Baumgartner and two other Flyers on waivers

Welcome to the main forum of our site. Anything and everything to do with the Vancouver Canucks is dicussed and debated here.

Moderator: Referees

Postby nuxfanindallas » Thu Oct 19, 2006 5:24 am

600,000 on Baumer or 450,000 on Fitzpatrick? To me it's a no brainer--Baumer all the way.

Now I'm someone who thinks that offensive statistics are grossly overpaid, but Baumer is much better than Fitzpatrick...the differences in salary are negligible. He's lightyears better offensively (which we could use), and he's certainly not worse defensively (how could he be?).

Last season may have been a bit of a blip, but nonetheless...
User avatar
nuxfanindallas
CC Veteran
 
Posts: 60
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 11:47 am

Postby Jovorock » Thu Oct 19, 2006 6:17 am

I think I would grab Baumer and send Bourdon down to Juniors.
Keep your friends and your enemies very close
You never know when you might have to stab one
of them in the back!
User avatar
Jovorock
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
 
Posts: 901
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 12:46 pm
Location: Kelowna

Postby MarkMM » Thu Oct 19, 2006 9:27 am

Only makes sense to grab him on the way up which is when Philly would take his salary, and that isn't happening apparently (and if it did, I'm sure someone would take him before us at $600k), so it's a moot point, he's only going to be available to us if we take him at his $1.2 mil right now, and that's a big negative.
Mark
MarkMM
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 511
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 2:28 pm
Location: Delta, BC

Postby Entwonder » Thu Oct 19, 2006 10:14 am

tantalum wrote:Though it should also be noted that while Baumgartner was put on waivers he is not being sent down right away. The Flyers are just allowing him to clear waivers now for the potential eventuality that the guys they called up do perform and then they'll perhaps send him down or try to move him.


I can't get my head around this.
Baumer is put on waivers to make room for a callup.
So he is not on the Flyers roster.
And he is not assigned to the minors.
So he is exposed to a claim by another team.
If he clears waivers, then how can he be back on the Flyers roster when they've brought up someone to take his place?
So the Flyers only put him on waivers to get a callup and if he clears they can tell him to sit? Wouldn't this be an obvious way around the cap or does his contract still count? hmmmm... on consideration... it must.
The way Tant put it, it sounds like Baumer sits unless the Flyers send someone down or trades away a spot, then they can put him back on the roster. So basically they eat his salary in order not to expose him to the 'half off' deal if he was assigned to the minors.
Does that sound right?
Entwonder
CC Veteran
 
Posts: 68
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 4:17 pm

Postby MarkMM » Thu Oct 19, 2006 10:18 am

Entwonder wrote:
tantalum wrote:Though it should also be noted that while Baumgartner was put on waivers he is not being sent down right away. The Flyers are just allowing him to clear waivers now for the potential eventuality that the guys they called up do perform and then they'll perhaps send him down or try to move him.


I can't get my head around this.
Baumer is put on waivers to make room for a callup.
So he is not on the Flyers roster.
And he is not assigned to the minors.
So he is exposed to a claim by another team.
If he clears waivers, then how can he be back on the Flyers roster when they've brought up someone to take his place?
So the Flyers only put him on waivers to get a callup and if he clears they can tell him to sit? Wouldn't this be an obvious way around the cap or does his contract still count? hmmmm... on consideration... it must.
The way Tant put it, it sounds like Baumer sits unless the Flyers send someone down or trades away a spot, then they can put him back on the roster. So basically they eat his salary in order not to expose him to the 'half off' deal if he was assigned to the minors.
Does that sound right?


I'm not sure, but just as a suggestion, maybe you can take someone off your roster without necessarily assigning him to the another (minor) team, and the way around the cap is that you risk losing them on waivers.
Mark
MarkMM
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 511
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 2:28 pm
Location: Delta, BC

Postby Kel » Thu Oct 19, 2006 10:23 am

nuxfanindallas wrote:600,000 on Baumer or 450,000 on Fitzpatrick? To me it's a no brainer--Baumer all the way.


It's $1.2 millon on Baumer vs $450K on Fitzpatrick
Kel
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 658
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 2:26 pm

Postby tantalum » Thu Oct 19, 2006 10:31 am

Kel wrote:
nuxfanindallas wrote:600,000 on Baumer or 450,000 on Fitzpatrick? To me it's a no brainer--Baumer all the way.


It's $1.2 millon on Baumer vs $450K on Fitzpatrick


Also add another $1.2 mil to Baumer because it's a two-year deal. I don't believe a team paying half his salary goes beyond the year in whcih he was claimed on recall waivers.

He won't be worth $1.2 mil next year either even if he gets sents down (which he isn't) and they have to put him on recall waivers later. it isn't a 600k hit to the cap. It's 600k this year and $1.2 mil next year I believe.
User avatar
tantalum
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1911
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 3:41 am
Location: Carl Junction, MO

Postby Entwonder » Thu Oct 19, 2006 10:45 am

So basically they eat his salary in order not to expose him to the 'half off' deal if he was assigned to the minors.

More idle musing....

Is Philly operating with all 24 roster spots? The Canucks haven't done that in these cap based seasons. If Philly is up against the cap, then why would they use all 24 roster spots. This justs seems more and more like a scare tactic and Baumer is the scapegoat.
Entwonder
CC Veteran
 
Posts: 68
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 4:17 pm

Postby tantalum » Thu Oct 19, 2006 11:27 am

You do not need to send a guy down to the minors when he goes on waivers but you do have to put a one-way contract guy on waivers if you want to send him down.

