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

[Rumour] Things have turned sour in the RNH contract negotiations


Recommended Posts

Personally, I'm OK with the Canucks offering RNH money in the Miller or Horvat range, if only to maintain an internal cap structure.

 

The internal cap structure that Gillis instilled while he was the Canucks' GM was one of the reasons why the team was able to build very competitive teams for several years.  He deviated from that with the Mats Sundin signing (his first major UFA signing) but that had a very specific purpose and was for a limited term.

 

My assumption is that the preference for the Canucks is to sign Hughes and Pettersson to bridge deals but even with a bridge deal, I'm not expecting the cap hit to be low.  Barzal is the most likely comparable (IMHO) to Pettersson unless he signs an offer sheet (which unfortunately is possible). 

 

Hughes is harder to pin down.  I hope Hughes doesn't get the Chabot treatment ($8M cap hit on his first deal after his entry level deal expired) but that deal bought all of his RFA years so he goes straight to UFA.  If the Canucks are willing to gamble, then maybe that gets shaved down a bit on a bridge deal but that will mean exposing Hughes as an RFA who will be eligible for an offer sheet.

 

Whatever the case is, I assume Hughes and Pettersson will set the upper limit of $ so a UFA like RNH should get money at a tier below their level.  RNH has not been the franchise player that people hoped for when he was drafted 1st overall but I think he's still a very good player.

 

Would I prefer Reinhart over RNH?  To some degree yes since Reinhart has proven to be a solid player and is a fair bit younger.  Reinhart isn't only going to cost $ however, he's going to cost assets, assets which the Canucks can't really afford to give up right now.  For that reason, if the Canucks can sign RNH to a deal like the one above, then I think that helps to flesh out their top-9 quite well since RNH is a versatile player who can play at C and W which can help the Canucks keep Miller with Pettersson or keep a talented scoring winger (RNH) with Pettersson while moving Miller down to 3C.  The team clearly needs more talent further down the line-up, which signing RNH would help accomplish IMHO.

 

At the end of the day, if RNH signs for $7M somewhere else, then I would be glad that the Canucks did not sign him.  If RNH is willing to sign a deal that fits within the Canucks' cap structure, then I'm all for it. 

  • Hydration 1
  • RoughGame 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, EternalCanuckFan said:

Personally, I'm OK with the Canucks offering RNH money in the Miller or Horvat range, if only to maintain an internal cap structure.

 

The internal cap structure that Gillis instilled while he was the Canucks' GM was one of the reasons why the team was able to build very competitive teams for several years.  He deviated from that with the Mats Sundin signing (his first major UFA signing) but that had a very specific purpose and was for a limited term.

 

My assumption is that the preference for the Canucks is to sign Hughes and Pettersson to bridge deals but even with a bridge deal, I'm not expecting the cap hit to be low.  Barzal is the most likely comparable (IMHO) to Pettersson unless he signs an offer sheet (which unfortunately is possible). 

 

Hughes is harder to pin down.  I hope Hughes doesn't get the Chabot treatment ($8M cap hit on his first deal after his entry level deal expired) but that deal bought all of his RFA years so he goes straight to UFA.  If the Canucks are willing to gamble, then maybe that gets shaved down a bit on a bridge deal but that will mean exposing Hughes as an RFA who will be eligible for an offer sheet.

 

Whatever the case is, I assume Hughes and Pettersson will set the upper limit of $ so a UFA like RNH should get money at a tier below their level.  RNH has not been the franchise player that people hoped for when he was drafted 1st overall but I think he's still a very good player.

 

Would I prefer Reinhart over RNH?  To some degree yes since Reinhart has proven to be a solid player and is a fair bit younger.  Reinhart isn't only going to cost $ however, he's going to cost assets, assets which the Canucks can't really afford to give up right now.  For that reason, if the Canucks can sign RNH to a deal like the one above, then I think that helps to flesh out their top-9 quite well since RNH is a versatile player who can play at C and W which can help the Canucks keep Miller with Pettersson or keep a talented scoring winger (RNH) with Pettersson while moving Miller down to 3C.  The team clearly needs more talent further down the line-up, which signing RNH would help accomplish IMHO.

 

At the end of the day, if RNH signs for $7M somewhere else, then I would be glad that the Canucks did not sign him.  If RNH is willing to sign a deal that fits within the Canucks' cap structure, then I'm all for it. 

If JB is able to sell the team to RNH or Reinhart and convince them to sign a one year deal to see if either one can be a part of the core - then why not.  Long term, it would probably be best to see how the team will do first this season before committing or spending any future assets: picks & prospects (kinda referring to the Laffs signing of Tavares coinciding with the ending of the big three's elc cause with hindsight, they would probably had been better off passing on Tavares and spending on the core & goaltending.

Edited by ShawnAntoski
  • RoughGame 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, ShawnAntoski said:

If JB is able to sell the team to RNH or Reinhart and convince them to sign a one year deal to see if either one can be a part of the core - then why not.  Long term, it would probably be best to see how the team will do first this season before committing or spending any future assets: picks & prospects (kinda referring to the Laffs signing of Tavares coinciding with the ending of the big three's elc cause with hindsight, they would probably had been better off passing on Tavares and spending on the core & goaltending.

I don't think we need to add expensive names, we need depth like the 94 team that was multi-dimensional. They had great goaltending with Kirk McLean,  great leadership with Trevor Linden and dynamic scoring with Pavel Bure. Players like Dave Babych, Dana Murzyn, Gerald Diduck, Sergio Momesso, Gino Odjick, Shawn Antoski and Tim Hunter provided size and grit. Meanwhile, players like Cliff Ronning, Geoff Courtnall, Greg Adams, Martin Gelinas, Murray Craven, Jyrki Lumme and Jeff Brown provided talent-laden depth.that team turned around quickly with adding the right mix at a low cost 

  • Like 1
  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ba;;isticsports said:

I don't think we need to add expensive names, we need depth like the 94 team that was multi-dimensional. They had great goaltending with Kirk McLean,  great leadership with Trevor Linden and dynamic scoring with Pavel Bure. Players like Dave Babych, Dana Murzyn, Gerald Diduck, Sergio Momesso, Gino Odjick, Shawn Antoski and Tim Hunter provided size and grit. Meanwhile, players like Cliff Ronning, Geoff Courtnall, Greg Adams, Martin Gelinas, Murray Craven, Jyrki Lumme and Jeff Brown provided talent-laden depth.that team turned around quickly with adding the right mix at a low cost 

 

2 hours ago, ba;;isticsports said:

I don't think we need to add expensive names, we need depth like the 94 team that was multi-dimensional. They had great goaltending with Kirk McLean,  great leadership with Trevor Linden and dynamic scoring with Pavel Bure. Players like Dave Babych, Dana Murzyn, Gerald Diduck, Sergio Momesso, Gino Odjick, Shawn Antoski and Tim Hunter provided size and grit. Meanwhile, players like Cliff Ronning, Geoff Courtnall, Greg Adams, Martin Gelinas, Murray Craven, Jyrki Lumme and Jeff Brown provided talent-laden depth.that team turned around quickly with adding the right mix at a low cost 

I get it and I remember those teams - 94 !

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Latest rumor about RNH I'm reading is that they are working a longer term contract instead of $$.  Talks of $5M-ish for 6/7years.  That would take RNH to age 34/35yr old.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...