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

Kevin Bieksa signs 5-Year, $23m Deal ($4.6m/year cap hit - NTC)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-27-2011, 03:36 PM
  #251
Jay Cee
P4G
 
Jay Cee's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,357
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Horrorshow View Post
This is disgusting. He's worthless without Hamhuis. Should've got less than 4.5
If it was 4.4 million how would you feel? 200k isn't even the difference in cap space for a minimum wage player..

Jay Cee is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 03:37 PM
  #252
PRNuck
Retain Kevin Lowe
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,048
vCash: 833
Quote:
Originally Posted by Momesso View Post
Bieksa was ok when Hamhuis went down, it was more him and Ballard getting crossed up which looked really ugly.

The whole defense corps was in shambles by the end of it. And our forwards weren't helping much either.
My problem with Bieksa is the play against Columbus when he took out Hamhuis for his second concussion of the season. He was out of position, and who knows wtf he was trying to do. Hamhuis obviously didn't expect him to be there and got destroyed because of it. Sure he had a solid season +/- wise and had some great goals in the playoffs, but his brainfarts are epic. 4.6M defensemen don't make brainfarts.

PRNuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 03:39 PM
  #253
Canucker
Go Hawks!
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Frisco, Texas
Posts: 19,018
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barney Gumble View Post
I'll take consistancy over fairly wild swings in performance (not specifically directed at Bieksa but Edler as well)
I think Edler, when healthy, was fairly consistent. He didn't have a lot of bad games before his back injury. I think Ehrhoff was probably the most inconsistent d-man we had throughout the year. If he didn't put up 50 points and run the PP so effectively we'd be screaming to get rid of him. He was terrible on the PK, he turns over the puck too much, isn't very physical and is only mediocre defensively. IMO I think given the opportunity, Ballard could replace Ehrhoff quite nicely.

Canucker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 03:41 PM
  #254
Drop the Sopel
Feaster famine
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: calgary
Posts: 16,552
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proto View Post
Sheer, utter nonsense.
Many organizations set internal caps using the top players on their payroll as the ceiling. This is nothing new. If Bieksa is willing to walk because Gillis refuses to pay him more than Dan Hamhuis, show him the door.

Then again I still remember the fact Kevin Bieksa was statisticaly one of the NHL's worst top 4 defenseman defensively in '08-09 and '09-10 and was just destroyed 5 on 5 when not carried by a premier defensive player like Hamhuis.

If you're telling me a 5 year contract at $4.5mil with a NTC is anything but a wonderful offer for Kevin Bieksa we can agree to disagree. It's more than enough for what his body of work has been over the last 4 years.

There's a lot of sense in having an internal cap - that's why it's been used by many organizations in every major sport.

Drop the Sopel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 03:42 PM
  #255
Momesso
Registered User
 
Momesso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,825
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PRNuck View Post
My problem with Bieksa is the play against Columbus when he took out Hamhuis for his second concussion of the season. He was out of position, and who knows wtf he was trying to do. Hamhuis obviously didn't expect him to be there and got destroyed because of it. Sure he had a solid season +/- wise and had some great goals in the playoffs, but his brainfarts are epic. 4.6M defensemen don't make brainfarts.
I know what you mean, but $4.6MM is pretty much the going rate for a 2nd pairing guy nowadays.

I don't think the brainfarts will stop though, just hopefully fewer and farther between as his game matured.

He's coming off the best hockey of his career.

Momesso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 03:43 PM
  #256
The Optimist
Registered User
 
The Optimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: SFU
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,293
vCash: 400
Terrible contract. No discount at all. Term is too long. Cap hit too high. AND a no trade clause? Out of those things (cap hit, length, NTC, etc.), I expected at least one to be good. Instead all three are bad. People who like this contract are forgetting how terrible Bieksa has been in non-contract years, or when he hasn't been paired with Hamhius.

