IBatch Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 The term internal cap has been flung around more openly this summer, including by Trevor Linden. Does anyone out there know more about this or more specifically how much that cap is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdatb Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 71.4 million. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edlerberry Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 cost savings in their off-year - initiated Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monty Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 Understandably so. They are going to have an incredibly difficult time selling out this season and they are certainly not a playoff team or playoff threat at this point, so it's best to save as much money for the time being by controlling your costs as much as possible. Some things are controllable, like player salaries. Makes sense to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baer. Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 Usually an owner gives the President a budgetfor salaries. Usually lower than the cap. Most times Owners don't OK spending go the cap unless you're a surefire contender like the Hawks. Bottom feeders like Arizona will always kiss the floor because the owners can't afford anything more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.S.Strowbridge Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 ...and they are certainly not a playoff team or playoff threat at this point... People were saying that last year as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monty Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 People were saying that last year as well. Some people were, some people weren't. Last year, I said they'd be fighting it out for spots 4-8, but that it would be very tight. The Canucks are certainly not a better team than they were last year, and most teams in the Western Conference have got better: - Anaheim: A lot better. - Los Angeles: Better - Colorado: A little better, but still need to figure out defense. - Calgary: Better. Frolik & Hamilton make them a lot better as is. Just have to improve their possession numbers. - Edmonton: Better, but still questionable, because it's Edmonton. - Chicago: Perhaps the same. Losing Sharp and Saad is a blow. But Dano is really good, and Tikhonov, Panarin, Baun, etc could really keep them the same. - Minnesota: Same. - Dallas: Slightly better with Sharp, Stephen Johns and Niemi. Defense still a question mark. - Winnipeg: Slightly worse with loss of Frolik. All depends on whether or not Ehlers or Petan make the team or not. - Nashville: Better - San Jose: Same. Ward helps them, but Jones is a question mark. - Phoenix: Worse - St Louis: Slightly worse with loss of Oshie. Brouwer is a question mark. - Vancouver: Worse with loss of Bieksa, Matthias, and Lack. They are getting younger now, which is good. But they are a team in transition. If the announcement that they aren't working on extensions for Hamhuis and Vrbata don't blatantly imply that, then I don't know what does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 I don't know if LA got better. They lost several players and gained Lucic. Maybe we're overrating Lucic. He was mediocre last season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 The term internal cap has been flung around more openly this summer, including by Trevor Linden. Does anyone out there know more about this or more specifically how much that cap is? I don't know that I've heard Benning or Linden say that, do you have a quote/source? Even then just use logic: we're already within $3M of the cap ceiling using 22 players on the roster (likely to be filled by Baertschi when he signs). Is any team really going to quibble over an internal cap that's only $1-2M lower than the actual cap? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesB Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 Understandably so. They are going to have an incredibly difficult time selling out this season and they are certainly not a playoff team or playoff threat at this point, so it's best to save as much money for the time being by controlling your costs as much as possible. Some things are controllable, like player salaries. Makes sense to me. People were saying that last year as well. To put things in perspective, here is a link to predictions made by a Sport Illustrated expert panel for 2014-15: www.si.com/nhl/2014/10/03/nhl-season-picks-predictions-crystal-ball. Of the 7 experts, 3 picked the Canucks to make the playoffs. The Hockey News had Vancouver 4th in the Division and just missing the playoffs. Both Sportsnet and TSN had Vancouver at #17 out of 30 NHL teams to start the season last year -- just missing the playoffs. Overall the "average" or "consensus" opinion had the Canucks somewhere in the 15 - 18 range, either just making the playoffs or just missing. So the Canucks did outperform the consensus. A lot of credit went to WD for a good coaching job and to the Sedins and Edler for a bigger bounceback than expected, along with the good performance of Vrbata as UFA pick-up This year the predictions are much worse. This year the predictions are definitely weaker, with most people having the Canucks in the bottom third (i.e. below 20) and very few people picking the Canucks to even contend for a playoff spot. And the language coming from the Canucks is different. Last year it was at least "we will definitely contend for a playoff spot and expect to make the playoffs". This year it is more like "we hope to contend for a playoff spot", which is definitely weaker. So things are different this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackRedYellow Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 - Vancouver: Worse with loss of Bieksa, Matthias, and Lack. They are getting younger now, which is good. But they are a team in transition. If the announcement that they aren't working on extensions for Hamhuis and Vrbata