Confirmed with Link: Canucks re-sign F Linden Vey to a 1-Year, $1m Deal

[tantalum]

Exactly.

Vey should be thanking his lucky stars he's even in the NHL. If he doesn't take the QO, then the next offer should be the league minimum.

Yep.

It's just so bizarre that he was assistant GM all those years and he doesn't recognize that these types of moves are "gimmes" in the GM playbook. All but impossible to screw up. Yet he did and continues to do so. Jim "Mr. Impossible" Benning.

 

[Sharpshooter]

Bieksa won't be back. they already asked him to waive. please don't be back

He'll be back!

 

[arttk]

Sure, there have been overpays on lots of deals. But that doesn't change the fact that one of these things is not like the other ones.

Vey being $100k overpaid just seems such an inconsequential thing compared to most of those other overpays, or say Burrows making an extra million for example. Or say, Bonino making a million less than real "value". I mean, you could give every single player on the roster $100k more than "value" and it'd still amount to about the same amount of "overpay" consequence as one Ryan Miller signing the way many here feel about him.

I just think it's kind of silly, if not impossible to really demarcate exact "value" to within $100k on a young depth player that the organization likes, before we even get to training camp. Much less to talk about who "deserves" it.

Feels like counting grains of rice.

It seems inconsequential until you sign enough of those deals to be consequential.
I am sure everything was rosy for Boston until they realize they have to get rid of guys because they can't sign them.
What happens if Kassian puts up a 50+ pt next season, you will need to pay him and oops, no cap room. I guess we'll just trade him instead. It's not like Benning is like Bowman who gets fair to good value for all his guys even when he is backed into a corner.

If the consistency in handing out larger deals than needed is not worrying you, well I don't know what more to say. Attention to details..

 

[biturbo19]

The team just paid a player with no leverage 30% more than they had to pay him. It has less to do with the absolute impact that has on the team, and more to do with what that says about management.

There was no reason to give Vey more than his QO.

I don't know, i guess it just doesn't really matter as much to me because i don't wholly subscribe to this moneypuck pennypinching bust everyone's balls for that last 50 cents sort of mentality. The sort of philosophy Gillis clearly represented here.

There are clearly some concerning spending habits with Benning...i just think that paying a little bit extra for a young (hopefully) developing player on a 1-year deal is a mountain out of a molehill type thing. This specific deal, seems a bit of an overpayment, but it's so minute as to be largely inconsequential to me.

Exactly.

Vey should be thanking his lucky stars he's even in the NHL. If he doesn't take the QO, then the next offer should be the league minimum.

That's the case if you really don't think Vey is an NHL calibre player. Which, i would disagree with. He's not a great player, but he's a young NHLer. A fringe NHLer, but that's what you get with depth players...and despite the fact that he's apparently a total writeoff after one up and down rookie season, i think there's still at least some marginal room for improvement, if he can come back this fall even slightly less weak.


The thing for me with this idea that he should be playing on his QO is, how do you delineate exactly who must play on their QO at best, and who gets a raise? Especially when we're talking about a couple hundred thousand at most in difference. Why not just bend every single RFA over a barrel and tell them, "play on your QO or don't play at all"? Because clearly at some point, these young players are going to tell you to shove it, and refuse to play. Right? So when we're on the fringes of NHL players...is that really a battle you want to fight over a hundred grand on a one year deal? Maybe at the eleventh hour, Vey just takes that QO and plays on it because he's a low-end roster player and a bit older already...after much posturing and hand-wringing all summer long. But then, maybe he doesn't.

At some point, you're going to have to draw that line of "plays on QO" vs "gets a raise"...and if you constantly test that line on every borderline case, one of those times you're going to stick you toes over the line and it's going to blow up on you in an unnecessarily messy situation on a fairly borderline player. Which would be a really stupid situation to have because you're determined to squeeze every last penny out of a roster.

The reality is...i'm confident Benning and Gilman didn't just walk in there and offer Vey a million bucks as their opening position. Vey's agent likely walks in and lays down that his client will not be signing his QO. So if you want Vey playing on his QO, it's going to be a long stupid process that drags out all the way until the day before camp opens and you find out what the end result of your "hardball" is. Is it a holdout or does he cave and sign it and show up in camp? All the while...you're locked in some headbutting/standoff type antagonistic situation with a player that you'd probably prefer to be in some contact with regarding his offseason training and the things that are absolutely vital to his "development" as a player.

Or you give him a bit more than his QO and everything's hunky dory, minus $100k in cap space that in the end, is such a tiny almost inconsequential fraction of your total salary picture it's hard to be super worried about. I would've figured $900k or something more like the pretty much exact comparable Nestrasil deal @$912.5k the other day, but again...i can't say with much certainty that $100k swings a deal from "fine" to "a problem" on a fringe player like that.


I guess i just don't really "get" the whole Accounting philosophy of hockey here. Everyone's all pissed off that Benning isn't just handing a longshot prospect like Jordan Subban the maximum everything contract and getting it done so they can stop worrying. But paying an extra $200k on an NHL depth player's contract in a make-or-break year is indicative of problem spending and going to turn us into Boston.

