Salaries

[JamesB]

There was a lot of action on the first day of free agency but to me one of the most interesting signings from the Canuck point of view relates to an RFA -- Seth Jones. He just finished his entry-level contract and re-signed with Columbus for 6 years at a cap hit of $5.4 million per year.

 

He was a high draft pick (#4 overall) in 2013. After being drafted by Nashville he played on the third pairing in Nashville  (see http://oilersnation.com/2016/1/6/the-jones-bullet-dodged) but Columbus moved him to the first pairing after trading for him this year. 

 

He performance in the NHL has been good but not outstanding (i.e. not like Ekblad, for example). On a good team (not Columbus) he is probably a second pairing defenceman.

 

The Canucks have three RFA D's to sign next summer: Gudbranson, Hutton, and Tryamkin. The amount they get will depends a lot on how they play in the coming year. Probably none of them gets quite as much as Jones, but if he gets $5.4 million per year it is hard to see Guddy getting less that $5 million per year, and Hutton could be in the neighborhood of $4 million or more. Tryamkin is a big question mark. If he does as well as we all hope, however, he will also be due for a big raise. (And a few years from now it is far from obvious how those four guys (the three Canucks and Jones) will rank relative to one another in performance.)

 

Horvat will also be due for a big raise and, once again, numbers in the $4.5 range look plausible if he is signed long term, maybe $5 million. Benning might go for smaller, bridge deals with any of these guys, of course, but that is probably not as good for the Canucks long term. .

 

In goal, Miller will go but Markstrom will need to be re-signed and a new backup will come in (Demko?). The cap hit for goalies will fall a bit but not that much.

 

Burrows' salary will come off the books, but signing those RFAs will still create some cap issues, especially if the Canucks want to do anything in free agency next summer.

 

I previously suggested that one scoring top-six winger at about $6 million would be all the Canucks could reasonably afford this summer and I think what we have seen so far in the signing period this summer is consistent with that. I was therefore very happy to see a denial of the rumour that the Canucks had offered Russell big money. 

 

Of course Benning could try add someone else at a lower level and make adjustments down the road, but I think it is probably best if the Canucks do not sign any more UFAs this summer (apart from maybe small deals for depth players).

 

On another topic, I continue to be impressed by how many pundits are saying the same thing about the Eriksson signing -- that Eriksson is a good player, but signing him is bad because it will improve the Canucks -- making them mediocre instead of bad and therefore slowing down the rebuild.  Enough people are saying that that I am actually starting to feel better on the grounds that if so many people are saying it, there is a good chance it is wrong. Maybe the Canucks can be better than mediocre next year.

 

But I think a comment that Wille D. made a while ago is right. He said that if the Canucks are to be a good team next year they need a couple of their young guys to go off the board [my words, not his] -- to perform much better than the trajectory so far indicates.

 

Candidates include Sutter (yes. I will count him as young), Horvat, Baertschi, Virtanen, Hutton, Tryamkin, Etem, Gubranson and Tryamkin. We will need a lot more than just "normal progress" from at least a couple of those guys. And if would help if Rodin or Larsen pan out.

 

 

[RogersTowell]

I see you expect Tryamkin to have two shots to produce beyond trajectory.  I agree.  I think Rodin has the biggest chance to play beyond expectations although Baer and Horvat could be there too.  For Etem, exceeding expectations should be pretty easy and he had a strong finish to the season so it's almost a given that he'll make big advances this year.  We should see a bounce back year for the Sedins with a credible top line RW to play with - Eriksson is the perfect match for them.  The improvements on the D line should mean less time in our zone and other teams pay a higher price for being there.  It might be the rum speaking, but.. oh, hold on, it must be the rum speaking, apparently this topic is about salaries and projected cap space...

[Boudrias]

9 minutes ago, JamesB said:

There was a lot of action on the first day of free agency but to me one of the most interesting signings from the Canuck point of view relates to an RFA -- Seth Jones. He just finished his entry-level contract and re-signed with Columbus for 6 years at a cap hit of $5.4 million per year.

