rebel diamond
Registered User
That's my take as well. Schroeder will be cut but be back in the lineup as of noon tomorrow (when whoever is sent down clears waivers) and will be our 2nd line centre tomorrow night.
Canucks' Training Camp Thread
- Thread starter dave babych returns
- Start date
That's my take as well. Schroeder will be cut but be back in the lineup as of noon tomorrow (when whoever is sent down clears waivers) and will be our 2nd line centre tomorrow night.
900k gets eaten up, so if you have a guy in the minors making $4.5m then it only counts for $3.6m.
Why don't people want Alberts? We need him to check Raymond every game day to get that motivation going.
The problem with that is that I think today is the ideal time to waive either Barker or Vandermeer and it hasn't been done (unless it just hasn't been reported). If they wait for tomorrow to put one on waivers, they run the risk of a team suffering an injury on the first day and claiming either for depth. If they waive one today, then teams will have set 23 man rosters and will need to send down a player immediately to have roster space for any player that they claim.
stevecanuck16
Registered User
- Jul 28, 2009
- 1,416
- 0
Why the criticism of Gillis in here? Do you really think that Mike Gillis is making these waiver and cap-related decisions, or would that be the duty of Gilman, the man specifically hired for that job?
The Canucks have employed "creative" roster management under Gilman and it has given us a distinct advantage over the rest of the league. Now that it may result in fans having to wait an extra game or two to see Schroeder, it turns quickly to "Fire the GM!" Ridiculous.
:
The fact that so many of you are suggesting we literally throw away assets to accommodate Schroeder making the opening night roster proves why Gillis and Gilman are NHL executives and you all are not. Remember, we're literally talking about 2-3 games at the most before Schroeder is called back up, and it's only due to waiver/cap restraints, as per Gillis. Boo-frickin'-hoo. What if Schroeder gets hurt and Ebbett has been tossed away as so many are suggesting? What if Schroeder hits a wall? Depth is paramount in the NHL, especially in a condensed season.
The Canucks have employed "creative" roster management under Gilman and it has given us a distinct advantage over the rest of the league. Now that it may result in fans having to wait an extra game or two to see Schroeder, it turns quickly to "Fire the GM!" Ridiculous.
:The fact that so many of you are suggesting we literally throw away assets to accommodate Schroeder making the opening night roster proves why Gillis and Gilman are NHL executives and you all are not. Remember, we're literally talking about 2-3 games at the most before Schroeder is called back up, and it's only due to waiver/cap restraints, as per Gillis. Boo-frickin'-hoo. What if Schroeder gets hurt and Ebbett has been tossed away as so many are suggesting? What if Schroeder hits a wall? Depth is paramount in the NHL, especially in a condensed season.
opendoor
Registered User
- Dec 12, 2006
- 11,719
- 1,403
The 2nd one. Basically the entire contract value minus the current league minimum ($525K) + $375K will count. So basically the value less $900K. Here's the language from the MOU:
stevecanuck16
Registered User
- Jul 28, 2009
- 1,416
- 0
See what I mean? Do you honestly believe that you have a better grasp of this than Lawrence Gilman, the roster management guru? Have you been living under a rock these past few years?
Have some faith in the guys who have propelled us into the NHL elite.
Calling Cam Barker an asset is a bit of a reach there...Why the criticism of Gillis in here? *******, you people are such spoiled brats. Do you really think that Mike Gillis is making these waiver and cap-related decisions, or would that be the duty of Gilman, the man specifically hired for that job?
The Canucks have employed "creative" roster management under Gilman and it has given us a distinct advantage over the rest of the league. Now that it may result in fans having to wait an extra game or two to see Schroeder, it turns quickly to "Fire the GM!" Ridiculous.
