HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Carolina Hurricanes
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Zach Boychuk

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-13-2010, 02:03 PM
  #1
DoubleJ96
Registered User
 
DoubleJ96's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 390
vCash: 500
Zach Boychuk

Hey guys, I wanted to know how Boychuk is progressing and if there is any chance at him making the NHL this coming season?

DoubleJ96 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-13-2010, 02:27 PM
  #2
Sasha Cares
28 mph!!!!!!!
 
Sasha Cares's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Island of Misfit Toy
Posts: 9,474
vCash: 500
Pretty sure he'll be in the top 9 this year... His progress is a lil slower than I expected, but you can see his talent when he's out there

Sasha Cares is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-13-2010, 02:35 PM
  #3
Guerzy
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Guerzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,562
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iginlafan View Post
Hey guys, I wanted to know how Boychuk is progressing and if there is any chance at him making the NHL this coming season?
I expected a better season offensively from Boychuk, but it is what it is. Zach Parise wasn't lights out in his rookie season in the AHL and posted somewhat similar numbers to that of Boychuk. I expect to see big steps from Boychuk this season if he's in the AHL. If he's in Carolina, I also expect him to show up to camp as one of the best prospects looking to earn a spot. I'll be honest when I say I am really hoping, and partially expecting, similar results to that of what Brandon Sutter demonstrated last season. Boychuk doesn't have to score 20 goals, but I am looking for an obvious jump forward in his development. He stand as good a chance of any of the prospects when it comes to making the team. He could play anywhere from lines 1-3 with a solid amount of PP time, it's up to him whether he earns it or not, the door is wide open.

Guerzy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-13-2010, 02:45 PM
  #4
bleedgreen
Moderator
 
bleedgreen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: colorado
Posts: 10,812
vCash: 500
i feel ya, but hoping for "sutter" like development is a little rough for expectations. sutter had the best year of development i may have ever seen in a player. night and day. no one changes THAT much. i would hope for 30-40 pts in the nhl for boychuk, with his skill level thats possible. i know that puts him in sutter territory pts wise maybe but boychuk is a much more natural scorer than sutter. he wont have to develop that much to get to 30 pts. i would hope for him to be close to ppg in the ahl if he doesnt make it.

bleedgreen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-13-2010, 02:56 PM
  #5
Guerzy
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Guerzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,562
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by bleedgreen View Post
i feel ya, but hoping for "sutter" like development is a little rough for expectations. sutter had the best year of development i may have ever seen in a player. night and day. no one changes THAT much. i would hope for 30-40 pts in the nhl for boychuk, with his skill level thats possible. i know that puts him in sutter territory pts wise maybe but boychuk is a much more natural scorer than sutter. he wont have to develop that much to get to 30 pts. i would hope for him to be close to ppg in the ahl if he doesnt make it.
It very well may be lofty expectations for Boychuk, however, based on his talent level and after a year in the AHL, I am expecting him to have that confidence about him that Sutter seemed to thrive with. Sutter's strong season in my mind basically stemmed from confidence, drive, and a very solid mind for the game. It helped his skating and hands seemed better than advertised in his rookie season too, but Boychuk has those tools naturally. I expect those same elements from Boychuk as a 14th overall pick and with our team going through the transition it is, I believe and am looking for him to step up to the challenge, take a spot and run with it. Maybe I will be disappointed, but as a much more naturally talented player than Sutter and a kid that has a creative and solid mind for the game, he should be able to make steps this year into the NHL. Also having those 31 NHL games under his belt will, or should, help him in a beneficial way in that the 'break through period' of not knowing what to expect should be somewhat out of the way. This will be Boychuk's 3rd training camp, he's got a year in the AHL under his belt, 31 NHL games, the talent is there, the mind and creativity is there, roster spots for kids are open - therefore, I expect the drive to snag one of those spots and run with it as his good buddy Sutter did last season should be goal number one and in realistic reach.