 

He was a high draft pick (#4 overall) in 2013. After being drafted by Nashville he played on the third pairing in Nashville  (see http://oilersnation.com/2016/1/6/the-jones-bullet-dodged) but Columbus moved him to the first pairing after trading for him this year. 

 

He performance in the NHL has been good but not outstanding (i.e. not like Ekblad, for example). On a good team (not Columbus) he is probably a second pairing defenceman.

 

The Canucks have three RFA D's to sign next summer: Gudbranson, Hutton, and Tryamkin. The amount they get will depends a lot on how they play in the coming year. Probably none of them gets quite as much as Jones, but if he gets $5.4 million per year it is hard to see Guddy getting less that $5 million per year, and Hutton could be in the neighborhood of $4 million or more. Tryamkin is a big question mark. If he does as well as we all hope, however, he will also be due for a big raise. (And a few years from now it is far from obvious how those four guys (the three Canucks and Jones) will rank relative to one another in performance.)

 

Horvat will also be due for a big raise and, once again, numbers in the $4.5 range look plausible if he is signed long term, maybe $5 million. Benning might go for smaller, bridge deals with any of these guys, of course, but that is probably not as good for the Canucks long term. .

 

In goal, Miller will go but Markstrom will need to be re-signed and a new backup will come in (Demko?). The cap hit for goalies will fall a bit but not that much.

 

Burrows' salary will come off the books, but signing those RFAs will still create some cap issues, especially if the Canucks want to do anything in free agency next summer.

 

I previously suggested that one scoring top-six winger at about $6 million would be all the Canucks could reasonably afford this summer and I think what we have seen so far in the signing period this summer is consistent with that. I was therefore very happy to see a denial of the rumour that the Canucks had offered Russell big money. 

 

Of course Benning could try add someone else at a lower level and make adjustments down the road, but I think it is probably best if the Canucks do not sign any more UFAs this summer (apart from maybe small deals for depth players).

 

On another topic, I continue to be impressed by how many pundits are saying the same thing about the Eriksson signing -- that Eriksson is a good player, but signing him is bad because it will improve the Canucks -- making them mediocre instead of bad and therefore slowing down the rebuild.  Enough people are saying that that I am actually starting to feel better on the grounds that if so many people are saying it, there is a good chance it is wrong. Maybe the Canucks can be better than mediocre next year.

 

But I think a comment that Wille D. made a while ago is right. He said that if the Canucks are to be a good team next year they need a couple of their young guys to go off the board [my words, not his] -- to perform much better than the trajectory so far indicates.

 

Candidates include Sutter (yes. I will count him as young), Horvat, Baertschi, Virtanen, Hutton, Tryamkin, Etem, Gubranson and Tryamkin. We will need a lot more than just "normal progress" from at least a couple of those guys. And if would help if Rodin or Larsen pan out.

 

 

Great post.

With the number of signees I wouldn't be surprised to see both Virtanen and Tryamkin in Utica at the beginning of the season.

[Baggins]

5 minutes ago, Boudrias said:

Great post.

With the number of signees I wouldn't be surprised to see both Virtanen and Tryamkin in Utica at the beginning of the season.

Tryamkin has stated previously if he's not in the NHL he'll return to the KHL.

[mll]

They could go for a bridge with Horvat but it's less ideal with Hutton.  I think it's best to avoid bridge deals that end one year to free agency.

 

Hutton will be 24 next summer.  So he has three years to UFA.  If they give him a bridge it brings him to 26 with arbitration rights and one year to free agency.  That's the situation with Gudbranson - and it gives a lot of bargaining power to the player (and agents know it).  They just have to take the team to arbitration to become a UFA a year after.

 

There's been a few young promising Ds that signed long-term straight out of their ELCs - Larsson, Josi, Klingberg, Brodin all got about 4M over 6 to 7 years. 

[springer]

I can recall two draft picks who started putting up numbers in their first season with the 'Nucks, and kept it going year after year: Trevor Linden and Pavel Bure. If there was more, I don't remember their names.

 

It takes time for good prospects to become good and consistent point producers. Certainly the Sedins didn't light it up right away...but they were given time, and the rest is history. Very impressive history.

