Canucks News, Rumours, and & Fantasy GM | Will they stay or will they go, now?

[Mr. Canucklehead]

Last one was over 1,000. Continue here.

Vector's NHL Transaction Tracker.

Some Important Off-Season Dates

Buyout Period: 48 hours after the SCF; players without NMCs must be placed on unconditional waivers 24 hours prior (another buyout period opens if a team has a player file for arbitration)
Team-Elected Arbitration: 48 hours after the SCF
Draft Day 01: June 28th
Draft Day 02: June 29th
Qualifying Offer Date: July 1st
Free Agency Opens: July 1st
Player-Elected Arbitration: July 5th
Young Stars Classic Tournament: Sep. 13th-16th

Click to read more...

 

[Wisp]

Not vibes. Actual comments from NHL executives suggesting that only the top contracts are financially viable to insure.


As further evidence to this...if Poolman's contract was fully insured, why the heck is he not already gone to one of the cap floor teams that want free AAV they don't have to pay for?

The NHL had traditionally covered this for decades fella, giving teams a baseline they typically top up.

Insuring contracts is best practice. As for Poolman going to a floor team, he's LTIR not LTIRetired. No one wants to be caught holding the bag on the off chance he comes back and is ready to play.

 

[Vector]

As further evidence to this...if Poolman's contract was fully insured, why the heck is he not already gone to one of the cap floor teams that want free AAV they don't have to pay for?

Canucks don’t want to pay the price to do so. That’s an easy one.

One article from 15 years and a previous CBA ago is not very convincing.

 

[Vector]

The NHL had traditionally covered this for decades fella.

He already posted this article.

Also,

NHL Deputy Commissioner Bill Daly said that "typically, a team will extend coverage to as many as seven players."

But it’s an old article and from what I’ve heard all contracts are now insured unless an injury makes them uninsurable.

 

[bandwagonesque]

I have read that basically all expensive contracts are insured, and "some" of the remaining contracts are. When you think about it, you're made pretty safe without insurance by the sheer quantity of middle-of-road contracts -- there's lots of relatively small contracts on every team, you'll always get injuries here and there, and no single contract of moderate value lost entirely is going to kill you. It also makes sense to insure really big contracts where losing that much money might have cascading effects on your business.

But I don't remember where I read that, it's pretty vague in any case, and there's weirdly little information out there on the subject.

 

[Wisp]

He already posted this article.

Also,

NHL Deputy Commissioner Bill Daly said that "typically, a team will extend coverage to as many as seven players."

But it’s an old article and from what I’ve heard all contracts are now insured unless an injury makes them uninsurable.

It was 16 years old so I was reluctant to reference. Thought the fact the league's insurance plan was covering the first 7 years of players contracts as far back as 2008 was interesting.

Ever since Nathan Horton, teams don't mess around with insurance. Leafs insured Clarkson, CBJ didn't with Horton, so it was more appealing to take the Clarkson contract over the Horton one.

 

[Vector]

It was 16 years old so I was reluctant to reference. Thought the fact the league's insurance plan was covering the first 7 years of players contracts as far back as 2008 was interesting.

Ever since Nathan Horton, teams don't mess around with insurance. Leafs insured Clarkson, CBJ didn't with Horton, so it was more appealing to take the Clarkson contract over the Horton one.

The thing with that article is that you’re both referencing it to prove your points and to me, it’s too old to be of relevance.

 

[dez]

Is Ben Chariot completely cooked? potential swap with Mikayhev, same cap hit and years remaining.

 

[Vector]

Is Ben Chariot completely cooked? potential swap with Mikayhev, same cap hit and years remaining.

I think Hronek would go from playing hard all to demanding a trade.

 

[Pacific Canuck]

I would rather start the season with mikhayev, then buy him out, we shouldn't be spending big money on both Joshua or lindholm. If mikhayev finds his feet and hands, he might be a good replacement for Joshua. If not buy him out during the year and carry some cap space into the trade deadline

 

[StickShift]

If the Canucks can acquire via UFA a star winger and a top-four calibre defensemen (or two) — I would just trade Hronek for the best pick you can get and use that to dump Mikheyev.

Taking another boat anchor salary back defeats the point.

 

[biturbo19]

The NHL had traditionally covered this for decades fella, giving teams a baseline they typically top up.

Insuring contracts is best practice. As for Poolman going to a floor team, he's LTIR not LTIRetired. No one wants to be caught holding the bag on the off chance he comes back and is ready to play.

