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

[Phat Fingers]

7 hours ago, theo5789 said:

If we don't trade him, this is most likely the route we take as we did with Hutton. Stecher is unfortunately in a very replaceable spot. He's all heart and I'd hate to see him go, but if he wants north of his current salary, we can't afford it and not sure if it can justified. I agree that he's slightly overpaid, but not much. I think a 2 million per year deal is fair if he's willing to take that to stay here. If not then I wish him the best with his future team.

Stecher is a good player, but the salary has to fit the teams structure.  

 

This is a cap spending team.  Players know that.  No issue getting paid, not there is a limit. 

 

The 3 m cap recapture penalty is going to cost us a Stecher likely.  

 

Good thing we have farm depth.

[theo5789]

3 hours ago, Phat Fingers said:

Stecher is a good player, but the salary has to fit the teams structure.  

 

This is a cap spending team.  Players know that.  No issue getting paid, not there is a limit. 

 

The 3 m cap recapture penalty is going to cost us a Stecher likely.  

 

Good thing we have farm depth.

Which is why I was suggesting that Stecher would have to take a pay cut if he wants to stay. He is in a replaceable spot unfortunately, so unlikely he gets paid well here or elsewhere, so up to him if he wants to stay in this city or give it a go on another team if they're willing.

[aGENT]

5 hours ago, Phat Fingers said:

Stecher is a good player, but the salary has to fit the teams structure.  

 

This is a cap spending team.  Players know that.  No issue getting paid, not there is a limit. 

 

The 3 m cap recapture penalty is going to cost us a Stecher likely.  

 

Good thing we have farm depth.

 

1 hour ago, theo5789 said:

Which is why I was suggesting that Stecher would have to take a pay cut if he wants to stay. He is in a replaceable spot unfortunately, so unlikely he gets paid well here or elsewhere, so up to him if he wants to stay in this city or give it a go on another team if they're willing.

Yup, only way we retain Stecher IMO is if Tanev is unreasonable in his demands and walks, opening up the space to retain him. If Tanev's back, he's gone (complicated by the fact we still need to re-sign Tanev...there may be some gambling involved here).

 

One of many reasons I hope we can deal him (along with some guys like Schaller etc) this TDL (though we can still deal his rights this summer, we'd get more value now IMO and get some of our prospects a deserved cup of coffee in the interim and get a look at them at this level and/or play both Benn and Fanta together on the 3rd pair).

 

And even then, as much as I love the guy, we also have Tryamkin likely returning, Rafferty, Juolevi and Brisebois knocking on the door (and Rathbone, Woo etc not far behind). Sure, those guys need to actually earn a spot, but we're going to have to make room for them sooner than later. Stech, unfortunately is the low man on that totem pole to make that room. I'd like to get assets for him while we can.

Edited January 24, 2020 by aGENT

[IBatch]

On 1/23/2020 at 1:16 PM, aliboy said:

Also, not a given that Tanev re-signs, may get replaced by Tryamkin, Rafferty, etc. Tanev may be in for a bigger raise than we can handle.

Tryamkin (who shoots left but can play he R side) agent publicly stated that he wants to return to the NHL next season this week.    Reading about it there is some uncertainty if it's a ploy to get more money on his next contract in the KHL and what the interest level is on our side to give it another go.   Personally I'd take that risk for sure and let one of Stetcher or Tanev walk this summer.    Tree is not allowed to participate in the NHL playoffs this year...so enough about that happening.

 

Im happy to hear JB doesn't see any difficulties cap wise coming his way - which to me means he has some plans in place.   With the CBA looming I wouldn't be surprised at all if he knows one or two free buyouts are coming his was soon too.  

