Implications of a Boeser Hold Out

[goalie13]

Just now, Knucklehd said:

Laine has always seemed a little egotistical and a bit of a diva.  So no thanks.

Totally agree.

 

I was just curious how the poster that proposed the trade thought this would actually work.

[McBackup]

42 minutes ago, goalie13 said:

What makes you think the Canucks will have any easier of a time signing Laine than they are with Boeser?

 

32 minutes ago, Knucklehd said:

Laine has always seemed a little egotistical and a bit of a diva.  So no thanks.

Plus Laine would probably try to go home if they didn't allow Fortnite on the road.

[poet]

The person who benefits immensely from Boeser being out of the line-up is Goldobin.

 

And GMJB needs to stick to the Timo Meier comparison and not budge from that...even if it takes a while...

[Grape]

This is not a holdout whatsoever.

 

Boeser is a free agent. Even the saying "holding out for a contract" refers to players already with a contract holding out for a more lucrative contract.

 

Boeser is holding out as much as I am holding out right now. 

[spook007]

9 hours ago, 'NucK™ said:

Maybe if Torts hadn't treated him like s***, he'd still have some loyalty towards the Canucks. 

Maybe.... but he was sacked and gone. 

 

Florida got him a nice thing and he took it...despite knowing it would hurt the Canucks. The plight of Canucks is not Luongos problem and probably very low on his list of agendas. 

However, he signed the contract with Canucks and made lots of money on it. And even though the real villains are Buttman and the heads of the other NHL franchises, Lu made a decision that hurt the Canucks. So f him...and that trashy franchise he represents....

Edited September 16, 2019 by spook007

[mll]

14 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

@JamesB solid job on the assessment. 

 

In the short term if this actually spilled over into the season the team is deep enough to deal with, but the problem is the cap. As the season wears on the ability to deal with Brocks cap hit declines (as it did with Nylander). So this really can't go on much longer and certainly not well into the season.

 

I think as more and more reasonable deals like McAvoy's roll in we'll see Boesers agent relent, I do think agreeing on comparables is one of the main issues here and as these get done the correct number will present itself. 

 

A late signing actually helps their cap situation as it reduces the overall AAV of the contract.  As long as Boeser is not signed the Canucks will be banking cap space.  They are not in the same situation as Toronto with Marner who have to use LTIR, and where a late signing would have been problematic as they wouldn't be able to maximise LTIR relief.

 

Cap hits are pro-rated to the time on the roster.  Holding out reduces the AAV of the contract as it's calculated on the amount that can actually be paid out.

 

Assuming Boeser ultimately signs for that rumoured ask of 7M x 4 years.  There are 186 days this season.

 

Missing 30 days. The AAV would be 6.7M  instead of 7M.   156 days left / 186 days  x  7M + 3 years at 7M and then divided by 4.

Missing 60 days.  The AAV would be 6.4M

etc.  the AAV goes down the longer he sits out.

 

With a late signing CapFriendly will show an inflated cap hit for the first season instead of recording the same AAV all through the contract.  It gets pro-rated up so that if you pro-rate it back down to the remaining days left it is indeed the AAV of the contract.

 

Under that example with a 30 day holdout, his 1st year's AAV will be 8.0M - 186 days / 156 days left x 6.7M.  Applying the pro-rata of 156 days left on 8.0M will give the contract's AAV of 6.7M.

 

Nylander held out - they've recorded a cap hit of 10.277M for the season.  Pro-rating it back to the 126 days he actually was on the roster - brings it down to 6.962M which is the AAV of his contract.  https://www.capfriendly.com/teams/mapleleafs/cap-tracker

 

Had Nylander signed immediately his AAV would have been 7.5M - it was a 45M contract over 6 years but it dropped down to 41.77M, because of the holdout where he didn't get his full 10M in salary last season.  The bonus is paid in full though and Boeser will probably ask to get max signing bonus this 1st year - the AAV won't drop as much if bonuses are maximised that 1st year.

 

As long as the Canucks are operating below the final AAV of the contract it's no issue.  The longer he waits the lower the AAV and the less cap space they need to keep available.

 

[JM_]

1 hour ago, mll said:

 

A late signing actually helps their cap situation as it reduces the overall AAV of the contract.  As long as Boeser is not signed the Canucks will be banking cap space.  They are not in the same situation as Toronto with Marner who have to use LTIR, and where a late signing would have been problematic as they wouldn't be able to maximise LTIR relief.

