Canucks Off-season Thread - Canucks re-sign Teves, Rafferty, Boucher

[Fuimus]

The Canucks are over 23 man roster right how as it is without Goldobin and Boeser signed.

14 Forwards
Eriksson
Horvat
Miller
Sutter
Pearson
Ferland
Baertschi
Roussel
Beagle
Leivo
Schaller
Virtanen
Motte
Pettersson

8 d-men
Edler
Myers
Tanev
Stetcher
Benn
Hughes
Fantenberg
Biega

2 goalies
Markstrom
Demko

+ Boeser + Goldobin

= 26 players.

As it is the Canucks need to shed 3 players.

Roussel will be on LTIR.

I'd send sign both Goldobin and Boeser and send Motte and Schaller to the minors.

 

[y2kcanucks]

it would be great if you could give us examples of rosters that don't have just as many guys you'd be happy to waive if they were canucks, but that would require you to post objectively.

We can do without your condescending comment at the end. I know you're mad that we could lose most of our team on waivers and not be any worse off, but hey, blame the GM.

Toronto has a solid roster, with good pieces throughout and little to no wasted space. Ceci being on the bubble.

Colorado is another well composed roster, though I'm not too big on Donskoi. They're coming out of a rebuild, have a ton of cap space and a ton of good young prospects/young players contributing. They're a bit behind Toronto in their curve but are a team that is actually on the right track and aren't using free agency as if they're placing bandaids on a sliced jugular.

Winnipeg is a well constructed roster, with a few opportunities to clear out some cap space on wasted players (Kulikov, and possibly Perrault/Lowry).

Tampa has a very well constructed roster, but are in a cap crunch because they have had to pay to retain their successful players. But they are actually good at drafting so they have a slew of young ELC's coming up that they can afford to keep most of their players.

Carolina has a very well constructed roster, with money spent wisely. Problems in net though that need to be addressed.

 

[VanillaCoke]

That’s not enough for a 7 year deal, this isn’t 2015

Sure whatever, 4x6, 5x6, 7x7.5 who cares. The point is his range of aav isnt exactly a secret so it shouldn't be that hard to get a deal done.

 

[krutovsdonut]

We can do without your condescending comment at the end. I know you're mad that we could lose most of our team on waivers and not be any worse off, but hey, blame the GM.

Toronto has a solid roster, with good pieces throughout and little to no wasted space. Ceci being on the bubble.

Colorado is another well composed roster, though I'm not too big on Donskoi. They're coming out of a rebuild, have a ton of cap space and a ton of good young prospects/young players contributing. They're a bit behind Toronto in their curve but are a team that is actually on the right track and aren't using free agency as if they're placing bandaids on a sliced jugular.

Winnipeg is a well constructed roster, with a few opportunities to clear out some cap space on wasted players (Kulikov, and possibly Perrault/Lowry).

Tampa has a very well constructed roster, but are in a cap crunch because they have had to pay to retain their successful players. But they are actually good at drafting so they have a slew of young ELC's coming up that they can afford to keep most of their players.

Carolina has a very well constructed roster, with money spent wisely. Problems in net though that need to be addressed.

well you didn't list the players on those rosters you would be ok with waiving if they were canucks.

you chose the leafs as the best example.

hyman, shore, petan, moore, spezza, agostino, gauthier, ceci, harpur, marincon, holl and hutchison are all guys i think you would consider no regrets waiver fodder as canucks.

 

[krutovsdonut]

and i don't like kerfoot's and nylander's chances of passing the y2k everything canucks sucks test if they were canucks.

 

[MS]

So they want Virtanen to be a wrecking ball middle weight? Yikes. I mean I don't think Jake is going to be a top 6 scorer but his game also isn't a Ferland game.

"Nikita, watch these videos of Chara and change your game to be like him."

 

[y2kcanucks]

well you didn't list the players on those rosters you would be ok with waiving if they were canucks.

you chose the leafs as the best example.

hyman, shore, petan, moore, spezza, agostino, gauthier, ceci, harpur, marincon, holl and hutchison are all guys i think you would consider no regrets waiver fodder as canucks.

Except what you're failing to understand is Toronto isn't paying Gauthier $3M long-term. Toronto isn't paying Spezza $4.375M. Toronto isn't paying Agostino $3M long-term. Toronto isn't paying Petan $6M. They aren't paying Marincin $6M. Those are minimal cost players to fill out a roster that is set with an excellent young core that's expensive.

