HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Vancouver Canucks
Notices

Andrew Raycroft signed - One Year, $500k

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-06-2009, 10:56 PM
  #276
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Canucklehead View Post
At $500,000, if he manages to beat Schneider out for the backup role, he will be worth it.
Yeah, having a league-minimum reclamation project beat out our highly touted prospect would, indeed, be the best of all possible worlds.

  Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2009, 10:57 PM
  #277
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyatt4God View Post
We are talking Curtis Sanford, Jason Labarbara and Andrew Raycroft.
Somebody hide the matches, another straw man just burst into flames.

I wonder if Schneider will win the AHL goalie of the year award as many times as Barbarella?

  Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2009, 10:59 PM
  #278
Peter Griffin
Registered User
 
Peter Griffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 26,688
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
I wonder if Schneider will win the AHL goalie of the year award as many times as Barbarella?
Maybe he'll just have a career similar to Ryan Miller's. Afterall their careers up until this point look very similar.


Last edited by Peter Griffin: 07-06-2009 at 11:11 PM.
Peter Griffin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2009, 11:09 PM
  #279
hockeyfan666666
Registered User
 
hockeyfan666666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,365
vCash: 500
I don't see what all the fuss is about....It is a dirt cheap signing that provides goaltender depth and may be a pleasant surprise.

hockeyfan666666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2009, 11:15 PM
  #280
Jay Cee
P4G
 
Jay Cee's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,788
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
Somebody hide the matches, another straw man just burst into flames.

I wonder if Schneider will win the AHL goalie of the year award as many times as Barbarella?
Oh boy....

You don't make much sense at all do you?

Jay Cee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2009, 11:41 PM
  #281
Tom.H
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Kelowna
Posts: 1,281
vCash: 500
As long as he wasn't signed for very much, I don't mind this signing.
Raycroft may not have played very good in the last few years; however he has the talent to be a good goaltender. He also knows that this is probably his last kick at the can. If this doesn't work out, Raycroft probably will never play in the NHL again.
If that doesn't motivate him nothing will.

I hope it is a two way deal.

Tom.H is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2009, 11:41 PM
  #282
Drop the Sopel
Feaster famine
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: calgary
Posts: 15,262
vCash: 500
I hate this signing. And not just because Raycroft is one of the worst goalies in the league. There are 3 guy's in the NHL I absolutely can't stand, Dwayne Roloson, Ron Wilson and Andrew Raycroft.

This guy better get along with his teammates better than he does with the media. I have a feeling this will be a one year failed experiment.

Drop the Sopel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2009, 11:45 PM
  #283
Black Belt Jones
 
Black Belt Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 80
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drop the Sopel View Post
I hate this signing. And not just because Raycroft is one of the worst goalies in the league. There are 3 guy's in the NHL I absolutely can't stand, Dwayne Roloson, Ron Wilson and Andrew Raycroft.

This guy better get along with his teammates better than he does with the media. I have a feeling this will be a one year failed experiment.

If he's a problem, he gets waived, plays the rest of the season in Manitoba(cause no one will claim him) and Corey gets called up to back up....there is no risk

Black Belt Jones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2009, 11:55 PM
  #284
Jay Cee
P4G
 
Jay Cee's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,788
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drop the Sopel View Post
I hate this signing. And not just because Raycroft is one of the worst goalies in the league. There are 3 guy's in the NHL I absolutely can't stand, Dwayne Roloson, Ron Wilson and Andrew Raycroft.

This guy better get along with his teammates better than he does with the media. I have a feeling this will be a one year failed experiment.
DUDE....Curtis Sanford was a failed "project" before it started. He was the backup to Roberto Luongo...I know that in theory lots of people think there are lots of ppl who wanna sit on the bench 70 games a year. In reality goalies who do are very limited....

Besides if Schneider is godly he will just win us the cup while Raycroft sits on the bench if Luongo is injured. Luongo injured scenario was always gonna be dead meat and Scheider will be handed the ball if he can take it over our backup.

Jay Cee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-06-2009, 11:58 PM
  #285
Peter Griffin
Registered User
 
Peter Griffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 26,688
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drop the Sopel View Post

This guy better get along with his teammates better than he does with the media. I have a feeling this will be a one year failed experiment.
I think it's more or less a depth move. Schneider and Raycroft will battle for the back-up spot, the loser goes to Manitoba. I think most, myself included, feel Schneider is a given to land the spot, but when objectively thinking about it, that shouldn't be the case at all. Sure Schneider has put up great numbers at the AHL level, but he really hasn't been given the clearcut #1 role up to this point. There's no real harm by giving him another season in the AHL so he can play in 60+ games. Didn't seem to hurt Ryan Miller's progress.

