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

[Signing] Canucks sign F Sam Gagner [3 year x $3.15M AAV]


Recommended Posts

SMH at all the media muppets and useful idiot parrots crying about "3 yearzzz!!", as if that and a TOTAL of $9million over that time somehow hamstrings the Canucks, their cap, or the development of their prospects whereas it actually benefits all three. 

 

We signed five players with significant NHL experience, NONE older than 27, ALL to short-term contracts, NONE with any trade protection whatsoever.  The lack of perspective, insight, and basic understanding of what's going on is astounding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ice orca said:

I don't mind Gagner, just the term 2 years would have been good.

I don't see that as a problem.

 

If Gagner boosts his value here (which I think he will) a 29 year old Gagner with one year left on his contract shouldn't be hard to move if necessary. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hutton Wink said:

SMH at all the media muppets and useful idiot parrots crying about "3 yearzzz!!", as if that and a TOTAL of $9million over that time somehow hamstrings the Canucks, their cap, or the development of their prospects whereas it actually benefits all three. 

 

We signed five players with significant NHL experience, NONE older than 27, ALL to short-term contracts, NONE with any trade protection whatsoever.  The lack of perspective, insight, and basic understanding of what's going on is astounding.

3 years isn't the end of the world, it's better than four years.  but 3 years isn't perfect either.  We needed a player to be a short term stop gap to give our players time to develop.  If those players develop at a faster rate than his roster spot becomes a burden and we will likely be trying to move him, that's if he can maintain his play, because if he can't it's a Higgins situations for that final year...

 

In a perfect world he got two years, low risk, short term gap for players like Goldy, Dahlen and Brock to ease into the spot light.  Again 3 years isn't the end of the world but it's not ideal either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

3 years isn't the end of the world, it's better than four years.  but 3 years isn't perfect either.  We needed a player to be a short term stop gap to give our players time to develop.  If those players develop at a faster rate than his roster spot becomes a burden and we will likely be trying to move him, that's if he can maintain his play, because if he can't it's a Higgins situations for that final year...

 

In a perfect world he got two years, low risk, short term gap for players like Goldy, Dahlen and Brock to ease into the spot light.  Again 3 years isn't the end of the world but it's not ideal either.

He wasn't likely going to sign for 2 years so it wasn't really an option.

 

I don't see a problem with 3 years at all. With the Sedins most likely retiring in 2 years we're gonna need as much offense as possible. He also plays all three positions so he can move around the lineup.

 

It's also much different than Higgins since he's only 27 and doesn't have a no trade clause. His contract most likely won't be a burden. Erikssons contract on the other hand...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, DeNiro said:

He wasn't likely going to sign for 2 years so it wasn't really an option.

 

I don't see a problem with 3 years at all. With the Sedins mist likely retiring in 2 years we're gonna need as much offense as possible. He also plays all three positions so he can move around the lineup.

 

It's also much different than Higgins since he's only 27 and doesn't have a no trade clause. His contract most likely won't be a burden. Erikssons contract on the other hand...

 

You're assuming Gagner plays like he did in Columbus and not like he did in Philadelphia.

It's less about the contract and more about the roster spot he will be taken up.  Just like Higgins. It wasn't like we needed the 2.5, it was the fact that he was garbage, yet was still giving a roster spot/ more opportunity over younger players that were more deserving.  

 

 

You're right he also wasn't likely going to sign for less term but at the same time he wasn't the only option that was available for a short term stop gap.  He really doesn't bring anything new to this line up that we don't already have.  So it's not like we needed to cave for his demands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

You're assuming Gagner plays like he did in Columbus and not like he did in Philadelphia.

It's less about the contract and more about the roster spot he will be taken up.  Just like Higgins. It wasn't like we needed the 2.5, it was the fact that he was garbage, yet was still giving a roster spot/ more opportunity over younger players that were more deserving.  

What young players were being stalled by Higgins?  Didn't we send him to the AHL?

 

If Gaudette or Petterson are outplaying Gagner he goes back to the 4th line like he did in Columbus.  Or the wing.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ForsbergTheGreat said:

You're assuming Gagner plays like he did in Columbus and not like he did in Philadelphia.

It's less about the contract and more about the roster spot he will be taken up.  Just like Higgins. It wasn't like we needed the 2.5, it was the fact that he was garbage, yet was still giving a roster spot/ more opportunity over younger players that were more deserving.  

I do think he'll play more like he did in Columbus on our first unit with Brown running things yes.

 

He's shown he can consistently put up 40+ points, no reason to think he can't do that here in his prime. Comparing him to Higgins isn't a very good comparison, two different ages and contract situations. 

 

With the Sedins and Edlers contracts coming up we're not going to be in cap trouble. And as for a roster spot, if rookies can beat him out in all three positions throughout the top 6 that's a good problem to have. It's called depth, and they'll make room for the rookies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ilduce39 said:

What young players were being stalled by Higgins?  Didn't we send him to the AHL?

 

If Gaudette or Petterson are outplaying Gagner he goes back to the 4th line like he did in Columbus.  Or the wing.  

 Yep. Higgins didn't stand in anyone's way, we didn't have anyone challenging him for his spot, that's just how weak our depth was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DeNiro said:

I do think he'll play more like he did in Columbus on our first unit with Brown running things yes.

 

He's shown he can consistently put up 40+ points, no reason to think he can't do that here in his prime. Comparing him to Higgins isn't a very good comparison, two different ages and contract situations. 

