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

Rypien Taken off of Cap Hit Total

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-03-2011, 04:04 PM
  #26
BLAME CANADA*
The Canucks did it
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 5,696
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by trbr86 View Post
Trade or waive Alberts and Torres, it will net the team two million in cap space to bring back Salo. Go with Hansen on the third line. Run a 22-man roster until later in the season when the team can use the small cap space they made to call up another forward from the Moose.


Replacing Bieksa with Salo would upset the chemistry of the team far more than moving a player like Torres. Torres has been a noticeable in only a dozen or so games this year.
Yeah lets just waive Torres who is scoring at a 24 goal rate well playing on the 3rd line.

BLAME CANADA* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2011, 04:04 PM
  #27
JAK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 965
vCash: 500
So Rypien isn't on LITR, but gets exception from Salary cap.

Does he count as a contract spot then? Because we're full up now already, if we get off the hook for contract spot, that opens up a potential trade... or something...

JAK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2011, 04:15 PM
  #28
gobi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Paradise, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,506
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JAK View Post
So Rypien isn't on LITR, but gets exception from Salary cap.

Does he count as a contract spot then? Because we're full up now already, if we get off the hook for contract spot, that opens up a potential trade... or something...
Well, despite the cap exemption, technically Rypien is still under contract with the Canucks so I don't see why he won't take up a contract spot.

gobi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2011, 04:15 PM
  #29
Barney Gumble
Registered User
 
Barney Gumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 22,709
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cc View Post
agreed. there is no reason to disrupt the current chemistry and potentially the success of the team to fit Salo into the roster. This is the lineup that has taken the Canucks this far, and they deserve to continue doing so.

The good thing that if there was a long term injury to almost any of the top 5 dmen, Salo would be able to most likely step in.
How? From playing a half dozen games in the AHL on a conditioning stint? I doubt it.

Who knows what other injuries will happen until Salo is even ready to take full contract practices? No reason to do anything right now.

Downright silly waiving guys like Alberts & Torres for that above reason.

Barney Gumble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2011, 04:20 PM
  #30
LeftCoast
Registered User
 
LeftCoast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,157
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by JAK View Post
So Rypien isn't on LITR, but gets exception from Salary cap.

Does he count as a contract spot then? Because we're full up now already, if we get off the hook for contract spot, that opens up a potential trade... or something...
I could be wrong, but the only thing I can think of is that they have suspended him. They could (for reasons of mental health) put him on the LTIR, but then they would have to pay his salary. If Rypien has declared himself not able to play, without the team doctor declaring him unfit, I think they would have grounds to suspend him and he would not count against the cap as long as he is not receiving his salary.

I'm not certain, but as he is still under contract, he would still count towards the max contracts limit.

LeftCoast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2011, 04:29 PM
  #31
Lucbourdon
Kefka cheers for Van
 
Lucbourdon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 45,586
vCash: 50
Well this basically means bieksa won't get traded, or...

Bieksa gets traded for a 2nd and good player (under 2mish).

Honestly, No idea how they are gonna work this cap issue out.

Lucbourdon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2011, 04:39 PM
  #32
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 22,950
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniorNelson View Post
Poor Ryp. He seems like such a good guy.

An exemption suggests to me he is gone for the year. His contract will be up.

Sucks.
Can't see him coming back, it wouldn't be fair for the Nucks to make his contract just disappear then have the player reappear. He'd be LTIR if there was any chance he was coming back. I dare say Gillis and the NHL have reached a deal where Rypien is for all intents and purposes suspended WITH pay, which allows the Nucks to do the right thing and take care of Rypien while making hockey decision to get him off the books. No other teams are disadvantaged if Rypien doesn't return since there is no roster difference between this and suspending Rypien for the season.


Last edited by me2: 01-03-2011 at 04:49 PM.
me2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2011, 04:48 PM
  #33
LeftCoast
Registered User
 
LeftCoast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,157
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2 View Post
Can't see him coming back, it wouldn't be fair for the Nucks to make his contract just disappear then have the player reappear. He'd be LTIR if there was any chance he was coming back. I dare say Gillis and the NHL have reached a deal where Rypien is for all intents and purposes suspended WITH pay.
I think as far as the CBA goes, when you suspend a player, it is without pay. That's the only way their salary comes off the cap. Basically it says the player has broken the terms of the contract in some way (failed to report, not fit to play, gone to Europe, etc.).

LeftCoast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2011, 04:50 PM
  #34
JAK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 965
vCash: 500
Rypien to MMA (e7)

Now wouldn't that be fun.

JAK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2011, 05:18 PM
  #35
Winroba
Keep Calm, Kassi On
 
Winroba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,518
vCash: 500
I hate all forms of fighting sports (no, hockey isn't included) but I would love to see the Ripper in some form of MMA

Winroba is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2011, 05:27 PM
  #36
parabola
Global Moderator
BOlieve dat
 
parabola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: ಠ_ಠ
Posts: 44,024
vCash: 500
Some ridiculous ideas in this thread.

__________________
parabola is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2011, 05:30 PM
  #37
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 22,950
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftCoast View Post
I think as far as the CBA goes, when you suspend a player, it is without pay. That's the only way their salary comes off the cap. Basically it says the player has broken the terms of the contract in some way (failed to report, not fit to play, gone to Europe, etc.).
Which is why he got an exemption.

me2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2011, 05:49 PM
  #38
opendoor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,556
vCash: 500
For people who are surprised at the low number needed to clear, that's mostly due to the team currently having a 22 man roster. Right now they're going with 13 forwards, 7 defensemen, and 2 goalies.

