UticaHockey Posted December 12, 2018 Share Posted December 12, 2018 Looks like Hughes would have to sign an ATO with the Comets and have his NHL contract start next season to make him exempt from the Seattle draft. 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob_Zepp Posted December 12, 2018 Share Posted December 12, 2018 On 12/11/2018 at 2:56 AM, Hindustan Smyl said: I suspect that Canucks management has a “we will promote the player if he’s ready” approach, even if it means dealing with consequences later on. We’ve seen that with guys like Boeser in the past. “If he’s ready now, he deserves to be here even if it burns an extra year off his ELC.” ”If Motte is NHL calibre, we will waive Gagner and admit to our mistake.” I think it’s just management style for better or for worse (and for the record, I think this approach is for the better). As it relates to Hughes, I think management will let Quinn Hughes plays of Quinn Is ready and if Quinn wants to play for the Canucks at the end of the year if his NCAA team is eliminated. Management will then worry about who to protect at a later date. “if the young guy is ready now, then don’t delay his progress.” Great post. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.I.A.H.N Posted December 12, 2018 Share Posted December 12, 2018 I understand from a signing perspective it matters when and how and where Hughes signs but...………….. from a money perspective, he will be one year longer getting to RFA...…..which is money in the back I would be surprised if Hughes's agent say..... ATO?...….sure no problem....it just isn't done for the purpose of helping the team circumvent the expansion guidelines it could still cost the Canucks a 1st for that very reason...………… Do you trust the NHL? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.I.A.H.N Posted December 12, 2018 Share Posted December 12, 2018 Just now, janisahockeynut said: I understand from a signing perspective it matters when and how and where Hughes signs but...………….. from a money perspective, he will be one year longer getting to RFA...…..which is money in the bank I would be surprised if Hughes's agent say..... ATO?...….sure no problem....it just isn't done for the purpose of helping the team circumvent the expansion guidelines it could still cost the Canucks a 1st for that very reason...………… Do you trust the NHL? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
therodigy Posted December 12, 2018 Share Posted December 12, 2018 1 hour ago, Hutton Wink said: Yeah no. Benning openly stated that he was not going to be extorted. Other teams like Minny, Anaheim, and Florida caved out of fear, and ended up losing multiple quality assets. Admittedly, it's an unlikely hypothetical. In fairness, Benning also does his due diligence, arguably to a fault ( IE PK Subban). Also, after further research, Eriksson no longer has a NMC, so he won't have to be protected. Definitely makes things simpler as he would only need to be moved for cap reasons, which I don't foresee to be as grave an issue as what the TMLs will be facing this coming off-season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.I.A.H.N Posted December 12, 2018 Share Posted December 12, 2018 (edited) I think you spend a 2nd rounder and pay Seattle to take someone else...…. If you have to...... Edited December 12, 2018 by janisahockeynut Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kootenay Gold Posted December 12, 2018 Share Posted December 12, 2018 15 minutes ago, Alflives said: We can only lose one player I thought? Pretty sure Quantum meant "or" and not "and" . 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME Posted December 12, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted December 12, 2018 Yeah, sorry late to the party, but @UticaHockey‘s post earlier (with the Ryan Biech tweet) has it right. If Quinn Hughes signs a 2018-19 contract in calendar 2019, then 2018-19 would be considered his first professional year (assuming he plays one game or more). He’d be 19, but deemed “age 20” under the CBA, so the clock starts on his professional years after playing one game in a season (and not the 10 games used for teenagers). So to avoid 3rd year pro status when it comes to 2021, he’d need to sign an ATO with Utica for the end of the 2018-19 season, and then sign a 2019-20 NHL SPC (ELC). 5 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flickyoursedin Posted December 12, 2018 Share Posted December 12, 2018 11 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said: I think you spend a 2nd rounder and pay Seattle to take someone else...…. If you have to...... That is if the gm in charge takes the same approach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.I.A.H.N Posted December 12, 2018 Share Posted December 12, 2018 (edited) Hey guys......I just made a Vancouver -Seattle Expansion Protection list thread in GM and Armchair......probably a better place to put this conversation There is already a Thread dealing with this I missed...……………"Seattle Expansion list". I will have mine deleted...….sorry I should have looked harder.... Edited December 12, 2018 by janisahockeynut 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted December 12, 2018 Share Posted December 12, 2018 1 hour ago, Kootenay Gold said: I would hate to see the team lose a good mid tier player that could have been protected if Quinn and GM Benning decide that signing and playing a few, likely meaningless, games to end the season is a better option. it sounds like they've got a plan pretty much worked out already. I'm OK with whatever way it goes, locking up elite guys is never a bad thing. As you pointed out, we're going to be losing a good player of some kind no matter what. And who knows, Jim may want a good player picked for cap reasons at that point as well. There are some big contracts coming up soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theo5789 Posted December 12, 2018 Share Posted December 12, 2018 2 hours ago, janisahockeynut said: I think you spend a 2nd rounder and pay Seattle to take someone else...