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

[MS]

For a long time, going back to the Sbisa signing and then the Sutter extension, and continuing since then, it has seemed to me that management has succumbed to magical thinking. Sbisa is a top four defender. Sutter is a foundational player. Teves and Rafferty are future NHLers. What's the proof? Well, just look at their contracts!

I'm often reminded of a scene in Michael Moore's "Roger and Me," where a committee attempting to boost the economy of Flint tries to build a tourism industry by offering tax incentives to a major hotel.

All the big tourist destinations have a major hotel, so if we have one too, we'll attract tourists. All the good NHLers have big contracts, so if we give these players big contracts, they'll be good NHLers.

"That Ben Hutton contract will look pretty good when he's scoring 40 points."

Posted this the other day and will re-post it as it basically summarizes how Jim Benning thinks and does business :

Decisions should be based on most likely outcomes, not 'maybe ifs'. And what this management team has constantly done is get tunnel vision on a 'maybe if' that has a 10% chance of happening and then pay full value for that maybe assuming it's a certainty. And then, predictably, 9 out of 10 moves turn out bad when the most likely outcome actually comes through. It's the single biggest failing of management that permeates every single thing they do.

 

[lousy]

Imagine being Ashton Sautner and working your way through the system for years for $100k and then having these worse prospects parachuted in ahead of you with one-way deals.

Does that also apply to NHL'ers who have worked themselves onto a team, and that team then spends more money than that person gets on a similar caliber UFA? It sounds the same, and like the business to me. They had to attract those players to the organization, and they seemed to do it in a creative way.

 

[MS]

Does that also apply to NHL'ers who have worked themselves onto a team, and that team then spends more money than that person gets on a similar caliber UFA? It sounds the same, and like the business to me. They had to attract those players to the organization, and they seemed to do it in a creative way.

Why did they 'have' to attract mediocre-at-best 24 y/o NCAA defensive prospects into the system?

How is throwing stupid contracts at them and wasting money a good idea?

The attraction to signing here should be 'you're a nobody and you're getting an NHL deal on a team with zero depth'. Take it or leave it.

Like, both of these guys are two years older than Guillaume Brisebois and looked substantially worse when given a look here. And Brisebois is not a very good prospect.

 

[lousy]

Why did they 'have' to attract mediocre-at-best 24 y/o NCAA defensive prospects into the system?

How is throwing stupid contracts at them and wasting money a good idea?

The attraction to signing here should be 'you're a nobody and you're getting an NHL deal on a team with zero depth'. Take it or leave it.

Like, both of these guys are two years older than Guillaume Brisebois and looked substantially worse when given a look here. And Brisebois is not a very good prospect.

I doubt the canucks were the only teams chasing those players, and I doubt you attract them with that attitude. I don't mind the signings or the players for what they are. They are not blocking anyone nor are they a liability on the comets. In fact, they will help bolster the team which will be good for all the prospects down there.

 

[MS]

I doubt the canucks were the only teams chasing those players, and I doubt you attract them with that attitude. I don't mind the signings or the players for what they are. They are not blocking anyone nor are they a liability on the comets. In fact, they will help bolster the team which will be good for all the prospects down there.

If you don't get them, then you don't. It's not a big deal.

Again, the laundry list of their peers from the last 5 years is just gross. There might be a 2% chance these are NHL players and a >50% chance they're bottom-pairing AHLers or ECHLers. These are not good prospects and are on the fringes of our top-20.

Spending stupid money on bad prospects is not good business.

 

[BeardyCanuck03]

I'm well aware it doesn't impact the cap if they're in the AHL.

I'm also well aware that you can sign actual impact AHL players to create a better development environment for your prospects for that amount. Utica has been screaming for a top AHL center and defender for years and we've refused to spend on that.

This is just a stunning waste of $1.4 million of the owner's money in 20-21. Players like this do not get contracts like this. It is absolutely mental to be giving these sorts of fringe prospect one-way deals.

Imagine being Ashton Sautner and working your way through the system for years for $100k and then having these worse prospects parachuted in ahead of you with one-way deals.

This may also be part of a new direction and willingness to invest in the Comets. Sautner's deal was signed 2 years ago, and the situation has changed in terms of the Canucks prospect pool and the Comets situation as well.

