Toggle sidebar

Canucks & NHL News, Rumours, and & Fantasy GM | You incurred Vector's wrath and broke the site.

  • We sincerely apologize for the extended downtime. Our hosting provider, XenForo Cloud, encountered a major issue with their backup system, which unfortunately resulted in the loss of some critical data from the past year.

    What This Means for You:

    • If you created an account after March 2024, it no longer exists. You will need to sign up again to access the forum.
    • If you registered before March 2024 but changed your email, username, or password in the past year, those changes were lost. You’ll need to update your account details manually once you're logged in.
    • Threads and posts created within the last year have been restored.

    Our team is working with Xenforo Cloud to recover data using backups, sitemaps, and other available resources. We know this is frustrating, and we deeply regret the impact on our community. We are taking steps with Xenforo Cloud to ensure this never happens again. This is work in progress. Thank you for your patience and support as we work through this.

    In the meantime, feel free to join our Discord Server
Vector said:


Tocchet
  • Has not decided he wants to leave Vancouver; no decision about his future has been made
  • No truth to any rumours
  • “Has a long standing representative in Steve Mountain”
  • Mountain will be ready, any time, if the Canucks call and talk about an extension
  • Canucks have an option in his contract
  • Hard to believe Tocchet wants to return on a one-year contract
  • If they sign him, it will be with term
  • Tocchet respects the relationship with Allvin and Rutherford; they have been good to him
  • Will be a lot of interest if he becomes available; could be coaching opportunities with the Bruins, Rangers, Blackhawks, Penguins, Ducks, and more
  • Not accurate that he’s going to the Flyers
  • Him remaining in Vancouver can happen under the right circumstances
Click to expand...


Yeah, if that is actually the circumstances are it's hard to believe Tocchet will be back next summer.

LeBrun said earlier that the Canucks are desperate to extend him, Tocchet's representative is ready to talk an extension according to Rick here. Sure, Tocchet has said that he wants to play this season out, but if we're taking Rick + LeBrun at there word, there shouldn't be any issues in hammering something out immediately, and yet, here we are.

Tocchet isn't unreplaceable, but this year's coaching candidates are so uninspiring. Jim Montgomery would've been the dream, but the Blues pounced on him so quickly.
 
arttk said:
Thought the Isles offered him 4 and he said no
Click to expand...
If you're in Brock Nelon's shoes, does a 4 year deal with NYI appeal to you?
  • If he prioritizes $$$, then he can probably get 5+ years from another team (whether that's a good plan for the other team is a completely different thing, but GMs are short-term thinkers). Or maybe a 4 year deal with a different team for more $$$$. No clue how much Lou offered him.
  • If he prioritizes winning, then NYI is not an attractive team. And he can get similar money or term elsewhere with a better shot of winning.
He only takes that rumoured deal if he and his family are attached to the area and are really comfortable living there.
 
aregora said:
If you're in Brock Nelon's shoes, does a 4 year deal with NYI appeal to you?
  • If he prioritizes $$$, then he can probably get 5+ years from another team (whether that's a good plan for the other team is a completely different thing, but GMs are short-term thinkers). Or maybe a 4 year deal with a different team for more $$$$. No clue how much Lou offered him.
  • If he prioritizes winning, then NYI is not an attractive team. And he can get similar money or term elsewhere with a better shot of winning.
He only takes that rumoured deal if he and his family are attached to the area and are really comfortable living there.
Click to expand...
saying this to highlight the idea he is looking for more
 
  • Like
Reactions: aregora
arttk said:
We are just coming out of a flat cap era that GMs and agents did not see coming at all. I think that most likely change agents and GMs thinking until Bettman announced what the cap will be like for the next 3 years at once which is something he has not done before i think. So I don't think when Hronek signed his deal, anyone really expected the cap to go up this much this fast. I think even now, Bettman is already pumping the breaks by saying hey, recession and trade war might actually change the outlook.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree but the cap was expected to go up by at least 5% ($92.5M cap). By November, Friedman was reporting that the cap might jump to $95-97M. So yes I don't think GMs and agents were anticipating the cap to go up as much as it has been announced but certainly the expectations were that the cap would be going up quite a bit in future years (there are many discussions to this effect).

