-
Posts
11,729 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Everything posted by Provost
-
Cap Hell for Canucks!!! (GREAT NEWS from Daly re: CAP for next year!!)
Provost replied to HKSR's topic in Canucks Talk
Well that article that you post over and over again says no such thing. It says that if you bring up a player who has bonuses in their contract to replace someone on LTIR, their salary including max bonuses have to fit within the amount of LTIR space you have. That means you can’t bring Juolevi up if Motte gets put on LTIR... because Juolevi’s contract with max bonuses would be too much. Nowhere does it say anything like a team being able to Randomly attribute any roster player’s year end performance bonuses against previous LTIR room. -
6 points, not too shabby... was that the most of anyone in the Pacific?
-
Cap Hell for Canucks!!! (GREAT NEWS from Daly re: CAP for next year!!)
Provost replied to HKSR's topic in Canucks Talk
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. -
Cap Hell for Canucks!!! (GREAT NEWS from Daly re: CAP for next year!!)
Provost replied to HKSR's topic in Canucks Talk
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. -
Yes, kind of ironic that the post was “most people don’t understand the process”... and went on to show they didn’t understand it. They aren’t limited to picking 3 goalies, they have to pick at least that many to be able to ice a team and have a guy for injury call up. Vegas loaded up on D (picked 15 of them) because a #4 D are more valuable as assets than #7 forwards. There is a lack of quality goalies now, as teams are moving more towards having two solid guys rather than a starter and then a minimum wage plug back up. Picking several goalies and the. Trading away the surplus seems like a decent strategy. Regardless, the point form everyone is basically that by looking at our likely exposure list, we won’t have any forward of much interest, and probably not any D that come close to the asset value of either Markstrom or Demko. I won’t be surprised to see Markstrom’s contract structured in a way that makes him less appealing for selection... like a huge bonus payable on 01 July right after the expansion draft that makes him a less valuable trade chip.
-
(Proposal) realistic trade!
Provost replied to captaincowbasher's topic in Proposals and Armchair GM'ing
OK, I think we are totally in agreement and were just talking about different things. I am not sure if we can fit in Palmieri and haven't really looked into it. I am a lot more focussed on dumping cap sooner rather than later to avoid those bonuses pushing. To me, any deal for him should also include (even in a different deal) some dead cap going out. -
(Proposal) realistic trade!
Provost replied to captaincowbasher's topic in Proposals and Armchair GM'ing
Except you seem to be indicating that having players on LTIR banks cap space, which is objectively not true. LTIR just lets you exceed the cap ceiling by the calculations you are talking about. All the calculations you are talking about are how much LTIR space we have, and not how much cap space we have. LTIR space isn’t used for ELC bonuses so has nothing to do with it. All of those players have been on our roster all year (some going on and off LTIR). There isn’t any magic math that makes their cap hits disappear. You can just add them all up. Pretty much every single day of the season their totalled salaries (including players on LTIR) have exceeded the cap.... so the idea that we have banked cap space defies logic. Again, because LTIR is irrelevant to how much cap space you have as it doesn’t create cap space at all. The performance bonuses are actually pretty much all we are worried about, and what the conversation was about. The $1.7-3,7 million from this year pushed into next and the $2-4.5 million from next year depending on who hits what (including Juolevi as a top six guy who might make some bonuses)... those need to be accounted for in the same year as they were earned to avoid having to completely trash the roster for the following season when we are on the hook for around $18 million for Petterson and Hughes and the big veterans contracts (Eriksson, Beagle, Rousell, Ferland, and Lou's recapture) don't come off yet to make room for the big paydays. -
Would you like to see Kesler in the Ring of Honour?
Provost replied to iBlueGreen's topic in Canucks Talk
Not enough time has passed for the bitterness of the way the split happened to have gone away. It wasn’t just leaving to go to a winner, which is understandable, it was at the same time leveraging his NTC and publicly handcuffing us to only one team as a possible trade partner. That was the douche part. There were apparently such strong feelings amongst the team brass that they had a big split about it. Linden wanted to basically play chicken and refuse to honour his trade demand unless he widened his destination list. Benning just wanted it done and move on. Maybe eventually it will be fine, just like Bure was... but you don’t want to have a Ring or Honour ceremony with half the arena booing. -
Cap Hell for Canucks!!! (GREAT NEWS from Daly re: CAP for next year!!)
