HFBoards

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

How are we going to afford the Sedins now?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-18-2009, 01:36 PM
  #1
sticknrink
Registered User
 
sticknrink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: London
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,710
vCash: 500
How are we going to afford the Sedins now?

It is a small sample size, but so far the twins are on a 2ppg pace. If they maintain that, or at least stay at a ppg pace in the playoffs, their value is going to absolutely _skyrocket_ now that they've put the playoff label to rest.

Gillis needs to sign them as soon as possible. Everytime they score, their agent ratchets up the amount.

sticknrink is offline  
Old
04-18-2009, 01:41 PM
  #2
Placebo Effect
Registered User
 
Placebo Effect's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Your Mind
Country: China
Posts: 7,155
vCash: 500
We would need to do what Detroit did with Franzen even if Gillis isn't a fan of the long term deals. Throw in a NMC or NTC. What's the most salary can drop from year to year? The Sedins will start next year at 29 so a 8-10 year can't be out of the question front loaded. Definitely think Detroit has set a precedent on how to take advantage of the CBA/Cap

Placebo Effect is offline  
Old
04-18-2009, 01:42 PM
  #3
Bobby Lou
We Surrender
 
Bobby Lou's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: The Crease
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,323
vCash: 500
It's always been about the Sedins willingness to stay here anyways. Sure a poor playoff showing would have decreased their value, but then it would also call into question whether Gillis actually even bothers bringing them back. The likelihood of us re-signing the Twins hasn't really changed in my opinion - it's always been about their willingness to take less money to stay here, and I think they will.

Bobby Lou is offline  
Old
04-18-2009, 01:43 PM
  #4
NFITO
hockeyinsanity*****
 
NFITO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,845
vCash: 500
2 games is just 2 games... I don't see them falling apart in the playoffs, because I always thought that their "choke" label in the playoffs was unfair, but we're just 2 games in and neither the twins, nor this team, have put any playoff labels to rest.

Anything short of getting to the WCF and there will be criticism around the twins and the team... we're still a LONG way from getting there.

NFITO is offline  
Old
04-18-2009, 01:45 PM
  #5
VanEric
Registered User
 
VanEric's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,344
vCash: 500
I have no problem paying them whatever they want if they keep bringing this level of intensity and play throughout the playoffs.

Especially considering you have their ideal winger locked up at a paltry 2 million for 4 years.

VanEric is offline  
Old
04-18-2009, 01:54 PM
  #6
pitseleh
Registered User
 
pitseleh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,628
vCash: 500
For what it's worth, Gillis and Barry said a few months ago that playoff performance wasn't really going to have a bearing on the value of a new contract.

pitseleh is offline  
Old
04-18-2009, 01:55 PM
  #7
Johnny Canucker
Registered User
 
Johnny Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,158
vCash: 500
JESUS JOHNSON

I have been saying to sign these guy from the begining of the year!!!!

They are top line players, and good ones. and they want less than 6m per year.

sign them now, or Brian Burke will.

Johnny Canucker is offline  
Old
04-18-2009, 01:56 PM
  #8
Drop the Sopel
Feaster famine
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: calgary
Posts: 15,260
vCash: 500
I think they'll re-sign for $5.5mil each on 4 year deals. What's the most they would realistically be offered by another team during these current economic times? I wouldn't think anybody would offer more than $6.5mil and even then there aren't going to be many teams looking to lock up $13mil a year longterm with the cap expected to decrease in 2 years.

Will they walk away if they're offered $6mil elsewhere and only $5.5mil from Vancouver? I highly doubt it.

If I'm Mike Gillis I offer them both 10 year, $45mil contracts and heavily frontload the deal. If they play until they're 36 that would be the equivalent of them getting 7 years @ $6mil each. Leaving the last 3 years at $1mil on the table if they decide to retire.

Luongo should get a similar type of deal. We should be exploiting the holes in the current CBA as Ken Holland keeps doing in Detroit. These loopholes won't be around much longer.

