Waived: Canucks claim D Ryan Stanton from CHI

[denkiteki]

If he shows better than Alberts, it'll have been worth it. I don't see what the big deal is.



They'd have to waive Alberts right away if they want to maximize the cap space they'll have at the deadline won't they? Good thinking though.

Alberts cap saving won't actually be much (since he's only making 600k)... the question now is really rather or not the organization wants to keep him around as a depth dman or they want to move on. Also carrying 13 forward or 14 (which i thought was the plan all along). Even if they want to move on, the other question is does he have value (for a pick)...

Remember Alberts is a vet dman with NHL experience... basically the type of dman that generally get moved at the deadline and generally the type of player we look to add at the deadline. Heck we added him as a deadline player... On top of that he also seemingly took a discount (at least viewed that way when he signed... not as much right now) to resign with us so how much value does loyalty have with the organization.

 

[StIllmatic]

I like this move.

 

[David71]

another tough sob fighter? maybe slot him in games against physical teams.

 

[Orca Smash]

By Q I'm assuming it's Quenneville?

I believe so.

 

[Orca Smash]

*sigh* Okay, the Value Village GMing is getting on my nerves.

Well the caps down and no team has much cap space to do anything. We shouldnt be expecting much with a bit over 2m in space as of a few days ago, and teams usually stay around 700 000 below the cap, which means we might have 1.5 to spend, were not getting anything besides depth with that and thats basically what is happening.

The only way were not value village gm'ing is if we trade an important piece or a big contract, and it may happen, but i think gillis wants to see what he has under torts the next few months.

 

[vanuck]

Alberts cap saving won't actually be much (since he's only making 600k)... the question now is really rather or not the organization wants to keep him around as a depth dman or they want to move on. Also carrying 13 forward or 14 (which i thought was the plan all along). Even if they want to move on, the other question is does he have value (for a pick)...

Remember Alberts is a vet dman with NHL experience... basically the type of dman that generally get moved at the deadline and generally the type of player we look to add at the deadline. Heck we added him as a deadline player... On top of that he also seemingly took a discount (at least viewed that way when he signed... not as much right now) to resign with us so how much value does loyalty have with the organization.

Perhaps they give him another chance to earn a spot in the top 6 later on, but with the preseason he just had I can't imagine he's anything higher than a 7th D at this point. If they can trade him for a pick I'd be all for it. Although better D-men than Alberts have cleared waivers so if he was sent down to Utica he might be of use to the farm at least.

 

[denkiteki]

Perhaps they give him another chance to earn a spot in the top 6 later on, but with the preseason he just had I can't imagine he's anything higher than a 7th D at this point. If they can trade him for a pick I'd be all for it. Although better D-men than Alberts have cleared waivers so if he was sent down to Utica he might be of use to the farm at least.

Better dmans yes but i don't remember any making only 600k on a 1 year deal. The only true "upgrade" over Alberts that cleared was John-Michael Liles but lets be honest, he wasn't claimed due to the contract he got... Leafs need to probably eat 1+ mil/yr before he becomes useful. The closest comparable probably is Adam Pardy (same contract with NHL experience) who i think cleared but Alberts is probably an upgrade over him.

I agree that based on pre-season play, he's #8 on the depth chart now (if not #9... with Corrado being ahead of him and probably called up if any of the top 6 gets hurt for an extended period).

I'm not saying Alberts will be claimed forsure but there is a chance he gets claimed and still a chance he has a very small amount of value (with that value growing as dmans get hurt). As long as we're not hurting for a roster spot, might as well keep him around. If we need to free up a roster spot, he would be the first to go on my list.

 

[me2]

Better dmans yes but i don't remember any making only 600k on a 1 year deal. The only true "upgrade" over Alberts that cleared was John-Michael Liles but lets be honest, he wasn't claimed due to the contract he got... Leafs need to probably eat 1+ mil/yr before he becomes useful. The closest comparable probably is Adam Pardy (same contract with NHL experience) who i think cleared but Alberts is probably an upgrade over him.

I agree that based on pre-season play, he's #8 on the depth chart now (if not #9... with Corrado being ahead of him and probably called up if any of the top 6 gets hurt for an extended period).

I'm not saying Alberts will be claimed forsure but there is a chance he gets claimed and still a chance he has a very small amount of value (with that value growing as dmans get hurt). As long as we're not hurting for a roster spot, might as well keep him around. If we need to free up a roster spot, he would be the first to go on my list.

