Toggle sidebar

GDT: 2018 Free Agency: Jay Beagle 4 x 3M, Antoine Roussel 4 x 3.25M, both w/ limited NTCs

  • Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
Status
Not open for further replies.
Cogburn said:
Gotta clear the junk out first. We have 4 alleged top 6 LHD and 3 RHD, plus rookies chomping at the bit to break in. Move a few players out, then we can talk about finding an improvement.

Just like our top 9 forwards...
Click to expand...

But it's managements fault. They could have let Pouliot and Gudbranson walk.
 
krutovsdonut said:
is that official somewhere that it is a 7 team ntc?
Click to expand...

Unless I'm reading this wrong:

JAY BEAGLE
CLAUSE DETAILS: 2018-19 & 19-20: Player submits a 15 no team trade list. 2020-21 & 21-22: Player submits a 5 team no trade list.
Jay Beagle - CapFriendly - NHL Salary Caps

ANTOINE ROUSSEL
CLAUSE DETAILS: 2018-19: Player submits a 15 no team trade list. 2019-20 & 20-21: Player submits a 8 team no trade list. 2021-22: Player submits a 5 team no trade list.
Antoine Roussel - CapFriendly - NHL Salary Caps
 
What terrible contacts. Heh. Even if these contracts make Sutter and Granlund tradeable, we're negotiating from a position of weakness because our roster is flooded right now. We HAVE to trade sometime or lose someone for free.

This has to be Benning's swan song. You don't get into a bidding war unless you're over concerned with what happens if you don't win. He must be feeling the heat.
 
Last edited:
canucksfan said:
But it's managements fault. They could have let Pouliot and Gudbranson walk.
Click to expand...

No doubt. But who does what Gudbranson does on our team? And are we really going to let Greens pet project walk after giving up a pick for him?

Not this group. Hutton needs a fresh start, I would be very happy if he became that top 4 D we were promised when he broke into the league. With DZ and Pou I don't think he gets the shot he needs here, so package him together and see if we can find a second line scorer for him. That can be made right.
 
Cogburn said:
No doubt. But who does what Gudbranson does on our team? And are we really going to let Greens pet project walk after giving up a pick for him?

Not this group. Hutton needs a fresh start, I would be very happy if he became that top 4 D we were promised when he broke into the league. With DZ and Pou I don't think he gets the shot he needs here, so package him together and see if we can find a second line scorer for him. That can be made right.
Click to expand...

Gudbranson isn't good. He rarely plays physical. And yes we should let Green's pet project because he sucks.
 
i have been trying to sort out the beagle/roussel contracts. the price and terms for both are way too generous relative to market in terms of viewing actual signings.

i understand the idea to an extent we have to overpay against average teams, but that does not explain it. i think there is a huge gap between what we gave these guys and what an average team pays these guys. i am doubtful any average team offered 4 years or the buyout protection contract loading or the ntc. i don't believe we needed to offer all those things to beat an average team offer. one year of term is $3 million dollars for guys who have never seen big money. either equivalent overpayment or an extra year of term was enough. and we should have gone with overpayment in our situation. $4m x 3 is not as good after taxes as 3 x $4m but is still a lot of dough. yet somehow we give 4 years plus buyout proofing plus an ntc.

so we basically got taken to the absolute wall here on both deals. why?

now it is possible that two different agents duped us into overpaying by lying about other offers but, all joking aside, that's a career limiting move by even one agent. gms talk. it seems really unlikely.

so let's assume it was a bidding war. why did we stay in? i wonder if we got into a bidding war with other bad teams who also have to overpay creating some kind of crazy secondary market. or else maybe a very good team made an offer close enough to ours.

now to me either of those situations is a "know when to fold them" moment for a team playing the canuck's hand. if you are already paying a premium you have to walk away and move on to other guys when things get silly.

which brings me to accountability.

i question whether we needed these guys bad enough to go silly, especially roussel who confuses me as a guy we would even target based on his personality and the various pious utterings of this regime.

so it seems to me that benning and co. had better be right about these guys, because given how far they stretched to sign them instead of just moving on to the next possibilities or standing pat or even making a trade, they get very little leeway from me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Drop
canucksfan said:
Gudbranson isn't good. He rarely plays physical. And yes we should let Green's pet project because he sucks.
Click to expand...

It's not a matter of sucks or not, it's how management, right or wrong percieves it. There is no physicality in our line up with out Gudbranson, and Green lives Pouliot, so according to management, both are assets. I don't agree with those statements, but you can read this management group. Right or wrong, they're predictable.
 
