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
03-31-2010, 12:38 AM
  #101
pitseleh
Registered User
 
pitseleh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,660
vCash: 500
Johnny Oduya was drafted but never signed and came over as a UFA after the lockout.

pitseleh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-31-2010, 03:42 AM
  #102
thefeebster
Registered User
 
thefeebster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 5,665
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MS View Post
Evan Oberg got a bigger contract last summer than Jared Cowan did, and Cowan was taken 8th overall.

That's amazing when you think about it, and why I'm saying this market is *incredibly* inflated.
I agreed already that if these players have "mediocre pedigrees", they should have no reason signing 3.75, 1.6 or .9 million dollar contracts, because the talent/potential is not there. But if that talent is there, such as in the case of Bozak and Gilroy (at time of signing) then they will be paid as such. I agree that Oberg's is a bit too inflated, given the comparisons of other college UFA signings. Please read here that i agree...

Okay, but then lets move on to contracts signed this year for the college UFA's where the talent is not as high as the examples we've discussed thus far. As you will see, they are not really inflated at all, besides Wellman, whom it seems Minnesota wanted to play ASAP.

NAME POS TEAM YRS AMOUNT CAP HIT
Irwin, Brayden » EL F TOR 2 $1,800,000 $900,000
Marcou, James » EL F SAN 2 $1,230,000 $615,000
Butler, Bobby » EL F OTT 2 $1,800,000 $900,000
Backman, Sean » EL F DAL 1 $640,000 $640,000
Thang, Ryan » EL F NAS 2 $1,130,000 $565,000
Baldwin, Lee » EL D NYR 2 $1,490,000 $745,000
Volpatti, Aaron » F VAN 2 $1,225,000 $612,500
Lucia, Tony » EL F SAN 2 $1,125,000 $562,500
Braun, Justin » EL D SAN 2 $1,325,000 $662,500
Irwin, Matt » EL D SAN 2 $1,480,000 $740,000
Cohen, Zach » EL F COL 2 $1,125,000 $562,500
Testwuide, Michael » EL F PHI 2 $1,280,000 $640,000
Bishop, Hunter » EL F MTL 2 $1,230,000 $615,000
Prosser, Nate » EL D MIN 1 $900,000 $900,000
Newton, Jake » EL D ANA 3 $2,625,000 $875,000
Schaus, Nick » EL D SAN 1 $560,000 $560,000
Holmstrom, Ben » EL F PHI 2 $1,200,000 $600,000
Wellman, Casey » EL F MIN 2 + $2,700,000 + $1,350,000
Gysbers, Simon » EL D TOR 2 $1,405,000 $702,500

The vast majority of these guys are making $550K to $750K, and rightfully so given their talent/potential. I don't see incredible inflation here, this year.

If they ever play in the NHL and earn their NHL salary cap, they have proven to the organization that they are worth their contract/call-up. If not, then they are still in the minors making $67500 per year, so the NHL cap hit is really not a concern. Volpatti was the only age exception this year, in terms of ELC contract and thus, his AHL contract.


Last edited by thefeebster: 03-31-2010 at 03:51 AM.
thefeebster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-31-2010, 05:43 AM
  #103
orcatown
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,870
vCash: 500
^Agree

If these players develop and earn their contracts then there can be little problem with the contract. They become at least good trade bait.

If they don't and stay on as minor leaguers then they are not drag on the cap.

Really it is not a question of whether to get into the bidding for undrafted NCAA players as it is a matter of doing this correctly. If you identify the right players (and these guys are older so it is not like the guesswork necessary for the entry draft of 18 year olds) then you can very much improve the team and overall organization.

If you look at Anahiem they have Sexton (one of the best players taken last year) back next year at cap figure of 575,000 + .175 bonus). If he continues his development they have potential top 6 player at a huge bargain. Toronto has Bozek back at an excellent price if you see him as #1 center

The Canucks, according to Gillis, are making a firm commitment to signing these college players and so they should. However, to date, they have not done a good job in this area. They tried and failed to sign the main college players last year and ended up with very little. Walsky was a total wash out and Oberg is very suspect.(I saw him tonight and have watched him all year and he is a very fringe prospect). This year they have signed only the very lightly regarded Volpatti. The main players that have been repeatedly recognized, like Butler, are going elsewhere.