 

Cap hits are pro-rated to the time on the roster.  Holding out reduces the AAV of the contract as it's calculated on the amount that can actually be paid out.

 

Assuming Boeser ultimately signs for that rumoured ask of 7M x 4 years.  There are 186 days this season.

 

Missing 30 days. The AAV would be 6.7M  instead of 7M.   156 days left / 186 days  x  7M + 3 years at 7M and then divided by 4.

Missing 60 days.  The AAV would be 6.4M

etc.  the AAV goes down the longer he sits out.

 

With a late signing CapFriendly will show an inflated cap hit for the first season instead of recording the same AAV all through the contract.  It gets pro-rated up so that if you pro-rate it back down to the remaining days left it is indeed the AAV of the contract.

 

Under that example with a 30 day holdout, his 1st year's AAV will be 8.0M - 186 days / 156 days left x 6.7M.  Applying the pro-rata of 156 days left on 8.0M will give the contract's AAV of 6.7M.

 

Nylander held out - they've recorded a cap hit of 10.277M for the season.  Pro-rating it back to the 126 days he actually was on the roster - brings it down to 6.962M which is the AAV of his contract.  https://www.capfriendly.com/teams/mapleleafs/cap-tracker

 

Had Nylander signed immediately his AAV would have been 7.5M - it was a 45M contract over 6 years but it dropped down to 41.77M, because of the holdout where he didn't get his full 10M in salary last season.  The bonus is paid in full though and Boeser will probably ask to get max signing bonus this 1st year - the AAV won't drop as much if bonuses are maximised that 1st year.

 

As long as the Canucks are operating below the final AAV of the contract it's no issue.  The longer he waits the lower the AAV and the less cap space they need to keep available.

 

thanks for that, I thought the inflated numbers mean the actual cap hit 

[mll]

17 hours ago, JamesB said:

....

 

Boeser's PP numbers might not be as high as Ferland or Miller's but need to also look at where they stand vs their PP teammates too.  Pettersson and Horvat are not yet at the PP level of Kucherov/Point/Stamkos but what's the gap?  Boeser is a goal scorer on the PP - maybe the G60 is more relevant.  Stamkos, Kucherov, Point were 40+ goal scorers so it impacts the numbers of whoever makes the pass.

 

There was a study that looked at every PP goal scored two or three seasons ago - only 25% of goals scored started with a play from the point.  Most teams are only using 1 D.

 

The New York Times had an article up earlier this year talking of how PP scoring is up despite less opportunities.  The coaches, players interviewed all agree that the increase in efficiency is due to skills.  In Washington they try to hide what they want to do and create plays that will trick the goalie.  Schneider says lateral plays are the hardest to stop.

 

It's not dissimilar to 5v5 scoring where some teams are moving towards creating plays that will be hard for the goalie to stop rather than just getting pucks on net and muscle their way to score a garbage goal.  Trotz thinks that shots on net is not necessarily the best strategy.  He talks of not wasting shots and is focused on creating high scoring opportunities.  Washington went from one of the best Corsi teams in the league to the one who took the least shots the season they finally won the Cup.

 

Boeser pretty much shoots at every opportunity.  No one can replace his shot.  If they want to score as he scores that's unlikely to happen but they could compensate by doing more what Trotz is doing.

 

Linemates matter.  Playing with Pettersson is a significant advantage over having someone like Sutter, Beagle or Gaudette as Cs.  Pettersson is by far the best playmaker on the team and his finishing skills are on par with Boeser's.   It's probably easier to get points playing with him than it is playing with anyone else on the team.  Leivo played primarily in the top-6 with Pettersson-Boeser while Virtanen only occasionally - that P60 number doesn't capture the difference in opportunity.   

Boeser is expected to be the goal scorer on the line - looking at goals per 60 might be more instructive as it's primarily his goal scoring that needs to be replaced.

 

There's also OT numbers to consider.  The Canucks had 22 wins in regular time - bottom-5 but had some of the most wins past regular time with 13 (7 in OT and 6 in shootouts).  OT and shootouts are not necessarily replicable year on year but Boeser was a key part of them.

