[Speculation] Canucks clearing Cap for Hamonic

[Provost]

7 hours ago, Ray_Cathode said:

At this stage in the team’s development I’d prefer to stop wasting time and money on superannuated vets. Develop the kids, they are far enough along. If that doesn’t work, pick up a vet, they are waiting on the sideline desperate for a job. Heck, we already have one no longer good enough for this league, why double our misery. If we have to use a guy who is marginal, why not use a young marginal guy they just might get better. Surely one of Rafferty, Chatfield, Rathbone, Juolevi, Brisbois, or Sautner is a player. This is how we got to have a team of albatrosses that we regret having: Eriksson, Sutter, Roussel, and now Ferland (a player with concussion issues) that we gave up valuable cap in a risky move. You can’t expect to keep making the same mistakes and end up to be in a better place. At least with the young guys we might be making different mistakes, but they don’t lead to ongoing misery and might have a positive payback.

I think you are conflating different things.  Experienced vets on cheap one year contracts are a good thing.  Expensive vets on long term contracts are a bad thing.  Hamonic would be cheaper than Benn and only on a 1 year deal.

I am fairly confident that one of the young guys is ready for a bottom pairing role.  I am absolutely NOT confident that any of them are ready for a top 4 role, even just for injury spot filling.  Benn is pretty clearly not capable of doing that either.  If we don't have a reasonably reliable 3rd pairing, the tpo 4 will get overplayed and at least one of them is going to get hurt during the course of the season.  A 3rd pairing of Juolevi-Hamonic is one that can get a reasonable amount of 5 on 5 minutes.  A 3rd pairing of Juolevi-Benn isn't going to play that much.

[Diamonds]

48 minutes ago, Provost said:

I think you are conflating different things.  Experienced vets on cheap one year contracts are a good thing.  Expensive vets on long term contracts are a bad thing.  Hamonic would be cheaper than Benn and only on a 1 year deal.

I am fairly confident that one of the young guys is ready for a bottom pairing role.  I am absolutely NOT confident that any of them are ready for a top 4 role, even just for injury spot filling.  Benn is pretty clearly not capable of doing that either.  If we don't have a reasonably reliable 3rd pairing, the tpo 4 will get overplayed and at least one of them is going to get hurt during the course of the season.  A 3rd pairing of Juolevi-Hamonic is one that can get a reasonable amount of 5 on 5 minutes.  A 3rd pairing of Juolevi-Benn isn't going to play that much.

I definitely agree with this sentiment. My concern with the defense corp is not really one when healthy but what happens when a top 4 gets injured. I think this is where the loss of Stecher could be felt. When fully healthy I don't think the Canucks are any weaker than last year but the value of Stecher was more in his ability to play spot duty in the top 4.

 

I am absolutely for trying to get Hamonic if just for the peace of mind knowing there is someone capable of spot duty. Also, since he's been on the market for so long now he can probably be signed for 1-2 years at <2M AAV. As an additional note, I also think he would be a much better mentor than Benn for Juolevi. 

[higgyfan]

5 hours ago, Me_ said:

Man. Can’t believe Tanev and Markstrom signed with the Flamers. 29 other teams.

Not sure about 29 other teams wanting these guys.  Awful lot of teams close to (or over) the cap right now.  Still, love Tanev, but I would be overjoyed if the Canucks can pick up Hamonic at 1.5-2M for 1 year, over Chris' 4.5M for 4yrs.  I also think JB made the best choice in letting Marky go.  He will definitely be missed by the team, but 6mx6yrs would not be a good contract for the Canucks at this point.

 

Calgary is lucky to have those guys though.  Potentially, they have vastly improved.

[vannuck59]

6 hours ago, janisahockeynut said:

IMO, a 20 year old Rathbone is better than a 25 year old Rafferty

LOL Rathbone is better than Rafferty how do you figure that ? Rafferty may surprise a lot of people. Rathbone plays on the left and Rafferty on the right . Rafferty is 6.2 Rathbone is 5.11 so there is that. Lets see how they play before calling on or the other better.

