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 Stefan Schneider (D turned Centre)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-28-2010, 08:36 PM
  #51
Southern_Canuck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,016
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by orcatown View Post
At this point I think you have to somewhat disappointed in how we are doing in this area.

Walsky was dreadful, Oberg looks a real long shot and the feature players like Irwin and Baldwin have gone elsewhere - just like last year.

I very much worry with Smyl the point man on this enterprise.
Evan Oberg just turned 22 on February 16 - he signed after his sophomore season when had recently turned 21.

As for "just like last year"... Tyler Bozak just turned 24 on March 19 - he signed after his sophomore season when he was 23.

Matt Gilroy will turn 26 on July 20 - he signed after his senior season when he was turning 25!

Obviously, there is a big age and development difference between Oberg and Gilroy, I'm not sure if you realize that.

S_C

Southern_Canuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2010, 09:22 PM
  #52
Scouter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,999
vCash: 385
There is still no concrete proof that they signed this guy, did Botch just do a tweet, I don't know how reliable he is for signings.

Scouter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2010, 09:57 PM
  #53
BAuldie
Registered User
 
BAuldie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Nanaimo, B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,879
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to BAuldie Send a message via MSN to BAuldie
Quote:
Originally Posted by orcatown View Post
Hope this is not indication we are having trouble attracting high end NCAA players.

At this point I think you have to somewhat disappointed in how we are doing in this area.

Walsky was dreadful, Oberg looks a real long shot and the feature players like Irwin and Baldwin have gone elsewhere - just like last year.

I very much worry with Smyl the point man on this enterprise.
I wouldn't look at it that way.. The Canucks were very much in on the likes of Bozak and such.. It's pretty much up to the player where they sign since all the offers are going to be basically the same.

I really don't think too many players need to be really sold on Vancouver.

In fact, if you really look at it, one of our biggest assets, depth, is probably quite the detriment when it comes to signing guys like these. The top end guys want to be in the NHL asap. Examples like Bozak and Hanson in TO and Gilroy in New York. The Canucks have a lot of forward depth on the farm and coming up the pipes so a good young forward may look elsewhere to get their shot.

BAuldie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2010, 02:44 AM
  #54
medgett
Registered User
 
medgett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Coquitlam, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 563
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BAuldie View Post
I wouldn't look at it that way.. The Canucks were very much in on the likes of Bozak and such.. It's pretty much up to the player where they sign since all the offers are going to be basically the same.

I really don't think too many players need to be really sold on Vancouver.

In fact, if you really look at it, one of our biggest assets, depth, is probably quite the detriment when it comes to signing guys like these. The top end guys want to be in the NHL asap. Examples like Bozak and Hanson in TO and Gilroy in New York. The Canucks have a lot of forward depth on the farm and coming up the pipes so a good young forward may look elsewhere to get their shot.
This is probably true to some extent. That being said, I can understand where Orcatown's concern is coming from. There is a sale to be made to these undrafted FA's, but we aren't getting the contract so to speak. I agree that depth plays into it, but the organization has sold to the fans that their unconventional and innovative committment to the well being of their players will be a major selling point. You would think that Vancouver wouldn't be a tough sell based on the strong organization, the fact that this is a contending team, and the city itself, would all contribute to this being an attractive team to sign with yet we don't seem to sign the top-notch undrafted FA's available. I think it is maybe too early to think of this as a problem, but I would admit there is reason for concern.

By the way, Oberg getting an NHL game this year doesn't have much to do with him being close to NHL ready. IIRC, it was almost an emergency call up situation where they weren't positive if they'd need him so they called up someone lower down the moose depth chart.

medgett is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2010, 02:52 AM
  #55
Hedberg
MLD Glue Guy
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BC, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,186
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by medgett View Post

You would think that Vancouver wouldn't be a tough sell based on the strong organization, the fact that this is a contending team, and the city itself, would all contribute to this being an attractive team to sign with yet we don't seem to sign the top-notch undrafted FA's available. I think it is maybe too early to think of this as a problem, but I would admit there is reason for concern.
It probably wasn't an attractive team for Butler because Vancouver is fairly set at forward both now and in the immediate future with prospects (Grabner, Schroeder, Hodgson). Vancouver should be an easy sell to defencemen or grinders. The top end forwards are probably not coming here.