The good news is that these contracts are being pretty much universally panned outside of the shrinking "Canucks can do no wrong" demographic. I honestly don't know what it would take to get Benning/Linden fired at this point, but these moves seem like a good start.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Drop
krutovsdonut said:
so it seems to me that benning and co. had better be right about these guys, because given how far they stretched to sign them instead of just moving on to the next possibilities or standing pat or even making a trade, they get very little leeway from me.
Click to expand...

I think/hope that ownership's position may be the same. If Roussel and Beagle are universally regarded as bad contracts one year from now, one would think that would contribute to a decision to change management.
 
TruGr1t said:
The good news is that these contracts are being pretty much universally panned outside of the shrinking "Canucks can do no wrong" demographic. I honestly don't know what it would take to get Benning/Linden fired at this point, but these moves seem like a good start.
Click to expand...

I agree I can’t see ownership being impressed with Benning if we have an equally terrible year this year as last. At some point Benning is going to have to go, look how fast Gillis was kicked to the curb once we started missing the playoffs
 
lindgren said:
I think/hope that ownership's position may be the same. If Roussel and Beagle are universally regarded as bad contracts one year from now, one would think that would contribute to a decision to change management.
Click to expand...

I mean how much does it take for Aquilini to clue in?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Seattle Totems
Cogburn said:
It's not a matter of sucks or not, it's how management, right or wrong percieves it. There is no physicality in our line up with out Gudbranson, and Green lives Pouliot, so according to management, both are assets. I don't agree with those statements, but you can read this management group. Right or wrong, they're predictable.
Click to expand...

I am saying they should have improved the defense. You said there is no room which now there really isn't. However, they choose to keep Gudbranson and Pouilot. Of course they have their reasons but those reasons are shit.
 
lindgren said:
I think/hope that ownership's position may be the same. If Roussel and Beagle are universally regarded as bad contracts one year from now, one would think that would contribute to a decision to change management.
Click to expand...

maybe. but this same owner has signed off on a bunch of generous controversial ufa contracts dating back to sundin. the pattern was somewhat interrupted while we were up against the cap as a contender.

consider two canuck ufa startegy theories

1. benning makes a ufa plan each year and convinces the owner to let him implement regardless of cost and term.

2. the owner forces the team to make aggressive ufa moves and doesn't care what it costs or the term.

given how those moves have worked out and whose money is being spent and the fact benning is still employed, option 2 seems more likely to me.
 
Its absolutely comical that Benning not only overpaid but also gave a limited NTC to Roussel and Beagle.

Also anybody see his press conference yesterday? When asked about the Beagle deal and the term Benning stated that when they met Beagle in person Beagle alluded to how good he felt last year and that hes never felt better in his career. It was one of the reasons why they felt Beagle could maintain his level of play for the next 4 years.

I stopped watching after I herd that. Just absolutely mind boggling rational. What do you expect Beagle to say you idiot hes a FA looking for the biggest payday in his career.
 
  • Like
Reactions: THE Green Man, MS and Josepho
krutovsdonut said:
maybe. but this same owner has signed off on a bunch of generous controversial ufa contracts dating back to sundin. the pattern was somewhat interrupted while we were up against the cap as a contender.

consider two canuck ufa startegy theories

1. benning makes a ufa plan each year and convinces the owner to let him implement regardless of cost and term.

2. the owner forces the team to make aggressive ufa moves and doesn't care what it costs or the term.

given how those moves have worked out and whose money is being spent and the fact benning is still employed, option 2 seems more likely to me.
Click to expand...

Maybe. At some point I think ownership is going to get tired of seeing these signings fail. If it just keeps going on and on, I suppose there's that lacrosse team to follow ...
 
Hawkyknowledge said:
What a bipolar fan base we have here in Vancouver.
Clearly we can’t handle a rebuild around these neck of the woods.
Click to expand...

lmao. "god I wish we wouldn't sign older guys to term" "hmmm seems like you can't handle a rebuild."

Cogburn said:
Didn't most of those outlets praise the Ladd, Lucic, Eriksson, Alzner and or Backes signings?
Click to expand...

Hypothetically...what if they *did* praise those moves.....and then watched them fail............and then learned from it.......................
 
Canucks most likely won't be competitive for 3-5 years. By then these bad contracts won't matter as much.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rimshot
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom