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

[Report] 40 players elect salary arbitration


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, oldnews said:

I think they have a very good handle on it overall.

Benning himself admitted that he couldn't add more players because he has no cap.

 

Usually teams that haven't sniffed the playoffs for the last 4 years nor had any expectations to (or perhaps even desire to, if you're one of the people that thinks they were in a rebuild, which isn't even something people can agree on, which tells you what kind of "rebuild" it was, but I digress) aren't cash strapped, especially if they haven't acquired any cap dumps on purpose.

 

And if you're going to blame Luongo's 3 million recapture then you have simply have your head in the hand. This isn't 2, 3, 4 years ago when you could just "blame Gillis" and sweep it aside. The only Gillis players that are left are good ones that Benning has kept to make his team better (Horvat, Edler, Tanev, Markstrom). And Pettersson is due for a 10M raise in two years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, oldnews said:

That's not an 'admission' - it's reality.

That's what happens when you sign 6 players in free agency.

There's always a limit. 

They spent over 10 million.  They acquired another 5.25 in J.T. Miller.

And they got saddled with a recrap penalty that wasn't of their making.

they're limited in their ability to add yet more - after having addressed their 3 principal needs - and adding depth/Utica signings.

Yes, they added a lot.

Yes, next year we are likely the best team out of (what will be) the 6 years Benning has been on the job.

But we're still not close to a true contender and out of money, with all of it being Benning's doing outside of 3/81M. That's not... right lol.

Edited by kanucks25
  • Wat 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

Yes, they added a lot.

Yes, next year we are likely the best team out of (what will be) the 6 years Benning has been on the job.

But we're still not close to a true contender and out of money, with all of it being Benning's doing outside of 3/81M. That's not... right lol.

I try not to fool's game the future.

But where money is concerned, they're not 'out of' it - players expire, players get moved, youth from within emerge and create more flexibility - one of the advantages of having a prospect pool.

It's ironic - because being a 'contender' / self-declared Stanley Cup favorite', losing in the 1st round three years in a row, being unable to retain a number of your players, having to spend a 1st to dump a contract, still not having the cap to fill out your roster, and not having a single waiver exempt player on your roster - how a team manages that after #properly-rebuilding is curious, for sure.   I guess Bennig coulda done it the right way instead.  Or the other true tank models - Deamonton, Buffalo....dead horse material, but needless to say, not worth emulating.

 

I'm fairly confident that among Podkolzin, Juolevi, Woo, Madden, Gaudette, Hoglander, DiPietro, Lockwood, Sautner, MacEwen, Brisebois, Rathbone - Tryamkin - and a few other longshots - the Canucks will have a few young players to help provide ELC/RFA cap flexibility in the future.

  • Cheers 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, oldnews said:

I try not to fool's game the future.

 

3 minutes ago, oldnews said:

I'm fairly confident that ... in the future.

ok

 

And ELC support means nothing when that relief they provide is eaten up by the cap-dump/buy-out candidate UFAs you sign every year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Hutton Wink said:

Reality is, they COULD add another player, but it would mean reducing their flexibility in the season ahead and possibly require another move or two by season's start.  Rather like buying on a credit card versus cash.  They're just avoiding being reckless.

yeah - they realistically have 2 or 3 million cushion after Boeser.  Goldobin will be negligible relative to whomever gets assigned.

 

Would it be nice if that were 5 to 6 and they could pursue a Gusev, Ferland or whomever?  Of course - but that wasn't exactly within Benning's control.

 

In any event, if they were desperate to add another player, I'm pretty sure they could dump a Baertschi to an Ottawa for pennies on the dollar and sign an alternative - but I don't think they're anywhere neare that desperate.  If their biggest 'problem' is their competition at 2RW - with a number of reasonable possibilities - then they've had a pretty good summer at the July 5th mark.   There are still lots of ways to get things done - but little urgency imo.   When you get down to it, Podkolzin is probably a few years away - so one placeholder in the lineup is imo, to be expected at this point - and that could conceivably change either over the summer, or before the deadline, depending on a whole range of contingencies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, kanucks25 said:

 

ok

 

And ELC support means nothing when that relief they provide is eaten up by the cap-dump/buy-out candidate UFAs you sign every year.

Fool's gaming the future involves trying to predict a timeline to contending. 

Confident that their prospect pool will provide them some cap flexibility is another thing entirely - a false equivalency on your part.

  • Cheers 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, oldnews said:

yeah - they realistically have 2 or 3 million cushion after Boeser.  Goldobin will be negligible relative to whomever gets assigned.

 

Would it be nice if that were 5 to 6 and they could pursue a Gusev, Ferland or whomever?  Of course - but that wasn't exactly within Benning's control.

 

In any event, if they were desperate to add another player, I'm pretty sure they could dump a Baertschi to an Ottawa for pennies on the dollar and sign an alternative - but I don't think they're anywhere neare that desperate.  If their biggest 'problem' is their competition at 2RW - with a number of reasonable possibilities - then they've had a pretty good summer at the July 5th mark.   There are still lots of ways to get things done - but little urgency imo.   When you get down to it, Podkolzin is probably a few years away - so one placeholder in the lineup is imo, to be expected at this point - and that could conceivably change either over the summer, or before the deadline, depending on a whole range of contingencies.

If it's not urgent/important to sign anyone else to make us better, why was the Myers signing a good one? If we're waiting for a couple years when the prospects are ready and cap is freed up, why did we sign a 29 year-old to a long-term contract?

 

2 minutes ago, oldnews said:

Fool's gaming the future involves trying to predict a timeline to contending. 

Confident that their prospect pool will provide them some cap flexibility is another thing entirely - a false equivalency on your part.

Oh, so it's only not a fool's game to predict a future outcome for the stuff you want to predict. Got it.

  • Wat 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lineup has certainly improved over any of the previous 5 years.  Finally have a solid-looking defence with no more annual placeholders, with some capable reserves in the wings should/when injuries occur.  Have more scoring depth up front including a couple of young elite talents, and the bottom-6 is now solid as well.  Ideally the other top-6 spot will be earned from within organically, but if not there's plenty of season ahead to make other moves.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, kanucks25 said:

If it's not urgent/important to sign anyone else to make us better, why was the Myers signing a good one?

?

 

They needed

1) a RHD - signed Myers obviously.

2) a pwf top 6  - they got MIller, and drafted Pod.

3) a 3LHD (or Hutton).

 

They accomplished all those things.

 

It is not urgent - AT THIS POINT - to add another forward.

  • Cheers 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Hutton Wink said:

They're just avoiding being reckless.

Lol, this is rich.

 

Love how the amount we spent and got better is the perfect amount, and anymore wouldn't have been "good" for X reason.

 

So, it was good that we made our team better by signing Myers to the contract we did, but we need not sign a similar player to a similar contract that would also make us better (for example, Gardiner).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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