TheRealistOptimist

2020-21 - $5,666,667 2021-22 - $3,666,667 2022-23 - $666,667 2023-24 - $666,667 Unfortunately it makes little to no sense to buy him out this year as the Canucks would save more by burying him in the minors in 2020-21.

Baertschi and Sutter have no business being buyout options. We have 3 slots to retain money on in trades...USE THEM. You can find a suitor for Sutter at 2.1 and Baertschi at 1.7 without giving up much. That saves you about 2.5 million right there. Buying them out is essentially the same cost as retaining half in a trade except they count an extra year against the cap. The trade that makes the most sense to me is Cory Schneider for Loui Eriksson. Canucks buyout Schneider (NJ tells Schneider he's getting bought out either way) which carries a 2.0 cap hit for 4 years (Van gets 4 million dollar savings for 2 years). NJ saves at least 3 million in real life dollars and the cap hit doesn't matter to them this year or probably next. but they could buyout Eriksson at any point if they wanted. In a pandemic saving 3+ million in real dollars could be a real benefit to a team. I don't think you would need to add much, if anything as a sweetener. Otherwise, I just wait out Loui's contract for at least another year and send him to the minors. I don't sign Marky for over 5.5 (preferably no more than 5.0). I am actually open to letting him walk and going with Demko. I sign Toffoli for 5.25 max. I would be willing to let Tanev walk as well but I could see him coming back for around 5 million I sign Stecher for 3.2 and Virtanen for 2.5. Those are big enough raises that I think they would sign them. If Stecher doesn't accept that than I try and trade him or let him walk and that frees up more cap space. If you need cap space, I would trade Pearson and his 3.75 cap hit because I don't see him being signed long term after next year, I also can't see us trading him at next years deadline if we are in a playoff race. So with his little bit of a resurgence, I think we could actually get a decent asset back in return for him now. Were not going to be adding much this offseason and that's ok. Were still a young team with at formidable top 6 (with or without Pearson).

You missed the point completely. Louis Eriksson based on similar stats got a 6 year deal worth around 8% of the total salary cap in 2016-17, meanwhile Anson Carter got a 1 year deal worth 5.5% of the total cap in 2006-07. So if your looking at it from Anson Carter's point of view, I can see why he may feel the way he feels. Now, this example is only one year and one player and to be honest I don't really care to do the research on more players who put up similar numbers heading into free agency throughout the years and what deals they ended up with. I think there are probably many other reasons why he didn't get a multi-year deal worth more than he did and I don't agree with him that race played a factor in his not getting a better contract offer with the Canucks. But I can see why he may be jaded towards the NHL as a whole.

Yes. except he didn’t say it was a fact, these are just his thoughts. I can also see why he is thinking the way he is

Absolutely I never said otherwise. Just trying to understand and state how he could feel that he was treated differently. I don’t blame the Canucks at all for not signing him.

Yes he had a down year the year before the Canucks but you are wrong that those other years were early in his career. 2001-02 - EDM - 60 points in 82 games 2002-03 - EDM/NYR - 60 points in 79 games 2003-04 - NYR/WSH/LAK - 28 points in 77 games 2004-05 - Lockout 2005-06 - VAN - 55 points in 81 games 3 of his past 4 seasons with 55 points or more.

I needed a refresher too but go look at his prior stats. There were 3 better than average seasons out of his past 4. They weren't as mediocre as we might've thought.

