Canucks have more NTC and NMC than any other NHL team

[IBatch]

11 minutes ago, Petey_BOI said:

you have no issues signing roussel to a 3 year 3M deal? i Would have loved to give maroon a 3x3m I would have still signed beagle to a 3x3, But 4 years for a career fourth liner, is a little crazy,I don't know what time riley nash was signed but I would have considred offering him a contact after beagle demanded 4 years

Maybe.   Market is what it is in hindsight too, and well we really sucked back then with no future C's in the pipe coming up anytime soon.   I don't mind Beagle at all, he wins his face offs, and is one of a very small few that always creates or enters a scrum after each whistle, has size and is only here for one more year.  Sure maybe we could have done a little better and found a better placeholder.   Thing is, right now, we still don't have anyone to play either Sutter or Beagles role,  im actually more concerned about who we will get to replace them then i am about both their play.   Why i think JB might be wise to re-sign Sutter with the intention to move him down to Beagles spot.    Beagle also might be a saleable asset next TDL if his play keeps it up.   Sure WSH would love him back at 50% retained as a depth player. 

 

Without Sutter and Beagle we'd have 7 plus to find two C's this off season.  Not really an overpayment at all of your looking for strength down the middle.   TB waived TJ, Stastny was Vegas 3-4 C last year right? 

Edited March 30, 2021 by IBatch

[ShawnAntoski]

14 minutes ago, Devron44 said:

Also nobody knows if a contract was going back to Arizona. Hard to judge something that never happened 

Yeah I am glad it fell through cause based on some of the articles & various Yotes blog sites, it seems to indicate the Yotes had realized that the contract is not going to age well.  

 

Imo, Arizona should be stuck with that contract and they should be the one sweetening the deal to rid themselves of that (soon to be albatross) contract - EK 2.0.

Edited March 30, 2021 by ShawnAntoski

[wallstreetamigo]

2 hours ago, VegasCanuck said:

Baertschi has no protection at all.

 

Normally, when you are trying to bring free agents in, or convince someone to sign long term with the team, you are usually either buying their loyalty through price, or you are offering them some control on trades to get a lower price.

 

Eriksson, is totally hindsight, but he was also coming off a strong season in Boston. I'm sure everyone would love to have had the contract at 3 to 4 years maximum, but it is what it is.

 

Looking around the team, I really don't see anyone else that I have a problem with their clauses. Its a part of the business.

 

I meant Eriksson and Baertschi toe up a lot of cap like 9 mil or so for guys who arent playing. You know, like the big problem other teams have?

 

Eriksson had a good year in Boston largely based on how he was utilized and due to a very strong group of players around him. Vancouver did not use him the same way though, expecting him to be a Sedin wingman when that really wasn't playing to his strengths.

Edited March 30, 2021 by wallstreetamigo

[IBatch]

12 minutes ago, lmm said:

I've already turned on Jimmer

If he gets fired tomorrow 

I'ma start reminiscing about what a great GM he was

Hilarious stuff! Thanks for the laugh.   

[ShawnAntoski]

14 minutes ago, khay said:

Agree regarding OEL deal not materializing.

 

Although, if it allowed us to dump Eriksson on them, I would given it a serious thought despite OEL's contract length. Could have used Eriksson + Schmidt money (12 mil) for Toffoli + OEL ( 4.5 + 8.5 = 13 mil).

 

Good point but JB should just stick to drafting & development right now - especially, with the pandemic affecting everything and there is perhaps a good chance that if the economy doesnt improve there will be alot of sellers...

[Devron]

5 minutes ago, ShawnAntoski said:

Yeah I am glad it fell through cause based on some of the articles & various Yotes blog sites, it seems to indicate the Yotes had realized that the contract is not going to age well.  

 

Imo, Arizona should be stuck with that contract and they should be the one sweetening the deal to rid themselves of that (soon to be albatross) contract - EK 2.0.