[Provost]

4 hours ago, Diamonds said:

I definitely agree with this sentiment. My concern with the defense corp is not really one when healthy but what happens when a top 4 gets injured. I think this is where the loss of Stecher could be felt. When fully healthy I don't think the Canucks are any weaker than last year but the value of Stecher was more in his ability to play spot duty in the top 4.

 

I am absolutely for trying to get Hamonic if just for the peace of mind knowing there is someone capable of spot duty. Also, since he's been on the market for so long now he can probably be signed for 1-2 years at <2M AAV. As an additional note, I also think he would be a much better mentor than Benn for Juolevi. 

... and to me adding Hamonic doesn’t knock a kid out of the lineup... it knocks Benn out of the lineup.

 

It also avoids the problem of just burying a young kid’s confidence by throwing them into 25 minutes a night against tough competition invade of an injury.  That hurts their development, not helps it.

 

We will make do without the add if we have to, but we would be better off on all fronts by having an extra veteran.

[J.I.A.H.N]

1 minute ago, vannuck59 said:

LOL Rathbone is better than Rafferty how do you figure that ? Rafferty may surprise a lot of people. Rathbone plays on the left and Rafferty on the right . Rafferty is 6.2 Rathbone is 5.11 so there is that. Lets see how they play before calling on or the other better.

Ok, since you asked

 

Rafferty, at no time was a ranked prospect, nor did he ever really get talked about, until his senior year.......Rafferty is decent on offense but has large holes in his defensive game

as stated by numerous sources

 

Rathbone on the other hand was ranked at his draft and has since been evaluated as higher in a re-draft area. Not only that, he had much better stats, in the NCAA as compared to Rafferty. Rathbone has also been spoken of in very positive manner, when comparing his defense to that of Fox, who as you know plays for the NYR

 

Now, as you pointed out, they play different sides, and have not actually been to camp together, so until then, it is purely conjecture......and I do agree..........

 

However, in saying that, it is my opinion, from everything I have read, that Rathbone has a much higher ceiling than Rafferty, and Benning's search for another RHD, somewhat echo's that sentiment.........Compare Fox vs Rathbone vs Marino., in terms of their NCAA stats at Harvard.......read some reports on Rathbone during that time, specifically, when Rathbone and Fox played together, and specifically when Fox was hurt and Rathbone ran the power play.......

 

In the end, yo could be right, but I would put my money on a 20 year old, over a 25 year old, that still only gets talked about as a bottom 4 guy. That is not to say that Rafferty could not surprisee...and I hope he does

 

If Rafferty had pushed the Canucks harder for a better look see, I would be a little more hot on him.

 

But.

[vannuck59]

49 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said:

f Rafferty had pushed the Canucks harder for a better look see, I would be a little more hot on him.

Fair enough I still want to see Rafferty play yes Rathbone has more hype I agree but when Button says Rafferty  is NHL ready I will go with what he says no doubt Rathbone has maybe a higher ceiling but until they lace them up you wont know. 

[Tracksuit]

Hope we just go with the kids on a modified shortened Fd up season. 
 

perfect season to get the young guns into The NHL. 
 

or pay to get rid of bad contracts using drafts picks and Or prospects and get a guy that Jim will no doubt once again  over pay in a short season and if it’s more than 1 year most likely have to protect him. Potentially costing more young players. 
 

 

[lmm]

7 hours ago, Diamonds said:

I definitely agree with this sentiment. My concern with the defense corp is not really one when healthy but what happens when a top 4 gets injured. I think this is where the loss of Stecher could be felt. When fully healthy I don't think the Canucks are any weaker than last year but the value of Stecher was more in his ability to play spot duty in the top 4.

 

I am absolutely for trying to get Hamonic if just for the peace of mind knowing there is someone capable of spot duty. Also, since he's been on the market for so long now he can probably be signed for 1-2 years at <2M AAV. As an additional note, I also think he would be a much better mentor than Benn for Juolevi. 

