HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Vancouver Canucks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Canucks sign Aaron Rome

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-01-2009, 04:28 PM
  #76
Oblivion
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,631
vCash: 500
So they miss out on Boumeester, then Niedermeyer, so they sign Rome...

In all seriousness, this is just Davison's replacement. We've seen Vancouver hand out 1 way deals in the past to marginal (like Jason Krog) NHL players in to keep Manitoba as one of the best AHL squads. Likely he'll be an injury replacement 7th defenseman.

Oblivion is offline  
Old
07-01-2009, 04:29 PM
  #77
TheCanuckInOttawa
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Ottawa
Country: South Korea
Posts: 552
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernie View Post
What's obvious is that they don't want to sign for long terms.

For all we know, they did sign the Sedins to front loaded contracts.
Is there a link for that?
I'll be surprised that they are getting paid $6.1M even with the front loaded contract.

TheCanuckInOttawa is offline  
Old
07-01-2009, 04:30 PM
  #78
pitseleh
Registered User
 
pitseleh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,644
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by orcatown View Post
Spend some time looking at the cap situation and you will see every buck is critical and should be treated at such. Saying tossing around over half a mill. here and there is a non-consideration is idiocy.
If Rome is on the roster, it's because he's taking the place of another player who makes at least $500,000. He's not wasting half a million dollars against the cap. You have to factor in replacement costs.

pitseleh is offline  
Old
07-01-2009, 04:37 PM
  #79
Slashy McSlewfoot
Registered User
 
Slashy McSlewfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,017
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by orcatown View Post
Spend some time looking at the cap situation and you will see every buck is critical and should be treated at such. Saying tossing around over half a mill. here and there is a non-consideration is idiocy.

We need to solidify this defense with legit NHL defensmen before we give a 1 way deal to 7th type players.

This dopey support for the idea of throwing away half a mill. on basically an AHL player while we are still needing a bona vide NHL player indicates the willingness of Canuck fans to justify any moves made by the team.

People should have a least have the critical facilities to criticize when criticism is obviously justified.
Do salaries of players playing in the AHL count against the cap? Seriously - I don't know. I am ignorant when it comes to CBA stuff.

If so, then what he makes is irrelevant to the cap if he is in the minors.

If not then who cares because EVERY TEAM in the league needs depth guys making the league minimum on the NHL roster. Davison is leaving, Rome is taking his place. The team hasn't added more salary. Why is this difficult to understand?

Slashy McSlewfoot is offline  
Old
07-01-2009, 04:39 PM
  #80
pitseleh
Registered User
 
pitseleh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,644
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judas View Post
Do salaries of players playing in the AHL count against the cap? Seriously - I don't know. I am ignorant when it comes to CBA stuff.
In most cases no. Only players signed to NHL contracts over 35 count in the minors.

pitseleh is offline  
Old
07-01-2009, 04:40 PM
  #81
pdefenestrator
Registered User
 
pdefenestrator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Fayetteville, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 540
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by pitseleh View Post
If Rome is on the roster, it's because he's taking the place of another player who makes at least $500,000. He's not wasting half a million dollars against the cap. You have to factor in replacement costs.
Agreed. Signing Rome has all the trappings of being a predecessor to a big signing. If Gillis can find 2 depth guys for about 525k each, which would include Rome and a backup goalie, then he'll be left with around 9 million to get a 5th dman, 6th dman, 2nd line forward, 3rd/4th line forward, and 13th forward for an average of about 1.8m per spot. Wellwood, Hansen, and Obrien are probably 3 of those guys and should be able to be signed for about 3.5M total, so that leaves 5.5M for a 6th defensman and a 2nd line forward.

Seems reasonable to me, anyhow.

pdefenestrator is offline  
Old
07-01-2009, 04:43 PM
  #82
Slashy McSlewfoot
Registered User
 
Slashy McSlewfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,017
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pitseleh View Post
In most cases no. Only players signed to NHL contracts over 35 count in the minors.
Ahh OK, thanks. So Rome either is the teams 7th/8th dman at the league minimum, or he is in the minors at no cap cost. Isn't this standard?