Contrast to the Canucks that have a couple good young players on ELC's (or a cheap deal like Horvat), surrounded by a slew of veterans and not very good players who are extremely expensive.

This isn't hard.

and i don't like kerfoot's and nylander's chances of passing the y2k everything canucks sucks test if they were canucks.

Why wouldn't I like good young players? You're making no sense here and seemingly opposing me just for the sake of opposing me. Kerfoot's 42 points would have placed him 4th on the Canucks last season and he's being paid $500k more than what Jay Beagle got to score 13.

 

[bandwagonesque]

We can do without your condescending comment at the end. I know you're mad that we could lose most of our team on waivers and not be any worse off, but hey, blame the GM.

Toronto has a solid roster, with good pieces throughout and little to no wasted space. Ceci being on the bubble.

Colorado is another well composed roster, though I'm not too big on Donskoi. They're coming out of a rebuild, have a ton of cap space and a ton of good young prospects/young players contributing. They're a bit behind Toronto in their curve but are a team that is actually on the right track and aren't using free agency as if they're placing bandaids on a sliced jugular.

Winnipeg is a well constructed roster, with a few opportunities to clear out some cap space on wasted players (Kulikov, and possibly Perrault/Lowry).

Tampa has a very well constructed roster, but are in a cap crunch because they have had to pay to retain their successful players. But they are actually good at drafting so they have a slew of young ELC's coming up that they can afford to keep most of their players.

Carolina has a very well constructed roster, with money spent wisely. Problems in net though that need to be addressed.

Funny you should point it out, because condescending comments at the end of posts are literally one of the things you do more often than any poster and something people probably associate with you.

 

[PetterssonSimp]

well you didn't list the players on those rosters you would be ok with waiving if they were canucks.

you chose the leafs as the best example.

hyman, shore, petan, moore, spezza, agostino, gauthier, ceci, harpur, marincon, holl and hutchison are all guys i think you would consider no regrets waiver fodder as canucks.

The difference being the players you just listed are not grossly overpaid and have trade protection contracts.

 

[krutovsdonut]

Except what you're failing to understand is Toronto isn't paying Gauthier $3M long-term. Toronto isn't paying Spezza $4.375M. Toronto isn't paying Agostino $3M long-term. Toronto isn't paying Petan $6M. They aren't paying Marincin $6M. Those are minimal cost players to fill out a roster that is set with an excellent young core that's expensive.

let's recap.

Bolded are players we could lose for free on waivers and I wouldn't lose any sleep whatsoever over. In fact, if we could lose all of them to waivers I would be quite pleased. That's how bad this roster composition is.

your original point was you considered a bunch of canucks to be waiver fodder you would not regret losing, and that this was evidence the canucks had a bad roster. nothing about salaries.

i asked for another team with a better roster, and you named the leafs.

i listed a dozen current leafs roster players you would not regret losing to waivers if they were canucks.

you don't dispute those names, but now claim it's all about the salaries of the waivable canuck players being too high, and you are also off on a tangent about how you believe rosters should be stacked with a few highly paid elite players supported by a bunch of waivable league minimum guys.

good thing i clarified. people might have misunderstood you.

 

[HankNDank]

let's recap.



your original point was you considered a bunch of canucks to be waiver fodder you would not regret losing, and that this was evidence the canucks had a bad roster. nothing about salaries.

i asked for another team with a better roster, and you named the leafs.

i listed a dozen current leafs roster players you would not regret losing to waivers if they were canucks.

you don't dispute those names, but now claim it's all about the salaries of the waivable canuck players being too high, and you are also off on a tangent about how you believe rosters should be stacked with a few highly paid elite players supported by a bunch of waivable league minimum guys.

good thing i clarified. people might have misunderstood you.

One thing that I do like about the leafs, is that their entire 3rd line, 4th line, and bottom defence paring combined have a lower cap hit than Eriksson.

 

[y2kcanucks]

let's recap.



your original point was you considered a bunch of canucks to be waiver fodder you would not regret losing, and that this was evidence the canucks had a bad roster. nothing about salaries.

i asked for another team with a better roster, and you named the leafs.

i listed a dozen current leafs roster players you would not regret losing to waivers if they were canucks.

you don't dispute those names, but now claim it's all about the salaries of the waivable canuck players being too high, and you are also off on a tangent about how you believe rosters should be stacked with a few highly paid elite players supported by a bunch of waivable league minimum guys.

good thing i clarified. people might have misunderstood you.