 

There has got to be room and time provided on this team for young guns to work their way up the ranks. They won't get there with random call ups from the minors to fill temporary gaps. Every player management signs from UFA takes up another spot on this team that ultimately leaves a prospect playing in Utica.

 

Somewhere there's a balance, between youth and vets, and between a desire to win now, and build for the future. Picking that path has got to be the bane of a pro-sports manager's existence, all the while trying to keep fans happy and buying tickets, and all too commonly impatient owners happy with their ROI numbers. Few survive for very long sitting behind that desk.

 

Historically, the best and most successful teams are strong on drafting, and have strong farm teams. 

 

Conversely, it is rare that a team buys their way to a Stanley Cup overnight...see those who tried, such as N.Y. Rangers, Philadelphia Flyers, etc., etc., etc...

 

Benning, clearly, is from the school of long term team building.

 

Which, IMHO, is a good thing.

 

 

[naslund.is.king]

I myself see the light and the end of the tunnel. We're going in a positive direction as unlikely as it seems

I wouldn't be too worried about the likes of Hutton and Eric..both seem to be team guys who really want to be apart of something

[springer]

I think how Tanev was handled set a good precedent.

 

We'll give you time to show us what you can do, and do consistently.

 

Convince us, and we'll make it worth your while in the end.

 

 

[Grape]

I don't think Gudbranson or Hutton will be paid more than Tanev, our best defender. On the free market they may but since they're RFAs we have negotiating power for the most part. Of course next year will matter a lot however.

[Tony Da Tigre]

Knowing Jim Benning and his tendency to overpay players(Sbisa), I wouldn't be surprised if he pays Hutton 5+mil per season if he follows up with another solid season. Gudbranson's always been a defensive dman, and they're always undervalued, so we can probably get away with paying him 4-4.5mil/season. Horvat's a tricky one, I would be happy if we sign him to a Sean Couturier type contract.

 

Don't forget that if Luongo retires we're in a bit of a jam due to cap recapture. He's injured right now, but he has stated previously that he would retire if the league changes the size of nets or equipment.

[bobopan]

1 hour ago, Tony Da Tigre said:

Knowing Jim Benning and his tendency to overpay players(Sbisa), I wouldn't be surprised if he pays Hutton 5+mil per season if he follows up with another solid season. Gudbranson's always been a defensive dman, and they're always undervalued, so we can probably get away with paying him 4-4.5mil/season. Horvat's a tricky one, I would be happy if we sign him to a Sean Couturier type contract.

 

Don't forget that if Luongo retires we're in a bit of a jam due to cap recapture. He's injured right now, but he has stated previously that he would retire if the league changes the size of nets or equipment.

This is key to note and funny you would mention this as i was just looking up Luo's contract on GF. Luo is 37 frigggin years old with six years remaning on that contract. I see some opptimistic ppl mentioning 2020ish as a year "they" expect this team to be a contender well if he retires early were in a world of hurt but would be best if he did so soon.

 

 

[Alflives]

2 minutes ago, bobopan said:

This is key to note and funny you would mention this as i was just looking up Luo's contract on GF. Luo is 37 frigggin years old with six years remaning on that contract. I see some opptimistic ppl mentioning 2020ish as a year "they" expect this team to be a contender well if he retires early were in a world of hurt but would be best if he did so soon.

 

 

What if Florida trades Lou to one of those bottom feeder Cap teams.  He never reports, but he doesn't retire either.  The new team pays Lou his million dollars a season for those last few years, but they get the 5 million dollars counting on their cap.  Heck, maybe Florida just keeps him, and they get the Cap money?

[Tony Da Tigre]

3 minutes ago, bobopan said:

This is key to note and funny you would mention this as i was just looking up Luo's contract on GF. Luo is 37 frigggin years old with six years remaning on that contract. I see some opptimistic ppl mentioning 2020ish as a year "they" expect this team to be a contender well if he retires early were in a world of hurt but would be best if he did so soon.

 

 

That 2021 cap hit's gonna hurt alot, hope Luongo does the Pronger/Savard thing and go on LTIR. I really hate it when the league makes stupid rule changes(this is thanks to Brian Burke btw cuz I remember reading that he's the one who came up with the cap recapture penalty).

