Canucks Managerial Thread | 6

[Rotting Corpse*]

The thing is you retain salary on Higgins and you have a lot more teams interested in him. He can put his 10 team list to teams that don't need third liners and then what? You either have to buy him out or keep him.

Agree to disagree. I really don't think it's hurting us that Higgins and Hansen have NTC's. Higgins and his 2.5M cap-hit are about the 14th biggest problem with the team, and Hansen has been terrific value.

 

[thepuckmonster]

Agree to disagree. I really don't think it's hurting us that Higgins and Hansen have NTC's. Higgins and his 2.5M cap-hit are about the 14th biggest problem with the team, and Hansen has been terrific value.

I have no issue with Hansen but my issue stems from having both on the roster.

It's an older example but if you look at the Carter and Richards trades the reason Philly was able to get a ridiculous haul for them was because they moved them before their NTCs kicked in (which ethically is pretty slimy but it's not like I think Holmgren is good). In order to maximize asset value you want to have as many bidders as possible.

Chicago has very few NTCs and they've managed to remain competitive by moving out supporting cast members for fresh blood at reasonable returns because they're not giving a guy like Andrew Shaw an NTC. In fact their worst return on a trade was sharp and that was because of his NTC and salary.

 

[Rotting Corpse*]

I have no issue with Hansen but my issue stems from having both on the roster.

It's an older example but if you look at the Carter and Richards trades the reason Philly was able to get a ridiculous haul for them was because they moved them before their NTCs kicked in (which ethically is pretty slimy but it's not like I think Holmgren is good). In order to maximize asset value you want to have as many bidders as possible.

Chicago has very few NTCs and they've managed to remain competitive by moving out supporting cast members for fresh blood at reasonable returns because they're not giving a guy like Andrew Shaw an NTC. In fact their worst return on a trade was sharp and that was because of his NTC and salary.

Carter and Richards got a good return because they were much better players than Higgins. I don't see that as any evidence that the NTC would have meant a worse return had it kicked in.

The point is that dealing Higgins for some junk and replacing him for a more expensive player is not likely to help us much. Deal Ryan Miller if you want to free up cap space, or Sbisa. Believe it or not Sbisa at 2M and an NTC would be better than our current situation. He's already untradeable because of his ludicrous contract so if we could save 1.6M by giving him an NTC we'd actually be better off.

 

[thepuckmonster]

Carter and Richards got a good return because they were much better players than Higgins. I don't see that as any evidence that the NTC would have meant a worse return had it kicked in.

The point is that dealing Higgins for some junk and replacing him for a more expensive player is not likely to help us much. Deal Ryan Miller if you want to free up cap space, or Sbisa.

Obviously they're better players I'm not debating that.

I respect your point but I think the league will be trending more towards term on contract as opposed to NTCs.

 

[Verviticus]

Obviously they're better players I'm not debating that.

I respect your point but I think the league will be trending more towards term on contract as opposed to NTCs.

ya, and the teams that use ntcs appropriately are going to be better teams overall

 

[thepuckmonster]

ya, and the teams that use ntcs appropriately are going to be better teams overall

Yep. NTCs and NMCs should be used on what GMs believe to be core players. A big reason why we're where we are is because at one point our core was 8-9 players (Sedins, Burrows, Higgins, Hansen, Garrison, Edler, Hamhuis, Bieksa, Luongo, Kesler) which is too many. I can't remember if we decided to honour Ballard and Booth's NTCs after trade right now either but I'll go with no just for arguments sake.

If you lose Higgins because he wants 4M then fine, you replace him through free agency or a trade. The answer isn't to give 2nd/3rd line tweeners NTCs to keep their salaries down.

You identify 4-5 players you want to build around and lock them up with NTCs/NMCs. The supporting cast, even if overpaid shouldn't be unless it's short term high performing players (Vrbata would be that).

 

[Rotting Corpse*]

Yep. NTCs and NMCs should be used on what GMs believe to be core players. A big reason why we're where we are is because at one point our core was 8-9 players (Sedins, Burrows, Higgins, Hansen, Garrison, Edler, Hamhuis, Bieksa, Luongo, Kesler) which is too many. I can't remember if we decided to honour Ballard and Booth's NTCs after trade right now either but I'll go with no just for arguments sake.

If you lose Higgins because he wants 4M then fine, you replace him through free agency or a trade. The answer isn't to give 2nd/3rd line tweeners NTCs to keep their salaries down.

