Poll: Should the Canucks sign Brock Boeser for 8 years

[Provost]

2 hours ago, Nucks-4-Life said:

We have a roster full of young players and management needs to set the precedent:

 

You have to earn your contract.

 

Give BB a bridge deal, 3 years at 6 mill per.

Either a short a bridge or long term I can handle.

A 4-5 year contract is the no-go zone for me.  5 years takes him exactly to free agency, and 4 years takes him close enough that he can file for arbitration and end up on a 1 year arbitrator awarded contract that takes him to free agency.

[cuporbust]

8 times 8

[kloubek]

There are clearly two perspectives to this. 

 

Sign for a lower amount for a shorter term.  Say, 6-6.5 for 3 years.  From his perspective this gives him time to prove consistency and ability before really cashing in for some 8-8.5 later in his prime. If he really takes off and the cap is higher, he may even be worth more at that time.

 

Or, sign him for 7.5-8 now for 8 years.  We might be overpaying initially, but we would be banking on his final years being undervalued - which helps ease our cap burden when we need it.

 

The latter is a risk for the team, but if it pays off it allows better cap control in a few years.  Personally, I would be happy to take that risk.  Brock is a solid character guy and I feel he is the kind of guy to try his best and has a drive to improve.  His injuries have been freak situational things and I am not concerned he is injury prone as a couple have made him out to be.

 

I think a peak Brock in a few years at 7.5 would end up a steal for us, and it isn't really an issue to overpay him a bit now while we have the extra space.

[IBatch]

On 5/27/2019 at 2:22 PM, theo5789 said:

I don't think the Canucks should, nor will Boeser's side want to go for a 8 year deal. For the Canuck side, we will be banking on Boeser improving, which he might indeed, but 8 million a season for an RFA will put us in a position where our cap on players will rise faster than we can keep up. I get that 8 million a year would mean buying UFA years, but we don't know what type of player he will be by that time. What we do know so far is that he has yet to play a full season and currently averages at about 67 points a season. It's good, but not great. So I can't see the Canucks wanting to commit that much term yet (I think EP will be a different story).

 

As for Boeser, I think he would like to prove himself more before committing to a long term deal. I think he will bank on himself for a bigger payout later on. He could want to just take the money and run, but it will have to be a deal that will be enticing for the Canucks to commit to.

 

I know times have changed, but I feel like 8-10 million dollar players should be PPG guys at least especially considering there were like 30 players to do so this past season. Anything above that needs to be a special player that can do more beyond putting up points (or be well above PPG). I rather see if Boeser even gets to this point first before committing that kind of money. I think I would offer a 6x4 deal which keeps him as an RFA by the end of the deal. If Boeser wants us to buy all the RFA years now so he's UFA by the end of it, then 6.5x5 is what I would go for (I'm assuming 5 years takes him to UFA). We have Bo at 5.5 as a comparison and while Boeser is out-producing him offensively so far, Bo provides far more. Personally I think 8 million a year is what I would offer for his next contract after whatever he gets this time around and that's assuming if all goes well in staying healthy and upping his production further.

It all depends on the Nylander effect...will GMs get away with agents using his contract as the new base line (and Eichels for that matter).

 

 

Also there is a precedent for a full length contract a few years in now for Tarasenko at 7.5 x 8.   Last four years have a NTC, and this is after only one year of close to PPG and 37 goals...they banked on him to keep it up and for the most part he has, a great core guy to build around.  I don’t see Boeser as being much different, he has an elite center to work with and Hughes to run the PP....40-50 goal seasons seem just as likely as “only” 30 goal seasons.   He’s also not bad defensively, and a smart player.    That contract is three years old now too.  

 

Boeser at 8 x 8 seems perfectly fair to me...and it shows our commitment to him and to winning while he’s here.  I wish we did the same for Horvat.  Bridge deals rarely work out for the teams anymore, two or three years will only mean his next contract will be even bigger.  If he scores 40-50 during that span, which I think he can do, we’d be looking at a Subban or Price situation in a couple years.    His PPG so far is much higher than the Sedins had at the same age... do you really think he’s not going to get better, and score more goals once he hits his prime?  I do.  If anything we are lucky he hurt his back, didn’t win the Calder (remember what his goal pace was like up until the all-star game) and then took time to get it back last season.   

 

I agree 100% contracts have inflated a lot, but 9% of the overall cap hit isn’t bad for a top line winger, who’s only going to get better and better growing his game alongside EP.  Once they add another guy to that line we could end up with a top three line in all of hockey.    And half-way through his contract when the cap is over 90 million it will look better and better.

