D-Day - Canucks waive Baertschi, Biega, Goldobin

[DL44]

I remember someone said that Benning and his cronies may actually have the courage to send Eriksson down if he does not perform up to par.

R...ight.

Answer me this: what if anything has this guy done to earn him a spot on the roster, aside from his wildly overpaid contract?

The more I think of it, if Eriksson fails to produce, I’m thinking he’s the one going down once Roussel arrives... along with Gaudette.

I think we run with a 22 man roster to help accrue cap space to bring Tryamkin in after the TDL. Need to avoid injury tho. Hell... if Gaudette isn’t playing now... should send and start accruing now.... but PR.

 

[DL44]

Why are you so worried about being labeled pro?

I honestly had you pegged similarly. But I think you’re more on an anti-neg and that’s confusing. Because it sometimes comes across as defen.

Would you be ok if I started calling you a hater and not a real fan post after post?

I’m anti-hyperbole. Both ways. I’m not even a fan of Benning.. but i’m a Canucks fan that focuses more on the positive because the Canucks are a source of entertainment. Like HF is a source entertainment and information surrounding my favourite team. I couldn’t even fathom wanting to come here or even watch this team if I felt about this team the way some here express their consistent negativity about it... where their takes are completely slanted one singular way. Every topic, same slant. Every time. And this is THEIR source of entertainment? Must be fun at parties.
I don’t get it.

My only explanation is ..... Russians.

 

[biturbo19]

Honestly, the only thing i question...is Baertschi being waived over Schaller. Is Bae really that f***ed up from his constant injuries and concussions that he's fallen off that badly and can't recover? I just don't get that at all.

I get that even on form, Bae would've been pushed to the 3rd line, where he's significantly less effective. But it's weird to me. And even more bizarre that nobody else picked him up off waivers. Makes me think he's actually just damaged goods at this point, which sucks.

The rest makes sense to me.

Forsling cleared waivers btw

This made me chuckle. Future superstar we gave up for "can't skate" Clendening. Could've had him back for free...along with all the other teams, but nah. He's just not that good. He's a specialist.


I'm still disappointed we didn't make a claim on Alexandre Carrier though. That's a defenceman we could use in our organization. He could be the 7th D until injuries inevitably hit. But he's got actual NHL upside imo. Basically a free 3rd round pick that worked out like an early 2nd. But we kept...Fantenberg instead of taking a flyer on a young guy with upside? Fantenberg guaranteed would've cleared waivers too. Don't get that one either.

 

[Bleach Clean]

You can keep saying that all ya want... you'd still be wrong. You do you.

It’s what you did. You adopted their pecking order, their read on Gaudette versus the bottom6 centres, as being sacrosanct. You didn’t question it.

You have since then confirmed it by implying that Beagle is better than Gaudette in the corners, face offs, against McDavid etc...

What is incorrect regarding my interpretation there?

 

[DL44]

It’s what you did. You adopted their pecking order, their read on Gaudette versus the bottom6 centres, as being sacrosanct. You didn’t question it.

You have since then confirmed it by implying that Beagle is better than Gaudette in the corners, face offs, against McDavid etc...

What is incorrect regarding my interpretation there?

That I adopted Their pecking order when it was my opinion prior.

Like I asked you before mod... me being critical of Biega forever, but now he gets waived... does that mean I adopted the management’s pecking order?
Me saying Baertschi will be the piece we need to get rid of, and then they waive him, does that mean I was adopting the management’s pecking order?
Give it up already.
Lame.
Your are done.
Everyone sees it. You are embarrassing yourself.

Edit: actually mod... keep going.

 

[RobertKron]

That I adopted Their pecking order when it was my opinion prior.

Like I asked you before mod... me being critical of Biega forever, but now he gets waived... does that mean I adopted the management’s pecking order?
Me saying Baertschi will be the piece we need to get rid of, and then they waive him, does that mean I was adopting the management’s pecking order?
Give it up already.
Lame.
Your are done.
Everyone sees it. You are embarrassing yourself.

Edit: actually mod... keep going.

Why do you keep referencing them being a mod? Is that supposed to be important somehow?