 

[MS]

That's the case if you really don't think Vey is an NHL calibre player. Which, i would disagree with. He's not a great player, but he's a young NHLer. A fringe NHLer, but that's what you get with depth players...and despite the fact that he's apparently a total writeoff after one up and down rookie season, i think there's still at least some marginal room for improvement, if he can come back this fall even slightly less weak.


The thing for me with this idea that he should be playing on his QO is, how do you delineate exactly who must play on their QO at best, and who gets a raise? Especially when we're talking about a couple hundred thousand at most in difference. Why not just bend every single RFA over a barrel and tell them, "play on your QO or don't play at all"? Because clearly at some point, these young players are going to tell you to shove it, and refuse to play. Right? So when we're on the fringes of NHL players...is that really a battle you want to fight over a hundred grand on a one year deal? Maybe at the eleventh hour, Vey just takes that QO and plays on it because he's a low-end roster player and a bit older already...after much posturing and hand-wringing all summer long. But then, maybe he doesn't.

At some point, you're going to have to draw that line of "plays on QO" vs "gets a raise"...and if you constantly test that line on every borderline case, one of those times you're going to stick you toes over the line and it's going to blow up on you in an unnecessarily messy situation on a fairly borderline player. Which would be a really stupid situation to have because you're determined to squeeze every last penny out of a roster.

The reality is...i'm confident Benning and Gilman didn't just walk in there and offer Vey a million bucks as their opening position. Vey's agent likely walks in and lays down that his client will not be signing his QO. So if you want Vey playing on his QO, it's going to be a long stupid process that drags out all the way until the day before camp opens and you find out what the end result of your "hardball" is. Is it a holdout or does he cave and sign it and show up in camp? All the while...you're locked in some headbutting/standoff type antagonistic situation with a player that you'd probably prefer to be in some contact with regarding his offseason training and the things that are absolutely vital to his "development" as a player.

Or you give him a bit more than his QO and everything's hunky dory, minus $100k in cap space that in the end, is such a tiny almost inconsequential fraction of your total salary picture it's hard to be super worried about. I would've figured $900k or something more like the pretty much exact comparable Nestrasil deal @$912.5k the other day, but again...i can't say with much certainty that $100k swings a deal from "fine" to "a problem" on a fringe player like that.


I guess i just don't really "get" the whole Accounting philosophy of hockey here. Everyone's all pissed off that Benning isn't just handing a longshot prospect like Jordan Subban the maximum everything contract and getting it done so they can stop worrying. But paying an extra $200k on an NHL depth player's contract in a make-or-break year is indicative of problem spending and going to turn us into Boston.

Vey was junk last year. He didn't belong in the NHL and was a regular healthy scratch to close the season.

He's the fringiest of fringe NHL players and has ZERO leverage.

You hammer him for everything you can. If he wants to leave, he'll be in the AHL.

Subban had leverage. Vey did not.

 

[biturbo19]

It seems inconsequential until you sign enough of those deals to be consequential.
I am sure everything was rosy for Boston until they realize they have to get rid of guys because they can't sign them.
What happens if Kassian puts up a 50+ pt next season, you will need to pay him and oops, no cap room. I guess we'll just trade him instead. It's not like Benning is like Bowman who gets fair to good value for all his guys even when he is backed into a corner.

If the consistency in handing out larger deals than needed is not worrying you, well I don't know what more to say. Attention to details..

You give every single one of the players on the roster an extra $100k overpayment and it ends up being...$2.3M. That's what "it all adds up to".

Sure, that matters...that buys you a pretty decent depth player. It's not inconsequential. You don't really want to be doing that.

But that's if you literally do this with every single roster player in some sort of massive exaggerated hypothetical...and it's still roughly on par with how much "extra" money most here would say Ryan Miller is being paid per year. Which problem is really worth worrying about, or indicative of "problem spending"?

I'm a lot less worried about whether a guy is within $100k of what seems reasonable, than i am when i see guys on the roster (new and previously existing deals) that are an order of magnitude further out of whack with "value". When we've got something more like $1M+ out of what i'd call reasonable ballpark.


And it's all even more complicated with "young" or "developing" players, and with "old" or "declining" players, where value can shift by $1M+ year to year easily.


I mean, do you try to force Frankie Corrado to play on his QO this year? Maybe, as a guy who hasn't really established himself at the NHL level yet...maybe not. But either way, that QO is less than Vey's QO. We've got Kenins @ league minimum. And yet somehow a slight overpayment on Vey weighs in to "problem spending" and "if you add this all up a thousand times over we become Boston". Whereas signing Kenins to a league minimum is "good deal" and forgotten completely.