[TheYjUstMaKeYoUwooZy]

45 minutes ago, bobopan said:

This is key to note and funny you would mention this as i was just looking up Luo's contract on GF. Luo is 37 frigggin years old with six years remaning on that contract. I see some opptimistic ppl mentioning 2020ish as a year "they" expect this team to be a contender well if he retires early were in a world of hurt but would be best if he did so soon.

 

 

Can someone explain the chart to me?  The way I read it is if he retires in 2021 there is a one year recapture of 8.5 million.... But if he retires in 2016 we lose 1.4m in cap every year for 6 years.... Which is close the same amount spread over a longer period.  

That makes zero sense to me.

[bobopan]

38 minutes ago, Alflives said:

What if Florida trades Lou to one of those bottom feeder Cap teams.  He never reports, but he doesn't retire either.  The new team pays Lou his million dollars a season for those last few years, but they get the 5 million dollars counting on their cap.  Heck, maybe Florida just keeps him, and they get the Cap money?

Yeah im not sure if that first scenario would work or be accepted. Florida appears at least this season they won't be a cap floor team anymore. I suppose they could trade him to a team that needs to hit the cap floor but again does Luo still have a NTC/NMC? He specifically wanted to go to florida its asking alot for him to do vancouver a favor as florida would likely not be hit with much if any recapture by the time he does/if he does retire.. alot of what ifs. just food for thought tho down the road.

[bobopan]

6 minutes ago, TheYjUstMaKeYoUwooZy said:

Can someone explain the chart to me?  The way I read it is if he retires in 2021 there is a one year recapture of 8.5 million.... But if he retires in 2016 we lose 1.4m in cap every year for 6 years.... Which is close the same amount spread over a longer period.  

That makes zero sense to me.

yes that is correct.

[oldnews]

5 hours ago, JamesB said:

There was a lot of action on the first day of free agency but to me one of the most interesting signings from the Canuck point of view relates to an RFA -- Seth Jones. He just finished his entry-level contract and re-signed with Columbus for 6 years at a cap hit of $5.4 million per year.

 

He was a high draft pick (#4 overall) in 2013. After being drafted by Nashville he played on the third pairing in Nashville  (see http://oilersnation.com/2016/1/6/the-jones-bullet-dodged) but Columbus moved him to the first pairing after trading for him this year. 

 

He performance in the NHL has been good but not outstanding (i.e. not like Ekblad, for example). On a good team (not Columbus) he is probably a second pairing defenceman.

 

The Canucks have three RFA D's to sign next summer: Gudbranson, Hutton, and Tryamkin. The amount they get will depends a lot on how they play in the coming year. Probably none of them gets quite as much as Jones, but if he gets $5.4 million per year it is hard to see Guddy getting less that $5 million per year, and Hutton could be in the neighborhood of $4 million or more. Tryamkin is a big question mark. If he does as well as we all hope, however, he will also be due for a big raise. (And a few years from now it is far from obvious how those four guys (the three Canucks and Jones) will rank relative to one another in performance.)

 

Horvat will also be due for a big raise and, once again, numbers in the $4.5 range look plausible if he is signed long term, maybe $5 million. Benning might go for smaller, bridge deals with any of these guys, of course, but that is probably not as good for the Canucks long term. .

 

In goal, Miller will go but Markstrom will need to be re-signed and a new backup will come in (Demko?). The cap hit for goalies will fall a bit but not that much.

 

Burrows' salary will come off the books, but signing those RFAs will still create some cap issues, especially if the Canucks want to do anything in free agency next summer.

 

I previously suggested that one scoring top-six winger at about $6 million would be all the Canucks could reasonably afford this summer and I think what we have seen so far in the signing period this summer is consistent with that. I was therefore very happy to see a denial of the rumour that the Canucks had offered Russell big money. 

 

Of course Benning could try add someone else at a lower level and make adjustments down the road, but I think it is probably best if the Canucks do not sign any more UFAs this summer (apart from maybe small deals for depth players).