…. If you have to...... Depends who we are trying to protect. Sometimes one team's scraps is another team's treasure. Look at pretty much every trade that Vegas made in regards to teams trying to protect players or to ensure Vegas took a certain player. They are almost all heavily favoured towards Vegas. So we could lose someone that will flourish and give up a 2nd rounder as well. I think we just need to continue to draft well and if we lose our 8th best forward or 4th best dman, then we have some internal contingency plan to mitigate the loss and only suffer the loss of one asset. 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-P Posted December 12, 2018 Share Posted December 12, 2018 4 hours ago, janisahockeynut said: I think you spend a 2nd rounder and pay Seattle to take someone else...…. If you have to...... As long as we're discussing losing Hutton or Baertschi I don't really see the need to convince Seattle to take somebody else. Also - GMJB did it well last team only risking Sbisa and Gaunce of (limited) value so I have some faith in his manouverings here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theo5789 Posted December 12, 2018 Share Posted December 12, 2018 20 minutes ago, J-P said: As long as we're discussing losing Hutton or Baertschi I don't really see the need to convince Seattle to take somebody else. Also - GMJB did it well last team only risking Sbisa and Gaunce of (limited) value so I have some faith in his manouverings here. Different situation, we were pretty much in the early stages of a rebuild at that point so there wasn't a lot going on for us that gave teams value. I believe we were actually figuring out if we could meet the minimum requirement. But because of the stage in the rebuild, we were also able to move expansion eligible players for assets at the deadline so we didn't have to risk much by the time the draft came. By the upcoming expansion, we should hopefully be much closer to where we hope to be as a playoff team. We will certainly lose someone of decent value, but I feel we should just cut our losses and move on instead of making moves to protect more players (maybe guys that don't even pan out even a few years later) and take on a bigger loss especially if the player we also lose suddenly finds a spark on a new team. The only ones worth protecting at this point are Horvat, Pettersson, Boeser, Virtanen, Hughes, Juolevi and Demko. That leaves 3 more forwards and a dman which will be determined over the next couple of years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted December 13, 2018 Share Posted December 13, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, theo5789 said: Depends who we are trying to protect. Sometimes one team's scraps is another team's treasure. Look at pretty much every trade that Vegas made in regards to teams trying to protect players or to ensure Vegas took a certain player. They are almost all heavily favoured towards Vegas. So we could lose someone that will flourish and give up a 2nd rounder as well. I think we just need to continue to draft well and if we lose our 8th best forward or 4th best dman, then we have some internal contingency plan to mitigate the loss and only suffer the loss of one asset. One thing I could see us considering would be something like Eriksson at 50% in exchange for taking our choice of player in the ED. We open up a roster spot, they get a decent 2 way forward at likely closer to his fair cost (and almost no actual salary) + another player. Otherwise, I completely agree. Edited December 13, 2018 by aGENT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueDragon23 Posted December 13, 2018 Share Posted December 13, 2018 I have tickets to see U.S vs Slovakia on Boxing Day in my hometown of Victoria. I will be sure to keep a close eye on our boy Quinn. I’ll also keep my eye on his little bro Jack too! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanukfanatic Posted December 13, 2018 Share Posted December 13, 2018 7 hours ago, janisahockeynut said: Hey guys......I just made a Vancouver -Seattle Expansion Protection list thread in GM and Armchair......probably a better place to put this conversation There is already a Thread dealing with this I missed...……………"Seattle Expansion list". I will have mine deleted...….sorry I should have looked harder.... At least half our team probably won't even be on the Canucks for the expansion so it is way premature imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theo5789 Posted December 13, 2018 Share Posted December 13, 2018 2 hours ago, aGENT said: One thing I could see us considering would be something like Eriksson at 50% in exchange for taking our choice of player in the ED. We open up a roster spot, they get a decent 2 way forward at likely closer to his fair cost (and almost no actual salary) + another player. Otherwise, I completely agree. Can't see this happening. It'll be a cap dump for us even at 50%. They'll have the opportunity to draft a bunch of bottom tier forwards in the expansion and likely won't need to make a trade to fill another spot only to take a player of our choice which likely be the bottom of the barrel. Vegas generally drafted mid-20 guys unless they were significant players like Neal or Fluery or if they had made a deal to take on someone like Garrison, but Tampa paid a hefty price at the time to make it happen. We would likely have to pay to offload Eriksson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post zapperman Posted December 13, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted December 13, 2018 Going to watch the Hughes Bros on the 22 in Langley. Can’t wait. I feel very unpatriotic this year being more excited to see USA than Canada. Crap. I typically love to hate the US and love the rivalry. But to see them up close for cheap - couldn’t pass it up. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coolboarder Posted December 13, 2018 Share Posted December 13, 2018 Best we could hope for Michigan to make the Frozen Four weekend to ensure that Hughes signs with us after our season is over then we do not have to waste a protection spot for him and ensure that he would be exempted and we retains the top 4 D without losing a player and we would expose any higher skilled player like Erikkson to ED or something like that. Bottom 6 forwards are easier to replace but top 4 D is harder to replace, imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now