Provost replied to HKSR's topic in Canucks Talk
We can still trade his rights after the deadline like at the draft. I don’t think his 30 minutes a night was sustainable either, but only a handful of guys in the league can play those minutes. What was startling though is that Hutton quickly got buried and fell apart with those higher end minutes. Stecher had no drop off in his metrics at all, he handled it just fine. He has also excelled anytime when put on the top line with Edler which has been for long stretches. This year has been an anomaly with his low ice time, but he is getting more ice time and games at 18-20 minutes after being used really sparingly early on in the season. On a good team he is a 3rd pairing D. Unfortunately we don’t have better options and can’t afford to get any with our cap situation. We could quite possibly end up just sucking up whatever 1 year arbitration award with him in our top 4 next year. He has proven a lot more than Tryamkin or Rafferty in a top 4 spot, and Tanev seems to be out of our price range in both the short and long term. Hughes-Myers Edler-Stecher Juolevi-Benn Tryamkin Worse than this year, but better than pretty much any alternative available to us. The only out is to trade away enough cap space and “hope” to get Tanev on a short term deal at about $5 million AAV. Then any of our other options like Rafferty or Tryamkin can more easily fill a 3rd pairing spot. -
Cap Hell for Canucks!!! (GREAT NEWS from Daly re: CAP for next year!!)
Provost replied to HKSR's topic in Canucks Talk
Yes, it means we are right against the cap and can’t bank cap. If we were $5 million under the cap and got a big injury where a $5 million dollar player was out long term, we get zero LTIR relief. The first or second team all star is actually really hard to get. It would mean him being selected as one of he top two centres in the league... he probably wouldn’t quite make top 5 yet. I think there isn’t an insignificant chance he makes a bonus, but probably not. We should be prepared for him hitting it next year though, so same thing with having to leave a buffer to avoid pushing that bonus. I wouldn’t bet against him being a top 10 scorer next year. All the details aside, yes... we are in much worse shape than the OP suggests. Barring some moves, we will ice progressively worse rosters for the next two years. -
Cap Hell for Canucks!!! (GREAT NEWS from Daly re: CAP for next year!!)
Provost replied to HKSR's topic in Canucks Talk
Except he makes every pairing better by the numbers. He played 30 minutes a night as a top pairing guy during injuries and we didn’t see a drop off at all. He may not fit well as part of our pairings going forward, but letting him go UFA is just stupid. He isn’t Hutton, he will have lots of good offers form the many teams who are short on D. If he doesn’t fit our plans, trading his rights gets us back at least a 3rd round pick. He would be valued as at least a high end 3rd pairing guy by a lot of teams and garner interest. -
Cap Hell for Canucks!!! (GREAT NEWS from Daly re: CAP for next year!!)
Provost replied to HKSR's topic in Canucks Talk
I was actually surprised that Hughes didn’t have schedule B bonuses, it was Mll that set me right on that. Top picks have them often enough that I just assumed. Juolevi actually has some Schedule B bonuses for this year as an example. Cap space is only accrued by being under the cap each day of the season with all your roster salaries (including injured players). LTIR doesn’t increase the cap and it doesn’t create cap space, it just allows you to go over the cap. You only get LTIR if you are up against the cap... so it really has no impact on ELC bonuses. You are right about Petterson, I am not so sanguine as Mll about him not hitting a schedule B bonus. He just had to hit one and he gets the full $2 million. Top 3 in Lady Byng voting? Maybe. Top 10 in scoring for forwards, it takes him getting hot or a couple of the guys above him getting long term injuries. The NHL awards first and second all star teams are different from all-Star game selection, so it is not a schedule B bonus (all star game is a schedule A). It all adds up to a possible significant headache cap wise. A good problem to have, but a real Impetus to get rid of Eriksson (Or equivalent dead or inefficient cap) now even if the cost is high to do so. It is really our only chance to avoid getting worse in the short term. Moving out Eriksson before the deadline really saves us around $7.7 million off next year’s cap (the pushed bonuses plus his salary) which is huge. Waiting until July 1st reduces those saving and destroys our ability to re-sign our pending UFAs before they hit the open market. -
Cap Hell for Canucks!!! (GREAT NEWS from Daly re: CAP for next year!!)
