Speculation: Canucks are more likely to sign Boeser to a bridge deal

[TomP24684]

Four years I believe takes him to UFA. I expect him to sign for $7X4 or thereabouts.

I read today that 4 years leaves him in his final offseason as an rfa.

 

[Megaterio Llamas]

I read today that 4 years leaves him in his final offseason as an rfa.

Hmm, I thought seven years took you to UFA?

 

[deckercky]

Hmm, I thought seven years took you to UFA?

Boesers first partial year burned a contract year, but didn't found as a year of professional experience because he didn't play enough games.

 

[Megaterio Llamas]

Boesers first partial year burned a contract year, but didn't found as a year of professional experience because he didn't play enough games.

Oh of course yes. I had forgotten that. Thanks.

He'll be looking for a five year deal then.

 

[TomP24684]

Oh of course yes. I had forgotten that. Thanks.

He'll be looking for a five year deal then.

The info that broke today is that he is looking for 28 million over 4 years.

 

[Jack Burton]

Yep.

His agent is reporting that it's 7mill x 4years.

Should be getting confirmation within an hour or so.

 

[StreetHawk]

Hmm, I thought seven years took you to UFA?

6 games does not qualify towards a year of free agency. None of the ncaa guys who join their nhl teams after their ncaa season ends gets that year accrued, they burn an elc year which gives them more money during their rfa years compared to someone coming out of the chl.

You need to be on an nhl roster for 40 games to accrue a year.

Thus draisitl had 5 rfa years left after his elc because he only had 37 games as an 18 year old with Edmonton.

 

[forty47seven]

This management group has done everything it can this offseason to be competitive now. It makes sense that they would sign Brock to bridge deal with an eye on cap saving. It's short sighted and dumb but it fits with what they're doing.

 

[Strangelove]

This management group has done everything it can this offseason to be competitive now. It makes sense that they would sign Brock to bridge deal with an eye on cap saving. It's short sighted and dumb but it fits with what they're doing.

Are all bridge deals "short sighted and dumb"... or just the ones GMJB does?

 

[DistantThunderRep]

This management group has done everything it can this offseason to be competitive now. It makes sense that they would sign Brock to bridge deal with an eye on cap saving. It's short sighted and dumb but it fits with what they're doing.

How is it dumb if Boeser is taken to RFA and the team can be competitive? He will be signed right to the point where a lot of aging contracts expire and he can get his money.

 

[forty47seven]

Are all bridge deals "short sighted and dumb"... or just the ones GMJB does?

It wasn't dumb when Tampa signed Kucherov to a bridge deal. They were coming off a 50 win season and entering a contention window.

 

[forty47seven]

How is it dumb if Boeser is taken to RFA and the team can be competitive? He will be signed right to the point where a lot of aging contracts expire and he can get his money.

Because being competitive is relative? The Canucks look like a bubble team on paper. It's weird to sign a star player to a bridge to maximize your cap when you haven't been in the playoffs for four seasons. It's the kind of move you make when you're looking to push your team over the top.

 

[StreetHawk]

Because being competitive is relative? The Canucks look like a bubble team on paper. It's weird to sign a star player to a bridge to maximize your cap when you haven't been in the playoffs for four seasons. It's the kind of move you make when you're looking to push your team over the top.

Maybe brock doesn’t want to do a deal for term? Takes two sides to agree.

If he can take his game up another level better to not lock himself in like MacKinnon and Scheiffle did and then elevate their game afterwards. Both of them would be heading into their final rfa year this coming season but are locked in for 3&4 ufa years afterwards.

He’s been injured each of the past 2 years so he’s not in the best position to land an insane contract. Has a fine ppg, but that won’t compensate for missing games.

The benefit long term of bridging him at 4 years is that he’s up again at 26. A max term then takes him to 34 barring the next cba changing it. So you’re likely not buying any seriously declining years at that point.

2003 draft class turns 34. How many of that top group played well this past season? Weber, Burns, Bergeron on one end. Phaneuf, Perry, Backes, Eriksson, Seabrook, etc on another end. Odds are closer to 1/3 for your guy to play well at that age.

 

[me2]

Maybe brock doesn’t want to do a deal for term? Takes two sides to agree.

If he can take his game up another level better to not lock himself in like MacKinnon and Scheiffle did and then elevate their game afterwards. Both of them would be heading into their final rfa year this coming season but are locked in for 3&4 ufa years afterwards.

He’s been injured each of the past 2 years so he’s not in the best position to land an insane contract. Has a fine ppg, but that won’t compensate for missing games.

The benefit long term of bridging him at 4 years is that he’s up again at 26. A max term then takes him to 34 barring the next cba changing it. So you’re likely not buying any seriously declining years at that point.

2003 draft class turns 34. How many of that top group played well this past season? Weber, Burns, Bergeron on one end. Phaneuf, Perry, Backes, Eriksson, Seabrook, etc on another end. Odds are closer to 1/3 for your guy to play well at that age.

If he wants he can just take his back weighted QO and be a full UFA. Works out nicely for Boeser.

