Confirmed with Link: Canucks sign Brock Boeser to 3 year deal worth 5.875 million annually. | #607

[MS]

But they can make it work. You have even presented a way that they could make it work if Roussell comes back and the Canucks remain fully healthy and require a roster move.

The way to kinda sorta make it work would be carrying a 21-22 man roster, having no defensive depth, and basically no ability to call guys up from the minors when short-term injuries inevitably happen. That would be a complete mess and teams don't do it for a reason because although it might look good on paper in September, it doesn't freaking work in practice.

The team would clearly not want to be putting themselves in that position, especially given the theme of defensive depth that they've been beating for the last year.

 

[4Twenty]

You’re asking me if the salary cap has an impact on salary negotiations?

Yes, yes it does.

Thank you.

I'm glad you're not one of those folks unwilling to admit that the Canucks cap situation had an impact on these negotiations. Cheers.

 

[krutovsdonut]

To save the 2.15m in cap space provided it is required to become cap compliant.

Don’t try and lead me along some convoluted argument. State your posisiton and I will respond.

chuckle.

 

[I am toxic]

"A bridge deal for Boeser - this is great!"

"Well, actually, we won't be competitive for the next few years with Sutter, Eriksson, Schaller, Beagle on the books . . ."

"That doesn't matter, cap space doesn't matter. EP and Hughes will be hitting their stride when those god-awful contrac . . . I mean when those solid culture carriers have successfully mentored EP and Hughes and are no longer on the books."

"Well, actually, that is precisely when you want Boeser to be more affordable, and a bridge deal now does the opposite of that. In other words, it sets the team up currently for mediocrity and middling picks, and no room to build a true contender when our stars hit their primes."

"You're toxic."

 

[Canucko]

The way to kinda sorta make it work would be carrying a 21-22 man roster, having no defensive depth, and basically no ability to call guys up from the minors when short-term injuries inevitably happen. That would be a complete mess and teams don't do it for a reason because although it might look good on paper in September, it doesn't freaking work in practice.

The team would clearly not want to be putting themselves in that position, especially given the theme of defensive depth that they've been beating for the last year.

Of course this is all hypothetical. We have no idea what the Canucks brass has on the burner in the event of different scenarios. What I do know is that if the two sides could have reached an agreement on a long term the salary cap would not have stopped the team from doing so.

That is fact.

 

[4Twenty]

To save the 2.15m in cap space provided it is required to become cap compliant.

Don’t try and lead me along some convoluted argument. State your posisiton and I will respond.

THe reason he's doing this is because you're absolutely over-simplifying LTIR and the steps it would take to become cap compliant and that you keep saying people need to be buried to make it work, does NOT support your arguement.

 

[Orr4Norris]

How would the Canucks fit a long term deal in? They would trade someone. Just like TO sucked it up and traded players to get under the cap.

 

[Bleach Clean]

We haven’t gotten anywhere. I have still seen no proof to show that the Canucks moved off a long term deal because of Cap issues.

In fact, it has been demonstrated that the Canucks had the ability to sign Boeser to a long term deal, provided their valuation was not far off.

How has it been demonstrated? Through your exchange with Froshaug?

This was concluded the minute you couldn’t answer Froshaug. Did you know that?

And you’re presenting a strawman. The cap was a factor in executing a long term deal. It need not have been the primary cause.

The agent also suspected it would be harder based on the signings.

Anyway, when you want to start discussing things in a genuine fashion, I’ll be here.

 

[Bleach Clean]

How would the Canucks fit a long term deal in? They would trade someone. Just like TO sucked it up and traded players to get under the cap.

Just like Benning had throughout the summer?

 

[Canucko]

How has it been demonstrated? Through your exchange with Froshaug?

This was concluded the minute you couldn’t answer Froshaug. Did you know that?

And your presenting a strawman. The cap was a factor in executing a long term deal. It need not have been the primary cause.

The agent also suspected it would be harder based on the signings.

Anyway, when you want to start discussing things in a genuine fashion, I’ll be here.

Sorry, but am not comfortable discussing this with you anymore.

 

[Canucko]

THe reason he's doing this is because you're absolutely over-simplifying LTIR and the steps it would take to become cap compliant and that you keep saying people need to be buried to make it work, does NOT support your arguement.

