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

Ethan Bear | #74 | D


-AJ-

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, -AJ- said:

I do wonder if it will go this way. He does a lot in the community, which is nice and can even be considered to add to his value, but I still believe he's a 4/5 guy, akin to how Stecher was and probably not a super solid 3/4.

Yep agreed, when you look at his body of work, I wouldn't say he's gotten better with the Canucks - he's just played with Quinn Hughes. The man has never played with that sort of quality before so of course he looks great in the first half of his Canucks stint, then he really started to slow down in the last 10-20 games (injuries didn't help).

 

He was Edmonton's 7th guy, Carolina's 7th or even 8th guy at times. On a playoff defence, he doesn't crack the top-6 any day of the week let alone at 2.2M. The Canucks defence is obviously a different story, but if we want to be a playoff team and be taken seriously, it shouldn't be. He was a nice place-holder for last year for a low cost but we can't just thrust average defencemen into a top-4 and hope they do well. The deal for Hronek was an uncomfortable one but these are the moves we need to make if we want to make a defence playoff-ready now, rather than draft and take our time with it.

 

I don't mind Bear as a 5th or 6th guy but 2.2M is far too much for that when Burroughs can do the same job and arguably brings more toughness. Of course Bear is a dirt cheap top-4 guy and Hughes can carry pretty much anyone, so it's the lazy option.

 

Call me crazy but what would it cost the Canucks to trade Bear's rights to CBJ and upgrade him to Peeke? If we want to make the playoffs now and win now, we're not going to do so with Bear as our 3rd or 4th guy.

 

Personally I'd let him walk and just sign a UFA like Graves, Gavrikov, Mayfield or even Severson or Dumba if we can get them cheap (say 4M for the latter 2 but I'd rather avoid them) and make the uncomfortable moves up front to shed wingers for the cap.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DownUndaCanuck said:

Yep agreed, when you look at his body of work, I wouldn't say he's gotten better with the Canucks - he's just played with Quinn Hughes. The man has never played with that sort of quality before so of course he looks great in the first half of his Canucks stint, then he really started to slow down in the last 10-20 games (injuries didn't help).

 

He was Edmonton's 7th guy, Carolina's 7th or even 8th guy at times. On a playoff defence, he doesn't crack the top-6 any day of the week let alone at 2.2M. The Canucks defence is obviously a different story, but if we want to be a playoff team and be taken seriously, it shouldn't be. He was a nice place-holder for last year for a low cost but we can't just thrust average defencemen into a top-4 and hope they do well. The deal for Hronek was an uncomfortable one but these are the moves we need to make if we want to make a defence playoff-ready now, rather than draft and take our time with it.

 

I don't mind Bear as a 5th or 6th guy but 2.2M is far too much for that when Burroughs can do the same job and arguably brings more toughness. Of course Bear is a dirt cheap top-4 guy and Hughes can carry pretty much anyone, so it's the lazy option.

 

Call me crazy but what would it cost the Canucks to trade Bear's rights to CBJ and upgrade him to Peeke? If we want to make the playoffs now and win now, we're not going to do so with Bear as our 3rd or 4th guy.

 

Personally I'd let him walk and just sign a UFA like Graves, Gavrikov, Mayfield or even Severson or Dumba if we can get them cheap (say 4M for the latter 2 but I'd rather avoid them) and make the uncomfortable moves up front to shed wingers for the cap.

Totally agree with you. How Bear is dealt with ultimately depends on whether PA can swing some kind of UFA signing or a summer trade to upgrade the d-core. Your bang on that IMHO Bear is not a CUP contending top 4 d-man. At that I can see him being resigned on a possible 3 year deal as a transition player based on what happens this summer. It is all about the cost. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, -Vintage Canuck- said:

 

Man, that's such a shame. Definitely gonna put a damper on the Summer of Tochett. Wonder if this is enough to make the Canucks look else where. Can not afford another slow start to the season.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Sounds like we just won't qualify Bear if he's injured like this. 

I believe you cannot end his contract until he's healthy onvce more, so he's on the payroll untill that time, although maybe there's compensation from Hockey Canada

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Fred65 said:

I believe you cannot end his contract until he's healthy onvce more, so he's on the payroll untill that time, although maybe there's compensation from Hockey Canada

 

15 minutes ago, HorvatToBaertschi said:

but he's an rfa

That's right. As of July 1, Bear won't be under contract. There is nothing that stops the Canucks from just walking away. 

 

The Canucks wanted to sign Bear earlier but he and his agent decided to wait as, reportedly, they wanted significantly more than the Canucks were offering. 

At this point, who knows. I think there is some chance the Canucks just walk away. 

 

Bear has arbitration rights which creates uncertainty. If he goes to arbitration, is he a "top 4 defenceman" as he was on the Canucks,or is he a "7th man" as he was on Carolina. I am pretty sure the Canucks did not want to pay much more than his QO of 2.2 million. And that was when he was healthy.

 

Last year OEL was injured in the IIHF world championships and that apparently had a significant negative effect on the team. This year it is Bear. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

I don't think we will quailfy Bear.  Too risky if he is not ready for the start of the season...

If we walk from Bear, that will leave us about 4m in space - assuming pearson/poolman ride LTIR and we bring in silovs for 900k to backup demko

 

just enough money to not get a top-4 defenseman

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, HorvatToBaertschi said:

but he's an rfa

I could be wrong but being a RFA does not count. If he was injured on your watch there's an obligation to pay him until he's healthy. Other wise teams would simply jettison injured players

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Fred65 said:

I could be wrong but being a RFA does not count. If he was injured on your watch there's an obligation to pay him until he's healthy. Other wise teams would simply jettison injured players

That doesn't seem right to me.  After all, Bear's injury occurred while playing for another team in a different league.

As it was his choice, I would think he would have bought provisional insurance in case he had an injury. I have

no idea what the ruling is for such a situation, but imo, the Canucks have no contractual obligation for an injury

that occurred during a match that was not Canuck or NHL related.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fred65 said:

I could be wrong but being a RFA does not count. If he was injured on your watch there's an obligation to pay him until he's healthy. Other wise teams would simply jettison injured players

@mll will know. Do clubs have to tender qualifying offers to injured players?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Fred65 said:

I could be wrong but being a RFA does not count. If he was injured on your watch there's an obligation to pay him until he's healthy. Other wise teams would simply jettison injured players

Being an RFA means that a player has more restrictions when it comes to renegotiations, but at the end of the day, it's still a contract, just like a UFA contract is a contract. It would be absurd for us to have to pay him while he's no longer under contract. Players who are injured long-term as pending RFAs likely are jettisoned, in the same way you'd see it for UFAs (see Ferland and Sutter for Canuck examples).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Kootenay Gold said:

There may be a chance that they do not qualify him but look to re-sign him as a UFA for a shorter term and slightly less money in a show me contract. Stranger things have happened.

Would be a good option for us. I wouldn't mind him at a lower contract than his QO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...