Freaking out over this just seems a bit much, that's all.

 

[Phenomenon13]

If you don't get them, then you don't. It's not a big deal.

Again, the laundry list of their peers from the last 5 years is just gross. There might be a 2% chance these are NHL players and a >50% chance they're bottom-pairing AHLers or ECHLers. These are not good prospects and are on the fringes of our top-20.

Spending stupid money on bad prospects is not good business.

Can you explain it to me? Does it affect the cap in any way for the difference in one way and two way? I thought the only difference is the amount they get paid if they get sent to the minors. I feel this is a very minor issue.

 

[sting101]

See kids just another reason to stay in school.

Sautner you dumb ass

 

[sting101]

Can you explain it to me? Does it affect the cap in any way for the difference in one way and two way? I thought the only difference is the amount they get paid if they get sent to the minors. I feel this is a very minor issue.

Only if they get paid more than 1.025million.

Otherwise its just a case of Canucks rewarding free agents for signing to be depth with the club making good coin in Utica.

Its actually not bad at all. 70k is ok for 20-23yr olds for a few years but as a college grad with the smarts these guys have you gotta offer some incentive to getting your body smashed when a guy like Tevez could probably make well in advance of 100k in another profession

If it helps get word that Van is a good place to sign i'm all for it. Almost like the previous regime and the deals they would try to get cheap for bad contracted players in the show. At least these wont effect the cap.

 

[FroshaugFan2]

Can you explain it to me? Does it affect the cap in any way for the difference in one way and two way? I thought the only difference is the amount they get paid if they get sent to the minors. I feel this is a very minor issue.

The budget in Utica isn't unlimited.

Signing bad players to expensive contracts means less money is available for good players.

 

[MS]

Can you explain it to me? Does it affect the cap in any way for the difference in one way and two way? I thought the only difference is the amount they get paid if they get sent to the minors. I feel this is a very minor issue.

It's a waste of money on bad prospects. It's no different to how the Mackenze Stewart contract was a 'very minor issue' but also a massive Rosetta Stone into how badly this team does business.

 

[BeardyCanuck03]

If you don't get them, then you don't. It's not a big deal.

Again, the laundry list of their peers from the last 5 years is just gross. There might be a 2% chance these are NHL players and a >50% chance they're bottom-pairing AHLers or ECHLers. These are not good prospects and are on the fringes of our top-20.

Spending stupid money on bad prospects is not good business.

Rafferty showed well in his games last season. We have been wanting Utica to be more full of Canucks owned prospects, we are getting that. This isn't your money and isn't that much money in the grand scheme of things for Aquilini and the Canucks.

 

[lousy]

The budget in Utica isn't unlimited.

Signing bad players to expensive contracts means less money is available for good players.

I am curious, what is the salary cap and how much space do the comets have?

 

[tyhee]

....

Those two 24 y/o marginal NCAA prospects received one-way deals in 2020-21? ....

Am I missing something?

From Canucks re-sign Teves, Rafferty & Boucher:

"Vancouver Canucks General Manager Jim Benning announced today that the club has signed forward Reid Boucher to a one-year, two-way deal and defencemen Brogan Rafferty and Josh Teves each to two-year, two-way contracts."

 

[FroshaugFan2]

I am curious, what is the salary cap and how much space do the comets have?

When did I mention a salary cap?

 

[krutovsdonut]

If you don't get them, then you don't. It's not a big deal.

Again, the laundry list of their peers from the last 5 years is just gross. There might be a 2% chance these are NHL players and a >50% chance they're bottom-pairing AHLers or ECHLers. These are not good prospects and are on the fringes of our top-20.

Spending stupid money on bad prospects is not good business.

they were also ufas. we could offer them a standard one year elc like every other team, or we could get creative.

factoring in the signing bonus and salary from last year, worse case we paid $950k total for 2 years service from each player with no cap hit. best case they actually make the big team and they have a $700k aav.

if that is what it took to sign 2 ufas with options, i am fine with that. if no one else was in the bidding then yes, it seems dumb.

 

[krutovsdonut]

Am I missing something?

