Canucks Cap Situation

[DownUndaCanuck]

We have a fairly good split across our squad, no crazy high cap hits apart from say Petey and all of our stars are locked up to good 6-8M deals fairly long term which means we have good depth. I'd like a bit more cap thrown at our defence personally but we do have arguably the best pairing in the league (?), a fairly average 2nd pairing and average 3rd pairing. This defence could be our weakness going forward but we've traded defensive depth for some solid depth at forward.

[Bob Long]

1 hour ago, tas said:

yeah, but obviously if they had landed guentzel they wouldn't have also got debrusk. no money for that. 

 

for sure. I don't know if it was an "A plan" "B plan" situation or whoever they could land first? dunno, both really do have their pluses and minuses.

 

As much has I see JG shining with Petey, he would be paid pretty much twice what DeBrusk is, and then we have to move Garly to improve the d. 

 

[tas]

21 minutes ago, HKSR said:

He said "Podz will be worth more than Vatrano by year end" which if true, Podz could be flipped for a Top 6 guy.  If Podz put up 20 goals and 45 points this year, I'd venture to say if you traded him, you could probably land a player like Buchnevich then.  So there is some merit to what he's saying if we're talking about straight value.

if he put up those numbers, his next contract will be a lot bigger. and vatrano will be a ufa at the end of the year. "value" is a tricky thing to define. 

 

but if that's what he means, I'm not really interested. I'm only interested in players that bring the most "value" (read: contribution) in the immediate term. this team can't be building for 3 years from now. 

[Hogs and Podz]

34 minutes ago, HKSR said:

That's true...

 

Might have to just set specific targets... first player to NOT hit the threshold loses...

 

Baseline targets to show any value at all for either player:

 

10 goals minimum for Podkolzin

25 goals minimum for Vatrano

 

Threshold 1:

 

15 goals for Podkolzin

30 goals for Vatrano

 

Threshold 2:

 

20 goals for Podkolzin

35 goals for Vatrano

 

Threshold 3:

 

35 points for Podkolzin

60 points for Vatrano

 

Threshold 4:

 

40 points for Podkolzin

65 points for Vatrano

That seems reasonable to me.  The player to reach the highest threshold by season end (regular season only) wins. 

 

Now of course we'd need to discuss injuries.  Will injuries effect this formula or should That be included in the overall? 

 

As far as the wager... Is money exchange frowned upon here (or illegal)?  Or another possibility is the loser has to change their user name for a while or permanently?  Some sort of consequential action needed.  Ideas? 

[VegasCanuck]

5 hours ago, HKSR said:

Not trying to be a Debbie downer, but we will be using LTIR.  Silovs needs to be re-signed.  Personally I don't think he's gonna be under $1M.  I'm thinking closer to $1.5M for him.

Silovs? He has very little negotiating power at the moment. They will trade a 2 way contract for a lower cap hit so that he will be the backup this year. I'm predicting 850k or less. Will be shocked if it's more. Likely a 1 or 2 year deal for him to prove that he can be the go to guy for more than just 15 games and make Demko redundant.

 

The lower the cap hit for Him, the more likely he's the backup.

[Kootenay Gold]

5 hours ago, HKSR said:

Not trying to be a Debbie downer, but we will be using LTIR.  Silovs needs to be re-signed.  Personally I don't think he's gonna be under $1M.  I'm thinking closer to $1.5M for him.

Pretty sure there will be additional roster moves before they have to be Cap compliant. PDG might be traded and possibly one or two others as well. Not to concerned about what ifs at this point.

 

[Hogs and Podz]

5 minutes ago, tas said:

if he put up those numbers, his next contract will be a lot bigger. and vatrano will be a ufa at the end of the year. "value" is a tricky thing to define. 

 

but if that's what he means, I'm not really interested. I'm only interested in players that bring the most "value" (read: contribution) in the immediate term. this team can't be building for 3 years from now. 

Your idea of value is the same as mine.  However, we'd have to find a way to define importance or value to the team.... It's not always about points, it's about unique skill sets, versatility, coaches trust and minutes played. Some of these values are the intangibles.  Hard to quantify. 