Literally the same article i referenced as a quick googling. And if you actually read it, it explains that only a handful of the top contracts make sense to insure.


As for the LTIR vs LTIRetired thing, i guess it's a potential Pearson situation where he attempts a comeback and just sucks really hard. That would absolutely and completely screw over the Canucks. But i don't get the impression that Poolman with his brain injuries is any sort of threat to make that sort of comeback attempt. And good for him honestly. Would be so stupid to try to play again given his TBI history.

Canucks don’t want to pay the price to do so. That’s an easy one.

One article from 15 years and a previous CBA ago is not very convincing.

I mean...it's just a quick googling of what comes up, but that's been my impression of the way the system operates, because i haven't actually seen any more recent articles that supersede that.

He already posted this article.

Also,

NHL Deputy Commissioner Bill Daly said that "typically, a team will extend coverage to as many as seven players."

But it’s an old article and from what I’ve heard all contracts are now insured unless an injury makes them uninsurable.

Where did you hear that though? Is what i'm wondering. Because i'd love to be proven wrong on this, but i simply haven't heard or seen any articles confirming this. And until i actually see some sort of evidence that this is the case, i'm gonna continue to go with the "out of date" information of a tenuously more concrete nature. Which states pretty much the opposite.

I have read that basically all expensive contracts are insured, and "some" of the remaining contracts are. When you think about it, you're made pretty safe without insurance by the sheer quantity of middle-of-road contracts -- there's lots of relatively small contracts on every team, you'll always get injuries here and there, and no single contract of moderate value lost entirely is going to kill you. It also makes sense to insure really big contracts where losing that much money might have cascading effects on your business.

But I don't remember where I read that, it's pretty vague in any case, and there's weirdly little information out there on the subject.

I'd love to also read this. But my problem is...nobody seems to have any actual concrete links or information on the topic.

It was 16 years old so I was reluctant to reference. Thought the fact the league's insurance plan was covering the first 7 years of players contracts as far back as 2008 was interesting.

Ever since Nathan Horton, teams don't mess around with insurance. Leafs insured Clarkson, CBJ didn't with Horton, so it was more appealing to take the Clarkson contract over the Horton one.

To me, that was the most concrete evidence of where contracts are insured vs not. It was a huge talking point and major reason behind the trade. And it was actually publicly and concretely known. So barring more concrete evidence to the contrary...i'm going to continue on with that sort of assumption, for lack of valid counter-evidence.


It's also something that came up in the Voracek and Pronger "trades".

The thing with that article is that you’re both referencing it to prove your points and to me, it’s too old to be of relevance.

I mean it's old...but if there isn't more recent evidence of major changes and shifts in the process, is it irrelevant? Or is it the most relevant information we've got?

 

[biturbo19]

Is Ben Chariot completely cooked? potential swap with Mikayhev, same cap hit and years remaining.

He'd probably be approximately an Ian Cole.

Which...idk. I don't want an Ian Cole @ $4.75M. Probably not a player who hurts you actively...but passively, having a 3rd pairing stay-at-home physical D at that price hurts you a ton in cap flexibility to do other things around the roster.

 

[biturbo19]

If the Canucks can acquire via UFA a star winger and a top-four calibre defensemen (or two) — I would just trade Hronek for the best pick you can get and use that to dump Mikheyev.

Taking another boat anchor salary back defeats the point.

I think it's a lot more nuanced than that.

It really depends on if you make a good bet or a bad one on swapping for a similar "bad salary" on Mikheyev. If you take back a "boat anchor" salary that turns into a Conor Garland salary, it's a huge win. It's just...an inherently risky market if you're playing in it.


The other thing is...acquiring two Top-4 caliber defencemen is a big ask. That's not something a lot of teams pull off in any given year. I do think it's possible...but it's far from a slam dunk. But i think if you're moving Hronek...you have to be doing it under the premise that you have something else lined up to guarantee a Top-4D replacement.

 

[Vector]

@biturbo19 Here’s a 2018 article that is very interesting. The gist, for our discussion, contract insurance is handled in different ways and while some players aren’t insured most are through private insurance they pay themselves, if they aren’t by their teams.

Reading through that indicates that a player’s contract is insured unless otherwise noted. That matches with what I’ve heard through podcasts over the years. You can continue to go under the opposite assumption but, as I said, that information is very outdated at this point.

This is also splitting hairs on a minor point that is pretty irrelevant anyway. The only thing keeping the Canucks back from trading Poolman is the asset cost.

 

[MarkusNaslund19]

They were able to effectively move Tanner Pearson.

And Anthony Beauvillier.

