Confirmed Signing with Link: [VAN] Antoine Roussel signs with the Canucks (4 years, $3M AAV)

[Vorkosh]

No need to name any...they are everywhere. And sure no other names are linked to Vancouver, because Dim Jim TARGETED these two.

If you can't see that it's dumb to overpay a 4th liner in AMOUNT AND TERM, then that's on you.

Not going back and forth on this. Enjoy your grits.

I'm still curious.. what does having 26 million in cap space do for you this year that having 7 million less in cap space can't do?

That's the crux of your argument.. that's the crux of most of the people's argument here. What can you do with 26 million that you can't do with 19?

 

[Vorkosh]

I think we can sign them but it'd be more beneficial to have more cap space when doing so.

I doubt Pettersson and Hughes will sign for 1.5 Million. If they produce in the 3 years of their ELCs they will get paid no questions asked. It's ridiculous to think that we will bridge them at 1.5 Million. Not to mention the bonuses they probably will hit. Meaning they will be taking a paycut if they signed that 1.5 deal.

1.5 million is generous. They have no choice as a RFA.. either they sign or they sit. And if they sit it doesn't work out well for them. Qualifying offers are capped at 1 year deals with a set amount. I believe it's 105% of their ELC so ELC at 900k they get a qualifying offer of 945k

Or they sit and if they sit till Dec 1 then they sit for the whole year and they're STILL an RFA and the process repeats itself. So it's financially beneficial to eat the one year of qualifying offer and then get paid huge when the contracts come off the books. NHL players have horrible negotiation rights until they are UFA

If the Canucks for whatever reason don't offer a qualifying offer, then they become UFA immediately and can sign with whoever. Pouliot had this option but chose to come back to Vancouver for a little more than what his qualifying offer would be.

 

[RandV]

Virtanen needs to be resigned as does Archibald

So you're saying that Motte Leipsic Boucher Kero are better than Rousel and Beagle?

you said that there were 19 guys ahead of the signings on the depth chart..

I named 3 guys kids my post, responding to the same 3 kids you had already mentioned. should be obvious who I'm talking about

 

[Tripod]

I'm still curious.. what does having 26 million in cap space do for you this year that having 7 million less in cap space can't do?

That's the crux of your argument.. that's the crux of most of the people's argument here. What can you do with 26 million that you can't do with 19?

Sigh....it's the TERM that is the issue.

If he signed them to 1 year deals, then sold them off at the deadline at 50% retained, then it would be a good deal.

Now you have them on your roster for likely 3 years. That is just f***ing dumb. Especially when Beagle is 33 years old when he starts the season.

 

[Vorkosh]

Sigh....it's the TERM that is the issue.

If he signed them to 1 year deals, then sold them off at the deadline at 50% retained, then it would be a good deal.

Now you have them on your roster for likely 3 years. That is just ****ing dumb. Especially when Beagle is 33 years old when he starts the season.

okay, and why is the term an issue exactly?

You keep mentioning the problems that have already been solved. if they get outplayed they get sent to the minors. What's the issue?

You're creating problems for the sake of creating problems. If next year they both get outplayed at camp they go to the minors. Cap isn't an issue then since they still count towards it and we have it in spades and neither is them taking a roster spot..so i ask again.. What is the issue?

If they don't get outplayed and are performing better then the team is still icing the best team available. Seriously, you're just creating issues for the sake of creating them. The only reason why term would be a bad thing is if you have to pay someone a raise or you're targeting a superstar and can't afford him because of the draw on your cap. We've established that the cap is not an issue. So what's the issue?

 

[Tripod]

okay, and why is the term an issue exactly?

You keep mentioning the problems that have already been solved. if they get outplayed they get sent to the minors. What's the issue?

You're creating problems for the sake of creating problems. If next year they both get outplayed at camp they go to the minors. Cap isn't an issue then and neither is them taking a roster spot..so i ask again.. What is the issue?

If they don't get outplayed and are performing better then the team is still icing the best team available. Seriously, you're just creating issues for the sake of creating them. The only reason why term would be a bad thing is if you have to pay someone a raise or you're targeting a superstar and can't afford him because of the draw on your cap. We've established that the cap is not an issue. So what's the issue?

Lol...no issue. You win. They were good signings.

