[proposa] The Vancouver Canucks and Jeff Skinner

[Patel Bure]

[proposa] The Vancouver Canucks and Jeff Skinner
 

While it’s no secret that Jeff Skinner has arguably the worst contract in the NHL right now, a closer inspection of his situation in Buffalo would reveal that he’s being grossly misused.   Make no mistake about it.  Skinner’s sharp decline isn’t age related (like a Patrick Marleau), or because the game changed on him (like a Milan Lucic), or because he doesn’t care (like a Matt Duchene), but rather, he’s simply being grossly misused.   Common sense would dictate that you should play Skinner with Eichel, Reinhart, or the now departed Eric Staal, but the coach, in his eternal genius, has Skinner playing with guys like Curtis Lazar and other forms of poo.  
 

Acquiring Skinner might be a good opportunity for the Canucks to unload some bad contracts in the off-season to Buffalo such as Eriksson, Beagle, and Roussel.   
 

Buffalo takes on 12 million of our crap because that crap will be off the books in 2022.   The Canucks take on Skinner under the assumption that he returns to his prolific goal scoring ways....the risk being that he doesn’t, and we end up getting an uglier version of Loui Eriksson at a worse term and cap hit.  Personally, I don’t think Skinner would end up like Eriksson given that we’d play him with either Pettersson or Horvat, but there’s always the risk.  I think it’s a risk worth taking.

 

Next season top 6.

 

Miller-Pettersson-Boeser

Skinner-Horvat-Hoglander/Podkolzin

 

Edited March 29, 2021 by DarkIndianRises

[Fanuck]

5 minutes ago, DarkIndianRises said:

  I think it’s a risk worth taking.

 

[BPA]

Skinner is currently 28yr old making $9M for the next 6 seasons after this one.  So he'll be about 34yr by the time the contract expires. 

 

He only got 60+ pts three times in his career but looks to be a 25-30 goal scorer (got 40g in BUF in 2018-19).

 

Don't think we want to go down the LE route again if his goal scoring ability dries up.  Last year Skinner only got 14 goals.  

 

Edited March 29, 2021 by BPA

[EternalCanuckFan]

If Buffalo agreed to retain half of Skinner's salary for the remainder of its very, very long term, then MAYBE it might cause a GM to bat an eye lash, but that contract is basically unmovable even if Skinner was approximating his level of production from 2-years ago.  Unless Skinner's able to exceed his prior performance and score at a PPG pace, this contract was and remains significant overpayment (not even considering this season) with huge long term risk.

 

The Canucks only have Eriksson for two more years and, if they buy him out this summer, will eat a bit more cap this year but won't be terrible the following year ($1M).  The Canucks are better off just toughing it out with Eriksson rather than bringing in a bloated contract with crazy term.

 

As for the Sabres, they have to hope that a change in coaching will help rejuvenate Skinner.  The whole team is dysfunctional right now though.  Unfortunately for Skinner, he's probably going to have to be there for the rest of his career.  Hopefully things work out OK for him.

[mpass1]

Wait till Buffalo buys out his contract, then try to sign him for cheap

[goalie13]

This is FAR too big a risk, especially considering the cap will be flat for the foreseeable future.

 

I would rather JB makes room for more players that are already in the pipeline than gifting a top line spot to some aging veteran.

[khay]

Another thing to consider is that getting Skinner at 9 mil completely destroys our cap structure.

 

EP and QH's agent will point to Skinner and ask why his clients can't get 9 mil in their next contracts. Bo, Brock, and JT will follow suit.

 

It's imperative that we maintain a healthy cap structure and avoid paying any one player too much money. Our team doesn't have a McDavid or Patrick Kane so the way we are going to win is by having a lot of good players at decent cap hits along with ELCs.

 

 

[Herberts Vasiljevs]

9 million of Jeff Skinner for another 6 years? No, that's our expansion cousin's problem....

[Makaramel MacKhiato]

I could honestly see Buffalo giving Seattle a 1st rounder and another prospect for Seattle to take Skinner in the expansion draft. 

 

I don't think Seattle will have the success Vegas did. They pay Skinner a lot, but really, who cares? They get 5 years of Skinner who will entertain, but ultimately get a great draft pick and a guy they can develop for the next 15. 

[Gurn]

[Lancaster]

I wonder how much does his decline relates to his history with concussions.  

His rise to be the next crop of up-and-coming superstars were delayed with multiple head injuries.  

 

Considering the Canucks are already up against the cap, it is troublesome to constantly needing to juggle $9 million should he be forced to LTIR a la Ferland.  

Any info on whether his salary is covered by insurance if he goes on LTIR?  Having an owner forking over cash can potentially handcuff a GM when making deals.  

[erkayloomeh]

1 hour ago, BPA said:

Skinner is currently 28yr old making $9M for the next 6 seasons after this one.  So he'll be about 34yr by the time the contract expires. 

 

He only got 60+ pts three times in his career but looks to be a 25-30 goal scorer (got 40g in BUF in 2018-19).

 

Don't think we want to go down the LE route again if his goal scoring ability dries up.  Last year Skinner only got 14 goals.  

 

Any player making that kind of dough should be able to carry his line 

[Coconuts]

Absolutely not, I want no part in that contract. Yes, he had a career high 40 goals but you don't pay 9m for a player who's never broken 63 points. Dude's never even had one single PPG season. Not remotely worth the risk of his continuing to be an anchor for another 6 years. 

[VegasCanuck]

If Skinner was a 2 - 3 year contract, would be a much more acceptable risk, but tying up that much capital on one player who is badly underperforming, is not a good idea in terms of team asset and cash management.

 

Its not even a contract that you could effectively buy out!

 

[khay]

51 minutes ago, Top Sven Baercheese said:

I could honestly see Buffalo giving Seattle a 1st rounder and another prospect for Seattle to take Skinner in the expansion draft. 

 

I don't think Seattle will have the success Vegas did. They pay Skinner a lot, but really, who cares? They get 5 years of Skinner who will entertain, but ultimately get a great draft pick and a guy they can develop for the next 15. 

I agree. Teams should have learned their lessons from Vegas ED.

 

It's better to give up one player rather than giving up a valuable asset to take what seems like a slightly less player.

 

Anaheim: Gave up an asset (Theodore) to keep their D core intact and get Stoner off their hands -- that asset turned into #1D.

CBJ: Similar story but in this case, the player they wanted Vegas to take, Karlsson, became a 40 goal scorer.

 

Similar story with Florida and so on.

 

 

 

[garthsbutcher]

1 hour ago, mpass1 said:

Wait till Buffalo buys out his contract, then try to sign him for cheap

God no

[Nuxfanabroad]

Like lots of your suggestions, DIR, & appreciate you just wanna see our boys prevail.

 

But THIS is giving a leading Broadway role to an aging actor with dementia. THIS is expecting Linda Blair's bedroom issues to be sorted out by a good babysitter. This is..well, just take a wide berth from such a miserable AAV!

[PhillipBlunt]

2 hours ago, DarkIndianRises said:

[proposa] The Vancouver Canucks and Jeff Skinner
 

While it’s no secret that Jeff Skinner has arguably the worst contract in the NHL right now, a closer inspection of his situation in Buffalo would reveal that he’s being grossly misused.   Make no mistake about it.  Skinner’s sharp decline isn’t age related (like a Patrick Marleau), or because the game changed on him (like a Milan Lucic), or because he doesn’t care (like a Matt Duchene), but rather, he’s simply being grossly misused.   Common sense would dictate that you should play Skinner with Eichel, Reinhart, or the now departed Eric Staal, but the coach, in his eternal genius, has Skinner playing with guys like Curtis Lazar and other forms of poo.  
 

Acquiring Skinner might be a good opportunity for the Canucks to unload some bad contracts in the off-season to Buffalo such as Eriksson, Beagle, and Roussel.   
 

Buffalo takes on 12 million of our crap because that crap will be off the books in 2022.   The Canucks take on Skinner under the assumption that he returns to his prolific goal scoring ways....the risk being that he doesn’t, and we end up getting an uglier version of Loui Eriksson at a worse term and cap hit.  Personally, I don’t think Skinner would end up like Eriksson given that we’d play him with either Pettersson or Horvat, but there’s always the risk.  I think it’s a risk worth taking.

 

Next season top 6.

 

Miller-Pettersson-Boeser

Skinner-Horvat-Hoglander/Podkolzin

 

I can't see a scenario wherein this is a good idea. 

[Detail Devil]

[Canucklehead73]

Yeeah no

 

I will admit I haven't seen him play but a career -130 player who was an even 0 when he scored 40 goals... defensive train wreck