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

Buyout clause - Do we use it?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-06-2013, 03:24 PM
  #251
VinnyC
vancity, c-bus, 'peg
 
VinnyC's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Na'ē panjā
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,762
vCash: 500
I doubt Ballard is tradeable at all. No defenseman who has performed as poorly as him in the last two seasons will get anything close to $4.2 million. In the new cap, he's worth $2-2.5M max.

I believe Luongo can still be moved, though. But with a lower cap his value will obviously go down. GMMG should've traded him in the draft; now a return like L. Schenn (even though I think he'd be a poor fit) is out of reach

VinnyC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 03:25 PM
  #252
NugentHopkinsfan
Registered User
 
NugentHopkinsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 9,087
vCash: 500
Obviously have to use it on Ballard, wait on Booth for one more year and use it on him in 2014 if needed.

NugentHopkinsfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 04:46 PM
  #253
Cntrmid
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 87
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevecanuck16 View Post

Any thoughts on the Burrows-Kesler-Hansen line? I admit that I may be overly fond of the idea due to the memories of their rambunctious success that one year. I think that line could win a playoff series single-handedly if it got rolling.
Not sure if Hansen was on the line, but the Kesler-Burrows duo won us the epic Chi series, and I thought that Hansen was the best Canuck on the ice in the Bos series.

The line-up with Burrows and the Twins is definitely the more conventional one, and the one we'll see submitted most regularly. But the ability to play Kesler with Burrows is a nice ace up our sleeve, particularly if we find a good replacement with the twins.

Against an elite team in the play-offs, we can release the hounds on the opponents top guns, while loading the twins with a 220 lb, banging winger to face an elite top-pairing (Keith-Seabrook, Weber, Chara, etc).

I think it'd be a great thing if Kassian showed some chemistry with the twins.

Cntrmid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 07:47 PM
  #254
silvercanuck
Registered User
 
silvercanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,089
vCash: 500
Wait.. so Edler was playing on the Canucks third pairing and Salo was on the top pairing? Or is Ballard on the top pairing and Garrison on the bottom six? Stupid either way.

And what about Edler's back. Wont that hurt him when getting a new contract?

I say buying anyone out right now is ridiculous. Booth has trade value. Keith Ballard may even have value. Luongo sure as hell is not going to be bought out when he has $30 million left on his contract. Let's be realistic.

silvercanuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 07:48 PM
  #255
Bieksallent
Registered User
 
Bieksallent's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,752
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by silvercanuck View Post
Wait.. so Edler was playing on the Canucks third pairing and Salo was on the top pairing? Or is Ballard on the top pairing and Garrison on the bottom six? Stupid either way.

And what about Edler's back. Wont that hurt him when getting a new contract?

I say buying anyone out right now is ridiculous. Booth has trade value. Keith Ballard may even have value. Luongo sure as hell is not going to be bought out when he has $30 million left on his contract. Let's be realistic.
I thought the Islanders wanted Ballard in the summer? There'd be a team out there willing to take a risk on Booth if the return asking price isn't high.

Bieksallent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 08:51 PM
  #256
stevecanuck16
Registered User
 
stevecanuck16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,292
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by VinnyC View Post
I doubt Ballard is tradeable at all. No defenseman who has performed as poorly as him in the last two seasons will get anything close to $4.2 million. In the new cap, he's worth $2-2.5M max.

I believe Luongo can still be moved, though. But with a lower cap his value will obviously go down. GMMG should've traded him in the draft; now a return like L. Schenn (even though I think he'd be a poor fit) is out of reach
On the first point, I think you are overplaying Ballard's poor play. To me, he is simply the 5th best of our 5 top-four defenseman. The poster who called him a luxury is absolutely correct, and we may need to get rid of him for that reason, but it would likely be a downgrade.

As for Luongo, the cap hasn't been lowered near as much as expected. Combine this with other factors including the rumoured ability to retain salary in trades, the lack of punishment for such contracts and the removal of any uncertainty about the future of the contract, and the unique situation of a shortened season, and I think his value has gone up if anything. Remember, a large part of the reason why people tore down his value before was the possibility of the new CBA making his contract an albatross. It didn't (unless we haven't heard some unfortunate details of the CBA).

stevecanuck16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 10:25 PM
  #257
Shareefruck
Registered User
 
Shareefruck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,232
vCash: 500
If I were Gillis I would not use it on Ballard.

I think it's pretty clear that his salary isn't so bad that he's untradeable anyways, even if it's only for a 7th round pick.