Is Hamonic even on the market?

He Skipped bubble hockey because he did not want to leave/ endanger his family.

What makes you think he wants to play this year?

 

if he is going to play, why not Winnipeg?

Edited December 17, 2020 by lmm

[RWMc1]

We can create approx. 1.775 million in cap space without putting Ferland on LTIR. Waive Loui, Sven, and Benn, and  reassign Rathbone. Put Juolevi as 3rd pairing left D.

 

If we go with what we have then we waive Loui and Sven and switch Rathbone with Juolevi and still have a little over $700,000.00 for the last spot. Coincidentally, several of our options all get paid $700,000.00.

 

Edited December 18, 2020 by RWMc1

[reyezone]

4 hours ago, janisahockeynut said:

Ok, since you asked

 

Rafferty, at no time was a ranked prospect, nor did he ever really get talked about, until his senior year.......Rafferty is decent on offense but has large holes in his defensive game

as stated by numerous sources

 

Rathbone on the other hand was ranked at his draft and has since been evaluated as higher in a re-draft area. Not only that, he had much better stats, in the NCAA as compared to Rafferty. Rathbone has also been spoken of in very positive manner, when comparing his defense to that of Fox, who as you know plays for the NYR

 

Now, as you pointed out, they play different sides, and have not actually been to camp together, so until then, it is purely conjecture......and I do agree..........

 

However, in saying that, it is my opinion, from everything I have read, that Rathbone has a much higher ceiling than Rafferty, and Benning's search for another RHD, somewhat echo's that sentiment.........Compare Fox vs Rathbone vs Marino., in terms of their NCAA stats at Harvard.......read some reports on Rathbone during that time, specifically, when Rathbone and Fox played together, and specifically when Fox was hurt and Rathbone ran the power play.......

 

In the end, yo could be right, but I would put my money on a 20 year old, over a 25 year old, that still only gets talked about as a bottom 4 guy. That is not to say that Rafferty could not surprisee...and I hope he does

 

If Rafferty had pushed the Canucks harder for a better look see, I would be a little more hot on him.

 

But.

Fingers crossed they both pan out. 
 

[ilduce39]

It’s also about team balance.. right now Schmidt, Hughes, Myers and prime young guys Juolevi, Rathbone and Rafferty are not known as defensive defence men.  (Juolevi has done some PK lately.)  

 

Adding Hamonic gives us a solid RHD who’s focus is in the D zone... and he seems like a better bet than Benn to be able to step into the top 4.  Paired with Hughes in a Tanev-role it leaves a likely Juolevi-Myers 3rd pairing which could be great going against average competition. 
 

It just makes the roster feel a lot more balanced.

[stawns]

12 hours ago, ilduce39 said:

It’s also about team balance.. right now Schmidt, Hughes, Myers and prime young guys Juolevi, Rathbone and Rafferty are not known as defensive defence men.  (Juolevi has done some PK lately.)  

 

Adding Hamonic gives us a solid RHD who’s focus is in the D zone... and he seems like a better bet than Benn to be able to step into the top 4.  Paired with Hughes in a Tanev-role it leaves a likely Juolevi-Myers 3rd pairing which could be great going against average competition. 
 

It just makes the roster feel a lot more balanced.

OJ is a solid PK'er and potentially excellent shot blocker

[garthsbutcher]

15 hours ago, RWMc1 said:

We can create approx. 1.775 million in cap space without putting Ferland on LTIR. Waive Loui, Sven, Benn, and Rathbone. Put Juolevi as 3rd pairing left D.

 

If we go with what we have then we waive Loui, Sven and Rathbone and put Juolevi on the roster and still have a little over $700,000.00 for the last spot. Coincidentally, several of our options all get paid $700,000.00.

 

Waive Rathbone? lol

[Chris12345]

15 hours ago, RWMc1 said:

We can create approx. 1.775 million in cap space without putting Ferland on LTIR. Waive Loui, Sven, Benn, and Rathbone. Put Juolevi as 3rd pairing left D.

