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

Vancouver Canucks sign Prab Rai

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-26-2010, 12:59 PM
  #101
two headed boy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 700
vCash: 500
Scenario A: Rai signs, never plays in the NHL. Outcome: Nobody cares
Scenario B: Rai doesn't get signed, plays elsewhere in the NHL. Outcome: Gillis is a moron
Scenario C: Rai doesn't get signed, never plays in the NHL. Outcome: Nobody Cares.
Scenario D: Rai signs, plays in the NHL. Outcome Gillis is a genius.

So if you sign Rai, Gillis is indifferent or happy. If you let Rai walk, Gillis either indifferent or unhappy.

Whatever probability you assign to Rai making NHL- even if its zero - giving the guy a two-way contract is a no-lose proposition.

two headed boy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-27-2010, 01:49 AM
  #102
Scouter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,999
vCash: 385
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuckfan in TO View Post
or maybe if they didn't sign him, another team would, and he would be on their AHL roster instead.

The Canucks could have just signed him to make sure he plays on the Moose and not another farm team. The same could be true for Rai... maybe all they project for him is a solid AHLer, but if they don't sign him - and hope that Manitoba will, as a UFA he could be signed by another NHL organization and play on their farm team instead.

Keep in mind that players signed by AHL teams are still available for all other NHL teams to sign, and if they do they become property of that team, and can therefore be moved to those farm teams instead. By the Canucks signing said player, he's guaranteed to be in the system where the Canucks want him to be, and not subject to a contract offer by another organization.
Your logic really doesn't make sense, NHL contracts are not thrown around lightly, an NHL team will not sign a farmhand because they are afraid another NHL team will sign them, that's silly, the AHL team can always sign another one if one gets an NHL deal.

Scouter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-27-2010, 02:08 AM
  #103
NFITO
hockeyinsanity*****
 
NFITO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,857
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gman3 View Post
Your logic really doesn't make sense, NHL contracts are not thrown around lightly, an NHL team will not sign a farmhand because they are afraid another NHL team will sign them, that's silly, the AHL team can always sign another one if one gets an NHL deal.
do you think that Jason Krog, signed to a 1-way contract by the Canucks, was to help the Canucks last season, or to provide the Moose (who agreed to pay for a portion of that pro salary) one of the AHL's top vets on their team?

It's still in the Canucks best interest to have talent around their prized prospects, and that includes bringing in players that can help their AHL team be more successful overall.

And especially when you're dealing with the few number of overall contracts that the Canucks usually carry, they are more than able to sign a few players that may just be projected to help the AHL team.

NFITO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-27-2010, 06:43 AM
  #104
Scouter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,999
vCash: 385
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuckfan in TO View Post
do you think that Jason Krog, signed to a 1-way contract by the Canucks, was to help the Canucks last season, or to provide the Moose (who agreed to pay for a portion of that pro salary) one of the AHL's top vets on their team?

It's still in the Canucks best interest to have talent around their prized prospects, and that includes bringing in players that can help their AHL team be more successful overall.

And especially when you're dealing with the few number of overall contracts that the Canucks usually carry, they are more than able to sign a few players that may just be projected to help the AHL team.
I agree with signing players who are going to be farmhands to 2-way deals, but if they are going to play on the farm for the NHL minimum, that's just really bad economics, as in a huge waste of cash, you might as well let the vet play in Europe for 200,000$ or whatever if you are going to do that, you can sign younger talent on cheaper 2-way's instead.

Back to the point at hand though, which is Rai, 1st of all he is not a vet, he is still quite young, so he still has time to develop and make the NHL, so the signing was a development signing and not a farmhand signing.

Scouter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-27-2010, 10:21 AM
  #105
Avery4Byng*
 
Avery4Byng*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Ktown
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,752
vCash: 500
Nice to see the Canucks promise a player three years in Victoria.

Avery4Byng* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-27-2010, 11:32 AM
  #106
East Van Canuck Fan
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 27
vCash: 500
Lets see what he does in Training camp next year before we send him the the Island for good.

East Van Canuck Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-27-2010, 01:14 PM
  #107
NFITO
hockeyinsanity*****
 
NFITO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,857
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gman3 View Post
I agree with signing players who are going to be farmhands to 2-way deals, but if they are going to play on the farm for the NHL minimum, that's just really bad economics, as in a huge waste of cash, you might as well let the vet play in Europe for 200,000$ or whatever if you are going to do that, you can sign younger talent on cheaper 2-way's instead.

Back to the point at hand though, which is Rai, 1st of all he is not a vet, he is still quite young, so he still has time to develop and make the NHL, so the signing was a development signing and not a farmhand signing.
I agree that Rai was a "development signing" ... that's not the point here... the point is that the Canucks would sign players that were signed with the purpose of helping the farm, and only the farm, and Jason Krog - signed to a 1-way contract - was a perfect example of this.

And apparently the Canucks organization didn't think this was "bad economics" ... they also acquired Ouellet on a 1-way deal (at $1.2mill) in a trade that landed them O'Brien - who's value is hardly much higher than Krajicek's at the time where they needed to pay an additional $1.2mill just to get the trade done... they no doubt had plans to use him in Manitoba last year and paid on a 1-way deal to make it happen.