Shareefruck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 10:29 PM
  #258
kanuck87
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 4,208
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shareefruck View Post
If I were Gillis I would not use it on Ballard.

I think it's pretty clear that his salary isn't so bad that he's untradeable anyways, even if it's only for a 7th round pick.
But if he is untradeable, we would use it on him right?

kanuck87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 10:34 PM
  #259
VinnyC
vancity, c-bus, 'peg
 
VinnyC's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Na'ē panjā
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,762
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevecanuck16 View Post
On the first point, I think you are overplaying Ballard's poor play. To me, he is simply the 5th best of our 5 top-four defenseman. The poster who called him a luxury is absolutely correct, and we may need to get rid of him for that reason, but it would likely be a downgrade.

As for Luongo, the cap hasn't been lowered near as much as expected. Combine this with other factors including the rumoured ability to retain salary in trades, the lack of punishment for such contracts and the removal of any uncertainty about the future of the contract, and the unique situation of a shortened season, and I think his value has gone up if anything. Remember, a large part of the reason why people tore down his value before was the possibility of the new CBA making his contract an albatross. It didn't (unless we haven't heard some unfortunate details of the CBA).

Relative to his salary cap, Ballard has played poorly. No good team would want a guy paid that much to be putting in the work of a bottom-pairing defenseman. At this point, he's been one step above Komisarek. Maybe not a sure-fire buyout candidate, but it will be an option that will be considered.

I agree that Luongo's contract isn't an "albatross" under the new cap, but it is still a significant burden for teams to bear, somewhat more so now. The potential returns have undoubtedly diminished.

VinnyC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 10:38 PM
  #260
Shareefruck
Registered User
 
Shareefruck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,232
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kanuck87 View Post
But if he is untradeable, we would use it on him right?
No (at least, I don't think we should). I would rather not use it on anyone and keep Ballard/Booth for 4. Who do you imagine replacing him with?

Shareefruck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-06-2013, 11:19 PM
  #261
Anzes Eyes
5th line centre
 
Anzes Eyes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 536
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canucker View Post
Valid points, but I still greatly dislike the practice...I am of the opinion that its cowardly...same as sitting up in a tree to hunt. Animals should have a chance.
http://animal.discovery.com/tv-shows...al-attacks.htm

Anzes Eyes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 12:06 AM
  #262
stevecanuck16
Registered User
 
stevecanuck16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,292
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by VinnyC View Post
Relative to his salary cap, Ballard has played poorly. No good team would want a guy paid that much to be putting in the work of a bottom-pairing defenseman. At this point, he's been one step above Komisarek. Maybe not a sure-fire buyout candidate, but it will be an option that will be considered.

I agree that Luongo's contract isn't an "albatross" under the new cap, but it is still a significant burden for teams to bear, somewhat more so now. The potential returns have undoubtedly diminished.
Diminished from what? His value was lowered due to the possibility he became an albatross, that possibility no longer exists.

stevecanuck16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 12:22 AM
  #263
Shareefruck
Registered User
 
Shareefruck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,232
vCash: 500
I don't understand the people wanting to get rid of Booth for nothing. I've been as down on him as anyone, but he does have intriguing potential, and is a pretty adequate contributor compared to what's available.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canucker View Post
Call me an ******* all you like, I believe that archaic and oppressive religious ideals need to be squashed. But thats neither here nor there, but its all you seem to focus on. You are the one who can't separate Booth "the hockey player" from Booth "the religious goon". I despise his beliefs but am still able to look at his game objectively (yes, I can still be objective and have a different view than yourself). You on the other hand refuse to admit that he's a one dimensional, power forward who brings very little to the table for $4.25m if he's not scoring...something he had trouble with last season, especially late and into the playoffs. You'd prefer to turn it into some sort of ficticious "personal vendetta" I have to get rid of Booth. Perhaps, this would clear things up (although I doubt it)...I would let the Pope coach our hockey team if I thought he would help us get a cup.

Honestly, I know where you are coming from with the "personal beliefs" thing and if you want to fight for their freedoms to try and feed god into our schools, governments and our lives in general, you go right ahead...I'm not that person. While you and others might find it intolerant of me, I'm fine with the label...I'm intolerant of ignorant viewpoints and I fight against that ignorance. You will not convince me that my position is wrong so messaging in regards to the topic will serve no real purpose...but if you wish to debate it, feel free...I always welcome debates on religion/beliefs, but I won't be initiating any.

