Player Discussion Jay Beagle

[Var]

It's a "they gave a 33 year old way too much money and term" thing. I don't think many people have an issue with his play in a vacuum.

His closest comparables in free agency were Richardson and Brodziak. Both got half the term and half the money to play the same role. Benning should've walk away when the negotiations shifted to a 4 year contract.

Ok, ya I'm not keen on that contract either.

 

[Intangibos]

Seems fine. Better offensively and worse defensively than Gaunce. Like the player if he was getting paid like $1m. Could tolerate 1.5.

 

[Canucks1096]

Last 6 games, Not even one ppg against

 

[bandwagonesque]

Watching him tonight it was obvious why teams wanted him so much. Tenacious, quick, never gives up on trying to turn a play back up ice in the neutral zone.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Beagle and Sutter are a good 1-2 punch at centre, for your bottom 6.

 

[sting101]

Seems fine. Better offensively and worse defensively than Gaunce. Like the player if he was getting paid like $1m. Could tolerate 1.5.

i disagree.
at what point did Gaunce ever play against good players? Had excellent defensive results playing safe hockey surviving against other teams junk lines playing LW and providing no offence spark creativity and toughness.

In his role he could still be a good one one day but at this stage it isn't really close Beagle is better at everything.

 

[Megaterio Llamas]

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

They were discussing Jay Beagle on the radio this morning....He was injured for a considerable time but:

PK with Beagle in the lineup........ killed off 39/45 PP's which is 86.6% (good for 2nd best in the league)
PK without Beagle in the lineup....... killed off 62/84 PP's which is 73.8% (good for 29th best in the league)

 

[VanJack]

Just not getting the love for Beagle....lost a key draw which led directly to the opening goal last night....made at least a couple of other bonehead plays in the defensive zone which could have ended up in the net.

I suppose if the guy was chipping in offensively, you could live with the odd turnover. But you can't pay a guy $3m a season to kill penalties. But with a four-year contract in his hip pocket, Canucks are just going to have to live with it.

 

[Catamarca Livin]

Just not getting the love for Beagle....lost a key draw which led directly to the opening goal last night....made at least a couple of other bonehead plays in the defensive zone which could have ended up in the net.

I suppose if the guy was chipping in offensively, you could live with the odd turnover. But you can't pay a guy $3m a season to kill penalties. But with a four-year contract in his hip pocket, Canucks are just going to have to live with it.

Saw the same mistakes but obviously you can pay him that much is he does improve the pk like that. if you had a player who improved the pp that much workd there be any complaint. That said I worry about Green's default to go defensive and use Beagle too much. Beagle right now is fine in specific limited role.

 

[WetcoastOrca]

The penalty kill is much better when he plays. I think missing him and Sutter at the same time really impacted the team.
As for the signing it’s obviously a year too long but I’d be fine with it if we’d just signed him and Roussell. Not sure why we needed three signings though with Schaller. Also we’ve got other bad contracts like Eriksson that will make the Beagle contract an issue later on. If it was just overpaying Beagle in isolation then I don’t see an issue.

 

[ErrantShepherd]

The penalty kill is much better when he plays. I think missing him and Sutter at the same time really impacted the team.
As for the signing it’s obviously a year too long but I’d be fine with it if we’d just signed him and Roussell. Not sure why we needed three signings though with Schaller. Also we’ve got other bad contracts like Eriksson that will make the Beagle contract an issue later on. If it was just overpaying Beagle in isolation then I don’t see an issue.

Schaller is a replacement level insurance player... if Schaller somehow kept up his career year results he could be good, but he hasn't so he works at least to keep the other players hungry, and looking over their shoulder?

Archibald and Gaunce do that same job for cheaper though. Still 2/3 of the UFA signings being decent so far this year feels like an improvement?

Glad Beagle appears to be getting his game back at least.

 

[tyhee]

Beagle is better than they are. You can argue Benning shouldn't have paid 12m for him, but saying other players are "serviceable," "filling in just fine," etc is meaningless.

It is only meaningless to those that don't believe in managing with future cap issues in mind.

