Pastor Of Muppetz
Registered User
- Oct 1, 2017
- 26,164
- 16,023
Confirmed with Link: Canucks sign G Jaroslav Halak to 1-Year, $1.5M Deal
- Thread starter F A N
- Start date
Egghead1999
Registered User
- Nov 9, 2007
- 3,160
- 855
The way this signing turned out was just about the most predictable thing ever.
Nah its just hindsight.
I just saw this from capfriendly : "$250k bonus for .905+ SV%", why did no one mention it?
We've been talking about it since before the last game when his sv% miraculously fell 15 points and he dipped below .905.
The whole point of Halak's deal was to defer money to the next year. That's what the Canucks wanted and Halak was agreeable to that on the basis of the various conditions that are on his contract.
Halak wasn't signing here for 1 year, $1.5M with zero trade protection. Brossoit got 2x$2.32M, Reimer got 2x$2.25M. Goalies that were bought out like Hotlby and Jones got 1x$2M.
Halak has actually been fine.
Halak wasn't signing here for 1 year, $1.5M with zero trade protection. Brossoit got 2x$2.32M, Reimer got 2x$2.25M. Goalies that were bought out like Hotlby and Jones got 1x$2M.
Halak has actually been fine.
I mean, yeah?
And the whole point of deferring money to next year was that the GM was frantically trying to save his job by sneaking into 16th place. Trying to open a long-term contending window and set the team up well for 2+ years down the road was less important than selfishly trying to save his own skin.
If you don't have the money to sign a Cadillac backup goalie, you don't sign a Cadillac backup goalie. And certainly you don't kick the can forward to future years when the team was going to be dealing with the Boeser extension.
They were doing everything possible to maximize their 2021-22 roster at the expense of future years. OEL deal was the same thing. Pretty much everything he ever did here was the same thing.
Then don't sign a backup goalie until you secure the contracts for Pettersson and Hughes.
The order in which they did business this offseason was completely insane.
That's easy for you to say. In reality, that can be difficult to do. It's not unusual for star level players to sign just before training camp or even after camp has started. There are different pressure points. It would be incredibly stupid to not do anything until you get Petey and Hughes sign when the team isn't aren't able to sign them before the start of free agency.
82Ninety42011
Registered User
Nobody is saying do nothing before signing EP and Hughes but signing a backup goalie and a 3C Dickinson whose turned out to be useless was stupid. These were the types of moves you could attempt up until season almost started. Benning always overpaid for depth guys heaven knows why.
Then pay for a cheap backup while you wait. Surely you would trust demko and ian clark to be able to hold down the fort.
Last edited:
Huh? Sign a backup goalie and acquire 3C when the season is almost starting? Tell me who you would have signed then? As for Dickinson, almost everyone here wanted the Canucks to acquire a player from a team with expansion draft issues. The fact that Dickinson turned out to be a poor target does not mean that the process of trying to acquire a 3C for a 3rd round pick from a team with expansion draft issues is a bad one.
Can Ian Clark play backup goalie? We've been sunk by bad goaltending before, whether it was Nillson, Holtby, or being forced to play Dipietro.
I don't see what the issue is. If you can't get EP and Hughes signed in time you save room and get other business done.
I still don't have a problem with the structure of this contract. Going into the season, I expected a team that could outscore some defensive issues, and could ride a strong top 9 and good goaltending into a playoff spot.
None of that has turned out the way I expected, with the offense being a weakness and defense being better than expected. But still made sense to me at the time.
With that said, if we can get out of that bonus JR should be looking to do so. I'm not generally one for being ruthless with players as I think long term that does more harm than good. But playing hardball with a guy on a one year contract isn't the same as if he had signed a long term deal. Especially when he's been outplayed by a younger, cheaper option.
Hoping both parties will come to a mutually acceptable agreement, but guess we will see.
None of that has turned out the way I expected, with the offense being a weakness and defense being better than expected. But still made sense to me at the time.
With that said, if we can get out of that bonus JR should be looking to do so. I'm not generally one for being ruthless with players as I think long term that does more harm than good. But playing hardball with a guy on a one year contract isn't the same as if he had signed a long term deal. Especially when he's been outplayed by a younger, cheaper option.
Hoping both parties will come to a mutually acceptable agreement, but guess we will see.
We have been, but surely at this point in time Ian Clark and Demko have earned the trust that:
1. Demko can carry the franchise goalie role ala Vasy in tampa.
2. Ian Clark can train any league min goalie into at least being serviceable or even better back up.
Johnny Canucker
Registered User
- Jan 4, 2009
- 17,750
- 6,116
Who the f*** sighs a veteran backup to a multi year deal with NMC on a bottom 5 team.
the actual f***.
the actual f***.
- Jan 23, 2010
- 25,107
- 15,229
Posted the day before the signing. Update: Not hilarious.
I still don't mind Halak as a target if they could have afforded to pay him. If he was signed for just this year at 2 million or whatever it would have been fine.
82Ninety42011
Registered User
Based on the reporting over the years, it seems that the way the Canucks go about their goaltending under Benning is to ask Clark for his advice. Surely at this point in time we believe that all goalie acquisitions have gone through Clark for at least his opinion?
I just think it's stupid to say the Canucks shouldn't do something that they need to do because they haven't signed Petey and Hughes. Regardless of what you think of previous management, competent management doesn't and won't do that. What they should do is to leave enough cap room to sign them to a contract that the team and player will realistically come to terms on. But it is often a fluid situation where various terms and cap hit are discussed. Certainly, competent management can budget how much cap space they can spend on a backup goaltender instead of "well I can't budget without getting Petey and Hughes signed so until these two sign I can't sign a backup goaltender or acquire a 3C"
archangel2
Registered User
- May 19, 2019
- 2,119
- 1,262
If I am reading what it being said correctly. Vancouver wants the team who trades for him to pay the bonuses--he has now played 10 games and that mean 1.25 added onto next years cap, Most teams that need a goalie are already up against the cap I do not see them taking on a bonus he earned with another team. another .250k is added if he ends up with a save % over .905--and I can see teams saying they will pay that one but not the 1.25
I agree that the fit has to be there. There's also nothing stopping from the Canucks from retaining some salary or taking a contract back. The issue is that if the Canucks are at the cap and can't fit Halak's bonuses, then it will carryover to next year. So the team is essentially trying to trade that liability away. Is it a big deal for a team looking to shore up their goaltending position come playoff time? I'm not sure, I would think not? A team like Nashville has been mentioned since they don't have a backup goalie they seem to trust (I actually like Rittich previously) and have cap space to absorb Halak's bonuses no problem.
ChuckNorris4Cup
Registered User
- May 31, 2018
- 3,004
- 2,326
CpatainCanuck
Registered User
- Sep 18, 2008
- 6,738
- 3,539
A GM would have to be a right dunce to think acquiring Halak would be "shoring up the goaltender position". He's been one of the worst backups in the league this year. A 3.41gga, and .886sv%.