However, the top remaining defender is Erik Gustafsson and I'd be surprised if he came here because he'd be competing with Evan Oberg and Kevin Connauton for a similar role and he's probably not clearly better than either of them.


Last edited by Hedberg: 03-29-2010 at 02:59 AM.
Hedberg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2010, 03:15 AM
  #56
MS
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 12,165
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by medgett View Post
This is probably true to some extent. That being said, I can understand where Orcatown's concern is coming from. There is a sale to be made to these undrafted FA's, but we aren't getting the contract so to speak. I agree that depth plays into it, but the organization has sold to the fans that their unconventional and innovative committment to the well being of their players will be a major selling point. You would think that Vancouver wouldn't be a tough sell based on the strong organization, the fact that this is a contending team, and the city itself, would all contribute to this being an attractive team to sign with yet we don't seem to sign the top-notch undrafted FA's available. I think it is maybe too early to think of this as a problem, but I would admit there is reason for concern.
Tyler Bozak is the #1 center in Toronto right now. If he'd signed for us, he'd be the #1 center for the Manitoba Moose. And pretty much the same thing with Gilroy.

These guys are 23-25 years old and would have to be out of their minds to sign with a deep contending team. They have basically 2 training camps to prove they're NHL material before getting thrown on the scrap heap.

As long as we're a good team, we're going to be behind the 8-ball. All of these guys are signing with non-playoff or bubble playoff teams where they know they'll have a shot coming out of camp next year.

_________

Like I said in another thread, this whole 'college UFA' thing is getting really overhyped.

Somehow a bunch of guys who were very marginal prospects, were passed over in the draft 3 times each, and have decent seasons as NCAA players when they're in their mid-20s have become a hot commodity. The contracts/signing bonuses these guys are getting are totally out-of-whack with their ability levels.

GMs are following the herd after everyone saw Anaheim have success signing guys out of college a few years ago, and the result is a strange market bubble.

MS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2010, 04:07 AM
  #57
Kickassguy
Registered User
 
Kickassguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: New York, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 5,494
vCash: 50
Send a message via ICQ to Kickassguy Send a message via MSN to Kickassguy
Quote:
Originally Posted by MS View Post
Tyler Bozak is the #1 center in Toronto right now. If he'd signed for us, he'd be the #1 center for the Manitoba Moose. And pretty much the same thing with Gilroy.

These guys are 23-25 years old and would have to be out of their minds to sign with a deep contending team. They have basically 2 training camps to prove they're NHL material before getting thrown on the scrap heap.

As long as we're a good team, we're going to be behind the 8-ball. All of these guys are signing with non-playoff or bubble playoff teams where they know they'll have a shot coming out of camp next year.

_________

Like I said in another thread, this whole 'college UFA' thing is getting really overhyped.

Somehow a bunch of guys who were very marginal prospects, were passed over in the draft 3 times each, and have decent seasons as NCAA players when they're in their mid-20s have become a hot commodity. The contracts/signing bonuses these guys are getting are totally out-of-whack with their ability levels.

GMs are following the herd after everyone saw Anaheim have success signing guys out of college a few years ago, and the result is a strange market bubble.
I wish there was a 'Like' or 'Thanks' button for this post.

Kickassguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2010, 04:30 AM
  #58
thefeebster
Registered User
 
thefeebster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 5,524
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MS View Post
Like I said in another thread, this whole 'college UFA' thing is getting really overhyped.

Somehow a bunch of guys who were very marginal prospects, were passed over in the draft 3 times each, and have decent seasons as NCAA players when they're in their mid-20s have become a hot commodity. The contracts/signing bonuses these guys are getting are totally out-of-whack with their ability levels.

GMs are following the herd after everyone saw Anaheim have success signing guys out of college a few years ago, and the result is a strange market bubble.
I disagree with this argument. Because of the success it has proven, i don't see how it is being overhyped. Its not as if TSN is doing a segment on College free agency nor are they announcing many of the signings (Only Wellman was a news story due to him playing almost right away). The main people following are those who are interested in prospects. But i think it should be very important for us to get into this action because of our missing 2nd and 3rd round picks.

Bozak was essentially a free player for Toronto and now seems to be a very capable two-way center that i think anyone of us would love to play on our 3rd line. But the main point is FREE agents. Teams do not have to expend valuable draft picks on prospects. Sure, signings like these and Volpatti are a shot in the dark. But if they somehow become something like these players [I'll list below], then it was a risk well worth it. If they don't, its tossed away as a distant memory. No harm, no foul.

Examples of College Free Agents:
Chris Kunitz
Dustin Penner
A. McDonald
Rene Bourque
Dan Boyle
Brian Rafalski
Martin St. Louis
Jason Blake
Ryan Carter
Ty Conklin
Curtis Glencross
Andy Greene
Jeff Halpern
Randy Jones
Brett Lebda
John Madden
Jed Ortmeyer
Brian Pothier
Dwayne Roloson
Steven Reinprecht
Dan Sexton
Mike Weaver
Todd White
Tyler Bozak
Christian Hanson
Matt Gilroy

Isn't this the Moneyball theory of MG put into practice? It may be just myself, but i can see the allure of this market, considering the low risk - high reward potential. There was a time when many fans thought we had a bare cupboard of prospects and now MG is out trying to get some talent in the college market. I don't see the problem with this.

thefeebster is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2010, 05:22 AM
  #59
MS
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 12,165
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thefeebster View Post
I disagree with this argument. Because of the success it has proven, i don't see how it is being overhyped. Its not as if TSN is doing a segment on College free agency nor are they announcing many of the signings (Only Wellman was a news story due to him playing almost right away). The main people following are those who are interested in prospects. But i think it should be very important for us to get into this action because of our missing 2nd and 3rd round picks.

Bozak was essentially a free player for Toronto and now seems to be a very capable two-way center that i think anyone of us would love to play on our 3rd line. But the main point is FREE agents. Teams do not have to expend valuable draft picks on prospects. Sure, signings like these and Volpatti are a shot in the dark. But if they somehow become something like these players [I'll list below], then it was a risk well worth it. If they don't, its tossed away as a distant memory. No harm, no foul.

Examples of College Free Agents:
Chris Kunitz
Dustin Penner
A. McDonald
Rene Bourque
Dan Boyle
Brian Rafalski
Martin St. Louis
Jason Blake
Ryan Carter
Ty Conklin
Curtis Glencross
Andy Greene
Jeff Halpern
Randy Jones
Brett Lebda
John Madden
Jed Ortmeyer
Brian Pothier
Dwayne Roloson
Steven Reinprecht
Dan Sexton
Mike Weaver
Todd White
Tyler Bozak
Christian Hanson
Matt Gilroy

Isn't this the Moneyball theory of MG put into practice? It may be just myself, but i can see the allure of this market, considering the low risk - high reward potential. There was a time when many fans thought we had a bare cupboard of prospects and now MG is out trying to get some talent in the college market. I don't see the problem with this.
There are several places to sign extra UFA prospects with similar lists of success stories. You have undrafted Euros who are 23-24 and showing well against AHL-calibre competition. You have undrafted CHL guys.

The problem with NCAA signings right now is that there's this strange rush for them which is out of proportion with the level of prospect that these guys are. The contract a guy like Volpatti got given his age/pedigree is ridiculous.

Matt Gilroy is getting $2 million this year to be a mediocre #6 defender. That's not 'moneypuck'. Paying such a premium for this sort of talent ends up defeating the purpose.

Of course you want to look at it shrewdly and make smart signings if there are smart signings to be made. Oberg last year is a perfect example - he was a younger player with some upside is working out well.

Signing 25 year-olds with mediocre pedigrees to contracts on a level with #1 picks is not smart management to me.

And people getting upset because we're 'missing out' on this aforementioned mediocre pool of prospects is ridiculous. Especially when we've been one of the most active teams in the league in the past couple offseasons, save for the two richest clubs in the league (Toronto and NYR).

___________

Edit :

NYR signed Matt Gilroy last summer for $1.8 million/year. We signed Aaron Rome, who is the same age, for $500k. They've been similarly effective in the 2nd half of the season.

Which one is 'moneypuck'? Who got the better deal?

Perception is a strange thing. A 24-25 y/o player who is dominating the AHL but hasn't cracked the NHL yet (like Rome last year) ends up carrying the 'bust' tag and is on the NHL scrapheap because he's been on the radar for years and hasn't broken through yet. But a 24-25 y/o guy who was a nothing prospect for years and finally does something at a much lower level at an advanced age is suddenly an 'exciting prospect'. It's weird.


