A few thoughts on the Cap, EP, Hughes and how to make the Canucks a Cup contender and not just a playoff team.

[grouse747]

I'm OP... thx for the responses... I think the poster saying "it'll be tight to sign BB next summer" was simply wrong (or maybe I didn't see a qualifier)

 

are miller and horvat really worth $10MM per season each, as I've seen suggested??

 

I think we need a thread for what people think Canucks players are worth..... 1) as basic players (so assume 4 year contract as a level that makes sense); 2) "as is"....

 

and I find fans are really biased as to what they think their own players are worth.

[Timråfan]

1 hour ago, Viper007 said:

 

 

 

You first say to change GM, just because.

Then you say it's to change scenery as to motivate players.

Then you say it's not to motivate the players on the ice, but everything off of the ice.

Then you say the ice is not the only thing that matters.

 

So you're going back and forth in what you're trying to say.

 

Yes the GMs responsibility is not just on the ice.  It encompasses a lot of other tasks, which he mostly delegates.  On the non ice facets of the game, I haven't heard or seen a lot of things to be complaining about, so again ... why change when you don't need to make a change.  Benning has a 2-3 years left in his deal.  If the team doesn't do well this season, most likely he will be fired.  But no need to change right now when we're still in a pandemic.

 

As far as the business aspect of the Canucks, I'm sure they're doing well compared to most NHL teams. 

Puzzle the quotes together and you might get my drift. 

[Viper007]

1 minute ago, Timråfan said:

Puzzle the quotes together and you might get my drift. 

Not really cause you're all over the place.  Only thing that I know is that you don't like JB because of the way the Dahlen situation was handled.  Unfortunately it looks like SJ did the exact same thing, so is it really JB's fault or the player?  

[Timråfan]

8 hours ago, Viper007 said:

Not really cause you're all over the place.  Only thing that I know is that you don't like JB because of the way the Dahlen situation was handled.  Unfortunately it looks like SJ did the exact same thing, so is it really JB's fault or the player?  

Always the management. It’s too much money  wasted. 

I wasn’t all over the place, you didn’t understand what I wrote in the context it was written. 
Remember some of them, if not all, is an reply.

 

Again, Benning isn’t a diplomatic person and I’m not the only one here that thinks he should have handled things differently speaking to media. People seem to think that is some sort of hate. Why?
A GM has a hefty salary so the responsibilty lies always on his shoulders in whatever business it is or what name they have.

 

[Viper007]

13 hours ago, Timråfan said:

Always the management. It’s too much money  wasted. 

I wasn’t all over the place, you didn’t understand what I wrote in the context it was written. 
Remember some of them, if not all, is an reply.

 

Again, Benning isn’t a diplomatic person and I’m not the only one here that thinks he should have handled things differently speaking to media. People seem to think that is some sort of hate. Why?
A GM has a hefty salary so the responsibilty lies always on his shoulders in whatever business it is or what name they have.

 

It's ownerships money.  Not yours and not mine.  Why do you care?  If he wasn't a diplomatic person, he wouldn't be signing anybody or trading anybody.  He wouldn't be able to do anything since he can't communicate or be diplomatic.  What responsibilities are you talking about that Benning hasn't fulfilled? 

 

In fact ownership was being cheap and had minimal management help for Benning.  Benning has been doing even more since Linden left.  Now ownership has been spending more for both the business side and hockey side again. 

[Hairy Kneel]

On 8/16/2021 at 1:08 AM, NHL97OneTimer said:

I'm not talking about cheating as you suggest, nor am I moronic thank you.  While I may not have been completely clear, my following sentence gives you a pretty good clue as to what I was referring to......unless you think the Sedins are the types of players that take money under the table. The Canucks couldn't pay the players more on the table or underneath it.  But they could spend money on the types of things that make the players feel more supported.  This includes some of the luxuries around the arena, etc.  This is what the Canucks did previously, what the San Antonio Spurs have apparently been doing all of these years and what many teams will continue to need to do to keep the top players happy at prices that support a contending team.

I think adding a stronger roster to support them makes Hughes and Pete way more comfortable. The added vets spread the scoring around while ingredients of toughness are closer at hand to shield the 2 stars in the tough going. This is my philosophy of a tough 4th line with speed, tenacity and grit do. A tough fast 4th line after some cheap sh** comes in and bashes a few of their guys to send a message. That's the only reason I don't like Sutter on the 4th, too soft. 

[NHL97OneTimer]

4 hours ago, Hairy Kneel said:

I think adding a stronger roster to support them makes Hughes and Pete way more comfortable. The added vets spread the scoring around while ingredients of toughness are closer at hand to shield the 2 stars in the tough going. This is my philosophy of a tough 4th line with speed, tenacity and grit do. A tough fast 4th line after some cheap sh** comes in and bashes a few of their guys to send a message. That's the only reason I don't like Sutter on the 4th, too soft. 