 

If we go with what we have then we waive Loui, Sven and Rathbone and put Juolevi on the roster and still have a little over $700,000.00 for the last spot. Coincidentally, several of our options all get paid $700,000.00.

 

Although waivers could help with an operational issue I question the cash flow impact.

 

AKA cutting cheques for $10M for players to go to the minors while the business struggles.

[RWMc1]

25 minutes ago, Chris12345 said:

Although waivers could help with an operational issue I question the cash flow impact.

 

AKA cutting cheques for $10M for players to go to the minors while the business struggles.

Why are they going to the minors? This isn't going to be a regular season. They will most likely be waived and not reassigned and will be available for the inevitable injuries.

 

We have 15 forwards and 6 D men on the roster right now. We are over the cap and the only way to get under is to move salary or waive at least two players. Loui and Sven are the least likely to be picked up on waivers and switching Juolevi and Rathbone gives us enough for a $700,00.00 player. Brisebois, Chatfield, Sautner, Teves, and Rafferty all have a $700,00.00 salary. I doubt that's a coincidence.

[Chris12345]

8 minutes ago, RWMc1 said:

Why are they going to the minors? This isn't going to be a regular season. They will most likely be waived and not reassigned and will be available for the inevitable injuries.

 

We have 15 forwards and 6 D men on the roster right now. We are over the cap and the only way to get under is to move salary or waive at least two players. Loui and Sven are the least likely to be picked up on waivers and switching Juolevi and Rathbone gives us enough for a $700,00.00 player. Brisebois, Chatfield, Sautner, Teves, and Rafferty all have a $700,00.00 salary. I doubt that's a coincidence.

Minors...press box...waivers. Still adding payroll in a tough business environment.

[Sean Monahan]

16 hours ago, ilduce39 said:

It’s also about team balance.. right now Schmidt, Hughes, Myers and prime young guys Juolevi, Rathbone and Rafferty are not known as defensive defence men.  (Juolevi has done some PK lately.)  

 

Adding Hamonic gives us a solid RHD who’s focus is in the D zone... and he seems like a better bet than Benn to be able to step into the top 4.  Paired with Hughes in a Tanev-role it leaves a likely Juolevi-Myers 3rd pairing which could be great going against average competition. 
 

It just makes the roster feel a lot more balanced.

Schmidt isn’t purely a defensive defence man but he’s known to be very reliable defensively. He played harder minutes than Tanev last year with better outcomes. 

[Ray_Cathode]

On 12/16/2020 at 9:07 AM, aGENT said:

What kind of money does he want?

 

Pretty sure that given he only wants to play in Western Canada (highly limiting the market for him) and given Covid financials, he's looking at a short, likely one year deal, at something closer to $1-$2m

 

He'd be an upgrade on Benn and added veteran depth for injuries. One kid is still quite likely making the squad and others will see time with injuries and the condensed schedule.

He might be an upgrade on Benn, but we still have Benn filling up cap space - why double up on something that is already a mistake. It’s just sending good money after bad - one of the worst bad habits in business, and the Vancouver Canucks are a business.

[aGENT]

3 minutes ago, Ray_Cathode said:

He might be an upgrade on Benn, but we still have Benn filling up cap space - why double up on something that is already a mistake. It’s just sending good money after bad - one of the worst bad habits in business, and the Vancouver Canucks are a business.

The team could use added veteran depth for injuries. Particularly in a compressed schedule. That's not 'doubling up' it's prudent roster construction. Particularly if we're to assume Hamonic comes on a cheap, one year deal as rumoured. And who's declaring Benn 'bad money'? 

 

That business is also a sports and entertainment  business. One whose performance can directly link to it's revenue. It's in their own interest to ice the best roster they can, ideally including one that can make some sort of playoff run where they make additional revenue. If Benning can make him fit under the cap and his boss has approved the spending to do so, I see zero reason for not adding him. I'll let Francesco's bean counters worry about the financials.