Which lead me to believe JB was sticking them with LE or potentially retained salary. I think that’s why names like Demko came up.

 

At the end of the I’m happy with Schmidt. Much less risk and I don’t think you get much more outta OEL to be honest. Schmidt has steadily improved and become more comfortable I think 

[ShawnAntoski]

Just now, Devron44 said:

Which lead me to believe JB was sticking them with LE or potentially retained salary. I think that’s why names like Demko came up.

 

At the end of the I’m happy with Schmidt. Much less risk and I don’t think you get much more outta OEL to be honest. Schmidt has steadily improved and become more comfortable I think 

Yeah, glad it didn't materialized and the price for Schmidt for an almost similar cap hit is alot more future friendly for the Canucks...

[Bad_BOI_pete]

1 hour ago, Canuck Surfer said:

This is a fair outlook.

 

2 years ago, maybe a concern?  Now we have the balance of this year & next. Perhaps can (finally) buyout Eriksson. His last year is not buyout proof.  We wont be swimming in money this off season? But we will be ok, sufficient to re-sign Hughes & Petey.  

 

The year after & onwards, we are in great shape. Can expect to have Podkolzin & Hoglander still on ELC's, Lind will sign cost effectively for his 2knd contract.. 

in 2 years i'd say we are in great shape cap hit wise, but next year after signing EP40,HUGHES,DEMKO to about 18m in contracts Plus all the bonus overages we will have about 10m dollars to replace  3 defenceman a top 6 forward a 3c center and a top 9 winger. 6 players for 10M. buying out eriksson still only gives us 12M. next year is going to be poop soup

[VegasCanuck]

27 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

I meant Eriksson and Baertschi toe up a lot of cap like 9 mil or so for guys who arent playing. You know, like the big problem other teams have?

 

Eriksson had a good year in Boston largely based on how he was utilized and due to a very strong group of players around him. Vancouver did not use him the same way though, expecting him to be a Sedin wingman when that really wasn't playing to his strengths.

Eriksson had shown great chemistry with the Sedins on the world stage. That, combined with the fact that he had a great year in Boston, was why Benning brought him in. I think he felt that if they could replicate that chemistry, they might be able to keep the Sedins around for an extra couple of years, while the team was moving through its rebuild. Personally, I think we should have sent LE to Utica this season and kept someone else around, but I understand why they did it this way. They were hoping that guys like Lind, would get more playing time down there, but that hasn't completely materialized with the Comets being locked down on Covid protocol for an extended period.

 

I generally supported the idea of LE for the first couple of seasons, until he started complaining about how the coaches were deploying him. He's been through 2 different coaches in Vancouver and in the first 3 years, was tried with pretty much ever line combination, including the Sedins, and has never played up to his capabilities for whatever reason. Again, my feeling is that the team will buy him out this summer as its the first time there will be actual savings from doing so.

 

Baertschi, I think the concussions did more damage than the team realized before they resigned him. I don't think he's ever had the same level of engage and as a result, no team will take him.

 

All teams have contracts that they would love to undo, it happens, LE has not been the worst contract that we have ever signed, I'm sure Benning would love to undo it or at least max it out at 3 year term.

[wallstreetamigo]

3 minutes ago, VegasCanuck said:

Eriksson had shown great chemistry with the Sedins on the world stage. That, combined with the fact that he had a great year in Boston, was why Benning brought him in. I think he felt that if they could replicate that chemistry, they might be able to keep the Sedins around for an extra couple of years, while the team was moving through its rebuild. Personally, I think we should have sent LE to Utica this season and kept someone else around, but I understand why they did it this way. They were hoping that guys like Lind, would get more playing time down there, but that hasn't completely materialized with the Comets being locked down on Covid protocol for an extended period.

 

I generally supported the idea of LE for the first couple of seasons, until he started complaining about how the coaches were deploying him. He's been through 2 different coaches in Vancouver and in the first 3 years, was tried with pretty much ever line combination, including the Sedins, and has never played up to his capabilities for whatever reason. Again, my feeling is that the team will buy him out this summer as its the first time there will be actual savings from doing so.