The Optimist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 03:44 PM
  #257
vanwest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,932
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PRNuck View Post
My problem with Bieksa is the play against Columbus when he took out Hamhuis for his second concussion of the season. He was out of position, and who knows wtf he was trying to do. Hamhuis obviously didn't expect him to be there and got destroyed because of it. Sure he had a solid season +/- wise and had some great goals in the playoffs, but his brainfarts are epic. 4.6M defensemen don't make brainfarts.
These days, I think that's probably what you get for $4.6 million especially with Bieksa's offensive upside. Minus the brainfarts, he's probably worth a lot more. It's almost like $4.6 million has become the old $3.5 million.

vanwest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 03:45 PM
  #258
Scurr
Registered User
 
Scurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Whalley
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,513
vCash: 500
Bieksa and Hamhuis both play their best together. It's not uncommon at all. Seabrook/Keith have been split up a bunch of times to try and balance their defence and always end up back together. I'm sure the Preds would have tried to do the same thing with Suter/Weber and went back to playing them together. It's just too valuable having a pair that can play both ends against anyone. We've got that now at a very reasonable cap hit. We should all be happy.

I've always liked Bieksa. I'll go put his name on my Home jersey now and just hope you all don't go back to over analyzing his game

Scurr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 03:45 PM
  #259
Tim Calhoun
Tim Calhoun
 
Tim Calhoun's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Country: Mexico
Posts: 8,645
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Optimist View Post
Terrible contract. No discount at all. Term is too long. Cap hit too high. AND a no trade clause? Out of those things (cap hit, length, NTC, etc.), I expected at least one to be good. Instead all three are bad. People who like this contract are forgetting how terrible Bieksa has been in non-contract years, or when he hasn't been paired with Hamhius.
I agree completely.

Bieksa is a decent #4 defenseman. He's been lucky to be paired with payers like Hamhuis and Mitchell.

Tim Calhoun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 03:45 PM
  #260
Biggest Canuck Fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Kelowna, BC
Posts: 10,749
vCash: 50
Send a message via ICQ to Biggest Canuck Fan
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Optimist View Post
Terrible contract. No discount at all. Term is too long. Cap hit too high. AND a no trade clause? Out of those things (cap hit, length, NTC, etc.), I expected at least one to be good. Instead all three are bad. People who like this contract are forgetting how terrible Bieksa has been in non-contract years, or when he hasn't been paired with Hamhius.
I completely agree. Should've been 4 tops, as onegood season with 3 bad ones thrown in should not give a player what he got.

I like KB, think he is an integral part of the team... but this was stupid, and may have priced CE out of Vancouver.

Biggest Canuck Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 03:45 PM
  #261
LeftCoast
Registered User
 
LeftCoast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,006
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vajakki View Post
Don't think Bieksa was that bad without Hamhuis. In fact I'm not concerned about Bieksa being bad without Hamhuis, I'm concerned Bieksa being bad by himself. Let's not forget, he had few horrible years, started last year the same way until turned it around and had very good second half and playoffs.
Actually, Bieksa wasn't playing poorly, even to start the year. The problem was, everyone was expecting him to be bad, so that every goal or scoring opportunity against was immediately blamed on Bieksa. It just took him half a year to convince the critics that he was playing really well.

I recall screen capturing and annotating several goals that were blamed on Bieksa (complete with that animated gif of a puck bouncing through his skates from last year). In one case it was both Sedins who went for a shift change with a loose puck in the neutral zone and in one case Ballard (whom Bieksa was playing with) fell down, Bliznak failed to pick up anyone, Bieksa was left to cover 3 guys and Luongo left the post open on the short side. On another, Malhotra failed to cover Heatly in front of the net.

Remember this:



or this:



These were all early season games that were blamed on Bieksa (I haven't shown the full sequences here).



or this:


LeftCoast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 03:46 PM
  #262
Horrorshow
Registered User
 
Horrorshow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 662
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by UBCsalmonslayer View Post
Hamhuis and Bieksa are both now locked up long term, so what's your point?
What if someone else rises up and proves to be a better partner for Hamhuis? What if KB reverts to the player he was in 2008 through 2010? (you know, when he was BRUTAL even when paired with Willie Mitchell) What if Hamhuis isn't the same coming back from injury and can't carry the pairing anymore?