 

On another topic, I continue to be impressed by how many pundits are saying the same thing about the Eriksson signing -- that Eriksson is a good player, but signing him is bad because it will improve the Canucks -- making them mediocre instead of bad and therefore slowing down the rebuild.  Enough people are saying that that I am actually starting to feel better on the grounds that if so many people are saying it, there is a good chance it is wrong. Maybe the Canucks can be better than mediocre next year.

 

But I think a comment that Wille D. made a while ago is right. He said that if the Canucks are to be a good team next year they need a couple of their young guys to go off the board [my words, not his] -- to perform much better than the trajectory so far indicates.

 

Candidates include Sutter (yes. I will count him as young), Horvat, Baertschi, Virtanen, Hutton, Tryamkin, Etem, Gubranson and Tryamkin. We will need a lot more than just "normal progress" from at least a couple of those guys. And if would help if Rodin or Larsen pan out.

 

 

I quite enjoyed the "if so many people are saying it, there is a good chance it is wrong."   Great observation imo, particularly when it's the hockey analysis media you're talking about.

 

Gudbranson's raise is against his current 3.5, so it's not that significant imo - if it's 5.0 as you suggest, that's a 1.5 increase.  I don't think Hutton will be looking at 4 million and the reason being he'll be 24 next year, so my guess would be that they'll come in at a two year bridge with Hutton remaining an RFA and then buying into his UFA years on his next contract.

I disagree that lower bridge contracts for players like Hutton and Horvat are less advantageous in the long run - I think they actually allow the team to buy further into their UFA years when they actually are approaching unrestricted age.  I think some of the long term contracts being handed out to 20 year old are more likely to hurt those teams in the long run.than they are to serve them.  The hopes of saving a few million against the cap is 5 or 6 years has to be weighed against the utility of that cap in the shorter run, and against the fact that those contracts will be expiring in their unrestricted years, with less control over the asset and more risk in the meantime if they don't live up to them (there may be a few sure things in the mix - like Ekblad - but imo there are more question marks than sure things in that group.)    I prefer the bridges where both sides can revisit realistic market value, and the longer term deals are offset until players have proven themselves over years of seasoning.  I think they're on pretty good grounding with 10.5 clearing in Miller and Burrows alone and of course there's the possibility of other moves as they arguably have the depth to shed a contract.

 

I don't think there was ever much chance of the team pursuing someone like Russell for big money - where would he fit, and what is the real need?  If they moved someone like Sbisa it's conceivable, but I'm not convinced that would represent a great move unless there were a worthwhile return.  I think when they acquired Gudbranson they pretty much foreclosed on the need to shop in the overpriced UFA market.  Seeing guys like Yandle go for the price they did, it's nice not to be shopping in that market.  

 

I find it quite interesting that when Benning makes a move that the analytics community simply can't argue with, we don't hear a peep about Eriksson's puck possession numbers.   His underlying numbers have simply been excellent....so...we don't hear a peep about them.   All of a sudden there's a shift from micro-analysis to comical questions like 'why sign a 30 yr old when you need a teardown?'   If the team needed a teardown, what would have been the point of dwelling so extremely on every move, every dollar Benning has spent in the past couple years?      Meanwhile teams like the Leafs are applauded for doing everything right.....as they add a half roster full of garbage contracts (Horton, Lupul, Laich, Michalek, Greening + 5 more years of retained Kessel), give $25 million to another California contender's RFA goaltender (when have we seen a move like that before), sign a $10 million deal with a fourth liner (any 750k goon could 'protect' their kids), bring back the likes of a 30 yr old Polak (why sign 30 yr old UFAs to 'get in the way of the kidzz! or risk making them better? lol).

 

Anyhow, regardless of whether people perceive this as a competitive team or a rebuilding team, when it comes to someone like Eriksson, you take advantage of the opportunity to make your team better.  The reasons are many:

 

1)  You take every opportunity to add asset value to your franchise.  Even if the goal is to add futures and rebuild, signing a player like Eriksson enables you to potentially deal another asset for futures, adding to your pick/prospect/futures pool - that is unless you wind up being competitive, in which case you're developing your young players in a winning culture and unlikely to be selling off assets.  Either way, you take every opportunity to improve, it's as simple as that.