You identify 4-5 players you want to build around and lock them up with NTCs/NMCs. The supporting cast, even if overpaid shouldn't be unless it's short term high performing players (Vrbata would be that).

Sedins - no brainer NTC's.
Burrows, Higgins, Hansen all have provided excellent value for almost their entire tenure. Well worth the NTC.
Garrison - was moved easily, NTC didn't hurt at all.
Edler - no brainer NTC, doesn't hurt us.
Hamhuis - we will see if it hurts us if we try to move him I guess.
Bieksa - easily moved.
Luongo, Kesler - no brainer NTC's. Every team in the league would have given it to them.

You can argue that maybe the NTC is preventing us from getting something for Higgins now, but who cares. His contract isn't hindering us much and he's given us 4 years of tremendous value. Still, that is one NTC out of like 12 that is maybe hurting us one year out of five. That is not evidence of support for the "never give NTC's to non-elite players" theory. Bad contracts hurt teams more than NTC's ever could and it's not close.

If the cost of giving half your team an NTC is that you get 4 years of awesome value followed by 1 year where maybe one of the NTC's is hurting you then I do it every ****ing time.

Despite all the teeth gnashing it's just not a big deal.

 

[thepuckmonster]

Sedins - no brainer NTC's.
Burrows, Higgins, Hansen all have provided excellent value for almost their entire tenure. Well worth the NTC.
Garrison - was moved easily, NTC didn't hurt at all.
Edler - no brainer NTC, doesn't hurt us.
Hamhuis - we will see if it hurts us if we try to move him I guess.
Bieksa - easily moved.
Luongo, Kesler - no brainer NTC's. Every team in the league would have given it to them.

You can argue that maybe the NTC is preventing us from getting something for Higgins now, but who cares. His contract isn't hindering us much and he's given us 4 years of tremendous value. Still, that is one NTC out of like 12 that is maybe hurting us one year out of five. That is not evidence of support for the "never give NTC's to non-elite players" theory. Bad contracts hurt teams more than NTC's ever could and it's not close.

If the cost of giving half your team an NTC is that you get 4 years of awesome value followed by 1 year where maybe one of the NTC's is hurting you then I do it every ****ing time.

I wouldn't say garrison was easily moved. Benning wanted to move him to St Louis for Berglund and Garrison said no.

Honestly giving Garrison an NTC given the situation on LHD without trying to move one of Edler or Hamhuis was stupid in the first place. Having 3 (possibly 4, like I said I can't remember if we honored Ballard's NTC or not) on the left side with only two NHL passable RHD in Tanev and Bieksa was foolish.

I love Burrows but he hasn't been worth his NTC in play since that contract. It's a loyalty contract which he deserved in dollars but it's not like he's been playing like a 4.5M player the last few seasons.

And in reality we didn't really have 4 years of amazing play. We had 2 years (2011 and 2012) followed by 2013 as a third seed and Tortscatastrophe in 2014. Yeah maybe 2010 but that was before Higgins and Garrison.

 

[y2kcanucks]

I wouldn't say garrison was easily moved. Benning wanted to move him to St Louis for Berglund and Garrison said no.

Honestly giving Garrison an NTC given the situation on LHD without trying to move one of Edler or Hamhuis was stupid in the first place. Having 3 (possibly 4, like I said I can't remember if we honored Ballard's NTC or not) on the left side with only two NHL passable RHD in Tanev and Bieksa was foolish.

I love Burrows but he hasn't been worth his NTC in play since that contract. It's a loyalty contract which he deserved in dollars but it's not like he's been playing like a 4.5M player the last few seasons.

And in reality we didn't really have 4 years of amazing play. We had 2 years (2011 and 2012) followed by 2013 as a third seed and Tortscatastrophe in 2014. Yeah maybe 2010 but that was before Higgins and Garrison.

Given how Berglund has played it's probably a good thing Garrison said no. Then again who knows if we would have pressed to get Bonino in the Kesler trade if we had Garrison. Maybe he simply asks for a 2nd round pick instead of Bonino also.

 

[arttk]

Sedins - no brainer NTC's.
Burrows, Higgins, Hansen all have provided excellent value for almost their entire tenure. Well worth the NTC.
Garrison - was moved easily, NTC didn't hurt at all.
Edler - no brainer NTC, doesn't hurt us.
Hamhuis - we will see if it hurts us if we try to move him I guess.
Bieksa - easily moved.
Luongo, Kesler - no brainer NTC's. Every team in the league would have given it to them.

You can argue that maybe the NTC is preventing us from getting something for Higgins now, but who cares. His contract isn't hindering us much and he's given us 4 years of tremendous value. Still, that is one NTC out of like 12 that is maybe hurting us one year out of five. That is not evidence of support for the "never give NTC's to non-elite players" theory. Bad contracts hurt teams more than NTC's ever could and it's not close.

If the cost of giving half your team an NTC is that you get 4 years of awesome value followed by 1 year where maybe one of the NTC's is hurting you then I do it every ****ing time.

Despite all the teeth gnashing it's just not a big deal.

Find the hate for Higgins to be pretty illogical. Guy has provided like 36-43 points for us for the last couple years. That's pretty good value for what he is earning. He is having his first bad year since we acquired him, after his president threw him under bus in front of the pauser of all people and somehow that makes him an example of why you shouldn't give him a NTC?

If you have an issue with guys who earn 2.5, look no further than ****ing Dorsett and Prust. These guys are so ****ing useless at the pricetag we might as well give them a NTC anyways since they are pretty much untradable anyway.

 

[thepuckmonster]

Find the hate for Higgins to be pretty illogical. Guy has provided like 36-43 points for us for the last couple years. That's pretty good value for what he is earning. He is having his first bad year since we acquired him, after his president threw him under bus in front of the pauser of all people and somehow that makes him an example of why you shouldn't give him a NTC?

If you have an issue with guys who earn 2.5, look no further than ****ing Dorsett and Prust. These guys are so ****ing useless at the pricetag we might as well give them a NTC anyways since they are pretty much untradable anyway.

I don't have a problem with his salary. I have a problem having 8-9 NTCs on the team at a time. It makes any sort of moves nearly impossible.

I love Higgins and defend him a lot. That doesn't mean I consider him to be a player who should have an NTC.

 

[arttk]

I wouldn't say garrison was easily moved. Benning wanted to move him to St Louis for Berglund and Garrison said no.

Honestly giving Garrison an NTC given the situation on LHD without trying to move one of Edler or Hamhuis was stupid in the first place. Having 3 (possibly 4, like I said I can't remember if we honored Ballard's NTC or not) on the left side with only two NHL passable RHD in Tanev and Bieksa was foolish.

I love Burrows but he hasn't been worth his NTC in play since that contract. It's a loyalty contract which he deserved in dollars but it's not like he's been playing like a 4.5M player the last few seasons.

And in reality we didn't really have 4 years of amazing play. We had 2 years (2011 and 2012) followed by 2013 as a third seed and Tortscatastrophe in 2014. Yeah maybe 2010 but that was before Higgins and Garrison.

That's because Benning is a ****ing idiot for not asking him if he was ok with going to St. Louis beforehand and then had to scramble for a deal because he probably pissed off Garrison at that point.

You can trade a NTC player with no problem, just ask them where they are cool with going to. You don't try to broker a trade behind their back and then act surprise when they reject it and then find out you just ****ed up the relationship.

 

[Rotting Corpse*]

I don't have a problem with his salary. I have a problem having 8-9 NTCs on the team at a time. It makes any sort of moves nearly impossible..

No matter how many times you repeat it it doesn't make it true.

 

[thepuckmonster]

No matter how many times you repeat it it doesn't make it true.

And no matter how many times you post this to rebut me, it's not going to change my opinion.

That's why its a discussion board. To discuss things.

 

[arttk]

I don't have a problem with his salary. I have a problem having 8-9 NTCs on the team at a time. It makes any sort of moves nearly impossible.

I love Higgins and defend him a lot. That doesn't mean I consider him to be a player who should have an NTC.

Well it really depends on how much they value him. They probably saw him as a good 3rd line guy that couple move up and down the lineup and don't mind keeping for the next couple of years. If they have no plans to get rid of him for X years then why would having a NTC matter especially if it lowers the cost.

 

[y2kcanucks]

No matter how many times you repeat it it doesn't make it true.

3rd liners like Higgins and Hansen aren't worth NTC's. Third liners like them are a dime a dozen.

 

[Rotting Corpse*]

And no matter how many times you post this to rebut me, it's not going to change my opinion.

That's why its a discussion board. To discuss things.

I wish it were true that it made any sorts of moves impossible. Imagine if Benning hadn't been able to make any moves, much better team today.

 

[arttk]

I wish it were true that it made any sorts of moves impossible. Imagine if Benning hadn't been able to make any moves, much better team today.