As a kid I called him "Stone hands" that year because I feel even though he scored 33 goals he missed so many other opportunities, he should've had like 50 goals that year, the Sedin's set him up on a tee so many times from what I recall. I did like him though and remember thinking he was greedy for not re-signing. As for his statement, I think you really have to parse what he said. He didn't say the Canucks were racist for not signing him. He did say he thinks race played a part in him not getting offered more by the Canucks. When it comes to that statement, I am not sure but I think I can see where he is coming from. I am sure he probably feels his season was viewed more as a "fluke" because of his skin colour, whereas a white player may have got a big contract. I mean he had been a consistent player putting up 40+ points in 7 of the past 8 seasons, including 55+ points in 3 of the past 4 seasons. Now it was a weird time because of the NHL Lockout and implementation of the salary cap and the 24% salary rollback that came with that. Just as an example, Louis Eriksson had 0.65 ppg over his past 4 seasons heading into Free Agency and was almost 31 years old, he was viewed as one of the top FA and as we all know signed a $6 million per year deal. Well Carter also averaged 0.65 ppg over his past 4 seasons heading into FA, now he was slightly older having just turned 32. With all that I can understand why he might feel a certain way. Now he got a decent deal AAV wise but probably a little less than a UFA in his position normally get and also nowhere close to the long term deal most would get. This proved to be a smart move by all teams by not giving him any term but it's definitely a bit unusual in regards to how most teams operate during Free Agency. Anyways this is just a different way of looking at and understanding his statement. Overall in my opinion not a racist move by the Canucks though. ps. I missed 11 games with NYR where he scored 5 points. This drops his ppg slightly lower to 0.64 ppg.

This all seemingly comes down to era's. Stan Smyl - People who watched Smyl seem to hold him in high regards but other than a couple seasons where he was top 30 in points he was not dominant compared to his peers statistically. He played in the league at a time where there was only 17-21 teams, 1 season of only 17 teams and 12 seasons of 21 teams. The Canucks had a losing record every season he played, in fact they never even finished the regular season in the top half of the standings, yet they made the playoffs in 9 out of his 13 seasons. His teams lost in the 1st round of the playoffs in 8 of those 9 years they qualified. His only team success in the playoffs came during one miracle run to the Cup Finals, where as we all know they unfortunately lost. Trevor Linden - Perhaps the most beloved Canuck in team history. His time in Vancouver was split into two seperate stints, his first one being where he was most impactful for the team. However even during this first 9 year stint, he was nothing to write home about offensively. In his prime he was finshing around 30th-40th in the league in scoring and that was only for 4 out of the 9 seasons. When he returned he was a much less effective offensive player and was no longer a focal part of the team. Now, during his first 9 seasons he played during an era of constant change in the NHL with the amount of teams in the league increasing from 21 teams to 26 teams. Lindens teams had 3 winning seasons, 5 losings seasons and 1 0.500 season. Only 3 of these seasons did the team finish in the to half of the league and that also coincided with the arrival of Pavel Bure. The Canucks qualified for the playoffs in 7 of these 9 seasons however some of these are due to the flawed playoff format. One season (90-91) they finished 17th out 21 teams in points and yet still qualified for the playoffs. They lost in the 1st round - 3 times, 2nd round - 3 times and they also had one run to the Stanley Cup Finals in which they lost. Markus Naslund - Was a NHL Superstar who for a large portion of his time in Vancouver was a top 5 forward in the league and an elite scorer, in fact over a 4 year stretch from the 2000-01 season (the point he was named Captain) to the end of the 2003-04 season he was 1st in Goals and Assists in the ENTIRE league. This is on a whole different level than anything Smyl or Linden accomplished. In Naslund's 11 full seasons in Van, the team had 6 winning seasons and 5 losing seasons. Once he became Captain the team had 6 winning seasons and ONLY 1 losing season. They qualified for the playoffs in 5 out of his 11 seasons in Van and in 5 out of 7 seasons once he was named Captain. They lost in the 1st round - 3 times (2 times to the Cup Champs and 1 to Cup finalist) and they lost twice in the 2nd round (1 time to the eventual Cup winners). While Linden and Smyl's teams were making the playoffs with losing records during Naslund's era they never made the playoffs with a losing record and even missed the playoffs 1 year with a winning record. During Naslund's era the number of teams increased from 26 to 27 to 28 and then in 2000-01 to 30. Anyways everybody will judge era's differently and most will favour the era's they grew up watching as kids that cemented their fandom and love of hockey. However in terms of great players in Canucks history, Naslund is without a doubt one of the best, in fact he was on a shortlist of best in the league during his time and that is not something Linden or Smyl could say. This to me means he should and rightfully does have his name and number hanging in the rafters.