 

2)  You have two franchise forwards that have given this franchise and city everything they have.  You get them the best linemate that you possibly can  - it's good faith and respect - and in doing so, you make life easier for everyone as your 2nd and 3rd lines by implication become better as Hansen and or Sutter move down, giving you more punch and depth in your middle six.

 

Regarding your young players stepping up - the ideal situation for that to happen is when they are not in over their head but instead are furnished with situations designed for their success.   This means not facing quality of competition that is above their level of development, not having to start on tilted ice in their own end too frequently.  A better, deeper team is more able to 'shelter' or at least provide advantageous situational play for their younger players.   The absolute inverse is true when you rip your team to pieces and throw your kids into top 6 roles, risking both their confidence and long term developmental trajectory in the process.

 

I think we'd probably find that those people stuck on attempting to belittle Benning's two-fold approach aren't quite as simple as they posture, but are trying too hard to troll this team, and probably harbouring some wishful negative projections that this team fails miserably.  Misery loves company after all.   Toronto doesn't want to be the only shameless tankdown bottomfeeders - they want some company - not to be watching a team like Vancouver climb back into the playoffs so quickly. 

 

The whole 'why would they look to improve or sign a veteran when they should be tanking/tearing down?' thing  imo is simpleton either/or thinking - and faith that a few saviour assets will necessarily lead to success.   The number of 1st overall picks over the past 20+ years who have actually won a Cup isn't very convincing.  You can go back 30+ years, and aside from the doubling up of Crosby, Fleury , you have Kane and Lecavalier, otherwise you have to dip back into the 80s.  You can put 4 1st overalls on one team and they're still lottery picking and rebuilding.   The whole matter has literally been beaten to death, but the idea that the Canucks must tear down - is idiotic - and as misleading as the idea that bottoming out cannot work.   Some tanks result in eventual contenders, some Detroits can go for decades without a top 20 pick and never miss the playoffs.

There is nothing foregone about the approach the Canucks are takiing.  You'd think that after a season in which the Senior Citizen Sharks make the SCF, that may not be so confusing.    But in a country whose media market is dominated by Toronto, the in vogue thing is to believe in "just do it like Toronto."   It's easy when the judgement of your progress won't come for half a decade.   I'm still waiting to see something genius though.  As far as I'm concerned their best move was a coaching hire.  Otherwise they got lottery lucky, but could find themselves trading the 1st of their 1st overalls in six years time for a shutdown D.   Meanwhile the Canucks had to 'settle' for Juolevi, will have to 'settle' for him, and Boeser, Demko, Horvat et al.   I can live with that.

[JamesB]

...

30 minutes ago, oldnews said:

I find it quite interesting that when Benning makes a move that the analytics community simply can't argue with, we don't hear a peep about Eriksson's puck possession numbers.   His underlying numbers have simply been excellent....so...we don't hear a peep about them.  .....

 

2)  You have two franchise forwards that have given this franchise and city everything they have.  You get them the best linemate that you possibly can - and in doing so, you make life easier for everyone as your 2nd and 3rd lines by implication become better as Hansen and or Sutter move down, giving you more punch and depth in your middle six. ...

 

Regarding your young players stepping up - the ideal situation for that to happen is when they are not in over their head but instead are furnished with situations designed for their success.   This means not facing quality of competition that is above their level of development, not having to start on tilted ice in their own end too frequently.  A better, deeper team is more able to 'shelter' or at least provide advantageous situational play for their younger players.   The absolute inverse is true when you rip your team to pieces and throw your kids into top 6 roles, risking both their confidence and long term developmental trajectory in the process.....

 

 But in a country whose media market is dominated by Toronto, the in vogue thing is to believe in "just do it like Toronto."   It's easy when the judgement of your progress won't come for half a decade.   I'm still waiting to see something genius though.  As far as I'm concerned their best move was a coaching hire.  Otherwise they got lottery lucky, but could find themselves trading the 1st of their 1st overalls in six years time for a shutdown D.   Meanwhile the Canucks had to 'settle' for Juolevi, will have to 'settle' for him, and Boeser, Demko, Horvat et al.  I can live with that.