What is my argument? I would like you to restate it to ensure we’re discussing the same thing.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Sorry, but am not comfortable discussing this with you anymore.

That’s fair, but I hope you don’t take offense to me responding to your posts. This is a message board after all and posts are publicly discussed.

Have a good one.

 

[Orr4Norris]

Just like Benning had throughout the summer?

Or he just didn’t want to bad enough?

In order to clear salary he would either have to
a) trade someone that weakens the roster (Tanev etc)
or
b) add a significant sweetener to move out an unwanted contract (Loui etc)
or
c) take a subpar return (Sven etc)

To say there was no way to clear out space is silly. But that doesn’t mean the cost benefit analysis makes it worth it.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Or he just didn’t want to bad enough?

In order to clear salary he would either have to
a) trade someone that weakens the roster (Tanev etc)
or
b) add a significant sweetener to move out an unwanted contract (Loui etc)
or
c) take a subpar return (Sven etc)

To say there was no way to clear out space is silly. But that doesn’t mean the cost benefit analysis makes it worth it.

No one is saying “no way”. What is being contested is that the cap is easily manipulated to make it happen, this is false.

Once you get to waiving or moving players to fit a player on a projected AAV, the recognition that the cap is a preventative factor has to be there. Period.

 

[Canucko]

Thank you.

I'm glad you're not one of those folks unwilling to admit that the Canucks cap situation had an impact on these negotiations. Cheers.

Of course the salary cap has an impact - I have never argued otherwise.

 

[Dana Murzyn]

Like, if you wanted to argue that it was more important to nail down a Tyler Myers and JT Miller and it was worth sacrificing a long-term deal on Boeser for, that's actually a legitimate argument. Not that I necessarily agree, but it would be a valid point of view. Trying to argue that our cap picture after the signings didn't change the shape of a Boeser deal is just obviously incorrect based on the absolute mountain of evidence pointing in the other direction and is not a valid point of view.

Well yeah, from the agent's point of view, clearly the cap picture "changed the shape" of a Boeser deal. I'm just not convinced it changed things on the management side.

I think it went like this. Benning had an internal number he wasn't willing to go above. The agent knew Benning could go above it because there was plenty of room under the cap. Then Benning spent a bunch of money on UFAs and that room disappeared, things "tightened up". But it didn't affect what Benning was willing to spend on the player in the first place, which is why, ultimately, the deal didn't get done.

Such a plausible scenario. Fits with everything that's been said publicly, even by the agent on his PR rounds. It doesn't even absolve Benning. It just calls into question the comic-book buffoon scenario where Boeser's agent finally agreed to a number that was acceptable to Benning, only to have Benning reach into his pocket and discover he was a little short. I mean, the man's a bad GM, but he has people around him who own calculators.

 

[4Twenty]

Sure - none of this is ideal. And given how poor this team hasn’t been for the past few seasons it’s not a good look.

Notwithstanding all of that - it’s pretty clear to me that the Canucks cap situation was not the driving factor in preventing a long term deal with Boeser.

Of course this is all hypothetical. We have no idea what the Canucks brass has on the burner in the event of different scenarios. What I do know is that if the two sides could have reached an agreement on a long term the salary cap would not have stopped the team from doing so.

That is fact.

What is my argument? I would like you to restate it to ensure we’re discussing the same thing.

I think your arguement is that there is no proof the Canucks cap situation was a factor in the bridge deal and that the the cap wasn't limiting the team from signing him to a long term deal. You're pretty smart too.

Like in the 2nd post I quoted, you talk about an agreement being possible and the cap wouldn't have stopped it. It is a fact, you can go over the cap by 10% in the offseason, so you're bang on they could've reached that agreement. But you're failing to note that the future cap expenditures limited the sides ability to come to that agreement.

The assumptions you make, like how easy it is to max out LTIR and create the cap space required is one thing I get hung up on, because you're just assuming it's easy... and then at the end there is a little suggestion that the long term deal could only not be completed because the ask from Boeser's camp was too unreasonable.