[tas]

7 minutes ago, Hogs and Podz said:

Your idea of value is the same as mine.  However, we'd have to find a way to define importance or value to the team.... It's not always about points, it's about unique skill sets, versatility, coaches trust and minutes played. Some of these values are the intangibles.  Hard to quantify. 

i agree that intangibles are also very important, but as far as the canucks needs go, they have tons of two-way forwards and need top end goalscoring. 

[HOCKEYGOD77]

THEY HAD TY YOUNG FROM WHL..IS HE ANY GOOD

[Hogs and Podz]

13 minutes ago, tas said:

i agree that intangibles are also very important, but as far as the canucks needs go, they have tons of two-way forwards and need top end goalscoring. 

I see your point and agree... And to your point, I'm not confident that Podz would have more value than Vatrano points wise... Just overall I see Podz providing a wider value of his play and person to our team than Vatrano.  So... Maybe we'll have a more conclusive debate come end of next season? 

[bh90]

5 hours ago, HKSR said:

Not trying to be a Debbie downer, but we will be using LTIR.  Silovs needs to be re-signed.  Personally I don't think he's gonna be under $1M.  I'm thinking closer to $1.5M for him.

But if you resign silovs you'll send Tolipilo and you can start the season with a 22 man roster you don't need 23

 

Bring up guys from Abby as needed. Cap is calculated daily by NHL

[tas]

2 minutes ago, Hogs and Podz said:

I see your point and agree... And to your point, I'm not confident that Podz would have more value than Vatrano points wise... Just overall I see Podz providing a wider value of his play and person to our team than Vatrano.  So... Maybe we'll have a more conclusive debate come end of next season? 

I'd love to be wrong, I just don't see podkolzin making an overall impact this year (or next year) that outweighs 35 or so goals in the top 6. 

[Hogs and Podz]

3 minutes ago, tas said:

I'd love to be wrong, I just don't see podkolzin making an overall impact this year (or next year) that outweighs 35 or so goals in the top 6. 

Well so far, what we know is this management team recently handed out a new contract to Podz.  They see the potential and have a much better idea of whether he'll reach his potential.  They've been patient with him.  I believe that patience will pay off in a big way by next season.  Hope you're wrong too... 

Cheers! 

[tas]

19 minutes ago, Hogs and Podz said:

Well so far, what we know is this management team recently handed out a new contract to Podz.  They see the potential and have a much better idea of whether he'll reach his potential.  They've been patient with him.  I believe that patience will pay off in a big way by next season.  Hope you're wrong too... 

Cheers! 

well, this is his "show me" contract, so if he doesn't make it now, I'm pretty confident saying he won't make it with the canucks. 

[spook007]

4 hours ago, Bob Long said:

 

This is from his article today:

 

"Obviously the Canucks kept a tight lid on information surrounding their intentions in free agency, to the point of breaking nearly all of their own signings themselves, but multiple team sources indicated to The Athletic once the dust settled on Monday that one of the reasons Vancouver didn’t try to trade for Guentzel’s rights is that DeBrusk was their primary top-six forward target all along."

There you go.... 

[6of1_halfdozenofother]

5 hours ago, HKSR said:

Yep, we should be.  It's a 23 man roster.  Will be nice to accrue some cap for the TDL.

 

Interesting how this post seems to dispute your assertion that we have the cap space to accommodate Silovs' salary up to just over $1 million and still be outside of needing LTIR usage.  

 

So confusing...

[HKSR]

3 minutes ago, 6of1_halfdozenofother said:

 

Interesting how this post seems to dispute your assertion that we have the cap space to accommodate Silovs' salary up to just over $1 million and still be outside of needing LTIR usage.  

 

So confusing...

I was going off what others were saying about where we were in terms of the current roster and cap space without double checking Capfriendly.  I ran the numbers myself and realized it'd be fine.  Gonna miss Capfriendly...

[DrJockitch]

9 minutes ago, 6of1_halfdozenofother said:

 

Interesting how this post seems to dispute your assertion that we have the cap space to accommodate Silovs' salary up to just over $1 million and still be outside of needing LTIR usage.  

 

So confusing...