In hindsight both those deals could have been worth it for the Canucks organization. They helped get the Moose to the finals last year, and may have had an impact in their prospects' development as well - particularly in Grabner's case, who got to play with a solid playmaker in the AHL last in Krog and could have helped his game develop, but in general as well, as the experience of getting to the finals could only have left a positive impact for every prospect playing down there.

Basically, my argument is that the Canucks organization is ready to invest in Manitoba in both $$ and among their limited number of contracts available to help the farm team become more successful, which in turn helps the organization overall in developing their talent. There's no bad economics in this - it's $$ spent and contracts used to improve the depth of your organization, and that in turn helps the development process.

NFITO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-27-2010, 01:34 PM
  #108
LeftCoast
Registered User
 
LeftCoast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,741
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuckfan in TO View Post
I agree that Rai was a "development signing" ... that's not the point here... the point is that the Canucks would sign players that were signed with the purpose of helping the farm, and only the farm, and Jason Krog - signed to a 1-way contract - was a perfect example of this.

And apparently the Canucks organization didn't think this was "bad economics" ... they also acquired Ouellet on a 1-way deal (at $1.2mill) in a trade that landed them O'Brien - who's value is hardly much higher than Krajicek's at the time where they needed to pay an additional $1.2mill just to get the trade done... they no doubt had plans to use him in Manitoba last year and paid on a 1-way deal to make it happen.

In hindsight both those deals could have been worth it for the Canucks organization. They helped get the Moose to the finals last year, and may have had an impact in their prospects' development as well - particularly in Grabner's case, who got to play with a solid playmaker in the AHL last in Krog and could have helped his game develop, but in general as well, as the experience of getting to the finals could only have left a positive impact for every prospect playing down there.

Basically, my argument is that the Canucks organization is ready to invest in Manitoba in both $$ and among their limited number of contracts available to help the farm team become more successful, which in turn helps the organization overall in developing their talent. There's no bad economics in this - it's $$ spent and contracts used to improve the depth of your organization, and that in turn helps the development process.

I think it goes well beyond this.

Krajicek, Krog and Oulette etc. were not drafted by the Canucks.The Canucks invested a 5th round draft pick in Rai. The kid put up 25 and 41 goals over the next 2 years. Why after after 2 stellar years in the WHL would they not give him a contract? Should this disappoint the Canucks? Should they have had expectations that a 5th round pick would do more? To me, it's inconceivable that after the last 2 seasons they wouldn't give him a contract.


That doesn't mean that he is a sure thing to be an NHLer, it just means they are willing to continue to invest in his ongoing development. If a player doesn't project to have what it takes to make it to the NHL (Evan Fuller for instance) they don't offer him a contract just to put him on the Moose. Craig Heisinger has proven pretty adept at finding talent within the ECHL and overage undrafted juniors to fill those roster slots.

LeftCoast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-27-2010, 01:39 PM
  #109
NFITO
hockeyinsanity*****
 
NFITO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,857
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftCoast View Post
I think it goes well beyond this.

Krajicek, Krog and Oulette etc. were not drafted by the Canucks.The Canucks invested a 5th round draft pick in Rai. The kid put up 25 and 41 goals over the next 2 years. Why after after 2 stellar years in the WHL would they not give him a contract? Should this disappoint the Canucks? Should they have had expectations that a 5th round pick would do more? To me, it's inconceivable that after the last 2 seasons they wouldn't give him a contract.


That doesn't mean that he is a sure thing to be an NHLer, it just means they are willing to continue to invest in his ongoing development. If a player doesn't project to have what it takes to make it to the NHL (Evan Fuller for instance) they don't offer him a contract just to put him on the Moose. Craig Heisinger has proven pretty adept at finding talent within the ECHL and overage undrafted juniors to fill those roster slots.
I agree with all that (except the last bit - IMO they would sign a player just to play on the Moose, if they felt that it would help the organization overall)... but most of your comments have nothing to do with what I'm arguing. My argument is based solely on whether the Canucks would sign a player to a contract (one of their maximum 50 contracts allowed) if the player was solely expected to help the farm team. It's not about Rai - he's a young player who's developed well so far for a 5th round pick and deserves that contract.

I was arguing against the belief that teams only sign players to contracts if they feel they can someday help their pro team. I disagree with this idea because IMO signing a guy to help your farm team also helps the organization overall and therefore becomes a worthwhile signing. Krog is a perfect example of this.

It's not about Rai.

NFITO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-27-2010, 09:25 PM
  #110
Scouter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,999
vCash: 385
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuckfan in TO View Post
I agree that Rai was a "development signing" ... that's not the point here... the point is that the Canucks would sign players that were signed with the purpose of helping the farm, and only the farm, and Jason Krog - signed to a 1-way contract - was a perfect example of this.

And apparently the Canucks organization didn't think this was "bad economics" ... they also acquired Ouellet on a 1-way deal (at $1.2mill) in a trade that landed them O'Brien - who's value is hardly much higher than Krajicek's at the time where they needed to pay an additional $1.2mill just to get the trade done... they no doubt had plans to use him in Manitoba last year and paid on a 1-way deal to make it happen.

