Cap Hell for Canucks!!! (GREAT NEWS from Daly re: CAP for next year!!)

[theo5789]

On ‎2‎/‎26‎/‎2020 at 8:40 AM, Lazurus said:

I am positive some of the posts are for trolling purposes.

So wildly wishes and dreams.

 

"Hey Eriksson will pull us a solid and leave over 5 million on the table and not be able to play in the NHL", Ferland will waive? Baerstchi will be traded for a 2nd?, Tanev signs for less than the other defense men? Markstrom signs for 5 mil for 4 years and Demko is happy to spend another 5 years as a back up, The NHl will forgive the Luongo cap recapture and bonuses don't count, don't think about Pettersson and Hughes next contracts, Toffoli will sign for less money than where his family lives, and Seattle will not take any decent players from Vancouver only the one's we don't want, all the prospects are sure things so the team doesn't need any more draft picks so trade them away and clause contracts don't mean anything.

 

Nobody know's what Benning is going to do because there is no winning in dealing with the cap situation except maybe trading away more top draft picks to make cap space or just letting players walk for nothing.

 

The cap ceiling is really just a suggestion right?

While I do agree there are some posters that seem to be dreaming, but I think the cap will be manageable. Loui could retire from the NHL and play back in Sweden or if he prefers to stay in the NHL, then he can mutually terminate him contract and look for a cheap deal elsewhere. The alternative for him is that he could be sent to the minors and still won't get to play in the NHL and just collect his paycheque. If that 5 million that is left after his bonus is paid is make or break for him, then his NHL dream may be over anyway. Best case scenario is we clear his cap completely and he leaves amicably, worst case is we save the 1 million+ by burying him.

 

I don't know why some are suggesting that we waive Ferland. If he's injured and can't return, then he's on LTIR and will have his cap managed. I can't imagine us clearing all of Baertschi's cap, so we either retain 50%, buy him out, or take back a contract in return. The last option doesn't do anything for us if we need the cap space. I suspect we are buying him out especially if teams want an asset to take him on. Either we trade of buy him out, we will save about 800k-1 million in this case (as opposed to burying him). Between Sven and LE, we should in the worst case save the amount needed to cover the bonus overages.

 

Tanev may sign for around 4.5-5 million depending on how important it is for him to want to stay in Vancouver. In this case, we would likely need to protect him in the expansion. We likely will have to make a decision between Marky or Demko. I think Demko might be comfortable with another year as a back up (with 20-30 starts) and needing to split games at the least in the following year. But if we commit to Marky, I imagine we explore moving Demko.

 

Like most things, the extremes are generally unreasonable, but something in the middle is most likely and seemingly workable.

[theo5789]

8 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Regardless, it’s Bracket who is behind our recent great draft results, right?  Not having him already locked up to another contract is stupid, or he just doesn’t want to be here anymore. 

We have had success with Brackett. Doesn't mean he's solely responsible behind all the picks. Benning has set forth what he wants for the team and what they should be scouting for. Brackett is just in charge of getting what Benning wants. The scouts are getting the necessary info back to the team to make the decisions. Ultimately it's Benning with the final say on the picks (with strong advice from Brackett).

 

Unfortunately good people deserve promotions or to be able to chase their goals and dreams. If Brackett wants to try something bigger, then all the best to him. We will only be able to tell how big of an impact Brackett alone has on the draft results when he leaves and how his new team performs. I hope he doesn't leave, but changes will happen and that's just a part of the business. You find the next "Brackett" and move on.

[Alflives]

4 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

We have had success with Brackett. Doesn't mean he's solely responsible behind all the picks. Benning has set forth what he wants for the team and what they should be scouting for. Brackett is just in charge of getting what Benning wants. The scouts are getting the necessary info back to the team to make the decisions. Ultimately it's Benning with the final say on the picks (with strong advice from Brackett).

 

Unfortunately good people deserve promotions or to be able to chase their goals and dreams. If Brackett wants to try something bigger, then all the best to him. We will only be able to tell how big of an impact Brackett alone has on the draft results when he leaves and how his new team performs. I hope he doesn't leave, but changes will happen and that's just a part of the business. You find the next "Brackett" and move on.

Pretty sure on one of those Canuck’s videos that showed our draft table discussions, JB (more than once when asked about important decisions) deferred to Bracket.  

[theo5789]

8 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Pretty sure on one of those Canuck’s videos that showed our draft table discussions, JB (more than once when asked about important decisions) deferred to Bracket.  