Enjoy.

 

[Vorkosh]

Lol...no issue. You win. They were good signings.

Enjoy.

Never said they were good signings.. I just don't understand why you and almost everyone else thinks the world is coming to an end when it's not. They had money, they spent said money. It does not put the future in jeopardy. If Aqualini's fine with someone spending 7 million on 2 plugs I say more power to him.

 

[Tripod]

Never said they were good signings.. I just don't understand why you and almost everyone else thinks the world is coming to an end when it's not. They had money, they spent said money. It does not put the future in jeopardy. If Aqualini's fine with someone spending 7 million on 2 plugs I say more power to him.

Again...instead of these shit deals, if you signed them for 1 year deals, you then could have traded them at the deadline for picks.

That's called smart signings.

 

[THE Green Man]

1.5 million is generous. They have no choice as a RFA.. either they sign or they sit. And if they sit it doesn't work out well for them. Qualifying offers are capped at 1 year deals with a set amount. I believe it's 105% of their ELC so ELC at 900k they get a qualifying offer of 945k

Or they sit and if they sit till Dec 1 then they sit for the whole year and they're STILL an RFA and the process repeats itself. So it's financially beneficial to eat the one year of qualifying offer and then get paid huge when the contracts come off the books. NHL players have horrible negotiation rights until they are UFA

If the Canucks for whatever reason don't offer a qualifying offer, then they become UFA immediately and can sign with whoever. Pouliot had this option but chose to come back to Vancouver for a little more than what his qualifying offer would be.

Or they say screw this cheap ass team that can not manage the cap. They would rather pay these role players their money instead of me and what I actually produce and sign an offer sheet. It does not happen very often but it is still a possibility. 4 years is just too long of term what do you not understand about that when multiple posters are intelligently explaining it to you.

For a team that is supposed to be selling us on the future and getting to watch the young players we have accumulated over the past few years it is a complete fallacy to the transactions they are making. There are 8 1 way contracts ahead of Juolevi and Hughes right now. There are an abysmal number of 18 forwards competing for 13 spots. If they came out and said at the start of the year that we are probably going to stack Utica for a year and let these guys all develop together then sure you can take it on the chin a little bit more. But instead we got the false hope that we would see a lot of the younger players play this season.
As of now:

Baertschi-Horvat-Boeser
Eriksson-Sutter-Petersson
Granlund-Gagner-Virtanen
Rousell-Beagle-Schaller
Extras: Gaunce, Leipsic, Goldobin, Gaudette, Dahlen, Motte

 

[LickTheEnvelope]

I'll even go a step further

Right now only 3 kids really warrant a 6-8 million bridge deal (Petersson/Hughes/Boeser)

okay, so right now you still have room to lock up Boeser.. so let's go crazy 8 years 9 million for Boeser - 26-7-9 = 10 Still have 10 million in cap this year alone

Pettersson and Hughes sign their ELC's and in 3 years it expires and they're due for a raise. Let's just say the Canucks can't offer them much because of Beagle/Roussel/Erikkson/Sutter deals

They qualify both Pettersson and Hughes at about 1.5 million each with the promise that when the albatross contracts come off they get their max deals the following year

Following year Pettersson and Hughes get paid

Again, the math works out with the way the CBA is right now.. the term isn't great, but it's not doom and gloom as there are ways to ensure the kids get paid when they need to get paid. People just need to chill

Canucks won't have any problem signing anyone.

If Boeser is $9 mil per and Demko is $5 mil per they'd still have $22 mil open next year after those signings. Lots of guys coming off the books in the next 2 years.

 

[Vorkosh]

Or they say screw this cheap ass team that can not manage the cap. They would rather pay these role players their money instead of me and what I actually produce and sign an offer sheet. It does not happen very often but it is still a possibility. 4 years is just too long of term what do you not understand about that when multiple posters are intelligently explaining it to you.