Provost replied to HKSR's topic in Canucks Talk
So adding back in the Benn and Baertschi contracts we have, and don’t just disappear without moves being made (and taking away an ELC because Benn is still there)... and adding in the pushed ELC bonuses from THiS year... you are at around $86.5 million. The December BOG meeting made it sound like the cap will be between $82.5-$83.5, so you are still $3-4 million over the cap. Then add in the fact we definitely can’t afford to push next year’s bonuses into 2021-22 (when we are hit with Petterson and Hughes next contracts) we have to keep a buffer for them under next year’s cap. Say that is another at least $2 million minimum and quite probably much more if Juolevi is in our top 6 or Petterson has a good year. So now we are $5-7 million over what we can spend to the cap next year. That is a full Eriksson, and maybe a tiny bit of buffer for short term injury call ups. The math works no other way than we have to get rid of Eriksson or get rid of both Baertschi and Sutter. Otherwise we are looking at icing progressively worse rosters for the next two seasons. -
Cap Hell for Canucks!!! (GREAT NEWS from Daly re: CAP for next year!!)
Provost replied to HKSR's topic in Canucks Talk
Yes... either $1.7 or $3.7 if Petterson hits any schedule B bonus targets. We have a projected $30k in cap space, and you can’t use LTIR space to pay the ELC bonuses. You can’t bank cap space while in LTIR. So basically ALL of those earned bonuses get pushed into next year, dropping what we can spend. The further complication is that any bonuses earned next year simply cannot be pushed into 2021-22 because we will be in a really tight cap crunch having to pay Petterson and Hughes on their next contracts. So, assuming Juolevi is on the team as a top 6, you could be looking at more ELC oerofmabr bonuses than this year... dropping what we can spend by another couple of million at least, or more if Petterson gets a $2 million bonus. Schedule-B bonuses the team and the player can negotiate (maximum total is US$2 million per year)1. Finishing in the top five for Hart, Norris, Selke and Richard.2. Finishing in the top three for Calder and Lady Byng.3. Making the first- or second-team all-star group.4. Winning the Conn Smythe.5. Finishing in the top 10 among in goals, assists or points.6. Finishing in the top 10 in points-per-game (must play 42 games).7. Finishing in the top 10 in average time-on-ice (must play 42 games). -
My post was no comment about his competence. Just an explanation that he isn’t as stupid as you make him out to be. You would be the one questioning his competence by suggesting it was his intentional plan to be a bad team. It was circumstance, he inherited a bad team and it took time to become not terrible. You suggested he planned to have a bad team JUST to make sure we had extra exempt players during the expansion draft. Us being in fine shape for the expansion draft is just coincidental to not being very good for the past while and having a young team that includes higher end players that happen to be exempt from expansion. Us having overpaid veterans that wouldn’t be attractive to an expansion team is also simply a function of not being good and having to overpay guys to come here. Again, you are the one saying he planned to overpay those guys simply to put us in better stead for expansion... which would be an incompetent thing to do. He overpaid them because he felt having some veterans was good for the kids.
-
Cap Hell for Canucks!!! (GREAT NEWS from Daly re: CAP for next year!!)
Provost replied to HKSR's topic in Canucks Talk
Except according to Capfriendly it actually is carrying over bonus from last year. There is a clear line item saying so. -
Cap Hell for Canucks!!! (GREAT NEWS from Daly re: CAP for next year!!)
Provost replied to HKSR's topic in Canucks Talk
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. -
Cap Hell for Canucks!!! (GREAT NEWS from Daly re: CAP for next year!!)
Provost replied to HKSR's topic in Canucks Talk
You are right, I don’t know why I assumed the extra $2 million was from a Hughes Schedule B bonus. We are saying the exact same thing as far as cap hit and future planning though. It is that we NEED to get rid of Loui or a similar amount of dead or inefficient cap . I listed in another thread the issues next season and especially the season after that. We simply can’t afford to let the performance bonuses from the 2020-21 season ($1.7-$4+ million once you add Juolevi and an improved Gaudette into the mix) push into the 2021-22 season because we will already be paying retail for Petterson and Hughes at that point. To me, that effectively reduces our cap ceiling next year by the (at least $1.7 million) in bonuses pushed from this year AND have to leave space so the bonuses from next year get paid in the year they are earned and not pushed again. That drops our effective cap available next year by $4-5.5 million. If we have to pay to get rid of Loui, doing it sooner rather than later improves our cap issues more by reducing pushed bonuses. -
Cap Hell for Canucks!!! (GREAT NEWS from Daly re: CAP for next year!!)