And thats the LAST I will speak of "personal beliefs" in this thread.
For what it's worth, I agree with you completely. Prejudices and attacks on the uncontrollable should not be tolerated, obviously, but beliefs, opinions, behavior, and statements should absolutely be open to criticism and questioning. It shouldn't be something that we should have a right to be protected from and expect censorship from anyone who might offend you over, IMO. I personally believe that organized religion is an awful awful thing as well (and I personally think it's a tragedy that theism, which I find completely sound and fair, is attached at the hip to it). Separate that from how the person is, sure, but it's still something that's fair to point to as a negative, IMO, just like any other behavioral pattern or lifestyle choice that anyone disagrees or scoffs at, such as drug use, nihilism, misogyny, prostitution, general pessimism, selfishness, ego, attention-whoring etc. (some might say I'm picking horrible things that shouldn't be compared, but I don't see these people as necessarily directly hurting others or doing anything that they don't feel should be respected as their personal choice as well). Religion should be no more sacred, especially when it has so much power and manipulative control over how the world runs.

I wouldn't complain about Booth myself simply because 1) it's off-topic, and 2) for the most part, he's kept his religion mostly hidden and to himself, and it's tough to criticize what you don't see/hear, though.

Aside from it being off-topic, though, showing general distaste over someone's behavior and personal decisions (if you find them distasteful) should absolutely be fair game, IMO.

aaanndd hopefully that's the last thing I'll say about that as well (although I fear it might cause a reaction that might make that difficult).


Last edited by Shareefruck: 01-07-2013 at 12:47 AM.
Shareefruck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 05:45 AM
  #264
GoTeamDom
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 942
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Griffin View Post
Ballard wouldn't be replacing Salo, he'd be replacing Edler and he's a huge downgrade. Garrison is Salo's replacement and probably a decent upgrade, but that still leaves a huge downgrade from Edler to Ballard.
I was just going simply by depth chart, not position.

Edler --> Hamhuis
Hamhuis --> Garrison
Bieksa --> Bieksa
Salo --> Ballard
Ballard --> Tanev
Tanev --> Alberts

I still stand by my argument that the top 4 is not significantly diminished swapping Garrison/Ballard for Edler/Salo. Your Hamhuis/Bieksa pairing would be your #1 pairing, which it arguably was anyways going up against opposing team's best lines. Garrison has been playing RD with Campbell for what it's worth, and a Ballard/Garrison second pairing would be more than adequate.

This isn't even slotting in any assets that you would assuredly get back in trade for Edler and Luongo.

I am not an Edler hater; in fact, I am a fan of his reliable, two-way game.

I just think that it is worth exploring the option of trading Edler, as he is the only major piece on this team that is not locked in for at least the next 2 years. I would suspect that this is by design and not just coincidence as Burrows got an extension during the off season.

With the compressed season being an absolute crap shoot, it would probably be a seller's market with teams that normally wouldn't be contending in a position to contend.

GMMG would be doing an injustice to the team if he was not at least exploring the option of trading Edler for a king's ransom. If I am misreading the potential market for Edler, then I would be content with keeping him longterm. Under no circumstance would it be acceptable to let him walk away for nothing.

I guess the other thing to consider is what you think the chances are for the Canucks to win it all this year. If you are more optimistic in their chances I suppose it makes almost no sense to deal your best dman. If you are more pessimistic like I am, then you end up trying to tinker with the lineup and try to find meaning throughout the season.

GoTeamDom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 11:14 AM
  #265
WonderTwinsUnite
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: North Delta, B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,546
vCash: 500
Maaaaybe we use it on Ballard. I think he could be dealt fairly easily, though.

WonderTwinsUnite is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 11:23 AM
  #266
Eddy Punch Clock
Gold Jerry!!!
 
Eddy Punch Clock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Chillbillyville
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,998
vCash: 500
Hey, does this mean the Islanders can get Yashin off their books finally?

(though they actually probably still need him there to reach the floor )

Eddy Punch Clock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 12:06 PM
  #267
kcunac
Registered User
 
kcunac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Geneva
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 212
vCash: 500
Can 100% confirm the new CBA will include the cap benefit recapture formula. It will apply to existing deals "in excess of six years"

https://twitter.com/mirtle/status/288314425461575681

Means we're on the hook for Luongo's contract after he's traded or after he retires. Change anyone's view regarding a buyout?

kcunac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 12:16 PM
  #268
Barney Gumble
Registered User
 
Barney Gumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 19,827
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcunac View Post
Can 100% confirm the new CBA will include the cap benefit recapture formula. It will apply to existing deals "in excess of six years"

https://twitter.com/mirtle/status/288314425461575681

Means we're on the hook for Luongo's contract after he's traded or after he retires. Change anyone's view regarding a buyout?
meh, there's a *FAR* greater chance of Gillis keeping Luongo and dealing Schneider than that happening (buying out Luongo's contract). The Aquilini's don't have that much money laying around. Flyers do (re: Bryz).