 

My biggest concern is Markstroms next deal.  Only two goalies aged 33 or older have a SP or .910 or better,  Price at 32 hasn't  had an elite year in 3 years - Crawford at 35 two years since he was pretty good, Quick 34 has been dreadful for a couple years .... only Bishop and Greiss seem to be hanging on.   Rinne and Lundqvist are the only two guys in the league that really played well in their early 30's right to say age 35, and Rinne only because his back-ups were good enough to provide a smaller schedule.   The way weve been playing Markstrom, who turns 30 this season,  how long can we expect him to keep it up at a semi-elite level?  Maybe 3 years seems the most likely expectation - and he doesn't have close to the pedigree of above said guys.

 

His main stats are good to modest.  8-13th for starters - the latter his sp.  His advanced stats range anywhere from 3-10 depending on what model you look at (expected goals etc). 

 

Personally if I was JB, I wouldn't sign him for more then 3 years and a NMC would be a non-starter (then we could expose him at the ED if Demko is close to the same level as him next season).   Salary in the 5.5-6 range based on who's been paid the past three seasons and how much they got.  

 

Markstroms camp is probably looking at a 5 year deal and 25-30 guaranteed money.    I think based on the fact only two goalies in the league right now are playing  decent-very good age 33 or older - and that the only two guys that were top ten  their entire early 30's are future HHOF Lundqvist and almost as good Rinne that there is enough evidence that a long term contract is short sighted and will most likely come back and haunt us.   One things for sure JB should save one of his future buy-outs if he does give JM a longer then 3 year deal - otherwise when our window is at it's widest we won't have the right goalie to get the job done. 

 

 

[mikeyman109]

13 minutes ago, IBatch said:

Tryamkin (who shoots left but can play he R side) agent publicly stated that he wants to return to the NHL next season this week.    Reading about it there is some uncertainty if it's a ploy to get more money on his next contract in the KHL and what the interest level is on our side to give it another go.   Personally I'd take that risk for sure and let one of Stetcher or Tanev walk this summer.    Tree is not allowed to participate in the NHL playoffs this year...so enough about that happening.

 

Im happy to hear JB doesn't see any difficulties cap wise coming his way - which to me means he has some plans in place.   With the CBA looming I wouldn't be surprised at all if he knows one or two free buyouts are coming his was soon too.  

 

My biggest concern is Markstroms next deal.  Only two goalies aged 33 or older have a SP or .910 or better,  Price at 32 hasn't  had an elite year in 3 years - Crawford at 35 two years since he was pretty good, Quick 34 has been dreadful for a couple years .... only Bishop and Greiss seem to be hanging on.   Rinne and Lundqvist are the only two guys in the league that really played well in their early 30's right to say age 35, and Rinne only because his back-ups were good enough to provide a smaller schedule.   The way weve been playing Markstrom, who turns 30 this season,  how long can we expect him to keep it up at a semi-elite level?  Maybe 3 years seems the most likely expectation - and he doesn't have close to the pedigree of above said guys.

 

His main stats are good to modest.  8-13th for starters - the latter his sp.  His advanced stats range anywhere from 3-10 depending on what model you look at (expected goals etc). 

 

Personally if I was JB, I wouldn't sign him for more then 3 years and a NMC would be a non-starter (then we could expose him at the ED if Demko is close to the same level as him next season).   Salary in the 5.5-6 range based on who's been paid the past three seasons and how much they got.  

 

Markstroms camp is probably looking at a 5 year deal and 25-30 guaranteed money.    I think based on the fact only two goalies in the league right now are playing  decent-very good age 33 or older - and that the only two guys that were top ten  their entire early 30's are future HHOF Lundqvist and almost as good Rinne that there is enough evidence that a long term contract is short sighted and will most likely come back and haunt us.   One things for sure JB should save one of his future buy-outs if he does give JM a longer then 3 year deal - otherwise when our window is at it's widest we won't have the right goalie to get the job done. 