We can take that risk now with Stanton.

 

[denkiteki]

We can take that risk now with Stanton.

But to do it when we only save 600k cap space (and no actual money)? When JS comes back and somehow no one else (i.e. Booth) is hurt, then it makes more sense to waive him but why not keep the insurance policy for now?

 

[Edo]

Still can't believe this guy's loyalty, willingness to take an obvious pay cut, and work put in all goes to waste after 3 poor pre-season games. That mean nothing at all.

We've gone through a full season and a half of Manny Maholtra being a black hole, Andrew Ebbett doing nothing, Tom Sestito being Tom Sestito, amongst other things, and "fans" harp on Andrew Alberts. It's bewildering.

 

[MS]

I'm not so sure Alberts would clear waivers. He's got 449 games of NHL experience. He had a terrible pre-season, but another team might be willing to give him a shot. If Alberts were in a similar position with another team, I suspect the Canucks would consider it too.

Alberts getting claimed on waivers would be terrific. He's the club's #9 defender, on a one-way deal, and has been consistently unplayable in the playoffs in 4 years with the organization.

Unfortunately, no other NHL team would be stupid enough to claim him. Just as no other NHL team was stupid enough to sign him during the summer.

Why he isn't on waivers already is a mystery.

 

[BoHorvatFan]

Still can't believe this guy's loyalty, willingness to take an obvious pay cut, and work put in all goes to waste after 3 poor pre-season games. That mean nothing at all.

We've gone through a full season and a half of Manny Maholtra being a black hole, Andrew Ebbett doing nothing, Tom Sestito being Tom Sestito, amongst other things, and "fans" harp on Andrew Alberts. It's bewildering.

Alberts has never been good, even at his ''best'' he takes stupid penalties, handles the puck like a grenade, and just has terrible overall decision making and can't even fight, which a player of his size and skill level should be able to do.

His hit on Clifford still pisses me off.

 

[vanuck]

Better dmans yes but i don't remember any making only 600k on a 1 year deal. The only true "upgrade" over Alberts that cleared was John-Michael Liles but lets be honest, he wasn't claimed due to the contract he got... Leafs need to probably eat 1+ mil/yr before he becomes useful. The closest comparable probably is Adam Pardy (same contract with NHL experience) who i think cleared but Alberts is probably an upgrade over him.

I agree that based on pre-season play, he's #8 on the depth chart now (if not #9... with Corrado being ahead of him and probably called up if any of the top 6 gets hurt for an extended period).

I'm not saying Alberts will be claimed forsure but there is a chance he gets claimed and still a chance he has a very small amount of value (with that value growing as dmans get hurt). As long as we're not hurting for a roster spot, might as well keep him around. If we need to free up a roster spot, he would be the first to go on my list.

Sulzer - who only makes 125k more - is a better D-man, and I would consider Gervais to be a better player too even at 825k. Both cleared so I doubt that Alberts would be claimed. I just don't want to see him on the roster when the postseason comes around. And of course the point of waiving him now would be to clear up some more cap space that you can bank for later in the season after it accumulates. But we'll see how Stanton does first.

 

[deckercky]

Sulzer was better - depends on how he returns from knee surgery. Probably not a better option for this season anyways.

 

[ItsAllPartOfThePlan]

Like this pickup. Now please waive Alberts

 

[dwarf]

I actually like Alberts, because even though he doesn't have much skill, he tries hard every game.

I know nothing about Stanton, but would at least like to see him play more then 1 NHL game, before I think he is an upgrade on Alberts.

 

[Wisp]

Still can't believe this guy's loyalty, willingness to take an obvious pay cut, and work put in all goes to waste after 3 poor pre-season games. That mean nothing at all.

We've gone through a full season and a half of Manny Maholtra being a black hole, Andrew Ebbett doing nothing, Tom Sestito being Tom Sestito, amongst other things, and "fans" harp on Andrew Alberts. It's bewildering.

'tis a performance based business.

as for loyalty and pay cuts, people weren't exactly lining up to pay him more.

 

[Lindgren]

Sulzer - who only makes 125k more - is a better D-man, and I would consider Gervais to be a better player too even at 825k. Both cleared so I doubt that Alberts would be claimed. I just don't want to see him on the roster when the postseason comes around. And of course the point of waiving him now would be to clear up some more cap space that you can bank for later in the season after it accumulates. But we'll see how Stanton does first.