It's a cap world where salaries matter. Considering I've been beating that drum for ages to people who have acted like the salary cap doesn't matter, I figured it went without saying.

 

[Hoghandler]

Show your work for how we could sign Barrie at $7-8 million next year and also cover the performance bonuses for Pettersson and Hughes which we probably won't be able to fit under the cap this year.

You're removing Tanev's salary and roster spot and replacing him with Barrie. There are countless ways to add that additional $3mil salary, while subtracting elsewhere. I don't envision Sutter, Baertschi or Eriksson on the roster 2 seasons from now. How did Demko perform in '20-21? Did he outplay Markstrom? Maybe Tanner Pearson needs to be moved to fit him in?

Not to mention we don't even know where the cap is next year. Could be looking at a $85mil plus cap.

Teams turn over close to a third of their roster every offseason. It's far too early to be making lineups 2 years out. Especially considering we are looking to move multiple roster players this offseason.

It will be tight if you want to add Barrie, but if he has a healthy, productive season and has his heart set on coming home, you move lesser pieces around to accommodate him. Unless of course the salary demands are ridiculous.

 

[krutovsdonut]

The difference being the players you just listed are not grossly overpaid and have trade protection contracts.

well that's a completely different point. i answered his original claim that having a lot of waivable players shows your roster is bad. he was wrong.

you are now arguing that having a lot waivable players who are waivable because they are overpaid automatically makes your team bad. that's also highly debatable. it depends on how good they are and how much they are overpaid. you can in theory build a competitive roster by attracting players to choose to sign with your bad team by slightly overpaying them. you can also in theory win a stanley cup with a bunch of mid range players rather than relying on a highly paid elite core and a rotating cast of league minimum replacement guys to support them. the knights nearly did it two years ago, and the blues arguably did it last year.

 

[MS]

You're removing Tanev's salary and roster spot and replacing him with Barrie. There are countless ways to add that additional $3mil salary, while subtracting elsewhere. I don't envision Sutter, Baertschi or Eriksson on the roster 2 seasons from now. How did Demko perform in '20-21? Did he outplay Markstrom? Maybe Tanner Pearson needs to be moved to fit him in?

Not to mention we don't even know where the cap is next year. Could be looking at a $85mil plus cap.

Teams turn over close to a third of their roster every offseason. It's far too early to be making lineups 2 years out. Especially considering we are looking to move multiple roster players this offseason.

It will be tight if you want to add Barrie, but if he has a healthy, productive season and has his heart set on coming home, you move lesser pieces around to accommodate him. Unless of course the salary demands are ridiculous.

The raises just Markstrom and Stecher will get will take up more than Tanev's salary, and that's before other RFAs that need re-signing and the likely whack of performance bonuses we're going to have to move to 20-21. There might be a way to do it - especially if we trade significant assets to make some of Benning's boo-boos go away Marleau-style - but acting like it's a sure thing or even a likely thing and no big deal is frankly comical.

Even more comical than that will be if, after selling the fanbase on how badly we HAD to have a veteran mentor goalie at huge $$$ in Ryan Miller at a time when the team should have been rebuilding, we throw an unproven Demko to the wolves to save money as the team looks to turn a corner.

 

[Billy Kvcmu]

Ryan Biech shut down his twitter
Wonder if he got hired by a team or something?

 

[krutovsdonut]

It's a cap world where salaries matter. Considering I've been beating that drum for ages to people who have acted like the salary cap doesn't matter, I figured it went without saying.

salary cap has not mattered for four years. it matters this year, which is at least a year sooner than i'd like, but yes it does matter.

i agree that as a result of the decisions made over the last four years, we have eriksson's cap hit notionally holding us back this year and going forward. i say notionally because we have actually made a shit load of moves this season, and i'd actually prefer we made less, so i am not sure eriksson has really held us back yet from anything you or i would want the team to do. it's pretty close to a wash.

you are fond of listing other canuck players as overpaid. it would be a waste of time to debate that with you. to the extent they are overpaid, i am comfortable in saying it does not hurt us this year. it might hurt us next year but, paradoxically, it will only hurt us next year if those players are playing well enough that we want to make additional moves.

you are fond of arguing lack of cap room denies us opportunities. i remain skeptical of this. certainly our owner could have taken on marleau's salary and bought a late 1st round pick for $6.25m this year. i don't blame him for not doing it. there were also some vegas cap dump deals that perhaps we stayed out of due to cap issues, although our subsequent spending suggests otherwise. i think more likely we just didn't want haula or miller.

