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

[higgyfan]

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. 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.

Is he though.  Right now, he's playing alongside Edler and the big minutes.  I can't think of any prospects that can jump into that role; including Tryamkin and Rafferty. 

 

If Tanev isn't re-signed, the team will be very weak at RD.   Lets see...  Edler  Myers

                                                                                                                            Hughes  Tryamkin

                                                                                                                            Benn/whoever    Rafferty

 

And that's going into the year that Nucks/Tampa 1st will not be protected.

 

Definitely looks like the Nucks would have to dip into the high stakes UFA market.

[JM_]

4 minutes ago, oldnews said:

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

I don't think he's going to get a raise either, there's just no cap room for it. Best case imo (if he's not traded) is he gets qualified at his current 2.35 for 1 year. 

 

But Benning has let RFAs walk before and that could be the case here again if Stecher wants term. I can't see him getting a raise, there's too much depth in our system now for him to have much leverage. 

[higgyfan]

7 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I don't think he's going to get a raise either, there's just no cap room for it. Best case imo (if he's not traded) is he gets qualified at his current 2.35 for 1 year. 

 

But Benning has let RFAs walk before and that could be the case here again if Stecher wants term. I can't see him getting a raise, there's too much depth in our system now for him to have much leverage. 

I'm not seeing this.  Who's the RD in the system that can jump up and play alongside Edler?  Stech plays huge minutes and is a very reliable dman.  This is expecting an awful lot for a rookie dman. 

[oldnews]

34 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I don't think he's going to get a raise either, there's just no cap room for it. Best case imo (if he's not traded) is he gets qualified at his current 2.35 for 1 year. 

 

But Benning has let RFAs walk before and that could be the case here again if Stecher wants term. I can't see him getting a raise, there's too much depth in our system now for him to have much leverage. 

I'm not going to try to forecast next summer's cap context.

The RFAs he's let walk - guys like Pouliot (who he also re-signed while not being willing to go to arbitration) or Hutton - imo are not as valuable, aren't really comparables to Stecher.

For me - there are too many contingencies.  Do they manage to move LE's contract (or retire it?)   What becomes of Baertschi?  Is Ferland healthy?  Schaller expires.  Does Benn get flipped (I would guess that's a yes but I don't know).  What will Markstrom's terms - if he's re-signed - look like?  Does an additional veteran forward get dealt?

Personally, all other things being equaly, I would dump Benn and give Stecher a modest raise in a heartbeat, for a number of reasons - not the least of which is both Fantenburg having leap-frogged him, and what I consider somewhat of an inevitability - Juolevi pushing him out (Benn is a placeholder imo, whereas Stecher is an 'asset').   I like a few of the young RHD in the system, but they'd need to earn a spot - I would not be moving a Stecher unless and until they do so.  And Tanev expiring further complicates the matter - whether or not he returns and at what value will also play heavily into the equation.

Far too many variables/contingencies for me to believe there is any real indication of which way it will transpire.

Added to the complication is that they appear headed into a playoff race, which makes them less likely to be sellers, even of a guy like Benn, who they might need to lean on if they don't remain healthy.

For me - neither Tanev nor Stecher are likely to command a great deal more than they are currently earning - so I think if the team prioritizes that RHDepth, it's not going to form a 'crisis' - it may be one of their more easily solveable problems - finding a modest raise for those two (they're already earning a combined 6.775 million...) I'd personally be more inclined to create the flexibility by shedding at forward - where they have multiple tweeners at the AHL level, and a few arguably NHL ready young forwards as well.   I still think they're deeper and more flexible up front - which has played out this year as they've been hammered by injuries to forwards and yet have sustained themselves respectably well.  If it were me, I'd be sacrificing winger depth or modestly spending to move winger cap - while trying to keep their strengths and depth down the middle and on the blueline. 

Beyond that - there is the question of whether Juolevi and Tryamkin would take the bottom pairing away from the present guys - really, a lot of factors in play, but no real shortage of options or assets.