I'm convinced that cap savings can't be accumulated in this manner, but I recall having been wrong before.

 

[Wolfhard]

'tis a performance based business.

as for loyalty and pay cuts, people weren't exactly lining up to pay him more.

We don't really know that. He made something like $1.2m last year? He may have been looking to improve on that, or at least get close to it, but with the cap going down, nobody is willing to shell out for lesser players.

It's very possible that he had better offers than Vancouver, but decided that for anything less than a free agency home-run, he'd take less money and keep his new (and immediately growing) family stable in Vancouver.

He wouldn't be the first guy to take less money, and a lesser role in his career, for the betterment of his family's situation. Especially when you're financially secure already.

 

[Edo]

Alberts has never been good, even at his ''best'' he takes stupid penalties, handles the puck like a grenade, and just has terrible overall decision making and can't even fight, which a player of his size and skill level should be able to do.

His hit on Clifford still pisses me off.

It's too bad we don't have 7 million to find the defensemen that you think Alberts should be. He's an extra defensemen who fills in when needed and adds physicality on the back end that we lack. Like any other depth defensemen, he has weaknesses, but still brings something positive. He's a great guy to have.

There's a thing called perspective. If Alberts could handle the puck like Hamhuis and make the right play more often than not, he'd be making north of 5 million.

 

[Ernie]

Alberts getting claimed on waivers would be terrific. He's the club's #9 defender, on a one-way deal, and has been consistently unplayable in the playoffs in 4 years with the organization.

Unfortunately, no other NHL team would be stupid enough to claim him. Just as no other NHL team was stupid enough to sign him during the summer.

Why he isn't on waivers already is a mystery.

It appears that the Canucks are going to roll with 8 D on the roster for now. I guess there's no point in waiving him without a pressing need for a roster spot.

I don't know how long this can continue, though, as the team only has 12 active forwards right now. I suppose they can dress a defenseman as a forward if an injury occurs.

Also, it's certainly not unprecedented for the Canucks to have three injuries on their defense. Would you rather dress Alberts or Andersson?

 

[Javaman]

Alberts is a relatively seasoned journeyman who's familiar with the team and is signed for (basically) league minimum to be a depth defenseman. It's not like his 600k caphit is preventing Vancouver from adding an impact player to the roster.

Yeah, he looked like crap in the preseason, but I suspect Gillis is willing to give him a chance to work through it given his past history with the Canucks. If he continues to suck then you waive him down to Utica and find another league-minimum player to take his spot on the roster.

I just don't get the angst over the type of player Alberts is or the contract he has. The first option is for Corrado to soak up bottom pairing minutes if one of the top 4 gets hurt. If Alberts ends up playing significant minutes in a significant number of games, it simultaneously means Alberts is the least of worries for the Canucks.

 

[Steveorama]

FWIW, practice this morning had Stanton playing with Tanev, Weber and Alberts on a 4th pairing.
Could mean Torts is leaning torward Stanton playing on Thursday.

 

[Wolfhard]

FWIW, practice this morning had Stanton playing with Tanev, Weber and Alberts on a 4th pairing.
Could mean Torts is leaning torward Stanton playing on Thursday.

I would. He's already seen Alberts and Weber play in preseason. Stanton will have to audition during the first few games. More pressure, but if he's up for it there will be no questions about his place.

 

[CloutierForVezina]

I'm convinced that cap savings can't be accumulated in this manner, but I recall having been wrong before.

What do you mean, "in this manner"?

Every dollar you are under the cap is essentially amplified at the trade deadline. I don't have the actual numbers on me, but let's pretend the season is exactly 80 games and the trade deadline happens with 20 games left. If you run $2M under the cap for the first 60 games, you can acquire $8M in salary at the trade deadline because $8M over 20 games is the same salary as $2M over 80 games.

The math was super simplified there because I'm too lazy to actually look up how many games happen before/after the trade deadline but that's essentially how it works. The only thing that doesn't help save cap space is LTIR - putting a player on LTIR lets you exceed the cap by their cap hit (eg. if Booth goes down, we can go 4.2M over the cap while he's on LTIR) but you still only save cap space by how much you're below the actual cap.

Without running the actual math, I think if we waived Alberts now (and didn't replace him at all), we'd be piling up roughly $2.4M to use at the deadline. Very rough math and misleading because we'd almost certainly call up a forward making as much as him to replace him if he was sent down.