It all doesn't really make sense in absolutes. The "accounting" idea where each player is paid exactly according to "value", is kind of a farce when you look at different players on the same team, not to mention around the league as a whole. there's so much that goes into it...i mean you could give the "extra" Vey money to Kenins and people would probably be happier because there's some great justice in the salary structure. But i don't know how much it really matters...obviously Kenins agent was content with what he was offered, Vey's agent is probably happy now, and we've got some depth guys on contracts that probably at least average out in "value" in the end. It's just hard to see this as part of a huge concern, or part of the larger problem with salary...

 

[Proto]

You give every single one of the players on the roster an extra $100k overpayment and it ends up being...$2.3M. That's what "it all adds up to".

Sure, that matters...that buys you a pretty decent depth player. It's not inconsequential. You don't really want to be doing that.

But that's if you literally do this with every single roster player in some sort of massive exaggerated hypothetical...and it's still roughly on par with how much "extra" money most here would say Ryan Miller is being paid per year. Which problem is really worth worrying about, or indicative of "problem spending"?

I'm a lot less worried about whether a guy is within $100k of what seems reasonable, than i am when i see guys on the roster (new and previously existing deals) that are an order of magnitude further out of whack with "value". When we've got something more like $1M+ out of what i'd call reasonable ballpark.


And it's all even more complicated with "young" or "developing" players, and with "old" or "declining" players, where value can shift by $1M+ year to year easily.


I mean, do you try to force Frankie Corrado to play on his QO this year? Maybe, as a guy who hasn't really established himself at the NHL level yet...maybe not. But either way, that QO is less than Vey's QO. We've got Kenins @ league minimum. And yet somehow a slight overpayment on Vey weighs in to "problem spending" and "if you add this all up a thousand times over we become Boston". Whereas signing Kenins to a league minimum is "good deal" and forgotten completely.

It all doesn't really make sense in absolutes. The "accounting" idea where each player is paid exactly according to "value", is kind of a farce when you look at different players on the same team, not to mention around the league as a whole. there's so much that goes into it...i mean you could give the "extra" Vey money to Kenins and people would probably be happier because there's some great justice in the salary structure. But i don't know how much it really matters...obviously Kenins agent was content with what he was offered, Vey's agent is probably happy now, and we've got some depth guys on contracts that probably at least average out in "value" in the end. It's just hard to see this as part of a huge concern, or part of the larger problem with salary...

And what happens if you give a bunch of players 20-30% overpayments? 200k for Vey, an extra million for Sbisa, an extra 700k for Dorsett, an extra million for Miller. Three of those guys got contracts that were at least 30-50% longer than you'd ideally want, as well.

It's just a standard result for Jim "The Negotiator" Benning.

Even if you wanted to give it a flat rate (which makes no sense), Vey got 200k over his qualifying offer. That would be 4.6 million in dead money if you spread it across an entire roster.

 

[arttk]

You give every single one of the players on the roster an extra $100k overpayment and it ends up being...$2.3M. That's what "it all adds up to".

Sure, that matters...that buys you a pretty decent depth player. It's not inconsequential. You don't really want to be doing that.

But that's if you literally do this with every single roster player in some sort of massive exaggerated hypothetical...and it's still roughly on par with how much "extra" money most here would say Ryan Miller is being paid per year. Which problem is really worth worrying about, or indicative of "problem spending"?

I'm a lot less worried about whether a guy is within $100k of what seems reasonable, than i am when i see guys on the roster (new and previously existing deals) that are an order of magnitude further out of whack with "value". When we've got something more like $1M+ out of what i'd call reasonable ballpark.


And it's all even more complicated with "young" or "developing" players, and with "old" or "declining" players, where value can shift by $1M+ year to year easily.


I mean, do you try to force Frankie Corrado to play on his QO this year? Maybe, as a guy who hasn't really established himself at the NHL level yet...maybe not. But either way, that QO is less than Vey's QO. We've got Kenins @ league minimum. And yet somehow a slight overpayment on Vey weighs in to "problem spending" and "if you add this all up a thousand times over we become Boston". Whereas signing Kenins to a league minimum is "good deal" and forgotten completely.

It all doesn't really make sense in absolutes. The "accounting" idea where each player is paid exactly according to "value", is kind of a farce when you look at different players on the same team, not to mention around the league as a whole. there's so much that goes into it...i mean you could give the "extra" Vey money to Kenins and people would probably be happier because there's some great justice in the salary structure. But i don't know how much it really matters...obviously Kenins agent was content with what he was offered, Vey's agent is probably happy now, and we've got some depth guys on contracts that probably at least average out in "value" in the end. It's just hard to see this as part of a huge concern, or part of the larger problem with salary...

Remember the times when we were so close to the cap that we had to put people on LTIR to get by. Or the time how the Flames was so close they couldn't even ice 23 players. It's not uncommon for teams to get that close the the limit and sometimes 100K here and there makes the difference even though you think it wouldn't .

Plus, it isn't just 100k, it's starting from 100k to 1-2M. I think even 100K seems understating since Vey was sign to like 700ish K last season and he got like 1M this year and a qualifier would be around 800K.