Benning trusts the advice of the director of amateur scouting over a draft issue? Big surprise. Once again, Benning sets out the plan, Brackett and crew are in charge of bringing Benning the best options that fit that plan. Not saying Brackett hasn't done a good job, but it's a team effort and ultimately Benning makes the final call. Brackett has done a good job fulfilling Benning's goals, but who's to say someone else couldn't (DeLorme probably couldn't and that's why we promoted Brackett in the first place, but certainly there will be other good people if required).

[Alflives]

Just now, theo5789 said:

Benning trusts the advice of the director of amateur scouting over a draft issue? Big surprise. Once again, Benning sets out the plan, Brackett and crew are in charge of bringing Benning the best options that fit that plan. Not saying Brackett hasn't done a good job, but it's a team effort and ultimately Benning makes the final call. Brackett has done a good job fulfilling Benning's goals, but who's to say someone else couldn't (DeLorme probably couldn't and that's why we promoted Brackett in the first place, but certainly there will be other good people if required).

Benning deferred to Bracket’s opinion.  It was Bracket who made the decision, and not JB.  Allowing Bracket to leave is a huge step backwards for us.  

[Gurn]

6 minutes ago, Alflives said:

 Allowing Bracket to leave is a huge step backwards for us.

The guy is not a slave, and when his contract is over he is allowed to leave, if he chooses not to re-sign.

[Alflives]

1 minute ago, gurn said:

The guy is not a slave, and when his contract is over he is allowed to leave, if he chooses not to re-sign.

True.  Maybe he gets more money elsewhere, and opportunity to rise up to GM?  IMO we should give him those things here.  

[Gurn]

3 minutes ago, Alflives said:

True.  Maybe he gets more money elsewhere, and opportunity to rise up to GM?  IMO we should give him those things here.  

The Canuck GM job is taken, is it not?

[Alflives]

6 minutes ago, gurn said:

The Canuck GM job is taken, is it not?

Bracket is not getting a GM job yet.  However, why not have a succession plan where Bracket takes on more of JB’s GM role, which allows JB to be more the President?  Again, losing the guy who built our prospect pool, and drafted our current young core is beyond stupid. 

[therodigy]

1 hour ago, Provost said:

Any plan that counts on us easily shedding $11 million in cap to other teams and getting a return on doing that isn't very realistic in my opinion.

We had deals go south at the deadline because no one was willing to take on Baertschi's fairly small contract.  No teams have much cap space for next season with an expected fairly flat cap.  It might be possible to shed cap, but don't expect teams to be lining up to take on players that we think of as expendable.

Even in that plan, we need to account for $1.7 million in pushed ELC's from this year, so that has to be added and another player taken away.  We also need buffer for short term injury call ups and another buffer for an expected $3-4 million in ELC bonuses for next year that we can't afford to push into 2021-22.  Your plan also needs to get rid of Eriksson on top of Sutter, Roussel, Baertschi, and Benn.

It isn't unsolvable... but it is going to hurt.

 

1 hour ago, Alflives said:

100% agree.  It’s a paradoxical issue, that has no good solution.  It’s going to cost us our future to dump the contracts that are holding back our future.  So I’ve decided to cheer for the now.  

All fair points.

 

The Canucks are allowed to go over the cap on bonuses, provided we're prepared to have to have it affect our cap come 2021-2022. Definitely didn't take a long-term approach to this, just experimented with one of the many hypotheticals.

 

Part of the reason why trading Baertschi was a pain this season was the extra year of term. There's alot less risk next season. Same applies for Sutter. The returns would be minimal, but I doubt we're giving up a first to clear Sutter's 1 year. I'm sure Colorado or Winnipeg, with their ample cap space, would've handed over a 2021 5th or 6th to shore up their centre depth (With Little and Kadri out of the lineup) had he only one year on his deal. There will be takers available.

 

At the end of the day, Canucks will need to free up about $10 Million in order to resign/replace players on the current roster. Whatever combination that may be is what will remain to be seen, whether it's player trades (Sutter, Roussel, Baertschi, etc), Contract burying (Baertschi, Eriksson), Retirement (Eriksson), LTIR (Ferland), wicked discounts (Stecher, Virtanen), or walk-outs (Stecher, Toffoli, Tanev, Markstrom, etc).