In the end whether the salaries are inflated or otherwise you need to be in this market. Just like mistakes in signing drafted players like Ellington, they can play out their contracts at a lower level without significant impact to the team.

If I'm Gillis I am not asking whether we should be looking to sign NCAA prospects, but instead do we have the right people in position to to use this avenue of improvement for the team. At this point, it looks like we need people who can better assess these prospects and who can attract these players to the Canucks.

If at the end of the day we end up with nothing then I think the argument about inflated salaries is just so much sour grapes.

orcatown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-31-2010, 08:02 AM
  #104
MS
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 14,862
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by orcatown View Post
^Agree

If these players develop and earn their contracts then there can be little problem with the contract. They become at least good trade bait.

If they don't and stay on as minor leaguers then they are not drag on the cap.

Really it is not a question of whether to get into the bidding for undrafted NCAA players as it is a matter of doing this correctly. If you identify the right players (and these guys are older so it is not like the guesswork necessary for the entry draft of 18 year olds) then you can very much improve the team and overall organization.

If you look at Anahiem they have Sexton (one of the best players taken last year) back next year at cap figure of 575,000 + .175 bonus). If he continues his development they have potential top 6 player at a huge bargain. Toronto has Bozek back at an excellent price if you see him as #1 center

The Canucks, according to Gillis, are making a firm commitment to signing these college players and so they should. However, to date, they have not done a good job in this area. They tried and failed to sign the main college players last year and ended up with very little. Walsky was a total wash out and Oberg is very suspect.(I saw him tonight and have watched him all year and he is a very fringe prospect). This year they have signed only the very lightly regarded Volpatti. The main players that have been repeatedly recognized, like Butler, are going elsewhere.

In the end whether the salaries are inflated or otherwise you need to be in this market. Just like mistakes in signing drafted players like Ellington, they can play out their contracts at a lower level without significant impact to the team.

If I'm Gillis I am not asking whether we should be looking to sign NCAA prospects, but instead do we have the right people in position to to use this avenue of improvement for the team. At this point, it looks like we need people who can better assess these prospects and who can attract these players to the Canucks.

If at the end of the day we end up with nothing then I think the argument about inflated salaries is just so much sour grapes.
Again, in the college UFA market there were 2 really good talents last year : Bozak and Gilroy.

Gilroy has a $1.8 million cap hit to be a #6 defender in New York - they overpaid for him and it was a poor value signing. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, we got an equal talent who is exactly the same age in Rome for $500k.

Bozak signed a ridiculous deal in Toronto that has him at a $3.75 million cap hit for the next 2 years - basically the same bonus structure as guys like Tavares/Stamkos got as #1 overall picks. He's looked good for the Leafs since being called up, but is also the same player who had 4 goals in 32 AHL games in the first half of this season.

So the 2 actually good players both got deals that wouldn't have made sense here, and the rest of that crop was crap, aside from maybe Sexton who I'm not sold on.

I really don't see the 'missed opportunity' last summer, or what could have been done differently.

__________

As for this summer, the only guy I'm mildly disappointed we missed out on is Lee Baldwin. Was a local product, fit an organizational need, and sounded like he had some pro tools/upside.

Any of the forwards would have to be an idiot to sign with this organization, which has most of their top-6 locked up long term and Hodgson/Schroeder/Grabner waiting in the wings. There is just a bad organization to be in if you're a prospect forward. Grabner would probably already be a regular with half the teams in the league.

When a guy like Bobby Butler is deciding between Ottawa (a team with no scoring depth at all on the wings) and Vancouver, the decision is pretty damned easy.

So basically, you have a market where :

a) there are very few players of any real quality in any given year.

b) no forward or goalie of any quality is ever going to sign in Vancouver while the organization is this strong.

c) players of any substantial quality get overpaid.

This simply isn't a Canuck-friendly market right now.

Good scouting is finding players for cheap where other people aren't looking or think there is nothing. It isn't following the herd and overpaying for marginal talent.