don't blatantly imply that, then I don't know what does. So you say!? I my opinion Bieksa had a terrible year, and I can't see any of the new players making it worse. Lack was not better than Miller, just more liked/adored. (Miller still had a way better win %) and Mathias... ok, he was actually good, or at least decent, but here I hope Sven, Jake or Prust makes a difference. So I'd say we're about the same as last year. However, some of the other teams has gotten better, so I agree it'll be tough! Can still see us battling for a wild card though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puckdontlie Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 Seems to be no cap when it comes to paying severance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesB Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 The term internal cap has been flung around more openly this summer, including by Trevor Linden. Does anyone out there know more about this or more specifically how much that cap is? Good point about the internal cap. I recall reading in the past that under the old regime the Canucks needed to make the playoffs to turn a profit. They were of course spending to the Cap and paying a lot for non-cap expenses (coaches, travel, support personnel, etc.) And they are of course carrying the salaries of Giilis and Tortarella, which probably amounts to about $4 million a year. If the Canucks are now expecting to miss the playoffs they will need to cut expenses. That may be a partial explanation for firing Henning, Gilman, Eric Crawford, and Mike Burnstein and for letting expensive vets at Utica go in favor of much cheaper players. It is also explains the relatively cheap one-year deals for Corrado and Clendening rather than paying more to lock them up for a few years. So I agree that the new economy drive is not a surprise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanuckinEdm Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 The player personal turnover is making room for young players. The front office terminations is part of the "internal cap". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Tortorella Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 the internal cap would exist if they had poor accountants. Their retained earnings from our playoff years including 2011 should be substantial. As someone else stated they are excepting the new players playing this year and basically saying that their entry contracts and such will keep our cap low, so their internal cap is basically, if were paying to the cap, we don't have enough rookies.. ^ I hope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coryberg Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 - Chicago: Perhaps the same. Losing Sharp and Saad is a blow. But Dano is really good, and Tikhonov, Panarin, Baun, etc could really keep them the same. - Vancouver: Worse with loss of Bieksa, Matthias, and Lack. They are getting younger now, which is good. But they are a team in transition. If the announcement that they aren't working on extensions for Hamhuis and Vrbata don't blatantly imply that, then I don't know what does. so Chicago loses better players and replaces them with rookies....they are the same? Vancouver loses bottom of the roster players and replaces them with rookies.... they are worse? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamJamIam Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 so Chicago loses better players and replaces them with rookies....they are the same? Vancouver loses bottom of the roster players and replaces them with rookies.... they are worse? Welcome to the idiocy that is CDC. These were the same people fawning over the Sharks and the Kings last year, claiming we wouldn't make it. I wouldn't worry too much about what they say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steviewonder20 Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 So you say!? I my opinion Bieksa had a terrible year, and I can't see any of the new players making it worse. Lack was not better than Miller, just more liked/adored. (Miller still had a way better win %) and Mathias... ok, he was actually good, or at least decent, but here I hope Sven, Jake or Prust makes a difference. So I'd say we're about the same as last year. However, some of the other teams has gotten better, so I agree it'll be tough! Can still see us battling for a wild card though! I hope not (to a wildcard spot). I'll be much happier with a top 10 (or even a top 5) pick next year. Tired of this "lets make the playoffs" every year and still transition to younger and faster. Rebuild already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaudette Celly Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 To put things in perspective... So things are different this year. Yeah, from the "experts" perspective. Welcome to the idiocy that is CDC. These were the same people fawning over the Sharks and the Kings last year, claiming we wouldn't make it. I wouldn't worry too much about what they say. "We're not even in the same galaxy as the Cali teams" -- CDC urinators, summer 2014 Baertschi > Matthias Prust > Kassian Bartkowski > Bieksa Virtanen/Grenier vs. Richardson (better offence, lesser defence) Horvat/Vey/Kenins no longer rookies On paper, the team isn't any worse, and could well be better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 ... "We're not even in the same galaxy as the Cali teams" -- CDC urinators, summer 2014 Baertschi > Matthias Prust > Kassian Bartkowski > Bieksa Virtanen/Grenier vs. Richardson (better offence, lesser defence) Horvat/Vey/Kenins no longer rookies On paper, the team isn't any worse, and could well be better. The first three particularly are very debatable. No guarantees Virts or Grenier can provide more than 21 points in a 3rd/4th line NHL role either. Sophomore slumps are something you might have heard of as well. There's definitely a possibility we're worse, especially considering other teams improved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.