R3aL Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 Kid throws hands too - let’s sign him! Haha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canucksnihilist Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 On 3/11/2019 at 8:55 AM, The_Rocket said: Switch around sutter and Eriksson and I’m in. Eriksson is buyout proof; his salary his mostly paid as a bonus on July 1st every year. Even if you buy him out that bonus still counts against the salary cap, so you still have almost 6 million against the cap every year plus 600k for three years after his contract ends. No reason to buy him out if his cap hit is still hurting us. Sutter on the other hand can be traded (not for much admittedly) and the Canucks still save a bunch of money getting rid of him Wow that is a terrible contract. Who in hell negotiated that for the Canucks? Haha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canucksnihilist Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 On 3/10/2019 at 7:48 PM, Alflives said: It’s not an issue in the future if Edler and Tanev are gone Edler and Tanev are second pairing... and in a few years 3rd pairing to wind down their careers. They are quality but can’t play that number of minutes without losing it. Ideally QH and OJ become a top pairing at some point in the next year. FA: reality is you are going to get 3/4 years of quality then 1/2 years of buyout candidates. Typically. On a 5 year contract. So... are we in a position we win now? Should we grab that top D if we can and risk the timing? And longevity? High end talent lasts a little longer than mid level - so would rather risk it on a high end talent 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kobayashi Maru Posted March 17, 2019 Share Posted March 17, 2019 Signing Panarin would be one of my top priorities. It’s players like him that can play the game at a level that Petey can. We need more of those. Trade Sutter (Gaudette replaces him) for what you can (2nd + 4th maybe) and use those assets along with Eriksson to move him along (for nothing) and viola, full cap space for Panarin. Then off to rework the d... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeanSeanBean Posted March 17, 2019 Share Posted March 17, 2019 On 3/13/2019 at 8:12 AM, canucksnihilist said: Wow that is a terrible contract. Who in hell negotiated that for the Canucks? Haha It was negotiated base around salary, not cap. By paying much of the contract up front in the early years, his salary drops significantly in the later years. This low salary and high cap actually should work very well in a trade scenario with a budget team. Some teams like Ottawa and Arizona have budget restrictions on salaries, but also must maintain a cap floor to be compliant to league rules. A player who carries a larger cap hit accompanied by a low salary, in theory, could be a perfect player on one of those teams. Not to mentioned his play style of being a little things, good for young teams, kinda guy. His contract is indeed buyout proof, but it is also very moveable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canucksnihilist Posted March 18, 2019 Share Posted March 18, 2019 19 hours ago, shayster007 said: It was negotiated base around salary, not cap. By paying much of the contract up front in the early years, his salary drops significantly in the later years. This low salary and high cap actually should work very well in a trade scenario with a budget team. Some teams like Ottawa and Arizona have budget restrictions on salaries, but also must maintain a cap floor to be compliant to league rules. A player who carries a larger cap hit accompanied by a low salary, in theory, could be a perfect player on one of those teams. Not to mentioned his play style of being a little things, good for young teams, kinda guy. His contract is indeed buyout proof, but it is also very moveable. Ya I didn’t think of it that way. i agree it’s good if you want to cut your losses cause you make a mistake - but from an ownership perspective it sucks. wonder if the idea was to get rid of him later anyways - kind of smart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeanSeanBean Posted March 18, 2019 Share Posted March 18, 2019 1 hour ago, canucksnihilist said: Ya I didn’t think of it that way. i agree it’s good if you want to cut your losses cause you make a mistake - but from an ownership perspective it sucks. wonder if the idea was to get rid of him later anyways - kind of smart. I always assumed he was a signing attempting to prolong the twins career. It didn't work, but it was a solid theory due to their international experiences. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brocklovich Posted March 19, 2019 Share Posted March 19, 2019 As cool as it would be to see Panarin here i think Benning said they aren't going after top end talent in the FA season Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tystick Posted March 19, 2019 Share Posted March 19, 2019 It's not like we can't afford him. If he wants to come here, then great. 8-9mil/year? He's good for 70+ points/year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby_Lu1ngo Posted March 20, 2019 Share Posted March 20, 2019 2 hours ago, Tystick said: It's not like we can't afford him. If he wants to come here, then great. 