Completely agree.....Canucks need more bite and this may be one of the last ingredients left to contend.  The rest of the team isn't at the top in any category but it's solid and more well-rounded.  Sutter's decent in the PK role and he throws the odd goal in.  He may be more of a 3rd line player but regardless, I'd like to see a couple more Mottes but with some extra size and nastiness.

Edited August 21, 2021 by NHL97OneTimer

[IBatch]

On 8/15/2021 at 3:49 PM, aGENT said:

 

UFA years vs RFA years. The guys getting these $8m+ contracts are all including higher dollar, UFA years (or all UFA years in Nurse's case). 

 

If we're bridging Hughes and Petey through only RFA years, they're just not going to see those dollar amounts. I'm not sure why this is so confusing to so many? You simply can not equate RFA and UFA years in their cap hits.

 

On a 3 year Bridge, Petey shouldn't be making more than Barzal. Barzal has shown more, more consistently (less injuries). Aho, a better, more well rounded player, is making more money and on a 5 year term that, again, buys UFA years.

 

Mcavoy on a 3 year bridge is making $4.9m. Sergachev is $4.8x3. Werenski was $5x3. Is Hughes worth more than these guys on his comparable, second, post-ELC deal? Or drastically more, like some of you are talking about on here? Where's your comparables? Heck Provorov even had some UFA years bought on a $6.75x6 deal. If Hughes $ numbers are going to be in that territory, it's likewise going to be for more term than 3 years.

 

If we're talking moderately team-friendly deals...and using those comparables...and maybe some inspiration from their jersey numbers...

 

Petey on a 3 year bridge for $6.40m.

Hughes on a 5...maybe 6 year bridge for $6.43m

 

Now again, those are likely slightly more team friendly deals than they maybe get. Pettersson in particular likely ends up closer to $7 on a 3 year deal (though I do love the tie in with his number and how it keeps the two hits similar...maybe $6.940m instead?). Hughes likely leans closer to the 5 year term than 6 (6 would be great though as that's when OEL's deal comes off the books and I'd be willing to pay a bit more to make that line up...$6.943m instead?). But they're far more realistic than the silly numbers and term I'm seeing people throwing around.

Great post.   Exactly how i feel too.   QHs 8 year deal isn't Heiskanen level either.   Should be enough money to do long term for both really still.   But i do feel that GMs have been dropping the ball on flat cap, maybe they know something we don't.    QHs on a long term deal can't be higher then Heiskanen's.   Dallas was smart to lock him up.  We might be too but think 7.5 should be enough.   EP for sure has earned a little more.   If they do them as a pair, QHs probably gets more then he should, and EP a little less.   In the end the money is available for both these guys, and if we bridge them, something else too. 

[spook007]

On 8/15/2021 at 11:19 PM, gurn said:

Cap circumvention would result in huge fines and loss of draft picks. The team would be moronic to try to cheat as you suggest.

Think they learnt their lesson with the Luongo show....

[Fred65]

3 hours ago, spook007 said:

Think they learnt their lesson with the Luongo show....

We should remember "The Luongo Show" was not an error by the Canucks it was a chnage in CBA rules imposed by Betteman which did not grandfather in the existing effected  teams. It effected a couple of teams but most felt by Vcr. Vcr did nothing wrong under the existing  CBA at that time. It was regeistered and accepted contract by the NHL. 

Edited August 21, 2021 by Fred65

[spook007]

12 minutes ago, Fred65 said:

We should remember "The Luongo Show" was not an error by the Canucks it was a chnage in CBA rules imposed by Betteman which did not grandfather in the existing effected  teams. It effected a couple of teams but most felt by Vcr. Vcr did nothing wrong under the existing  CBA at that time. It was regeistered and accepted contract by the NHL. 

While this a 100% true Fred, I believe the GM's were told by the NHL prior to making these deals, that it was circumventing the regulations, and they were not happy about it. 

I totally agree it was a ridiculous decision to hammer team afterwards, whether it was using the rules to their advantage or not. If they were unhappy about it, they should have made the rule change instantly. 

I also think the other teams never forgot how Nucks got Bure, and was more than happy, when the opportunity for some pay back presented itself...

Nevertheless my point was, Canucks burnt their fingers trying to get an advantage, by bending the rules, and probably won't chance doing it again...

[Fred65]

2 minutes ago, spook007 said:

While this a 100% true Fred, I believe the GM's were told by the NHL prior to making these deals, that it was circumventing the regulations, and they were not happy about it. 

I totally agree it was a ridiculous decision to hammer team afterwards, whether it was using the rules to their advantage or not. If they were unhappy about it, they should have made the rule change instantly. 