 

[StickShift]

I think it's a lot more nuanced than that.

It really depends on if you make a good bet or a bad one on swapping for a similar "bad salary" on Mikheyev. If you take back a "boat anchor" salary that turns into a Conor Garland salary, it's a huge win. It's just...an inherently risky market if you're playing in it.


The other thing is...acquiring two Top-4 caliber defencemen is a big ask. That's not something a lot of teams pull off in any given year. I do think it's possible...but it's far from a slam dunk. But i think if you're moving Hronek...you have to be doing it under the premise that you have something else lined up to guarantee a Top-4D replacement.

RE: Acquiring two top-4 defensemen
It sure seems that there is a nudge-nudge wink-wink level of tampering that occurs among GMs and agents.

It feels like Vancouver ought have the inner line of interest if either Tanev or Dillon make it to market.

I suspect too that the opportunity to ride shotgun alongside Hughes may be attractive to some of the other RD out there. Especially a younger defenseman like Alex Carrier that may want to bet on a shorter term deal to slingshot to an even bigger UFA payday in years to come.

 

[biturbo19]

RE: Acquiring two top-4 defensemen
It sure seems that there is a nudge-nudge wink-wink level of tampering that occurs among GMs and agents.

It feels like Vancouver ought have the inner line of interest if either Tanev or Dillon make it to market.

I suspect too that the opportunity to ride shotgun alongside Hughes may be attractive to some of the other RD out there. Especially a younger defenseman like Alex Carrier that may want to bet on a shorter term deal to slingshot to an even bigger UFA payday in years to come.

I can see an inside track with Dillon and Tanev...but the two of them are both very...#4D types at this point in their career. They're old. I'm fine with acquiring both of them...but is needs to with someone else who is going to be more of a Top-3D with puck-moving ability.


Carrier is a tough on for me. He's a guy that i've been unreasonably high on since his draft year. You can go back and see that i had him listed as a 1st round value. lol. But in terms of fit...he's not going to work with Hughes. So you need to make sure you have a big, physical LHD opposite him on the second pairing if that's what we're doing. He'd be a solid partner for Zadorov or Soucy probably. Though small still, so not really how this regime has preferred to build their blueline.

 

[biturbo19]

@biturbo19 Here’s a 2018 article that is very interesting. The gist, for our discussion, contract insurance is handled in different ways and while some players aren’t insured most are through private insurance they pay themselves, if they aren’t by their teams.

Reading through that indicates that a player’s contract is insured unless otherwise noted. That matches with what I’ve heard through podcasts over the years. You can continue to go under the opposite assumption but, as I said, that information is very outdated at this point.

This is also splitting hairs on a minor point that is pretty irrelevant anyway. The only thing keeping the Canucks back from trading Poolman is the asset cost.

That's interesting, but not strictly relevant.


Private insurance is what Ethan Bear had, that paid him out while he was injured this past summer before he finally signed with the Caps. That's a different part of the equation here. That's talking about players buying individual insurance policies for themselves. Particularly in situations where they don't have a current contract in place. As per the Tavares example as well.


That's not the same as a contract being insured by the team. That's an entirely different process. That's about players insuring themselves, not teams insuring their contracts.


Teams insuring multi-year contracts is an extremely expensive activity. Which is why to my knowledge, it's largely reserved for the contracts that are enormous. The top half dozen or so contracts on a team. Like i'd expect Petey, JT, Hughes, Boeser, Demko, are insured. Outside that...idk...

 

[Wisp]

@biturbo19 Here’s a 2018 article that is very interesting. The gist, for our discussion, contract insurance is handled in different ways and while some players aren’t insured most are through private insurance they pay themselves, if they aren’t by their teams.

Reading through that indicates that a player’s contract is insured unless otherwise noted. That matches with what I’ve heard through podcasts over the years. You can continue to go under the opposite assumption but, as I said, that information is very outdated at this point.

This is also splitting hairs on a minor point that is pretty irrelevant anyway. The only thing keeping the Canucks back from trading Poolman is the asset cost.

thank you for digging that up. was getting frustrated not finding anything. nice to confirm what we both suspected was implicit.

i agree if Poolman's contract wasn't insured we would have some indication. Ferland's lack of insurance was known very early on in the player's tenure..

"That's interesting, but not strictly relevant."

lol. take. the. L.

 

[bandwagonesque]

@biturbo19 Here’s a 2018 article that is very interesting. The gist, for our discussion, contract insurance is handled in different ways and while some players aren’t insured most are through private insurance they pay themselves, if they aren’t by their teams.