 

With the Sedins and Edlers contracts coming up we're not going to be in cap trouble. And as for a roster spot, if rookies can beat him out in all three positions throughout the top 6 that's a good problem to have. It's called depth, and they'll make room for the rookies.

That's the thing.  Look at the people he played with in the CBJ pp unit.  He litteratly doesn't provide any needed skill set to our PP unit.  He's a play maker,  we already have baertschi, Sedin Sedin that fill that need.  What our PP unit needs is a #1D.  Gagner benefited from playing with werenski and Jones.  Something that canucks do not have.  We needed a finisher not another player that join the sedins in passing the puck around for another 1:50 with zero shots.

 

Again it's not cap. it's pure roster spot.  in 3 years..Goldy, Virtanen, Boeser, Dahlen, Baertschi, Granlund, Pettersson, are locks, Include guys like Burmistrov, Rodin, Lind, gadjovich, Gaudett, Lockwood, and guess what he's a wasted spot.

 

It is the end of the world, now it just means there's a good chance have a player playing in the AHL, or sitting in the pressbox, bought out, or even dumped along the away.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, DeNiro said:

 Yep. Higgins didn't stand in anyone's way, we didn't have anyone challenging him for his spot, that's just how weak our depth was.

Baertschi almost wasn't a canucks because of wasted spots like higgins, had injuries not had hit, baertschi wouldn't be here. 

 

We waived linden vey just for Higgins roster spot,  Jake and McCann also got to enjoy 4line minutes with no pp time because of him,  It's been less than two years,  have people forgot that quickly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Baertschi almost wasn't a canucks because of wasted spots like higgins, had injuries not had hit, baertschi wouldn't be here. 

Not true in the slightest. Baertschi wasn't here because he wasn't ready.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

You're assuming Gagner plays like he did in Columbus and not like he did in Philadelphia.

How did he play in Philadelphia though?

Corsi was 51.7%, ozone starts under 50% playing mostly with Couturier (their shutdown center).

8th among forwards in pp icetime.

Shooting percentage was as it usually is - just didnt' get the shot (only 86 shots that season).

Nothing really stands out aside from his deployment - not unlike Del Zotto's in Philly -  in minutes he's typically not suited to.

I'd take the career 47 pts / 82 as a better indication considering his role here will not be as it was in Philly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

That's the thing.  Look at the people he played with in the CBJ pp unit.  He litteratly doesn't provide any needed skill set to our PP unit.  He's a play maker,  we already have baertschi, Sedin Sedin that fill that need.  What our PP unit needs is a #1D.  Gagner benefited from playing with werenski and Jones.  Something that canucks do not have.  We needed a finisher not another player that join the sedins in passing the puck around for another 1:50 with zero shots.

 

Again it's not cap. it's pure roster spot.  in 3 years..Goldy, Virtanen, Boeser, Dahlen, Baertschi, Granlund, Pettersson, are locks, Include guys like Burmistrov, Rodin, Lind, gadjovich, Gaudett, Lockwood, and guess what he's a wasted spot.

 

It is the end of the world, now it just means there's a good chance have a player playing in the AHL, or sitting in the pressbox, bought out, or even dumped along the away.  

All those players are "locks" huh? That's more of a bold statement than me saying Gagner will have success on our powerplay.

 

Or you know they could trade Gagner if rookies force him out. You're assuming that he'll have no value by year three, which is a bit of a stretch. Out of 30 teams one of them would take him off our hands, even if he's only putting up 30 points, that's a good deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, oldnews said:

How did he play in Philadelphia though?

Corsi was 51.7%, ozone starts under 50% playing mostly with Couturier (their shutdown center).

8th among forwards in pp icetime.

Shooting percentage was as it usually is - just didnt' get the shot (only 86 shots that season).

Nothing really stands out aside from his deployment - not unlike Del Zotto's in Philly -  in minutes he's typically not suited to.

I'd take the career 47 pts / 82 as a better indication considering his role here will not be as it was in Philly.

We will see....He played with a lot more talent in Edmonton and CBJ than we have here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DeNiro said:

All those players are "locks" huh? That's more of a bold statement than me saying Gagner will have success on our powerplay.

 

Or you know they could trade Gagner if rookies force him out. You're assuming that he'll have no value by year three, which is a bit of a stretch. Out of 30 teams one of them would take him off our hands, even if he's only putting up 30 points, that's a good deal.

I'm not assuming, hence why it's not the end of the world, that it was a 3 year term, but a 2 year term would have been better....

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

We will see....He played with a lot more talent in Edmonton and CBJ than we have here.

don't dwell on that inferiority complex mindset.

He played with Hartnell and Sedlak in Columbus.  Yeah, we have that much talent around here.  He scored 33 even strength points last year - you're talking as though they were all spoon fed to him by the superior talent of his line and team-mates.  That's not necessarily the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, 6of1_halfdozenofother said:

I'd hardly call Baertschi a playmaker.  If anything, he's supposed to be a trigger-man on whichever line he's assigned to, including the PP.

He's far more of a playmaker than a trigger man, His shot isn't elite, but his vision is.   

 

Quote

Asked if he felt he had to score to stay in the lineup, Baertschi said: "Tough question. I like to create, I am a playmaker out there. I like to score goals, I may have to score goals, but I thought I had been creating a lot of chances and I thought last game I really started to get going. And once I create chances I am going to get chances as well, I am going to score.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • b3. unpinned this topic
  • -SN- locked this topic

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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