 

[geebaan]

Why do you keep referencing them being a mod? Is that supposed to be important somehow?

What’s important is Sbisa earning his contract. This guy knows his stuff. He’s not embarrassing himself at all.

 

[Bleach Clean]

That I adopted Their pecking order when it was my opinion prior.

Ok, it may have been your opinion before hand. Completely fair. Still, it doesn't explain why you have to reaffirm that opinion with what management is doing now. The latter has no bearing on the former. I'll use your initial posts to explain:

It's what the people wanted..
Many yelled and screamed saying he's earned a spot on the roster due to his preseason offensive production and work rate. So he has one.
Only.. he's not gonna play as a center ahead of 40-53-20-83. And they don't want him a winger. So here he is.

He's spent the last few weeks competing head to head and along side his 'competition'/with these centers in camp, in drills, in scrimmage... everyone there knows the pecking order and where everyone stands in the NHL caliber department. If he gets in, he gets in...
If he doesn't, what does that say about Gaudette's current relative trash rating?

You may BELIEVE that... but regular season matters more than preseason vs other AHL fodder. 6 months ago he wasn't better option
.

1. In the first post, you have concluded that he will not play ahead of Beagle. How? This at once speaks to how Green intends to run the top6/bottom6, and your alignment with said intention.

2. Next, "they don't want him as a winger" --> This is a management thought inference used to reinforce your subjective opinion.

3. He spent the last few weeks competing against said centres and everyone knows the pecking order. Meaning, management knows what it is doing and the pecking order is correct.

4. While I agree that regular season play trumps preseason play, it's not predictive. What management chose to do last year may not hold this year. To believe that it will hold and that it should hold, again, speaks to alignment with management's understanding of the roster.

So had you not used management's perception on Gaudette's placement to buoy your own opinion, no one would have confused your opinion as support of management's perception. Logical? This is what makes your opinion come across as an auto-defense instead of a stand alone rationale. Hope that clears things up.

 

[tyhee]

They do benefit. He was put on IR today, bringing the roster down to 23. The Canucks' upper limit will be reset temporarily to $81.33M instead of $81.5M while he is on LTIR. The team can exceed that temporary limit by Roussel's hit ($3M) on a prorated basis during that stint.

It seems to me that the page you quoted (which I’d read previously) supports my position that there is no benefit available.

Before getting to the workings of that page, I'll give a really simple way of looking at it. The Canucks’ total cap hit with Roussel and Gaudette both included, that is with 24 players, was $81.334 million. The salary cap it $81.5 million. The Canucks need no relief and they can’t use anything when they don’t need it. Long term injury relief isn't accruable for the future-what they don't use, they lose.

Now looking at things from the perspective of the page you referred to, you’ll see two different formulas for calculating the Accruable Cap Space Limit. The one for training camp situations is stated to be the difference between the team’s cap (before putting the injured player on LTIR) and the injured player's cap hit.

The Canucks’ total cap hit with Roussel and Gaudette both included, that is with 24 players, was $81.334 million, still below the salary cap. The Accruable Cap Space Limit using the training camp formula is $78.334 million, the difference between the team’s cap space before putting Roussel on injured reserve and his cap hit.

The Canucks’ ACSL is well below the league upper limit, by more than Roussel’s cap hit.

Their salary relief pool is Roussel’s salary of $3 million. Their performance bonus pool is 0 as Roussel had no performance bonuses (and wasn’t eligible for any, being neither on an e lc or a 35+ contract.)

Now the club is permitted to exceed the limit. The rough formula given on that page for the amount they can exceed the limit by is ACSL + Salary Relief Pool – League Upper Limit = $78.334 million + $ 3 million - $81.5 million which is a negative number, so there is no relief.

(That doesn't seem fair to me-it would seem that the Canucks should be able to spend up to the amount they were already spending plus the amount of the replacement(s) up to Roussel's cap hit, which would make an adjusted temporary cap hit of $83.417 million ($80.417 for 23 players including Roussel but not Gaudette plus up to $3 million for a replacement for Roussel. The regular season calculation for ACSL makes more sense to me. Either way, I don't see that the Canucks, with Gaudette as the replacement, are in a position to use the potential cap relief, though they logically should be able to use relief for performance bonuses Gaudette earns this season.)
That is consistent with a couple of other statements on the page you referred to.