Drop the Sopel is offline  
Old
04-18-2009, 01:58 PM
  #9
Placebo Effect
Registered User
 
Placebo Effect's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Your Mind
Country: China
Posts: 7,155
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drop the Sopel View Post
I think they'll re-sign for $5.5mil each on 4 year deals. What's the most they would realistically be offered by another team during these current economic times? I wouldn't think anybody would offer more than $6.5mil and even then there aren't going to be many teams looking to lock up $13mil a year longterm with the cap expected to decrease in 2 years.

Will they walk away if they're offered $6mil elsewhere and only $5.5mil from Vancouver? I highly doubt it.

If I'm Mike Gillis I offer them both 10 year, $45mil contracts and heavily frontload the deal. If they play until they're 36 that would be the equivalent of them getting 7 years @ $6mil each. Leaving the last 3 years at $1mil on the table if they decide to retire.

Luongo should get a similar type of deal. We should be exploiting the holes in the current CBA as Ken Holland keeps doing in Detroit. These loopholes won't be around much longer.
Exactly! When this CBA is up I'm sure this loophole is gone, we need to take advantage of it while we can. It wouldn't be unreasonable for 10 years for both if Franzen got 11 years at 29 (10 months older than the Sedins and he's had injury issues). Luongo is right in the same age group just turning 30.

Placebo Effect is offline  
Old
04-18-2009, 01:59 PM
  #10
JannikAtTheDisco
No panic it's Jannik
 
JannikAtTheDisco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: a van in vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,730
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeoffCourtnall View Post
JESUS JOHNSON

I have been saying to sign these guy from the begining of the year!!!!

They are top line players, and good ones. and they want less than 6m per year.

sign them now, or Brian Burke will.
Ya its kinda funny what 2 playoff games can do to bring people on the bandwagon. Anyone who thought these guys weren't 1st liners are just idiots. If they need 6 mill you give it to them. Hopefully you can get them at 5-5.5 but you aren't letting them go like the Oilers did Ryan Smyth for a few hundred thousand a year.

JannikAtTheDisco is offline  
Old
04-18-2009, 02:03 PM
  #11
pitseleh
Registered User
 
pitseleh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,628
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drop the Sopel View Post
If I'm Mike Gillis I offer them both 10 year, $45mil contracts and heavily frontload the deal. If they play until they're 36 that would be the equivalent of them getting 7 years @ $6mil each. Leaving the last 3 years at $1mil on the table if they decide to retire.
What's been brought up on the Business board is that long terms deals like that will take you through two different CBAs and by then they may close the loophole in some way, for example by having a cap penalty similar to the one you face if you buyout a player who is on a front-loaded deal if a player is sent to the minors or retires. You are taking a risk that things don't change between now and then.

pitseleh is offline  
Old
04-18-2009, 02:03 PM
  #12
Momesso
Registered User
 
Momesso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,575
vCash: 500
If the Twins want to play on a competitive team, they'll stay here. There are only a handful of teams with an elite goalie, and none of the potential suitors out there have one.

If Burke knows what's good for his team, getting a top goalie should be his one and only priority this offseason. Leafs had no trouble scoring, they need a goalie.

Momesso is offline  
Old
04-18-2009, 02:05 PM
  #13
Placebo Effect
Registered User
 
Placebo Effect's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Your Mind
Country: China
Posts: 7,155
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pitseleh View Post
What's been brought up on the Business board is that long terms deals like that will take you through two different CBAs and by then they may close the loophole in some way, for example by having a cap penalty similar to the one you face if you buyout a player who is on a front-loaded deal if a player is sent to the minors or retires. You are taking a risk that things don't change between now and then.
I'm not familiar with how CBA's etc work, but is there a reason you can get punished for doing something legally in one CBA but because of a change you get penalized? The GM's are just taking advantage of what both the players and owners agreed upon.