Slashy McSlewfoot is offline  
Old
07-01-2009, 04:54 PM
  #83
pdefenestrator
Registered User
 
pdefenestrator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Fayetteville, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 540
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judas View Post
Ahh OK, thanks. So Rome either is the teams 7th/8th dman at the league minimum, or he is in the minors at no cap cost. Isn't this standard?
It is probably done often enough to be considered standard, but it isn't seen as ideal (by some people around here, anyhow), because the contract is stipulated to be a one-way (Rome gets paid 525k whether he is playing in Vancouver or in Manitoba) contract rather than a two-way (Rome gets paid 525k when in Vancouver and some lesser amount (probably around 75k) when playing in Manitoba).

Either way, the cap implications are identical. The only difference is how much Aquilini is paying Rome for his services should he be in Manitoba. Theoretically, if Rome is making 525k instead of 75k in Manitoba, then one might see that as 450k Gillis can't spend on other players. This is a fairly shortsighted view, however. Rome likely would have commanded a higher salary on a two way contract--he'd have gotten (say) 800k in Vancouver, 80k in Manitoba rather than a flat 525k. It's simply a form of insurance or a bet. Vancouver is betting that Rome will spend quite a bit of time in the big club, Rome is worried that he'll freeze to death in Winnipeg making only 80k, so they strike a deal where Vancouver trades it's upside risk for downside risk (they pay a flat fee, regardless of if Rome is good or bad--if Rome is good, they win, if Rome is bad, they lose), and Rome gives up some of his upside income to be protected against downside risk.

pdefenestrator is offline  
Old
07-01-2009, 06:58 PM
  #84
Bruce Wayne*
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 270
vCash: 500
Plan the parade?








not trolling, sorry if it offends some people. It's a joke.

Bruce Wayne* is offline  
Old
07-01-2009, 09:21 PM
  #85
cbjgirl
Just thinking
 
cbjgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: about last summer.
Country: United States
Posts: 3,235
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by victoriacanucker View Post
When you have trouble getting playing time on a weak Columbus defence, doesn't sound good to me.

We'll see what he does this year with his 15-20 games.
Hey now... no cracking on our defense

But seriously, here was the situation in Columbus last year when everyone was healthy:

Hejda - Commodore (defensive d-man / defensive d-man)
Tyutin - Klesla (2-way d-man sort of / defensive d-man)
Russell - Tollefsen or Methot (offensive d-man / defensive d-man)

with Backman (salary dump hoped to be an offensive d-man - yea that didn't work out) and either Tollefsen or Methot in the press box

There was no room for Rome. As is, Backman won't be resigned and Tollefsen was let go. Jackets hope to swing a trade to get another offensive d-man for a forward or forwards.

cbjgirl is offline  
Old
07-01-2009, 10:13 PM
  #86
MS
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 12,190
vCash: 500
Davison's replacement.

I haven't seen Rome play much since his WHL days, where he was a good player, solid all-around guy without any huge strengths or glaring weaknesses.

And because I haven't seen him play much, I really can't comment too much on whether this is a good or a poor move. I trust Gillis/Mellanby and the pro scouting they've done to this point.

Obviously the team feels there's a bit more upside in a young-ish guy like Rome as the #7 defender (who could turn out to be more than that) than in having a guy who's pretty well proven to be nothing more than a #7 defender in Davison.

Will see how he looks in camp. If he stinks, we know ownership has been willing to eat contracts like this in the AHL, so not much risk of negatively affecting the NHL club.

MS is online now  
Old
07-01-2009, 10:25 PM
  #87
pitseleh
Registered User
 
pitseleh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,644
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MS View Post
Obviously the team feels there's a bit more upside in a young-ish guy like Rome as the #7 defender (who could turn out to be more than that) than in having a guy who's pretty well proven to be nothing more than a #7 defender in Davison.
Apparently the Canucks wanted to bring Davison back but he wanted to test free agency to see if he could get more playing time elsewhere.

Quote:
Will see how he looks in camp. If he stinks, we know ownership has been willing to eat contracts like this in the AHL, so not much risk of negatively affecting the NHL club.
I think you might see the team carry two depth defenders on the roster again too (so Rome might be the #8 guy). At this point, they don't have any quality defenders playing on the Moose who can go up and down without passing through waivers. Forward won't be nearly as big of a problem with possibly Grabner, Shirokov, Bolduc, Bliznak, Labrie, etc.

pitseleh is offline  
Old
07-01-2009, 10:37 PM
  #88
alternate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: victoria
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,901
vCash: 500
seems like a decent addition as far as organizational depth is concerned. sounds like he plays a physical game and has pretty good mobility. also put up .38 ppg in over 300 AHL games, so he's not a complete plug.

one stat that does concern me though: his 666 career AHL penalty minutes.

alternate is offline  
Old
07-01-2009, 10:41 PM
  #89
David Booth Fan
Registered User
 
David Booth Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,657
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to David Booth Fan
thank god theres still cap room after the sedins to sign this guy

David Booth Fan is offline  
Old
07-01-2009, 10:51 PM
  #90
Tripwyre
Registered User
 
Tripwyre's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,076
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kataklysm666 View Post
thank god theres still cap room after the sedins to sign this guy
Thank God the season doesn't start tomorrow.