 

 

Great post , I agree. The thing is at some point we have to let the younger players take over for the older players. Most goalies do not play well into their late 30's. If JM is willing to take a team friendly contract for long term then i say we sign him. If JM is willing to do a shorter term deal then we sign him. If he is looking for long term years with big money then we will have to go with the younger players in net just like we will up front once the big contracts are gone. I agree on the buyout scenario if he signs Markstrom to a longer term deal.

I dont think we will have a cap crunch as some are fearing, the Sutters and Beagles and OMG Loui's contracts will fall off just in time for us to keep our good young players.

Loui is ripe for a buyout after his bonus is paid next year. he may even get some interest in a trade after that.  The GM has a plan and most of his plans have been pretty good so far.

[aliboy]

1 hour ago, IBatch said:

Tryamkin (who shoots left but can play he R side) agent publicly stated that he wants to return to the NHL next season this week.    Reading about it there is some uncertainty if it's a ploy to get more money on his next contract in the KHL and what the interest level is on our side to give it another go.   Personally I'd take that risk for sure and let one of Stetcher or Tanev walk this summer.    Tree is not allowed to participate in the NHL playoffs this year...so enough about that happening.

 

 

You are mistaken Tree can play in this years playoffs, even if he signs after the trade deadline, it is just a matter of him being released once they either miss the playoffs or are eliminated. It isn't for certain but absolutely can happen and has been covered in the Tryamkin thread.

 

Copied this over.

 

I expect you guys already know this but Tryamkin can be signed after the trade deadline and still play in this years playoffs, here's the article which also states that this does apply to RFA's.

 

https://www.pensionplanpuppets.com/and-now-you-know/2019/1/9/18174522/so-you-heard-a-rumour-about-the-toronto-maple-leafs-signing-a-european-ufa

 

"However, if you read that rule it says it doesn’t apply to players on the reserve list or players on loan to the European club. That means players the Leafs already have the rights to, who have been loaned to Europe, are eligible to join the team. They can even join their NHL team after the trade deadline and still play in the playoffs."

Edited January 25, 2020 by aliboy

[Gurn]

1 hour ago, IBatch said:

With the CBA looming I wouldn't be surprised at all if he knows one or two free buyouts are coming his was soon too.  

That would make things much easier.

[aGENT]

1 hour ago, IBatch said:

With the CBA looming I wouldn't be surprised at all if he knows one or two free buyouts are coming his was soon too.  

There's been some scuttlebutt that the teams want one annual, compliance buyout that won't count against cap too in the next CBA.

[Ghostsof1915]

On 1/23/2020 at 2:27 PM, canuktravella said:

as for rathbone he will either have to shift to right side like rafferty or benning will have to trade them no way rathbone or rafferty push out edler hughes or juolevi on left side next yr. Edlers a lifelong canuck and the other two are elite prospects. I could see rathbone signed and rafferty packaged for young  good right d  or the coaches will play them on right side 

https://theahl.com/stats/player/7893/brogan-rafferty

Rafferty shoots right. So that is his natural side. 

[Ghostsof1915]

9 minutes ago, aGENT said:

There's been some scuttlebutt that the teams want one annual, compliance buyout that won't count against cap too in the next CBA.

Trying to idiot proof the GM spot again? That will be an interesting negotiation. I imagine they'd have to lower the escrow to give the players something to agree to that. 

Edited January 25, 2020 by Ghostsof1915

[GB5]

19 minutes ago, aGENT said:

There's been some scuttlebutt that the teams want one annual, compliance buyout that won't count against cap too in the next CBA.

That sounds good but I wonder if the NHLPA would go for it. From a player stand point it would make sense because if they still get paid and then can move on and sign elsewhere and get paid again.

 

 

 

[canuck73_3]

On 1/23/2020 at 10:50 AM, Gawdzukes said:

Only problem is Stetcher is RFA and likely looking at $3.5+.

Based on what? 

[Provost]

1 hour ago, canuck73_3 said:

Based on what? 

Based on three seasons of averaging almost 20 minutes a game ice time.