 

Edited January 25, 2020 by oldnews

[billabong]

NUMBER 1 PRIORITY 

 

get rid of eriksson, sutter and baertschi

 

sutter and Baer are the more moveable players because they only have 1 year left and teams like OTT need to get to the floor with their cap scape goats Callahan and gaborik coming off the books 
 

They’re only at $41m for next season 

[Dr. Crossbar]

5 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. 

Well, you could also look at it this way, too ... JB signed Ryan Miller to 3 X $6 per. Miller was 33 at the time.

 

So, you have to weigh the question of whether Markstrom at 30 is of equal value or more to the team now as Miller was at 33+ over those 3 seasons. If JB was willing to give Miller $6 million per, Markstrom has a really good case (and leverage) that he's at least of equal value and deserving of $6 million per. That's also after posting good numbers, being named team MVP and with an All-Star appearance.

 

I'd say Markstrom gets a similar deal to Miller of 3 years at $6 million per, or it comes down to $5 to $5.5 but more term of 4 to 5 years. 

[canuktravella]

4 hours 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. 

why the players will still get paid out on buyout not a big deal

[JM_]

2 hours ago, oldnews said:

I'm not going to try to forecast next summer's cap context.

The RFAs he's let walk - guys like Pouliot (who he also re-signed while not being willing to go to arbitration) or Hutton - imo are not as valuable, aren't really comparables to Stecher.

For me - there are too many contingencies.  Do they manage to move LE's contract (or retire it?)   What becomes of Baertschi?  Is Ferland healthy?  Schaller expires.  Does Benn get flipped (I would guess that's a yes but I don't know).  What will Markstrom's terms - if he's re-signed - look like?  Does an additional veteran forward get dealt?

Personally, all other things being equaly, I would dump Benn and give Stecher a modest raise in a heartbeat, for a number of reasons - not the least of which is both Fantenburg having leap-frogged him, and what I consider somewhat of an inevitability - Juolevi pushing him out (Benn is a placeholder imo, whereas Stecher is an 'asset').   I like a few of the young RHD in the system, but they'd need to earn a spot - I would not be moving a Stecher unless and until they do so.  And Tanev expiring further complicates the matter - whether or not he returns and at what value will also play heavily into the equation.

Far too many variables/contingencies for me to believe there is any real indication of which way it will transpire.

Added to the complication is that they appear headed into a playoff race, which makes them less likely to be sellers, even of a guy like Benn, who they might need to lean on if they don't remain healthy.

For me - neither Tanev nor Stecher are likely to command a great deal more than they are currently earning - so I think if the team prioritizes that RHDepth, it's not going to form a 'crisis' - it may be one of their more easily solveable problems - finding a modest raise for those two (they're already earning a combined 6.775 million...) I'd personally be more inclined to create the flexibility by shedding at forward - where they have multiple tweeners at the AHL level, and a few arguably NHL ready young forwards as well.   I still think they're deeper and more flexible up front - which has played out this year as they've been hammered by injuries to forwards and yet have sustained themselves respectably well.  If it were me, I'd be sacrificing winger depth or modestly spending to move winger cap - while trying to keep their strengths and depth down the middle and on the blueline. 

Beyond that - there is the question of whether Juolevi and Tryamkin would take the bottom pairing away from the present guys - really, a lot of factors in play, but no real shortage of options or assets.

 

I'm working on some assumptions, true. I don't see  Loui going anywhere until his last year, but of course I could be wrong. But I'm not sure thats even a consideration for the right side defence- I  would bet Benning would want to replace Stech with Tryamkin and re-sign Tanev given the option, and use any funds from Loui leaving upgrading the top 6 even further. 

 

I like Stecher but I see him getting squeezed out sooner than later. 

 

Moving Benn would be ideal, I'm holding out hope that Benning can get TO's 2020 2nd for him, given their sorry state right now and lack of cap space. 

 

 

 

[Patel Bure]

On 1/23/2020 at 9:55 AM, rychicken said:

Stetcher will be gone cap issue or not....

Yep.

 

he’ll be replaced by Rafferty.

[theo5789]

4 hours ago, oldnews said:

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.