[aGENT]

1 hour ago, theo5789 said:

I can't imagine us clearing all of Baertschi's cap, so we either retain 50%, buy him out, or take back a contract in return. The last option doesn't do anything for us if we need the cap space.

Actually, as long as the cap hit of the returning contract(s) is under $1,075,000 (or even close too), it does. We can bury that amount in the minors with zero effect to the NHL salary cap.

 

I'd gladly take on one or two, 1 year, $800K +/- AHL/ECHL contracts (assuming we have the contract space) to gain 50-100% of Baer's $3.6 back.

Edited February 27, 2020 by aGENT

[DownUndaCanuck]

On 1/23/2020 at 5:45 PM, HKSR said:

Honestly, no matter what the media tries to portray, there really isn't major cap hell for the Canucks.  GMJB reiterated that as well. 

 

Here's what I see for the coming year.  Running the numbers, we'd have $1M+ in cap space left.  If the cap doesn't go up, will likely mean goodbye to Stecher.

 

EDIT:  UPDATED WITH TRADE DEADLINE DONE

 

- Leivo, Graovac, Stecher won't be re-signed.

- Benn, Sutter, and Baertschi moved.

- Upper Limit of Cap going up by $1M.

- Markstrom @ 5.75M

- Toffoli @ 5.5M

- Tanev @ 5M

- Virtanen @ 3.5M

- Gaudette @ 2.0M ("show me" contract)

- Motte @ 1.5M

- Stecher @ 2.5M

- Added MacEwen @ ELC

- Rookie Defenceman (Rafferty) @ ELC

- Ferland either on LTIR or retires (honestly, he NEEDS to stop playing now.  It's for his long term health).

 

Honestly, it's the year after (2021-22) that looks more dicey.  With EP40 and QH both getting huge raises, something will have to give... in other words, Eriksson MUST be moved or bought out for 2021-22, otherwise we take a major step backwards.

 

People are also worried about the bonuses for EP40 and QH.  According to the CBA, performance bonuses count against the salary cap; however, a team can exceed the salary cap due to performance bonuses by the maximum performance bonus cushion amount of 7.5 percent of the upper limit. With the $81.5M cap, 7.5% amounts to $6.1125M.  However, the overage would reduce the following year's upper cap limit.  As per the CBA:

 

To the extent a Club's Averaged Club Salary 

I think Toffoli will demand and dose deserve 6M, Tanev hopefully takes a pay cut and deserves 4M, Stecher deserves 2M and should stay (best 5th Dman who can play in our top 4 in case of injuries), Benn can be replaced by an ELC AHL guy, Virtanen will probably command 3.5M and deserves it (hope we get him for 3) and I think Gaudette and Motte are both about the same, 1.5-2M.

 

JB is good, I do hope he can squeeze everyone in. Sutter is still extremely underrated and hard to replace, as is a guy like Motte, but here's hoping Gaudette can step up another level.

[theo5789]

1 hour ago, Alflives said:

Benning deferred to Bracket’s opinion.  It was Bracket who made the decision, and not JB.  Allowing Bracket to leave is a huge step backwards for us.  

So JB showed some trust in his director assigned for the role? I'm sure JB wants to keep him and thus extended him an extension offer. He has every right to pursue other opportunities if he feels he's ready for it. If he takes a different role here, then that takes him away from being the director of amateur scouting and in turn Benning will take the advice of the new guy in the role instead. I'm sure we will be fine after whatever transpires.

 

I should add that if he leaves, he likely bustaroos with his new team anyway, amirite?

Edited February 27, 2020 by theo5789

[Lazurus]

1 hour ago, theo5789 said:

While I do agree there are some posters that seem to be dreaming, but I think the cap will be manageable. Loui could retire from the NHL and play back in Sweden or if he prefers to stay in the NHL, then he can mutually terminate him contract and look for a cheap deal elsewhere. The alternative for him is that he could be sent to the minors and still won't get to play in the NHL and just collect his paycheque. If that 5 million that is left after his bonus is paid is make or break for him, then his NHL dream may be over anyway. Best case scenario is we clear his cap completely and he leaves amicably, worst case is we save the 1 million+ by burying him.

 

I don't know why some are suggesting that we waive Ferland. If he's injured and can't return, then he's on LTIR and will have his cap managed. I can't imagine us clearing all of Baertschi's cap, so we either retain 50%, buy him out, or take back a contract in return. The last option doesn't do anything for us if we need the cap space. I suspect we are buying him out especially if teams want an asset to take him on. Either we trade of buy him out, we will save about 800k-1 million in this case (as opposed to burying him). Between Sven and LE, we should in the worst case save the amount needed to cover the bonus overages.