Reading through that indicates that a player’s contract is insured unless otherwise noted. That matches with what I’ve heard through podcasts over the years. You can continue to go under the opposite assumption but, as I said, that information is very outdated at this point.

This is also splitting hairs on a minor point that is pretty irrelevant anyway. The only thing keeping the Canucks back from trading Poolman is the asset cost.

The private insurance discussed in the article seems to be insurance against loss of future earnings within the presumed length of a player's career due to injury, not the remainder of one's guaranteed contract which in any case the player doesn't lose when they are injured. There's also a distinction in there about being injured off-ice vs on ice, which I don't really understand unless they are taking about injuries resulting from activities that violate a player's contract.

 

[arttk]

Not vibes. Actual comments from NHL executives suggesting that only the top contracts are financially viable to insure.


As further evidence to this...if Poolman's contract was fully insured, why the heck is he not already gone to one of the cap floor teams that want free AAV they don't have to pay for?

i think the only cap floor team that would take on contracts like that is Arizona and even they started to charge for that service.

 

[biturbo19]

thank you for digging that up. was getting frustrated not finding anything. nice to confirm what we both suspected was implicit.

i agree if Poolman's contract wasn't insured we would have some indication. Ferland's lack of insurance was known very early on in the player's tenure..

"That's interesting, but not strictly relevant."

lol. take. the. L.

Literally none of that confirms anything about current cap and insurance realities.

Eat your own L if you're so eager.

The private insurance discussed in the article seems to be insurance against loss of future earnings within the presumed length of a player's career due to injury, not the remainder of one's guaranteed contract which in any case the player doesn't lose when they are injured. There's also a distinction in there about being injured off-ice vs on ice, which I don't really understand unless they are taking about injuries resulting from activities that violate a player's contract.

This is the thing. Private insurance is completely separate from "insured contract". Private insurance is what Ethan Bear had when he was injured at the worlds. That was insurance that he had privately, for himself...and it wasn't insurance on any contract, because at the time...he did not have any NHL contract in place.


These are two completely different types of insurance.

i think the only cap floor team that would take on contracts like that is Arizona and even they started to charge for that service.

I'm not even sure "Arizona" are going to be working that market anymore. Now that they're Utah and their new owner is a very progressive, "analytics" sort of guy...i think they're going to be very aggressive in a very different market.

But it's relevant to the discussion because it was exactly why the Yotes were willing to take on big "cap hits" on permanent LTIR. Because they were insured deals. But i still haven't seen any actual concrete indication that the majority of deals are insured as such...

 

[ziploc]

RE: Acquiring two top-4 defensemen
It sure seems that there is a nudge-nudge wink-wink level of tampering that occurs among GMs and agents.

It feels like Vancouver ought have the inner line of interest if either Tanev or Dillon make it to market.

I suspect too that the opportunity to ride shotgun alongside Hughes may be attractive to some of the other RD out there. Especially a younger defenseman like Alex Carrier that may want to bet on a shorter term deal to slingshot to an even bigger UFA payday in years to come.

Bringing in Dillon and Tanev means Cole and Zad would probably be gone. So maybe?

Hughes Hronek
Dillon Tanev
Soucy Myers

It's a little old and a little injury prone. Zad was such a warrior in the playoffs I'd be interested to see if they could keep him somehow. But it would probably mean Hronek has to go, and that messes things up too.

 

[Jovofan]

I have a feeling that Zadorov comes back. Lindholm and Joshua are both walking but I think Zad is the guy that leaves a little bit on the table for some longterm security in a market that he enjoys and a locker room he's got chemistry with.

Some Important Off-Season Dates

Buyout Period: 48 hours after the SCF; players without NMCs must be placed on unconditional waivers 24 hours prior (another buyout period opens if a team has a player file for arbitration)
Team-Elected Arbitration: 48 hours after the SCF
Draft Day 01: June 28th
Draft Day 02: June 29th
Qualifying Offer Date: July 1st
Free Agency Opens: July 1st
Player-Elected Arbitration: July 5th
Young Stars Classic Tournament: Sep. 13th-16th

Any chance we can get this post pinned on the front page of this thread going forward?

 

[Izzy Goodenough]

Is there any way the Mods can create a separate pinned Forum for all the Canucks Fans that don't want to resign Zadorov or Lindholm at their asking price but will endlessly moan about the price they cost to acquire once they leave.

It will be nearly as dull as the chatting between Punters that has descended like a Murder of Actuaries on the current Trade and Fantasy Forum.