It is funny how people can have such different perspectives about the same market and fanbase.

The reports have been that Brackett wants full autonomy.

I have 3 questions - If Judd Brackett ever gets named GM somewhere, will he still be responsible for his teams draft success? (assuming they have any) Also will he give full autonomy of the amateur scouting staff away? Also would you want him to?

"The next season, Brackett was named Vancouver’s director of amateur scouting by Trevor Linden" A quote from this article someone posted above - https://thehockeynews.com/news/article/this-seasons-best-free-agent-might-end-up-being-vancouvers-judd-brackett So was it Benning who promoted him?

Yet another one sided article, which only gives credit to Brackett. They just skip over the first 5-6 years of Brackett’s scouting career because there wasn’t anything to rave about. Then from 2014 onwards they give him all the credit. I do think Brackett has been a big part of the Canucks drafting success, I just think people are going way too far with the credit their giving him.

So if Benning was the AGM and in charge of scouting, then why are you giving Brackett all the credit for the Canucks drafts? Reports are saying that Brackett wanted full autonomy over scouting if he was going to stay (I'm assuming leaving at this point), meaning someone else Benning/Weisbrod is currently in charge of scouting. So why in this case won't you give Benning credit, it's because that doesn't suit your narrative. You see, your post is the perfect example of trying to do anything to discredit Jim Benning and it's probably cause you just don't like him as our GM.

It's amazing how many people will go out of their way not to give Benning credit for anything good that happens with this organization under his control, because they have already made up their minds he is not good. I've heard hockey people say GM's are mostly responsible for the 1st round picks and after that then it comes down to the scouting staff. But now people only want to give Benning credit for the 1st round picks which are perceived as bad picks or misses. And every good pick was in spite of Jim Benning and was only made because of Judd Brackett. Then in other situations people want to give Benning credit for scouting in Boston when he was never a scout in Boston, he was the Director of Player Personnel for 1 year and then AGM for 7 years. Meanwhile the Bruins had a Director of Player Scouting for the whole time Benning was in Boston. During Benning's time in Boston there were 3 different Directors of Player Scouting (Scott Bradley, Wayne Smith and Keith Gretzky) and 1 Assistant Director of Player Scouting (Scott Fitzgerald). Furthermore @lmm wants to give Jeff Gorton credit for the Bruins success because of 3 1/2 months of being an interim GM for Boston in 2006. So what is it, is it the GMs, AGMs or the Directors of Player Scouting who should get the credit for drafting? We have also heard people claim that the Canucks drafts have turned around under the direction of Judd Brackett and how he has directed his scouts. Meanwhile Brackett himself has talked about how it was Benning who had given them a clear direction in terms of how he wants the scouts to scout and what kind of players he wanted. Furthermore Ray Ferraro just the other day on TSN 1040 (May 5th) said that he ran into Benning at the prospects tournament in Penticton the year Benning first got hired and after talking for a minute, Benning told Ferraro he was just on his way to a meeting to help scouting staff learn how he wanted them to scout. Let's not forget that while Judd Brackett was just an amateur scout during the Gillis era, he did not have very much success. It was not until Benning got hired that the Canucks/Brackett started having a lot of success (still yet to be fully determined). So is that a coincidence or maybe was it the newly appointed GM with a scouting background who righted the "drafting" ship, so to speak. I think a lot of people need to remember Benning has been praised throughout is career as having a good scouting background and that, that was a strength of his. I think you are always going to think highly of yourself in that category and I think rightfully so and are going to want to continue to be involved in that department and process (I mean just look at all of us and how we think we know better than the scouts, yet none of us are actual scouts). So, now imagine a Gillis guy (Brackett) who had very little success in the draft prior to you (Benning) being hired, starts to improve and have some success under your guidance and now he is trying to cut you (Benning) out of the scouting process by asking for full autonomy over the Amateur Scouting Department. I think that would rub a lot of people and each and everyone of us the wrong way. Personally, I think Brackett has tasted a little bit of success and is building up a positive reputation around the league and mostly with peers among the scouting community and now he wants MORE. More in this case comes in the form of autonomy over the scouting staff though and not more in terms of title and or money, at least according to reports. But if I am Jim Benning I am never giving up full control over a department (scouting) that is viewed as my strength as a hockey executive. In the end, in my opinion - This basically comes down to a situation where about 50% or at very least the loud minority of the Canucks fan base dislikes Jim Benning in the role of GM and will never give him credit and can't wait until he is gone. Even members of the media, who are clearly not pro-Jim Benning people are letting their bias show and reporting one side of the argument as if it's the only side. Just remember this we all have never heard of Directors of Scouting like Scott Bradley (Boston Bruins 98-08) who drafted guys like Bergeron, Krejci, Lucic, Marchand and more all outside of the 1st round of the drafts.