 

Tanev may sign for around 4.5-5 million depending on how important it is for him to want to stay in Vancouver. In this case, we would likely need to protect him in the expansion. We likely will have to make a decision between Marky or Demko. I think Demko might be comfortable with another year as a back up (with 20-30 starts) and needing to split games at the least in the following year. But if we commit to Marky, I imagine we explore moving Demko.

 

Like most things, the extremes are generally unreasonable, but something in the middle is most likely and seemingly workable.

A Loui retirement still carries a huge cap hit, not sure what a mutual termination would do but I would expect it is similar to retiring if the NHL or NHLPA would let that happen, it seems if that was easy there would not be so many long term LTIR's. Even if he is sent to the minors it is a 5 mil cap hit and there are many players who played in the minors to be paid 5 million dollars, no I am afraid the only way Eriksson moves is with a big incentive, the team really cannot even retain salary. Better off to keep him and just think of him as overpaid and sing an under paid player to make up the difference than throw away another pick or prospect.

 

Ferland has a NMC so he cannot be waived and has to be protected for the Seattle draft, a minor disaster in that a protected spot is used for an LTIR, the NMC is in effect at draft time.

There is no cap room to retain half of his salary.

 

Tanev will want and get, if Benning is still here, what he wants, Edler did and Benning had a huge amount of leverage on his side, not as much with Tanev and it will be his last big payday.

 

Demko is signed for another year so he would be stuck but then his contract comes up and even as a RFA he could demand out, the RFA might be the only asset the team could recoup on but not for a huge return. The message sent by Benning in signing Markstrom to a long term high paying clause contract to Demko would be clear, Demko to Seattle and then they might sign and trade him for a much bigger return. Van has to expose a goalie that played in the NHL that year and I think a minimum of 10+ games, not watching.

 

On Toffoli, it was reported he was very, very upset at being traded and loves where his family live, so he might be considered a rental and his cap hit won't make a difference but that still doesn't help much overall.

 

I heard a radio show where the commentator was advocating not thinking about the future of the team, that seems ridiculous and maybe why the cap is in such disarray, for years it has been wait for prospects, wait for next year, wait until  and now the team might be a playoff team the message is don't think about the team next year. Talk about reducing the fans expectations, from a cup to a season to being competitive, to a game all the while saying, next year.

 

IMO there are alot of pretty smart posters that can see the signs, the averages of salaries and such. Even some that ma be alarmed at the lack of any contracts getting done and leaving them to the end. Let's be really optimistic, the season runs to the first week of June, so right after there is draft to get ready for and 10 players to negotiate with and a cap to manage all the while concentrating on the playoffs. By that time other players would have re-sign bumping up the market value.

 

But like i posted there are a lot of really smart posters so maybe one comes up with a solution that doesn't include a nuclear bomb where years of the future are destroyed. Really I hope someone does.

 

I would post my idea but it does have a bomb involved, one player does not make a team, neither does two.

[theo5789]

36 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Actually, as long as the cap hit of the returning contract(s) is under $1,075,000 (or even close too), it does. We can bury that amount in the minors with zero effect to the NHL salary cap.

 

I'd gladly take on one or two, 1 year, $800K +/- AHL/ECHL contracts (assuming we have the contract space) to gain 50-100% of Baer's $3.6 back.

I suppose that's an option, but teams might rather have their depth that they can also bury for "free". But it could be a contract spot move. Whatever the case, it doubtful that we clear all of his cap.

[mll]

7 minutes ago, Lazurus said:

A Loui retirement still carries a huge cap hit, not sure what a mutual termination would do but I would expect it is similar to retiring if the NHL or NHLPA would let that happen, it seems if that was easy there would not be so many long term LTIR's. Even if he is sent to the minors it is a 5 mil cap hit and there are many players who played in the minors to be paid 5 million dollars, no I am afraid the only way Eriksson moves is with a big incentive, the team really cannot even retain salary. Better off to keep him and just think of him as overpaid and sing an under paid player to make up the difference than throw away another pick or prospect.

If Eriksson retires there is no residual cap hit.  The current CBA no longer allows to sign recapture contracts so there is no penalty in case of an early retirement.  