Nothing is really different that it was before, other than Rypien and Parent being off the cap. So instead of clearing $3.3 or so million for Salo, it's only about $1.8 million after you subtract Parent and Rypien's combined salaries of $1.5 million. If they go back to a 23 man roster, that number will be $2.3 million at a minimum.

opendoor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2011, 06:20 PM
  #39
deckercky
Registered User
 
deckercky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,058
vCash: 500
Yeah, I'm sure that when the private reason was disclosed to the NHL, they allowed for an exemption in spite of him not being suspended.

If we send Volpatti down and waive Rome, where does that leave us in terms of cap space? Roughly 500k over?

It's right now that I really wish we had Malhotra for 2M per season rather than 2.5M. That extra 500k would allow for a lot more flexibility (covering us for this completely).

As is, until Gillis' next bit of wizardry, looks like Torres would have to be the odd man out.

I'm ecstatic that it looks like Bieksa and Salo will stay with the team. Either we're healthy with Alberts as our #7 and our bottom defencemen being solid 3/4 defencement on most teams, or someone is down and we still have solid roster with Alberts providing his physical edge.

deckercky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2011, 06:32 PM
  #40
LickTheEnvelope
6th Overall Blows
 
LickTheEnvelope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 28,381
vCash: 500
We aren't waiving Torres people.

The only way we are keeping Bieksa and Salo is if Salo is still out until the playoffs.

LickTheEnvelope is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2011, 07:38 PM
  #41
IComeInPeace
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: LA
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,231
vCash: 500
This is the best/deepest 'Nucks team I have followed in my 30+ years of being a fan.

To see people start suggesting we get rid of guys like Torres, Sammy, Rome etc...is utterly ridiculous.

IComeInPeace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2011, 08:03 PM
  #42
serge2k
Registered User
 
serge2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,715
vCash: 500
Why not just let Salo sit on LTIR until the playoffs?

serge2k is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2011, 08:09 PM
  #43
doobie604
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 715
vCash: 500
i don't know if anybody mentioned it already but trading cory schneider and alberts would get us under the cap. i would rather see beiksa traded than schneider but i have a feeling gillis will try to keep bieksa for the playoff run.

doobie604 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2011, 08:22 PM
  #44
Bubbles
Tank for Tyler2016
 
Bubbles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: BC Teams:Nucks,Juve
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,467
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by parabola View Post
Some ridiculous ideas in this thread.
Didnt you know that all Canucks board posters are professional capologists?

Bubbles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2011, 08:37 PM
  #45
Bleach Clean
Moderator
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,236
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by serge2k View Post
Why not just let Salo sit on LTIR until the playoffs?

Conditioning. Salo needs to be playing well going into the post-season. To get him to that point, he needs NHL games to get up to speed.


If you value Bieksa, then Bieksa+rusty Salo is worth more than a healthy Salo. But if you are like me and think that it is only a matter of time that Bieksa will regress, and want to absolutely avoid having that happen in the playoffs, then a healthy Salo - Bieksa is worth more.

Bleach Clean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2011, 11:00 PM
  #46
deckercky
Registered User
 
deckercky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,058
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dog bullets View Post
Gillis has made it clear that he's not going to ask Salo to waive his NTC and they're not going to waive him in his (likely) final season, so they'll have to waive or trade someone else. So uh, what would you do?
This. When you remove the spare parts, someone else has to go. Assuming Salo doesn't sit on LTIR all season, what would you remove from the team, understanding that trading/waiving Salo isn't an option.

deckercky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2011, 11:09 PM
  #47
m9
HFBoards Sponsor
 
m9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,967
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by dog bullets View Post
Gillis has made it clear that he's not going to ask Salo to waive his NTC and they're not going to waive him in his (likely) final season, so they'll have to waive or trade someone else. So uh, what would you do?
Judging by your comments earlier in the thread, I'm pretty much on the same wavelength in that moving anyone other than low-level guys like Rome or Volpatti would be a mistake.

I really don't know what people are expecting from Salo this year to make him a better option than our current lineup. He's getting old, has been constantly injured, and is now coming off of one of the toughest injuries to come back from. I'd hold him on LTIR as long as possible, and if we have to waive him to keep this lineup intact then so be it - I'd rather roll with the guy who've been doing the job all season.

I'll be very, very surprised if Gillis makes a major change in the lineup to get Salo in there. If I'm wrong then I'll be the first to admit it.

m9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2011, 12:35 AM
  #48
Ched Brosky
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,912
vCash: 500
Idk how no one else has used this as an option but have used moving Samuelsson or Torres.

Why not re-assign Volpatti now and once Salo is ready to return let him just practise with the team until the last week of Feb.
Then you assign Salo to Manitoba on a conditioning stint. Once the trade deadline goes by, Salo is called up while Alberts and Rome are waived.

Rome is the only one who may be claimed as he has another year on his contract, but its still unlikely.
Alberts won't be claimed as he is ineligible to play for the claiming team in the playoffs so teams have no reason to claim him,

I don't know about you guys, but I'd rather risk losing Rome and keeping Alberts and Salo than risk losing either Sameulsson or Alberts and Torres

I was thinking no one mentioned this because it wont be enough but Torres + Alberts is less cap space than Volpatti + Rome + Alberts

Ched Brosky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2011, 01:01 AM
  #49
deckercky
Registered User
 
deckercky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,058
vCash: 500
If I were a Playoff team who had a little cap space, I'd claim Alberts if he was waived just to take him from the Canucks. Basically works as spending money to remove depth from a contender.

deckercky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2011, 01:17 AM
  #50
Brenton Williams
Registered User
 
Brenton Williams's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,604
vCash: 500
If it's going to take moving a big salary player, how about the Canucks just get rid of Salo? We're winning every game, why would the Canucks move anyone else? Salo got burned numerous times in the playoffs last year and was showing obvious signs that he was significantly slowing down.

Brenton Williams 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 08:56 PM.

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.