For a team that is supposed to be selling us on the future and getting to watch the young players we have accumulated over the past few years it is a complete fallacy to the transactions they are making. There are 8 1 way contracts ahead of Juolevi and Hughes right now. There are an abysmal number of 18 forwards competing for 13 spots. If they came out and said at the start of the year that we are probably going to stack Utica for a year and let these guys all develop together then sure you can take it on the chin a little bit more. But instead we got the false hope that we would see a lot of the younger players play this season.
As of now:

Baertschi-Horvat-Boeser
Eriksson-Sutter-Petersson
Granlund-Gagner-Virtanen
Rousell-Beagle-Schaller
Extras: Gaunce, Leipsic, Goldobin, Gaudette, Dahlen, Motte

Sure teams can offer sheet them. But then at that point they would just match. How many offer sheets have you seen recently? Teams don't do that because they fear retaliation. 4 years isn't too long of a term, it's the max I would have gone based on the math. Again, I'm simply arguing the numbers here. 4 years was what it took.. Beagle was at 2.5/3 as of friday. Then bidding for his services went up and it landed on 3/4. You're acting like benning started at 4 years right off the bat. 4 years from now is exactly when the Canucks need to reup the young stars so it actually works out. We've been getting false hope for 3 years now.. it's your own fault if you believe it. I personally believe we won't be worth a damn till 5 years from now.

The term isn't going to kill us, it's fine, it leaves 0 wiggle room but for now, the future is still fine and not in jeopardy

I mean the only people that would get offer sheeted would be Petersson/Boeser/Hughes probably right? So I've already explained that we can resign them to 6+ years at over 7 million each if we really wanted to. So if they sign an offer sheet for more than 7 million okay.. bye Felicia.. 4 1 st round picks in return please and thank you. so it doesn't cripple the star core of the future at all.. which is all i'm trying to say.

I'm not saying these were great signings. I'm simply saying that this isn't as bad as you're all making it out to be. It doesn't hamper the future

 

[THE Green Man]

Sure teams can offer sheet them. But then at that point they would just match. How many offer sheets have you seen recently? Teams don't do that because they fear retaliation. 4 years isn't too long of a term, it's the max I would have gone based on the math. Again, I'm simply arguing the numbers here. 4 years was what it took.. Beagle was at 2.5/3 as of friday. Then bidding for his services went up and it landed on 3/4. You're acting like benning started at 4 years right off the bat. 4 years from now is exactly when the Canucks need to reup the young stars so it actually works out. We've been getting false hope for 3 years now.. it's your own fault if you believe it. I personally believe we won't be worth a damn till 5 years from now.

The term isn't going to kill us, it's fine, it leaves 0 wiggle room but for now, the future is still fine and not in jeopardy

That is literally exactly the point. A bidding war over a 4th liner is just not what a rebuilding team should do. As soon as both of their agents started to talk about a 4th year, Benning should have hung up the phone and looked for better options that fits the term better. Trust me, I know this is how negotiations go, but it does not justify Benning repeatedly taken to the cleaners by agents and sign bad contract after bad contract. 3 year term I could have lived with,but 4 is insanity when you are talking about 4th liners. Why put ourselves in a position with no wiggle room at all when there were and still are shorter termed options still available? Watch us lose a potential star down the road here because of Luongo and his repcapture penalty coupled with all of the bad contracts.

 

[Vorkosh]

That is literally exactly the point. A bidding war over a 4th liner is just not what a rebuilding team should do. As soon as both of their agents started to talk about a 4th year, Benning should have hung up the phone and looked for better options that fits the term better. Trust me, I know this is how negotiations go, but it does not justify Benning repeatedly taken to the cleaners by agents and sign bad contract after bad contract. 3 year term I could have lived with,but 4 is insanity when you are talking about 4th liners. Why put ourselves in a position with no wiggle room at all when there were and still are shorter termed options still available? Watch us lose a potential star down the road here because of Luongo and his repcapture penalty coupled with all of the bad contracts.

When and if that happens then sure we can look back at this and say it's a bad deal. You're anticipating something that hasn't and might not happen. Luongo's penalty is like 800k man.. against an 80 million cap that's 1%.. like come on..

What if Beagle breaks out a la cheechoo and scores 50 next year because who knows.. is it a bad deal then? You just don't know either way. Will he score 50 goals? probably not.. will we lose a star because of him.. again, probably not, since the cap will raise by the time that's a factor and who knows what else happens now and then

 

[Jannik Hansen]

Right and eventho Vanek said he'd love to come back at the end of the day he went to Detriot. I don't know why we weren't players in the Mason/Armia trasaction. I agree we should have been players there. But it takes 2 people to make a deal. If Benning wants to do it but the other guy doesn't. it's not gonna get done. Or Benning overpays to get it done and people ***** at him again.