We have about $250 k of cap remaining with Poolman on the roster. Patera is listed as backup at 775k. 250k+775k=1.025M(the actual number is 1.015). 
Anything over pushes us into using the LTIR of Poolman. 
 

but since we start at home it seems reasonable that we could start with a sub 23 man roster depending on waivers. 

Edited July 2 by DrJockitch

[6of1_halfdozenofother]

6 minutes ago, HKSR said:

I was going off what others were saying about where we were in terms of the current roster and cap space without double checking Capfriendly.  I ran the numbers myself and realized it'd be fine.  Gonna miss Capfriendly...

 

3 minutes ago, DrJockitch said:

We have about $250 k of cap remaining with Poolman on the roster. Patera is listed as backup at 775k. 250k+775k=1.025M(the actual number is 1.015). 
Anything over pushes us into using the LTIR of Poolman. 

 

I don't see Patera on capfriendly's Canucks roster - so he's probably not counted towards the total cap figure on capfriendly.  Not to mention capfriendly shows 14 forward, 8 defence, and 2 goaltender slots filled (Silovs being one of the two on the roster but only Demko's salary is counted) - so one of the skaters is likely to be waived/sent down, meaning additional cap space, no?  

 

I mean, the figures would still work out to being 1,015,833 in cap space available assuming one of the lowest earning skaters (presently Friedman, Juulsen, and PDG) is waived for the minors, more if any other player instead is waived.  I guess the real question will be: who will they attempt to send down?  That will likely determine how much cap space (before LTIR is invoked) we'd have available, right?

[DrJockitch]

8 minutes ago, 6of1_halfdozenofother said:

 

 

I don't see Patera on capfriendly's Canucks roster - so he's probably not counted towards the total cap figure on capfriendly.  Not to mention capfriendly shows 14 forward, 8 defence, and 2 goaltender slots filled (Silovs being one of the two on the roster but only Demko's salary is counted) - so one of the skaters is likely to be waived/sent down, meaning additional cap space, no?  

 

I mean, the figures would still work out to being 1,015,833 in cap space available assuming one of the lowest earning skaters (presently Friedman, Juulsen, and PDG) is waived for the minors, more if any other player instead is waived.  I guess the real question will be: who will they attempt to send down?  That will likely determine how much cap space (before LTIR is invoked) we'd have available, right?

No. It would presumably be a minimum value player that gets waved so $775k same as Patera but that is using the numbers I quoted, not necessarily the OP. 
‘Gets complicated because I don’t think any of the current 23 man roster is waiver exempt so it has to be someone you don’t think gets claimed. 

[PureQuickness]

14 hours ago, RomanPer said:

This is not about who we signed on July 1 and whether they will work or not. It’s about us no longer being in salary cap hell.

 

But it does matter. That's the point. NO ONE could've predicted that Eriksson - along with the other UFAs that year with near identical contracts - would bust as hard as they did.

Debrusk COULD very well end up like Eriksson; their contracts are eerily similar to each other; however I don't think he will. No one will know for sure though. If we were to revisit this signing two or three years from now, will we still have the same opinion about this topic? Maybe, maybe not. In hindsight, everything looks clear as day. If there was a point that I was trying to make, are we collectively going to hold ourselves accountable for our opinions? Will we make excuses if a player doesn't work out? Are we going to defend a GM tooth and nail?

 

What about OEL? He's clearly not as bad of a defenseman as he seemed here. Is he top four? No. As Luongo said, "My contract sucks". I just think that while Benning had several good moves, his bad moves would overshadow those good moves. I think that's an objectively fair statement. Benning was not the worst GM "ever", contrary to what many people say here. I've pointed out that his 'core' is largely due to Benning. That said, Allvin has taken those pieces and turned it into his own team. Players like Joshua and Blueger have invigorated players like Garland - a piece from the OEL trade. Benning just seemed to flounder.

 

Some posters like to think I'm some Benning defender. Apparently no one is allowed to weigh the pros and cons; they just have to be purely negative. I used to be anti-Allvin, but I am willing to be open-minded. Allvin has earned my trust so far.

Edited July 3 by PureQuickness

[HKSR]

11 hours ago, PureQuickness said:

 

But it does matter. That's the point. NO ONE could've predicted that Eriksson - along with the other UFAs that year with near identical contracts - would bust as hard as they did.