Sutter's leap in development came as a surprise because it was unexpected, and possibly unexpected at any point during his career in my opinion (atleast until his prime, possibly). I'm not so sure many looked upon Sutter as a #2 center a year ago today or a kid that would score 20 goals at his age if ever. With Boychuk, I think those expectations are realistic at this point (15-20 goals) and heading into the next couple years should be achievable. I'm not so sure the same could have been said regarding Sutter. The surprise and unexpected factor I think is what makes Sutters jump in developement look so big where as with Boychuk, I think it is in reach. Remember, Sutter's rookie season really put a damper on where many thought his potential could reach, but on draft day back in 2007 he was said to potentially be one of the best all-around players in the draft. Looking back at the big picture I think what we're seeing from Sutter was always there and possible, we just weren't made aware of it as he was not NHL ready when the organization wanted & expected him to be. Had Sutter of been brought in slowly and had a season like he did last year, I don't think it would have been as much of a surprise factor as it was. I don't expect a shadow result of Sutters breakout season for Boychuk, but I do expect that breakout season as early as this year where we see Boychuk's offensive ability and confidence shine through, I think he is there. From day one with Boychuk it was top 6 forward expectations, potential and the talent to do so. It shouldn't come as much surprise for Boychuk, in my opinion, to step into the lineup in a Sutter-like fashion as he is ahead and better off than Sutter in many aspects of the game both at the same age and as a whole today. He doesn't have the mind for the game that Sutter has in my opinion, but Boychuk is a smart kid on the ice. Talent wise, hands, vision, skating, offensive ability, etc.. Boychuk is better than Sutter in my opinion.


Last edited by Guerzy: 07-13-2010 at 03:41 PM.
Guerzy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2010, 11:30 PM
  #6
geehaad
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 3,002
vCash: 500
Help me understand something: Boychuk signed a 3-year deal in Oct 2008, played 2 games in the NHL, spent the bulk of the year in Junior, then played 2 games in Albany. He should have an extended year of the deal because of that, so it should end in 2012, right?

Here's the relevant CBA "code":

Quote:
9.1(c)(i) In the event that an 18 year old or 19 year old
player signs a Player Contract with a Club but does not play at
least 10 NHL games (regular season and/or playoffs) in the first
season under that player's Player Contract, the term of his
Player Contract and his number of years in the Entry Level System
shall be extended for a period of one year, except that this
automatic extension will not apply to a player who is age 19
according to Section 9.2 by virtue of turning 20 between
September 16 and December 31 in the year in which he first signs
a Player Contract.
He signed the contract on his 19th birthday. Is this site wrong? If so, looks like Bowman's RFA date is wrong too...

geehaad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2010, 11:40 PM
  #7
Vagrant
The Czech Condor
 
Vagrant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 20,206
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Vagrant
That site is wrong. CapGeek is a much more reliable source, in my opinion. The site you linked also had Bowman coming up after this year, which we obviously know is not true.

http://www.capgeek.com/charts.php?Team=10

Vagrant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2010, 11:49 PM
  #8
geehaad
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 3,002
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vagrant View Post
That site is wrong. CapGeek is a much more reliable source, in my opinion. The site you linked also had Bowman coming up after this year, which we obviously know is not true.

http://www.capgeek.com/charts.php?Team=10
Thanks, although I notice that they've got Brind'Amour's salary wrong for the upcoming season (not considering the buyout).

Oh well...how much perfection can you expect from free information, right?

geehaad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2010, 11:54 PM
  #9
Vagrant
The Czech Condor
 
Vagrant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 20,206
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Vagrant
Quote:
Originally Posted by geehaad View Post
Thanks, although I notice that they've got Brind'Amour's salary wrong for the upcoming season (not considering the buyout).

Oh well...how much perfection can you expect from free information, right?
True. I think the guys that run CapGeek get their numbers directly from the NHLPA though and it's possible, given Rod's "special arrangement" with the team, that the information on the proper number never really got to them.

Since it was essentially an "under the table" type compensation that had nothing to do with trying to circumvent the salary cap, nobody really cares about it. Technically, it shouldn't even have been legal to be honest. It was a half retirement, half buyout. Like a big parting gift or something. I guess the fact that it wasn't an "official" transaction may have something to do with it not showing properly there.

Vagrant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2010, 09:51 AM
  #10
totaltank
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,601
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vagrant View Post
True. I think the guys that run CapGeek get their numbers directly from the NHLPA though and it's possible, given Rod's "special arrangement" with the team, that the information on the proper number never really got to them.

Since it was essentially an "under the table" type compensation that had nothing to do with trying to circumvent the salary cap, nobody really cares about it. Technically, it shouldn't even have been legal to be honest. It was a half retirement, half buyout. Like a big parting gift or something. I guess the fact that it wasn't an "official" transaction may have something to do with it not showing properly there.
This isn't true. Roddy was bought out. The team and Rod went to great lengths to not use that specific wording, but that's what happened. As you said yourself, anything else would be illegal. Rutherford said he'd get $1 million over the next two years, which clearly is the buyout figure. It's clear to me that had Rod retired before he was bought out, that would not have been the specific arrangement. He was bought out at noon, and retired at 2:30. Pretty clear, IMO. The rest was just window dressing to save face on both sides.