 

[Hoghandler]

The raises just Markstrom and Stecher will get will take up more than Tanev's salary, and that's before other RFAs that need re-signing and the likely whack of performance bonuses we're going to have to move to 20-21. There might be a way to do it - especially if we trade significant assets to make some of Benning's boo-boos go away Marleau-style - but acting like it's a sure thing or even a likely thing and no big deal is frankly comical.

Even more comical than that will be if, after selling the fanbase on how badly we HAD to have a veteran mentor goalie at huge $$$ in Ryan Miller at a time when the team should have been rebuilding, we throw an unproven Demko to the wolves to save money as the team looks to turn a corner.

Saying there are a multitude of ways to fit in Tyson Barrie 2 years from now is 'comical'?

Maybe a team offers up a dynamic young forward on an ELC for Troy Stecher next summer. There are a ton of different scenarios where cap can me opened up. Pencilling in a 20 man roster 2 years out is just not a fruitful endeavor, for obvious reasons.

 

[MS]

Saying there are a multitude of ways to fit in Tyson Barrie 2 years from now is 'comical'?

Maybe a team offers up a dynamic young forward on an ELC for Troy Stecher next summer. There are a ton of different scenarios where cap can me opened up. Pencilling in a 20 man roster 2 years out is just not a fruitful endeavor, for obvious reasons.

The 'multitude of ways' is basically Benning finding a way to get out of the terrible negative-value contracts he's given out, something he hasn't managed to do yet. And yes, if he pays enough, it will be possible ... but I don't think many people are going to like the price.

Does getting a dynamic young forward on an ELC for Stecher really sound like a move Benning would make? Like, he's been here for 6 years. Benning winning trades basically doesn't happen even before you accept that dynamic young forwards on ELCs getting traded is something that basically doesn't happen.

 

[Hansen]

The 'multitude of ways' is basically Benning finding a way to get out of the terrible negative-value contracts he's given out, something he hasn't managed to do yet. And yes, if he pays enough, it will be possible ... but I don't think many people are going to like the price.

Does getting a dynamic young forward on an ELC for Stecher really sound like a move Benning would make? Like, he's been here for 6 years. Benning winning trades basically doesn't happen even before you accept that dynamic young forwards on ELCs getting traded is something that basically doesn't happen.

Maybe if "dynamic young forward" = Nic Petan

 

[Fire Benning]

To be honest with you I don't see Benning handling the cap situation being a big issue, I mean it's not like he's flippantly devoted tons of cap space to mediocre/bad players or needed the NHL to explain to him how the CBA works, nothing to worry about.

 

[Hoghandler]

The 'multitude of ways' is basically Benning finding a way to get out of the terrible negative-value contracts he's given out, something he hasn't managed to do yet. And yes, if he pays enough, it will be possible ... but I don't think many people are going to like the price.

Does getting a dynamic young forward on an ELC for Stecher really sound like a move Benning would make? Like, he's been here for 6 years. Benning winning trades basically doesn't happen even before you accept that dynamic young forwards on ELCs getting traded is something that basically doesn't happen.

The problem with most of the movable pieces isn't their contracts, it's their bodies not holding up. A bunch of teams lined up for Sutter before his body gave out. Tanev and Baertschi as well would be more easily movable if not for injuries. Eriksson is the obvious contract that would take assets to unload.

Young, right shot dmen like Stecher would garner a ton of interest if he's made available. There are a lot more good young wingers around than high end right side defenders that play a complete game. Though I also believe Stecher is on the cusp of a big coming out party season, and am operating on that assumption.

You don't even know who is going to be managing this team when the time comes. There are so many variables you're not accounting for here.

 

[Canucks1096]

Just give boeser 7x7 and be done with it

The Boeser camp if they are signing for that lot. They probably want closer to 8

 

[m9]

I do think the most obvious way to have room for Barrie is letting Markstrom go. If Demko outplays him this year or it is even close they may claim "expansion draft" as the reason for not being able to keep both.

 

[VanillaCoke]

I do think the most obvious way to have room for Barrie is letting Markstrom go. If Demko outplays him this year or it is even close they may claim "expansion draft" as the reason for not being able to keep both.

He won't and it won't be close.