 

LTIR allows to continue to get paid while retirement doesn't.  If Ferland can't play anymore he's more likely going on LTIR than giving up 9.5M in salary. 

 

 

7 minutes ago, Lazurus said:

Ferland has a NMC so he cannot be waived and has to be protected for the Seattle draft, a minor disaster in that a protected spot is used for an LTIR, the NMC is in effect at draft time.

There is no cap room to retain half of his salary.

 

Tanev will want and get, if Benning is still here, what he wants, Edler did and Benning had a huge amount of leverage on his side, not as much with Tanev and it will be his last big payday.

Ferland's NMC will be a modified NTC for the expansion draft and he can be exposed.  It's the status at the upcoming 1 July that applies although the draft takes place a few days earlier.  If Ferland is ruled by the league to have a career ending injury he is exempt from expansion.

 

 

7 minutes ago, Lazurus said:

Demko is signed for another year so he would be stuck but then his contract comes up and even as a RFA he could demand out, the RFA might be the only asset the team could recoup on but not for a huge return. The message sent by Benning in signing Markstrom to a long term high paying clause contract to Demko would be clear, Demko to Seattle and then they might sign and trade him for a much bigger return. Van has to expose a goalie that played in the NHL that year and I think a minimum of 10+ games, not watching.

There are no minimum games played conditions on goalie exposure.  Each team has to expose 1 goalie that is under team control for at least another season - either a qualified rfa or a goalie with at least a year left to his contract.   Last draft it was Bachman that met that requirement for the Canucks.

 

[aGENT]

35 minutes ago, Lazurus said:

A Loui retirement still carries a huge cap hit, not sure what a mutual termination would do but I would expect it is similar to retiring if the NHL or NHLPA would let that happen, it seems if that was easy there would not be so many long term LTIR's. Even if he is sent to the minors it is a 5 mil cap hit and there are many players who played in the minors to be paid 5 million dollars, no I am afraid the only way Eriksson moves is with a big incentive, the team really cannot even retain salary. Better off to keep him and just think of him as overpaid and sing an under paid player to make up the difference than throw away another pick or prospect.

After his bonus this summer, he's actually 'only' owed $5m total of actual cash, spread over two years ($1m 20-21, $4m 21-22).

 

Why can't we retain salary...? We could save up to $3m of his $6m hit. Why 'can't' we do that? That's $3m of cap space.

 

Speaking of, if we do retain 50%, that $5m total left owing becomes $1.25m/year to the other team ($5m/2 years x 50%). Like I mentioned with Theo and Baer, if we also take back a +/- $1m contract we can bury in the AHL/ECHL, that becomes a VERY minimal cost of actual cash, to his new team. We'd still likely have to add an asset to do so but if you start retaining and bringing back dead salary, hopefully it's nowhere near as much as people are fearing.

 

Quote

 

Ferland has a NMC so he cannot be waived and has to be protected for the Seattle draft, a minor disaster in that a protected spot is used for an LTIR, the NMC is in effect at draft time.

Not, it's not. He won't be protected.

 

Quote

 

Tanev will want and get, if Benning is still here, what he wants, Edler did and Benning had a huge amount of leverage on his side, not as much with Tanev and it will be his last big payday.

Edler did not remotely get what he wanted to get. Clearly you missed all Dhaliwal's freaking out last summer lol. By all accounts, Edler's deal was far better for the club than many feared or predicted.

 

 

Edited February 27, 2020 by aGENT

[aGENT]

4 minutes ago, mll said:

If Eriksson retires there is no residual cap hit.  The current CBA no longer allows to sign recapture contracts so there is no penalty in case of an early retirement.  

Thanks, forgot to correct that part as well.

 

Though I believe, if he retires after his bonus this summer, we're still on the hook for that $3m portion for next year. The entire $6 would be gone the year after though.

[Jester13]

One thing I didn't realize with Brackett until I read this thread is that he has a 100% success rate with the prospects he recommends; I mean, it's unbelievable how has he never recommended someone who didn't turn into an NHLer? That's amazing! 

 

 

 

[Ghostsof1915]

I'd hate to Trade Stecher but it's basically a numbers game. Hopefully for a late round pick at the draft.

- Trade Sutter and Roussel, both have NTC's not NMC's.

- There are players like Goldy, Pope, and Bachman that can be let go.

I think the issues will be.

- What does Marky, Toffoli, and Tanev want as a contract/term?

 

It can be made to work. Might come down to we can keep two but not 3 of the UFA's.