[theo5789]

5 hours ago, IBatch said:

It all depends on the Nylander effect...will GMs get away with agents using his contract as the new base line (and Eichels for that matter).

 

 

Also there is a precedent for a full length contract a few years in now for Tarasenko at 7.5 x 8.   Last four years have a NTC, and this is after only one year of close to PPG and 37 goals...they banked on him to keep it up and for the most part he has, a great core guy to build around.  I don’t see Boeser as being much different, he has an elite center to work with and Hughes to run the PP....40-50 goal seasons seem just as likely as “only” 30 goal seasons.   He’s also not bad defensively, and a smart player.    That contract is three years old now too.  

 

Boeser at 8 x 8 seems perfectly fair to me...and it shows our commitment to him and to winning while he’s here.  I wish we did the same for Horvat.  Bridge deals rarely work out for the teams anymore, two or three years will only mean his next contract will be even bigger.  If he scores 40-50 during that span, which I think he can do, we’d be looking at a Subban or Price situation in a couple years.    His PPG so far is much higher than the Sedins had at the same age... do you really think he’s not going to get better, and score more goals once he hits his prime?  I do.  If anything we are lucky he hurt his back, didn’t win the Calder (remember what his goal pace was like up until the all-star game) and then took time to get it back last season.   

 

I agree 100% contracts have inflated a lot, but 9% of the overall cap hit isn’t bad for a top line winger, who’s only going to get better and better growing his game alongside EP.  Once they add another guy to that line we could end up with a top three line in all of hockey.    And half-way through his contract when the cap is over 90 million it will look better and better.

Well this is why it is quite critical in what deal he gives Boeser. We can look at other teams or look internally and say why does Boeser deserve 2.5 million more a season than Horvat's deal? It seems more like Benning signs his RFAs to what they are currently versus what they may become. It's up to the players and their agents to decide how long they feel is fair at this rate. I think I rather pay more knowing a guy can actually be a 40-50 goal guy rather than bank on it and risk it not happening. If he remains a consistent 30 goal guy in 4 years, then I'd still pay him the 8 million a season afterwards, but he's got to earn that rather than be given it ahead of time. I'd like to see him play a full season or close to it and sustain his 70 point pace that he currently is putting up first before majorly rewarding him.

 

He can also demonstrate his commitment to winning by taking a more team friendly deal, so we have more freedom to build a winner. We aren't lucky that he hurt his back (and wrist) because he might actually be an even better player than he is today and I wouldn't even question about giving him the 8x8.

[HKSR]

The Canucks brass simply needs to make a determination of where the window to win opens and ends with this core.  If it is within the next 6 years, then that's how long Brock's contract should be.  There's no point locking him up for 8 years if it costs $1 to $1.5M more on the cap.  You do that 2 or 3 times with your star players and all of a sudden you locked up $3 to $4.5M in cap space simply to buy 1 or 2 extra years. 

 

In my mind, Brock's contract really shouldn't be more than 6 years unless a 7 year or 8 year contract only costs $500k more per year.

 

With that being said $7M x 6yrs would be nice.  Once you get into the 7 year or 8 year range, I suspect it would be $7.75 x 7 or $8M+ x 8

[stawns]

I really don't want to see them Maple leafs this situation.........Brock has had two good years, but he hasn't accomplished anything truly significant yet.  He hasn't hit 30 and they haven't made the post season yet.  A reasonable bridge deal to prove that he's truly going to be a player that consistently scores at an elite level.

[WeneedLumme]

1 hour ago, stawns said:

I really don't want to see them Maple leafs this situation.........Brock has had two good years, but he hasn't accomplished anything truly significant yet.  He hasn't hit 30 and they haven't made the post season yet.  A reasonable bridge deal to prove that he's truly going to be a player that consistently scores at an elite level.

Sounds great, except that right now he could maybe be signed for a Nylander level contract. After he has a couple of productive full seasons, once he has demonstrated consistently elite level production he would most likely require an elite level contract, which would be quite a bit more expensive. 

[Nucks89]

No they shouldn't sign him for 8 years. Boeser is a nice compliment player. He isn't a franchise altering player (IE McDavid, Barkov, Matthews).

[stawns]

11 minutes ago, WeneedLumme said:

Sounds great, except that right now he could maybe be signed for a Nylander level contract. After he has a couple of productive full seasons, once he has demonstrated consistently elite level production he would most likely require an elite level contract, which would be quite a bit more expensive. 

he hasn't earned a Nylander level contract, imo.

