Prospect Info: Quinn Hughes, Pt. IV

Status
Not open for further replies.

lush

@jasonlush
Sep 9, 2008
2,748
83
Vancouver
Yeah I did not like it when Boeser did it and I won't like it any less with Hughes. You know that Gillis would never have allowed that shit. Different times....
 
  • Like
Reactions: y2kcanucks

Billy Kvcmu

Registered User
Dec 5, 2014
27,125
15,440
West Vancouver
Yeah I did not like it when Boeser did it and I won't like it any less with Hughes. You know that Gillis would never have allowed that ****. Different times....
That was also like half a decade ago when grit and potato are still valued heavily around the league
Things have changed
 

MarkMM

Registered User
Jan 30, 2010
2,948
2,290
Delta, BC
But...but...according to the BenningBros on this site overpaying on long-term deals isn't a big deal because we have so much cap space.
 
  • Like
Reactions: y2kcanucks

F A N

Registered User
Aug 12, 2005
18,630
5,893
Yeah I did not like it when Boeser did it and I won't like it any less with Hughes. You know that Gillis would never have allowed that ****. Different times....

It certainly is debatable, but Gillis had no issue burning a year off Corrado's ELC. If the Canucks are still in a position to make the playoffs when it comes time for Hughes to sign, I think if Gillis was the GM he would sign Hughes if he thinks Hughes can help the Canucks win hockey games and be on the team next season. If the Canucks are out of it, he might not, especially not play him the 10 games.
 

TryamkinPleaseReturn

Rapidly Shrinking Cult
Feb 7, 2019
622
646
It certainly is debatable, but Gillis had no issue burning a year off Corrado's ELC. If the Canucks are still in a position to make the playoffs when it comes time for Hughes to sign, I think if Gillis was the GM he would sign Hughes if he thinks Hughes can help the Canucks win hockey games and be on the team next season. If the Canucks are out of it, he might not, especially not play him the 10 games.
To me, the difference seems to be that when Gillis was making sacrifices to win games, he was putting together a team perennially competing for a championship... not... a team perennially competing for 5th overall draft position
 

alternate

Win the week!
Jun 9, 2006
8,019
2,855
victoria
To me, the difference seems to be that when Gillis was making sacrifices to win games, he was putting together a team perennially competing for a championship... not... a team perennially competing for 5th overall draft position

Lol, who gives a shit about the team Gillis inherited at this point.

Burning a year off ELCs is pretty standard stuff these days. That's not even considering the point Hughes will make us better immediately, even if just from an entertainment/interest pov. No GM is going to squabble over a year of an ELC with a prospect as important to the future of the organization as Hughes is. Cept maybe Brian Burke.
 

ChilliBilly

Registered User
Aug 22, 2007
7,081
4,329
chilliwacki
It is also showing a player that you want them to be happy, and treat them right. The teams credibility would be on the line with the family. Would anyone be happy if he said "No games this year, then I go back to Mich"? give him the experience with the team, play him some, and if he earns a spot give it to him. If not, tell him why.

The expense is trivial for Aquaman, and it will put butts in the seats. How many people watched games this year to see Petey, not the Canucks?

After the first 20 years of misery, the Canucks got Bure, then 94 SC run, then the WCE, then the Sedins and a real shot at winning the SC. Now after 5 miserable years we have Boeser, Horvat, Markstrom and a probable Calder winning EP. Adding in Hughes wouldn't hurt.
 

Catamarca Livin

Registered User
Jul 29, 2010
4,908
983
No, bush league is mismanaging your assets to such a degree that you can't afford to sign your good young players in the 2021 off-season because you've committed too much cap-space to 4th liners and decided to burn a bunch of ELC years off your young prospects. Considering this GM just mismanaged himself into being forced to play a teenage goalie from the OHL with not a single professional game of experience, with no goalie on the bench to back him up, I have absolutely no faith that they're actually *planning* for anything. Planning is clearly not an area of strength.

Bush league is having no good young players contributing on ELCs because you had no patience. Bush league is being fined for tampering because you can't keep your mouth shut about PK Subban in a TV interview. Bush league is offer-sheeting Ryan O'Reily to a 2-year, $10 million contract and not being aware that he would have to clear waivers first (enjoying the Weisbrod era?). Detail-oriented, careful planning is the exact opposite of Bush League. On the contrary, it's how championship teams are built.

Benning is trying to save his job and doesn't care about the future. He knows he'll be gone before he can reap the rewards if he doesn't burn that ELC year now. If you can't see that then you're blind. He's hoping Hughes can pull a rabbit out of his hat and distract everyone from the horrible D-core he's constructed. His head is on the chopping block, and every managerial embarrassment brings the axe closer.
How do you know Benning is in danger of being fired? Even if he is how do you know this would affect his decision. He has done it consistently since arrival with some marginal college signings. I am going to a number of the remaining games and would like to see entertaining games that might mean something. So yes from my position sitting a more entertaining likely better player for a theoretical benefit is bush league. There is an argument that bringing a player up early may lead to a lower second contract than if he had three full years to prove his worth. One could argue Boeser's contract will be less after this year than it would be after the 2020 year. So yes you save money for one year but it may lead to multi years of paying more. In the end the affect on team short term and long term is unknown. You just need to do what you think is best for his development.
 