 

Edited September 16, 2019 by mll

[Fred65]

To me the difference this season is they have Myers, Hughes and Edler for the point. And the biggest difference is Hughes can walk the line which makes covering off passing lanes more difficult. I'm not sure if Myers can do this, Edler not so. As a result I tend to believe Beoser will get better passes with better shooting opportunities and remember EP plays the other wall

[Puckster]

At this point in time ....It's time to play hardball!

BB just missed training camp... which in theory hurts the Team. If JB offerred 7 mil over 6 years , and it was not accepted.... my new Offer would be

6.5 mil over 7 years and if not accepted by the fist official game.... off to europe you go for a year.

You are either a TEAM player or you are not.....There is no I in team!!!!

[stawns]

32 minutes ago, Puckster said:

At this point in time ....It's time to play hardball!

BB just missed training camp... which in theory hurts the Team. If JB offerred 7 mil over 6 years , and it was not accepted.... my new Offer would be

6.5 mil over 7 years and if not accepted by the fist official game.... off to europe you go for a year.

You are either a TEAM player or you are not.....There is no I in team!!!!

my guess is JB is offering 2-3 years around $5-5.5m tops.  Hopefully everyday he holds out, JB takes a little more off the table.  The top 6, without Boeser, still looks pretty decent.

[Rollieo Del Fuego]

21 hours ago, JamesB said:

Boeser in now an official "holdout" in the sense that training camp is underway and not being in camp probably hurts both Boeser and the team. I am not blaming Boeser, just noting the obvious fact that he is holding out.

 

Based on a poll on the CDC website, the vast majority of CDC readers believe that he will sign before the season starts. And I think he probably will, but the vast majority of CDC readers thought he would sign before the start of camp, even as recently as about ten days ago.

 

The primary question I am raising in this thread is "what would be the consequences of lengthy hold-out"? How much would it hurt the team, and in what way.

 

I Background

Bofore turning to that --just a brief reminder of where the negotiations seem to be. Neither side has confirmed anything and both say they want to negotiate in private, not in the media. However, a lot of people have some knowledge of what is going on and leaks do occur. One plausible claim is that the Canucks have offered 6 years at an AAV of 7 million per year. Earlier there was a claim that the Boeser camp had suggested 4 years at an AAV of 7 million per year. Both these claims are plausible and neither side has actually denied them. But obviously we do not really know. And term and AAV are not the only things that matter. The distribution of signing bonus vs. salary matters and the time pattern of the payments matter. (Players cannot get NTC and NMCs in their RFA years.)

 

Just looking at the recent evolution of the cap and Boeser's likely trajectory, I would project that Boeser would be about 9 in AAV after a 4-year deal ends, so I think the difference between the reported offer is about 4 million -- Boeser gets 7 million a year in years 5 and 6 instead of 9 million under the alleged Canuck offer. But there is a lot of uncertainty.

 

II. What do the Canucks do without Boeser.

 

PK. Boeser does not play on the PK, so the PK is unaffected by Boeser's absence.

 

PP. Boeser is regarded as a key part of the PP. But here is where things get interesting. I think PP performance is one of the easiest things to assess with numbers. You don't need to worry (much) about defensive play or physical play on the PP.  And quality of competition and quality of teammates vary a lot less than in 5-on-5 play. The only real objective is just to score. Players who get more opportunities will score more so I think  points per 60 minutes is a good measure. Here are the numbers from last year for the forwards currently under consideration for the PP.

 

1. JT Miller: 6.41

2. Ferland: 5.84

3. Baertschi: 5.79

4. Pettersson: 5.08

5. Horvat: 3.91

6. Boeser: 3.76

7. Goldobin: 3.46

8. Pearson: 3.14

9. Leivo 2.1

 

It was often discussed last year that Baer has excellent PP numbers, but it is striking that both Miller and Ferland had better numbers than any Canuck. And it was not second assists, either. Their lead would be even bigger if we look at primary points (goals and first assists).

 

Of course, a lot of factors go into designing PP units -- the players must be complementary, you need a couple of shooters, a PP QB, a net front presence. And we have to expect that younger guys (like EP) will improve.