Last edited by MS: 03-29-2010 at 05:31 AM.
MS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2010, 06:06 AM
  #60
Agent007
Registered User
 
Agent007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,584
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MS View Post
Edit :

NYR signed Matt Gilroy last summer for $1.8 million/year. We signed Aaron Rome, who is the same age, for $500k. They've been similarly effective in the 2nd half of the season.

Which one is 'moneypuck'? Who got the better deal?

Perception is a strange thing. A 24-25 y/o player who is dominating the AHL but hasn't cracked the NHL yet (like Rome last year) ends up carrying the 'bust' tag and is on the NHL scrapheap because he's been on the radar for years and hasn't broken through yet. But a 24-25 y/o guy who was a nothing prospect for years and finally does something at a much lower level at an advanced age is suddenly an 'exciting prospect'. It's weird.
That's a very good point.

Even Tyler Bozak has a 3.725 million dollar cap hit which next season is expected to count 100% towards the cap due to the fact that bonuses are likely going to count against the cap next season.

So now think about what you would expect a 3.725 million dollar player to produce and who knows whether or not Bozak can continue to do that next season. Sure he's having a great season right now but if next year he goes on to produce only 40 points is he worth his 3.725 million dollar cap hit??

Agent007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2010, 08:56 AM
  #61
Scouter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,999
vCash: 385
Quote:
Originally Posted by MS View Post
There are several places to sign extra UFA prospects with similar lists of success stories. You have undrafted Euros who are 23-24 and showing well against AHL-calibre competition. You have undrafted CHL guys.

The problem with NCAA signings right now is that there's this strange rush for them which is out of proportion with the level of prospect that these guys are. The contract a guy like Volpatti got given his age/pedigree is ridiculous.

Matt Gilroy is getting $2 million this year to be a mediocre #6 defender. That's not 'moneypuck'. Paying such a premium for this sort of talent ends up defeating the purpose.

Of course you want to look at it shrewdly and make smart signings if there are smart signings to be made. Oberg last year is a perfect example - he was a younger player with some upside is working out well.

Signing 25 year-olds with mediocre pedigrees to contracts on a level with #1 picks is not smart management to me.

And people getting upset because we're 'missing out' on this aforementioned mediocre pool of prospects is ridiculous. Especially when we've been one of the most active teams in the league in the past couple offseasons, save for the two richest clubs in the league (Toronto and NYR).

___________

Edit :

NYR signed Matt Gilroy last summer for $1.8 million/year. We signed Aaron Rome, who is the same age, for $500k. They've been similarly effective in the 2nd half of the season.

Which one is 'moneypuck'? Who got the better deal?

Perception is a strange thing. A 24-25 y/o player who is dominating the AHL but hasn't cracked the NHL yet (like Rome last year) ends up carrying the 'bust' tag and is on the NHL scrapheap because he's been on the radar for years and hasn't broken through yet. But a 24-25 y/o guy who was a nothing prospect for years and finally does something at a much lower level at an advanced age is suddenly an 'exciting prospect'. It's weird.
Yeah, I agree with this, the only maybe half decent thing in the Volpatti deal was that it's a 2-way for 200,000$ in Manitoba, as far as I know there are no bonuses, Prab Rai did not get as good a deal as Volpatti and he probably deserves one, I know his is a ELC, but even so, was there a bidding war over Volpatti or something, is that why he got this deal, or does have a great agent.

Scouter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2010, 09:15 AM
  #62
StrictlyCommercial
Registered User
 
StrictlyCommercial's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,633
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gman3 View Post
Yeah, I agree with this, the only maybe half decent thing in the Volpatti deal was that it's a 2-way for 200,000$ in Manitoba, as far as I know there are no bonuses, Prab Rai did not get as good a deal as Volpatti and he probably deserves one, I know his is a ELC, but even so, was there a bidding war over Volpatti or something, is that why he got this deal, or does have a great agent.
The difference there is the Canucks have exclusive rights to Rai for two years. Volpatti is a UFA signing.

StrictlyCommercial is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2010, 10:35 AM
  #63
Scouter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,999
vCash: 385
Quote:
Originally Posted by StrictlyCommercial View Post
The difference there is the Canucks have exclusive rights to Rai for two years. Volpatti is a UFA signing.
It's actually really not that different as Rai was about to become a UFA, so they signed him before that could happen.