I think it's principle. We gave Burrows on a 2M 4 year contract and we paid him back in the end. We got Raymond signed to below his qualifiers because his play sucked. We sign rookies to qualifiers because that was all they deserved.
This is a big difference in philosophy that you communicate to your players. You want your money, EARN it because we aren't a freaking charity. If you earned it and we underpaid you, we'll make it up. That was the team mantra, now it's, if you are my boy, you get paid, more than what you've earned.

 

[biturbo19]

Vey was junk last year. He didn't belong in the NHL and was a regular healthy scratch to close the season.

He's the fringiest of fringe NHL players and has ZERO leverage.

You hammer him for everything you can. If he wants to leave, he'll be in the AHL.

Subban had leverage. Vey did not.

Not the way i'd look at it.

I think you're being a bit harsh on Vey, who clearly tailed off at the end of the season as his opportunities were scaled back. But also showed some flashes of improvement as well. Probably his best game of the year was that Kings game later in the year. But he was clearly "NHL calibre depth" as a baseline, "niche player" or otherwise. And at 24 years old...isn't "young", but he's also not "old" and has a singular area in which clear improvement would go a very long ways in addressing the bulk of his "issues" - that being physical strength and power. That seems entirely achievable - though to what degree, is what we'll find out this season.

Subban is a kid who hasn't played a single Professional hockey game in his life. A 4th round draft selection. That's "leverage"? I mean, there's obviously the looming threat of re-entering the draft, that is leverage. But enough to justify the stark difference in opinions from "give him whatever he wants max everything!!!" to, "break him and pay him the absolute minimum possible!!!" ? Enough to justify giving one guy whatever he wants, and the other guy who has actually played NHL games and showed at least some ability to contribute in some capacity, the very bare minimum as outlined in the CBA and get super worried about "problem spending" if the contract figure ends up a bit more than that?

I just don't see it that way. There's even less consistency in that philosophy than there is in the contracts these young and fringe players/prospects end up ultimately getting.


Ultimately it's just young depth players. Their contract numbers very rarely make any sort of absolute sense in a grand hierarchy of things. It's just such a tough thing to say is really "problem spending" or "great bargains" with $100-200k in it either way, where the difference just isn't enough to really get worried about.

 

[MS]

Not the way i'd look at it.

I think you're being a bit harsh on Vey, who clearly tailed off at the end of the season as his opportunities were scaled back. But also showed some flashes of improvement as well. Probably his best game of the year was that Kings game later in the year. But he was clearly "NHL calibre depth" as a baseline, "niche player" or otherwise. And at 24 years old...isn't "young", but he's also not "old" and has a singular area in which clear improvement would go a very long ways in addressing the bulk of his "issues" - that being physical strength and power. That seems entirely achievable - though to what degree, is what we'll find out this season.

Subban is a kid who hasn't played a single Professional hockey game in his life. A 4th round draft selection. That's "leverage"? I mean, there's obviously the looming threat of re-entering the draft, that is leverage. But enough to justify the stark difference in opinions from "give him whatever he wants max everything!!!" to, "break him and pay him the absolute minimum possible!!!" ? Enough to justify giving one guy whatever he wants, and the other guy who has actually played NHL games and showed at least some ability to contribute in some capacity, the very bare minimum as outlined in the CBA and get super worried about "problem spending" if the contract figure ends up a bit more than that?

I just don't see it that way. There's even less consistency in that philosophy than there is in the contracts these young and fringe players/prospects end up ultimately getting.


Ultimately it's just young depth players. Their contract numbers very rarely make any sort of absolute sense in a grand hierarchy of things. It's just such a tough thing to say is really "problem spending" or "great bargains" with $100-200k in it either way, where the difference just isn't enough to really get worried about.

Nobody said 'give Subban the maximum everything!'. People just said it wasn't worth losing him over $100k. Because he had that leverage.

Vey has no leverage. He's an NHL 4th liner/healthy scratch with no arbitration rights. He basically has to take whatever we offer if he wants to stay in the league.

How he got a 30% raise is beyond me.

_________

As for Vey's performance, it stunk. It didn't 'tail off at the end', it was 60 games of unmitigated crap.

Again, this is a 'playmaking forward' who received top-9 icetime for most of that stretch and generated 1 primary assist in 50 games while generating SOG at the same rate as John Scott. And providing no defense, no faceoff ability, no physical play, no PK ability.

You could make a legitimate case that this was possibly the worst non-goon forward in the NHL last year. Certainly in the 2nd half.

 

[biturbo19]

Remember the times when we were so close to the cap that we had to put people on LTIR to get by. Or the time how the Flames was so close they couldn't even ice 23 players. It's not uncommon for teams to get that close the the limit and sometimes 100K here and there makes the difference even though you think it wouldn't .

Plus, it isn't just 100k, it's starting from 100k to 1-2M. I think even 100K seems understating since Vey was sign to like 700ish K last season and he got like 1M this year and a qualifier would be around 800K.

