use him and hope for the best.

The contract is buy out proof. I forgot that he can't sign with another team until contract is up.

So it is trade or play here. 1 mil savings for Utica , not worth it.

Let's hope Loui wakes up. He could be an asset instead of an embarrassment to Jim. I think it is in Loui's hands. Fans will be on this guy , I am sure of that. 

  • Hydration 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, WeneedLumme said:

Some people like to get worked up over tempests in teapots, and many in the media do their best to create said tempests, to get attention.

I think you are incorrect in this assumption.

What I think it is, is that a certain set of fans revel in Brian Burkes famous "I'll drive him to the airport" quote.

Like Roger's towel and the Burrows / Auger spat the Burkie quote live on in infammy for certain fans. Not the management that has turned over  3 times and not the players who have no memory of said statement. These fans are so desparate to rid themselves of Loui's 6x6 contract that they will willfully imagine that Luoi has slighted the team irreparably and that Jim will unleash his inner Burkie (because all Canuck GMs have an inner Burkie, he is part of the fabric of this club) and "DRIVE" this scourge called Loui from the team.

Its like the guy who starts a fight with "What are you lookin' at?" The reality of the offence is not important, what is important is that someone goes home with a black eye and a broken nose, or in this case, a "drive to the airport". 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

The contract is buy out proof. I forgot that he can't sign with another team until contract is up.

So it is trade or play here. 1 mil savings for Utica , not worth it.

Let's hope Loui wakes up. He could be an asset instead of an embarrassment to Jim. I think it is in Loui's hands. Fans will be on this guy , I am sure of that. 

Personally I can stomach the next three years of LE for what it is...but if before the last season or even worse a season from now Benning decides he has to buy him out my head might explode.  Hate to get that close and then have him go for 3 million in cap savings spread out for 2-4 more years after his current contract is up..don’t want us handcuffed at all past the Luongo re-capture.  Agree we should just play him until he’s the 13th forward, if it gets to that then Utica it is.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

image.png.fd4d69e7cf88f677beeb3b9964fea5e8.png

 

I am putting this out there for discussion and how overblown the salary cap conundrum might be. Don't think I have missed anyone that was on last years roster and still a part of the team; also not saying this is how it will play out but just one example out of many possibilities. JB can paper down Pettersson to Utica to hit the 23 man limit and then put Roussel on LTIR for the time being. Obviously some other moves will need to be made before Roussel returns to active duty but buys JB some time in order to do that.

  • Hydration 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Kootenay Gold said:

image.png.fd4d69e7cf88f677beeb3b9964fea5e8.png

 

I am putting this out there for discussion and how overblown the salary cap conundrum might be. Don't think I have missed anyone that was on last years roster and still a part of the team; also not saying this is how it will play out but just one example out of many possibilities. JB can paper down Pettersson to Utica to hit the 23 man limit and then put Roussel on LTIR for the time being. Obviously some other moves will need to be made before Roussel returns to active duty but buys JB some time in order to do that.

Good work on this and appreciate the research. It's nice when people have actually done the calculations themselves and drawn their own conclusions. I could argue with some minor parts of this lineup but it's mostly accurate. They have usually gone with 8 D and 13 forwards but it seems like here you've included 14 forwards and 7 D. This is a real possibility but your lineup is one man short since Roussel will be on LITR (as you've stated) and on your cap is counting as the 14th forward. That means that one more player will have to be on the roster counting towards the cap, making it even tighter. Also consider what happens when Roussel gets back, there clearly isn't enough cap room for everyone. Your right that there isn't a huge conundrum and maybe the title of the thread should have had a question mark at the end. The real issues come down the road if we can't move Eriksson and some other dead weight and we have to pay Petterson, Hughes, etc. As others have stated in this thread, the hope is that the cap rises significantly making these issues less contentious. 

  • Hydration 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Kootenay Gold said:

image.png.fd4d69e7cf88f677beeb3b9964fea5e8.png

 

I am putting this out there for discussion and how overblown the salary cap conundrum might be. Don't think I have missed anyone that was on last years roster and still a part of the team; also not saying this is how it will play out but just one example out of many possibilities. JB can paper down Pettersson to Utica to hit the 23 man limit and then put Roussel on LTIR for the time being. Obviously some other moves will need to be made before Roussel returns to active duty but buys JB some time in order to do that.

No chance they keep Motte up over Eriksson .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

image.png.799b956f62c550af418bab01c2bd494d.png

 

made a few corrections that you suggested. The big issue as you correctly alluded to is when Petey and Hughes are both looking for big raises down the road

 

  • Hydration 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, BlastPast said:

No chance they keep Motte up over Eriksson .

They do if they have no other options in order to stay under the cap.

Share this post


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

They do if they have no other options in order to stay under the cap.

The thing is they do have options. Sending Loui down only saves 1mil in cap space. 

Share this post


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

They do if they have no other options in order to stay under the cap.

They save 100K by having Motte up instead of Eriksson .  Would have to be cutting it close for that to be a consideration

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The compiled list is by no means the only scenario as I had already mentioned in my original post. It was put forward as just one of many possible scenarios that could happen. The bottom line is that the Canucks are not in a real serious Cap bind as many have suggested; they do have many different options available to them. If one wants to see what a real cap conundrum looks like look no further than Calgary and the recent signing of Rittich and what is left to satisfy the still unsigned Tkachuk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, BlastPast said:

No chance they keep Motte up over Eriksson . 

I highly doubt that Motte would clear waivers but have no doubt that Loui would. Do we really want to risk losing  a player for nothing in return?

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

I highly doubt that Motte would clear waivers but have no doubt that Loui would. Do we really want to risk losing  a player for nothing in return?

 

I think their primary concern is icing the best team they can with the players available to them and not on protecting low end players. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, BlastPast said:

I think their primary concern is icing the best team they can with the players available to them and not on protecting low end players. 

Not arguing that point but they also have other options they may choose to do which could make the whole conversation redundant. The bottom line is that they are not really in a bind one way or the other as Spur had already mentioned. JB has a number of options; probably some that include Loui and some that do not as there are other players that may be deemed replaceable at a lesser cost

  • Upvote 1

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.