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.
Canucks & NHL News, Rumours, and & Fantasy GM | You incurred Vector's wrath and broke the site.
- Thread starter Canuckle1970
- Start date
- Status
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.
- Aug 28, 2011
- 15,443
- 25,090
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.
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.
Just A Bit Outside
Playoffs??!
- Mar 6, 2010
- 16,245
- 21,171
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.
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?
theguardianII
Registered User
- Jan 30, 2020
- 3,150
- 2,064
Would this management group really be stupid and burn a year of RFA status for the sake of him here for 6 games?
Reverend Mayhem
Lowly Serf/Reluctant Cuckold
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.
That or he could say he's not going to sign with them.
HairyKneel
Registered User
- Jun 5, 2023
- 1,013
- 1,625
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
Mr. Canucklehead
Kitimat Canuck
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.
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.
thecupismine
Registered User
- Apr 1, 2007
- 2,264
- 3,332
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.
Reverend Mayhem
Lowly Serf/Reluctant Cuckold
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.
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.
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.
sting101
Registered User
- Feb 8, 2012
- 15,743
- 17,685
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
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
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.
krutovsdonut
eeyore
- Sep 25, 2016
- 16,767
- 11,107
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.
krutovsdonut
eeyore
- Sep 25, 2016
- 16,767
- 11,107
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.
Reverend Mayhem
Lowly Serf/Reluctant Cuckold
Because it should be a behind closed doors rationale. There are plenty enough positives to drag out to the media while keeping expectations tempered. I’m sure every manager thinks that. Doesn’t mean you should say it.
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.
- Status