The job our scouts did in finding Rome and Glass last year speaks to that - two youngish players who have been regulars for this club down the stretch and were signed for the league minimum. That's good scouting. And scouring the AHL for guys who are proven at that level (much higher than the NCAA) and can step in for $500k is a hell of a lot better investment than these NCAA guys.

MS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-31-2010, 04:21 PM
  #105
pitseleh
Registered User
 
pitseleh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,660
vCash: 500
The biggest thing that I don't understand is how teams seem to completely ignore age when making these signings. A 24/25 year old dominating the NCAA in his senior year isn't really impressive. A 20-21 year old having a great freshman/sophomore year is. Same with a 22/23 year old having a great junior/senior year.

Just look at the best signings out of college in recent years:

Penner - 21
Kunitz - 23 (but he had a great junior year and an absolutely out of this world senior year)
McDonald - 22
Bourque - 23
Boyle - 22
Madden - 24 (but he had great sophomore and junior years too)
Halpern - 22
Glencross - 22

Odds are if a guy hasn't dominated the NCAA before then suddenly does in his senior year at 24/25, it's probably not due to talent. And if a player does make an impact after being an old senior, it's usually after having an absolutely ridiculous senior year (like 1.5 PPG+). That's why signing Evan Oberg last year was a smart move but signing Eric Walsky wasn't (though they didn't really lose anything). That's why I thought guys like Bobby Butler and Lee Baldwin were interesting FAs this year.

pitseleh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2010, 12:11 AM
  #106
MS
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 14,862
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pitseleh View Post
The biggest thing that I don't understand is how teams seem to completely ignore age when making these signings. A 24/25 year old dominating the NCAA in his senior year isn't really impressive. A 20-21 year old having a great freshman/sophomore year is. Same with a 22/23 year old having a great junior/senior year.

Just look at the best signings out of college in recent years:

Penner - 21
Kunitz - 23 (but he had a great junior year and an absolutely out of this world senior year)
McDonald - 22
Bourque - 23
Boyle - 22
Madden - 24 (but he had great sophomore and junior years too)
Halpern - 22
Glencross - 22

Odds are if a guy hasn't dominated the NCAA before then suddenly does in his senior year at 24/25, it's probably not due to talent. And if a player does make an impact after being an old senior, it's usually after having an absolutely ridiculous senior year (like 1.5 PPG+). That's why signing Evan Oberg last year was a smart move but signing Eric Walsky wasn't (though they didn't really lose anything). That's why I thought guys like Bobby Butler and Lee Baldwin were interesting FAs this year.
Absolutely.

Watching Volpatti the other night, if he was 21 or 22 and looked like that, great.

But when you're 25 ... not so much. He's the same age as Desbiens (who is a fringe prospect) and not as good. He isn't going to make it.

To me, it's a much better investment to sign a 20/21 year-old player who looked great in the CHL and who you know will continue to improve over the next 3-4 years than it is to sign a 24/25 year-old guy who is almost a finished product.

MS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2010, 12:53 AM
  #107
vanuck
#Gaunce4GM
 
vanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 12,669
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MS View Post
So basically, you have a market where :

a) there are very few players of any real quality in any given year.

b) no forward or goalie of any quality is ever going to sign in Vancouver while the organization is this strong.

c) players of any substantial quality get overpaid.

This simply isn't a Canuck-friendly market right now.
True, but I was really hoping for Gillis to find a D-man or two out of the NCAA to help replenish our prospect pool on defence (Lee Baldwin and Erik Gustafsson, namely). However, it just seems that other teams are able to get these guys because they are able to convince these UFAs that they can offer them more, such as a greater chance of earning a spot in the NHL lineup next year. That does seem ridiculous though, since the Rangers and Flyers aren't bad on D at all (the Rangers more so than the Flyers, at least). It stings a lot because defence is our weakest area right now, arguably. There simply isn't a single D prospect in our system right now who could step into the NHL next season, or even the year after that.

vanuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2010, 01:02 AM
  #108
alternate
Registered User
 
alternate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: victoria
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,229
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MS View Post