1. “If the team operates below the ACSL, they begin to accrue cap space. A team can operate up to the ACSL without using their LTIR relief pools, once they operate above the ACSL, they begin to use their LTIR relief pools.”

2. “The ACSL will always be less than or (in the optimal scenario) equal to the league upper limit. The closer the ACSL is to the league upper limit, the greater the team will be able to exceed the upper limit.”

Note that the figure you’d given earlier for what the limit changed to was not the training camp formula. It works in mid-season when you start with 23 players on the roster but to do it that way you’d need to exclude Gaudette (as with him there were 24, which can't happen during the season,) which would leave the Canucks with over $1 million in available cap space, so that adding Gaudette’s salary back in still leaves you short of the salary cap.

All this is somewhat explained, in a roundabout way and not always very well, in numerous articles back in July when the the Leafs traded to get David Clarkson back to get their cap hit as high as possible before using long term injury relief.

 

[UticaHockey]

It seems to me that the page you quoted (which I’d read previously) supports my position that there is no benefit available.

Before getting to the workings of that page, I'll give a really simple way of looking at it. The Canucks’ total cap hit with Roussel and Gaudette both included, that is with 24 players, was $81.334 million. The salary cap it $81.5 million. The Canucks need no relief and they can’t use anything when they don’t need it. Long term injury relief isn't accruable for the future-what they don't use, they lose.

Now looking at things from the perspective of the page you referred to, you’ll see two different formulas for calculating the Accruable Cap Space Limit. The one for training camp situations is stated to be the difference between the team’s cap (before putting the injured player on LTIR) and the injured player's cap hit.

The Canucks’ total cap hit with Roussel and Gaudette both included, that is with 24 players, was $81.334 million, still below the salary cap. The Accruable Cap Space Limit using the training camp formula is $78.334 million, the difference between the team’s cap space before putting Roussel on injured reserve and his cap hit.

The Canucks’ ACSL is well below the league upper limit, by more than Roussel’s cap hit.

Their salary relief pool is Roussel’s salary of $3 million. Their performance bonus pool is 0 as Roussel had no performance bonuses (and wasn’t eligible for any, being neither on an e lc or a 35+ contract.)

Now the club is permitted to exceed the limit. The rough formula given on that page for the amount they can exceed the limit by is ACSL + Salary Relief Pool – League Upper Limit = $78.334 million + $ 3 million - $81.5 million which is a negative number, so there is no relief.

(That doesn't seem fair to me-it would seem that the Canucks should be able to spend up to the amount they were already spending plus the amount of the replacement(s) up to Roussel's cap hit, which would make an adjusted temporary cap hit of $83.417 million ($80.417 for 23 players including Roussel but not Gaudette plus up to $3 million for a replacement for Roussel. The regular season calculation for ACSL makes more sense to me. Either way, I don't see that the Canucks, with Gaudette as the replacement, are in a position to use the potential cap relief, though they logically should be able to use relief for performance bonuses Gaudette earns this season.)
That is consistent with a couple of other statements on the page you referred to.

1. “If the team operates below the ACSL, they begin to accrue cap space. A team can operate up to the ACSL without using their LTIR relief pools, once they operate above the ACSL, they begin to use their LTIR relief pools.”

2. “The ACSL will always be less than or (in the optimal scenario) equal to the league upper limit. The closer the ACSL is to the league upper limit, the greater the team will be able to exceed the upper limit.”

Note that the figure you’d given earlier for what the limit changed to was not the training camp formula. It works in mid-season when you start with 23 players on the roster but to do it that way you’d need to exclude Gaudette (as with him there were 24, which can't happen during the season,) which would leave the Canucks with over $1 million in available cap space, so that adding Gaudette’s salary back in still leaves you short of the salary cap.

All this is somewhat explained, in a roundabout way and not always very well, in numerous articles back in July when the the Leafs traded to get David Clarkson back to get their cap hit as high as possible before using long term injury relief.

I'm pretty good at understanding CBA implications except for LTIR and the salary cap. So now with Mott looking to be out for 10 days or more they will probably eventually call someone up. Since they only have about $166K in cap space will they then tap into the LTIR relief from Roussel when a player is called up?

 

[LickTheEnvelope]

On the bright side Baerstchi can be a huge boob to Utica

 

[LordBacon]

On the bright side Baerstchi can be a huge boob to Utica

Nice we all love to see that

 

[DL44]

Ok, it may have been your opinion before hand. Completely fair. Still, it doesn't explain why you have to reaffirm that opinion with what management is doing now. The latter has no bearing on the former. I'll use your initial posts to explain:








1. In the first post, you have concluded that he will not play ahead of Beagle. How? This at once speaks to how Green intends to run the top6/bottom6, and your alignment with said intention.

2. Next, "they don't want him as a winger" --> This is a management thought inference used to reinforce your subjective opinion.

3. He spent the last few weeks competing against said centres and everyone knows the pecking order. Meaning, management knows what it is doing and the pecking order is correct.

4. While I agree that regular season play trumps preseason play, it's not predictive. What management chose to do last year may not hold this year. To believe that it will hold and that it should hold, again, speaks to alignment with management's understanding of the roster.

So had you not used management's perception on Gaudette's placement to buoy your own opinion, no one would have confused your opinion as support of management's perception. Logical? This is what makes your opinion come across as an auto-defense instead of a stand alone rationale. Hope that clears things up.

I must be an auto defender.
Probably less than you must be set to auto-hate.

 

[tyhee]

I'm pretty good at understanding CBA implications except for LTIR and the salary cap. So now with Mott looking to be out for 10 days or more they will probably eventually call someone up. Since they only have about $166K in cap space will they then tap into the LTIR relief from Roussel when a player is called up?

Great question. The short answer is I don't know.

As an outsider, just a hockey fan reading the CBA, I'm not really feeling qualified to answer but will make some observations.

I just reread Article 50.10(d) of the CBA and it seems to me far simpler and easier to understand than the Capfriendly Q & A page, but it seems to be unclear on the point you asked. The issue seems to depend on the meaning of replacement player(s) in 50.10(e) of the CBA.

I would have thought that logically they should be able to spend up to a limit of 83.433 million (the team cap hit including Roussel) adjusted to a daily basis while Roussel is injured, including Roussel's pay.

On the other hand, the CBA contains four "prior to opening day" illustrations. Every one of them speaks of relief if the replacements are made (or deemed to be made) on opening day and maintained through the end of the season.

That would suggest taking a restrictive view of what qualifies as a replacing the injured player on the roster and if that restrictive view actually applies, then making the replacement for Motte at a later date wouldn't rule out the team using the LTIR relief on that player.

If the view of the meaning of replacement player(s) in 50(d) isn't so restrictive and permits later replacements then they could use the benefit to replace Motte.

 

[4Twenty]

Would you be ok if I started calling you a hater and not a real fan post after post?

I’m anti-hyperbole. Both ways. I’m not even a fan of Benning.. but i’m a Canucks fan that focuses more on the positive because the Canucks are a source of entertainment. Like HF is a source entertainment and information surrounding my favourite team. I couldn’t even fathom wanting to come here or even watch this team if I felt about this team the way some here express their consistent negativity about it... where their takes are completely slanted one singular way. Every topic, same slant. Every time. And this is THEIR source of entertainment? Must be fun at parties.
I don’t get it.

My only explanation is ..... Russians.

Then I had you pegged pretty well, you're an anti-neg....and it's why ROE is giving you the defacto "pro" label. I don't really like getting labeled either when it comes down to it....because I'm critical, I'm also a hysterical hater.

I mean I wish I could turn a blind eye to things I don't like and just enjoy the entertainment, but we're all here because we're invested. We all ultimately want good things. You're just looking at things from the sunny side.

I don't personally can't reconcile your aversion to negativity. I like real conversations. I don't care if it's positive or negative, and obviously over the last 6-7 years of being a fan, there is a ton to be critical about.

Honestly I was just hoping they'd let Benning go. I firmly believe that will reset the camps.

 

[Canucko]

What’s wrong with fans making valid criticisms on moves that shape the lineup?

Especially when it involves current events.

Like get off your high horse.

It’s almost like you didn’t read my post at all. Of course people are allowed to do as they please - including making critiques. Doing it over, and over, and over can grow tiresome. If you don’t see it, not my problem.

 

[DL44]

Then I had you pegged pretty well, you're an anti-neg....and it's why ROE is giving you the defacto "pro" label. I don't really like getting labeled either when it comes down to it....because I'm critical, I'm also a hysterical hater.

I mean I wish I could turn a blind eye to things I don't like and just enjoy the entertainment, but we're all here because we're invested. We all ultimately want good things. You're just looking at things from the sunny side.

I don't personally can't reconcile your aversion to negativity. I like real conversations. I don't care if it's positive or negative, and obviously over the last 6-7 years of being a fan, there is a ton to be critical about.

Honestly I was just hoping they'd let Benning go. I firmly believe that will reset the camps.

Anti-hyberbole, not anti-neg. I have no problem with negativity. I said I dont get people that take the negative slant about everything.

 

[Blue and Green]

I'm pretty good at understanding CBA implications except for LTIR and the salary cap. So now with Mott looking to be out for 10 days or more they will probably eventually call someone up. Since they only have about $166K in cap space will they then tap into the LTIR relief from Roussel when a player is called up?

Yes they can tap into LTIR relief, but for now they are going to operate with 13 available forwards and 7 available defencemen and not call up a replacement for Motte. I had speculated that they would call up Baertschi, but prompted to think twice about the situation it makes sense to let the relief pool grow for now and operate with one less available player. The big danger would be to run into a spate of short-term injuries at once, especially if goalies are involved because then a replacement is mandatory. So it seems sensible to hold off right now, particularly given that they have a light schedule in the first two weeks.

 

[Blue and Green]

@tyhee

It states in the LTIR primer: "The Basic Equation can be used throughout the NHL regular season, and during the off-season." It would make no sense for the Canucks to use the training camp equation in their present situation.

The Canucks will start the season with an ACSL of $81.33M. They will build a relief pool of $3M prorated daily to help cover any callups during Roussel's LTIR stint.

 

[Bleach Clean]

I must be an auto defender.
Probably less than you must be set to auto-hate.

I’ve laid out a rationale as to why your posts came across as an auto-defense. If you read back, I’m not the only one who says this... You used management’s rationale to confirm what you already thought... Confirmation bias?

In any event, I think that this rationale shows that I took your opinion as it was stated, despite what I may think of your allegiance/camp before said exchange. Or at least, I hope it does.

 

[opendoor]

It seems to me that the page you quoted (which I’d read previously) supports my position that there is no benefit available.

Before getting to the workings of that page, I'll give a really simple way of looking at it. The Canucks’ total cap hit with Roussel and Gaudette both included, that is with 24 players, was $81.334 million. The salary cap it $81.5 million. The Canucks need no relief and they can’t use anything when they don’t need it. Long term injury relief isn't accruable for the future-what they don't use, they lose.

Now looking at things from the perspective of the page you referred to, you’ll see two different formulas for calculating the Accruable Cap Space Limit. The one for training camp situations is stated to be the difference between the team’s cap (before putting the injured player on LTIR) and the injured player's cap hit.

The Canucks’ total cap hit with Roussel and Gaudette both included, that is with 24 players, was $81.334 million, still below the salary cap. The Accruable Cap Space Limit using the training camp formula is $78.334 million, the difference between the team’s cap space before putting Roussel on injured reserve and his cap hit.

The Canucks’ ACSL is well below the league upper limit, by more than Roussel’s cap hit.

Their salary relief pool is Roussel’s salary of $3 million. Their performance bonus pool is 0 as Roussel had no performance bonuses (and wasn’t eligible for any, being neither on an e lc or a 35+ contract.)

Now the club is permitted to exceed the limit. The rough formula given on that page for the amount they can exceed the limit by is ACSL + Salary Relief Pool – League Upper Limit = $78.334 million + $ 3 million - $81.5 million which is a negative number, so there is no relief.

(That doesn't seem fair to me-it would seem that the Canucks should be able to spend up to the amount they were already spending plus the amount of the replacement(s) up to Roussel's cap hit, which would make an adjusted temporary cap hit of $83.417 million ($80.417 for 23 players including Roussel but not Gaudette plus up to $3 million for a replacement for Roussel. The regular season calculation for ACSL makes more sense to me. Either way, I don't see that the Canucks, with Gaudette as the replacement, are in a position to use the potential cap relief, though they logically should be able to use relief for performance bonuses Gaudette earns this season.)
That is consistent with a couple of other statements on the page you referred to.

1. “If the team operates below the ACSL, they begin to accrue cap space. A team can operate up to the ACSL without using their LTIR relief pools, once they operate above the ACSL, they begin to use their LTIR relief pools.”

2. “The ACSL will always be less than or (in the optimal scenario) equal to the league upper limit. The closer the ACSL is to the league upper limit, the greater the team will be able to exceed the upper limit.”

Note that the figure you’d given earlier for what the limit changed to was not the training camp formula. It works in mid-season when you start with 23 players on the roster but to do it that way you’d need to exclude Gaudette (as with him there were 24, which can't happen during the season,) which would leave the Canucks with over $1 million in available cap space, so that adding Gaudette’s salary back in still leaves you short of the salary cap.

All this is somewhat explained, in a roundabout way and not always very well, in numerous articles back in July when the the Leafs traded to get David Clarkson back to get their cap hit as high as possible before using long term injury relief.

The Canucks don't use the training camp formula in this instance. They named a 23 man roster that was cap compliant (with 23 players + Roussell on IR), so they use the normal formula which allows them to exceed their ACSL by Roussel's cap hit.

 

[4Twenty]

Anti-hyberbole, not anti-neg. I have no problem with negativity. I said I dont get people that take the negative slant about everything.

Fair enough, I don't see you railing against exaggerations, I see you complaining about one sided negativity.

The thing I don't get, is that if we were looking at this club, where they've finished 5 of the last 6 years, no real push from the minors for jobs, veteran laden team with long term commitments to many, why should the positivity outweigh the negativity? Why wouldn't most of the content be about the displeasure in the state of the team? If you swapped this team with the Oilers, the same people praising the Canucks now would be praising what they'd have with Edmonton's roster and disparaging the "Canucks" now in Edmonton. That's the way I see it.

And that's not to say there aren't exciting pieces. Petey is a stud, Brock is great, Bo is low end 1C playing on our 2nd line, Hughes...goaltending looks good, but there is an awful lot of question marks and some people take a much broader look than just looking at the roster for this year. We all want this team to win a cup, but people like myself, have a hard time looking through the junk now to see the light where the Cup might be a reasonable hope anytime soon.

 

[krutovsdonut]

I'm pretty good at understanding CBA implications except for LTIR and the salary cap. So now with Mott looking to be out for 10 days or more they will probably eventually call someone up. Since they only have about $166K in cap space will they then tap into the LTIR relief from Roussel when a player is called up?

yes. they first use up the per diem portion of that $166k each day then dip into ltir relief.

they will be slow to call anyone up though. unless they can shed a contract there is not much they can do to increase their cap space so the $166k is precious. emergency calls ups count against the cap so they have about 40 days worth to work with over the entire season. they are not going to have an ltir buffer all season.

 

[Johnny Canucker]

All cleared. It shows how Rose-coloured our glasses are. We get our knickers in a knot but realistically no other team thinks they are NHL players.

 

[krutovsdonut]

Anti-hyberbole, not anti-neg. I have no problem with negativity. I said I dont get people that take the negative slant about everything.

as i understand it, there are benning lovers, anti-negs and perfectly rational people with no bias on this board who objectively hate benning and objectively think everything will suck. the latter can scientifically prove people who disagree with them are biased but they are not. you must bow to their amazing arguments and accept your inferiority.