Placebo Effect is offline  
Old
04-18-2009, 02:07 PM
  #14
Cody Hodgson
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 304
vCash: 500
if we get past the 2nd round they'll be going up against much better defensive pairings.

The Blues back end is pretty weak. See what the elite players can do to shut them down.

That being said... Sedin twins are playing completely different are just dominating the offensive zone. They actually very aggresive on the forecheck and are hitting ppl quite often these days. Really really impressed with the twins so far.

Cody Hodgson is offline  
Old
04-18-2009, 02:10 PM
  #15
pitseleh
Registered User
 
pitseleh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,628
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick The Rypper View Post
I'm not familiar with how CBA's etc work, but is there a reason you can get punished for doing something legally in one CBA but because of a change you get penalized? The GM's are just taking advantage of what both the players and owners agreed upon.
It's not necessarily being penalized but having a loophole closed. It's cap circumvention if you sign a deal under the pretense that said player is going to retire or be sent to the minors or whatever by the end of the deal so that you can reduce the cap hit in the short term over a long term deal.

A change in the CBA to add a cap penalty for teams that make a 'wink, wink, nudge, nudge' type of deal may not necessarily be grandfathered in. If teams are upset by it, it'll be pretty obvious that it was because they were wanting to take advantage of the cap.

It may never happen, or it may happen and be grandfathered in but it's still a risk that things may change with time. When the CBA was changed to the current one there were some things that were grandfathered (like allowing teams a one time buyout period where it didn't count against the cap) and others weren't (forcing teams who had already signed contracts that were worth more than the 20% of the cap limit to pay the full amount). There's no guarantees either way.

pitseleh is offline  
Old
04-18-2009, 02:16 PM
  #16
VanEric
Registered User
 
VanEric's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,344
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cody Hodgson View Post
if we get past the 2nd round they'll be going up against much better defensive pairings.

The Blues back end is pretty weak. See what the elite players can do to shut them down.

That being said... Sedin twins are playing completely different are just dominating the offensive zone. They actually very aggresive on the forecheck and are hitting ppl quite often these days. Really really impressed with the twins so far.
The Blues back end might be weak on paper but they've been great at shutting guys down all season long. Their biggest weakness is their ability to move the puck and put up points but they're very strong in their own zone especially the Jackman/Polak pairing.

VanEric is offline  
Old
04-18-2009, 02:19 PM
  #17
Drop the Sopel
Feaster famine
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: calgary
Posts: 15,260
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pitseleh View Post
What's been brought up on the Business board is that long terms deals like that will take you through two different CBAs and by then they may close the loophole in some way, for example by having a cap penalty similar to the one you face if you buyout a player who is on a front-loaded deal if a player is sent to the minors or retires. You are taking a risk that things don't change between now and then.
I didn't see that. That definately muddies things a bit. Usually rules get grandfathered where they only apply to players and contracts that were signed during the time of the current CBA in place. It seems unfair to hold organizations accountable for contracts they signed in a different economic climate and with different CBA considerations at play. Jaromir Jagr for example wasn't held as $9mil cap hit when the salary cap was put in place.

It is something to be weary of though. I wonder what Ken Holland thinks of such a scenario?

Edit- What you said is right. If teams do complain about their longterm deals it would be suggesting they were looking to circumvent the cap. Tricky situation to be sure.

Drop the Sopel is offline  
Old
04-18-2009, 02:19 PM
  #18
Barney Gumble
Registered User
 
Barney Gumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 19,568
vCash: 500
meh, not alot of teams can afford a $13+ million cap hit for the both of them (if they "go for the cash"); even fewer for the 2010/2011 seeason.

Barney Gumble is offline  
Old
04-18-2009, 02:24 PM
  #19
pitseleh
Registered User
 
pitseleh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,628
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drop the Sopel View Post
Jaromir Jagr for example wasn't held as $9mil cap hit when the salary cap was put in place.
Actually Jagr was, it's just that New York and Washington had to split his cap hit because Washington agreed to pay half his salary when they traded him.