arttk said:
He played 82 games last season and put up 41 points and that's like the only season where he has been healthy. Sure he has scored at a higher pace but we are going back to similar debates where "oh he's a 30 goal scorer that has never actually scored 30". Yeah he's on pace to break 50 points this season, but until he actually does it, is he really a 50point defender? No. I want to be clear though, for his next contract, he is paid like a 50 point guy and I've already said, yeah that's the new rate.
Click to expand...
Well I don't know which side of the debate you side with but I would pay a guy who typically plays 65+ games and scores 26-29 goals more than a guy who typically plays 80-82 games a year and scored 30 goals once. Obviously the ability to stay healthy is important and Chychrun does have a tendency to miss games. But just as I wouldn't say Tanev wasn't a first pairing defenseman because he only played 42-55 games over a 3 season stretch I wouldn't call Chychrun a 40ish point defenseman when he's shown that he's capable of producing more.

arttk said:
I think the Hanafin contract proves that GMs and agents truly had no idea that the cap was going to go up so high so fast and were more conservative.

I imagine if MP asked for 6.5 we would've given it to him but now that Chychrun has reset the market, all similar D from now on will definitely be asking for 6.5M min. The weird part is as I type this, I think Gavikrov will ask for 7.5M and will probably get it even though he has a similar profile to MP.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure Hanifin's contract proves anything. Hanifin was reportedly offered $7.5M AAV in summer 2023 or before he was traded. He signed for slightly less in Vegas.

I wouldn't have been surprised if M-Petey signed for $6.5M AAV. He's a tough one to evaluate though. If he's seen as one of the elite first pairing defensive Dmen then ya $6.5M is reasonable. Hampus Lindholm signed for $6.5M AAV and that was a few years ago.

If we look back to around the time Hughes signed his current deal, I was saying that it's worth locking up Hughes long term over Petey because Dmen salaries were going up at a faster pace. But ya maybe Chychrun does reset the market or maybe he's being paid for his 22-23 goal 50+ point pace.
 
F A N said:
I don't disagree but the cap was expected to go up by at least 5% ($92.5M cap). By November, Friedman was reporting that the cap might jump to $95-97M. So yes I don't think GMs and agents were anticipating the cap to go up as much as it has been announced but certainly the expectations were that the cap would be going up quite a bit in future years (there are many discussions to this effect).


Well I don't know which side of the debate you side with but I would pay a guy who typically plays 65+ games and scores 26-29 goals more than a guy who typically plays 80-82 games a year and scored 30 goals once. Obviously the ability to stay healthy is important and Chychrun does have a tendency to miss games. But just as I wouldn't say Tanev wasn't a first pairing defenseman because he only played 42-55 games over a 3 season stretch I wouldn't call Chychrun a 40ish point defenseman when he's shown that he's capable of producing more.


I'm not sure Hanifin's contract proves anything. Hanifin was reportedly offered $7.5M AAV in summer 2023 or before he was traded. He signed for slightly less in Vegas.

I wouldn't have been surprised if M-Petey signed for $6.5M AAV. He's a tough one to evaluate though. If he's seen as one of the elite first pairing defensive Dmen then ya $6.5M is reasonable. Hampus Lindholm signed for $6.5M AAV and that was a few years ago.

If we look back to around the time Hughes signed his current deal, I was saying that it's worth locking up Hughes long term over Petey because Dmen salaries were going up at a faster pace. But ya maybe Chychrun does reset the market or maybe he's being paid for his 22-23 goal 50+ point pace.
Click to expand...
I think the surprising part is it going up to 115M in 3 years, not the going up to 97M next year.

Well I think Quinn is going to get 15M so if a 90+ point Norris/Hart level D is going to get 15M, I don't see any reason why Chychrun getting 9M is outrageous. From all the convo about it, it seems like everyone feels that, yeah this is the rate for the new cap environment. So to be clear, I am definitely not debating that he is not worth it.

Well Hanafin doesn't want to stay in Calgary and he wanted to go back to the states, in retrospect Calgary probably should've offered a f*** ton more but it goes back to, nobody expected the cap to go up 115M in 3 years, if they expected that, Calgary probably would've given him way more to get him to stay.

If Lindholm got 6.5M back then, the adjusted rate would be like 8M? rough napkin math. The more we talk about it, it just seems like MP probably could've gotten more in UFA.

Chychrun's contract is going to reset the market anyways. For a 50ish point high end 2nd paring guys (he plays only 20min a game) it's going to cost 9M AAV on a 8 year term. So 2nd paring guy who scores less are probably going to be 7-8?
 