I also think the other teams never forgot how Nucks got Bure, and was more than happy, when the opportunity for some pay back presented itself...

Nevertheless my point was, Canucks burnt their fingers trying to get an advantage, by bending the rules, and probably won't chance doing it again...

The Bure draft was a legit scouting win. They went the extra mile and the other clubs were to lazy, having Lorionov on the team at that time certainly helped 

 

As to Luongo that contract was signed well in advance of the new CBA and Vcr took advantage, you can't penalize a team fro being too smart. Lets see what happens in Tampa with the Cap Manipulation ie Kucherov, I doubt any thing. Gillis was a man of equal intellect to Betteman and he didn't like that IMO. The worse thing to happen to the league of late is the NHLPA has hired Gillis, watch out Betteman and the league ar in for a rough ride

[spook007]

12 minutes ago, Fred65 said:

The Bure draft was a legit scouting win. They went the extra mile and the other clubs were to lazy, having Lorionov on the team at that time certainly helped 

 

As to Luongo that contract was signed well in advance of the new CBA and Vcr took advantage, you can't penalize a team fro being too smart. Lets see what happens in Tampa with the Cap Manipulation ie Kucherov, I doubt any thing. Gillis was a man of equal intellect to Betteman and he didn't like that IMO. The worse thing to happen to the league of late is the NHLPA has hired Gillis, watch out Betteman and the league ar in for a rough ride

As I said earlier, I agree 100%, and yet here we are still paying for a penalty, we shouldn't have had. So yes the league did penalize Canucks for being too smart.... as rotten as it was. 
 

Regarding Bure, I seem to remember the other GM's didn't think they could draft him, and they were none too happy, when Quinn drafted him. But yes it was their own fault they didn't do they spade work properly. 

[NHL97OneTimer]

3 hours ago, spook007 said:

While this a 100% true Fred, I believe the GM's were told by the NHL prior to making these deals, that it was circumventing the regulations, and they were not happy about it. 

I totally agree it was a ridiculous decision to hammer team afterwards, whether it was using the rules to their advantage or not. If they were unhappy about it, they should have made the rule change instantly. 

 

Here's the thing, the league approves each deal, do they not?  So they first approved it, then retrospectively punished the Canucks.  I'm still baffled as to how they got away with that.  Seems like something that could have been legally fought but of course we witness how much control the NHL has.  IMO, the league should have either grandfathered the Luongo deal......begrudgingly or not.

[spook007]

14 minutes ago, NHL97OneTimer said:

Here's the thing, the league approves each deal, do they not?  So they first approved it, then retrospectively punished the Canucks.  I'm still baffled as to how they got away with that.  Seems like something that could have been legally fought but of course we witness how much control the NHL has.  IMO, the league should have either grandfathered the Luongo deal......begrudgingly or not.

Absolutely.... don't disagree one bit...

But they accepted their punishment, and it is up to us to wonder why? 

Would Canucks have been better off fighting it, or are they perhaps still in the dog house for the Bertuzzi incident or similar?

We were not the only one getting penalized retrospectively, but one of the few, and possibly the hardest.... and to this day, I still don't understand, how we could be penalised so severely after they first accepted the contract, but here we are....

Bettmans NHL has a lot to answer for....

[IBatch]

4 hours ago, spook007 said:

As I said earlier, I agree 100%, and yet here we are still paying for a penalty, we shouldn't have had. So yes the league did penalize Canucks for being too smart.... as rotten as it was. 
 

Regarding Bure, I seem to remember the other GM's didn't think they could draft him, and they were none too happy, when Quinn drafted him. But yes it was their own fault they didn't do they spade work properly. 

It's a pretty neat story really.  Back then Burke was Quins right arm man, and he was asked to see if he played enough games to be eligible.  Burke did the leg work, found out indeed there was ONE extra game played that wasn't properly recorded (which was later verified) ... things get a little stranger after that.   Burke advised Quin not to take him anyways (crazy right?), small body couldn't hack the NHL... pretty much what he said about QHs when we drafted him too "that's a small body gentleman, a small body" and all of that. What round was that again lol?  Quin ignored his advice and did it anyways.  The rest is history.   Where would he go in a re-draft? 

[BigTramFan]

11 hours ago, IBatch said:

Great post.   Exactly how i feel too.   QHs 8 year deal isn't Heiskanen level either.   Should be enough money to do long term for both really still.   But i do feel that GMs have been dropping the ball on flat cap, maybe they know something we don't.    QHs on a long term deal can't be higher then Heiskanen's.   Dallas was smart to lock him up.  We might be too but think 7.5 should be enough.   EP for sure has earned a little more.   If they do them as a pair, QHs probably gets more then he should, and EP a little less.   In the end the money is available for both these guys, and if we bridge them, something else too. 