Cash-wise, this costs the Canes $1 million for each of the next two seasons. I do not know if this *counts* toward the self-imposed $44 million budget this season. But we all know that the Canes' self-imposed budgets are kinda fuzzy anyhow.

Cap-wise, Roddy's entire $3.6 cap figure counts against the Canes. The only question I have is if they have the option of counting it all against the cap this year, or -- since they chose to pay him over two seasons -- if they are required to count $1.8 against the cap each of the next two seasons. In the end, it doesn't really matter much for a team that will likely be $15 million under the cap this year, but as we've seen before, it *could* matter.

The bottom line is that to treat Rod's situation as anything *other* than a straight buyout is a mistake.

totaltank is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2010, 10:18 AM
  #11
DaveG
Mod Supervisor
How's the thesis?
 
DaveG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Durham NC
Country: United States
Posts: 32,272
vCash: 562
Quote:
Originally Posted by totalkev View Post

Cap-wise, Roddy's entire $3.6 cap figure counts against the Canes. The only question I have is if they have the option of counting it all against the cap this year, or -- since they chose to pay him over two seasons -- if they are required to count $1.8 against the cap each of the next two seasons. In the end, it doesn't really matter much for a team that will likely be $15 million under the cap this year, but as we've seen before, it *could* matter.

The bottom line is that to treat Rod's situation as anything *other* than a straight buyout is a mistake.
Rod was over 35 at the start of the contract he was just released from, so the Canes do not have that option. It was going to be 3.6 buyout, retirement or if he actually played.

DaveG is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2010, 10:21 AM
  #12
StormCast
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Raleigh, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 2,990
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by totalkev View Post
This isn't true. Roddy was bought out. The team and Rod went to great lengths to not use that specific wording, but that's what happened. As you said yourself, anything else would be illegal. Rutherford said he'd get $1 million over the next two years, which clearly is the buyout figure. It's clear to me that had Rod retired before he was bought out, that would not have been the specific arrangement. He was bought out at noon, and retired at 2:30. Pretty clear, IMO. The rest was just window dressing to save face on both sides.
No, it was indeed a special arrangement. Brindy had a NMC and as such couldn't be placed on waivers which is prerequisite for an NHL buy-out. The end result was the same but he technically retired and was offered a settlement.

StormCast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2010, 11:46 AM
  #13
geehaad
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 3,002
vCash: 500
His full salary was going to be $3M, which is not reported correctly on the site...that's all I was saying. It shows $3.6M in actual money.

It correctly counts his $3.6M salary against the cap, but I'm not sure if that is (or can be) all this year or half this year and half next.

geehaad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2010, 11:51 AM
  #14
DaveG
Mod Supervisor
How's the thesis?
 
DaveG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Durham NC
Country: United States
Posts: 32,272
vCash: 562
Quote:
Originally Posted by geehaad View Post
His full salary was going to be $3M, which is not reported correctly on the site...that's all I was saying. It shows $3.6M in actual money.

It correctly counts his $3.6M salary against the cap, but I'm not sure if that is (or can be) all this year or half this year and half next.
All this year, the Canes have no option on this.


from nhlscap: (IIRC the guy that ran that site is one of the creators of capgeeks)

If the player is
-- Under the age of 26 at the time of termination, the buyout amount is 1/3rd the remaining value
-- 26 or older at the time of termination, the buyout amount is 2/3rd the remaining value.

This is set forth in 13(d) of the Standard Player Contract (Exhibit 1 in the CBA). The remainder of this explanation applies to buyouts that took place after July 29, 2005, and assumes the player was not 35 or older when signing his SPC (in which case a buyout does not reduce the cap hit).

DaveG is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2010, 11:59 AM
  #15
geehaad
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 3,002
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveG View Post
(in which case a buyout does not reduce the cap hit)
I get that part, but can't it still be split into two seasons?

And funny that you mention the connection to nhlscap...that's the information that Vagrant said was inferior to capgeek (check out the "Powered By..." on this page). Will the true Cap Geeks please stand up?

geehaad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2010, 11:59 AM
  #16
totaltank
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,601
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by StormCast View Post
No, it was indeed a special arrangement. Brindy had a NMC and as such couldn't be placed on waivers which is prerequisite for an NHL buy-out. The end result was the same but he technically retired and was offered a settlement.
Again, not true. A player can be bought out anytime, regardless of a NMC. He can't be put on waivers, so the buyout can happen without them. Waivers is a courtesy to the player, to see if he can make his full contract value with another team.

(Exhibit 1, Section 13, subsection (a)) of the CBA.