Actually that is the ironic part. The team would be better if he wasn't able to make the moves he did.

 

[Rotting Corpse*]

3rd liners like Higgins and Hansen aren't worth NTC's. Third liners like them are a dime a dozen.

Guys like Higgins and Hansen who have provided what they have provided for the past 4 years on 2.5M contracts are not a "dime a dozen." The very assertion corrupts your credibility.

We have received an absurd amount of surplus value from Higgins, Hansen, and Burrows for the past 5 years or so. So much so that it's ludicrous for anyone to complain about them and their contracts.

Paying 3.6M for a garbage player like Sbisa is what hurts, not that oh noez we can't trade Higgins to whomever we want after he's been one of the best value players in the NHL for the majority of the past 5 seasons. Give me a break.

 

[Cupless44]

Pretty much. Aside from the Luongo trade in 2006 I can't really think of a trade we've conclusively won on since Naslund. Even Bertuzzi came with giving up linden to make room for he who must not be named.

Bertuzzi and Bryan McCabe for a fading Linden who never hit 20 goals again was an awesome trade in my opinion.

 

[thepuckmonster]

Guys like Higgins and Hansen who have provided what they have provided for the past 4 years on 2.5M contracts are not a "dime a dozen." The very assertion corrupts your credibility.

We have received an absurd amount of surplus value from Higgins, Hansen, and Burrows for the past 5 years or so. So much so that it's ludicrous for anyone to complain about them and their contracts.

Paying 3.6M for a garbage player like Sbisa is what hurts, not that oh noez we can't trade Higgins to whomever we want after he's been one of the best value players in the NHL for the majority of the past 5 seasons. Give me a break.

Higgins is underrated around here but he hasn't provided some of the best value over the last 5 years in regards to contract.

An average of 35-40 points at 2.5M is a good contract, not a great one. Higgins provides streaky secondary scoring while being above average defensively but also can't stay healthy. He's a third liner that was capable of playing 2nd line because of chemistry with Kesler.

"The best value" would have been someone like Burrows at 2M or Edler at 3M.

Higgins is a third liner that is paid like a third liner with an NTC. It's not a travesty but it's hardly a steal.

 

[Rotting Corpse*]

Having cement rules like "3rd liners don't get NTC's" or "only 5 NTC's on a team" is one of those things that sounds correct and makes for a good soundbite but is not supported by evidence and is the antithesis of being progressive and creative. We had the team we did during the elite years because we were able to stay under the cap by giving cheap contracts that had NTC's. We were able to get over the "bad taste" that comes with breaking one of the "rules" by recognizing that it gave us better value.

 

[Cupless44]

This goes a long way back before Benning was here.

It's like this organization is allergic to long term competent management. Benning is just another body in that 20 year long string of average-ish to bad management.

Burke might have drafted well and got the Sedins but he proceeded to ruin any cup hopes by never getting a good goalie.

Nonis' one good move was Luongo and that wasn't even his target when he was moving Bertuzzi.

Gillis was able to retain a talented core but failed to draft anything of note for so long and his cap management with NTCs/NMCs ended up becoming a nightmare before we thought it would be. That and the goalie mismanagement of 2013-14 was horrendous.

And obviously Benning's faults have been discussed ad nauseum so I don't think I have to elaborate on that.

Pretty well said but i think Burke did a decent job given the state of the franchise after the Keenan debacle both at the gate and the roster. I wasn't happy Stan McCammon, McCaws henchman didn't keep him.

 

[Tiranis]

Third liners like them are a dime a dozen.

Sure, they're 3rd liners after all, but try acquiring one and you end up overpaying in assets or money. There's absolutely value in having those two locked up for such low money. Surely that would be only more apparent now that our GM went out and got two 4th liners for the same money (and both for more assets than Higgins).

 

[y2kcanucks]

Guys like Higgins and Hansen who have provided what they have provided for the past 4 years on 2.5M contracts are not a "dime a dozen." The very assertion corrupts your credibility.

We have received an absurd amount of surplus value from Higgins, Hansen, and Burrows for the past 5 years or so. So much so that it's ludicrous for anyone to complain about them and their contracts.

Paying 3.6M for a garbage player like Sbisa is what hurts, not that oh noez we can't trade Higgins to whomever we want after he's been one of the best value players in the NHL for the majority of the past 5 seasons. Give me a break.

We can't trade Higgins to anyone period because nobody wants him.