 

[timw33]

It's insane to think how easily this situation could have been avoided by like...not signing two replacement level 4th line players for a combined $4.9MM last year. Or, trading Gudbranson for pure pick package at deadline instead of taking back an equally not good contract (freeing up $4MM). Or, not signing Eriksson (obviously). Or, not signing Gagner for 3 years, leading to us taking on Spooner and subsequently buying him out.

All guys who have not moved the needle at all, guys who had they not been on the roster, we wouldn't have done any worse than we actually did over the past few years.

This is the consequence of death by a thousand paper cuts that we've been predicting for years.

 

[4Twenty]

How would the Canucks fit a long term deal in? They would trade someone. Just like TO sucked it up and traded players to get under the cap.

Yeah, so like some of us have said, the cap commitments limited their flexibility. Yeah, they could trade Eriksson and two first round picks to get compliant, but that would be incredibly stupid. I mean running a 21/22 man roster is one thing, and hoping they can maximize LTIR is another, but giving credence to the idea of trading contracts plus sweeteners to get compliant underscores the lack of flexibility the canucks had when negotiating as long-term extension.

 

[Hoghandler]

Well yeah, from the agent's point of view, clearly the cap picture "changed the shape" of a Boeser deal. I'm just not convinced it changed things on the management side.

I think it went like this. Benning had an internal number he wasn't willing to go above. The agent knew Benning could go above it because there was plenty of room under the cap. Then Benning spent a bunch of money on UFAs and that room disappeared, things "tightened up". But it didn't affect what Benning was willing to spend on the player in the first place, which is why, ultimately, the deal didn't get done.

This is exactly how I see it. A lack of cap space isn't why the 3 year deal happened. The 3 year deal happened because both sides wouldn't budge at the 6 year offer. The Canucks dug in their heels at $7mil apparently, while Boeser's camp were likely pushing for more.

 

[Bleach Clean]

This is exactly how I see it. A lack of cap space isn't why the 3 year deal happened. The 3 year deal happened because both sides wouldn't budge at the 6 year offer. The Canucks dug in their heels at $7mil apparently, while Boeser's camp were likely pushing for more.

How are you concluding that a lack of cap space had no bearing on whether the deal shifted from 6 years to 3 years?

 

[4Twenty]

It's insane to think how easily this situation could have been avoided by like...not signing two replacement level 4th line players for a combined $4.9MM last year. Or, trading Gudbranson for pure pick package at deadline instead of taking back an equally not good contract (freeing up $4MM). Or, not signing Eriksson (obviously). Or, not signing Gagner for 3 years, leading to us taking on Spooner and subsequently buying him out.

All guys who have not moved the needle at all, guys who had they not been on the roster, we wouldn't have done any worse than we actually did over the past few years.

This is the consequence of death by a thousand paper cuts that we've been predicting for years.

This is exactly why we're sitting here attempting to explain to people why the bridge deal could come back to bite the team again in 3 years, because it's not going to get any easier.

I get it though, a lot of people just want to be positive about the team they support and anything negative just leads to sticking their heads in the sand.

 

[Hoghandler]

It's insane to think how easily this situation could have been avoided by like...

This is the consequence of death by a thousand paper cuts that we've been predicting for years.

What is meant by 'the situation avoided'? This contract is better than had the Canucks caved in to Boeser's demands.

How exactly is this deal some sort of 'loss'. This is more palatable than a 6 year deal at $7.5mil...

 

[4Twenty]

This is exactly how I see it. A lack of cap space isn't why the 3 year deal happened. The 3 year deal happened because both sides wouldn't budge at the 6 year offer. The Canucks dug in their heels at $7mil apparently, while Boeser's camp were likely pushing for more.

But we also know they had to get Aquilini to come in and move them off their 3 year bridge number too. If they had the flexibility, what stops Aquaman from doing the same thing on a long term deal.....right, they didn't have the flexibility because of how they've allocated their money, especially this year in free agency.

 

[4Twenty]

What is meant by 'the situation avoided'? This contract is better than had the Canucks caved in to Boeser's demands.

How exactly is this deal some sort of 'loss'. This is more palatable than a 6 year deal at $7.5mil...

Please elaborate on this.

what if those 3 years are at $12m/aa or more?