I think it's principle. We gave Burrows on a 2M 4 year contract and we paid him back in the end. We got Raymond signed to below his qualifiers because his play sucked. We sign rookies to qualifiers because that was all they deserved.
This is a big difference in philosophy that you communicate to your players. You want your money, EARN it because we aren't a freaking charity. If you earned it and we underpaid you, we'll make it up. That was the team mantra, now it's, if you are my boy, you get paid, more than what you've earned.

Again though, Vey comes off his ELC @ what's listed as $790k plus bonuses...gets here, and signs on last year @ $735k. Now, evidently he's getting "paid back"...and it's a very small amount in the grand scheme of things. A tiny microcosm of what you're talking about with Burrows.


If QOs were assembled in some sort of logical, reasonable, absolute hierarchy of "value", maybe this philosophy would make more sense to me. But they aren't...there are all of these weird factors that go into setting that bar. That's why you get "negotiation", instead of just "automatic QOs for everyone". Because the bar of a QO is set fairly arbitrarily in the first place. Players/agents/prospects are negotiating all over the place from different positions with different demands and priorities and contract setups. And yet ultimately, it's all more or less within a couple hundred thousand dollars on the overall cap.

Personally, i don't feel capable of making well-reasoned definitive statements about how Linden Vey getting a bit more than his QO is "problem spending" and part of this big pattern, any more than i can say "Ronalds Kenins getting vet minimum" is indicative of Jim's superb financial management. It's just too all over the map, and in the overall picture, of too marginal a consequence to do that.

Whereas "paying Burrows back" for his great $2M bargain deal, by paying him $4.2M well into the "declining years"...well now we're talking cash i can really count, and a player i can put a pricetag on. If we were talking Burrows @$4.2M vs Burrows @$4M even, i'd likely even comment in passing that it's probably a bit much (like Vey @ $1M instead of $800k). But it's the BIG +/- values where things are a million out of alignment that really "add up".

This is small potatoes.

 

[Verviticus]

why the **** does everyone need to argue that every mistake benning makes is a small one? its a ****ing mistake. mistakes are bad. he makes a lot of mistakes.

 

[arttk]

Again though, Vey comes off his ELC @ what's listed as $790k plus bonuses...gets here, and signs on last year @ $735k. Now, evidently he's getting "paid back"...and it's a very small amount in the grand scheme of things. A tiny microcosm of what you're talking about with Burrows.


If QOs were assembled in some sort of logical, reasonable, absolute hierarchy of "value", maybe this philosophy would make more sense to me. But they aren't...there are all of these weird factors that go into setting that bar. That's why you get "negotiation", instead of just "automatic QOs for everyone". Because the bar of a QO is set fairly arbitrarily in the first place. Players/agents/prospects are negotiating all over the place from different positions with different demands and priorities and contract setups. And yet ultimately, it's all more or less within a couple hundred thousand dollars on the overall cap.

Personally, i don't feel capable of making well-reasoned definitive statements about how Linden Vey getting a bit more than his QO is "problem spending" and part of this big pattern, any more than i can say "Ronalds Kenins getting vet minimum" is indicative of Jim's superb financial management. It's just too all over the map, and in the overall picture, of too marginal a consequence to do that.

Whereas "paying Burrows back" for his great $2M bargain deal, by paying him $4.2M well into the "declining years"...well now we're talking cash i can really count, and a player i can put a pricetag on. If we were talking Burrows @$4.2M vs Burrows @$4M even, i'd likely even comment in passing that it's probably a bit much (like Vey @ $1M instead of $800k). But it's the BIG +/- values where things are a million out of alignment that really "add up".

This is small potatoes.

Problem is, getting paid back for what? For being borderline? He played like a AHL player with us, he should give us a refund more than us giving him back.

We gave Burrows back for like couple of 20+ G seasons and being a top line player. I think it's important to do the pay back because in that culture, we are asking everyone to take a lesser contract to help the team, you have to let them know that we are not going to ditch them once the bargain contract runs out because nobody would give a little.

You are missing the point, you are getting caught up at the oh its just Vey. This is consistent for all the guys that he has brought in and signed. This is not an one off, this is a trend.

 

[biturbo19]

As for Vey's performance, it stunk. It didn't 'tail off at the end', it was 60 games of unmitigated crap.

Again, this is a 'playmaking forward' who received top-9 icetime for most of that stretch and generated 1 primary assist in 50 games while generating SOG at the same rate as John Scott. And providing no defense, no faceoff ability, no physical play, no PK ability.

You could make a legitimate case that this was possibly the worst non-goon forward in the NHL last year. Certainly in the 2nd half.

As far as this, i just don't see Vey's rookie season in the same overwhelmingly negative light.

To me, he showed the ability to play a depth role with some holes in his game. Obviously has a lot of work to do this summer with his strength and power (and with that, hopefully slightly improved skating explosiveness as well). But he was "serviceable" for the most part, with small flashes of "serviceable++" basically. We've had many far more unfortunate and unpleasant depth players here, as has pretty much every team in the league. Depth players have real shortcomings...if Vey was 28 and still the exact same player, i'd be inclined with agree with you, and if that happens, he'll be out of the league long before that. But he's not. He was a 23 year old rookie who was mostly "serviceable" and had some hard knocks in the physical side of the game that really limited his ability to play his game.