Debrusk COULD very well end up like Eriksson; their contracts are eerily similar to each other; however I don't think he will. No one will know for sure though. If we were to revisit this signing two or three years from now, will we still have the same opinion about this topic? Maybe, maybe not. In hindsight, everything looks clear as day. If there was a point that I was trying to make, are we collectively going to hold ourselves accountable for our opinions? Will we make excuses if a player doesn't work out? Are we going to defend a GM tooth and nail?

 

What about OEL? He's clearly not as bad of a defenseman as he seemed here. Is he top four? No. As Luongo said, "My contract sucks". I just think that while Benning had several good moves, his bad moves would overshadow those good moves. I think that's an objectively fair statement. Benning was not the worst GM "ever", contrary to what many people say here. I've pointed out that his 'core' is largely due to Benning. That said, Allvin has taken those pieces and turned it into his own team. Players like Joshua and Blueger have invigorated players like Garland - a piece from the OEL trade. Benning just seemed to flounder.

 

Some posters like to think I'm some Benning defender. Apparently no one is allowed to weigh the pros and cons; they just have to be purely negative. I used to be anti-Allvin, but I am willing to be open-minded. Allvin has earned my trust so far.

Looking back on it, Loui Eriksson wasn't a terrible signing... even at the time.  Look at it this way...

 

He signed July 1, 2016.  He was 2 weeks from his 31st birthday.  A 6 year deal brings him to 37yo.

 

We signed him for $6M after his contract year season of 30 goals and 63 points.  The 3 years leading up to that season he was consistently a 45 to 50 point player.  His best years were in Dallas which was 5 years prior to this. 

 

If I were doing my salary projections back then, I probably would have had his value per year as something like:

 

Year 1 - $6M

Year 2 - $6M

Year 3 - $5M

Year 4 - $4M

Year 5 - $3M

Year 6 - $2M (he would be turning 37yo this year)

 

That comes out to $4.33M AAV.  However, the cap was significantly lower then ($73M)... so I'd probably knock off a bit more compared to where things were at this past year.

 

Given the idea that he would have gelled with the Sedins, I still would have hoped we'd sign him for $4.5M MAX considering what the upper cap limit was, his age, his production pattern, etc.

 

NO idea why we handed him a $6M x 6 deal.  That's brutal when you actually look at the facts and figures around it.  Even without 20/20 hindsight.

 

With Debrusk, the nice thing is he has been a very consistent 40ish point forward for his entire career.  That's basically his floor as he is just now starting to hit his prime.  He's 27yo.  Not 31yo.  His ice time was only 16:50 ATOI last year.  Realistic to expect his production to be higher with more TOI.  Especially consistent top 6 time. 

 

Not worried at all here about a Loui Eriksson repeat.  There were so many things going against LE that I don't even know why the Canucks signed him for the cap and term that they did.

[Bure_Pavel]

I think the Canucks are done with signing FA's, will be a trade if anything. Opening night roster (22 man) with no LTIR used:

 

Hoglander - Petey - Debrusk

Heinen - Miller - Boeser

Joshua - Blueger - Garland

Podz - Suter - Sherwood

Aman

 

Hughes - Hronek

Soucy - Myers

Forbort - Desharnais

Juulsen

 

Demko

Silovs ($1.79 million available to sign him before entering LTIR pool) if Silovs signes for 1.0 million or they start the season with Tolopilo as backup they can run a 23 man roster and not waive PDG. I believe we want to be as close to the cap without going into the season in LTIR to get max benefit from it.  

 

Waivers: PDG and Friedman (only waiver exempt player in roster above is Silovs)

 

Wildcards: Bains, Karlsson, and McWard (all waiver exempt though so will be uphill battle)

 

Edited July 3 by Bure_Pavel

[PureQuickness]

7 hours ago, HKSR said:

Looking back on it, Loui Eriksson wasn't a terrible signing... even at the time.  Look at it this way...

 

He signed July 1, 2016.  He was 2 weeks from his 31st birthday.  A 6 year deal brings him to 37yo.