From Canucks re-sign Teves, Rafferty & Boucher:

"Vancouver Canucks General Manager Jim Benning announced today that the club has signed forward Reid Boucher to a one-year, two-way deal and defencemen Brogan Rafferty and Josh Teves each to two-year, two-way contracts."

previous page. puckpedia reports the second year for both players is a 1 way.

 

[VanJack]

If Sautner and Brisebois end up back in Utica to start the season, and with the addition of Teves and Rafferty, the back-end isn't looking too bad. Maybe just another veteran d-man to round out the group, and the Comets would be set.

 

[settinguptheplay]

This may also be part of a new direction and willingness to invest in the Comets. Sautner's deal was signed 2 years ago, and the situation has changed in terms of the Canucks prospect pool and the Comets situation as well.

Freaking out over this just seems a bit much, that's all.

Are you surprised?

Quite happy with all three signings. No cap impact while adding some depth. If just one of those two D make the NHL it will be dollars well spent. Heck, even if they become serviceable AHL dmen it helps cover the Comet's when the inevitable injuries hit the Canuck roster.

 

[NoShowWilly]

whatever. if Aquilini is going to let these morons throw his money away, that's for him to decide.

 

[sting101]

whatever. if Aquilini is going to let these morons throw his money away, that's for him to decide.

Some migrant workers are gonna pay for this. I wonder how Rafferty and Tevez feel about that?

 

[Phenomenon13]

It's a waste of money on bad prospects. It's no different to how the Mackenze Stewart contract was a 'very minor issue' but also a massive Rosetta Stone into how badly this team does business.

Lol why do u have Mackenzie Stewart in quotations. Hes by definition a minor issue. Obviously, he didnt deserve a contract but it's fine because it didnt affect us in any way except a contract spot and we had plenty of contract spots that year. As stupid as it was, it's a very common occurence. Gms fall in love with their prospects and hands out underserved contracts.

 

[Phenomenon13]

Only if they get paid more than 1.025million.

Otherwise its just a case of Canucks rewarding free agents for signing to be depth with the club making good coin in Utica.

Its actually not bad at all. 70k is ok for 20-23yr olds for a few years but as a college grad with the smarts these guys have you gotta offer some incentive to getting your body smashed when a guy like Tevez could probably make well in advance of 100k in another profession

If it helps get word that Van is a good place to sign i'm all for it. Almost like the previous regime and the deals they would try to get cheap for bad contracted players in the show. At least these wont effect the cap.

I think the last part is probably the biggest benefit of this. I doubt Benning thought of that but I've heard from botchford interviews people know the Canucks like to overpay and tend to talk to Benning to sign their players. Agents already know that Canucks are easy targets. Not surprised really, the management group stops at nothing to get there guy usually.

 

[MS]

Am I missing something?

From Canucks re-sign Teves, Rafferty & Boucher:

"Vancouver Canucks General Manager Jim Benning announced today that the club has signed forward Reid Boucher to a one-year, two-way deal and defencemen Brogan Rafferty and Josh Teves each to two-year, two-way contracts."

A source reported the 2nd year as a one-way, as posted on the previous page.

If they're actually two-way for the duration, I obviously retract all comments.

they were also ufas. we could offer them a standard one year elc like every other team, or we could get creative.

factoring in the signing bonus and salary from last year, worse case we paid $950k total for 2 years service from each player with no cap hit. best case they actually make the big team and they have a $700k aav.

if that is what it took to sign 2 ufas with options, i am fine with that. if no one else was in the bidding then yes, it seems dumb.

It's equally dumb whether there were other teams in the bidding or not.

The first thing you have to understand here is that 23-24 y/o defensive prospects out of the NCAA is basically a trash-heap that nothing ever good comes from. Signing these guys at all is generally a waste of time even on two-way deals. CHL overagers and Euro guys are far better options with massively higher hit rates.

 

[MS]

Lol why do u have Mackenzie Stewart in quotations. Hes by definition a minor issue. Obviously, he didnt deserve a contract but it's fine because it didnt affect us in any way except a contract spot and we had plenty of contract spots that year. As stupid as it was, it's a very common occurence. Gms fall in love with their prospects and hands out underserved contracts.

Good organizations don't fall in love with McKenzie Stewarts.