I think there's enough there to think that if he can get physically stronger, he can be a "serviceable++" depth player consistently.


The thing i never really understood with Vey's usage last year...was that he seemingly went from "force fed top PP time" where he wasn't horrible on the aggregate, to late in the year in/out of the lineup as a depth guy...but when he was in the lineup, not really on the "2nd PP Unit" which was clearly his "niche contribution" specialty at this point. A specialty which this team could've probably used (even from a depth player). The 2nd unit was a festering wound all season, and we have/had a bunch of "top-6 forwards" who are terrible PP players (kind of odd). You can't tell me Vey wouldn't have been able to at least provide a "niche contribution" on the PP superior to...Derek Dorsett, or even a guy like Higgins.

Just a really strange decision to me..."good enough for the top unit" but "not good enough for the second unit". Confusing coaching.

You're looking for Vey's "role" though, that's where i think you find it. Rather than the traditional bottom-6 grinder type "contributions".

 

[MS]

As far as this, i just don't see Vey's rookie season in the same overwhelmingly negative light.

To me, he showed the ability to play a depth role with some holes in his game. Obviously has a lot of work to do this summer with his strength and power (and with that, hopefully slightly improved skating explosiveness as well). But he was "serviceable" for the most part, with small flashes of "serviceable++" basically. We've had many far more unfortunate and unpleasant depth players here, as has pretty much every team in the league. Depth players have real shortcomings...if Vey was 28 and still the exact same player, i'd be inclined with agree with you, and if that happens, he'll be out of the league long before that. But he's not. He was a 23 year old rookie who was mostly "serviceable" and had some hard knocks in the physical side of the game that really limited his ability to play his game.

I think there's enough there to think that if he can get physically stronger, he can be a "serviceable++" depth player consistently.


The thing i never really understood with Vey's usage last year...was that he seemingly went from "force fed top PP time" where he wasn't horrible on the aggregate, to late in the year in/out of the lineup as a depth guy...but when he was in the lineup, not really on the "2nd PP Unit" which was clearly his "niche contribution" specialty at this point. A specialty which this team could've probably used (even from a depth player). The 2nd unit was a festering wound all season, and we have/had a bunch of "top-6 forwards" who are terrible PP players (kind of odd). You can't tell me Vey wouldn't have been able to at least provide a "niche contribution" on the PP superior to...Derek Dorsett, or even a guy like Higgins.

Just a really strange decision to me..."good enough for the top unit" but "not good enough for the second unit". Confusing coaching.

You're looking for Vey's "role" though, that's where i think you find it. Rather than the traditional bottom-6 grinder type "contributions".

Could not disagree more.

Thought he contributed absolutely nothing outside of his early PP success.

I frankly don't know how a regular NHL player could contribute less that Vey did over the last 50 games in those sorts of minutes.

He was a skill player who created no shots, set up no goals, is a bad defensive player requiring sheltered minutes, and provide no sort of intangible.

Literally could not be worse.

 

[biturbo19]

Could not disagree more.

Thought he contributed absolutely nothing outside of his early PP success.

I frankly don't know how a regular NHL player could contribute less that Vey did over the last 50 games in those sorts of minutes.

He was a skill player who created no shots, set up no goals, is a bad defensive player requiring sheltered minutes, and provide no sort of intangible.

Literally could not be worse.

The thing is, his "type of minutes" profiled very differently early vs late.

Early in the season was the "gift minutes" and the "PP time", the WillieD's Son era, where he was actually contributing a decent enough amount on the scoresheet at least.

Late in the season, he was playing a lot of real "fringe minutes" with 4th liners and bouncing in and out of the lineup. That's where the lack of contribution really showed up. It's extremely hard for "playmakers" to make hay with fringe minutes, i think that's a pretty universal problem with these types. They thrive off quality linemates and opportunities. Obviously those struggles become very pronounced with more "fringe" playmakers.

His "results" in his "niche role" seemed pretty well tied to his quality of opportunity. Which isn't really surprising.

Needs to do more in getting physically stronger and more capable in his other responsibilities. But there's some small potential there still if he can earn back some opportunities.


But i mean, if you think he's a total scrub and the worst NHL player in the league or whatever hyperbole...then any amount of money spent on him, even a QO is a bad deal really.

 

[arttk]

As far as this, i just don't see Vey's rookie season in the same overwhelmingly negative light.

To me, he showed the ability to play a depth role with some holes in his game. Obviously has a lot of work to do this summer with his strength and power (and with that, hopefully slightly improved skating explosiveness as well). But he was "serviceable" for the most part, with small flashes of "serviceable++" basically. We've had many far more unfortunate and unpleasant depth players here, as has pretty much every team in the league. Depth players have real shortcomings...if Vey was 28 and still the exact same player, i'd be inclined with agree with you, and if that happens, he'll be out of the league long before that. But he's not. He was a 23 year old rookie who was mostly "serviceable" and had some hard knocks in the physical side of the game that really limited his ability to play his game.