Peter Griffin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-07-2009, 02:27 AM
  #286
Hooker
Registered User
 
Hooker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,369
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyfan666666 View Post
I don't see what all the fuss is about....It is a dirt cheap signing that provides goaltender depth and may be a pleasant surprise.
I've got no problem with it aside from philosophical disgust at the Leafs's failed players. But we shouldn't pretend that this is a value signing; Andrew Raycroft is worth no more than league minimum. Both as a starter and a backup, his play has been mostly awful.

Hooker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-07-2009, 02:34 AM
  #287
orcatown
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,584
vCash: 500
Reycroft has been so damn inconsistent. Seemed like after that first good year NHL players figured him out and went after some weak spots. Glove is often suspect for one.

Best hope is that Reycroft can be someone like Conklin, who after good start fell on hard times but then bounced back. Their styles are somewhat alike.

orcatown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-07-2009, 02:36 AM
  #288
orcatown
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,584
vCash: 500
Thanks for the report - Seems like we will have some interesting people to follow this year

Anyone got a full list of who is there>

orcatown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-07-2009, 02:51 AM
  #289
Ernie
Registered User
 
Ernie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,016
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by timorousme View Post
hear my words, my son

a two way contract has nothing to do with waiver eligibility, only with how much he is paid in the minors

waiver eligibility is determined by nhl experience and is a completely seperate issue

so if you want to have a forward you can shuttle between vancouver and manitoba, you need to find a guy who doesn't qualify for waiver, not a guy with a two way deal
oh, was I not specific enough for you?

I'm so sorry.

When I said two-way I implied that it meant he could be brought up and down. There are several different ways that could happen, obviously, and I don't think that there's any reason to spit out the whole CBA every time I make a point. So take your little *****-fest elsewhere, please.

Ernie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-07-2009, 02:55 AM
  #290
Spamhuis
Registered User
 
Spamhuis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Victoria
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,937
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernie View Post
oh, was I not specific enough for you?

I'm so sorry.

When I said two-way I implied that it meant he could be brought up and down. There are several different ways that could happen, obviously, and I don't think that there's any reason to spit out the whole CBA every time I make a point. So take your little *****-fest elsewhere, please.
???
He can be brought up and down.

Spamhuis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-07-2009, 03:01 AM
  #291
Ernie
Registered User
 
Ernie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,016
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dhabums View Post
It is astounding that after 4 years of the cba that we still have self styled NHL board gm wannabees who don't know the very basics of the cap and the rules that govern it.
Give me a break. I'd bet the majority of the GM's in the league don't know the CBA inside and out. Which is why they keep glorified accountants around (aka capologists) to make sure they don't make any mistakes.

I wouldn't claim to know every single rule in the CBA. That would be a massive waste of my time and would do absolutely nothing to enhance my enjoyment of NHL hockey.

In this case I did know the rules, though, and just went short hand, because it didn't really affect the point I was making. But if you want to amaze us with your CBA knowledge, go for it. Most people are here for interesting hockey discussion, not to see a couple of nerds go off on a tangent.

Ernie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-07-2009, 03:11 AM
  #292
dhabums*
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,028
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernie View Post
Give me a break. I'd bet the majority of the GM's in the league don't know the CBA inside and out.
I said basics.

We'll steer clear of discussing basic reading skills.

dhabums* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-07-2009, 03:29 AM
  #293
Ernie
Registered User
 
Ernie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,016
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dhabums View Post
I said basics.

We'll steer clear of discussing basic reading skills.
Basics?

The different classifications of waiver eligibility isn't exactly basics. Hey look, even Pierre LeBrun agrees with me (I suppose he's a wannabe GM too):

Quote:
Another facet of the new CBA that has GMs fretting is the way waivers now work. In general terms, any player who earns more than $75,000 in the minors must clear waivers on his way back up to the NHL. There are a myriad other eligibility provisions, but that's the basic requirement.
http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn...ic.php?t=35599




Which is all completely besides the point.