Barney Gumble is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 01:27 PM
  #269
silvercanuck
Registered User
 
silvercanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,089
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcunac View Post
Can 100% confirm the new CBA will include the cap benefit recapture formula. It will apply to existing deals "in excess of six years"

https://twitter.com/mirtle/status/288314425461575681

Means we're on the hook for Luongo's contract after he's traded or after he retires. Change anyone's view regarding a buyout?
Well isn't that just lovely. He moved the goal posts on deals that were legal under the old CBA. Nice to see Bettman get his wish to stick it to all the teams that drive the league.

I wonder if any pro-Bettman fans ever considered what was in it for their team when they were bashing the players. There were a lot of pro-Bettman Canuck fans around here. Are you guys happy now?

silvercanuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 01:31 PM
  #270
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,657
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VinnyC View Post
I doubt Ballard is tradeable at all. No defenseman who has performed as poorly as him in the last two seasons will get anything close to $4.2 million. In the new cap, he's worth $2-2.5M max.

I believe Luongo can still be moved, though. But with a lower cap his value will obviously go down. GMMG should've traded him in the draft; now a return like L. Schenn (even though I think he'd be a poor fit) is out of reach
The cap isn't going down from where it was last season... forever.

Scurr is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 01:40 PM
  #271
lush
@jasonlush
 
lush's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,314
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by silvercanuck View Post
Well isn't that just lovely. He moved the goal posts on deals that were legal under the old CBA. Nice to see Bettman get his wish to stick it to all the teams that drive the league.

I wonder if any pro-Bettman fans ever considered what was in it for their team when they were bashing the players. There were a lot of pro-Bettman Canuck fans around here. Are you guys happy now?

I'm not one bit happy about this. The NHL clears every contract in some fashion. They cleared Luongo's presumably. There were no penalties like there were for Kovalchuk. Now there's a new CBA and they didn't grandfather these in?

lush is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 01:46 PM
  #272
kcunac
Registered User
 
kcunac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Geneva
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 212
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by lush View Post
I'm not one bit happy about this. The NHL clears every contract in some fashion. They cleared Luongo's presumably. There were no penalties like there were for Kovalchuk. Now there's a new CBA and they didn't grandfather these in?
Hopefully there's some formula or something so it isn't a 100% charge against the cap against the signing team when the player retires. I also find it hypocritical, but presumably this is why the buyouts were included in the CBA (not saying we should buy out Luongo). One positive would be his trade value must be increased.

kcunac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 01:49 PM
  #273
Taco Fingerhat
Registered User
 
Taco Fingerhat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,803
vCash: 4420
I don't know if this thought has been posted yet, but the Canucks look like one of a few teams that don't need to use the buyout clause. It seems a waste to just let that clause disintegrate without using it after two years.

Is there any chance we could take on teams overpriced players and buy them out ourselves, and in the process receive a 1st round draft pick or something as compensation?
Like a trade of Dale Weise for Scott Gomez and a 1st and 2nd round draft pick.
Can we do this? I'm sure the poorer teams would be all over this. Seems like a nice little loophole.

Taco Fingerhat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-07-2013, 01:54 PM
  #274
LeftCoast
Registered User
 
LeftCoast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,741
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by lush View Post
I'm not one bit happy about this. The NHL clears every contract in some fashion. They cleared Luongo's presumably. There were no penalties like there were for Kovalchuk. Now there's a new CBA and they didn't grandfather these in?
I agree. I think its dirty pool to go after existing contracts. There was NO cap circumvention. These contracts were legal, written in good faith and approved by the league.

LeftCoast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-15-2013, 11:34 AM
  #275
KidCanuck*
HORS∃Y
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Earth
Posts: 442
vCash: 500
There is talk of Gomez and Redden may be able to be bought out now and only be charged for their AHL cap hit. Shouldn't this be available to the other 28 teams in the league? Seems a little unfair to me that because teams are willing to risk injury with some players they may buy out in the summer not have the same luxury. I am not saying that every team may use it right now but it should be available if they want to exercise it for this season.

KidCanuck* 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 04:24 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.