Canucks Contracts

[theman]

Great analysis their Saint. I love this contact, now will give Benning a B+ for the off-season. He gets an A if he moves Eriksson without giving up a major asset to do it.

[Mickey107]

(3) When Boeser comes due for the next contract, he will be 25 and the next contract will cover only prime plus years. If he excels, he's going to be in a great spot. So will the Canucks -- by re-signing a star or by trading one.

Why would the Canucks be in a good spot trading a star player? (Or did you mean, having to trade one). No room available.

My guess is Boeser's next deal will be in the neighbourhood of or close to, 8.5 million per year. Maybe even more.

Looks nice now though. To most.

[Cousin Strawberry]

If we get into a position where we have to choose to move one of our big 3 contracts it'll be Boeser thats expendable before Hughes or Pettersson. 1st line centers and franchise dmen are always kept over scoring type wingers

[Mickey107]

If we get into a position where we have to choose to move one of our big 3 contracts it'll be Boeser thats expendable before Hughes or Pettersson. 1st line centers and franchise dmen are always kept over scoring type wingers

I see I don't belong here now.
That is bullshit.
What if Pettersson can't find the chemistry with anyone else, or at least not to the same degree.
Hughes looked great in a small sample size at the end of last year. I hope his entire game, (as a defense man), is of great value to the team.
W/E
I'm the only one that thinks locking this guy up long term was a better plan.

[ESQ]

I'm the only one that thinks locking this guy up long term was a better plan.

I don't think so, but you're possibly the only one who thinks it's "bad" to have him signed to a bridge.

I think a long-term deal would have been near $10 mil - buying ufa years is expensive, and as much as I love Brock, with his injuries I needed to see more from him before committing to that kind of money (see: Nylander).

Worst case scenario, Brock achieves his potential and we have to pay him a ton of money. That's not a lot of downside, versus being locked in at huge money and term up a 22 year old with a wonky back and wrist.

[Mickey107]

I think a long-term deal would have been near $10 mil - buying ufa years is expensive, and as much as I love Brock, with his injuries I needed to see more from him before committing to that kind of money (see: Nylander).

LOL> Wasn't close to that. As soon as the interview with Hankinson is available, I'll try and put it up.

Brock is not Nylander. Very different personality and has "far better" leadership qualities. Or am I wrong about that too?

[Cousin Strawberry]

If we get into a position where we have to choose to move one of our big 3 contracts it'll be Boeser thats expendable before Hughes or Pettersson. 1st line centers and franchise dmen are always kept over scoring type wingers

I see I don't belong here now.
That is bullshit.
What if Pettersson can't find the chemistry with anyone else, or at least not to the same degree.
Hughes looked great in a small sample size at the end of last year. I hope his entire game, (as a defense man), is of great value to the team.
W/E
I'm the only one that thinks locking this guy up long term was a better plan.

Whats the deal Mick? Why all the drama?

[Mickey107]

Boeser's agent Ben Hankinson on radio TSN 1040am this morning.

https://www.tsn.ca/radio/vancouver-1040 ... -1.1366968

Note; There is an even more in depth one from Sportsnet 650am radio, but it's not available yet.

[UWSaint]

(3) When Boeser comes due for the next contract, he will be 25 and the next contract will cover only prime plus years. If he excels, he's going to be in a great spot. So will the Canucks -- by re-signing a star or by trading one.

Why would the Canucks be in a good spot trading a star player? (Or did you mean, having to trade one). No room available.

My guess is Boeser's next deal will be in the neighbourhood of or close to, 8.5 million per year. Maybe even more.

Looks nice now though. To most.

I wouldn't say there is no room available after 3 years. I was just commenting on the value of options. Because the bottom line is there is a limit to how many core players a team can have post-ELC deals. So if the Canucks are there (or if this core flames out), there is a real asset to trade (2 yrs. on RFA qualifier of 7.5M) that will bring back a strong return. In my view, that's better than a scenario where the guy has three more years left on an AAV of $7.5 or $8 (if Brock's deal was 6 years and those figures).

Look, by signing Boeser to a short deal, the Canucks do not pre-commit to him as part of the post-expansion-draft we-live-or-die-on-this-hill core. It allows them to make Petey the core of the core (which he should be unless he regresses due to severe injury or bad lifestyle choices) -- the first to sign a deal that carries into the late 2020s. And when it time to ink that Petey deal, there is no salary cap constraint in terms of other deals that go well into the 2020s. And Boeser is evaluated and then salaried to fit into Pettersson, not the other way around.

[Mickey107]

It allows them to make Petey the core of the core (which he should be unless he regresses due to severe injury or bad lifestyle choices) -- the first to sign a deal that carries into the late 2020s. And when it time to ink that Petey deal, there is no salary cap constraint in terms of other deals that go well into the 2020s. And Boeser is evaluated and then salaried to fit into Pettersson, not the other way around.

So "your favorite player is Pettersson?....

[Blob Mckenzie]

(3) When Boeser comes due for the next contract, he will be 25 and the next contract will cover only prime plus years. If he excels, he's going to be in a great spot. So will the Canucks -- by re-signing a star or by trading one.

Why would the Canucks be in a good spot trading a star player? (Or did you mean, having to trade one). No room available.

My guess is Boeser's next deal will be in the neighbourhood of or close to, 8.5 million per year. Maybe even more.

Looks nice now though. To most.

I wouldn't say there is no room available after 3 years. I was just commenting on the value of options. Because the bottom line is there is a limit to how many core players a team can have post-ELC deals. So if the Canucks are there (or if this core flames out), there is a real asset to trade (2 yrs. on RFA qualifier of 7.5M) that will bring back a strong return. In my view, that's better than a scenario where the guy has three more years left on an AAV of $7.5 or $8 (if Brock's deal was 6 years and those figures).

Look, by signing Boeser to a short deal, the Canucks do not pre-commit to him as part of the post-expansion-draft we-live-or-die-on-this-hill core. It allows them to make Petey the core of the core (which he should be unless he regresses due to severe injury or bad lifestyle choices) -- the first to sign a deal that carries into the late 2020s. And when it time to ink that Petey deal, there is no salary cap constraint in terms of other deals that go well into the 2020s. And Boeser is evaluated and then salaried to fit into Pettersson, not the other way around.

My thoughts exactly UW. It’s a good deal for both parties. Some have difficulty grasping this. If Boeser shoots the lights out they will find a way to look after him.

[Mickey107]

Jim Benning on the impact of signing Brock Boeser.

https://www.sportsnet.ca/650/vancouver- ... ck-boeser/

still waiting on the Hankinson talk.

[Mickey107]

My thoughts exactly UW. It’s a good deal for both parties. Some have difficulty grasping this. If Boeser shoots the lights out they will find a way to look after him.

Promise?

[Madcombinepilot]

My thoughts exactly UW. It’s a good deal for both parties. Some have difficulty grasping this. If Boeser shoots the lights out they will find a way to look after him.

Promise?

jesus Mick.. you need to rub one out or something to relax... You are WAY to worked up about shit!!

[Mickey107]

jesus Mick.. you need to rub one out or something to relax... You are WAY to worked up about shit!!

I'll be fine. This isn't even close to being worked up. But is it not aloud to have a different point of view on the length of a player's contract?