 

Baertschi, I think the concussions did more damage than the team realized before they resigned him. I don't think he's ever had the same level of engage and as a result, no team will take him.

 

All teams have contracts that they would love to undo, it happens, LE has not been the worst contract that we have ever signed, I'm sure Benning would love to undo it or at least max it out at 3 year term.

Even at the time there were serious question marks about Eriksson replicating his international chemistry with the Sedins. And Benning clearly overestimated Eriksson a fair bit. I mean they thought trading Seguin for him was a good idea in Boston. 

 

Eriksson was never as good as that contract suggested. And unfortunately for him both coaches he has had here have not been able to put him in a role or on a line where he could produce enough to justify it. And part of that is on Eriksson himself as well. It just didnt work out and sometimes that happens.

 

There was logic in signing him although the term was pretty ridiculous even then. It set him up for failure from the get go. His success that last year in Boston was not predicated at all on the type of usage or style that fit with the Sedins style. 

[NewbieCanuckFan]

3 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Even at the time there were serious question marks about Eriksson replicating his international chemistry with the Sedins. And Benning clearly overestimated Eriksson a fair bit. I mean they thought trading Seguin for him was a good idea in Boston. 

 

Eriksson was never as good as that contract suggested. And unfortunately for him both coaches he has had here have not been able to put him in a role or on a line where he could produce enough to justify it. And part of that is on Eriksson himself as well. It just didnt work out and sometimes that happens.

 

There was logic in signing him although the term was pretty ridiculous even then. It set him up for failure from the get go. His success that last year in Boston was not predicated at all on the type of usage or style that fit with the Sedins style. 

That's putting it mildly.  Scored an own goal in his first game as a Canuck...and it went downhill from there.

 

Term was ridiculous because it gave us no cap savings despite its length.  

[Bad_BOI_pete]

20 minutes ago, IBatch said:

Maybe.   Market is what it is in hindsight too, and well we really sucked back then with no future C's in the pipe coming up anytime soon.   I don't mind Beagle at all, he wins his face offs, and is one of a very small few that always creates or enters a scrum after each whistle, has size and is only here for one more year.  Sure maybe we could have done a little better and found a better placeholder.   Thing is, right now, we still don't have anyone to play either Sutter or Beagles role,  im actually more concerned about who we will get to replace them then i am about both their play.   Why i think JB might be wise to re-sign Sutter with the intention to move him down to Beagles spot.    Beagle also might be a saleable asset next TDL if his play keeps it up.   Sure WSH would love him back at 50% retained as a depth player. 

 

Without Sutter and Beagle we'd have 7 plus to find two C's this off season.  Not really an overpayment at all of your looking for strength down the middle.   TB waived TJ, Stastny was Vegas 3-4 C last year right? 

I like beagle too, but just not at 4 years. and he is on the decline, the previous 10 games green was only giving him 10 minutes a game, and even with sutter out only averaged 13 minutes. Beags was playing so bad that sutts had to play up to twenty minutes a game. His PK stats are BAD, sutts is on for almost half the amount of goals as beagle is.the only time beags gets any real minutes is when motte plays with him, and without motte his stats are atrocious.

 

stastny played 17 minutes a game for vegas last year, and your saying he was a 4th line center? he played top 6 in minutes, and was closer to the third overall player in toi than the 7th. this year he is averaging over 18 minutes of TOI and is closer to the 2nd overall in TOI than the 6th. and both those teams are/were excellent. 

[stawns]

13 minutes ago, Petey_BOI said:

I like beagle too, but just not at 4 years. and he is on the decline, the previous 10 games green was only giving him 10 minutes a game, and even with sutter out only averaged 13 minutes. Beags was playing so bad that sutts had to play up to twenty minutes a game. His PK stats are BAD, sutts is on for almost half the amount of goals as beagle is.the only time beags gets any real minutes is when motte plays with him, and without motte his stats are atrocious.