Good post. One thing I like about the Eriksson signing is that he does have great possession numbers. I think there is no question he helps the team a lot for the next two years. Age-related decline is a concern, of course, and we will see how that plays out.

 

I agree that the Sedins have done so much that the argument for giving them one more shot be part of a good team (and with the best possible linemate) is a good one.

 

As you suggest, one advantage of getting Eriksson is to reduce the pressure on the younger guys. If Hansen moves down and plays with Sutter or Horvat (or even with Granlund) that makes everyone's life easier. For example a line like Horvat, Hansen and Etem playing as a third line could have a solid season.

 

The contrast between Vancouver and Toronto is an interesting one. Obviously TSN and other media has generally favored the Toronto approach but, as you point out, they were lucky to get the first overall pick in the 2016 draft. The competition between Toronto and Vancouver is kind of like a mini-competition that fans of both teams can watch this year. And I this year will be fair test for both teams. Toronto has been bad for a while and if they have another bad year it would be hard to call their rebuild strategy a success.

 

I still think the Canucks will have an uphill battle next year but there are at least a lot of interesting storylines to follow.

 

[oldnews]

27 minutes ago, JamesB said:

...

Good post. One thing I like about the Eriksson signing is that he does have great possession numbers. I think there is no question he helps the team a lot for the next two years. Age-related decline is a concern, of course, and we will see how that plays out.

 

I agree that the Sedins have done so much that the argument for giving them one more shot be part of a good team (and with the best possible linemate) is a good one.

 

As you suggest, one advantage of getting Eriksson is to reduce the pressure on the younger guys. If Hansen moves down and plays with Sutter or Horvat (or even with Granlund) that makes everyone's life easier. For example a line like Horvat, Hansen and Etem playing as a third line could have a solid season.

 

The contrast between Vancouver and Toronto is an interesting one. Obviously TSN and other media has generally favored the Toronto approach but, as you point out, they were lucky to get the first overall pick in the 2016 draft. The competition between Toronto and Vancouver is kind of like a mini-competition that fans of both teams can watch this year. And I this year will be fair test for both teams. Toronto has been bad for a while and if they have another bad year it would be hard to call their rebuild strategy a success.

 

I still think the Canucks will have an uphill battle next year but there are at least a lot of interesting storylines to follow.

 

Yeah, I think Toronto is going to have another very hard season - and by design.  the contracts they have up front, their young, inexperienced bluline, the overall lack of grit despite a few guys like Martin, Komarov, Polak....I think they may want to be careful about mixing it up too much - they have some pretty young, small and not particularly gritty forwards.    The one thing however that I think will make them respectable and you just never know - is Babcock.  He made a decent puck possession team out of the AHLeafs last year, so I wouldn't write them off with him commanding a certain kind of hockey out of that roster.  My feelings are pretty mixed - I want to see them be successful on some counts - particularly the improved on-ice approach - but their management approach and their media makes me want to see them fail hard.

 

As for Eriksson - I noted this in his trade thread - but he's 30 - the Sedins are 35 with two years left - and I have no concern whatever about their two years remaining at 7 million - and by all accounts, Eriksson is a similar type of character that keeps himself in tremendous shape and has so many things going for him that I'm not particularly concerned about decline - barring injury etc - and that literally applies to anyone / cannot be foreseen, so I don't see it as a valid reason to avoid a necessary risk.

[CanadianRugby]

5 hours ago, JamesB said:

On another topic, I continue to be impressed by how many pundits are saying the same thing about the Eriksson signing -- that Eriksson is a good player, but signing him is bad because it will improve the Canucks -- making them mediocre instead of bad and therefore slowing down the rebuild.  Enough people are saying that that I am actually starting to feel better on the grounds that if so many people are saying it, there is a good chance it is wrong.

 

What?  So the more experts.. oh, right. Sorry.  "Experts".. agree that the Canucks are making a mistake, the more likely they're wrong?  That's uh, interesting logic.