Vancouver's 3 new free agents

[mikeyman109]

3 minutes ago, The Lock said:

Here's the way I see it:

 

No vets? We look like Edmonton for the next 10 years.

Vets? Our young players actually learn actual "accountability", or at least the excuse that was thrown around the Edmonton locker room as to why they've been losing.

 

Sure. There's less spots on the team, but now the other 9 spots are going to be more meaningful since there will be a veteran presence along with that that can also protect the other 9 spots.

Exactly. Great points

[mikeyman109]

1 minute ago, coastal.view said:

um

you do not understand what a nmc is

ericksson has one

 

you cannot move him to the minors

 

his contract is buy out proof

you will basically be paying him close to full value to just not play for the team

and he has value as a player

so how does it make sense to not play him

and really save no real money by buying him out

UM ok I did not know it was buy out proof. I thought any contract was eligible.

He does have value as a player agreed. Another player might have more value.

It makes sense not to play him if he isnt better than one of the younger players that are coming up.

Money is not a concern for me . I am not paying him.

[Phil_314]

12 minutes ago, EdgarM said:

I am really hoping these 3 guys teach our young guys some character and grit. If your small and not really tough, then you better play like a Marchand or a Ronning and not like our past "skilled" players. We have had decades of this type of play and no one has ever replaced a "heart and soul" player such as Gino Odjick. 

None of our small players took any crap in his era and I quite frankly want it to be that way again, after all, this is hockey isn't it?

I'm really hoping that some of the potential redundant guys (Gagner, Loui, Granny) can be dealt.  Sure they might not have the most appealing contracts but in the context of this thread I'm sure there's also big but potentially lower-value guys who can be acquired to fill that toughness gap and who might be more suitable for battling in the proverbial trenches.  Say if Sven - Bo - Brock and some mix of Goldie - Sutter - Pettersson wins out the top-6 spots, they will need help.

 

Say if the team does have enough firepower that Loui and Gagner are redundant (for argument's sake they do well to start the season) whereas a team like the Islanders need firepower after J.T. leaves and say the cast can't carry them.  I would be down to swap some of these lesser offensive guys for players like Komarov or Clutterbuck who are respectable bottom-6 guys who can fill roles as needed.  Much better than putting in a square peg in a round hole (e.g. Gagner as a 4th liner when he could honestly do more in an expanded role).

 

[Kootenay Gold]

Coastal View................He actually has a NTC but you are right about him not being moveable until 2020-21 when he submits a 15 team no trade list.

[smithers joe]

19 minutes ago, Viper007 said:

Question is why does it matter what they're paid, when there's cap space.  When they're no longer needed, they can be traded/bought out/buried in minors.

their contracts were front loaded, so when they are traded their cap hits won't be outrages. they will only be larger on the cap, not in actual dollars.

[coastal.view]

2 minutes ago, Kootenay Gold said:

He actually has a NTC but you are right about him not being moveable until 2020-21 when he submits a 15 team no trade list.

a nmc is a ntc

and he cannot be moved as you acknowledge for a couple more years

at which time his salary will have dipped

and the incentive / need to move him will also wane

 

so unless the team is up against the cap

and his cap hit becomes problematic

 

this is unlikely

in a cap world where the cap keeps going up

and the canucks are unlikely to feel the elc contract maturation

so quickly

[EdgarM]

6 minutes ago, The Lock said:

Here's the way I see it:

 

No vets? We look like Edmonton for the next 10 years.

Vets? Our young players actually learn actual "accountability", or at least the excuse that was thrown around the Edmonton locker room as to why they've been losing.

 

Sure. There's less spots on the team, but now the other 9 spots are going to be more meaningful since there will be a veteran presence along with that that can also protect the other 9 spots.

These word are key to building a winning team. EVERYONE on the team is accountable, no free passes because you are a superstar and there should be NO EXCUSES.....EVER. So many times I have heard excuses to why we have lost and I am pretty tired of it all. 

