Sign Keane or not?

Free Torts
09-19-2003, 06:09 AM
Should we sign Mike Keane? (sorry to nuksforlife, I thought I'd make this into a poll, it's just easier)

nuksforlife
09-19-2003, 06:10 AM
Should we sign Mike Keane? (sorry to nuksforlife, I thought I'd make this into a poll, it's just easier)

thanks i was trying to do that but messed up

iceburg
09-19-2003, 06:13 AM
No, they shouldn't sign Keane IMO. Too many good prospects on the cusp that need NHL experience to improve. Mike Keane would be taking up an important roster spot.

Ironchef Chris Wok*
09-19-2003, 06:34 AM
On a few conditions:

1) He's the 14th forward. 40 games a year AT MOST.
2) Can it be a 2-way contract, or would it be an insult to a guy of his stature?

islandnucker
09-19-2003, 06:43 AM
In an interview that I seen on the Score it said that Keane would not accept a two-way contract at all. He feels that he can still play in the NHL and he would try with another team.

I said "yes" in the pole, here are my reasons:
-I don't think (this is my opinion) that another season in the AHL would hurt someone like Reid. I know that he looks ready but he is also only 21 or 22 maybe he can go down there and take what he learned from playing in the playoffs and develop some leadership down there? (sounds good to me)
-I don't think that Keane can play a full season. I think that with injuries a player like Reid would still see some time in the NHL, but that depends on if the team wants to have Reid ride the bus constantly between Manitoba and Vancouver.

As I was writing this though my mind started to change about signing Keane. Who knows what to do that's why they pay Brian Burke the big bucks to make these decisions, we get paid nothing so we just ***** ;)

incawg
09-19-2003, 06:44 AM
On a few conditions:

1) He's the 14th forward. 40 games a year AT MOST.
2) Can it be a 2-way contract, or would it be an insult to a guy of his stature?

I heard him interviewed and he said he would not accept a 2-way contract. I agree with condition 1 though and I'd change condition 2 to be a very low 1-way contract. If we could sign him to a contract's similar to Lindgren's, I think it would be a good pick up.

Connecticut
09-19-2003, 06:50 AM
I would consider signing him, but I would definitely not protect him in the waiver draft. If some other team wanted him, I would be willing to live with that loss and give the spot to Reid or Bouck.

iceburg
09-19-2003, 07:02 AM
I heard him interviewed and he said he would not accept a 2-way contract. I agree with condition 1 though and I'd change condition 2 to be a very low 1-way contract. If we could sign him to a contract's similar to Lindgren's, I think it would be a good pick up.

OK...judging by some of the responses, there is a piece missing to this question. That is, sign him at what cost? As you have already seen on this thread, Keane will not accept a two-way contract. He also won't accept the league minimum as contemplated in your response. This is a veteran player who has significant stature in the league...not Darren Langdon or Matt Johnson. It would be a complete insult not to offer Keane a reasonable contract based on his enormous experience (I say "reasonable" but only in the context of professional sports....no salary >$400,000 is really reasonable). It is for these reasons that the Canucks shouldn't sign Keane. If he commands >$1m then they should use this money along with a couple of other salaries (or prospects) to trade for a significant upgrade on the second line not on the fourth line.

incawg
09-19-2003, 07:08 AM
It would be a complete insult not to offer Keane a reasonable contract based on his enormous experience (I say "reasonable" but only in the context of professional sports....no salary >$400,000 is really reasonable).

So what is reasonable? Is there a precedent for a guy his age that will be playing 4th line spot duty and is on a tryout contract? The demand for him is very low. Lindgren is the closest that I could come up with, but he doesn't have the experience that Keane does. I would definitely not sign Keane to a contract of over a million. I'd hope for something in the 600-800k range, but I'm just guessing. Perhaps a very low contract with performance bonuses.

Peter Griffin
09-19-2003, 07:20 AM
Yes, as long as he is signed to be a depth guy and not a regular in the line-up.

iceburg
09-19-2003, 07:28 AM
So what is reasonable? Is there a precedent for a guy his age that will be playing 4th line spot duty and is on a tryout contract? The demand for him is very low. Lindgren is the closest that I could come up with, but he doesn't have the experience that Keane does. I would definitely not sign Keane to a contract of over a million. I'd hope for something in the 600-800k range, but I'm just guessing. Perhaps a very low contract with performance bonuses.