Scouter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2010, 11:08 AM
  #64
KDizzle
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Toronto
Country: Japan
Posts: 8,101
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MS View Post
Perception is a strange thing. A 24-25 y/o player who is dominating the AHL but hasn't cracked the NHL yet (like Rome last year) ends up carrying the 'bust' tag and is on the NHL scrapheap because he's been on the radar for years and hasn't broken through yet. But a 24-25 y/o guy who was a nothing prospect for years and finally does something at a much lower level at an advanced age is suddenly an 'exciting prospect'. It's weird.
I agree, but I'm curious as to who said Volpatti is an exciting prospect.

People are often guilty of trying too hard to find diamonds in the rough and bring up examples of late round picks like Zetterberg, undrafted CHL guys like Burrows, or NCAA free agents like Rafalski as best case scenarios for anybody they sign/get in later rounds.

A guy in the AHL at 24-25 is considered more of a 'bust' simply because the feeling is that he's been given lots of chances to move up a tier to the NHL. A college player of the same age could be seen as a "late bloomer" simply because he hasn't been given an opportunity and also mainly because nobody really knows anything about him. I think the main thing is anonymity. It's far from logical, but it's one of those things that emerge from people trying to find the next star from out of nowhere. People get overly excited about European prospects as well (Gustavsson and Brunnstrom, for example), and when the time comes, we'll see those threads popping up.

KDizzle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2010, 12:55 PM
  #65
thefeebster
Registered User
 
thefeebster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 5,524
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MS View Post
There are several places to sign extra UFA prospects with similar lists of success stories. You have undrafted Euros who are 23-24 and showing well against AHL-calibre competition. You have undrafted CHL guys.

The problem with NCAA signings right now is that there's this strange rush for them which is out of proportion with the level of prospect that these guys are. The contract a guy like Volpatti got given his age/pedigree is ridiculous.

Matt Gilroy is getting $2 million this year to be a mediocre #6 defender. That's not 'moneypuck'. Paying such a premium for this sort of talent ends up defeating the purpose.

Of course you want to look at it shrewdly and make smart signings if there are smart signings to be made. Oberg last year is a perfect example - he was a younger player with some upside is working out well.

Signing 25 year-olds with mediocre pedigrees to contracts on a level with #1 picks is not smart management to me.

And people getting upset because we're 'missing out' on this aforementioned mediocre pool of prospects is ridiculous. Especially when we've been one of the most active teams in the league in the past couple offseasons, save for the two richest clubs in the league (Toronto and NYR).

___________

Edit :

NYR signed Matt Gilroy last summer for $1.8 million/year. We signed Aaron Rome, who is the same age, for $500k. They've been similarly effective in the 2nd half of the season.

Which one is 'moneypuck'? Who got the better deal?
As others have said, there is still hype in those other markets, such as those playing in the SEL. Theres currently a Bidding War on Mats Zuccarello Aasen, who had a great showing in the Olympics.

Volpatti's contract is a little bit too much, but when theres a bidding war and you like the player, how else are you going to get his services? Besides as i said earlier, if it doesn't work out, all it costs us is money. Why are we complaining about $100K over league min when its unlikely he will receive that money?

Matt Gilroy was an exception because of his age and was able to have no upper limit on his contract. So using that as an example is not really fair. Because otherwise almost all others sign something close to an ELC. A big majority of the boards at that time thought the deal was a bit much and that was probably more than what Gillis wanted to pay.

Hindsight is a good thing to have but its a bit unfair, considering how many scouts thought Gilroy has impressed at the College ranks. Had he been able to translate some of that to the NHL, like some thought he would, he would have been a good pick up. But no one knows how these guys will adapt, just like all other prospects. But the only difference is that it did not cost them a pick.

Can you give me an example of the bolded text? Bozak is the ONLY player i know that has a bonus laden contract similar to those chosen #1-3 overall. And he is not mediocre. I have watched him numerous times and he has really transitioned well, compared to Gilroy. Using the hindsight that you use, Burke is looking like a smart manager to me. He got essentially a top 6 forward for nothing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gman3 View Post
It's actually really not that different as Rai was about to become a UFA, so they signed him before that could happen.
There is a difference. There is no bidding war when it comes to prospects you have the rights to.

thefeebster is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2010, 12:59 PM
  #66
VanEric
Registered User
 
VanEric's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,344
vCash: 500
A lot of these guys will go to teams where they can guarantee them ice time. Wasn't that the reason Blake Wheeler wouldn't come to terms with the Coyotes? They wouldn't assure him that he'd make the team but Boston would.