I think getting 4th line players that are just fine or serviceable is an important part of building a team. Of course, you get the best in those roles that you can subject to leaving yourself money to pay the more important players.

Notice the Stanley Cup champions this past season paid their 4th line center $1.75 million for the year and didn't re-sign him, so he left for the money and term that some desperate general manager would give him in Free Agent Frenzy. This season the Capitals are paying their 4th line center $650K. The Leafs are paying theirs $925K.

The Canucks have the cap space to pay Beagle this season. This season isn't a problem and the Canucks are probably a better team with Beagle in that spot than most available 4th line alternatives-maybe even all available alternatives. Somewhere down the road if their players are any good they'll have to pay them. Ignoring the cap in the future because it doesn't hurt in the present is a fool's way to manage a team, as is building your future team by obligating yourself to pay an aging 4th liner way more than 4th line remuneration for four seasons.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

It is only meaningless to those that don't believe in managing with future cap issues in mind.

I think getting 4th line players that are just fine or serviceable is an important part of building a team. Of course, you get the best in those roles that you can subject to leaving yourself money to pay the more important players.

Notice the Stanley Cup champions this past season paid their 4th line center $1.75 million for the year and didn't re-sign him, so he left for the money and term that some desperate general manager would give him in Free Agent Frenzy. This season the Capitals are paying their 4th line center $650K. The Leafs are paying theirs $925K.

The Canucks have the cap space to pay Beagle this season. This season isn't a problem and the Canucks are probably a better team with Beagle in that spot than most available 4th line alternatives-maybe even all available alternatives. Somewhere down the road if their players are any good they'll have to pay them. Ignoring the cap in the future because it doesn't hurt in the present is a fool's way to manage a team, as is building your future team by obligating yourself to pay an aging 4th liner way more than 4th line remuneration for four seasons.

Wasn't the idea to bring Beagle (and Roussel) to bolster the the bottom 6 while our young top 6 players transition into their roles..?.There was no guarantee that our current top 6 could produce at the beginning of the year (remember all the experts saying that without the Sedins and Vanek..who's going to score?...bottom 3 team..easy)...Our PK was atrocious last year,and having a weak AHL bottom 6 ,and a young inexperienced top 6 would have been a disaster..which would establish a 'losing culture',where losing is accepted (Oilers).

The Leafs and the Capitals all have a top heavy salary structure..we do not..Boeser comes up next season, and EP is 3 years away..A lot of hand wringing, and doomsaying about nothing.

 

[VanJack]

Beagle and Sutter are a good 1-2 punch at centre, for your bottom 6.

I'd wholeheartedly agree with you if their combined salaries were just over $2m a season...but paying a combined $7m a season for third and fourth line centers is frankly ludicrous.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

I'd wholeheartedly agree with you if their combined salaries were just over $2m a season...but paying a combined $7m a season for third and fourth line centers is frankly ludicrous.

Too much money.?.according to what?...I didn't know that there was an NHL 4th line salary rulebook...Look at the capspace...look at the upcoming expiring contracts in the next two years..Some of our best players are on ELC's.

Benning (and Green) identified the bottom 6 as being a weakness on the team last season...and they were bang on with that assessment.Yes,the term is too long, but thats the price you pay as a rebuilding team for a sought after UFA..Look at the results of our PK,and our win/loss record with Beagle in the lineup..the results speak for themselves.

 

[bandwagonesque]

It is only meaningless to those that don't believe in managing with future cap issues in mind.

I think getting 4th line players that are just fine or serviceable is an important part of building a team. Of course, you get the best in those roles that you can subject to leaving yourself money to pay the more important players.

Notice the Stanley Cup champions this past season paid their 4th line center $1.75 million for the year and didn't re-sign him, so he left for the money and term that some desperate general manager would give him in Free Agent Frenzy. This season the Capitals are paying their 4th line center $650K. The Leafs are paying theirs $925K.