 

Ice time is a really big factor in arbitration awards, it is more indicative of a defenceman’s value to a team than most metrics as defensive D don’t generally have many points.

 

He has been used as a top 4 D for years,  and has really good underlying numbers to show that he is above average at doing it.  That all lends itself to an arbitration award at that level.

 

Don't expect to see him take a hometown discount, reports were that he wasn’t happy with the team and his massively diminished ice time early this year.  He sees himself as a top 4 D, and for good reason.  It seems every year they pencil him in lower and he keeps creeping up the lineup as one of our most stabilizing and effective D.

 

If we don’t see him as a top 4 D for us, we should probably either trade him at the draft, or qualify him and live with a 1 year arbitration award as we probably can’t afford Tanev next season.

Edited January 25, 2020 by Provost

[Crabcakes]

2 hours ago, IBatch said:

Tryamkin (who shoots left but can play he R side) agent publicly stated that he wants to return to the NHL next season this week.    Reading about it there is some uncertainty if it's a ploy to get more money on his next contract in the KHL and what the interest level is on our side to give it another go.   Personally I'd take that risk for sure and let one of Stetcher or Tanev walk this summer.    Tree is not allowed to participate in the NHL playoffs this year...so enough about that happening.

 

 

I don't know why people persist in calling him Tree.  Calling someone a tree in Russia is an insult.

[Gawdzukes]

2 hours ago, IBatch said:

\

 

Personally if I was JB, I wouldn't sign him for more then 3 years and a NMC would be a non-starter (then we could expose him at the ED if Demko is close to the same level as him next season).   Salary in the 5.5-6 range based on who's been paid the past three seasons and how much they got.  

 

Markstroms camp is probably looking at a 5 year deal and 25-30 guaranteed money.    I think based on the fact only two goalies in the league right now are playing  decent-very good age 33 or older - and that the only two guys that were top ten  their entire early 30's are future HHOF Lundqvist and almost as good Rinne that there is enough evidence that a long term contract is short sighted and will most likely come back and haunt us.   One things for sure JB should save one of his future buy-outs if he does give JM a longer then 3 year deal - otherwise when our window is at it's widest we won't have the right goalie to get the job done. 

 

 

Marky making the All-star game isn't good for the Canucks bargaining position.

[Gawdzukes]

1 hour ago, aGENT said:

There's been some scuttlebutt that the teams want one annual, compliance buyout that won't count against cap too in the next CBA.

You mean one per year ... or just the one?

[zimmy]

3 minutes ago, Gawdzukes said:

Marky making the All-star game isn't good for the Canucks bargaining position.

Probably not but in reality he was a replacement all star. It's like the NFL pro bowl game where the teams are stacked with second and third choice candidates replacing the real all stars who just can't be bothered or are into their off season recuperation. If Marky makes a post season all star team that might be used as a bargaining chip methinks.

[Gawdzukes]

35 minutes ago, canuck73_3 said:

Based on what? 

I already got called on that on page 3 so here was my response.

 

Ah, you may be right. Though, if he has even has a decent hot streak he could end up with 20 points. Pretty decent for a D these days. Of course I'm thinking of the Hutton situation. I'm not great on Rfa rules but I thought he needs to be qualified at his previous offer + 10%. He makes $2.325 now so a even a moderate raise would be around 3-3.5 mil. 

 

Even if he does make $2.5 I just wonder if Stetcher and his agent would be shopping for a bigger deal, which might just take him out of JB's thought process. I don't think he'll wait that long to fix the D. We also seem to have some options coming up on D in Rafferty, Tryamkin, Juolevi, Benn, Fantenberg and Tanev, plus UFA. Having said all that I don't really know. 

[aGENT]

1 hour ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

Trying to idiot proof the GM spot again? That will be an interesting negotiation. I imagine they'd have to lower the escrow to give the players something to agree to that. 

