Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

[Signing] Canucks sign Guillaume Brisebois


BenQc

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, BenQc said:

GJ on reading sarcasm :P

Uh, 'GJ' on writing it...

But good signing, he's been much better the last month after a slow start. I'm still not sure on how likely he is to have an NHL impact, but I'm happy to watch his development.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, hatedkid666 said:

Why would we sign him? Isnt he a ways away?

Sliding scale...his contract won't count against the 50 allowed (Canucks had only 45 under contract...46 now with Brisebois).  Good for Brisebois...at least he'll get his $75K signing bonus so he'll have some cash while playing in junior.

Plus, JB had to get Brisebois signed before desi had a caniption like he did when it took Subban some time to sign last summer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, HK Phooey said:

Sliding scale...his contract won't count against the 50 allowed (Canucks had only 45 under contract...46 now with Brisebois).  Good for Brisebois...at least he'll get his $75K signing bonus so he'll have some cash while playing in junior.

Plus, JB had to get Brisebois signed before desi had a caniption like he did when it took Subban some time to sign last summer.

It also means they can be more involved in his training as he is now property rather than simply owning his rights. That's a major factor. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, theminister said:

It also means they can be more involved in his training as he is now property rather than simply owning his rights. That's a major factor. 

I would hazard to say that the Canucks organization would be involved in developing their prospects regardless of whether they were signed or not...example: Curtis Valk and the way the Canucks have supported him through his rehab (though it can be argues that the Comets, by extension are the Canucks).  Do you think the Canucks were any less involved in monitoring and being involved in Jordan Subban's development the years after drafting him and leaving him unsigned for 2 years?  Because we don't hear much about Kyle Petit (and the fact that he remains unsigned) doesn't mean the Canucks are any less involved in his development.

But, yah, a contract formalizes and cements the team and player's commitment to each other at least for the duration of the contract, so I have to say, it's good to get these kids who have promise signed to a contract sooner than later.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, HK Phooey said:

I would hazard to say that the Canucks organization would be involved in developing their prospects regardless of whether they were signed or not...example: Curtis Valk and the way the Canucks have supported him through his rehab (though it can be argues that the Comets, by extension are the Canucks).  Do you think the Canucks were any less involved in monitoring and being involved in Jordan Subban's development the years after drafting him and leaving him unsigned for 2 years?  Because we don't hear much about Kyle Petit (and the fact that he remains unsigned) doesn't mean the Canucks are any less involved in his development.

But, yah, a contract formalizes and cements the team and player's commitment to each other at least for the duration of the contract, so I have to say, it's good to get these kids who have promise signed to a contract sooner than later.  

Yes, actually. There are rules that restrict what an organization can do if the player is not signed and is in junior. They can talk but can't offer material support as it is construed as 'payment,' something a junior aged player can't get as it would affect their amateur standing. The CHL isn't as bad as NCAA but it does have its boundaries. 

Edit: it's also something that agents pay very special attention to. They expect a contract before they start tasking a player. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, theminister said:

Yes, actually. There are rules that restrict what an organization can do if the player is not signed and is in junior. They can talk but can't offer material support as it is construed as 'payment,' something a junior aged player can't get as it would affect their amateur standing. The CHL isn't as bad as NCAA but it does have its boundaries. 

What would qualify as material support?  Transfer of knowledge and training programs, etc. can be done, as well as mentorship (as a what if -- Stan Smyl or any of the development consultants like Ryan Johnson visiting a prospect on a regular basis and counseling them, etc.) is allowed as far as I know (I say this this only because of past friends who were drafted but never signed by the team that drafted them, and they received a fair amount of input from the team they were drafted by...it was up to them whether to accept the team's input or not).

The lines are very grey and teams can keep a watchful eye on their unsigned prospects...but I know what you're saying about signing a kid to a contract -- it demonstrates a commitment between the team and player, so that would have implied and actual cooperation to work together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...