The fact that so many of you are suggesting we literally throw away assets to accommodate Schroeder making the opening night roster proves why Gillis and Gilman are NHL executives and you all are not. Remember, we're literally talking about 2-3 games at the most before Schroeder is called back up, and it's only due to waiver/cap restraints, as per Gillis. Boo-frickin'-hoo. What if Schroeder gets hurt and Ebbett has been tossed away as so many are suggesting? What if Schroeder hits a wall? Depth is paramount in the NHL, especially in a condensed season.
Chill. The. Eff. Out.
opendoor
Registered User
- Dec 12, 2006
- 11,719
- 1,403
Why the criticism of Gillis in here? *******, you people are such spoiled brats. Do you really think that Mike Gillis is making these waiver and cap-related decisions, or would that be the duty of Gilman, the man specifically hired for that job?
The Canucks have employed "creative" roster management under Gilman and it has given us a distinct advantage over the rest of the league. Now that it may result in fans having to wait an extra game or two to see Schroeder, it turns quickly to "Fire the GM!" Ridiculous.
The fact that so many of you are suggesting we literally throw away assets to accommodate Schroeder making the opening night roster proves why Gillis and Gilman are NHL executives and you all are not. Remember, we're literally talking about 2-3 games at the most before Schroeder is called back up, and it's only due to waiver/cap restraints, as per Gillis. Boo-frickin'-hoo. What if Schroeder gets hurt and Ebbett has been tossed away as so many are suggesting? What if Schroeder hits a wall? Depth is paramount in the NHL, especially in a condensed season.
Chill. The. Eff. Out.
Any player that needs to be waived to accommodate Schroeder now will still have to eventually be waived to get him back on the roster; it's not like waiting changes that. It's really just a question of timing and calculated risks.
RobertKron
Registered User
- Sep 1, 2007
- 15,516
- 8,651
Given that the Canucks just signed him a couple weeks back, and there was competition for the signing, I don't know that I agree with you.
HalfPastDan
Registered Schmoozer
- Feb 7, 2010
- 785
- 16
Why the criticism of Gillis in here? Do you really think that Mike Gillis is making these waiver and cap-related decisions, or would that be the duty of Gilman, the man specifically hired for that job?
The Canucks have employed "creative" roster management under Gilman and it has given us a distinct advantage over the rest of the league. Now that it may result in fans having to wait an extra game or two to see Schroeder, it turns quickly to "Fire the GM!" Ridiculous.
The fact that so many of you are suggesting we literally throw away assets to accommodate Schroeder making the opening night roster proves why Gillis and Gilman are NHL executives and you all are not. Remember, we're literally talking about 2-3 games at the most before Schroeder is called back up, and it's only due to waiver/cap restraints, as per Gillis. Boo-frickin'-hoo. What if Schroeder gets hurt and Ebbett has been tossed away as so many are suggesting? What if Schroeder hits a wall? Depth is paramount in the NHL, especially in a condensed season.
Nobody seems all that worked up but you...
Your points are good, but your delivery is a little over the top.
Right I understand that just wondering how it is applied.
$1.1M cap hit for Alberts, new guy in your example an additional $3.6 M hit for a $4.7 mil total
or
demoted Alberts $200k cap hit (difference between the 1.1 and 900k) and new player $3.6 M....$3.8 M total
I expect it is the first one as when I write out the second one it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.
chris11inter
Registered User
- Jul 18, 2007
- 1,793
- 0
Yes, because we can never question the logic of a decision reached by the front office because they've never made a mistake.
At the end of the day, someone is getting waived or hurt if Schroeder is coming back up. You can't bank on the latter. You don't think it's a valid question to consider whether it's better to waive someone now or in a day or in a week?
Nice strawmen, by the way.
RobertKron
Registered User
- Sep 1, 2007
- 15,516
- 8,651
Let me assure you that watching this guy play in Edmonton all year last year, he is an absolute nightmare in his own end.