What he said:

 

49 minutes ago, GarthButcher5 said:

That sounds good but I wonder if the NHLPA would go for it. From a player stand point it would make sense because if they still get paid and then can move on and sign elsewhere and get paid again.

 

 

 

 

8 minutes ago, Gawdzukes said:

You mean one per year ... or just the one?

Annual. Per year.

[oldnews]

On 1/24/2020 at 7:08 AM, theo5789 said:

Which is why I was suggesting that Stecher would have to take a pay cut if he wants to stay.

I don't think you can expect Stecher to take a 'pay cut'.

Ice-time does not really dictate market value.  Every team in the NHL is capable of seeing the context in which a player's ice-time elevates, and Hutton's had little to do with performance and a whole lot to do with a team that was both rethinging, and consistently depleted by injuries.  We saw that with Hutton and the idea that he was going to command 4 million.  He miscalculated, trying to hard to leverage his ice time, and wound up entering the market with otherwise fairly weak outcomes - poor production, 'underlying numbers' and beyond that, visibly struggled handily in various aspects of the game, particularly his puck movement (his first pass was replacement level), an area he needs to be effective.

The result was a player that wound up eating a serious pay cut.

 

In Stecher's case, the same principal applies imo - his ice-time may have dipped this year by virtue of better depth - but Stecher is having another very good season.  While his dip in ice-time might hypothetically weaken his arbitration leverage, i generally disagree - it is and should not be that simple - and moreover, I think his actual market value (his true 'underlying' leverage) has probably sustained.

 

45.9% ozone starts, 49.2% corsi

3 goals, 9 pts (all at even strength obviously, with Hughes eating a large amount of pp minutes) , +7  = at 20 minute/game he would be tracking at 20 even strength points - which is what he scored last season.

An outstanding 2.0 on ice goals against per 60 at 5 on 5 (only Sutter and Fantenburg have better goals against metrics)...

Stecher's reduced ice-time imo can't really be used to justify a pay-cut any more than Hutton's inflated ice time could be used to justify an absurd cap hit that had no real relation to his actual market value.

I think Stecher is probaby worth a modest uptick on the 2.35 million he is making.   The 35 pts he scored in his first two seasons (before signing his current deal) are pretty comparable to his production since (with the qualifier that his numbers this year are probably slightly deflated as I point out above).

The positive in this context imo is that the Canucks can qualify Stecher - and imo he represents better market value than the rights of a Hutton - would likely have worthwhile trade value.

 

The question becomes - is there anything to his alleged 'unhappiness' or is that TSN speculation (from early in the season) that makes assumptions and speaks for a player - without any real source?   We've all seen that countless times.  Is Stecher or his agent 'happy' that the team added more depth - maybe not - but at the same time - does a player 'like' playing on a competitive club more than toiling on a bottomfeeder?  It's hard to imagine Stecher not understanding the decision to sign a RHD - the team dealt Gudbranson - obviously they were going to address the vacancy - and it's also hard to imagine Stecher not understandng that the 20 minutes he'd been playing in previous years had a whole lot to do with Tanev and Gudbranson missing over 120 games the past two seasons alone - and 81 combined the previous season - over 200 games missed in his 3 previous seasons here.

He has emerged as a very good young two way 2/3RHD - probably deserves/has earned a raise.  I'm not sure it's quite as 'written-on-the-wall' as some people may perceive - I think it's possible they could negotiate a new deal with him, particularly if they shed a guy like Benn and his $2 million cap hit (imo not a hard contract to move if/when the 'return' doesn't really matter.

 

 

3 hours ago, IBatch said:

Tryamkin (who shoots left but can play he R side) agent publicly stated that he wants to return to the NHL next season this week.  

Tryamkin has said as much himself before:

 

Quote

"I asked Volkov if Tryamkin will ever return to Vancouver, " He talks about it, he wants to go back someday. He will give it 1 more shot when he's ready." #Canucks