Proposal: Are you in favour of trading Brock Boeser?

[Raistlin]

he is currently a player that will be worth his contract if he improves. I cannot see him out performing his next contract, for this reason alone he is not core eligible. and should be available to acquire a team need.

 

[tyhee]

...

If you are playing your ridiculous semantics like that the only definition of a pay cut is taking less than his elc then thats just stupid . Go read the dictionary. It’s a broader term than that. Lol it’s says reducing pay or Salary it doesn’t say reduce from your previous contract. Lol

I understand that you intended to use "pay cut" as accepting less than could have been obtained, but that isn't the plain use of the words.

If someone makes $1,867,500 playing hockey for the 2018-19 season and $4,000,000 playing hockey for the 2019-20 season, he has pretty clearly received a pay increase. It makes no sense when getting a pay increase to say the player took a pay cut.

A change from $1,867,500 to $4,000,000 is not a reduction in pay, it is an increase and yes, the baseline is what was being paid immediately before the change.

Your point may be valid-but the way you stated it isn't.

 

[Grumbler]

No (unpopular opinion). Please don’t trade playoff performers, unless they really going full rebuild mode.

 

[elitepete]

No (unpopular opinion). Please don’t trade playoff performers, unless they really going full rebuild mode.

I don't think I'd call Boeser a playoff performer. He struggled early in that playoff run, but did play better towards the end of the St. Louis series and in the Vegas series.

 

[Tomatoes11]

What's hilarious here is that you're totally lost here and fail to see that you're wrong. Accusing me of being hilarious or using ridiculous semantics just makes you look silly.

Using your definition, everyone took a pay cut to sign here. Are you saying well done Jim Benning? According to you, Myers took a "pay cut" to sign here. So did Eriksson. So did Roussel and Beagle. That's what you're saying here which is just stupid.

Doesn’t matter though the point still stands. Which is why I used hair cut as well and not just pay cut. So I proved nothing for you like you are hilariously trying to stupidly spin that you somehow win on a technicality lol

 

[Tomatoes11]

I understand that you intended to use "pay cut" as accepting less than could have been obtained, but that isn't the plain use of the words.

If someone makes $1,867,500 playing hockey for the 2018-19 season and $4,000,000 playing hockey for the 2019-20 season, he has pretty clearly received a pay increase. It makes no sense when getting a pay increase to say the player took a pay cut.

A change from $1,867,500 to $4,000,000 is not a reduction in pay, it is an increase and yes, the baseline is what was being paid immediately before the change.

Your point may be valid-but the way you stated it isn't.

Fair enough, I probably could have used my words better.

However, the exact definition in the dictionary doesn’t mention a baseline. But you are right, it should be assumed to be the previous pay.

Which is why I pointed out to clueless boy Fan there that of course he didn’t take a pay cut from his ELC. That would be impossible for any NHL player to take a pay cut until they are about to retire and decline. That would be around 30+ Before any NHL player would have to take less than their previous contract.

 

[WhiteCurse]

If trading Boeser meant bringing in a top 4 Dman and keeping Miller, count me in

 

[82Ninety42011]

Oh please no the pylon himself !
Lol sorry meant to respond to a Dana Murrzin post lol. I'm drunk as f***.

 

[PavelBure10]

I think the time has come to trade Boeser. It's not just the contract that we won't be able to afford. I just want to see him have a change of scenery to greaten his career. I think he still could be a scoring top line forward, just not here. Would like to see him go to his hometown in Minnesota with complete positive vibes.

 

[Blue and Green]

Good point. The Canucks could take him to arbitration without making a qualifying offer. If the arbitration award was higher than the team would be prepared to pay, the Canucks could walk away, making him a free agent-so he's entitled to a minimum of $6.375 million (the minimum allowable arbitration award-85% of his salary this season) or free agency this summer.

It's an improvement, though still a drag on the value of his contract to a team acquiring him at this season's trade deadline.

I don't think $6.375M would be a drag on his trade value, in fact I think it would enhance it. His existing $5.875M x 3 contract included only one arbitration-eligible season and he's not less of a player now than he was when he signed that contract. People are getting fooled by the short-term vagaries of shooting %'s.

 

[arttk]

I don't think I'd call Boeser a playoff performer. He struggled early in that playoff run, but did play better towards the end of the St. Louis series and in the Vegas series.

It’s kinda expected for players to be not in form for the play in. Playin!=playoffs

 

[F A N]

Doesn’t matter though the point still stands. Which is why I used hair cut as well and not just pay cut. So I proved nothing for you like you are hilariously trying to stupidly spin that you somehow win on a technicality lol

Lol. Nope. You're not using "hair cut" properly either.

I understand that you intended to use "pay cut" as accepting less than could have been obtained, but that isn't the plain use of the words.

If someone makes $1,867,500 playing hockey for the 2018-19 season and $4,000,000 playing hockey for the 2019-20 season, he has pretty clearly received a pay increase. It makes no sense when getting a pay increase to say the player took a pay cut.

A change from $1,867,500 to $4,000,000 is not a reduction in pay, it is an increase and yes, the baseline is what was being paid immediately before the change.

Your point may be valid-but the way you stated it isn't.

It is a stupid point. He was given a chance to explain but he doubled and tripled down.

How many contracts are signed where the player got less than what they wanted? Do you say that the player took a pay cut or hair cut then? Of course not. I'm certain Myers WANTED more money and term. We have reports that he was SEEKING more term and money. Would you say he took a paycut or hair cut to sign here if the Canucks' offer was the best offer in terms of both money and term? Of course not because that would be stupid. The same with Ferland. Did you think that all he wanted was 4x$3.5M at the beginning of free agency? I don't think so. We were the only team to offer him 4 years. Would you say that he took a pay cut or hair cut to sign here? Of course not because that would be stupid.

This poster has clearly demonstrated that he does not know what pay cut means:

Lol taking less money than he wanted isn’t the exact definition of a taking pay cut? You are hilarious.