I agree...don't sign him for over $1m and I don't think he's worth >$800K at this point. I also don't think he would agree to sign for under $800K given his experience. Conculsion=don't sign him.
Of course, it really doesn't matter what I think. I'll put my GM duties aside and go to my day job.

Connecticut
09-19-2003, 07:34 AM
I agree...don't sign him for over $1m and I don't think he's worth >$800K at this point. I also don't think he would agree to sign for under $800K given his experience. Conculsion=don't sign him.
Of course, it really doesn't matter what I think. I'll put my GM duties aside and go to my day job.

There have actually been a few players recently, Kirk Muller comes to mind, that have signed contracts around 500k that have been pretty much in Keane's position - lots of experience but on the downside of a career, contributing as a 12-14th forward.

canucksfan
09-19-2003, 07:42 AM
Yes sign him but he has to have a good pre-season and he has to be the 13th forward Langdon being the 14th forward.

Peter
09-19-2003, 08:15 AM
Yes sign him but he has to have a good pre-season and he has to be the 13th forward Langdon being the 14th forward.

Sorry guys but I have to giggle here...aren't you all the same bunch of guys and girls (that's for you Jewellry) that were carrying the pitchforks and torches to run "old" Murrary Baron out of t own?

Baron brings leadership, playoff experience and skill but you guys wanted him out because he was too old and too slow and terrible defensively (which I question anyways).

Now, the same crew here wants to sign Mike Keane who is "old, slow and terrible defensively" all because he brings leadership and playoff experience. My goodness...he was run out of town by the Avs. Couldn't find anywhere to play. Had to come to our camp on a try-out contraact. Yikes!! And this is the guy you want???

canucksfan
09-19-2003, 08:46 AM
Sorry guys but I have to giggle here...aren't you all the same bunch of guys and girls (that's for you Jewellry) that were carrying the pitchforks and torches to run "old" Murrary Baron out of t own?

Baron brings leadership, playoff experience and skill but you guys wanted him out because he was too old and too slow and terrible defensively (which I question anyways).

Now, the same crew here wants to sign Mike Keane who is "old, slow and terrible defensively" all because he brings leadership and playoff experience. My goodness...he was run out of town by the Avs. Couldn't find anywhere to play. Had to come to our camp on a try-out contraact. Yikes!! And this is the guy you want???
I am saying that if he is good enough to play sign him if he isn't we don't sign him. Keane has 3 more Stanley Cups than Baron does and he a lot more playoff games under his belt too.

hackey
09-19-2003, 08:57 AM
Can't Burke sign Keane after the waiver draft? That way he wouldn't have to protect him and the all 30 teams had all summer to sign him so why would they now?

There has to be some type of trade brewin because of the glut of forwards and defenceman. Trading activity however declines before the waiver draft because teams can pick up players via that route.

Can trade Sopel, Allen, Ruutu, Chubarov, Lindgren, May

Peter Griffin
09-19-2003, 09:04 AM
Sorry guys but I have to giggle here...aren't you all the same bunch of guys and girls (that's for you Jewellry) that were carrying the pitchforks and torches to run "old" Murrary Baron out of t own?

Baron brings leadership, playoff experience and skill but you guys wanted him out because he was too old and too slow and terrible defensively (which I question anyways).

Now, the same crew here wants to sign Mike Keane who is "old, slow and terrible defensively" all because he brings leadership and playoff experience. My goodness...he was run out of town by the Avs. Couldn't find anywhere to play. Had to come to our camp on a try-out contraact. Yikes!! And this is the guy you want???

You're forgot to mention that Baron was asking for more than $1 mil, doesn't have as much experience as Keane(0 cups), and Baron would be playing a bigger role on the the team than Keane, something that most posters didn't want to see. Nobody here wants to see Keane sign for $1 mil and play as a regular in the line-up like Baron would've. But signing Keane for around $600,000-800,000, to play as the 13th/14th forward to provide leadership and depth is a different story.

canucksfan
09-19-2003, 11:07 AM
Signing Keane would be a waste of a roster spot. He's old, slow, and would get you about 7 points. Why do we need another offensively challenged winger? We already got May, Lindgren, Langdon, and Ruutu battling for 4th line spots. None of these guys can or will play on any other line. Give the job to Bouck if you are looking for a fourth line part time player.
Keane would be the 13th forward. I would rather Bouck play 80 games in the minors than 30-40 games and watching from the pressbox.