VanEric is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2010, 03:28 PM
  #67
Tiranis
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Toronto, ON
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 20,956
vCash: 500
It's not even clear whether the management wants him to play center or defense. Just because his junior coach thought he would make a good 3rd line defensive center doesn't mean this organization doesn't have different plans for him.

Tiranis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2010, 05:08 PM
  #68
pdxshark
@jmbradd
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Country: United States
Posts: 1,059
vCash: 500
He's reliable, big and decently skilled. What else could you ask for in a project? He's playing on the third line because thats the role he's best at. He's a fantastic defensive center who can chip in with some offense. Dunno if he's ever going to make the NHL but a guy like this could turn out to be a role model for other signings on how to work hard.

Its no accident the hawks kept his as an overager and I think the maturation of the younger stars is due at least a little bit to the presence of a guy like schnieder

To me this is a very little risk for i guess a decent reward type signing. Try to watch some of the hawks playoff games and wait for training camp before reserving judgement. Part of me thinks he's a "late bloomer"

pdxshark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2010, 07:01 PM
  #69
Scouter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,999
vCash: 385
Quote:
Originally Posted by thefeebster View Post
As others have said, there is still hype in those other markets, such as those playing in the SEL. Theres currently a Bidding War on Mats Zuccarello Aasen, who had a great showing in the Olympics.

Volpatti's contract is a little bit too much, but when theres a bidding war and you like the player, how else are you going to get his services? Besides as i said earlier, if it doesn't work out, all it costs us is money. Why are we complaining about $100K over league min when its unlikely he will receive that money?

Matt Gilroy was an exception because of his age and was able to have no upper limit on his contract. So using that as an example is not really fair. Because otherwise almost all others sign something close to an ELC. A big majority of the boards at that time thought the deal was a bit much and that was probably more than what Gillis wanted to pay.

Hindsight is a good thing to have but its a bit unfair, considering how many scouts thought Gilroy has impressed at the College ranks. Had he been able to translate some of that to the NHL, like some thought he would, he would have been a good pick up. But no one knows how these guys will adapt, just like all other prospects. But the only difference is that it did not cost them a pick.

Can you give me an example of the bolded text? Bozak is the ONLY player i know that has a bonus laden contract similar to those chosen #1-3 overall. And he is not mediocre. I have watched him numerous times and he has really transitioned well, compared to Gilroy. Using the hindsight that you use, Burke is looking like a smart manager to me. He got essentially a top 6 forward for nothing.


There is a difference. There is no bidding war when it comes to prospects you have the rights to.
1) The point was not that there is hype in these markets, the point was that that there is too much hype and the players are getting paid too much.

2) Where do you get that there was a bidding war for Volpatti, as far as I know there wasn't one. I take back what I said about his $200,000 being maybe the only good thing, it's the worst thing in his deal.

3) No Gilroy is not an exception, if you look at these college players deals, they tend to get nice deals one way or another, take Michael Testwuide's ELC deal he signed with Philly for instance, he won't make much if he stays in the minors at 67,500, although I'm not sure if he can make bonus cash, but if he somehow manages to make it onto the NHL roster he will make $640,000, which is obviously too high, it seems that if you are one of the college players being hyped a bit you will get a decent deal, there have been some other contracts that have been lower yes, but these players haven't been hyped and they are ELC's anyway, I think that the nucks overpaid for Volpatti, 200,000 on the farm for a guy who probably won't be a very good player is too much.

4) Well if they had let Rai's rights go they maybe thought someone might have signed him, so the pressure was on to get him in their minds.

5) This year even more college guys are getting signed, when supposedly last year's crop was better, the point is these college guys are getting way overrated, most of them aren't worth a bag of pucks, I'd much rather sign a player you know can actually play at the pro level and has been doing so in Europe for the same money or less, if you can bring them over.

Edit: Eric Walsky also got at least 1 bonus when he signed his non EL deal, if he makes the NHL he will get paid 875,000, that's crazy, and I don't recall teams clamoring to get him either.


Last edited by Scouter: 03-29-2010 at 10:17 PM.
Scouter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2010, 09:29 PM
  #70
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
1) The point was not that there is hype in these markets, the point was that that there is too much hype and the players are getting paid too much.
Do you not remember the Brunnstrom/Gustavsson signings? Brunnstrom also took a Bonus laden contract similar to Bozaks, but in a lessor amount. Using the hindsight we used earlier, this was probably an unwarranted amount. He was labelled one of the best things not in the NHL, had comparisons to Alfredsson and "shades of Hossa", and now he is playing 4th line for the Stars. That is overhyping and overpaying. Gustavsson has the same type of contract, except he is actually playing well.