F A N

Registered User
Aug 12, 2005
18,630
5,893
Lol, who gives a **** about the team Gillis inherited at this point.

Burning a year off ELCs is pretty standard stuff these days. That's not even considering the point Hughes will make us better immediately, even if just from an entertainment/interest pov. No GM is going to squabble over a year of an ELC with a prospect as important to the future of the organization as Hughes is. Cept maybe Brian Burke.

It is also showing a player that you want them to be happy, and treat them right. The teams credibility would be on the line with the family. Would anyone be happy if he said "No games this year, then I go back to Mich"? give him the experience with the team, play him some, and if he earns a spot give it to him. If not, tell him why.

The expense is trivial for Aquaman, and it will put butts in the seats. How many people watched games this year to see Petey, not the Canucks?

After the first 20 years of misery, the Canucks got Bure, then 94 SC run, then the WCE, then the Sedins and a real shot at winning the SC. Now after 5 miserable years we have Boeser, Horvat, Markstrom and a probable Calder winning EP. Adding in Hughes wouldn't hurt.

Exactly. To me, the biggest issue with Hughes playing this year is his expansion draft status and to a much lesser extent his arbitration status. Assuming Hughes is an impact player in the NHL (if he isn't then there's even a lesser reason to worry about burning a year off his ELC) burning a year off his ELC is nothing and might actually be a good thing if the Canucks end up locking up Hughes long term after his ELC expires.

The reality is that the cap keeps going up and the cost (in terms of AAV) of signing star players long-term has gone up. The price for re-signing Horvat as soon as he was eligible for an extension would have been cheaper than the contract he ended up signing for. You can bet that extending Boeser last summer would be much cheaper than trying to extend him now or lock him up this summer. Of course, the greater the track record the greater the ask but the the risk is also lower. Take Boeser, if he spent this season playing like the way he did to start the season would you be comfortable giving him a $6M AAV contract for 6 years? If Boeser is willing to accept that deal the Canucks should be all over it. The same will apply to Hughes when it comes time to extend him if he proves to be the real deal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nomobo

Luck 6

\\_______
Oct 17, 2008
10,192
1,786
Vancouver
I could care less if we burn a year of Hughes ELC at this point. If he becomes good enough, quick enough, so that this significantly alters our cap space in two years then I think that’s a good problem to have.

I am concerned about the expansion draft, we will likely lose a good player and if we could have avoided protecting Hughes that would be my preference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stardustforever

BenningHurtsMySoul

Unfair Huggy Bear
Mar 18, 2008
24,793
9,883
Port Coquitlam, BC
I could care less if we burn a year of Hughes ELC at this point. If he becomes good enough, quick enough, so that this significantly alters our cap space in two years then I think that’s a good problem to have.

I am concerned about the expansion draft, we will likely lose a good player and if we could have avoided protecting Hughes that would be my preference.

Almost every team in the league will lose a good player.
 

y2kcanucks

Le Sex God
Aug 3, 2006
71,229
10,319
Surrey, BC
There is absolutely no way Quinn Hughes should play 10 games this year. If he does then we will have to protect him in the expansion draft.
 

PG Canuck

Registered User
Mar 29, 2010
62,741
23,893
There is absolutely no way Quinn Hughes should play 10 games this year. If he does then we will have to protect him in the expansion draft.

Which is even more reason we should expect Hughes to play 10 games. Lets burn a year off his ELC and also have to protect him from Seattle.

Why not at this point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: y2kcanucks

Blue and Green

Out to lunch
Dec 17, 2017
3,411
3,360
Go Wolverines Go.

@bobbyb2009 You were correct in our back-and-forth awhile ago on the usage of the word "year" in the CBA as it related to Hughes' age situation if he signs a standard player contract for this season. No ELC slide. Plus, any Utica games played under a standard player contract would count toward the 10 games for earning a year of professional experience toward RFA status.
 

bobbyb2009

Registered User
Sep 3, 2009
1,898
953
Go Wolverines Go.

@bobbyb2009 You were correct in our back-and-forth awhile ago on the usage of the word "year" in the CBA as it related to Hughes' age situation if he signs a standard player contract for this season. No ELC slide. Plus, any Utica games played under a standard player contract would count toward the 10 games for earning a year of professional experience toward RFA status.

Cheers

How did you confirm this?
 

Snatcher Demko

High-End Intangibles
Oct 8, 2006
5,926
1,320
Anyone else get the feeling Benning hasn't even considered the expansion draft when it comes to Hughes?

I'm sure it's a consideration but the reality is the kid is signing up to play this year and to burn a year of that ELC.

It's part of the deal and is not uncommon for top flight prospects.
 

bh53

Registered User
Sep 18, 2017
484
779
Victoria
I'm not really concerned about burning off a year on his ELC because if anything it'll save us cap space for the future. What I'm concerned about it is if Michigan is out early we could sign him with 13 games left and if he plays more than 10 we would have to protect him at the expansion draft which could cost us a good player.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->