We need winning attitudes who are accountable for all of their actions and have no excuses for poor play.

[smithers joe]

louie had a nmc for his first 2 years. now he has 2 years on a ntc and the final 2 years on a modified ntc.

[mikeyman109]

1 minute ago, EdgarM said:

These word are key to building a winning team. EVERYONE on the team is accountable, no free passes because you are a superstar and there should be NO EXCUSES.....EVER. So many times I have heard excuses to why we have lost and I am pretty tired of it all. 

We need winning attitudes who are accountable for all of their actions and have no excuses for poor play.

I loved when Beagle came out and said i didnt come here to lose. Even if their GM says we are expecting it. Thats the attitude we need around these young kids.

[Kootenay Gold]

Just now, coastal.view said:

a nmc is a ntc

Actually they are not really the same. A NMC prevents the team from sending you to the minors via waivers whereas a NTC does not prevent them from doing that

[oldnews]

Additionally, these signings aren't simply about toughness, protection, or 'mentorship'.

 

They play key roles between the whistles - hard minutes, shutdown matchups, making the team heavier and harder to play against - can turn those situations into opportunities for young forwards moreso than inserting youth prematurely into those roles, in over their heads, so that you have the balance of your lineup playing in less than ideal situations (or even where some veterans are concerned, being forced to utilize Gagner types - now expendable to skilled youth - in a less than optimal role). 

Win faceoffs, end/break up/reverse pressure/possession, generate territory, push back in general.  They needed these elements - they may be able to develop their own guys to fill these roles in due course, now that they have a burgeoning prospect pool, but at this point, they make perfect sense in a number of ways.

[coastal.view]

Just now, Kootenay Gold said:

Actually they are not really the same. A NMC prevents the team from sending you to the minors via waivers whereas a NTC does not prevent them from doing that

i stand corrected

by both you and smithers joe

my previous review of his contract a while ago

used a different site then capgeek

i just checked capgeek myself

and see what i read previously was not accurate

[EdgarM]

5 minutes ago, Phil_314 said:

I'm really hoping that some of the potential redundant guys (Gagner, Loui, Granny) can be dealt.  Sure they might not have the most appealing contracts but in the context of this thread I'm sure there's also big but potentially lower-value guys who can be acquired to fill that toughness gap and who might be more suitable for battling in the proverbial trenches.  Say if Sven - Bo - Brock and some mix of Goldie - Sutter - Pettersson wins out the top-6 spots, they will need help.

 

Say if the team does have enough firepower that Loui and Gagner are redundant (for argument's sake they do well to start the season) whereas a team like the Islanders need firepower after J.T. leaves and say the cast can't carry them.  I would be down to swap some of these lesser offensive guys for players like Komarov or Clutterbuck who are respectable bottom-6 guys who can fill roles as needed.  Much better than putting in a square peg in a round hole (e.g. Gagner as a 4th liner when he could honestly do more in an expanded role).

 

These guys will need to prove if they are redundant or not this year as we now have younger skilled players right behind them. They were place holders who have done their job and now need to fight for their jobs. I like it. If the young guys prove they are ready these guys become "expendable". Markstrom and Nilsson better be a little worried as well.

[mikeyman109]

1 minute ago, oldnews said:

Additionally, these signings aren't simply about toughness, protection, or 'mentorship'.

 

They play key roles between the whistles - hard minutes, shutdown matchups, making the team heavier and harder to play against - can turn those situations into opportunities for young forwards moreso than inserting youth prematurely into those roles, in over their heads, so that you have the balance of your lineup playing in less than ideal situations (or even where some veterans are concerned, being forced to utilize Gagner types - now expendable to skilled youth - in a less than optimal role). 

Win faceoffs, end/break up/reverse pressure/possession, generate territory, push back in general.  They needed these elements - they may be able to develop their own guys to fill these roles in due course, now that they have a burgeoning prospect pool, but at this point, they make perfect sense in a number of ways.