Provost replied to HKSR's topic in Canucks Talk
That doesn’t apply to our situation. Our guys with bonuses aren’t LTIR replacements. It describes a very specific scenario which doesn’t seem to fit what is happening with us. If you look at our Capfriendly (which this article does for Toronto), we don’t show the full $7 million value of Petterson or Hughes potential performance bonuses as used in LTIR, and we snow zero performance bonus pool. We wouldn’t have had room for them on LTIR using the calculation in the article. We don’t and have not had that kind of LTIR room, so couldn’t have called up either of those players, nor do we intend on sending either of them down when our LTIR players return. It is possible there is some other obscure way to have performance bonuses count into LTIR and not the cap, but this particular article doesn’t describe our situation at all. Keep digging. -
Cap Hell for Canucks!!! (GREAT NEWS from Daly re: CAP for next year!!)
Provost replied to HKSR's topic in Canucks Talk
The number that has been bandied about is $3.7 million meaning one of them hits a Schedule B bonus. We don’t know the details of their contracts, but schedule B bonuses are paid by the league and don’t count towards the cap... but a team can apply its own bonus compensation to any of them up to $2 million dollars. On high end prospects they tend to make that extra $2 million easy to earn as it it really the only place in an ELC with room to negotiate. Presumably with his production, Hughes is going to hit his $2 million in Team negotiated Schedule B bonuses. So, to the OPs calculation, if you take basically all that $3.7 Million pushed into next year; add back in Baertschi’s contract which disappeared; and assume a very low cap ceiling increase (after the December BOG meeting GMs were quoted as sayings they are working with an assumption of a $82.5-83.5 cap next year, so theee can’t have been glowing news. -
(Proposal) realistic trade!
Provost replied to captaincowbasher's topic in Proposals and Armchair GM'ing
Where do you find that? I see 30k projected on Capfriendly. You can’t bank cap space when you are on LTIR which we have been all year. The $2.8 million number on Capfriendly is the remaining LTIR left... not actual cap space (if you click on the question mark it explains that little anomaly). We can’t spend it unless we know players aren’t coming back for the rest of the regular season. -
(Proposal) realistic trade!
Provost replied to captaincowbasher's topic in Proposals and Armchair GM'ing
... he would probably play at least, and it kind of makes up the difference for giving up that 2nd (which really needs to be a 2021 2nd so we aren’t waiting until the 3rd round to pick this year). -
(Proposal) realistic trade!
Provost replied to captaincowbasher's topic in Proposals and Armchair GM'ing
If they take Baertschi to make our cap situation fit, I would be totally fine with that trade. -
[Proposal] Sending Boeser Home
Provost replied to Nicklas Bo Hunter's topic in Proposals and Armchair GM'ing
I don’t think people are undervaluing him as a prospect, we can agree that he has the potential to be better than Boeser... but at the same time figure the trade isn’t good. I think you are underestimating the risk between a prospect who hasn’t stepped on the NHL ice and a guy who has already shown to be an NHL first line player at the same age. We are not in a position where we want to downgrade now (Boeser for Zucker) for a “possible” upgrade at least 2-3 years from now when you could reasonably expect Kaprisov to be outperforming Boeser. Unlike others, I don’t think of Boeser as untouchable... just that from the Minny side, Dumba has to be in the return. -
If he planned on us being so terrible for several years that we got a bunch of top level prospects who would be on the roster but not eligible for expansion, and also signed a bunch of veterans to contracts that make them severely unattractive... just so he wouldn't have to give up much of a player in expansion... then he should be fired and probably have worse done to him. There is little he has done so far in terms of planning. You can point to the Edler contract and the Myers/Ferland's NMC dropping as the only real clear examples of consciously prepping for the expansion draft. Basically every team stopped giving out NMCs for the expansion year, so that isn't any particularly adept planning.