Players who have a NMC in their contract can reject waivers, and then be bought out.

totaltank is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2010, 12:05 PM
  #17
totaltank
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,601
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveG View Post
and assumes the player was not 35 or older when signing his SPC (in which case a buyout does not reduce the cap hit).
Like geehaad said, we get this part. It's just whether we can split the cap hit -- like the buyout amount -- over two seasons.

IMO, we'd be dumb to do that, since we're going to be so far under the cap this season and nobody knows yet what 2011-12 will hold. We'd be better off just taking the full cap hit this year. But still, I'd like to know.


Last edited by totaltank: 07-16-2010 at 12:23 PM. Reason: Sorry, geehaad, got your screenname wrong ...
totaltank is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2010, 12:12 PM
  #18
DaveG
Mod Supervisor
How's the thesis?
 
DaveG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Durham NC
Country: United States
Posts: 32,272
vCash: 562
Yeah it honestly pisses me off that there is no FAQ section of Capgeek. There's an indicator that says "35+" but there's no real explanation of it. Only thing that really comes close is in their buyout calculator section where it says:
Quote:
NOTE: Contracts that fall in the "35-plus" category are not included in the buyout calculator because the player's cap hit remains unchanged even after a buyout.
http://www.capgeek.com/buyout_calculator.php

DaveG is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2010, 12:12 PM
  #19
geehaad
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 3,002
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by totalkev View Post
nobody knows yet what 2011-12 will hold.
Who woulda ever thunk that the Carolina Hurricanes would one day end up worrying about the salary cap? Last year was an eye-opener for sure.

geehaad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2010, 12:55 PM
  #20
StormCast
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Raleigh, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 2,990
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by totalkev View Post
Again, not true. A player can be bought out anytime, regardless of a NMC. He can't be put on waivers, so the buyout can happen without them. Waivers is a courtesy to the player, to see if he can make his full contract value with another team.

(Exhibit 1, Section 13, subsection (a)) of the CBA.

Players who have a NMC in their contract can reject waivers, and then be bought out.
I stand corrected. I was citing Bob McKenzie's comment but he was wrong. Your info is indeed correct but it's in Article 11 (11.8 b).

StormCast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2010, 03:18 PM
  #21
Vagrant
The Czech Condor
 
Vagrant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 20,206
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Vagrant
I will say this, and it's that this year is more critical for Boychuk than a lot of people realize. Even starting at training camp. He better come prepared, because there is a chance he gets jumped on the depth chart by 3 or 4 guys if he's not. Riley Nash and Jeff Skinner are two new challengers to his position. Zac Dalpe is another. Plus, I would imagine at least one of Osala, Samson, Bowman, Terry, or another surprise player is going to jump to the forefront as a player that really had a great summer.

If he does not seize the opportunity to make the roster this year and establish his position, it could be a while before he gets the chance to come back up if he slides behind the aforementioned players.

His high cap hit favors him this year to grab a vacant spot, but that advantage isn't going to last much longer. He's going to need to show up ready to play this year or risk being in Charlotte the entire season.

Vagrant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2010, 03:41 PM
  #22
Guerzy
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Guerzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,562
vCash: 50
Good points, Vagrant.

I have also have had a feeling for a while, and i'm really not sure why. I believe that if Boychuk doesn't perform this season or give us real solid reason to keep him, JR will cut bait with him. Do I think it would be too early? Yes. Will JR? Ask Andrew Ladd. As a former 1st round pick, 14th overall, I feel the pressure for Boychuk to perform and breakthrough is coming very soon in the eyes of the organization. Not necessarily in my eyes even though I expect to see some solid progress and steps forward by Boychuk this season, but I feel in the eyes of JR Boychuk's time to perform is now, or very, very soon. And obviously we're going to find out with a lot of these kids what they can do at the NHL level and at the least give us a glimpse of possiblity, so it will be interesting nonetheless. I just feel for Boychuk (again, not my beliefs, but JR's in my opinion) that he will need to show something this season to secure the organizations belief in him.


Last edited by Guerzy: 07-16-2010 at 03:54 PM.
Guerzy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-16-2010, 05:24 PM
  #23
WWAD
Registered User
 
WWAD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 891
vCash: 500
After watching highlights of the Traverse City Tournament last year, I had the impression Boychuk was going to be the one with the break-out year last year instead of Sutter. Then he came into training camp and just seemed to be pressing too hard to make the team, and it kinda backfired.

I agree as well, that the pressure is on this year for Zach to make a big move, or else he becomes trade bait.

WWAD 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 09:43 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.