[WeneedLumme]

1 hour ago, stawns said:

he hasn't earned a Nylander level contract, imo.

Actually, Nylander hasn't earned a Nylander level contract. But IMO Brock has earned it much more than WN has. Aside from the fact that WN is soft as warm butter, Brock is so much more productive than WN that they are not even in the same class.

 

Brock's goals per game and points per game are so far superior that no rational person would even consider trading Brock for Nylander. Even though Brock is a winger and WN can play centre.

[shiznak]

22 hours ago, Provost said:

Either a short a bridge or long term I can handle.

A 4-5 year contract is the no-go zone for me.  5 years takes him exactly to free agency, and 4 years takes him close enough that he can file for arbitration and end up on a 1 year arbitrator awarded contract that takes him to free agency.

Does that really matter, though? Unless we’re in deep cap trouble or we go into another rebuild in 4 years and he wants no part of it. I don’t see that as a problem. We get first negotiating rights until July 1st and we could just pay him then. Regardless, we will have to pony up for him on his third contract.

 

Besides most players who are about to hit free agency, at that age, never actually hit free agency. The team always retain them.

 

5-6 years at 6M - 6.5M is where I think they will come to terms with.

 

Edited May 29, 2019 by shiznak

[Rob_Zepp]

11 hours ago, IBatch said:

It all depends on the "Nylander effect"

What's that?   The ability to score on open European ice but disappear on North American ice when the going gets tough?

[IBatch]

1 hour ago, Rob_Zepp said:

What's that?   The ability to score on open European ice but disappear on North American ice when the going gets tough?

Yep.  Plus second contract inflation...

[IBatch]

9 hours ago, theo5789 said:

Well this is why it is quite critical in what deal he gives Boeser. We can look at other teams or look internally and say why does Boeser deserve 2.5 million more a season than Horvat's deal? It seems more like Benning signs his RFAs to what they are currently versus what they may become. It's up to the players and their agents to decide how long they feel is fair at this rate. I think I rather pay more knowing a guy can actually be a 40-50 goal guy rather than bank on it and risk it not happening. If he remains a consistent 30 goal guy in 4 years, then I'd still pay him the 8 million a season afterwards, but he's got to earn that rather than be given it ahead of time. I'd like to see him play a full season or close to it and sustain his 70 point pace that he currently is putting up first before majorly rewarding him.

 

He can also demonstrate his commitment to winning by taking a more team friendly deal, so we have more freedom to build a winner. We aren't lucky that he hurt his back (and wrist) because he might actually be an even better player than he is today and I wouldn't even question about giving him the 8x8.

In four years if he’s scoring 40-50 goals he’s signing for 10 million x ? ... and that’s why you have to pay extra to buy UFA years.  Players don’t show a commitment to winning by taking less pay, that’s a myth (well almost, maybe on a short term deal to play with a contender later on in their career once they put 50 million or so in the bank).  TB looks like they do  because they get tax breaks where other cities  don’t.   His GPG isnt any different then Tarasenko’s first three years which is why I used that deal as example.  There is a precedent for a winger making 7.5 x 8 (buying UFA years) with last four years including a NTC that’s now three years old.  Maybe we just don’t think Boeser is as good as each other...which is fine.  Personally I’m pretty confident that a deal like that isn’t going to hurt but help the club in the long run...and yes his injuries play a part in this , if he was healthy the cap hit would go up.   Athletes heal just like normal folks. 

 

If this isnt palatable for Benning then I’m sure a 6.5 x 5 deal would work out to about the same so his third contract comes sooner.   Then he’s bargaining on us getting to re-sign him, a gamble considering he’s from the US, the same way Horvat might feel the pull to go to TO (and his maple leaf blanket) in a few short years.   These things cost money (peace of mind), my preference is to give him a deal that’s fair relative to his peer group, he’s better and more useful than Nylander so it’s going to be over 7, and what other guys signed before makes no difference (including Horvats deal), it’s what the market bears now.    I’m sure Tavares isn’t mad that guys are making more then his second contract (5 million) despite being a first line center and a top five player by position since he joined the league...becuase he’s got paid now.  It is what it is, EP and maybe Hughes will get their share too.  

 

I know it’s a lot of money, but the cap has more than doubled since it came in and salaries keep going up...even through world-wide financial crisis.