I don't trust the guy enough to give him a 5 year deal, and saying it's justified because he'll have a defensive reliable partner to play with is weak imo.

Horrorshow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 03:48 PM
  #263
Canucker
Go Hawks!
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Frisco, Texas
Posts: 19,018
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drop the Sopel View Post
Many organizations set internal caps using the top players on their payroll as the ceiling. This is nothing new. If Bieksa is willing to walk because Gillis refuses to pay him more than Dan Hamhuis, show him the door.

Then again I still remember the fact Kevin Bieksa was statisticaly one of the NHL's worst top 4 defenseman defensively in '08-09 and '09-10 and was just destroyed 5 on 5 when not carried by a premier defensive player like Hamhuis.

If you're telling me a 5 year contract at $4.5mil with a NTC is anything but a wonderful offer for Kevin Bieksa we can agree to disagree. It's more than enough for what his body of work has been over the last 4 years.

There's a lot of sense in having an internal cap - that's why it's been used by many organizations in every major sport.
It's hard to maintain an internal cap when you have players like the Sedins who take large paycuts to stay here. You can't use them as a solid cap guideline, especially with inflation. Bieksa got more than he deserved but it has nothing to do with what Hamhuis makes, it has to do with the market.

Canucker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 03:49 PM
  #264
Horrorshow
Registered User
 
Horrorshow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 662
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyatt4God View Post
If it was 4.4 million how would you feel? 200k isn't even the difference in cap space for a minimum wage player..
Yeah, logistically it really doesn't matter. I understand that. But it'd be a nice symbolic gesture towards Hamhuis' camp that management is aware that he's the glue to that pairing success to at least keep him and KB at even salary.

Horrorshow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 03:51 PM
  #265
Horrorshow
Registered User
 
Horrorshow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 662
vCash: 500
For the record, imo Bieksa did play very well for the majority of this season.

Horrorshow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 03:53 PM
  #266
Barney Gumble
Registered User
 
Barney Gumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 21,814
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyatt4God View Post
If it was 4.4 million how would you feel? 200k isn't even the difference in cap space for a minimum wage player..
I'd feel actually better if it was a $4.8 million deal WITHOUT a NTC than a $4.4 million deal WITH a NTC. But that's just me.

Barney Gumble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 03:53 PM
  #267
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 49,887
vCash: 696
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Horrorshow View Post
What if someone else rises up and proves to be a better partner for Hamhuis? What if KB reverts to the player he was in 2008 through 2010? (you know, when he was BRUTAL even when paired with Willie Mitchell) What if Hamhuis isn't the same coming back from injury and can't carry the pairing anymore?

I don't trust the guy enough to give him a 5 year deal, and saying it's justified because he'll have a defensive reliable partner to play with is weak imo.
I fully expect Alex Edler (barring a trade such as bringing in a Shea Weber) will be our highest paid defenseman in 2 years, regardless if we bring back Ehrhoff or not. Hamhuis and Bieksa are 2 of our top 4 defensemen, and we have them both signed long-term at contracts below $5M. Let's say we retain Ehrhoff at $5M, and Edler signs for $5.5M, then we have our top 4 signed for $19.6M. Bring in a couple of bottom pairing defensemen and a number 7 guy, and we have our defense locked up for under $25M.

When you consider that in two years time the cap will be around $70M, and we have goaltending locked up at around $6.5M total, that leaves a whopping $38.5M for our group of forwards.

I'd say we're in good shape.

__________________
http://www.vancitynitetours.com
y2kcanucks is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 03:53 PM
  #268
Drop the Sopel
Feaster famine
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: calgary
Posts: 16,552
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canucker View Post
It's hard to maintain an internal cap when you have players like the Sedins who take large paycuts to stay here. You can't use them as a solid cap guideline, especially with inflation. Bieksa got more than he deserved but it has nothing to do with what Hamhuis makes, it has to do with the market.
Do you think Bieksa would have walked for 100K? If so, good riddance. IMO there's value in setting an internal cap and it would take a special case to break it. Kevin Bieksa IMO is not a special case - he's a complimentary player that underperformed his last contract and has a ton of question marks surrounding his ability longterm.