Raw talent and showings of high potential will always be hyped or over-hyped. It may just be that scouts have less viewings in the SEL/KHL to scout free agents compared to the USA being in our backyards. Who knows.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gman3 View Post
2) Where do you get that there was a bidding war for Volpatti, as far as I know there wasn't one. I take back what I said about his $200,000 being maybe the only good thing, it's the worst thing in his deal.
How is it a terrible thing? It doesn't even count against the cap and its his AHL salary, not even his NHL salary? All it affects is the owner's wallet.

It was stated that he was being pursued by Edmonton, Nashville, and Boston. Someone close to him also said he was offered a contract with Detroit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gman3 View Post
3) No Gilroy is not an exception, if you look at these college players deals, they tend to get nice deals one way or another, take Michael Testwuide's ELC deal he signed with Philly for instance, he won't make much if he stays in the minors at 67,500, although I'm not sure if he can make bonus cash, but if he somehow manages to make it onto the NHL roster he will make $640,000, which is obviously too high, it seems that if you are one of the college players being hyped a bit you will get a decent deal, there have been some other contratcs that have been lower yes, but these players haven't been hyped and they are ELC's anyway, I think that the nucks overpaid for Volpatti, 200,000 on the farm for a guy who probably won't be a very good player is too much.
You are completely incorrect on this part. Gilroy was an exception due to his age. Players are subject to the entry-level system until the year they reach 25 years of age as of September 15. This is a rare exception, because most college UFAs fall within that time range so they must take an ELC. Thus, Gilroy was able to take the contract from the highest bidder.

You first call Testwuide's contract obviously too high, then you call it decent. Which is it? If he by chance does make it to the NHL and becomes an impact player, i don't see how you can call that amount "too high".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gman3 View Post
4) Well if they had let Rai's rights go they maybe thought someone might have signed him, so the pressure was on to get him in their minds.
What?? Get him in their minds?

I think you really need to review how prospects get signed. You argued that Rai got a poor deal and Volpatti got a "sweet" deal. Then proceeded to argue that there is no reason why that would happen, even though one is a UFA, with many suitors, and one is a prospect to which we have rights to. If they had let his rights go, it means that they don't see any potential in him, so why would they care that someone else was going to take him?

thefeebster is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2010, 09:30 PM
  #71
Southern_Canuck
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,016
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gman3 View Post
I think that the nucks overpaid for Volpatti, 200,000 on the farm for a guy who probably won't be a very good player is too much.
Luckily, the Canucks and Aquilini have shown the willingness to pay higher contracts in the minors (eg. Jason Krog, Michel Ouellet, Jeff Cowan, Curtis Sanford, Brad Lukowich, etc) that don't count against the cap.

If you have a team need - bigger, tougher players that can skate - and your current "prospects" in that category may not make the NHL (Desbiens, Pope, Bolduc), I think this is a very good prospect signing.

S_C

Southern_Canuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2010, 09:35 PM
  #72
Scouter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,999
vCash: 385
Quote:
Originally Posted by Southern_Canuck View Post
Luckily, the Canucks and Aquilini have shown the willingness to pay higher contracts in the minors (eg. Jason Krog, Michel Ouellet, Jeff Cowan, Curtis Sanford, Brad Lukowich, etc) that don't count against the cap.

If you have a team need - bigger, tougher players that can skate - and your current "prospects" in that category may not make the NHL (Desbiens, Pope, Bolduc), I think this is a very good prospect signing.

S_C
I know that if they play in the AHL the contract does not count against the cap, the nucks are still paying him $200,000 regardless.

Scouter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2010, 09:43 PM
  #73
Scouter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,999
vCash: 385
Quote:
Originally Posted by thefeebster View Post
Do you not remember the Brunnstrom/Gustavsson signings? Brunnstrom also took a Bonus laden contract similar to Bozaks, but in a lessor amount. Using the hindsight we used earlier, this was probably an unwarranted amount. He was labelled one of the best things not in the NHL, had comparisons to Alfredsson and "shades of Hossa", and now he is playing 4th line for the Stars. That is overhyping and overpaying. Gustavsson has the same type of contract, except he is actually playing well.