Tripwyre is offline  
Old
07-01-2009, 11:08 PM
  #91
orcatown
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,591
vCash: 500
Makes no sense bringing in a player as 7th or 8th defenseman who you intend to send to the minors if he can't directly make the team.

If you have injuries and need him he will have to go thru re-entry waivers and could well be lost with the Canucks picking up half the salary. This player is suppose to be a player you can fall back on in a pinch and how can you rely on having him if he has to go thru re-entry waivers.

This was the situation with Nycholat all last year and why the Canucks had to carry him. They needed the insurance. You don't have that insurance if you are relying on sending the player the minors.

No one brings in someone with this intent on a one way contract. Rome is here and will be here throughout the season (just like Davison last year). They will not risk sending him to the minors.

Rome is a proto-typical minor leaguer. Fairly tough and decent in his own end. But he has very poor mobility and gets burned by NHL speed. Has zero offensive upside. Very comparable with Davison but probably not as tough.

Remember when it looked like the Canucks were going, maybe, to play Columbus and how when we looked thru the lineup we recognized we could exploit Rome. Teams will look to get Rome in a match up were they can take advantage of him

What the signing means is the Canucks are looking to replace Davison and have pretty much have given up on McIver.

orcatown is offline  
Old
07-01-2009, 11:11 PM
  #92
pitseleh
Registered User
 
pitseleh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,644
vCash: 500
Rome doesn't need to pass through re-entry waivers. He's an AHL veteran.

He has to go through normal waivers on the way down but there's absolutely no risk there - if he's claimed then so be it. That's going to be the case for every single defenseman the Canucks sign as a UFA to be a depth player.

pitseleh is offline  
Old
07-01-2009, 11:13 PM
  #93
Tripwyre
Registered User
 
Tripwyre's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,076
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by orcatown View Post
Remember when it looked like the Canucks were going, maybe, to play Columbus and how when we looked thru the lineup we recognized we could exploit Rome. Teams will look to get Rome in a match up were they can take advantage of him
How do you exploit a player who never plays?

Tripwyre is offline  
Old
07-02-2009, 12:57 AM
  #94
orcatown
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,591
vCash: 500
If that's true, pitseleh, then the argument saying the Canucks have some flexibility in moving Rome up and down gains validity and my bad for not knowing Rome's exact status . But I still believe they gave him the one way with the full intent of having him here. I don't think you bring in a person as insurance, on a one way contract, that you intend to expose to waivers or even think you will have to expose to waivers.

The Canucks have made a calculated gamble that a career minor leaguer (who did show promise during his WHL days) will be an adequate insurance type player. If he is so poor that the Canucks don't care that they lose him on waivers, then they have lost this gamble. And that is no small gamble to lose since the Canucks have little in the minors that can adequately step in and play. Given the probability (some would say certainty) of injury to the defense you need adequate players to fill the gap. The Canucks must see him as this and not someone they are taking a flyer on and who they don't mind losing on waivers.

Moreover, the argument that the Canucks would just eat his salary makes little sense unless the Canucks have other options than Rome. They don't and will, in all probability, not have. Rome is taking up a certain portion of the cap and the Canucks are very unlikely to go out and grant a one way contract to some other Rome type player. Maybe, if he proves really bad they can make a trade or get someone off waivers. But they are just as unlikely to get nothing out of this than they are to get anything adequate. Plus if they have to trade they lose something in the process.