[theo5789]

36 minutes ago, IBatch said:

In four years if he’s scoring 40-50 goals he’s signing for 10 million x ? ... and that’s why you have to pay extra to buy UFA years.  Players don’t show a commitment to winning by taking less pay, that’s a myth (well almost, maybe on a short term deal to play with a contender later on in their career once they put 50 million or so in the bank).  TB looks like they do  because they get tax breaks where other cities  don’t.   His GPG isnt any different then Tarasenko’s first three years which is why I used that deal as example.  There is a precedent for a winger making 7.5 x 8 (buying UFA years) with last four years including a NTC that’s now three years old.  Maybe we just don’t think Boeser is as good as each other...which is fine.  Personally I’m pretty confident that a deal like that isn’t going to hurt but help the club in the long run...and yes his injuries play a part in this , if he was healthy the cap hit would go up.   Athletes heal just like normal folks. 

 

If this isnt palatable for Benning then I’m sure a 6.5 x 5 deal would work out to about the same so his third contract comes sooner.   Then he’s bargaining on us getting to re-sign him, a gamble considering he’s from the US, the same way Horvat might feel the pull to go to TO (and his maple leaf blanket) in a few short years.   These things cost money (peace of mind), my preference is to give him a deal that’s fair relative to his peer group, he’s better and more useful than Nylander so it’s going to be over 7, and what other guys signed before makes no difference (including Horvats deal), it’s what the market bears now.    I’m sure Tavares isn’t mad that guys are making more then his second contract (5 million) despite being a first line center and a top five player by position since he joined the league...becuase he’s got paid now.  It is what it is, EP and maybe Hughes will get their share too.  

 

I know it’s a lot of money, but the cap has more than doubled since it came in and salaries keep going up...even through world-wide financial crisis.

If he proves to be a consistent 40-50 goal scorer, he will be worth 10 million a season. I think Boeser is excellent, but I'd like to see a few healthy years and even an uptick in points in those years before committing a major deal. IMO he isn't worth 8 million next year, so he will have to play up to his worth. We are banking on him to improve rather than him banking on himself, so where's the motivation?

 

Teams that have the great 2nd contracts like MacKinnon, or say Pastrnak, have much more flexibility in building a team. Guys that get overpaid like Nylander find themselves on teams that struggle with the cap. If we want to look at another example, there's Ehlers who had a couple of seasons at a 60 point clip (which is lower than Boeser's PPG, but Ehlers has been healthy) and he signed for 6 million a year for 7 years, which buys 3 UFA years. Is Boeser's current 69 points per game a season average over the last two years while only playing an average of 65 games worth 2 million more a season over what Ehlers got? Kucherov signed a 3 year deal around 4.5 million a season after putting up a couple of similar seasons to Boeser except being healthy (I know there's the Tampa tax factor, but even with that in consideration, his deal would be about equivalent to a 6ish million dollar deal. I think the Nylander example is more of an anomaly rather than the new norm and it shouldn't be otherwise salaries will go haywire.

 

I'm not concerned about players leaving. If they want to leave then we make a deal to gain back a decent return so they simply don't bolt for nothing. Generally, in a winning environment, most players find a new home with their home team and forget about their past. Otherwise it would've been nice to have guys like Sakic, Yzerman, Neidermeyer, etc wanting to sign here in their hey days. Benning has put character as a priority in his draft picks, so they guys are unlikely to simply walk out unless the team continues with futility for years to come and when you start signing your players at a premium rate, you put your team in a harder position to succeed in the long run.

 

Your Tavares example is exactly the direction we should look at and hope the players buy into. Boeser will not care if he signs less now as if he proves himself, he will get paid well later whether with us or another team. Paying for potential is a dangerous game. Pay them what they're worth now and let them prove themselves (it should really only come down to term and how soon they feel they can take their game to another level to earn their payout).

[IBatch]

6 hours ago, theo5789 said:

If he proves to be a consistent 40-50 goal scorer, he will be worth 10 million a season. I think Boeser is excellent, but I'd like to see a few healthy years and even an uptick in points in those years before committing a major deal. IMO he isn't worth 8 million next year, so he will have to play up to his worth. We are banking on him to improve rather than him banking on himself, so where's the motivation?

 

Teams that have the great 2nd contracts like MacKinnon, or say Pastrnak, have much more flexibility in building a team. Guys that get overpaid like Nylander find themselves on teams that struggle with the cap. If we want to look at another example, there's Ehlers who had a couple of seasons at a 60 point clip (which is lower than Boeser's PPG, but Ehlers has been healthy) and he signed for 6 million a year for 7 years, which buys 3 UFA years. Is Boeser's current 69 points per game a season average over the last two years while only playing an average of 65 games worth 2 million more a season over what Ehlers got? Kucherov signed a 3 year deal around 4.5 million a season after putting up a couple of similar seasons to Boeser except being healthy (I know there's the Tampa tax factor, but even with that in consideration, his deal would be about equivalent to a 6ish million dollar deal. I think the Nylander example is more of an anomaly rather than the new norm and it shouldn't be otherwise salaries will go haywire.