With about $16.2m of cap space available (per capfriendly, after Ferland is LTIR and waiving a few guys to make the 23-man roster), I think it would be worth signing both EP and QH to contracts with as long term as possible. Maybe something like EP $8.5m x 5 years, QH $7.5m x 8 years.

[IBatch]

7 minutes ago, BigTramFan said:

With about $16.2m of cap space available (per capfriendly, after Ferland is LTIR and waiving a few guys to make the 23-man roster), I think it would be worth signing both EP and QH to contracts with as long term as possible. Maybe something like EP $8.5m x 5 years, QH $7.5m x 8 years.

That would certainly do it.   EP getting the same deal as AHO did before flat cap is for sure plenty, and QHs a million less then Heiskanen.   Really think we'd be able to lock them both up at 8 years each with what's left ... but if that is what it takes then so be it. 

Edited August 22, 2021 by IBatch

[BigTramFan]

7 hours ago, IBatch said:

That would certainly do it.   EP getting the same deal as AHO did before flat cap is for sure plenty, and QHs a million less then Heiskanen.   Really think we'd be able to lock them both up at 8 years each with what's left ... but if that is what it takes then so be it. 

Yes I agree that a long term contract for Hughes is worth approximately $1m less than the Heiskanen contract at $8.45m x 8 years.

 

Heiskanen is the more all-round player and is an “all situations” Dman. Hughes is more of a powerplay specialist. The Krug and Spurgeon contracts from 2020 are a good comparison to show why Hughes’ contract should be lower than Heiskanen’s.

 

Both Krug and Spurgeon were UFA, so their contract amounts are not comparable to QH and MH, but they show the relative value of similar Dmen signed to long term deals at the same time. Krug is a powerplay specialist like Hughes. Spurgeon is more of an “all situations” Dman like Heiskanen.

 

Hughes’ 2020-21 stats are closely comparable to Krug’s in his contract year in 2019-20. Krug scored 49 pts in 61 games (21 at even strength), whereas Hughes scored 41 pts in 56 games (22 at ES).

 

Heiskanen’s 2020-21 stats are closely comparable to Spurgeon’s in his contract year in 2019-20. Spurgeon scored 25 pts in 62 games (16 at ES), whereas Heiskanen scored 27 pts in 55 games (16 at ES). Both Heiskanen and Spurgeon play on the PP and PK with similar success in their contract years.

 

In 2020 Spurgeon was signed to a $7.75m x 7 deal as a UFA. In the same year Krug was signed to a $6.5m x 7 deal as a UFA.

 

This demonstrates the relative value of a powerplay specialist vs. an “all situations” Dman. The more rounded player is getting paid about $1m more than the PP specialist.

 

For this reason I believe a long term deal for Hughes should be about $1m less than Heiskanen. So that puts a long term deal for Hughes around the $7.5m x 8 years.

[Arrow 1983]

6 minutes ago, BigTramFan said:

Yes I agree that a long term contract for Hughes is worth approximately $1m less than the Heiskanen contract at $8.45m x 8 years.

 

Heiskanen is the more all-round player and is an “all situations” Dman. Hughes is more of a powerplay specialist. The Krug and Spurgeon contracts from 2020 are a good comparison to show why Hughes’ contract should be lower than Heiskanen’s.

 

Both Krug and Spurgeon were UFA, so their contract amounts are not comparable to QH and MH, but they show the relative value of similar Dmen signed to long term deals at the same time. Krug is a powerplay specialist like Hughes. Spurgeon is more of an “all situations” Dman like Heiskanen.

 

Hughes’ 2020-21 stats are closely comparable to Krug’s in his contract year in 2019-20. Krug scored 49 pts in 61 games (21 at even strength), whereas Hughes scored 41 pts in 56 games (22 at ES).

 

Heiskanen’s 2020-21 stats are closely comparable to Spurgeon’s in his contract year in 2019-20. Spurgeon scored 25 pts in 62 games (16 at ES), whereas Heiskanen scored 27 pts in 55 games (16 at ES). Both Heiskanen and Spurgeon play on the PP and PK with similar success in their contract years.

 

In 2020 Spurgeon was signed to a $7.75m x 7 deal as a UFA. In the same year Krug was signed to a $6.5m x 7 deal as a UFA.

 

This demonstrates the relative value of a powerplay specialist vs. an “all situations” Dman. The more rounded player is getting paid about $1m more than the PP specialist.

 

For this reason I believe a long term deal for Hughes should be about $1m less than Heiskanen. So that puts a long term deal for Hughes around the $7.5m x 8 years.

HAHAHAHA 

 

you are comparing 30 year old's to a 21 year old

 

using your logic if Maker is better defensively and they are the same age and roughly the same amount of points Hughes is worth 8 million on a 6 year deal.