Quote:
It is something to be weary of though. I wonder what Ken Holland thinks of such a scenario?
The only reason I see it potentially being an issue is that if teams are against such an amendment it's obviously because they thought they could circumvent the cap by signing these ridiculously long term deals. If you were planning on keeping guys like Zetterberg and Franzen for the entire length of their deals then such an amendment wouldn't affect you but if you weren't you'd have reason to be upset because now you get stuck with a big cap hit at the end that you weren't expecting to pay. The league may not play nice if that's the argument against changing things.

pitseleh is offline  
Old
04-18-2009, 02:25 PM
  #20
rye&ginger
Registered User
 
rye&ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,156
vCash: 500
2 games in, yeah worth $1m raise over what they would have got. /s

rye&ginger is offline  
Old
04-18-2009, 02:26 PM
  #21
Mike NHL
Registered User
 
Mike NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 163
vCash: 500
who cares about next season, we're going for the ****ing stanley cup right now

Mike NHL is offline  
Old
04-18-2009, 02:34 PM
  #22
Taco Fingerhat
Registered User
 
Taco Fingerhat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,773
vCash: 4420
IF the Sedins keep producing at or near this clip then you sign them for whatever it takes. If they turn out to be clutch playoff performers then you make room for these guys. Waiting to see their playoff results may drive up their asking price, but it gives Gillis the confidence he needs to make them a solid long-term offer knowing he has the right guys for the job.

Taco Fingerhat is offline  
Old
04-18-2009, 02:36 PM
  #23
Payaso619*
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Country: Mexico
Posts: 4,136
vCash: 500
In comes Burrows. I was afraid of this happening aswell though, on one hand they do good we re-sign them but, it will take a toll on our top 6 and we might not be able to ice a better team than the one we have right now, and in the other hand they don't do any good and we let them go, and go after other players but still making up for the lost of the Sedins and keeping the 2nd line intact. It's a scary thought and I think Gillis has a really tough challenge up ahead of him. The Sedins are saying all the right things though but, in this league talk is as good as nothing when it comes down to actions. I hope we re-sign them, maybe a long term deal where the cap hit is affordable? I'm thinking a 7 year deal, front loading the first 5 years that averages out to 4.5M a year.

Payaso619* is offline  
Old
04-18-2009, 02:40 PM
  #24
Lard_Lad
Registered User
 
Lard_Lad's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Kelowna
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,678
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pitseleh View Post
The only reason I see it potentially being an issue is that if teams are against such an amendment it's obviously because they thought they could circumvent the cap by signing these ridiculously long term deals. If you were planning on keeping guys like Zetterberg and Franzen for the entire length of their deals then such an amendment wouldn't affect you but if you weren't you'd have reason to be upset because now you get stuck with a big cap hit at the end that you weren't expecting to pay. The league may not play nice if that's the argument against changing things.
If it does get to that point, I'm sure there'll be some sort of mechanism for dealing with contracts like Franzen's, like a one-time option for the Wings to buy out the remainder of the contract with no cap hit. I can see the big-market teams agreeing to close the loophole, but no way will they do it in a way that lets the existing contracts hamstring them.

Lard_Lad is offline  
Old
04-18-2009, 04:18 PM
  #25
Tb0ne
Registered User
 
Tb0ne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Victoria
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,388
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Tb0ne
As much of a supporter as I have been of the Sedins, they need to make a choice. They can go to Toronto or even Atlanta to cash in, or they can stay here, get paid more money than they would likely ever spend anyways and have the opportunity to play for a (borderline?) contender in a city they've lived in for years.

All that being said if Gillis is confident that Detroit's creative cap avoiding contract for Franzen will continue to be allowed, he should seriously consider offering a similar deal to the Sedins.

Tb0ne is offline  
Closed Thread

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 06:31 AM.

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.