To me, it's a much better investment to sign a 20/21 year-old player who looked great in the CHL and who you know will continue to improve over the next 3-4 years than it is to sign a 24/25 year-old guy who is almost a finished product.
the good thing is we can sign both. it's not an either/or situation, and in fact MG has now added a NCAA UDFA, a CHL UDFA and a Euro league UDFA.

from my perspective, there is zero negative to any of these signings. if guys like Walsky end up being one and done (which, let's be honest, most UDFAs are going to be) it costs nothing except maybe ice time that could have went to a different prospect. Same with Volpatti, Schneider or the Sweatter.

on the other hand, if Volpati plays 10 games for the 'nucks two years from now, ends up 0 points and -1 with 4 scraps, including a dismantling of a Flamer; then he's a great addition.

and if you go to the UDFA well frequently enough (and so far Gillis has signed 3-4 every year) eventually you're going to hit once or twice. And imo 1 Andy MacDonald is worth 10 Walskys every time. but as the cliche goes, nothing ventured nothing gained. and as long as these stiffs aren't taking up our last contract, or taking development icetime away from "real" prospects, there's no negative that I can see.

alternate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2010, 02:49 AM
  #109
Jaquel
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 172
vCash: 500
From watching the Canucks, it should be obvious that it is not the top 6 that anyone should ever be worried about. Gillis can see how much our 3rd and 4th lines suck at times (especially the 4th... always negative plus minus, no points ever) when compared to other top teams. Look at any good team in the league, and even their 4th line is decent. Gillis gets Volpatti, Schneider, etc to fill this need in the organization.

Jaquel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2010, 02:57 AM
  #110
Scouter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,655
vCash: 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by MS View Post
Absolutely.

Watching Volpatti the other night, if he was 21 or 22 and looked like that, great.

But when you're 25 ... not so much. He's the same age as Desbiens (who is a fringe prospect) and not as good. He isn't going to make it.

To me, it's a much better investment to sign a 20/21 year-old player who looked great in the CHL and who you know will continue to improve over the next 3-4 years than it is to sign a 24/25 year-old guy who is almost a finished product.
Just cause a player is 25 and over though doesn't mean they won't make it to the NHL, because they have, not many, but they have, I know you are just talking about Desbiens case.

Scouter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2010, 03:31 AM
  #111
orcatown
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,870
vCash: 500
MS

There is not just Gilroy and Bozek out of 2009

Hansen has had good AHL year for the Leafs and is on a low cap hit

Sexton has played well for the Ducks and is great cap hit for a potential top 6 player

Brad Thiessen was just named player of the week in the AHL and is on a bargain cap hit.

http://penguins.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=523154

And there are others who remain viable prospects.

Given the success of many of these undrafted college players, the Canucks must pursue this avenue of improving the team.

Fact that you get into a bidding war is part of the process. But you always have the out of putting these players in the minors. If the player comes thru then you have the player at a decent price. Even with the bonus a player like Bozek, if continues his present rate of development, is well worth the money.

Moreover, as alternative points out, this is not an either or situation. Going after unsigned players like Rome or Funk makes sense but that doesn’t excuse or explain away a lack of success in going after the NCAA players. Team should be doing both.

The fact that some of these players get too much, or that many don’t work out, or that the Canucks are not a prospect friendly environment (and could note here Thiessen signed in Pittsburg which already has Fleury) should not be factors that stops the Canucks from pursuing these free agents. These seem little more than excuses or maybe explanation for the lack of Canuck success.

I think the age thing is a red herring. Obviously you might get more development out of a younger player but you probably get a better line on a player if he is a little older. In the end, it doesn’t really matter. What you are asking is the team to assess the talent as it is (developed or developing) and ask if the player looks like someone who can make the team better. If so, then regardless of the player’s age they should go after him. If the bidding gets too ludicrous then yes they shouldn’t go too far. But, since it is a cost that can be shuffled to the minors, then a team as rich as the Canucks should be willing to get thoroughly involved in the bargaining process.