8-9mil/year? He's good for 70+ points/year. Well he would have been our leading scorer every year since hecame in to the league including this year with Petey. it would be a mistake for us to nottake a swing at signing this guy. There is one thing that makes teams better and that is better players. Our team has been piss poor offensively for way too long now. Panarin would round out our top 6 and allo us to have a dynamic attack. Go all our for this guy and focus our team around bo brock petey pan and hughes. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rekker Posted March 20, 2019 Share Posted March 20, 2019 14 minutes ago, Bobby_Lu1ngo said: Well he would have been our leading scorer every year since hecame in to the league including this year with Petey. it would be a mistake for us to nottake a swing at signing this guy. There is one thing that makes teams better and that is better players. Our team has been piss poor offensively for way too long now. Panarin would round out our top 6 and allo us to have a dynamic attack. Go all our for this guy and focus our team around bo brock petey pan and hughes. Bo, Brock, Petey, Pan and Hughes. Sounds like a children's book. I like it........ Bo, Brock, Petey, Pan, and Hughes Go To Tampa To Win A Cup......nice title! 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.53 Posted March 20, 2019 Share Posted March 20, 2019 Personally I would take karlsson over Panarin, but if either are interested, I'm hyped. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EoH Posted March 20, 2019 Share Posted March 20, 2019 7 minutes ago, Mr.53 said: Personally I would take karlsson over Panarin, but if either are interested, I'm hyped. Or we become the next Minnesota Wild and get both of them like how they did with Suter and Parise. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck Surfer Posted March 20, 2019 Share Posted March 20, 2019 On 3/12/2019 at 2:55 AM, The_Rocket said: Switch around sutter and Eriksson and I’m in. Eriksson is buyout proof; his salary his mostly paid as a bonus on July 1st every year. Even if you buy him out that bonus still counts against the salary cap, so you still have almost 6 million against the cap every year plus 600k for three years after his contract ends. No reason to buy him out if his cap hit is still hurting us. Sutter on the other hand can be traded (not for much admittedly) and the Canucks still save a bunch of money getting rid of him Incorrect. That makes him more easily bought out. Its just more expensive if you have already paid him the yearly bonus... I would not be surprised if we bought him out before this payment this year. I also would not be surprised to see us pay the $6 mill bonus, then trade him with ''salary'' retained. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Rocket Posted March 20, 2019 Share Posted March 20, 2019 6 hours ago, Canuck Surfer said: Incorrect. That makes him more easily bought out. Its just more expensive if you have already paid him the yearly bonus... I would not be surprised if we bought him out before this payment this year. I also would not be surprised to see us pay the $6 mill bonus, then trade him with ''salary'' retained. I wouldn’t be surprised if we trade him to a team looking to reach the cap floor. He’s only owed 9 million dollars over the next 3 years after July 1st this year. but it terms of buy out, i’d be very surprised. The buyout period ends in June 30th, meaning they can’t pay his bonus and then buy him out. It has to be the other way around or wait until next off season (2020). So buying him out saves very little cap space. I attached a screen grab from cap friendly showing how much it will cost the Canucks on their cap for the next 6 years to buy him out 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kobayashi Maru Posted March 20, 2019 Share Posted March 20, 2019 14 hours ago, rekker said: Bo, Brock, Petey, Pan and Hughes. Sounds like a children's book. I like it........ Bo, Brock, Petey, Pan, and Hughes Go To Tampa To Win A Cup......nice title! I hope we're all seeing the same thing that the line would be called "Petey Pan"? Regardless of that it would be an awesome line. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
10pavelbure96 Posted March 20, 2019 Share Posted March 20, 2019 3 minutes ago, Kobayashi Maru said: I hope we're all seeing the same thing that the line would be called "Petey Pan"? Regardless of that it would be an awesome line. Petter Pan and the lost Brock 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KKnight Posted March 20, 2019 Share Posted March 20, 2019 Unless we land a top 2 pick. We should strongly think about adding Panarin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steviewonder20 Posted March 20, 2019 Share Posted March 20, 2019 On 3/12/2019 at 11:06 PM, teepain said: If we got a kakko + panarin signs , we got players moving out of here . Some higher end talents If we got Kakko and Panarin we would only need another top pairing D to go with Hughes and we are competitive. JB said no 8 million being thrown around for UFAs so that means no Panarin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldoescobar Posted March 20, 2019 Share Posted March 20, 2019 4 hours ago, KKnight said: Unless we land a top 2 pick. We should strongly think about adding Panarin. I agree but also expect neither to happen. 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