Just because we as fans want something for something, does not make it reality. That's something that I don't understand why people don't get. Just because you wanted shorter term doesn't mean that it would have happened.

Let's say Benning walks away from this deal today. There would be different people *****ing that he didn't do anything to help the team and shelter the kids.

Literally he can't please 100% of the people 100% of the time.

Take the transactions with an open minded and actually calculate if it ****s over the team as much as you think it does.. it really doesn't.. 3x4 isn't bad.. it's certainty better than 6x6 or 7x11

Good on Toronto for getting Taveres.. but when it's Matthew's turn to get paid, they're gonna be spending close to 25 million on 2 centres for the foreseeable future

If I’m going by your logic, no signing Benning can make will be bad because we have cap space. If it’s too expensive or long we can dump them in the minors. If the player doesn’t play well to the value of the contract it’s hindsight. How much more term/AAV would it take for the Beagle deal to be bad in your mind? There are 4th line centres available for 1 year EVERY year in free agency. Why didn’t we overpay Fehr? He signed for 1 year 1 million. Would he have said no if we offered him a contract of 3 million, or even 3.5? What about Riley Nash, or Brodziak? Why not get Carolina to pay us to take on Kruger? Other GMs find a way to get good value in trades, Benning just finds excuses. The whole problem with Benning is that it’s very true he’s getting the best he can get- because he’s not a good negotiator and never uses leverage to his advantage.

 

[Vorkosh]

Again...instead of these **** deals, if you signed them for 1 year deals, you then could have traded them at the deadline for picks.

That's called smart signings.

again just because you want it to be so, does it make it so.

Vanek could have been had for picks, but he didn't get picks back why? no one offered him picks. You seem to think that Benning isn't asking for these things... It takes two people to make a deal generally.. If no one is offering a pick for your players what do you do? Nothing and get bitched at, or get something that fans don't agree with and get bitched at

 

[THE Green Man]

When and if that happens then sure we can look back at this and say it's a bad deal. You're anticipating something that hasn't and might not happen. Luongo's penalty is like 800k man.. against an 80 million cap that's 1%.. like come on..

What if Beagle breaks out a la cheechoo and scores 50 next year because who knows.. is it a bad deal then? You just don't know either way. Will he score 50 goals? probably not.. will we lose a star because of him.. again, probably not, since the cap will raise by the time that's a factor and who knows what else happens now and then

Beagle scoring 50.... honestly that does not even deserve a proper response. And you are completely wrong about Luongo and the recapture penalty:

 

[Vorkosh]

If I’m going by your logic, no signing Benning can make will be bad because we have cap space. If it’s too expensive or long we can dump them in the minors. If the player doesn’t play well to the value of the contract it’s hindsight. How much more term/AAV would it take for the Beagle deal to be bad in your mind? There are 4th line centres available for 1 year EVERY year in free agency. Why didn’t we overpay Fehr? He signed for 1 year 1 million. Would he have said no if we offered him a contract of 3 million, or even 3.5? What about Riley Nash, or Brodziak? Why not get Carolina to pay us to take on Kruger? Other GMs find a way to get good value in trades, Benning just finds excuses. The whole problem with Benning is that it’s very true he’s getting the best he can get- because he’s not a good negotiator and never uses leverage to his advantage.

Maybe Beagle offers something Fehr doesn't, You have to realize that as fans we don't see the whole picture and we don't get to see the back and forth from negotiations. We only see the final product. We can be armchair GM's all day long, I simply have the insight to look at whole pictures instead of just the result. Riley Nash wasn't interested in Vancouver. Again, there needs to be mutual interest. Just because you want Fehr and just because FEhr signed for 1 million does not mean he would have signed in Vancouver for 3 million. There are some people who simply will not play in a market no matter what the circumstance. Why do you not understand that

Just because you think we can do this and that does not make it reality. How hard is that to understand? Let's say you have a comic book i want and i offer you 10 times market value. If you have no intention of ever selling it, nothing I offer could get you to sell it to me. It's the same concept. Are you sitting in on benning';s calls? do you know something we don't? you're just assuming and you're letting it drive your insinuations.