 

I would add that Edler had excellent PP numbers last year, as he always does (5.64 PP60). It is arguable that the Canucks should go with two Ds -- Edler and Hughes on the first unit (and having two left shots is no problem on the PP.) With EP as the playmaker/QB and Horvat as the net-front presence, I think Baer, Miller, Ferland, and Boeser would all be contenders for the other spot if Boeser were available. I admit that the Canucks would probably go with Boeser on the first unit, but it is not obvious that the Canucks would lose much from the first unit PP if Boeser was not on it.

 

5-on-5

At 5-on-5 things are harder to read and it looks like the loss of Boeser would be more serious. In terms of 5-on-5 scoring per 60 here is what we have from last year:

 

1. EP: 2.47

2. Boeser: 2.28

3. Roussel: 1.98

4. Ferland: 1.67

5. Miller: 1.64

6. Horvat: 1.59

7. Baertschi: 1.43

8. Schaller: 1.4

9. Eriksson: 1.38

10. Goldy: 1.37

11. Virtanen: 1.26

12. Leivo: 1.17 (includes full year)

13. Pearson: 1.17 (includes full year;he was much better in Vancouver)

14. Gaudette: 1.15

15. Motte: 0.91

16. Sutter: 0.72

17. Beagle: 0.70

 

Based on scoring, there appears to be no one to replace Boeser on the first line. With Roussel injured, there is a big drop-off from Boeser to Ferland and the rest. If the effect of not having Boeser is to give Goldy or Leivo or even Baertschi a shot with EP, it looks like a big step back from Boeser. Possibly playing with EP gave Boeser a boost and whoever plays with him this year would also get a boost, but it looks from the data that the Canucks do not really have an alternative legitimate 1RW. (And, no, it won't be Virtanen.)

 

One possibility would be EP with Ferland and Miller -- that probably gives the strongest first line. Then Horvat could play with Pearson (assuming that he plays as did late last year with Vancouver) and maybe Baertschi.

 

Effect on other Players

 

If the Canucks are serious about wanting a "top 9" (three scoring lines) instead of a top six. it does not make sense to have Sutter or Beagle at 3C. (Yes, Sutter's numbers last year were likely depressed by playing hurt, but he has never been a good playmaker.) Maybe a Boeser hold-out makes room on the roster for Gaudette, who could play 3C.

 

Maybe a Boeser hold-out makes it possible keep Loui Eriksson in the line-up. The Eriksson contract is a terrible contract, but Eriksson is still a good player. He would be a great deal at $2 million instead of $6 million. In the numbers, he looks like the Canucks BEST PK foward and his secondary scoring is actually a lot better than Beagle or Sutter (or Leivo or Motte).

 

Conclusion

Obviously Boeser helps the team a lot and missing him is a big loss. He is very popular with the fans (and for good reason). He seems like a very high-character guy. But his value to the team may be somewhat over-rated. He has the most important skill in hockey --putting the puck in the net. But he is not a complete player -- not fast, not great defensively, not physical, and does not drive play. He is not in the same league as EP.

 

I would love to have him sign but if I were JB I would hold firm on the offer. If JB has offered 6 years at an AAV of 7 million, I think that is a very reasonable offer -- toward the high end of how I see the comparables.

 

In any case, if Boeser does hold out for a while it raises a lot interesting story lines and might provide opportunities for other guys who can help the team in the long run, so the team will be even stronger when Boeser does eventually come on board.

 

Thanks for reading.

Excellent analysis...!

 

Although I think Eriksson's numbers are a bit off in relation to reality...he is a good PK guy and a decent 4th liner overall ...but his giveaways and missed assignments, even in limited minutes, are too much to ignore.

It may be that scoring an own goal, I think it was his first shift as a Canuck, but it was early in his first game...was just too much for him to recover from...the jinx was on and hasn't left yet.

 

I hope he can somehow make it lift and put in 20 goals while sporting a positive +/-...but I won't be holding my breath.

 

On the positive side...playing Gaudette if he deserves it...and he will...is all bonus and whoever play's with EP will see a bump...that's a given.

 

Here we go with a new season and a deep team...take note Brock...we only need you if you are here is what it comes down too....!

[JamesB]

18 hours ago, Alflives said:

Bess is NOT HOLDING OUT.  He doesn’t have a contract.  

 

17 hours ago, qwijibo said:

Hes not in camp. He’s holding out for a contract  that he’s willing to sign.  Therefore he is a holdout 

It does not usually pay to get caught up in semantic issues, but I can't resist.