I think there's enough there to think that if he can get physically stronger, he can be a "serviceable++" depth player consistently.


The thing i never really understood with Vey's usage last year...was that he seemingly went from "force fed top PP time" where he wasn't horrible on the aggregate, to late in the year in/out of the lineup as a depth guy...but when he was in the lineup, not really on the "2nd PP Unit" which was clearly his "niche contribution" specialty at this point. A specialty which this team could've probably used (even from a depth player). The 2nd unit was a festering wound all season, and we have/had a bunch of "top-6 forwards" who are terrible PP players (kind of odd). You can't tell me Vey wouldn't have been able to at least provide a "niche contribution" on the PP superior to...Derek Dorsett, or even a guy like Higgins.

Just a really strange decision to me..."good enough for the top unit" but "not good enough for the second unit". Confusing coaching.

You're looking for Vey's "role" though, that's where i think you find it. Rather than the traditional bottom-6 grinder type "contributions".

I don't know how you can say he has shown an ability to play a depth role considering he had 1st PP minutes and was given that much time on the 2nd line and didnt put up any points or generate anything in the last 50 games.

I mean if he put up some points given 4th line role then yeah you can make that argument. The guy didn't produce when given time, good linemates and PP time.
On top of that, he sucks defensively. Like he has serious holes in his defensive game, not being in the right position, sucks on the board, too weak in general and lack of awareness.

He has done NOTHING to cement his place on any NHL lineup let alone get a raise.

 

[MS]

The thing is, his "type of minutes" profiled very differently early vs late.

Early in the season was the "gift minutes" and the "PP time", the WillieD's Son era, where he was actually contributing a decent enough amount on the scoresheet at least.

Late in the season, he was playing a lot of real "fringe minutes" with 4th liners and bouncing in and out of the lineup. That's where the lack of contribution really showed up. It's extremely hard for "playmakers" to make hay with fringe minutes, i think that's a pretty universal problem with these types. They thrive off quality linemates and opportunities. Obviously those struggles become very pronounced with more "fringe" playmakers.

His "results" in his "niche role" seemed pretty well tied to his quality of opportunity. Which isn't really surprising.

Needs to do more in getting physically stronger and more capable in his other responsibilities. But there's some small potential there still if he can earn back some opportunities.


But i mean, if you think he's a total scrub and the worst NHL player in the league or whatever hyperbole...then any amount of money spent on him, even a QO is a bad deal really.

His icetime only dropped off in the last week of March.

Before that, there was a 40-game stretch over 4 months where he was averaging about 14 minutes/game and doing absolutely nothing. Invisible every night with top-9 icetime.

Regardless of whether you think he's a scrub or just a young player who struggled as a rookie and finished as a healthy scratch - this is the sort of player (fringe asset with no arbitration rights) that you put the squeeze on, and shouldn't be getting anything more than the minimum possible raise.

What exactly is Vey going to do if you say you won't give him more than his $800k QO? Hold out?

 

[me2]

Vey lost his roster spot to Kenins and gets paid nearly twice as much as a reward. He had no leverage.

People are arguing the deal is fine because the damage is small. That is not the issue, the issue is the same thinking goes into this as any other deal. It is just continues to reinforce the perception of a lack of tactical and strategic decision making. If you can't make good decisions people lose faith

 

[biturbo19]

I don't know how you can say he has shown an ability to play a depth role considering he had 1st PP minutes and was given that much time on the 2nd line and didnt put up any points or generate anything in the last 50 games.

I mean if he put up some points given 4th line role then yeah you can make that argument. The guy didn't produce when given time, good linemates and PP time.
On top of that, he sucks defensively. Like he has serious holes in his defensive game, not being in the right position, sucks on the board, too weak in general and lack of awareness.

He has done NOTHING to cement his place on any NHL lineup let alone get a raise.

Again though, you're muddling two distinct situations.

When Vey was being giving those scoring role opportunities consistently, and riding that #1PP Unit wave...he was producing. He was on pretty much the same pace as Bonino at the beginning of the year, from what i recall.

The fact he wasn't producing later in the season, is pretty clearly tied to the drop-off in quality of opportunity. He wasn't playing on any PP at that point, and was playing a lot of minutes with jumbled linemates when he was in the lineup and not sitting out. It wasn't consistent "2nd line and #1PP time" when he wasn't producing later in the year.

Obviously you want a guy who can produce like he did in his hot start, regardless of opportunity. And Vey did a very poor job of producing outside of good opportunity. But that's not a $1M depth/niche/utility/spare player, that's a promising young top-9 forward.

 

[ChilliBilly]

lots of screaming and yelling. Its a 1 yr put up or you're gone deal. Think we paid to much to obtain him, but this contract is not a big deal.

As pointed out, he's 24. He may end up a serviceable NHL'er, he may be gone. We'll see.