The way I understood his comments is that if the salary cap was $81.5 million this year, next year the cap could be up to 40% lower, which would mean a $48.9 million cap. This would result in all of the players salaries being rolled back 40% as well. Therefore the Canucks would still be in the same cap situation as they are right now.

that sucks.

You don’t even know what a “salaried” employee is. a worker who earn’s an hourly wage is not a salaried employee. Waiters/waitresses are not salaried employees. They don’t earn a set yearly amount.

Why are you making your own calculations?? Your scenario is wrong as well. First off $120/40 hours = $3/hour, so the restaurant owner would not be able to take $4/hour off her pay. In your scenario the restaurant owner would only be able to claim $3/hour not $4/hour. Therefore, if her wage was $7/hour, after all the tips and deductions are calculated she would still take home $7/hour, for a total of $280 (before tax). wage - $7*40 hours = $280 tip out - $120/40 hours = $3/hour owner deduction - $3/40 hours = $120 Total wage for 40 hours - $280 dollars If you divide $280 by 40 hours you will get $7/hour. In reality though, either way you slice it, the waiter/waitress is getting paid AT LEAST $7.25 per hour in Wisconsin. At NO POINT will any legally employed worker in Wisconsin take home less than $7.25 per hour (before taxes). This is a indisputable. Maybe you will understand this way paragraph that I found better. “Currently, the federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour. Wisconsin’s minimum wage is the same. Therefore, tipped employees in Wisconsin are entitled to earn $7.25 an hour.” “Wisconsin law allows employers to claim a tip credit. Wisconsin employers may pay tipped employees as little as $2.33 an hour. If the employee’s hourly wage plus tips earned don’t add up to at least $7.25 an hour, the employer must make up the difference.” Your original statement was: “FYG waitreses in Minnesota their minimum wage is $2.00/hr“ Then you changed it to Wisconsin. At some point, after you were told you were spreading misinformation, you tried to change the argument to how much the restaurant owner has to pay the employee per hour if their tips equal out to more than $4.92 per hour and not how much they are actually earning per hour. You did not use these numbers, you made a statement that didn’t make much sense: “Apparently this is how it works. If a waiter/waitress average less than $30 / month in tips then the employer must make the salary up to the $7.25 However which waiter or waitress makes less than $30/month there for the salary remains at $2.13” But even in that statement you acknowledged that the employer has to make up the employees salary to $7.25 if the tips aren’t enough. The State minimum wage is $7.25, so if the employee is guaranteed to earn at least this much per hour, they are never only taking home only $2.33 or $2.13 per hour (Whichever number you want to use), which is what your original argument was. The point being argued by myself is that the minimum wage in Wisconsin is never $2/hour. The state minimum wage for any employee (tipped or not) is $7.25. So at the end of every shift the employee will be earning at least $7.25 per hour. How it gets to a MINIMUM of $7.25 per hour was never my argument. This waitress fed you a line, probably to get a better tip from your table. You bought it hook, line and sinker and now you are arguing against the facts of the government. It’s really weird.

