D-Day - Canucks waive Baertschi, Biega, Goldobin

Nomobo

Registered User
Feb 20, 2015
6,134
2,856
Victoria
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.
I think it’s kinda weird that as a moderator you’re so in this allegiance/camp thing. You bring it up constantly.
 

opendoor

Registered User
Dec 12, 2006
11,719
1,403
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.

You can't really think of it in terms of 40 days over the season. In order to be cap compliant, it has to be possible for every iteration of the roster to remain static for the rest of season without causing the team to go over the cap. Simply put, they can't call up anyone with the cap space they have (other than LTIR) and they likely won't be able to the rest of the year. The chance of that ~$900 a day in cap space they have building up into an amount that will allow even a league minimum player to be recalled is pretty much nil. So barring moving out salary, this team is going to need someone on LTIR pretty much all season.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 420Canuck

4Twenty

Registered User
Dec 18, 2018
9,987
11,831
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.

Who said that. I will firmly admit my biases. I don't like Jim Benning's work and the body of work has brought me to this opinion. It's a bias. I can't think highly about moves today knowing what I know about his MO.

There are posters who are sensationally bombastic and call people down.....I try my best to find the meat in those posts. There are a lot of really smart posters here who are a great resource.

Who are the posters "we must bow to"......who says your inferior?

Like, one thing that annoys me about this type of crap is the suggestion people think you're inferior. Some people dig deeper, some people are happy to watch the games and cheer. No one is inferior, the gripe is when the folks who just want to cheer and be happy get upset with those who like to dig into the depths of all the moves.

I think you have a really bad habit of mis-representing what people are actually saying, in doing this, you create a strawman to argue against.

I believe there are such things as anti-negs, there are also Benning lovers, there are also rational people who lean towards both of these. There are also haters, there are also anti-positives, and there are also rational people who lean closer to these stances.

I will say that in my biased outlook, it appears that one side argues the merits more than the other, whilst the others argue against it, instead of for what they believe. My main example for this would be that the state of the discourse and constant negativity is always railed against. But again that's a bias, and I have blindspots, and I'm a highly emotional sports fan who struggles to stay in civil conversations (I use the ignore list heavily and I'd suggest it to anyone who continually complains about negativity or discourse or inferiority).
 

timw33

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Nov 18, 2007
25,707
19,424
Victoria
You can't really think of it in terms of 40 days over the season. In order to be cap compliant, it has to be possible for every iteration of the roster to remain static for the rest of season without causing the team to go over the cap. Simply put, they can't call up anyone with the cap space they have (other than LTIR) and they likely won't be able to the rest of the year. The chance of that ~$900 a day in cap space they have building up into an amount that will allow even a league minimum player to be recalled is pretty much nil. So barring moving out salary, this team is going to need someone on LTIR pretty much all season.

They can call people up, it'll just be insanely tight.

During the season it's calculated on daily basis, so it's possible that we see situations like the Ducks a couple years back where after every game they would assign their waiver ineligible players to their San Diego affiliate and then recall them on the day of NHL games so that they weren't paying that daily cap hit rate for those players and inching closer to the cap ceiling.
 

Blue and Green

Out to lunch
Dec 17, 2017
3,411
3,360
They can call people up, it'll just be insanely tight.

During the season it's calculated on daily basis, so it's possible that we see situations like the Ducks a couple years back where after every game they would assign their waiver ineligible players to their San Diego affiliate and then recall them on the day of NHL games so that they weren't paying that daily cap hit rate for those players and inching closer to the cap ceiling.

Wouldn't go over well with ELC players for obvious financial reasons. Boeser is currently waiver-exempt and it wouldn't hurt his pocketbook but with another 20 games played he will reach the 160 career mark and require waivers, and that could occur before Roussel returns.

Someone else will be removed from the roster when Roussel returns so there will be a little cap room.
 
Last edited:

krutovsdonut

eeyore
Sep 25, 2016
16,772
9,427
I think you have a really bad habit of mis-representing what people are actually saying, in doing this, you create a strawman to argue against.

here's a hypothetical role playing experiment i am certainly not actually urging on you but just using as an imagining to illustrate my point. get a vpn account and a second email. register a sock account here. post on that account here from a "benefit of the doubt" or "anti-neg" perspective or whatever you think i am regularly for a month, trying to be objective and in no way trolling but taking on a perspective similar to mine but expressed in a way you could reasonably disagree with. see how it goes as a newby. come back at the end and let me know if you understand my perspective any better.

in other words, check your privilege. you are part of the dominant discourse here and that impacts your perspective. as one example, there are certain posters here who i subjectively believe interact with me only to try and shut down my perspective using all kinds of anti-intellectual tactics. you may find those same posters to be generally people you agree with and never notice that side of them or, if you do see it, you my find it far less annoying and maybe even a little amusing. schadenfreude is a thing we all enjoy. you've probably liked those posts. c'est la geurre.

one thing you have never been in this place is on the defensive just for for having the perspective you do. it changes you, man.

and don't get me wrong. there are other forums as you likely know where many intelligent articulate posters share a different perspective to this place on the canucks. even though i might sympathize with their viewpoints more often than here, i don't post in those places in part because they literally shut down people who oppose their perspective and/or countenance them being relentlessly attacked and trolled. at least in this place i can choose my words carefully and actually debate the people who disagree with me without being banned or edited or buried in trolling posts or walls of incomprehensible text (well, most of them). the other reason i post here is the rest of this forum is great and by far the best hockey resource on the web. but this subforum is just convenient and the lesser of 3 evils for me in terms of a place to discuss the canucks (the fourth one won't let me in). so i guess it has that going for it.
 

Bleach Clean

Registered User
Aug 9, 2006
26,994
6,570
I think it’s kinda weird that as a moderator you’re so in this allegiance/camp thing. You bring it up constantly.


That's funny because I didn't bring it up here, DL44 did. Track the exchange with DL44 and see who brought it up first?

NOTE: An auto-defense of management for one move does not conflate to an auto-defense of all management moves. The first doesn't imply tribalism. It implies an unthinking reaction to what has occurred. The latter implies tribalism.


And my mod status is irrelevant to the discussion. It stands apart from my opinion, always has.
 

opendoor

Registered User
Dec 12, 2006
11,719
1,403
They can call people up, it'll just be insanely tight.

During the season it's calculated on daily basis, so it's possible that we see situations like the Ducks a couple years back where after every game they would assign their waiver ineligible players to their San Diego affiliate and then recall them on the day of NHL games so that they weren't paying that daily cap hit rate for those players and inching closer to the cap ceiling.

Yeah, but without LTIR they still can't call anyone up with the little amount of space they have. Assuming 185 days in the season, the daily upper limit is $440,541. The Canucks roster is currently $439,639 a day (again, assuming 185 days in a season) meaning they are building up only $900 in cap space a day. That $900 gets spread out among the remaining days in the season to calculate their next daily upper limit. So just based on some quick math, it'd take until day 140 of the season until they could call up their cheapest player at $675K in annual salary:

$440,541 daily upper limit on day 1

$902 in cap space built up per day

$902 x 140 days = $126,280

$126,280 divided by 45 remaining days = $2,806

Add $2,806 to the daily upper limit = $443,347

Subtract their current roster of $439,639 = $3,708 in daily space which is equivalent to $686K in annual salary.


Obviously things won't remain static. Roussel will likely go on LTIR, and if the lineup is miraculously healthy when he returns then they'll demote someone which will create some space.
 

krutovsdonut

eeyore
Sep 25, 2016
16,772
9,427
You can't really think of it in terms of 40 days over the season. In order to be cap compliant, it has to be possible for every iteration of the roster to remain static for the rest of season without causing the team to go over the cap. Simply put, they can't call up anyone with the cap space they have (other than LTIR) and they likely won't be able to the rest of the year. The chance of that ~$900 a day in cap space they have building up into an amount that will allow even a league minimum player to be recalled is pretty much nil. So barring moving out salary, this team is going to need someone on LTIR pretty much all season.

i thought you could call up a player on an emergency basis who notionally puts you over the cap if they were on the roster for the rest of the season, but who you can still afford the per diems for now?
 

vadim sharifijanov

Registered User
Oct 10, 2007
28,584
15,946
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.

to be slightly more precise, no other team thinks our waived guys are better NHL options than their own bottom of the lineup players.

important also to note that no other team thinks that a lot of the guys we didn't waive are NHL players (at their cap numbers/contract lengths, in some cases) either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kronner55

tantalum

Hope for the best. Expect the worst
Sponsor
Apr 2, 2002
25,087
13,874
Missouri
to be slightly more precise, no other team thinks our waived guys are better NHL options than their own bottom of the lineup players.

important also to note that no other team thinks that a lot of the guys we didn't waive are NHL players (at their cap numbers/contract lengths, in some cases) either.

That's really the issue for me. Baertschi shouldn't have been waived because he is better than others but he's not good. The depth people are talking about is warm bodies. Not players you actually want in the lineup.
 

4Twenty

Registered User
Dec 18, 2018
9,987
11,831
here's a hypothetical role playing experiment i am certainly not actually urging on you but just using as an imagining to illustrate my poiny. get a vpn account and a second email. register a sock account here. post on that account here from a "benefit of the doubt" or "anti-neg" perspective or whatever you think i am regularly for a month, trying to be objective and in no way trolling but taking on a perspective similar to mine but expressed in a way you could reasonably disagree with. see how it goes as a newby. come back at the end and let me know if you understand my perspective any better.

in other words, check your privilege. you are part of the dominant discourse here and that impacts your perspective. as one example, there are certain posters here who i subjectively believe interact with me only to try and shut down my perspective using all kinds of anti-intellectual tactics. you may find those same posters to be generally people you agree with and never notice that side of them or, if you do see it, you my find it far less annoying and maybe even a little amusing. schadenfreude is a thing we all enjoy. you've probably liked those posts. c'est la geurre.

one thing you have never been in this place is on the defensive just for for having the perspective you do. it changes you, man.

and don't get me wrong. there are other forums as you likely know where many intelligent articulate posters share a different perspective to this place on the canucks. even though i might sympathize with their viewpoints more often than here, i don't post in those places in part because they literally shut down people who oppose their perspective and/or countenance them being relentlessly attacked and trolled. at least in this place i can choose my words carefully and actually debate the people who disagree with me without being banned or edited or buried in trolling posts or walls of incomprehensible text (well, most of them). the other reason i post here is the rest of this forum is great and by far the best hockey resource on the web. but this subforum is just convenient and the lesser of 3 evils for me in terms of a place to discuss the canucks (the fourth one won't let me in). so i guess it has that going for it.
I read here a lot longer than I've been a member, which is less than a year. I was a newbie last year. Does this mean you have multiple accounts?

I'm going to be honest with you, I had you on ignore for awhile, but I came around, because at least you put effort into your posts and you attempt to explain your thought processes. Nothing I hate reading more than one or two sentences of whining. I actually like to talking with people I disagree with, I think it does a lot of things: helps with my writing skills, makes me firm up my actual opinions, makes me receptive to changing my opinion or reaffirms it.

I don't post on any other message boards...I think this place has the best discourse. And like any community there are good and bad aspects to this place.

Here's to better chats Krutov.
 

opendoor

Registered User
Dec 12, 2006
11,719
1,403
i thought you could call up a player on an emergency basis who notionally puts you over the cap if they were on the roster for the rest of the season, but who you can still afford the per diems for now?

That's not my understanding, but I could be wrong.

You can use emergency recall if you have no cap space, but there a bunch of conditions. You can't have anyone who's eligible for LTIR, you have to be in a situation where you can't dress a full roster for a game, you have to actually play a game with that shortened roster, then after that game you can recall a player who earns less than $100K over the league minimum. So it's technically possible, but it's a pretty tough spot to be in and you can't really rely on it.
 

4Twenty

Registered User
Dec 18, 2018
9,987
11,831
Yeah, but without LTIR they still can't call anyone up with the little amount of space they have. Assuming 185 days in the season, the daily upper limit is $440,541. The Canucks roster is currently $439,639 a day (again, assuming 185 days in a season) meaning they are building up only $900 in cap space a day. That $900 gets spread out among the remaining days in the season to calculate their next daily upper limit. So just based on some quick math, it'd take until day 140 of the season until they could call up their cheapest player at $675K in annual salary:

$440,541 daily upper limit on day 1

$902 in cap space built up per day

$902 x 140 days = $126,280

$126,280 divided by 45 remaining days = $2,806

Add $2,806 to the daily upper limit = $443,347

Subtract their current roster of $439,639 = $3,708 in daily space which is equivalent to $686K in annual salary.


Obviously things won't remain static. Roussel will likely go on LTIR, and if the lineup is miraculously healthy when he returns then they'll demote someone which will create some space.
I was waiting like 3 days for you to come in and post this stuff. Thank you.
 

timw33

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Nov 18, 2007
25,707
19,424
Victoria
Yeah, but without LTIR they still can't call anyone up with the little amount of space they have. Assuming 185 days in the season, the daily upper limit is $440,541. The Canucks roster is currently $439,639 a day (again, assuming 185 days in a season) meaning they are building up only $900 in cap space a day. That $900 gets spread out among the remaining days in the season to calculate their next daily upper limit. So just based on some quick math, it'd take until day 140 of the season until they could call up their cheapest player at $675K in annual salary:

$440,541 daily upper limit on day 1

$902 in cap space built up per day

$902 x 140 days = $126,280

$126,280 divided by 45 remaining days = $2,806

Add $2,806 to the daily upper limit = $443,347

Subtract their current roster of $439,639 = $3,708 in daily space which is equivalent to $686K in annual salary.


Obviously things won't remain static. Roussel will likely go on LTIR, and if the lineup is miraculously healthy when he returns then they'll demote someone which will create some space.

Pretty terrifying stuff given the quality of our roster.

This is a problem that Tampa/Toronto should be having....not us.
 

krutovsdonut

eeyore
Sep 25, 2016
16,772
9,427
That's not my understanding, but I could be wrong.

You can use emergency recall if you have no cap space, but there a bunch of conditions. You can't have anyone who's eligible for LTIR, you have to be in a situation where you can't dress a full roster for a game, you have to actually play a game with that shortened roster, then after that game you can recall a player who earns less than $100K over the league minimum. So it's technically possible, but it's a pretty tough spot to be in and you can't really rely on it.

not sure if we are on the same page

i believe the only hard cap is not to spend over $81.5m by the end of the year. you can overspend on a daily basis provided you also underspend on other days to the equivalent amount.

the most conventional way this works is that as the season goes on you "accumulate" unused cap space if you underspend so later in the season you can be spending more per day than the average per diem you would need over the season for compliance. but i think it works the other way too.

so i think if you have $166k of cap space you can call up a player on an emergency basis for as long as you can afford the per diem rate of that player out of the $166k, even though the total sum of the annual salaries on your roster at that time exceeds the annual cap limit.

i don't know any of this for sure, so happy to be educated if i have it wrong.
 

Bojack Horvatman

IAMGROOT
Jun 15, 2016
4,037
7,093
The Canucks last year were 25th in 5on5 goals and 22nd in 5on5 GA. Having a slightly better PK means does not make up for no offence in the bottom 6.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MS

Canucko

Registered User
Sep 6, 2019
300
113
The Canucks last year were 25th in 5on5 goals and 22nd in 5on5 GA. Having a slightly better PK means does not make up for no offence in the bottom 6.

I’d like to think not rolling Hutton and company out there for 20min a night will have an impact too.
 

tantalum

Hope for the best. Expect the worst
Sponsor
Apr 2, 2002
25,087
13,874
Missouri
not sure if we are on the same page

i believe the only hard cap is not to spend over $81.5m by the end of the year. you can overspend on a daily basis provided you also underspend on other days to the equivalent amount.

the most conventional way this works is that as the season goes on you "accumulate" unused cap space if you underspend so later in the season you can be spending more per day than the average per diem you would need over the season for compliance. but i think it works the other way too.

so i think if you have $166k of cap space you can call up a player on an emergency basis for as long as you can afford the per diem rate of that player out of the $166k, even though the total sum of the annual salaries on your roster at that time exceeds the annual cap limit.

i don't know any of this for sure, so happy to be educated if i have it wrong.

I don't believe that is the case. You can never be over the cap at any point (talking cap hit not salary which are different...the salary is used for players share an escrow). The only way you can go over the cap is through performance bonuses which can be deferred to the following year.

edit: maybe I missed your explanation a bit. Essentially at no time can you be projected to spend over the cap for the year but it's not necessarily a constant daily allowance. Which I think is what you are saying maybe?
 
Last edited:

krutovsdonut

eeyore
Sep 25, 2016
16,772
9,427
I don't believe that is the case. You can never be over the cap at any point (talking cap hit not salary which are different...the salary is used for players share an escrow). The only way you can go over the cap is through performance bonuses which can be deferred to the following year.

edit: maybe I missed your explanation a bit. Essentially at no time can you be projected to spend over the cap for the year but it's not necessarily a constant daily allowance. Which I think is what you are saying maybe?

ok well yes that last part is the key. you can definitely take on a salary in mid season that would on an annualized basis put you over your salary cap provided you have banked enough cap early on to cover the per diem for the rest of the year. in other words, so long as you don't go over $81.5 m total you are good.

the question is whether you can call someone up on an ordinary or emergency basis if you have enough cap space to cover their per diem salary during the call up period but not if it is assumed they stay up for the rest of the season. in other words, can you do that as long you don't go over $81.5m total?

i have to think you can do that on an emergency basis. i am less sure if it is a regular call up.
 

tradervik

Hear no evil, see no evil, complain about it
Sponsor
Jun 25, 2007
2,330
2,406
The Canucks last year were 25th in 5on5 goals and 22nd in 5on5 GA. Having a slightly better PK means does not make up for no offence in the bottom 6.

You're right, a slightly better PK is definitely not going to compensate for a terrible bottom 6 at even strength. However, the Canucks power play was near the bottom of the league for the first 30 games last year and was 3rd in the league for the last 52. There are various factors but one big difference was the addition of the $6 million dollar man Loui Eriksson, who wound up with the team's best PK shot metrics and was 2nd in GA/60.

If I had my druthers, the team would waive Motte and/or Schaller, stick Beagle in the press box, and give Gaudette a string of games with healthy minutes to see how he performs. Otherwise, send Gaudette to Utica so he can play. Keeping him on the team only to sit in the press box is the worst option.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->