My overall problem is that to date the Canucks have not used the undrafted NCAA player market very successfully. I say so for a couple of reasons

1. The players picked up so far have not looked like good prospects. Walsky was bad and Oberg looks too skinny and weak to play at the NHL level . When I see how bad Walsky was and how Oberg is struggling I have to question player assessment.

2. The Canucks have struck out with the major free agents. Apparently the Canucks were willing to pay heavily for people like Gilroy, Bozek and Baldwin but never could land these players. My question would be who are the contact people – who is approaching these players or their agents and trying to get them signed. As of now, that person is badly failing.

All this brings me around to questioning whether Gillis, in spite of his intention, has got this area well covered. And that fear is intensified when I see Smyl in charge of this department. I know something of Smyl and I have zero confidence in his ability to identify talent and in his ability to get these player under contract. If I’m Gillis and I see the results of what has happened so far in the area of improving the team through college free agents and I question what’s going on. I think any overall manager has to raise questions when something in the organization is not working.


There may be, as you suggest, mitigating factors that need to be considered. However, in the end, this is a results oriented business and if you are not getting the results then something got to change.

orcatown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2010, 05:04 AM
  #112
Scouter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,655
vCash: 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuckfan in TO View Post
sorry, I should have responded to it.

Pyorala signed a 1yr deal and isn't of any help to the Flyers at all... at 28, he's got no upside. He basically signed to play for the Phantoms, not as a young player that might have a chance to be a NHLer.

This isn't comparable to bringing in young players that can develop with the organization.

And your example of Pyorala should fit in exactly with the type of contracts you suggested NHL teams shouldn't give out - a 28YO who's a longshot at making the NHL, has no upside at all, on a 1-yr deal. Basically he was help for their AHL team.

I'd rather sign a younger NCAA player that has some hope of helping the NHL team at some point, than a guy at 28, who's a UFA after just a one-year tryout.

But again, this wasn't the question I had for you... My question - again - is can you provide a list of actual *successful* European UFA signings that have helped the NHL club?

Pyorala is basically a bust, if you're expecting him to have any kind of positive impact on the NHL team. So, who hasn't been a bust?

I'll name 5 NCAA players that have had solid impacts as UFA signings - Rafalski, Penner, Kunitz, Madden, and Danny Boyle (there is of course a much more extensive list than that).

Can you name even 3 European UFAs that have had a similar impact for their clubs? If signing European UFAs makes any sense, over going after NCAA players instead, maybe you can provide some examples of players that actually helped their NHL clubs -ie. not 28YO guys like Pyorala who aren't good enough to earn a regular spot on the NHL team.
Sounds like you might be changing the story, because you 1st said that the Flyers signed him to play on their NHL team, and did not make it, which I believe they did, if if he did not make it, he's still a way better vet signing than Krog.

At least 3 Euro UFA's who in your view have had a decent NHL impact, Jonas Gustavsson, Jonas Hiller and Niklas Backstrom.

Scouter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2010, 09:27 AM
  #113
IComeInPeace
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: LA
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,162
vCash: 500
Signs ATO w/the Moose

http://www.thehockeynews.com/article...oba-Moose.html

IComeInPeace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2010, 07:54 PM
  #114
timw33
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Victoria
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,138
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacemaker View Post
Will be playing Centre or D in Manitoba (for the last 2 games before they are likely swept)?

timw33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-21-2010, 02:26 AM
  #115
F A N
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,540
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by orcatown View Post
Fact that you get into a bidding war is part of the process. But you always have the out of putting these players in the minors. If the player comes thru then you have the player at a decent price. Even with the bonus a player like Bozek, if continues his present rate of development, is well worth the money.

...

My overall problem is that to date the Canucks have not used the undrafted NCAA player market very successfully. I say so for a couple of reasons

1. The players picked up so far have not looked like good prospects. Walsky was bad and Oberg looks too skinny and weak to play at the NHL level . When I see how bad Walsky was and how Oberg is struggling I have to question player assessment.

2. The Canucks have struck out with the major free agents. Apparently the Canucks were willing to pay heavily for people like Gilroy, Bozek and Baldwin but never could land these players. My question would be who are the contact people – who is approaching these players or their agents and trying to get them signed. As of now, that person is badly failing.