As far as playing - Rome played down the stretch and some in the playoffs. He was surprising half decent and that's probably the reason the Canucks picked him up.

orcatown is offline  
Old
07-02-2009, 01:05 AM
  #95
orcatown
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,591
vCash: 500
Strange that Hockey Buzz has Rome listed as a minor Leaguer

http://www.hockeybuzz.com/cap-central/team.php?team=VAN

orcatown is offline  
Old
07-02-2009, 03:04 PM
  #96
ChemicalHansen
Registered User
 
ChemicalHansen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,971
vCash: 500
Send a message via Skype™ to ChemicalHansen
Quote:
Originally Posted by orcatown View Post
If that's true, pitseleh, then the argument saying the Canucks have some flexibility in moving Rome up and down gains validity and my bad for not knowing Rome's exact status . But I still believe they gave him the one way with the full intent of having him here. I don't think you bring in a person as insurance, on a one way contract, that you intend to expose to waivers or even think you will have to expose to waivers.

The Canucks have made a calculated gamble that a career minor leaguer (who did show promise during his WHL days) will be an adequate insurance type player. If he is so poor that the Canucks don't care that they lose him on waivers, then they have lost this gamble. And that is no small gamble to lose since the Canucks have little in the minors that can adequately step in and play. Given the probability (some would say certainty) of injury to the defense you need adequate players to fill the gap. The Canucks must see him as this and not someone they are taking a flyer on and who they don't mind losing on waivers.

Moreover, the argument that the Canucks would just eat his salary makes little sense unless the Canucks have other options than Rome. They don't and will, in all probability, not have. Rome is taking up a certain portion of the cap and the Canucks are very unlikely to go out and grant a one way contract to some other Rome type player. Maybe, if he proves really bad they can make a trade or get someone off waivers. But they are just as unlikely to get nothing out of this than they are to get anything adequate. Plus if they have to trade they lose something in the process.

As far as playing - Rome played down the stretch and some in the playoffs. He was surprising half decent and that's probably the reason the Canucks picked him up.
It seems their hope is that Rome "competes for a place on [the] team":

Gillis on Rome (starts at 3:40)

They were attracted by his play down the stretch last year. Obviously.

BTW, here's a positive to Free Agency for us Canucks' fans -- Gillis actually answers questions without generalizing it at the end (double-talk in business).

Some notable quotes:
Quote:
We had [the Sedins] classified as the top-2 free agents available.
* at his use of partner in his following answer.

Quote:
We've had some discussions with [Luongo's] agent [...] there isn't a lot of pressure to do that [...] We're going to revisit that at the end of the week.
Quote:
We've got some good ideas we're working on that we've had in our plans all along.
Quote:
I don't [-- I DON'T--] want to trade players. But there are draft pick trade possibilities.
Let speculation commence.


Last edited by ChemicalHansen: 07-02-2009 at 03:12 PM.
ChemicalHansen is offline  
Old
07-02-2009, 03:10 PM
  #97
Mr. Canucklehead
Mod Supervisor
Kitimat Canuck
 
Mr. Canucklehead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Kitimat, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,574
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SherlockHouse View Post
It seems their hope is that Rome "competes for a place on [the] team":

Gillis on Rome (starts at 3:40)

They were attracted by his play down the stretch last year. Obviously.

BTW, here's a positive to Free Agency for us Canucks' fans -- Gillis actually answers questions without generalizing it at the end (double-talk in business).

Some notable quotes:


* at his use of partner in his following answer.







Let speculation commence.
I think we could see a deal similar to the Bernier one last year except for a defensemen this time. Just a thought.

~Canucklehead~

Mr. Canucklehead is offline  
Old
07-02-2009, 10:28 PM
  #98
dam
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 31
vCash: 500
Read in today's Province that Rome was O'Brien's defensive partner when they played together for Anaheim's farm team.

Maybe Gillis wants to go with:

Mitchell-Salo
Edler-Bieksa
Rome-O'Brien

dam is offline  
Old
07-02-2009, 10:36 PM
  #99
pitseleh
Registered User
 
pitseleh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,644
vCash: 500
If Rome is the sixth best defenseman on the team, the Canucks are in trouble next year.

pitseleh is offline  
Old
11-13-2011, 11:30 PM
  #100
nuxhead
Registered User
 
nuxhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 181
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oblivion View Post
So they miss out on Boumeester, then Niedermeyer, so they sign Rome...

In all seriousness, this is just Davison's replacement. We've seen Vancouver hand out 1 way deals in the past to marginal (like Jason Krog) NHL players in to keep Manitoba as one of the best AHL squads. Likely he'll be an injury replacement 7th defenseman.
EPIC BUMP!! Rome>Bouwmeester

nuxhead is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:43 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.