You are denying facts...it’s very Trump like of you. Plus you are the only one who has been told their wrong and it wasn’t just by me. The waitress probably uses that sad sap story with every customer in order to get better tips.

You’re missing the point. You may not agree with system. But you claiming the employee only gets $2.13 per hour as minimum wage is just wrong. They are never getting paid less than $7.25 per hour. That’s just a fact. They could make $100 dollars an hour in tips and all the business does is take back $4.92. It’s a weird system, but it’s the system they have. It also could be beneficial to the employee if the employee gets tipped out in cash (potentially no taxes on cash tip outs). Plus every customer who walks into that restaurant is pretty much guilted into tipping, regardless of the service that the employee actually gives. That’s just the way we’ve been programmed in the US and Canada. Anyways I’m over this conversation, it’s way off topic plus who cares about Wisconsin there’s not even a NHL team there. You can continue to misunderstand the facts and put misleading information out there if you want but the proper info is right there for anybody who cares.

No. - The employees wage is $7.25 per hour. - If the Employee gets tipped out more than $4.92 per hour, the employer gets to remove up to $4.92 off of the employees hourly wage. - If the employee doesn't get tipped anything they will receive a base pay of $7.25 per hour. So all in all the employee will always make a minimum of $7.25 per hour. They just have a weird rule where if your tips are more than $4.92 per hour the employer can take that much off of their hourly wage. But the employee is still receiving at least $7.25 per hour. At no point can an employee end up with 8 x $2.13 = $17.04 for a 8 hour shift with no tips.

@Fred65 Wisconsin labor law allows tipped employees to be paid a lower cash wage than the standard Wisconsin minimum wage by their employers, as up to $4.92 in tips earned per hour can be deducted from their wage as a "Tip Credit". This means that, with the maximum tip credit taken, tipped employees must be paid a cash wage of at least $2.33 per hour, for a total minimum compensation of $7.25 per hour (including tips). Wisconsin does not specify a minimum amount of tips an employee must receive in order to be classified as a "tipped employee". Therefore, any employee who receives tips can be paid according to Wisconsin's tipped minimum wage laws. Tipped Minimum Wage $7.25 Maximum Tip Credit $4.92 Minimum Cash Wage $2.33 $2.13 per hour may be paid to employees who are under 20 years old and who have been employed by a particular employer for 90 or fewer consecutive calendar days from the date of initial employment. How Tip Credits Work in Wisconsin It's important to note that while the tip credit allows employers to pay tipped employees significantly less than the prevailing minimum wage in cash, no tipped employee should ever receive actual wages of less than $7.25 per hour. As a general rule, the cash wage received plus any tips should equal at least $7.25 for each hour the tipped employee works. Example Tip Credit Calculation: Let's say Jessica is a server in Wisconsin who receives an hourly wage of $7.25, the Wisconsin minimum wage. During an hour long scheduled shift, Jessica receives $5.00 in tips. For that hour, Jessica's employer can credit $4.92 of the received tips against Jessica's hourly wage of $7.25, so they will only pay $2.33 in cash wages for that hour. However, including both the cash wage and the $5.00 in tips received, Jessica's total earnings are $8.00. In the next hour of their shift, Jessica receives no tips. Because no tips were received to be credited against the minimum wage, the employer must pay Jessica $7.25 in cash wages for this hour.

I read the whole thing, You are interpreting it wrong. No waiter or waitress in Wisconsin can work an hour and only get paid $2.13 or $2.33 if you are older than 20 and have worked there for longer than 90 days. EVERY waiter/waitress in Wisconsin will earn AT LEAST $7.25 per hour. You seem relatively well spoken @Fred65 but I don't know why you are having such a hard time understanding this.