All this brings me around to questioning whether Gillis, in spite of his intention, has got this area well covered. And that fear is intensified when I see Smyl in charge of this department. I know something of Smyl and I have zero confidence in his ability to identify talent and in his ability to get these player under contract. If I’m Gillis and I see the results of what has happened so far in the area of improving the team through college free agents and I question what’s going on. I think any overall manager has to raise questions when something in the organization is not working.
Bozak's cap hit is $3.7M. That's #1 overall money. It might be worth it to get his rights, but fact of the matter is that contending teams will be hard pressed to have a guy like Bozak take up $3.7M of cap room.

I think you're being overly harsh on Canucks management. This whole pursuit of NCAA unrestricted free agents because popular (again?) last summer.

1. Walsky really is in a different class from Bozak or Gilroy. Accordingly, signing Walsky is not much different from signing a late round draft pick. The potential is there, but a guy like Walsky is expected to take some time to adjust to the pro game.

As for Oberg, what's wrong with the Oberg signing? Oberg had a good camp, has had a decent rookie year down at the Moose, and even got into a couple of NHL games. For a Dman who just turned 22, that's not bad at all.

2. Reports have indicated that there were/are more than 20 interested teams competing for the most sought after NCAA UFAs. To say that whomever was responsible for contacting Bozak, Gilroy, and Baldwin's agent had failed badly is like an armchair GM saying why didn't so and so sign for this player and trade for that player. The teams that got Bozak and Gilroy didn't make the playoffs.

Fact is that these free agents look for the best opportunity to play. Gilroy signed a one-way contract. The Rangers clearly had a roster spot for him. Bozak made a similar choice. Canucks had Henrik and Kesler down the middle with prized prospect Cody Hodgson expected to make the team. The Leafs had Stajan, Grabovski, and Mitchell? Geez... I wonder which lineup is easier to crack. Here's Burke's take on the situation:

Quote:
Burke was quite candid in saying that he hopes Toronto isn't a destination for U.S. college free agents in the future because that will mean the team is too good to provide those players an opportunity.
http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=416674

As for Stan Smyl. I think he is doing a good job. I'm also unsure of how good he is identifying talent (we'll have to see how these NCAA guys turn out), but as a recruiter and as a liaison for the Canucks, the Steamer is doing a fantastic job. There is a reason Smyl's jersey is up in the rafters, the guy is likeable and popular (with that said I have never met him personally but have only heard great things from people who have). And from everything I've read, the Canucks' NCAA prospects love talking to him. But boom or bust, it really didn't take much scouting to go after Walsky or Oberg, since the two were highly touted. On the flip side, Smyl is credited for recommending the two.

Now Volpatti is a bit different. The Canucks were pretty much the first to contact him, so this we signing we can attribute to scouting.

F A N is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-21-2010, 02:57 AM
  #116
MS
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 14,862
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by orcatown View Post
MS

There is not just Gilroy and Bozek out of 2009

Hansen has had good AHL year for the Leafs and is on a low cap hit

Sexton has played well for the Ducks and is great cap hit for a potential top 6 player

Brad Thiessen was just named player of the week in the AHL and is on a bargain cap hit.

http://penguins.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=523154

And there are others who remain viable prospects.

Given the success of many of these undrafted college players, the Canucks must pursue this avenue of improving the team.

Fact that you get into a bidding war is part of the process. But you always have the out of putting these players in the minors. If the player comes thru then you have the player at a decent price. Even with the bonus a player like Bozek, if continues his present rate of development, is well worth the money.

Moreover, as alternative points out, this is not an either or situation. Going after unsigned players like Rome or Funk makes sense but that doesn’t excuse or explain away a lack of success in going after the NCAA players. Team should be doing both.

The fact that some of these players get too much, or that many don’t work out, or that the Canucks are not a prospect friendly environment (and could note here Thiessen signed in Pittsburg which already has Fleury) should not be factors that stops the Canucks from pursuing these free agents. These seem little more than excuses or maybe explanation for the lack of Canuck success.