 

[DistantThunderRep]

Because being competitive is relative? The Canucks look like a bubble team on paper. It's weird to sign a star player to a bridge to maximize your cap when you haven't been in the playoffs for four seasons. It's the kind of move you make when you're looking to push your team over the top.

Most of the time when a player takes a bridge deal that keeps him as a RFA, it benefits the team and not the player. With Vancouver in a cap problem, without moving literal cap dump problematic contracts, can't give Boeser a big deal. He wants to stay, willing to stay as a RFA, and willing to take a fair deal to remain, is nothing but good for the Canucks. How many teams are willing to take Eriksson when Tampa has their first round pick?

If you have to weigh Vancouver leveraging more draft picks or moving a good prospect to offload a bad contract to sign Boeser, it's kind of counterproductive.

 

[Nucks N Canes]

Most of the time when a player takes a bridge deal that keeps him as a RFA, it benefits the team and not the player. With Vancouver in a cap problem, without moving literal cap dump problematic contracts, can't give Boeser a big deal. He wants to stay, willing to stay as a RFA, and willing to take a fair deal to remain, is nothing but good for the Canucks. How many teams are willing to take Eriksson when Tampa has their first round pick?

If you have to weigh Vancouver leveraging more draft picks or moving a good prospect to offload a bad contract to sign Boeser, it's kind of counterproductive.

We had the cap space to sign him to a long term deal, we then went and made dumb moves to try and win now. So now we will have both him, Hughes, pettersson up in consecutive years all looking for big pay raises with no one as of now locked into good deals. The best teams will get their young guys locked in early before they break out. To avoid getting capstrapped. They also draft well outside of the first round and it hasn't been seen that Benning can do that either.

 

[settinguptheplay]

How is that irony?

I think it is pretty clear. He accuses Strangelove of obsessing over Benning's defense while he is obsessing over those who suppport Benning. And then the usual suspects come in and start defending the anti-Benning supporter. You being the prime example of that. The irony is thick.

 

[settinguptheplay]

We had the cap space to sign him to a long term deal, we then went and made dumb moves to try and win now. So now we will have both him, Hughes, pettersson up in consecutive years all looking for big pay raises with no one as of now locked into good deals. The best teams will get their young guys locked in early before they break out. To avoid getting capstrapped. They also draft well outside of the first round and it hasn't been seen that Benning can do that either.

Very little about this post has any truth to it.

1) We had the cap space and went and made some dumb signings. Guess what? We still have the cap space to sign Boeser. A non issue.

2) When quality rookies enter the league one year after another things like having to sign them is rather obvious. The fact that none of them are locked into good deals is because 2 out of 3 of them are still on their ELC's. Hard to lock them into good long term deals when they still have 2 years on ELC's.

3)The best teams lock in their best guys early. Is this really the argument you wanted to make? Have you looked at the RFA's still looking for contracts? What a silly poorly thought out argument. The cap not rising as much as expected has put many teams under the gun.

4) Every team has hits and misses outside the 1st round. Benning included. I suspect Benning is middle of the road in regards to late round drafting. To say he hasn't shown any ability at all is disingenuous.

 

[Strangelove]

We had the cap space to sign him to a long term deal, we then went and made dumb moves to try and win now. So now we will have both him, Hughes, pettersson up in consecutive years all looking for big pay raises with no one as of now locked into good deals. The best teams will get their young guys locked in early before they break out. To avoid getting capstrapped. They also draft well outside of the first round and it hasn't been seen that Benning can do that either.

Do you even read responses to your posts?

From the previous page:

He's a replacement level player, you don't pay a premium for that because of "leadership". Especially as the nucks will have trouble paying pettersson now.

Kuzmas article benning talks of a blessing from ownership to put more of his duds in the AHL. Owners are fine with being tight to the cap and potentially losing our "core" so who cares I guess.

Potentially losing our core? Trouble paying Pettersson? Owners are fine with being tight to the cap? Also sounds like you are saying leadership is useless or trivial?

This off-season: No cap issues fitting Boeser in as posted by several others, all other work done.

Next off-season :
Biggest players to sign: Markstrom and Stecher.
Contracts coming off: Tanev, Schaller, and the cap will go up.

Pettersson and Hughes off-season:
Even higher cap and is this the year the new TV deal is coming?
Players coming off the books:
Brandon Sutter - 4.375
Tanner Pearson - 3.75
Alex Edler - 6
Jordie Benn - 2
Sven Bartschi - 3,66

Cap wise for the now and the future = steady on cowboy.

Also, what teams "get their young guys locked in early before they break out" more-so than your Vancouver Canucks?

 

[M2Beezy]

Sounds like that whole $7 mill per season for 4 years was all a lie. YIKES where does this nonsense come from???

 

[Siludin]

There is no way that Boeser's camp is gonna take a 4 year deal and have him be an RFA the same year that Bo Horvat is a UFA, because you are going to get a second-fiddle contract that way.
They'll take the three year deal or the five year deal where there is more meaningless salary coming off the books. Boeser should target a three year deal and see dollar signs when Eriksson, Roussel, Beagle's contracts are done (Eriksson will likely be moved before then, but the Canucks could retain in that case)

nailed it

 

[Hunter368]

Closed