I sure hope it was just the injuries that derailed his develpment. As of right now I'll give him the benefit of the doubt until there's reason to think otherwise. But that term with those dollars and the NTC is a hell of a haul for what he's been for us over the last 4 years.

Drop the Sopel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 03:54 PM
  #269
Canucker
Go Hawks!
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Frisco, Texas
Posts: 19,018
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftCoast View Post
Actually, Bieksa wasn't playing poorly, even to start the year. The problem was, everyone was expecting him to be bad, so that every goal or scoring opportunity against was immediately blamed on Bieksa. It just took him half a year to convince the critics that he was playing really well.
IMO he was still sub par until just after the TB lightning game in mid December, then he really turned it around.

Canucker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 03:54 PM
  #270
skywarp75
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,071
vCash: 500
ive been a huge bieksa hater in the past, but people in this thread really should look at what happens in the UFA market before claiming 4.6 is horrible.

skywarp75 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 03:54 PM
  #271
Jobal
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,678
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftCoast View Post
Actually, Bieksa wasn't playing poorly, even to start the year. The problem was, everyone was expecting him to be bad, so that every goal or scoring opportunity against was immediately blamed on Bieksa. It just took him half a year to convince the critics that he was playing really well.

I recall screen capturing and annotating several goals that were blamed on Bieksa (complete with that animated gif of a puck bouncing through his skates from last year). In one case it was both Sedins who went for a shift change with a loose puck in the neutral zone and in one case Ballard (whom Bieksa was playing with) fell down, Bliznak failed to pick up anyone, Bieksa was left to cover 3 guys and Luongo left the post open on the short side. On another, Malhotra failed to cover Heatly in front of the net.
What about the play where he was first to the puck behind the net but let Rick Nash just steal it from him and waltz to the front of the net? He was not particularly good to start the season, despite the ever more popular "oh you guys were just hating and too blind to see" rhetoric.

Jobal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 03:55 PM
  #272
serge2k
Registered User
 
serge2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,651
vCash: 500
long term deal....


LET THE SUCKING COMMENCE!

Nah, he should be worth the cost as long as Hamhuis is healthy.

serge2k is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 03:58 PM
  #273
serge2k
Registered User
 
serge2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,651
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PRNuck View Post
My problem with Bieksa is the play against Columbus when he took out Hamhuis for his second concussion of the season. He was out of position, and who knows wtf he was trying to do. Hamhuis obviously didn't expect him to be there and got destroyed because of it. Sure he had a solid season +/- wise and had some great goals in the playoffs, but his brainfarts are epic. 4.6M defensemen don't make brainfarts.
They can, but they either have to be rare or coupled with enough offensive output to make up for it.

Bieksa has neither of those qualities. Hamhuis carries him well enough and dmen are expensive, thats really the only reason this contract makes any sense.

serge2k is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 03:59 PM
  #274
LeftCoast
Registered User
 
LeftCoast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,006
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jobal View Post
What about the play where he was first to the puck behind the net but let Rick Nash just steal it from him and waltz to the front of the net? He was not particularly good to start the season, despite the ever more popular "oh you guys were just hating and too blind to see" rhetoric.
No one plays 100% mistake free, and Rick Nash has made a few really good defensemen look bad at times. But early in the season, everything bad that happened on the ice was blamed on Bieksa. Meanwhile half of the posters on this board were demanding Ballard be handed more ice time.

I was quietly saying - ah guys, Ballard is playing like crap and Bieksa is our 2nd best defender (next to Edler).

LeftCoast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2011, 03:59 PM
  #275
sticknrink
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: London
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,728
vCash: 500
Gillis likely didnt see any dmen on the market. *sigh*

sticknrink 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 04:54 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.