There's no point in having discussions with people like you because you always assume that just because someone else signed for something or someone else got traded for less that Benning didn't do his job

 

[Cambodian Fouler]

Thank god Ducks didnt sign him.

 

[Vorkosh]

Beagle scoring 50.... honestly that does not even deserve a proper response. And you are completely wrong about Luongo and the recapture penalty:

My apologies, I was looking at the retention, yeah you're right.. If Luongo retires early, that would hurt a lot.

 

[Jannik Hansen]

Maybe Beagle offers something Fehr doesn't, You have to realize that as fans we don't see the whole picture and we don't get to see the back and forth from negotiations. We only see the final product. We can be armchair GM's all day long, I simply have the insight to look at whole pictures instead of just the result. Riley Nash wasn't interested in Vancouver. Again, there needs to be mutual interest. Just because you want Fehr and just because FEhr signed for 1 million does not mean he would have signed in Vancouver for 3 million. There are some people who simply will not play in a market no matter what the circumstance. Why do you not understand that

Just because you think we can do this and that does not make it reality. How hard is that to understand? Let's say you have a comic book i want and i offer you 10 times market value. If you have no intention of ever selling it, nothing I offer could get you to sell it to me. It's the same concept. Are you sitting in on benning';s calls? do you know something we don't? you're just assuming and you're letting it drive your insinuations.

There's no point in having discussions with people like you because you always assume that just because someone else signed for something or someone else got traded for less that Benning didn't do his job

Other GMs manage to accomplish the things I want Benning to accomplish every year. There’s no point in having discussions with people like you because you always assume the good moves other GMs make weren’t available to him.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see you shouldn’t lock up a past prime 30 year old slow second liner for 6 years, trade immense value for 6th defenceman, and lock up 32 year old 4th liners for 4 years. Other GMs make things happen. Benning makes mistakes and excuses. He is the worst pro scout in the league.

 

[MXD]

Would never have had this if he wasn't French...
...
Oh. Wait. He signed with the Canucks.

 

[Slyfox]

Benning is a bottom 5 GM and proved it today. Even Chia managed to out perform him today with some really good signings.

 

[LickTheEnvelope]

Beagle scoring 50.... honestly that does not even deserve a proper response. And you are completely wrong about Luongo and the recapture penalty:

Based on how Luongo has been playing / talking I suspect he retires in 2020 and the Canucks are out $4.3 mil cap for 2 seasons.

Not a big deal by that time. Nucks won't be contending yet and will have lots of cap space + the younger d-men coming in.

 

[Phenomenon13]

1.5 million is generous. They have no choice as a RFA.. either they sign or they sit. And if they sit it doesn't work out well for them. Qualifying offers are capped at 1 year deals with a set amount. I believe it's 105% of their ELC so ELC at 900k they get a qualifying offer of 945k

Or they sit and if they sit till Dec 1 then they sit for the whole year and they're STILL an RFA and the process repeats itself. So it's financially beneficial to eat the one year of qualifying offer and then get paid huge when the contracts come off the books. NHL players have horrible negotiation rights until they are UFA

If the Canucks for whatever reason don't offer a qualifying offer, then they become UFA immediately and can sign with whoever. Pouliot had this option but chose to come back to Vancouver for a little more than what his qualifying offer would be.

doing that is terrible.

are you kidding me? lowballing them like that is how you get players to request for trades out of your team. If they do a 1 year deal we lose all leverage. They have arbitration rights for their second deal. It's much easier and better to sign them right off their current elc to a multi year deal.

We are talking about pettersson and hughes not pouliot. no way we dont qualify them. Teams would definitely be calling on them.

These deals are terrible but not awful. However, your interpretation of seeing the future is really skewed.

 

[Pip]

When and if that happens then sure we can look back at this and say it's a bad deal. You're anticipating something that hasn't and might not happen. Luongo's penalty is like 800k man.. against an 80 million cap that's 1%.. like come on..

What if Beagle breaks out a la cheechoo and scores 50 next year because who knows.. is it a bad deal then? You just don't know either way. Will he score 50 goals? probably not.. will we lose a star because of him.. again, probably not, since the cap will raise by the time that's a factor and who knows what else happens now and then

Hmmm