 

stastny played 17 minutes a game for vegas last year, and your saying he was a 4th line center? he played top 6 in minutes, and was closer to the third overall player in toi than the 7th. this year he is averaging over 18 minutes of TOI and is closer to the 2nd overall in TOI than the 6th. and both those teams are/were excellent. 

I'm not sure why anyone would be complaining about Beagle.  Id want JB to make that deal every time.

[stawns]

1 hour ago, Petey_BOI said:

you have no issues signing roussel to a 3 year 3M deal? i Would have loved to give maroon a 3x3m I would have still signed beagle to a 3x3, But 4 years for a career fourth liner, is a little crazy,I don't know what time riley nash was signed but I would have considred offering him a contact after beagle demanded 4 years

If you don't have Beagle there sheltering and mentoring Bo, then Horvat isn't the player he is today.

[Ovi one kenobi]

4 hours ago, stawns said:

Especially when you're trying to get free agents to sign with a rebuilding team.  You've got to provide extra incentive

My point was that we could insulate them without giving up so much term and money.

[stawns]

10 minutes ago, Ovi one kenobi said:

My point was that we could insulate them without giving up so much term and money.

I don't agree........Beagle was one of the premier defensive cmen in the league.

 

[Ovi one kenobi]

3 hours ago, Aladeen said:

Vesey and Hawyrluk are Canucks last I checked so I don't understand what your point is? You can't field a team of tweener players that have never gone deep in the playoffs or understand how to win at the NHL level. Those two are great additions to the Canucks on very bargain contracts, but neither bring what Beagle and Roussel do and did at the time of their respective signings.

 

Beagle came off of Centering the 4th line on a great Caps team, full of character that won the cup. How many of those Caps lamented the loss of Beagle? By all accounts from them he was a huge presence in the locker room and a player that the team felt was pivotal in winning the cup. Good stuff to expose young player too. Roussel in the first year of his contract was exactly as advertised 30-40 pts for a bottom 6 winger that brought grit and antagonized opposition? His deal would be considered a steal if it continued as such and you wouldn't have even brought his name up. No doubt Roussel's career has been drastically altered by the knee injury he suffered, but how could JB foresee that? That's like saying Aron Ekblad's contract sucks if he never returns to form after his injury. 

 

Now that we get a glimpse of the finished product of players like Hughes, Boeser, Petterson and Demko panning out, it's easy to say that those other contracts suck, but what if, just what if the players with those contracts had a large hand in helping to get those young players to the level they are playing at?

The point is the Canucks could have just gotten Vesey type players in 2018 instead of Roussel and Beagle. Paying a guy cause he won the cup is silly unless he was major contributor to said cup. Beagle was a replaceable 4th liner and as much as his character and cup brought some value it was clear at the time it wasn't worth what he got. The team just had to let go of other high character guys cause we signed them. We essentially lost this season due those guys as we could have loaded up like MTL for this year and been real contenders. I can't wait for the day this team starts using their money more wisely and spends on real impact players. 

[Ovi one kenobi]

1 minute ago, stawns said:

I don't agree........Beagle was one of the premier defensive cmen in the league.

 

Didn't we have Sutter for that? Also even if we don't sign a defensive specialist and signed an old cheap character guy instead we would have still lost that season anyways.

[AriGold]

4 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said:

I disagree. I think this is actually a very important point that has contributed significantly to the teams troubles.

 

Giving depth players a premium cap hit, term, AND trade protection - even as UFA - is a very strong indication your GM is not very good at his job. Or at best that he is very myopic and looks at a depth player he must have and then not being concerned with what it takes to get him.

 

BTW, Eriksson and Baertschi say hi.

[stawns]

2 minutes ago, Ovi one kenobi said:

Didn't we have Sutter for that? Also even if we don't sign a defensive specialist and signed an old cheap character guy instead we would have still lost that season anyways.

I liked both signings and still do