I think the age thing is a red herring. Obviously you might get more development out of a younger player but you probably get a better line on a player if he is a little older. In the end, it doesn’t really matter. What you are asking is the team to assess the talent as it is (developed or developing) and ask if the player looks like someone who can make the team better. If so, then regardless of the player’s age they should go after him. If the bidding gets too ludicrous then yes they shouldn’t go too far. But, since it is a cost that can be shuffled to the minors, then a team as rich as the Canucks should be willing to get thoroughly involved in the bargaining process.

My overall problem is that to date the Canucks have not used the undrafted NCAA player market very successfully. I say so for a couple of reasons

1. The players picked up so far have not looked like good prospects. Walsky was bad and Oberg looks too skinny and weak to play at the NHL level . When I see how bad Walsky was and how Oberg is struggling I have to question player assessment.

2. The Canucks have struck out with the major free agents. Apparently the Canucks were willing to pay heavily for people like Gilroy, Bozek and Baldwin but never could land these players. My question would be who are the contact people – who is approaching these players or their agents and trying to get them signed. As of now, that person is badly failing.

All this brings me around to questioning whether Gillis, in spite of his intention, has got this area well covered. And that fear is intensified when I see Smyl in charge of this department. I know something of Smyl and I have zero confidence in his ability to identify talent and in his ability to get these player under contract. If I’m Gillis and I see the results of what has happened so far in the area of improving the team through college free agents and I question what’s going on. I think any overall manager has to raise questions when something in the organization is not working.


There may be, as you suggest, mitigating factors that need to be considered. However, in the end, this is a results oriented business and if you are not getting the results then something got to change.
Again, you're looking at the college UFA groups under too much of a microscope and ignoring mitigating factors.

1) Bozak and Gilroy signed at deals that would have been stupid money for this club to hand out. Thank god we didn't get either player at that money.

2) These guys sign with bad teams that have no depth. We're a good team that is one of the deepest in the league, especially up front and in goal. A guy who is 24 and has 2 years to show that he's NHL material is not going to sign with this club. If Bozak had signed here, he would have spent the entire year in Manitoba. Instead, he spent half the year as the #1 center on an NHL club.

We simply aren't going to be able to sign any forward/goalie prospects out of the NCAA of any note. No agent worth anything would advise taking a Canuck offer over the offer of a thin non-playoff team.

_________

And again, this market is stupidly inflated.

Far better use of money to sign quality 25-26 year old group VI UFAs (like Rome and Glass) who have proven they can excel in the AHL than scrubs like Walsky or Volpatti who end up being fringe players at that level.

The odd guy who is actually worth signing out of the NCAA gets ridiculous money and has 20 teams chasing him.

MS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-21-2010, 06:32 AM
  #117
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 21,585
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by MS View Post
Again, you're looking at the college UFA groups under too much of a microscope and ignoring mitigating factors.

1) Bozak and Gilroy signed at deals that would have been stupid money for this club to hand out. Thank god we didn't get either player at that money.

2) These guys sign with bad teams that have no depth. We're a good team that is one of the deepest in the league, especially up front and in goal. A guy who is 24 and has 2 years to show that he's NHL material is not going to sign with this club. If Bozak had signed here, he would have spent the entire year in Manitoba. Instead, he spent half the year as the #1 center on an NHL club.

We simply aren't going to be able to sign any forward/goalie prospects out of the NCAA of any note. No agent worth anything would advise taking a Canuck offer over the offer of a thin non-playoff team.

_________

And again, this market is stupidly inflated.

Far better use of money to sign quality 25-26 year old group VI UFAs (like Rome and Glass) who have proven they can excel in the AHL than scrubs like Walsky or Volpatti who end up being fringe players at that level.

The odd guy who is actually worth signing out of the NCAA gets ridiculous money and has 20 teams chasing him.
Most playoff teams are already close to the cap and allocation of a few million in cap space to see if a college FA can make it is a tough ask. Do you take a punt on a college guy or try to sign a Samuelsson?

OTOH a rebuilding team has cap space to burn and a can/should risk it to sign and play these guys. The players get to play and make NHL money win-win.

So bang-on, a team like TO is going to be a prime spot for them.

me2 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 01:38 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2015 All Rights Reserved.