 

We signed him for $6M after his contract year season of 30 goals and 63 points.  The 3 years leading up to that season he was consistently a 45 to 50 point player.  His best years were in Dallas which was 5 years prior to this. 

 

If I were doing my salary projections back then, I probably would have had his value per year as something like:

 

Year 1 - $6M

Year 2 - $6M

Year 3 - $5M

Year 4 - $4M

Year 5 - $3M

Year 6 - $2M (he would be turning 37yo this year)

 

That comes out to $4.33M AAV.  However, the cap was significantly lower then ($73M)... so I'd probably knock off a bit more compared to where things were at this past year.

 

Given the idea that he would have gelled with the Sedins, I still would have hoped we'd sign him for $4.5M MAX considering what the upper cap limit was, his age, his production pattern, etc.

 

NO idea why we handed him a $6M x 6 deal.  That's brutal when you actually look at the facts and figures around it.  Even without 20/20 hindsight.

 

With Debrusk, the nice thing is he has been a very consistent 40ish point forward for his entire career.  That's basically his floor as he is just now starting to hit his prime.  He's 27yo.  Not 31yo.  His ice time was only 16:50 ATOI last year.  Realistic to expect his production to be higher with more TOI.  Especially consistent top 6 time. 

 

Not worried at all here about a Loui Eriksson repeat.  There were so many things going against LE that I don't even know why the Canucks signed him for the cap and term that they did.

 

Hindsight is always 20/20, so it's easy for anyone to make a statement like the bolded. On paper, Eriksson was a phenomenal player. THREE 30+ goal seasons with different teams. He was slow(er), but he clearly had proven that he had the hands. Add to the fact that Eriksson had previously played with the Sedins. It SHOULD HAVE been a match made in heaven.

 

Yet he was NOT the only UFA player with a 6 X 6 deal. In fact:

 

 

There was also the James Neal deal - 5 years = 5.75.  In short, singling out Eriksson is TOTALLY unfair because all of these above signings were terrible in hindsight.

 

List borrowed from: https://thewincolumn.ca/2019/06/24/a-ufa-cautionary-tale-the-2016-free-agent-class-is-nightmare-fuel/

 

As for the second bolded, you could argue the same thing about Debrusk - disgruntled player and there's some red flags about him being "lazy". Boston didn't even want him back and let him walk.

 

 

[HKSR]

11 minutes ago, PureQuickness said:

 

Hindsight is always 20/20, so it's easy for anyone to make a statement like the bolded. On paper, Eriksson was a phenomenal player. THREE 30+ goal seasons with different teams. He was slow(er), but he clearly had proven that he had the hands. Add to the fact that Eriksson had previously played with the Sedins. It SHOULD HAVE been a match made in heaven.

 

Yet he was NOT the only UFA player with a 6 X 6 deal. In fact:

 

 

There was also the James Neal deal - 5 years = 5.75.  In short, singling out Eriksson is TOTALLY unfair because all of these above signings were terrible in hindsight.

 

List borrowed from: https://thewincolumn.ca/2019/06/24/a-ufa-cautionary-tale-the-2016-free-agent-class-is-nightmare-fuel/

 

As for the second bolded, you could argue the same thing about Debrusk - disgruntled player and there's some red flags about him being "lazy". Boston didn't even want him back and let him walk.

 

 

Like I said, 20/20 hindsight aside, I wasn't as deep into analyzing value based on stats and performance patterns back then.  But what I can say now is that if a player had a performance pattern like LE today, I would be pretty skeptical about the Canucks signing said player for $6M AAV.  Looking back, I can understand why Lucic was paid big bucks, it was his strength and intimidation factor, no different than Zadorov today.  Okposo was coming off 3 straight seasons where he was scoring on a 60+ point pace, so that makes sense to me.  

 

LE had a 37pt season, then a 47pt season, then ticked up to 63 points in a contract year.  That should have been a red flag right there.  I would have looked at the 63 point season as an outlier given his age.  That's just me.

 

Put another way... $6M back then with the upper cap limit at $73.5M is equivalent to $7.2M in today's $88M cap world.  Would you have paid $7.2M for a 63pt scorer that had a 37 and 47 point season prior?  And also was about 31yo?

Edited July 4 by HKSR