D with $2,500,000.00CrzyCanuck wrote: ↑Thu Jan 25, 2018 6:36 pm 1 year bonus-laden contract
D with 2.2 million
H with 3.3 million
H with $2,500,000.01
^Just as likely to happen.
Moderator: Referees
D with $2,500,000.00CrzyCanuck wrote: ↑Thu Jan 25, 2018 6:36 pm 1 year bonus-laden contract
D with 2.2 million
H with 3.3 million
I would stay away from the bonus-laden deals, or if they do include bonuses, then management should stick to an internal cap that includes them in their salary structure. The way this team spends to the cap, we'd likely be carrying overages into the next season.
Rebuilding teams should be nowhere near the cap ceiling. It’s asinineIsland Nucklehead wrote: ↑Fri Jan 26, 2018 8:54 amI would stay away from the bonus-laden deals, or if they do include bonuses, then management should stick to an internal cap that includes them in their salary structure. The way this team spends to the cap, we'd likely be carrying overages into the next season.
Rebuilding teams should not be in LTIR/cap penalty territory.
Tell us what ya really thinkUncle dans leg wrote: ↑Fri Jan 26, 2018 10:40 am Just let them walk. We suck royal sack with them in the line up so why bother...is that 8 points up on the bottom 2 teams worth anything whatsoever?
Lets get down in the dirty basement with buffalo and arizona and draft some fuckin defensemen for fuck sakes. Fuck
Why?Blob Mckenzie wrote: ↑Fri Jan 26, 2018 10:10 am Rebuilding teams should be nowhere near the cap ceiling. It’s asinine
Okay Cliff, here's a hint: Think about the numbers on their jerseys.Strangelove wrote: ↑Thu Jan 25, 2018 8:58 pmRonning's Ghost wrote: ↑Thu Jan 25, 2018 7:01 pmMore than likely, the contracts will have to be the same.CrzyCanuck wrote: ↑Thu Jan 25, 2018 6:36 pm 1 year bonus-laden contract
D with 2.2 million
H with 3.3 million
Think of it as paying Henrik less than he might otherwise get, rather than paying Daniel more.
WHOOSH
You need to develop a sense of humour like we "boring" folk there Cliffy.
Well there may be strategic value to putting yourself near the ceiling by acquiring crappy contracts from other teams for bonus assets, but that's not typically what the Canucks have done.Strangelove wrote: ↑Fri Jan 26, 2018 12:09 pmWhy?Blob Mckenzie wrote: ↑Fri Jan 26, 2018 10:10 am Rebuilding teams should be nowhere near the cap ceiling. It’s asinine
Why not saaaay... "overpay" excellent UFA mentors? (UFA players tend to be "overpaid")Island Nucklehead wrote: ↑Fri Jan 26, 2018 12:22 pmWell there may be strategic value to putting yourself near the ceiling by acquiring crappy contracts from other teams for bonus assets, but that's not typically what the Canucks have done.Strangelove wrote: ↑Fri Jan 26, 2018 12:09 pmWhy?Blob Mckenzie wrote: ↑Fri Jan 26, 2018 10:10 am Rebuilding teams should be nowhere near the cap ceiling. It’s asinine
Where in the sweet hell did you dig that up? His mentoring client reference is Nikita Poliakov - yeah, who???micky107 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 26, 2018 12:40 pm Maybe "Mentoring" should be looked at more along these lines.
http://www.jimthomsonsdreams.com/hockey ... g-program/
Quite honestly, the youth of today is so very different then even 10 years ago, and vastly different then 20.
To be a successful mentor there has to be some semblance of common ground and I just don't see that happening.
Not in the last 4 years.
Cap is an issue, but only in terms of term. If we are spending to the cap and have 5 or 6 guys with middling priced ($3M-$5M) contracts that are on 1 year deals then who cares. But if we start handing out a bunch of contracts in that range with term like Benning gave Eriksson, then cap becomes a problem.
That is the true value that those guys bring to the franchise beyond this season. I don't like their passive approach to in-game pushing and shoving, I don't like the idea of them teaching that to guys like Dahlen and Pettersson, however, what they bring to the rink every day of every season, and the way they show up for training camp, the off-ice stuff.....could you find two better mentors in the NHL today? I don't think so. Having them around on one year deals at $4M or less going forward is very much worth it. But the understanding has to be that trades and FA signings are not done with them in mind, and the gameplan has to change to fit the new players on the other 3 lines. But if they can play 3rd line minutes and still add 40 points each with mostly PP minutes.....definitely keep them as long as they want to be here.Aaronp18 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 26, 2018 1:36 pm And common ground? How about being professional hockey players, learning what it takes to succeed at the highest calibre level. I think having the Sedins around, showing younger players that despite their exceptional skill they are still two of the hardest working players in the league, is a far better mentoring option even for millennials.
Not sure a 52 year old former goon with 115 NHL games under his belt is someone we send Elias Pettersson to go see!
Aaaaaaaaaagain....the cap is not an issue with the Canucks with where they are at now and going forwardMëds wrote: ↑Fri Jan 26, 2018 1:54 pmCap is an issue, but only in terms of term. If we are spending to the cap and have 5 or 6 guys with middling priced ($3M-$5M) contracts that are on 1 year deals then who cares. But if we start handing out a bunch of contracts in that range with term like Benning gave Eriksson, then cap becomes a problem.