 

I'm not concerned about players leaving. If they want to leave then we make a deal to gain back a decent return so they simply don't bolt for nothing. Generally, in a winning environment, most players find a new home with their home team and forget about their past. Otherwise it would've been nice to have guys like Sakic, Yzerman, Neidermeyer, etc wanting to sign here in their hey days. Benning has put character as a priority in his draft picks, so they guys are unlikely to simply walk out unless the team continues with futility for years to come and when you start signing your players at a premium rate, you put your team in a harder position to succeed in the long run.

 

Your Tavares example is exactly the direction we should look at and hope the players buy into. Boeser will not care if he signs less now as if he proves himself, he will get paid well later whether with us or another team. Paying for potential is a dangerous game. Pay them what they're worth now and let them prove themselves (it should really only come down to term and how soon they feel they can take their game to another level to earn their payout).

Hey if Benning can sign Boeser to 6.5 x 8 then power to him.  How’d Kucherovs bridge contract work out for him anyways?  Add 2 million to his gross pay and that’s what 28 other teams would have to pay to make his current contract the same and you can bet TB wishes they paid him 7 x 8 when they could have....And you can bet McKinnon wants a re-do of his last contract...and can’t wait for free agency, Pastrnak to a lesser degree.   It’s all about paying for the UFA years (not paying for potential), otherwise 6.5 x 5 is about what we will see with Brock.   If we want him for longer it will go up each year we want him (6,7,8).   The cap is slowing down (more than 10% a year the first decade) but its still going up and up, wages will be a lot higher in five years then they are now.  

 

7.5-8 is the new 6 million, which is what Eberle and pals got (eventually Hall won a Hart) it’s what happens when the cap goes from 60ish-80ish million. 

[IBatch]

On 5/28/2019 at 11:33 PM, kloubek said:

There are clearly two perspectives to this. 

 

Sign for a lower amount for a shorter term.  Say, 6-6.5 for 3 years.  From his perspective this gives him time to prove consistency and ability before really cashing in for some 8-8.5 later in his prime. If he really takes off and the cap is higher, he may even be worth more at that time.

 

Or, sign him for 7.5-8 now for 8 years.  We might be overpaying initially, but we would be banking on his final years being undervalued - which helps ease our cap burden when we need it.

 

The latter is a risk for the team, but if it pays off it allows better cap control in a few years.  Personally, I would be happy to take that risk.  Brock is a solid character guy and I feel he is the kind of guy to try his best and has a drive to improve.  His injuries have been freak situational things and I am not concerned he is injury prone as a couple have made him out to be.

 

I think a peak Brock in a few years at 7.5 would end up a steal for us, and it isn't really an issue to overpay him a bit now while we have the extra space.

This pretty much sums it up.  A bridge deal would be ok, and part of me likes this more because we can keep him even longer, but starting maybe as soon as next year EP and BB are going to light it up.  In three years they will be in his early prime, and destroying goalies...don’t see him as injury risk at all, last year he had a slow start still under recovery and each month he got a bit better until March where he was a PPGer (and that’s with EP going the other way).   That’s the player I think we have, a 40-40 guy who one day might 90-100.   Guys that can do that are hard to come by ...

[WeneedLumme]

1 hour ago, IBatch said:

This pretty much sums it up.  A bridge deal would be ok, and part of me likes this more because we can keep him even longer, but starting maybe as soon as next year EP and BB are going to light it up.  In three years they will be in his early prime, and destroying goalies...don’t see him as injury risk at all, last year he had a slow start still under recovery and each month he got a bit better until March where he was a PPGer (and that’s with EP going the other way).   That’s the player I think we have, a 40-40 guy who one day might 90-100.   Guys that can do that are hard to come by ...

... and extremely expensive. Like if he does produce 40-40 for a couple of years, I don't think there will be much chance of signing him for a mere $8M. 

[oldnews]

I'm not in favour of foregoing bridge contracts - for a range of reasons I'm not going to repeat here.

 

Bridge deal - not a penny more than Horvat.

 

Players don't earn veteran contracts in their ELCs imo, period.  Retain more cap flexibility, and a greater/longer window to competitiveness - do not get caught up in the trend that is eliminating the bridge deals - it's a bad precedent.

 

Buy more of Boeser's UFA years after the bridge.