 

[MS]

Again though, you're muddling two distinct situations.

When Vey was being giving those scoring role opportunities consistently, and riding that #1PP Unit wave...he was producing. He was on pretty much the same pace as Bonino at the beginning of the year, from what i recall.

The fact he wasn't producing later in the season, is pretty clearly tied to the drop-off in quality of opportunity. He wasn't playing on any PP at that point, and was playing a lot of minutes with jumbled linemates when he was in the lineup and not sitting out. It wasn't consistent "2nd line and #1PP time" when he wasn't producing later in the year.

Obviously you want a guy who can produce like he did in his hot start, regardless of opportunity. And Vey did a very poor job of producing outside of good opportunity. But that's not a $1M depth/niche/utility/spare player, that's a promising young top-9 forward.

Again, this isn't true.

He was being spoonfed 13-15 minutes/game pretty much every night from December 1 until late March, and was absolutely useless.

 

[me2]

And what happens if you give a bunch of players 20-30% overpayments? 200k for Vey, an extra million for Sbisa, an extra 700k for Dorsett, an extra million for Miller. Three of those guys got contracts that were at least 30-50% longer than you'd ideally want, as well.

It's just a standard result for Jim "The Negotiator" Benning.

Even if you wanted to give it a flat rate (which makes no sense), Vey got 200k over his qualifying offer. That would be 4.6 million in dead money if you spread it across an entire roster.

That is difference between Sbisa and an $8.2m defenceman or 1C/2C.

 

[me2]

lots of screaming and yelling. Its a 1 yr put up or you're gone deal. Think we paid to much to obtain him, but this contract is not a big deal.

As pointed out, he's 24. He may end up a serviceable NHL'er, he may be gone. We'll see.

And all of that is true on his QO, so why not do that. IMHO the issue isn't bringing him back, we all kind of expected that, what went through Benning's head to give him an unnecessary and unwarranted pay rise?

 

[biturbo19]

His icetime only dropped off in the last week of March.

Before that, there was a 40-game stretch over 4 months where he was averaging about 14 minutes/game and doing absolutely nothing. Invisible every night with top-9 icetime.

Regardless of whether you think he's a scrub or just a young player who struggled as a rookie and finished as a healthy scratch - this is the sort of player (fringe asset with no arbitration rights) that you put the squeeze on, and shouldn't be getting anything more than the minimum possible raise.

What exactly is Vey going to do if you say you won't give him more than his $800k QO? Hold out?

His total icetime is less important to this, than who he was playing with, and his PP ice time. The things that appear to feed directly into his ability to produce.

But ultimately i don't know what happens if you don't give him more than his QO. I figured he'd probably be awfully close to that, and he came in maybe $200k high. But i can't imagine that was done "just for fun". Maybe it's a carrot dangled in front of Vey instead of the stick, maybe his agent threw a tantrum because he'd taken less last year and wasn't going to get strong-armed again this time around after his client played a season in the NHL. No idea. But i hardly imagine Benning gave him more money "just for fun", or "just because his agent asked nicely", or because he has absolutely no clue how "negotiating" works.

It's more than ideal, but in the end it's a couple hundred thousand extra at most and again, i'm just not that terribly concerned about how badly that's going to destroy our future. It's a one-year deal at a very minute "overpayment".

And at the end of the day, i don't really subscribe to the idea of "putting the squeeze on" players you want in your organization over a couple hundred thousand. In the same vein, i wouldn't have let Ehrhoff walk because of a few hundred thousand difference on a key piece of the team. It's pennypinching, and it seems petty and "adversarial" to me in the grander scheme of things...especially when you have deals that are millions out of alignment on the books.

If you don't really want Vey in your organization, as it appears you feel about the specific player here, then yeah...squeeze away. Who cares what happens or how the player feels about it, or what his agent jots down in his notebook for the negotiations next time around. But clearly Benning doesn't view Vey as a throwaway player, so a couple hundred thousand on a one-year contract is chump change and not likely a problem for the overall cap structure this season. Keeps a smooth rapport flowing with the player...and if he comes back next year and isn't worth that 1-million by the end of the season...toodles Vey, you can find another job. Immense 1 million dollar cap blight solved.


And quite honestly on top of it all...i find it strange that Benning is fingered as the guy who is solely working out every detail of these contracts. It's always been Gilman the "salary cap wizard" who has factored prominently in these financial goings ons and cap-related activities. Gillis obviously as a former agent, probably working a lot more closely on the details (and that was clearly a strong-suit there)...but does Benning really strike you as a guy who is sitting there drawing up contracts, counting up every last dollar and cent and deciding that Linden Vey should be given exactly one million dollars, while Kenins should get $575k and on and on?

I'm highly skeptical on that. This seems to me, something that is largely "delegated" by Scouter/Trader Jim, the "hockey guy". But it's all evidence of his tendencies in contract negotiations nonetheless. Every last penny of that $200k overpayment spent on imaginary nails for his coffin.