maruk14
09-19-2003, 11:28 AM
I don't think signing Keane would be the right move. First, I think that roster spot should go to whoever is impressing with the Moose, similar to last year when they rotated up King, Reid, etc. Second, he may impress in Camp, but he is old and was not good at all last year. Can he keep that pace up for an entire season. He may be scratched a lot, but he was last year for the Avs too and he still didn't play well. I think it is time to get some of the young guys some real NHL experience, and other than leadership Keane brings nothing to the table. This team has enough leadership, IMO.

orcatown
09-19-2003, 11:56 AM
Poll is premature. Need to look at him through out the pre-season. This may be one tough call.

Comparing him to Baron is comparing apples and oranges. They have different roles as Peter G. points out. Also if Baron had wanted to come here on a try-out basis, and prove his worth, I'm sure Canuck fans would have totally accepted that.

DiggerDan
09-19-2003, 02:29 PM
I must say I'm torn on this one.. :dunno:

It would be great to have a guy like Keane in the dressing room for obvious reasons; The fact that we have noone with REAL Stanley cup experience(IMO Morrison and Slegr are write-offs) I feel is a big minus for our team.

On the other hand, with our prospect depth finally getting to NHL calibre it would be nice to have at least one open spot in the top 14 for them to fight for.

......I'll have to wait and see, maybe my mind will be made up after a few more exhibition games. :)

cyrisweb
09-19-2003, 02:50 PM
A guy like Keane is important for a cup run. The small things add up eventually. If he can skate as well as Ruutu for the most part then I'd have to say sign him. But that will pretty much spell the end of Ruutu in Vancouver.

canucksfan
09-19-2003, 02:54 PM
A guy like Keane is important for a cup run. The small things add up eventually. If he can skate as well as Ruutu for the most part then I'd have to say sign him. But that will pretty much spell the end of Ruutu in Vancouver.
I don't see how siging Keane, makes Ruutu leave. Keane will be used as the 13th forward. Ruutu will play on the fourth line.

Waveburner
09-19-2003, 03:42 PM
I'll wait til the end of the preseason to decide...
It also depends how much he is willing to sign for...

Mr. Canucklehead
09-19-2003, 03:48 PM
I think the intangibles that Keane brings would be very valuable to this team. To a team that just lost two veteran leaders in Trent Klatt and Murray Baron, signing Mike Keane would be somewhat of a Godsend. Three Stanley Cups, over 1000 games. He wouldn't play a full time roll, likely, but if we signed him to a similar deal to what Lindgren received last year, I would be more than happy to see him as a 13th/14th forward. His experience could pay off in huge abundance to the young Canucks.

~Canucklehead~

VC
09-19-2003, 04:20 PM
I voted yes.

The combo of Lindgren and May will leave plenty of room for the 13th forward to get game time in. I'd rather have an NHL vet who knows his role and ready to step and lead the way then struggle with a rookie. I'm not anti-rookie but damnit, I want to win big time this season. If Keane helps that cause, I'm all for it.

Sorry guys but I have to giggle here...aren't you all the same bunch of guys and girls (that's for you Jewellry) that were carrying the pitchforks and torches to run "old" Murrary Baron out of t own?

Baron brings leadership, playoff experience and skill but you guys wanted him out because he was too old and too slow and terrible defensively (which I question anyways).

Now, the same crew here wants to sign Mike Keane who is "old, slow and terrible defensively" all because he brings leadership and playoff experience. My goodness...he was run out of town by the Avs. Couldn't find anywhere to play. Had to come to our camp on a try-out contraact. Yikes!! And this is the guy you want???

I think there is a big difference. Baron was in the regular rotation of six defensemen, given more ice time and responsibility that Keane could see with this team. Leadership is needed when used in the right role. With the speed of the Western Conference, the team can ill afford to use a slow-foot defensemen but can have a slow winger playing 6-9 minutes a game, if that slow winger works hard enough to inspire others.

Jon Burke
09-19-2003, 07:18 PM
Yes. Sign him. He'd be a great addition. Has a couple Cup rings, brings leadership, grit and experience and can kill penalties. In a limited role, he could be a very useful player.