Confirmed with Link: Markus Granlund re-signed [1 year, $1.475M]

[me2]

It'd be fascinating to actually hear how this team negotiates with its players, or if they even do at all. I wouldn't be surprised if $1.475M was Granlund's agent's opening offer and the team just accepted it. They had all summer to sign him and it's not like he had an ounce of leverage, yet the team locks him up to an overpriced contract before the draft.

Not that the dollar amount really matters for a team as bad as the Canucks whose management seems unwilling to use cap space to get assets, but at least try to get his price down to make him a more valuable trading chip. $1M vs $1.5M might not matter to Benning when he assembles his roster, but it sure matters to smart managers who run good teams.

I imagine it went

Benning: he was awful last year. I'm not sure I'm going to even qualify him. League min.

Agent: he scored at a 20 goal pace the year before. That makes him a $2.5m player. $2.5m + league min averaged, $1.5m.


Bennington: can't argue with that that

 

[Epimetheus]

It is laughable that he got a raise without any leverage. It's not like any team will be trying to "steal" him. We need change of direction and they still keep resigning the same players. Anyone who claims he is an asset is delusional, who the hell is gonna trade for him at the deadline.

 

[Kryten]

Gross, a small gross, but still gross

 

[mossey3535]

Exactly. Is this a big deal? No. Is this a reflection of the fact that the team continues to follow a dumb process? Yes. How a player with zero leverage gets a 60% raise is beyond me.

Yeah, I dunno. You think they would've learned from their mistakes.

The Sedins are gone, which was the line that he actually produced on. Green doesn't seem to think he's a production-type player.

I can't for the life of me understand why they gave him this money. He's an RFA.

Blah blah it doesn't matter because we have cap space....cap space that will be quickly eaten up with players we actually want when they point to this signing and others like it as a negotiation tactic - if it's during arbitration it could actually come back to bite us.

 

[mossey3535]

This is my issue with Benning. He can't even do the basics like this right. 10% QO is basically standard.

It's well known what I think of Granlund if you read any GDTs. He does have a decent offensive touch when put into situations with extra ice, like 4-on-4 or the PP. But he needs to be gifted those minutes. Should they be given to this guy over Virtanen for example? Hell no.

What I hate about him though is that he is a floater who doesn't put a whole lot of effort in and is basically allergic to body contact. And that's on a team with the Sedins. Now with arguably less capable leadership, that's what you want to have around a young roster? There is nothing about Granlund's play that promotes that supposed "winning environment".

Benning did the right thing with Gaunce's contract, why not here?

Personally I wouldn't even have qualified him then doubled back after the draft and free agency to see what was up. Does anyone think Granlund is an offer sheet target? Please.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

All in all it's just a-
-nother brick in the wall...

Yet again too much money given to not enough player for not enough reason and setting yet another bad precedent.

The wheels in the sky keep on turnin...

 

[MS]

every team has a few bad contracts

Maybe. But it's more excusable if you're actually trying to target a top-end player and screw up. Like, the Eriksson signing was horrible but at least they were targeting a good player with a track record they expected to play high in the lineup.

The 4 players I listed are bottom-roster junk, have always been bottom-roster junk, and have always been replaceable for $650k-$1 million types. There is zero excuse for blowing $11 million in cap space on this garbage.

And it speaks to having no idea how to build a roster in a capped league. You spend on the best players possible at the top end of your lineup and then look for value at the low end.

A 6/10 4th liner at $650k is a heaps better asset than a 7/10 4th liner at $2 million. And when a guy like Archibald shows himself to be a competent 3rd liner at $650 k, that's a goldmine for an NHL team ... but this one is too stupid to realize it.

You could replace Gudbranson/Granlund/Gagner/Nilsson with Biega/Archibald/a guy like Mathew Peca/some generic backup all at $650k and the team would actually get better. It's absurd.

 

[F A N]

What I hate about him though is that he is a floater who doesn't put a whole lot of effort in and is basically allergic to body contact...

Benning did the right thing with Gaunce's contract, why not here?

Not that it proves anything, but Granlund actually had more hits than Horvat last season.

Two seasons ago he was good. Last season he was not. Hopefully he's good next season or I expect him to be gone.

Gaunce's contract really isn't a comparable since it was a 2 year bridge, the same contract that Granlund had signed with the Canucks that just expired.

I assume that the recent contract Hinostroza and Caggiula (who didn't have arbitration rights) jacked up the price a bit.

 

[sting101]

surprisingly, the good teams often have less bad contracts than bad teams, very strange how that works

it always seems worth it if your winning

 

[MS]

Two seasons ago he was good. Last season he was not. Hopefully he's good next season or I expect him to be gone.

He was just as bad in 16-17.

He was just given utterly absurd amounts of icetime that season and put up some points as a result and people perceived it as good even though his production was horrible relative to his minutes. And based on an unsustainable shooting percentage.

 

[F A N]

He was just as bad in 16-17.

He was just given utterly absurd amounts of icetime that season and put up some points as a result and people perceived it as good even though his production was horrible relative to his minutes. And based on an unsustainable shooting percentage.

Nope. He was good in 2016-2017.

 

[MS]

Nope. He was good in 2016-2017.

No, he wasn't.

He played an absurd amount for such a mediocre player and when you get that much PP time plus spend 1/3 of the season on the Sedin line you're going to get a few goals. But 30 points for a guy playing that much stunk.

And a bunch of us here called that with Boeser/Vanek/Gagner coming in and taking winger offensive/PP minutes and his shooting percentage sure to regress, he'd fall off the face of the earth. And that's exactly what happened.

It's continually amazing to me how people can't read context into point totals.

 

[Melvin]

Nope. He was good in 2016-2017.

Great argument. A lot of good points.

 

[Horse McHindu]

If Granlund can play well enough to the point where he can be flipped for a pick, then I say bravo.

 

[Verbalyst]

I think what helped make his shooting % so high in 16-17 is that he was finding the soft areas in the d-zone coverage. Most of last year he was saddled with Sutter and Dorsett on the checking line that was scoring on the rush.

He will only flourish offensively on a puck possesion line where he can drift into soft spots and get open. You never know maybe he sparks chemistry with a Gaudette or Leipsic and has a turnaround year

 

[nuckfan insk]

Please ship him away Benning........ he could be your chance to add a pick

 

[pgj98m3]

If Granlund can play well enough to the point where he can be flipped for a pick, then I say bravo.

And flipping for picks is such a strong point for Benning........

 

[Kryten]

How many times does Benning have to not do that before people stop hoping he will?

But we’re rebuilding, didnt you hear?

 

[me2]

If Granlund can play well enough to the point where he can be flipped for a pick, then I say bravo.

You could have gotten a better luck with a cheaper contract.

 

[me2]

I think what helped make his shooting % so high in 16-17 is that he was finding the soft areas in the d-zone coverage. Most of last year he was saddled with Sutter and Dorsett on the checking line that was scoring on the rush.

He will only flourish offensively on a puck possesion line where he can drift into soft spots and get open. You never know maybe he sparks chemistry with a Gaudette or Leipsic and has a turnaround year

Playing with Sutter really exposed his weaknesses. Down side of that is he isn't helping his teammates, they are having to help him. If he doesn't have the work ethic/IQ to help his teammates....