My prediction is he doesn't play one game in a Canucks uniform
I'm not saying he will. I wouldn't be surprised to see him waived once they think it's safer. I'm just saying that regardless of if poster X, or me, or whoever on HFboards sees him as an asset - the team just spent a 700k contract on him a couple weeks ago, so they clearly consider him an asset of some sort.
opendoor
Registered User
- Dec 12, 2006
- 11,719
- 1,403
The CBA doesn't designate replacement players. If Alberts is demoted he'll only count for $200K regardless who (or if anyone) replaces him. Each player is counted on their own regardless of what's going on around them and anyone on a 1 way deal who's loaned outside the NHL will have $900K cut off their cap hit.
It's similar how to when a player goes on LTIR, there are no restrictions on how the exemption is spent. The Canucks could put Luongo on LTIR and go into exemption territory by acquiring new forwards (or even several new players).
*Looks where he was born*
Not a surprise that someone from Edmonton is making riot jokes.
That was a quality tweet.
Totally agree. One of the most original riot jokes I've seen. Laughed at the "7 protesters".
stevecanuck16
Registered User
- Jul 28, 2009
- 1,416
- 0
Not a strawman* at all. You're suggesting that Gillis and Gilman haven't fully thought out every scenario and weighed the benefits and risks of each. I think their history in that regard speaks for itself.
I think it's a valid question, but I think it's invalid to suggest that Gillis and Gilman are confused or mistaken about the correct path here. Gillis is not mistake-free, but we're talking solely about roster management here. Show me one mistake in this area. Again, have we all forgotten the near-deity that Gilman is in this regard?
I don't think everyone here fully understands the situation, and that's part of the problem.
From what we've been told:
The 23 man roster must include Kesler at first. (has this been confirmed?)
Sedin-Sedin-Burrows
Raymond-Schroeder/Bilbo-Kassian
Higgins-Lapierre-Hansen
Volpatti-Malhotra-Weise
ex: Kesler
for 13 forwards
With:
Edler-Garrison
Bieksa-Hamhuis
Ballard-Tanev
ex: Alberts, Vandermeer
for 8 defensemen.
With Schneids and Lu bringing the total to 23. If this is the case, we're not choosing Barker over Schroeder, Barker is as good as waived. We're choosing to not expose Ebbett to waivers now and instead dropping Schroeder temporarily until Kesler can be put on LTIR. Then, we will call up Schroeder and not have to place Ebbett on waivers until after Kesler returns. Ebbett remains the 13th forward. (And yes, I do think that Ebbett would be claimed given the awful names having already been claimed).
At that point, yes, we may have to expose Ebbett to waivers, but at the very least it will be after we have Kesler back. Am I off anywhere? I think Gillis's comments match up pretty exactly with this scenario.
I do apologize for getting worked up, but it really is shameful to see the amount of **** heaped on Gillis constantly. The guy is not infallible, but he is as good or better than any GM in our team's history. Yet the grass is always greener on the other side for Canucks fans. To be entirely fair, I was more of less responding to the guy who said "Frankly Mike is the most overrated GM in this league. Heck I'm still angry that Luongo is still in our team. You already made a statement that Scheider was your number 1, why carry the extra baggage?"
RJC
Registered User
Based on what you looked up yesterday it seemed to me like they could waive guys anytime during the day (or during business hours anyway) and they would clear within 24 hours. Did I misunderstand or misremember something?
Perhaps they're also trying to make a deal with some other team to get rid of one of these guys in return for someone who can be sent down without having to clear waivers. Maybe looking to deal Alberts for someone like that... ? Just a thought.
opendoor
Registered User
- Dec 12, 2006
- 11,719
- 1,403
Yes. Barker can't be "as good as waived" he either had to be waived yesterday or he's part of the team's 23 man roster. Given that he wasn't waived, it appears the team is going with 12 forwards and 9 defensemen for its initial roster once Schroeder is sent down. It also appears that neither Kesler or Booth will be on the 23 man roster but will be put on IR.
In order to get Schroeder back on the roster they'll have to waive someone else which means if he's coming back in a day or two, they're just delaying the inevitable. It really comes down to when a player on waivers is more likely to be claimed, now or in a few days. I think that's up for debate.