One can say these signings are not about one point but many. We needed the elements these players bring regardless of which ones you focus on. They bring something thee team has not had for a couple years and really only DD brought. Now we have some players that can make life miserable for teams coming into our barn. the other aspects mentioned are a bonus.

[apollo]

58 minutes ago, aqua59 said:

After watching last nights prospect game something was evident. None of the Vancouver players were going to be swatting their opponents aside.

This group has wheels. I'm not saying they're not jammy but that's why they are going to need some space to get things done. 

 

After Dorsett left last season that was pretty much it for push back. The old team tough was more or less a joke. The two biggest guys on Vancouver occupy the net. 

Alex Edler? Well...   

Jake's coming along.

Smaller back end with little bite. 

No Mr Nasty. Well, we now have some grit, a little sand paper with a super pest. Focus changers. Vancouver has missed that for a period of time. Nothing like watching your goalie get run with no response. 

Watching the young stars game last night it was very evident why they went out and got these free agents. Guys like Pratt instill  fear and illogical thinking.

 

Vancouver never replaced their toughness over that past several seasons.

Go back and listen to Dave Semenko's take on role of players on a team. Dave told Gretzky to go do his job and he'd do his. Vancouver hasn't had that element for a while. This training camp will be very much about accepting one's role and earning it.

 

Antoine Roussel looks like the perfect prick to come play in Vancouver. The guy can skate and play the game. 

Jay Beagle is another mountain man fresh off a stanley cup win. He's used to the rough going.

Tim Schaller is another physical player.

 

That's 3 spots leaving 9 up front. I have a feeling some players will be on the outside looking in, players that thought they were a lock.

 

Thoughts?

 

I'm with you... I think Jimbo picked the right profile of players to sign this free agency.

 

We desperately need the grit. With Dorset, we were a playoff team. This team coulda squeezed in the playoffs and done some damage had we had DD and Sedins on beast mode for one last run....

[Lancaster]

1 hour ago, mikeyman109 said:

I hear you. With the Gaudettes, Pettersons, Plamus, Gadjovichs, Dahlens looking great last night who might they displace.

I can see a Gagner getting pushed out but would we bury Eriksson in the minors? Buy him out?? I am curious

You can no longer bury the entire salary in the minors.  I believe the max amount of salary cap space that can be saved is only like 750k(?).  

Eriksson may not be playing like a 6 million dollar player, but he is still playing around 4 million.... thus burying him in the minors and having to pay someone else to play his position at the same calibre would be inefficient use of money.  

[Lancaster]

DP

[mikeyman109]

1 minute ago, Lancaster said:

You can no longer bury the entire salary in the minors.  I believe the max amount of salary cap space that can be saved is only like 750k(?).  

Eriksson may not be playing like a 6 million dollar player, but he is still playing around 4 million.... thus burying him in the minors and having to pay someone else to play his position at the same calibre would be inefficient use of money.  

Its not the money you are looking for its the roster spot. Maybe a few months in the minors Loui would agree to a trade. Just saying.

I agree he is a serviceable player. I am just wondering who of the Veterans you can mofve to create a spot for Dahlen or Gaudette besides Gagner.

[Kootenay Gold]

5 minutes ago, Lancaster said:

You can no longer bury the entire salary in the minors.  I believe the max amount of salary cap space that can be saved is only like 750k(?).  

Eriksson may not be playing like a 6 million dollar player, but he is still playing around 4 million.... thus burying him in the minors and having to pay someone else to play his position at the same calibre would be inefficient use of money.  

Because of his NMC for the next two years you can not even send him to the minors so it is a moot point. we would be better served moving Gagner as he can at least be moved

 

[mikeyman109]

Just now, Kootenay Gold said:

Because of his NMC for the next two years you can not even send him to the minors

In reality the most likely scenario with Eriksson is he takes up a roster spot for at least the next two years.  In the meantime we will have many young players looking for the remaining spots we have.