In hindsight both those deals could have been worth it for the Canucks organization. They helped get the Moose to the finals last year, and may have had an impact in their prospects' development as well - particularly in Grabner's case, who got to play with a solid playmaker in the AHL last in Krog and could have helped his game develop, but in general as well, as the experience of getting to the finals could only have left a positive impact for every prospect playing down there.

Basically, my argument is that the Canucks organization is ready to invest in Manitoba in both $$ and among their limited number of contracts available to help the farm team become more successful, which in turn helps the organization overall in developing their talent. There's no bad economics in this - it's $$ spent and contracts used to improve the depth of your organization, and that in turn helps the development process.
O'Brien and Ouellet are bad examples, because they are not old vets who have had ample oppertunity to make their NHL marks, O'Brien was an NHL player already pretty much, and the nucks hoped that maybe Ouellet would find his earlier good NHL form and hoped he would get back, so it's ok if they are on 1-way's, Krog however is a waste of cash. It was also a trade so the nucks did not exactly have control over their contracts anyway.


Why would the nucks org. want to invest in an independently operated AHL franchise, if the nucks actually owned the Moose then I would understand, but since they do not, they do not have control over what the Moose does with their players.

Scouter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-27-2010, 09:44 PM
  #111
NFITO
hockeyinsanity*****
 
NFITO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,857
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gman3 View Post
O'Brien and Ouellet are bad examples, because they are not old vets who have had ample oppertunity to make their NHL marks, O'Brien was an NHL player already pretty much, and the nucks hoped that maybe Ouellet would find his earlier good NHL form and hoped he would get back, so it's ok if they are on 1-way's, Krog however is a waste of cash. It was also a trade so the nucks did not exactly have control over their contracts anyway.


Why would the nucks org. want to invest in an independently operated AHL franchise, if the nucks actually owned the Moose then I would understand, but since they do not, they do not have control over what the Moose does with their players.
because it effects the development of their prospects - organizational assets only improve in value if the develop well. By signing Krog, which Manitoba helped pay the bill for, Gillis provided his farm club with a top player at that level that could help the development of his own assets. It makes complete sense to me that you'd want your farm club to be a top end club year after year, which IMO only gives your prospects the best environment to grow in.

And Krog was not a trade, unless I read that wrong? He was signed as a UFA on a 1-way deal while Gillis said that he was doing so to help Manitoba be a better team, which again makes all the sense in the world because it effects their prospects development directly.

As far as the whole O'Brien/Ouellet situation, clearly O'Brien was not bound for the AHL, he was Krajicek's replacement on the pro team... it was Ouellet who was AHL bound all along - he reported straight to Manitoba after being traded, and didn't get much of an audition with the Canucks either... you'd think if they were hoping he'd find his old form, they'd give him more than 3 games on the 4th line? He was just an injury callup after being dealt, and played the season in Manitoba as he was meant to.

NFITO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-27-2010, 10:23 PM
  #112
Scouter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,999
vCash: 385
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuckfan in TO View Post
because it effects the development of their prospects - organizational assets only improve in value if the develop well. By signing Krog, which Manitoba helped pay the bill for, Gillis provided his farm club with a top player at that level that could help the development of his own assets. It makes complete sense to me that you'd want your farm club to be a top end club year after year, which IMO only gives your prospects the best environment to grow in.

And Krog was not a trade, unless I read that wrong? He was signed as a UFA on a 1-way deal while Gillis said that he was doing so to help Manitoba be a better team, which again makes all the sense in the world because it effects their prospects development directly.

As far as the whole O'Brien/Ouellet situation, clearly O'Brien was not bound for the AHL, he was Krajicek's replacement on the pro team... it was Ouellet who was AHL bound all along - he reported straight to Manitoba after being traded, and didn't get much of an audition with the Canucks either... you'd think if they were hoping he'd find his old form, they'd give him more than 3 games on the 4th line? He was just an injury callup after being dealt, and played the season in Manitoba as he was meant to.
Yes you did read it wrong, and ok I'll let Krog go since Manitoba did pay for some of the contract, how much isn't known right, if the nucks paid all of it I would take issue.

Ouellet was fighting an uphill battle since the nucks already had their top six wingers pretty much set, Ouellet was going to have to be pretty good to take a spot away.

Scouter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-27-2010, 11:43 PM
  #113
thefeebster
Registered User
 
thefeebster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 5,524
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gman3 View Post
Yes you did read it wrong, and ok I'll let Krog go since Manitoba did pay for some of the contract, how much isn't known right, if the nucks paid all of it I would take issue.

Ouellet was fighting an uphill battle since the nucks already had their top six wingers pretty much set, Ouellet was going to have to be pretty good to take a spot away.
IMO, He did not read it wrong and has clearly proven the point as well as many others who have argued against you. We've given you numerous points on why the Canucks as an organization (Affliates included) sign these types of players. But you seem to neglect these arguments and conclude that we have read your comments wrong. TBH and as quysauce said on the first page, i really don't know if i can take you seriously anymore.

thefeebster is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 04:34 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.