I was saying that the team had to have a player that they could bring up and down easily. Was it a bit lazy to classify that as a two-way contract? Maybe a little. Is it worth being anal retentive about? Well, I suppose if you feel the need to prove you're "better" than other people by being the biggest nerd around, then yes... me, I'll stick to reading Pierre LeBrun and paying attention to things that matter.

Ernie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-07-2009, 03:53 AM
  #294
dhabums*
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,028
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernie View Post
Basics?

The different classifications of waiver eligibility isn't exactly basics. Hey look, even Pierre LeBrun agrees with me (I suppose he's a wannabe GM too):


http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn...ic.php?t=35599




Which is all completely besides the point.

I was saying that the team had to have a player that they could bring up and down easily. Was it a bit lazy to classify that as a two-way contract? Maybe a little. Is it worth being anal retentive about? Well, I suppose if you feel the need to prove you're "better" than other people by being the biggest nerd around, then yes... me, I'll stick to reading Pierre LeBrun and paying attention to things that matter.
A four year old article that has been dealt with? (aka the Flaherty rule)

If people are going to criticize GMs for the moves they make it would be a good start to obtain a very basic working knowledge of the cba. My post was made generally speaking, you need not take it so personally. It is a nice to see though that generally speaking, the posters that are more critical of every move Gillis makes are usually the ones who don't get WHY moves are made because the cba confuses them.

dhabums* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-07-2009, 04:20 AM
  #295
Ernie
Registered User
 
Ernie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,016
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dhabums View Post
A four year old article that has been dealt with? (aka the Flaherty rule)

If people are going to criticize GMs for the moves they make it would be a good start to obtain a very basic working knowledge of the cba. My post was made generally speaking, you need not take it so personally. It is a nice to see though that generally speaking, the posters that are more critical of every move Gillis makes are usually the ones who don't get WHY moves are made because the cba confuses them.
The post you latched on to was in reply to a post I had made. If you're going to make a general statement, find an actual example that fits instead of backing up someone who is being anal retentive.

Ernie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-07-2009, 04:31 AM
  #296
dhabums*
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,028
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernie View Post
The post you latched on to was in reply to a post I had made. If you're going to make a general statement, find an actual example that fits instead of backing up someone who is being anal retentive.
Actually I'd say they did the board a service by correcting an error which seems to be self-perpetuating.

dhabums* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-07-2009, 05:09 AM
  #297
Ernie
Registered User
 
Ernie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,016
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dhabums View Post
Actually I'd say they did the board a service by correcting an error which seems to be self-perpetuating.
Well, if you want to be technical, I don't believe the word "two-way" is ever mentioned in the CBA, so the definition could just as easily mean "a contract under which a player doesn't have to go through waivers".

The point is that people should be able to make a point without others being ***** about it. You want to be on your high horse about technicalities in the CBA, but I can't ever remember you making a point that was actually interesting and relevant. You're wasting my time and everyone else's with this nonsense.

Ernie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-07-2009, 09:22 AM
  #298
goalie311
Registered User
 
goalie311's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,608
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cocomero View Post


What's so funny, that the Canucks played a great game?

Goal 1 - nice 1-time glove side shot from Ohlund in the slot as Raycroft was moving L to R
Goal 2 - shot through a screen
Goal 3 - Linden scored on a rebound on a 5-on-3 PP
Goal 4 - breakaway, so 50/50 chance
Goal 5 - now this was a bad goal, should have had it
Goal 6 - brutal giveaway by Leafs D

And btw, the goal Luongo let in wasn't the greatest either.....

goalie311 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-07-2009, 09:28 AM
  #299
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernie View Post
The point is that people should be able to make a point without others being ***** about it. You want to be on your high horse about technicalities in the CBA, but I can't ever remember you making a point that was actually interesting and relevant. You're wasting my time and everyone else's with this nonsense.
A sentence complaining about high horsing, followed by an entire paragraph of high horsing. Nice.

Dude, you were WRONG and you got called on it. It happens to everyone, take it like a man stop whining.

  Reply With Quote
Old
07-07-2009, 10:50 AM
  #300
FruityPants3*
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,201
vCash: 500
What a stupid argument over semantics.

This just in: teams don't like paying their players $500,000+ to play in the minors. They would much rather pay them a minor league salary, which is exactly why Ernie's point about a 2-way contract was a valid one.

FruityPants3* 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 01:08 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.