 

 

Tryamkin has said as much himself before:

 

 

I'm not suggesting he should take a pay cut because he's not worth the salary, although I think he's worth more around the 2 million mark than 2.5+ million. I was suggesting a pay cut to allow us to fit him into our cap space.

[oldnews]

2 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I'm working on some assumptions, true. I don't see  Loui going anywhere until his last year, but of course I could be wrong. But I'm not sure thats even a consideration for the right side defence- I  would bet Benning would want to replace Stech with Tryamkin and re-sign Tanev given the option, and use any funds from Loui leaving upgrading the top 6 even further. 

 

I like Stecher but I see him getting squeezed out sooner than later. 

 

Moving Benn would be ideal, I'm holding out hope that Benning can get TO's 2020 2nd for him, given their sorry state right now and lack of cap space. 

 

I agree that Tryamkin could be an option - and at the same time, so could Juolevi walk in and make Benn or Fantenburg expendable/redundant.  Even so, I'd probably retain Stecher and dump Benn - however if the blueline continues to evolve and deepen, the realistic thing may be that we have to let Stecher move on to a better opportunity.  Perhaps re-signing Taneve does seal that with the horizon also having guys like Woo et al,

 

As for the top 6, I'm not sure they need to use LE money to upgrade there - I like the internal options - does Ferland get healthy - or moving Virtanen and or Gaudette up in the lineup, and I think Lind is another potential contender to crack in (as might Bailey be) - with another wave behind him (Pod, Hoglander, Madden).   Those guys - and guys like MacEwen who might replace a bottom six veteran, give some optimism of internal push creating cap flexibility.

[theo5789]

5 hours ago, higgyfan said:

Is he though.  Right now, he's playing alongside Edler and the big minutes.  I can't think of any prospects that can jump into that role; including Tryamkin and Rafferty. 

 

If Tanev isn't re-signed, the team will be very weak at RD.   Lets see...  Edler  Myers

                                                                                                                            Hughes  Tryamkin

                                                                                                                            Benn/whoever    Rafferty

 

And that's going into the year that Nucks/Tampa 1st will not be protected.

 

Definitely looks like the Nucks would have to dip into the high stakes UFA market.

Stecher played the least minutes last game, about 30 seconds less than Fantenberg. He's getting some shifts with Edler, possibly because he's the freshest body and he is reliable, but that doesn't make him a top 4 dman. He's good as a part time top 4 guy and is worth more than the league minimum guys. I have pretty high hopes for Tryamkin to be able to fill a top 4 dman role, maybe around 18-19 min average per game.

 

We make the playoffs this year and we don't have to worry about that 1st for next year. Which IMO is why we keep our depth (eg Tanev) and gives a serious chance at making it.

[Provost]

2 hours ago, theo5789 said:

Stecher played the least minutes last game, about 30 seconds less than Fantenberg. He's getting some shifts with Edler, possibly because he's the freshest body and he is reliable, but that doesn't make him a top 4 dman. He's good as a part time top 4 guy and is worth more than the league minimum guys. I have pretty high hopes for Tryamkin to be able to fill a top 4 dman role, maybe around 18-19 min average per game.

 

We make the playoffs this year and we don't have to worry about that 1st for next year. Which IMO is why we keep our depth (eg Tanev) and gives a serious chance at making it.

So a guy like Stecher who has averaged almost 20 minutes a game for the last several years, and has good underlying stats while doing it... Isn’t a top 4 D.... but a guy that hasn’t played in the league for years, and was only used sparingly in the short time he WAS in the league, that guy can walk into our top 4.

 

That makes sense how?

 

On a really good defence Stecher is a 3rd pairing guy.  Unfortunately we are not in that position and it doesn’t seem like we will be anytime soon.

 

If we make some huge trade for a real top 4 like Dumba, then by all means let both Tanev and Stecher walk.  Otherwise, we have to choose between the two guys.  Tanev will be more expensive, he is getting older and slower, and his relative health this year is an anomaly.  Stecher is performing just as well, is faster, and will be much cheaper.