The Canucks have the cap space to pay Beagle this season. This season isn't a problem and the Canucks are probably a better team with Beagle in that spot than most available 4th line alternatives-maybe even all available alternatives. Somewhere down the road if their players are any good they'll have to pay them. Ignoring the cap in the future because it doesn't hurt in the present is a fool's way to manage a team, as is building your future team by obligating yourself to pay an aging 4th liner way more than 4th line remuneration for four seasons.

I meant that they were meaningless as descriptions of performance.

 

[VanJack]

Too much money.?.according to what?...I didn't know that there was an NHL 4th line salary rulebook...Look at the capspace...look at the upcoming expiring contracts in the next two years..Some of our best players are on ELC's.

Benning (and Green) identified the bottom 6 as being a weakness on the team last season...and they were bang on with that assessment.Yes,the term is too long, but thats the price you pay as a rebuilding team for a sought after UFA..Look at the results of our PK,and our win/loss record with Beagle in the lineup..the results speak for themselves.

Sorry, but there are lots of NHL teams employing penalty killers just as good or even better than Beagle for a third of his salary. I stand by my concern. Shelling out $3m a season for a 33-year old center who's career high is seven goals, is nonsensical.

 

[Fire Benning]

Too much money.?.according to what?...I didn't know that there was an NHL 4th line salary rulebook...Look at the capspace...look at the upcoming expiring contracts in the next two years..Some of our best players are on ELC's.

I mean there kind of is in a way. From a practical standpoint, it's not really smart to be allocating big money and term to bottom six players. Not that they can't be perfectly serviceable players, just that they ultimately aren't going to be the difference between losing a game/playoff series etc.

Part of what makes bottom of the lineup players valuable is that they make virtually nothing against the cap, which allows most of your expenditures to go towards the star players at the top of your lineup. Once their salary is augmented, they become less valuable. Washington replaced Beagle easily with a guy making peanuts on a 1 year deal.

 

[Blue and Green]

Beagle has had seasons of 13, 10 and 8 goals.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Sorry, but there are lots of NHL teams employing penalty killers just as good or even better than Beagle for a third of his salary. I stand by my concern. Shelling out $3m a season for a 33-year old center who's career high is seven goals, is nonsensical.

Who cares what his salary is?...we can afford it..Its not your money...I'm sure most of the teams employing cheap 4th line players are teams with top heavy salaries...

$3M is only $600K above the league average..so carry on worrying about it.

 

[Svencouver]

I think both Beagle and Roussel were excellent pickups. I don't really see the term or money as issues as they more or less line up with our cap structure. When were paying Petey and are about to pay Quinn, they'll be just about off the books. I think what they bring to a rebuilding team is worth the price of admission. It's not like we're contending.

 

[Motte and Bailey]

The way Beagle and Roussell train, both undrafted guys who got to the NHL on HARD WORK NOT GOD GIVEN TALENT are mentoring the **** out of our young players right now and I’m loving it. Our under 23 players are best in the league at scoring % of their teams offense and it’s a beautiful time to be a Canucks fan

 

[PG Canuck]

I mean there kind of is in a way. From a practical standpoint, it's not really smart to be allocating big money and term to bottom six players. Not that they can't be perfectly serviceable players, just that they ultimately aren't going to be the difference between losing a game/playoff series etc.

Part of what makes bottom of the lineup players valuable is that they make virtually nothing against the cap, which allows most of your expenditures to go towards the star players at the top of your lineup. Once their salary is augmented, they become less valuable. Washington replaced Beagle easily with a guy making peanuts on a 1 year deal.

2011 roster had Malhotra at 2.5M, Lapierre at 900K, Higgins at 1.9M, Hansen at 825K, Torres at 1M, Glass at 625K, Tambellini at 500K. That is what I could find, and from what I can remember, it seems accurate. Trying to fill your bottom six with Free Agent signings, is going to have you end up with overpayments.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

I think both Beagle and Roussel were excellent pickups. I don't really see the term or money as issues as they more or less line up with our cap structure. When were paying Petey and are about to pay Quinn, they'll be just about off the books. I think what they bring to a rebuilding team is worth the price of admission. It's not like we're contending.

I have absolutely no idea why people have a hard time understanding this..?