Timmer44 said:
Hughes Hronek
Pettersson Myers
Pettersson Fabbro
Forbort Mancini

Willander with some cups of coffee. Can not see him on the roster full time. Forbort is going to want a raise, and it might price him out of this roster.
Click to expand...
Would this management group really be stupid and burn a year of RFA status for the sake of him here for 6 games?
 
I hope if Tocchet does leave, it’s of his own volition. I really like him as a coach and most of my complaints about him can be applied to almost every other coach with sustained success in this league. He’s really come into his own and it’s clear the players respect and want to play for him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sting101
theguardianII said:
Would this management group really be stupid and burn a year of RFA status for the sake of him here for 6 games?
Click to expand...
It's standard procedure around the league for top prospects. One would expect someone with a resume like yourself to recognize that. I mean, you played pro, have worked extensively in the game, know more than the team doctors and are or were heavily involved with Hockey Canada.

The scary part is there is probably a handful of posters that are drinking your snake oil
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: theguardianII, sting101 and Hughes Clues
Mr. Canucklehead said:
Isn't this part of what soured Cutter Gauthier on Philly, as well? That they wouldn't do this for him? (sign him to an ELC for a few games and burn a year off?)

There's an established history of the Canucks doing it, and I can't see Allvin and Rutherford balking now when it comes to the crown jewel of their prospect cupboard.
Click to expand...

Willander also isn’t the kind of player who’s stats pop enough to demand a huge contract after his ELC, so the downside of burning a year isn’t as high as it is for forwards or power play dmen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nopefully, Nick Lang and Reverend Mayhem
Much ado about nothing re: burning a year. I’d rather that than souring a prospect. Give em a couple games to taste so they know what to expect and where they need to go in the summer. I see it as a positive situation.
 
theguardianII said:
Would this management group really be stupid and burn a year of RFA status for the sake of him here for 6 games?
Click to expand...
He's proven all he can in college. But he's too green for the NHL.

You can't offer him a full time spot next year, so the only chip you have to play is burning a year off his ELC. Or else he'll just stay in college and pick his team in two years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: theguardianII
Timmer44 said:
He's proven all he can in college. But he's too green for the NHL.

You can't offer him a full time spot next year, so the only chip you have to play is burning a year off his ELC. Or else he'll just stay in college and pick his team in two years.
Click to expand...
That's what they said about EP25. But here we are

Wilander and EP25 were team-mates on the Swedish World. Jr. team two years ago--and Wilander was by far the better d-men, even though he was a year younger. So I don't rule out anything.

Besides, if BU makes it all the way to the Frozen Four--something they've done in each of the past two seasons--then Wilander won't be available to play many more than a handful of games for the Canucks. They could be games that still matter--but unless St. Louis and Minny completely collapse, that's not probable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Diversification
Burning a year is such a nothing burger if the player is a high pick coming out of College. it's entirely likely they are already a year or 2 behind some of their peers out of junior and used College as a stepping stone for development.

Easy decision that seems to get met with a bunch of push back for some reason. The players have more say nowadays....why would you want to start the relationship with suppressing your premier asset from being able to maximize his earning potential. I mean these are the guys people pay to watch play

If you're concerned with waivers then you dropped the ball anyway
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nick Lang
Nuckles said:
Also burning a year early can lead to a cheaper 2nd contract since it gives them less time to develop into and establish themselves as an impact NHL player.
Click to expand...
Ya, but that's just because the player signs a bad second contract. They can just take their QO and sign a one year contract making their combined three year income higher than if they didn't burn a year and were just on an ELC.
 
Timmer44 said:
He's proven all he can in college. But he's too green for the NHL.

You can't offer him a full time spot next year, so the only chip you have to play is burning a year off his ELC. Or else he'll just stay in college and pick his team in two years.
Click to expand...

getting him nhl money now and then to a one way deal a year sooner is a big carrot. i am not convinced willander has the leverage with this management group but you may be right.
 
Nuckles said:
Also burning a year early can lead to a cheaper 2nd contract since it gives them less time to develop into and establish themselves as an impact NHL player.
Click to expand...
My gut feeling is that after two years in the NHL, Wilander will do far better with his second contract than his ELC.

He represents 'the future' on the Canucks blueline. And I doubt they'd 'low-ball' him on a second contract unless he does a complete face-plant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom