Future of Canuck RFA's

Blue and Green

Out to lunch
Dec 17, 2017
3,411
3,360
But it's a CBA built in over payment at least. There is some value in keeping players that help the organization as a whole and Gaunce does that. Note that there is no way you give him a one-way deal...

Why not a one-way deal? That's what most guys in his situation receive. Gaunce isn't any more valuable than Boucher who went from a 1-year, 1-way deal last season to a 2-way, 1-year deal this season. EDIT: Sorry, I meant to say, Why not a 1-year deal?
 

tantalum

Hope for the best. Expect the worst
Sponsor
Apr 2, 2002
25,087
13,874
Missouri
Why not a one-way deal? That's what most guys in his situation receive. Gaunce isn't any more valuable than Boucher who went from a 1-year, 1-way deal last season to a 2-way, 1-year deal this season.

Well put it this way...I qualify with a two-way. If he wants a one way he takes less money than his qualifying NHL salary.
 

vancityluongo

curse of the strombino
Sponsor
Jul 8, 2006
18,560
6,210
Edmonton
Boeser will obviously get a contract. Hutton needs a real contract too, ideally for 3-4 years. Demko should get the standard NHL backup contract for a 2 year term, with the hope that he is a real starter at the end of it. I'd keep Leivo limited to a one year.

Qualify Goldobin. NHL GM's are stupid. There is someone out there who can be suckered into the narrative that it's a "logjam" of young players that kept Goldobin out of the lineup. That they, unlike Vancouver, with more veterans can afford to shield him. Blah blah blah. Take the 6th round pick before training camp after someone needs that temporary scoring line winger following an injury. Manage the asset, even if he'll be in Russia in 18 months regardless.

Other than that, QO Gaunce, Boucher, Teves and Motte. Let the rest walk.

If any of the latter three are a part of the opening day roster that'd be a shitty sign for the hopes of the team, but they're all fine for Utica. Gaunce should replace Sutter next year and it's a bit of a joke that he wasn't in the lineup more this year. Apparently Toronto was looking to acquire him at the deadline, which makes sense because they're smart. And "hE pAsSeD tHrOUGh WAivErs" holds no water for me - so did Markstrom. See the point on Goldobin. Gaunce has an NHL future as a bottom-6 player, albeit in a likely limited role. Cannot say the same for any of the rest.
 

JuniorNelson

Registered User
Jan 21, 2010
8,631
320
E.Vancouver
Canucks should be reshapimg around a very young (fragile?) new core. Stars need units built around them. It's like a tool set, you need every item. You can't omit a hammer because it is unfashionable.
Schenn wants to play. He forces teams aware of more on the ice than Petterson. This is an important ingredient. Petterson and Hughes cannot be afely run if Schenn is there with them. A smart coach will minimize the role around the player's limitations (speed). I think he needs to be retained.

Canucks must move on into a new era. I think they need new guys running the show.
 

mathonwy

Positively #toxic
Jan 21, 2008
19,022
9,942
Pouliot, Granlund, and Goldobin should all not be back.

You don’t move forward by doubling down on proven failures.
How do you explain Jimbo getting an extension huh?

(sarcasm)
 

BeardyCanuck03

@BeardyCanuck03
Jun 19, 2006
10,823
410
twitter.com
Granlund - Don't qualify, but leave the door open for a return at less than that QO amount.

Motte - I like Motte as a 4th line player, his speed, and willingness to throw his body around is something they need in that role. 2 year cheap deal makes sense for both.

Leivo - 1-2 year show me deal. He has some potential to be a grinding stop gap winger for those seasons.

Boeser - No brainer, longer term the better.

Goldobin - Qualify and either bring him back for 1 year and see if he can Hutton it or use him as an asset to acquire someone similar or a piece in a bigger trade.

Hutton - Two scenarios. #1 - Edler signs, Hutton is just qualified and Canucks make a push for Gardiner, if they get him, Hutton is moved in a trade for a similar right shot player or an upgrade on the wing.

Pouliot - Walk away as fast as possible.

Teves - Sign to a 1 year deal and see how he develops in Utica.

Demko - 2-3 year deal makes sense for both sides.
 

timw33

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Nov 18, 2007
25,707
19,424
Victoria
Then why offer $925K to Gaunce who can be qualified at $840K, played in 3 NHL games this year after passing through the entire league on waivers, and has 15 points in 117 career NHL games? That's a 10% overpayment right there even on the assumption that he deserves a qualifying offer.

What I'm saying is just replace Erikssons roster spot and use the 925k we save from burying him on someone actually worth giving a spot on the team, like Brendan Gaunce.
 

rypper

21-12-05 it's finally over.
Dec 22, 2006
16,200
19,946
How many of our RFA's (that we should walk away from) will find themselves outside of the NHL in a year or two?
 

F A N

Registered User
Aug 12, 2005
18,626
5,890
How many of our RFA's (that we should walk away from) will find themselves outside of the NHL in a year or two?

Well if you think the Canucks "should walk away from" an RFA, shouldn't that RFA be a player who will likely find himself outside of the NHL in a year or two? I hope you're not suggesting that the Canucks walk away from an RFA who is a bonafide NHL player or is a prospect who has the potential to be an NHL player. Case in point, there's a possibility that Demko is outside of the NHL in a year or two but he's an RFA the Canucks shouldn't walk away from.
 

Blue and Green

Out to lunch
Dec 17, 2017
3,411
3,360
Strongly consider qualifying (even if only for the AHL): Kero, Gaunce, Boucher,

Kero will not be subject to a qualifying offer as he has played in only 76 NHL games and therefore will become a Group 6 unrestricted free agent on July 1. Besides, he and Gaunce have profiles of tweener veterans who are offered 2-way deals with strong AHL salaries plus guaranteed minimum top-ups, rather than 1-way deals. Boucher accepted such a 2-way deal last summer (300k AHL, 725k NHL, 400k guaranteed minimum) coming off of an expiring 1-way contract. They definitely should qualify Boucher's deal this summer.
 

Blue and Green

Out to lunch
Dec 17, 2017
3,411
3,360
What I'm saying is just replace Erikssons roster spot and use the 925k we save from burying him on someone actually worth giving a spot on the team, like Brendan Gaunce.

Okay, I didn't know where the 925k figure was coming from. Cap savings from burying Loui actually would've been $1.025M this season, rising to $1.075M next season.
 
  • Like
Reactions: timw33

Uhmkay

Tryamkin = New Chara
Dec 11, 2006
3,465
458
Vancouver
Motte - Motte is a decent enough 4th liner, I'd hold onto him.
Granlund - OK as 4th liner and PK'er. Resign.
Pouliot - Terrible. Only reason I keep him is to maybe sign and then send to AHL and leave him there for a year if he clears otherwise seeya.
Goldobin - One year last chance deal.
Leivo - I like Leivo, I'd give him a 2-3 year deal. Decent 3rd liner that can move up if needed and he has a high compete level. The guy is on pace for roughly 20 goals this year with the Canucks.
Boeser - Obviously
Hutton - Sign to a 2 year. There are other dmen that need to leave before Hutton. Can't just let the guy walk for nothing, he's a tradeable asset.
Teves - Hard to say, sign him and leave him in AHL for a year.
Demko - Obviously sign

LaPlante, Gaunce, Kero, Boucher - Could not care about any of these guys.

If we were looking to land a UFA then spots by Goldobin, Granlund and Motte used. I'd give them a contract, if we sign a big upgrade, send them to the minors and if they pass through waivers they can sit in Utica and be used when we have injuries.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Luckylarry

rypper

21-12-05 it's finally over.
Dec 22, 2006
16,200
19,946
Well if you think the Canucks "should walk away from" an RFA, shouldn't that RFA be a player who will likely find himself outside of the NHL in a year or two? I hope you're not suggesting that the Canucks walk away from an RFA who is a bonafide NHL player or is a prospect who has the potential to be an NHL player. Case in point, there's a possibility that Demko is outside of the NHL in a year or two but he's an RFA the Canucks shouldn't walk away from.

Maybe posting this in the RFA thread was incorrect. I meant how many players who are regulars or semi regulars on the Canucks will find themselves outside the NHL soon after leaving the team.

More of a comment on the teams pro scouting then anything.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Luckylarry

Javaman

Registered User
Jul 13, 2010
2,456
3,243
Vancouver
Teams can't just bail on arbitration rulings that they don't like. A team has limited walk-away privileges and they are limited to larger contracts-- lower limit was $3.5M in 2013, so would be closer to $5M this summer. Not applicable to the players that you referenced: Motte, Granlund, Leivo, Pouliot, Gaunce, Kero, and Boucher.

Ahh okay, thanks.
 

me2

Go ahead foot
Jun 28, 2002
37,903
5,595
Make my day.
Well if you think the Canucks "should walk away from" an RFA, shouldn't that RFA be a player who will likely find himself outside of the NHL in a year or two? I hope you're not suggesting that the Canucks walk away from an RFA who is a bonafide NHL player or is a prospect who has the potential to be an NHL player. Case in point, there's a possibility that Demko is outside of the NHL in a year or two but he's an RFA the Canucks shouldn't walk away from.

Desperately hanging on to crap because you hold its rights doesn't mean it is any less crap. If that player goes somewhere else to someone else's crap so be it. There is no difference between walking away from a mediocre RFA and a mediocre UFA and teams walk away from UFAs all the time. You should be looking to upgrade that player, going again and again with bad players is not how you get better.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->