 

If it is $5 million x 3 for Tanev or $3.5 million x 3.... considering our cap situation in the short term, I pick Stecher.

[Patel Bure]

Wondering if Tryamkin has enough value to be used as a sweetener to move someone like Sutter, Baertschi, or even Eriksson.   I like Tree but am not a fan of the way he left here.   If Tree cried over spilled milk last time, then what’s stopping him from doing it again in the future?    

[theo5789]

33 minutes ago, Provost said:

So a guy like Stecher who has averaged almost 20 minutes a game for the last several years, and has good underlying stats while doing it... Isn’t a top 4 D.... but a guy that hasn’t played in the league for years, and was only used sparingly in the short time he WAS in the league, that guy can walk into our top 4.

 

That makes sense how?

 

On a really good defence Stecher is a 3rd pairing guy.  Unfortunately we are not in that position and it doesn’t seem like we will be anytime soon.

 

If we make some huge trade for a real top 4 like Dumba, then by all means let both Tanev and Stecher walk.  Otherwise, we have to choose between the two guys.  Tanev will be more expensive, he is getting older and slower, and his relative health this year is an anomaly.  Stecher is performing just as well, is faster, and will be much cheaper.

 

If it is $5 million x 3 for Tanev or $3.5 million x 3.... considering our cap situation in the short term, I pick Stecher.

Stecher is averaging 14+ mins this year. So it would seem as if we are in that position if that's the standard. He played "top 4" minutes and was serviceable when our dmen were depleted (so did Hutton and we let him walk and no one offered him a deal he thought he would get) and I commend him for that, but those were also some of our poor seasons. It's no surprise that our team has upticked this year and Stecher's minutes have gone down because he hasn't been needed to rely upon as much this season.

 

I never said Tryamkin would walk right into a top 4 spot. My expectation this season is to keep Tanev for the playoff push and move Stecher so if/when Tryamkin returns this season, he starts as a bottom pairing guy. My belief is that he has grown his game in his time in the KHL and is currently playing top pairing minutes there (one of the biggest knocks on him was conditioning and playing those kinds of minutes would suggest he's past that) including top PK minutes. He's admitted that he needed to mature and wasn't ready when he was here the first time. In his time here, he averaged 17 minutes a night, so it's not really a reach to think that he could play up to 18-19 minutes with the growth in his game and a transition period to readjust back while taking over some of Tanev's PK time (who I don't expect to be back either).

 

If we could afford to retain Tanev, then I would pick Tanev over Stecher even at that cost. Because of the right cap constraints, then that would be a feasible alternative, although I probably wouldn't be thrusting Stecher in our top 4 full time and therefore I wouldn't value him at that price either. I would need to see if Tryamkin returns and how he fares and see what Rafferty can do in some time up before I can determine the importance of retaining Stecher. Although the writing is kind of on the wall in that he's averaging the least amount of time on ice on the defense, even below Benn and Fantenberg.

[Junkyard Dog]

Stecher is very very expendable. Top 6 D who isn't a PKer or a PPer.

 

Brogan would likely play the 2nd unit PP freeing up more time for Myers/Edler.

[Arrow 1983]

On 1/23/2020 at 2:15 PM, mll said:

Bonuses are only determined at the end of the season - the payout and the cap hit happens at the end of the season and not in season.  That end of season cap space then gets reduced by the bonus payment and any excess carried over.  For now the Canucks have 30'474.- in end of season cap space to pay the bonuses.

 

Last season Dallas had Stephen Johns out all season, as well as Hanzal and Methot for a large portion of the season yet were not able to absorb their performance bonuses because LTIR did not allow them to bank end of season cap space.

 

I knew I had read that this was not true some where and I found it on capfriendly In their frequently asked questions

 

What is the difference between a Signing Bonus and a Performance Bonus?

Signing Bonuses are rewarded upon the signing of a player’s contract and are paid to the player regardless of buyouts, or performance.

Performance Bonuses are paid to a player if the requirements of the bonus are met, and are given over the course of the season as they are met.

 

as your capfriendly quote says

 

With Awards & All Rookie Team finally revealed last night, we were able to finalize all of our Bonus Overage numbers for 2019-20

 

Those bonuses are determined after season, but goals, assists, points and games are determined as the games are played in season

 

 

Edited January 26, 2020 by Arrow 1983

[Arrow 1983]

On 1/23/2020 at 2:23 PM, Provost said:

Except that im virtually every circumstance (including ours), you can’t count performance bonuses against LTIR relief... you keep quoting an article (over and over again) that doesn’t describe our situation and you are misinterpreting it to mean that LTIR space can be used for performance bonuses.  It can’t.

Read this article 

https://www.pensionplanpuppets.com/and-now-you-know/2018/7/17/17575422/the-basics-on-nhl-contract-bonuses-maple-leafs-contract-slide-signing-bonus-performance-bonus

 

As long as there is space in the LTIR The bonus can be absorbed 

 

Thanks to you guys I had to get my contacts to confirm this you have put me to work the last couple of days

[Arrow 1983]

On 1/23/2020 at 1:50 PM, mll said:

LTIR is problematic for performance bonuses.

 

Canucks only have 30K in end of season cap space per CapFriendly.  Any performance bonuses beyond that amount will count against next season's cap.  Ferland is expected to come off LTIR so that amount should increase slightly but not enough to cover all the bonuses for Hughes and Pettersson.  There will be a carry over unless they can move someone.  

 

With already 65% of the season underway they need to move out 5M by the end of this month to bank the necessary cap space to absorb 1.7M in schedule A bonuses and avoid a carry over - unlikely.  

 

That 30'474.- on CapFriendly is the number to monitor.   That number has not changed ever since Ferland went on LTIR despite several roster movements with Utica.  MacEwen just got demoted but it had no effect on end of season cap space - teams can't bank cap space when they are using LTIR.   So when they reach the end of the season they often don't have the necessary money to cover the bonuses and they get carried over.  

 

You and provost have put me to work the last couple days confirming this with my contacts so thank you but here it is, I was referred to this article

https://www.pensionplanpuppets.com/and-now-you-know/2018/7/17/17575422/the-basics-on-nhl-contract-bonuses-maple-leafs-contract-slide-signing-bonus-performance-bonus

 

as long as there is space to absorb the bonuses on the LTIR they will not be carried over

[Arrow 1983]

from capfriendly

 

How is LTIR Relief calculated?

LTIR relief comes in the form of two values: a salary relief pool, and a performance bonus relief pool.

These pools are determined the day the player is placed on LTIR. The salary relief pool is the player’s averaged salary excluding performance bonuses (their cap hit value). The performance bonus relief is the player’s total performance bonuses for this season (games played, A and B bonuses), regardless of if they are still achievable.

What if the team already has a player on LTIR?
The teams ACSL remains the same, and their salary relief pool increases by the player’s cap hit, and the performance bonus relief pool increases by the player’s performance bonuses.

How does a team use the base salary and performance bonus relief pools?

As explained above, two pools are created when a player is placed on LTIR, a salary pool, and a performance bonus pool. If recalling a player would result in the team exceeding the ACSL, the team must have enough relief in the necessary pools. Only the players achievable performance bonuses are considered when they are recalled, for example, if a player has an 82 games played performance bonus of $500,000, and it is impossible for them to achieve those 82 games, the $500,000 performance bonus is no longer considered.

The following must be met to recall the player:

1. 
   

2. Players with no performance bonuses

   If a player has no performance bonuses, the team must have a salary relief pool that is equal to or greater than the player’s cap hit (annual averaged salary excluding performance bonuses).
   

3. Players with performance bonuses

   The team must have a salary relief pool that is equal to or greater than the player’s cap hit. After the salary relief pool has been considered, the sum of the teams performance bonus pool and remaining salary relief pool must be equal to or greater than the player’s max achievable performance bonuses of the current season (the player’s achievable performance bonuses can come out of both the salary and performance bonus pool).

 

 

Notice the very last sentence in the bold