Raw talent and showings of high potential will always be hyped or over-hyped. It may just be that scouts have less viewings in the SEL/KHL to scout free agents compared to the USA being in our backyards. Who knows.


How is it a terrible thing? It doesn't even count against the cap and its his AHL salary, not even his NHL salary? All it affects is the owner's wallet.

It was stated that he was being pursued by Edmonton, Nashville, and Boston. Someone close to him also said he was offered a contract with Detroit.


You are completely incorrect on this part. Gilroy was an exception due to his age. Players are subject to the entry-level system until the year they reach 25 years of age as of September 15. This is a rare exception, because most college UFAs fall within that time range so they must take an ELC. Thus, Gilroy was able to take the contract from the highest bidder.

You first call Testwuide's contract obviously too high, then you call it decent. Which is it? If he by chance does make it to the NHL and becomes an impact player, i don't see how you can call that amount "too high".

What?? Get him in their minds?


I think you really need to review how prospects get signed. You argued that Rai got a poor deal and Volpatti got a "sweet" deal. Then proceeded to argue that there is no reason why that would happen, even though one is a UFA, with many suitors, and one is a prospect to which we have rights to. If they had let his rights go, it means that they don't see any potential in him, so why would they care that someone else was going to take him?
1) Gustavsson is not really playing well.

2) Teams won't have less viewings of players in Europe if they have dedicated scouts in Europe.

3) No I did not.

4) You clearly did not understand what that meant.

5) Once again no I did not.

Scouter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2010, 09:49 PM
  #74
NFITO
hockeyinsanity*****
 
NFITO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,857
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gman3 View Post
I know that if they play in the AHL the contract does not count against the cap, the nucks are still paying him $200,000 regardless.
again, so what?

The Canucks revenue stream is much higher than their payroll limits. They are easily able to afford paying such contracts for minor leaguers.

And also keep in mind that the Canucks generally carry way less than the 50 maximum allowable contracts. A team like the Oilers, for example, are paying much more on their minor league salaries because they are consistently near the 50 contract maximum, while the Canucks sit closer to 40 contracts (IIRC they're even less than that right now).

Add it all up, and the Canucks, who are one of the top-5 revenue earners in the NHL, are actually paying less in overall salaries - minor league included - than many smaller market, and lower earning teams are.

This is probably why you see Aquillini ready to eat 1-way contracts in the minors... why they are hiring additional coaches and development coaches, trainers, and additional scouts overall... why they spend money on sleep studies and nutritionists and team chefs, and millions in renovating their locker rooms with state of the art equipment with price tags to match. They have that luxury of investing more money into their franchise as they are a big market team now that is able to easily spend more than the cap levels dictate.

And that's why spending $200K on a minor leaguer that may have an outside chance of making it, but could be a helpful addition to their development system in Manitoba, is worth it.

NFITO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2010, 10:00 PM
  #75
Scouter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,999
vCash: 385
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuckfan in TO View Post
again, so what?

The Canucks revenue stream is much higher than their payroll limits. They are easily able to afford paying such contracts for minor leaguers.

And also keep in mind that the Canucks generally carry way less than the 50 maximum allowable contracts. A team like the Oilers, for example, are paying much more on their minor league salaries because they are consistently near the 50 contract maximum, while the Canucks sit closer to 40 contracts (IIRC they're even less than that right now).

Add it all up, and the Canucks, who are one of the top-5 revenue earners in the NHL, are actually paying less in overall salaries - minor league included - than many smaller market, and lower earning teams are.

This is probably why you see Aquillini ready to eat 1-way contracts in the minors... why they are hiring additional coaches and development coaches, trainers, and additional scouts overall... why they spend money on sleep studies and nutritionists and team chefs, and millions in renovating their locker rooms with state of the art equipment with price tags to match. They have that luxury of investing more money into their franchise as they are a big market team now that is able to easily spend more than the cap levels dictate.

And that's why spending $200K on a minor leaguer that may have an outside chance of making it, but could be a helpful addition to their development system in Manitoba, is worth it.
Once again, I know they can probably afford it, even if you can afford it though, no one likes to waste cash, the question is does a player of Volpatti's calibre really deserve it, I think not, especially not over some guy who has been playing pro in Europe and playing better than Volpatti has ever shown.

Scouter 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 05:14 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.