 

1. The word "holdout" is commonly used in a variety of ways. It is common to say that player who has not yet signed despite efforts to sign him is a "holdout". For example, see this article from the NHL website: https://www.nhl.com/news/kyle-turris-ends-holdout-signs-two-year-deal-with-phoenix-coyotes/c-602703

The URL makes it obvious. The NHL says that Turris ended his "holdout" by signing a contract,

 

2. The word "holdout" is not defined in the CBA. At least I did a search and did not find anything under hold out or holdout. So there is no "official" NHL definition. That means we are left with just ordinary language. I just search in Google and the first definition that popped up was from the Oxford Dictionary, which is:

 

"an act of resisting something or refusing to accept what is offered."

 

"refusing to accept what is offered" seems to fit this situation pretty much exactly.

 

3. Obviously we need some word to describe guys who are not at camp because they have not yet agreed on contracts. Calling them "guys who are not at camp because they have not yet agreed on contracts" all the time would be kind of inefficient. Holdout seems like a good word to use instead. If Alf or anyone else has a better word, feel free to use it.

 

Bottom line: I am holding out on this. I think "holdout" is the right word.

[250Integra]

Building Brock? how about build him a damn contract!

[goalie13]

1 hour ago, JamesB said:

It does not usually pay to get caught up in semantic issues, but I can't resist.

 

1. The word "holdout" is commonly used in a variety of ways. It is common to say that player who has not yet signed despite efforts to sign him is a "holdout". For example, see this article from the NHL website: https://www.nhl.com/news/kyle-turris-ends-holdout-signs-two-year-deal-with-phoenix-coyotes/c-602703

The URL makes it obvious. The NHL says that Turris ended his "holdout" by signing a contract,

 

2. The word "holdout" is not defined in the CBA. At least I did a search and did not find anything under hold out or holdout. So there is no "official" NHL definition. That means we are left with just ordinary language. I just search in Google and the first definition that popped up was from the Oxford Dictionary, which is:

 

"an act of resisting something or refusing to accept what is offered."

 

"refusing to accept what is offered" seems to fit this situation pretty much exactly.

 

3. Obviously we need some word to describe guys who are not at camp because they have not yet agreed on contracts. Calling them "guys who are not at camp because they have not yet agreed on contracts" all the time would be kind of inefficient. Holdout seems like a good word to use instead. If Alf or anyone else has a better word, feel free to use it.

 

Bottom line: I am holding out on this. I think "holdout" is the right word.

Who says Brock is the one holding out?  How do we know his agent hasn't made an offer of what Brock feels is fair value and it's the team that is holding out on signing up for that offer?

 

While I agree, there is no official definition, it is still a word typically used for those that are under contract but refusing to report.

 

For Brock's situation I prefer, "unsigned" or "still negotiating".

 

And while I am here...

 

 

[CharlieChan]

I think the first line will be Ferland EP & Gaudette like other have said I don't think this will be a a huge drop off with our full team.

Not interested in paying full ufa dollars for a rfa.

Too many risks for that.

I agree the new offer should be lower.

Brock has never scored 30 goals in a NHL season or play a full a full 82.

We should be prepared to go the whole without him.

If he wants a trade I would trade him for  Matt Dumba.

Or Brock & LE for Zucker & Dumba

[BrockBoester]

3 hours ago, stawns said:

my guess is JB is offering 2-3 years around $5-5.5m tops.  Hopefully everyday he holds out, JB takes a little more off the table.  The top 6, without Boeser, still looks pretty decent.

Your guess is laughable and your logic of the top 6 being "pretty decent" minus Boeser is just trolling IMHO

Edited September 16, 2019 by BrockBoester

[BrockBoester]

24 minutes ago, CharlieChan said:

I think the first line will be Ferland EP & Gaudette like other have said I don't think this will be a a huge drop off with our full team.

 

Brock has never scored 30 goals in a NHL season or play a full a full 82.

We should be prepared to go the whole without him.

 

Spoiler

 

[stawns]

6 minutes ago, BrockBoester said:

Your guess is laughable and your logic of the top 6 being "pretty decent" minus Boeser is just trolling IMHO

Easy big fella

[BrockBoester]

50 minutes ago, stawns said:

Easy big fella