The way this works I think is the following: At the time Baumgartner clears waivers the Flyers either have to send him down or put him back on the roster. They have apparently chosen to put him back on the roster. But now I believe if they want to send him down sometime in the future they can do so without having him go through waivers again.

Basically the Flyers are essentially saying "we've tried to trade him but can't even get future considerations so we'll put him on waivers and simply try to get rid of him if we can. If not we are prepared to keep him on the roster and keep him as a member of the team".

I would assume that at that point baumgartner counts towards the cap. It would be to obvious of a loophole for that not to be the case.

I don't know the Flyers roster situation but they may not have been carrying the full 23 players allowed. If they were at 22 they can send two down to the minors and call three up no problem. If I was GM with a farm team across the street I wouldn't be carrying a full roster when playing in or around Philly. May as well save the cap space.

edit: from Panaccio article today Baumgartner will stay due to the injury situation on the blueline. He will then likely be sent down.
User avatar
tantalum
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1911
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 3:41 am
Location: Carl Junction, MO

Postby Larionov » Thu Oct 19, 2006 12:12 pm

Of course Baumgartner would be a bargain to someone at 600K -- that's precisely why Clarke will hold onto him for now, and not send him across the road to the Phantoms. Once they send him down, they've lost him forever, as he will instantly be claimed if and when they try to bring him back up. For now, he will be the most expensive press box defenceman in the league.
User avatar
Larionov
CC Veteran
 
Posts: 59
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 1:28 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Postby ClamRussel » Thu Oct 19, 2006 6:52 pm

tantalum wrote:Basically the Flyers are essentially saying "we've tried to trade him but can't even get future considerations so we'll put him on waivers and simply try to get rid of him if we can. If not we are prepared to keep him on the roster and keep him as a member of the team".


Thats not what they're saying at all. From what I've heard, this was a knee-jerk reaction by Ed Snider and Clarke/Hitchcock had nothing to do w/ it. Snider is sick & tired of this performance and wanted to make a statement. If anyone saw how lethargic & uninspired Nedved looked in the 9-1 asskicking its quite understandable. Snider also promised MORE changes are coming soon. Consider this a wakeup call.

Nedved & Dimikatros have been sent to the AHL, Baumgartner has remained w/ the club. Phantom players are being recalled (walking across the street) in the meantime.
User avatar
ClamRussel
CC Legend
 
Posts: 3846
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 10:50 am
Location: New South Wales, Australia

Postby ClamRussel » Thu Oct 19, 2006 7:00 pm

tantalum wrote:
Kel wrote:
nuxfanindallas wrote:600,000 on Baumer or 450,000 on Fitzpatrick? To me it's a no brainer--Baumer all the way.


It's $1.2 millon on Baumer vs $450K on Fitzpatrick


Also add another $1.2 mil to Baumer because it's a two-year deal. I don't believe a team paying half his salary goes beyond the year in whcih he was claimed on recall waivers.

He won't be worth $1.2 mil next year either even if he gets sents down (which he isn't) and they have to put him on recall waivers later. it isn't a 600k hit to the cap. It's 600k this year and $1.2 mil next year I believe.


If we did get him at 6 bills for this year it would be a no-brainer w/ the state our defence is in.....Fitzpatrick is at best a no.7, Bourdon is NOT ready, Tremblay sucks, Kraijeck cannot seem to get it done offensively (Hedican syndrome....skates like Coffey but has subpar vision & instincts), Mitchell has struggled imo....the best bet for our PP beyond Ohlund, Salo & Bieksa just might be Coloumbe right now. Baumer could come here and be w/o a doubt our no.5 and round out the 2nd PP unit....if not the first. He had GREAT chemistry there w/ Ohlund & the Sedins last year... thats his forte. Not giving him too much on his plate allows him to be a great support guy. The other thing to consider is Nonis could renegotiate his deal for next year....offer him a 2 yr extension at less money. If Baumer knows whats good for him he'd take it. Perhaps Nonis could get him for 3 yrs at 1.8 total which would be fair. That would give him security on a team that he's a great fit on and the Canucks wouldn't have to consider a guy like Yannic Tremblay or Fitzpatrick.

Ohlund Salo
Mitchell Bieksa
Kraijeck Baumgartner
Fitzpatrick

That is MUCH better than what we're looking at right now. I'm sure Luongo would concur. Its actually pretty good imo.
User avatar
ClamRussel
CC Legend
 
Posts: 3846
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 10:50 am
Location: New South Wales, Australia

Postby tantalum » Fri Oct 20, 2006 8:12 am

Come on Clam. It is exactly what the Flyers are saying. You do not waive someone you would be sad to see the back of. Reactionary or not Baumgartner has not even remotely shown that last year wasn't a complete flunke. The 30 year old Baumgartner isn't even sticking on an injury depleted blueline that is one of the worst in the league right now. He failed to stick with an atrcious Pittsburgh club not long ago. He has 124 NHL games in his entire career. Last year was essentially his best offensive output his entire professional career. He had 34 points which is pretty much his career AHL average.

Baumgartner is the same quailty of player as Fitzpatrick. A guy better suited to a #7/8 role. But really Fitzpatrick probably has the better resume.

Baumgartner does not make the top 6 any better than it is now. Baumgartner's role whould be as injury insurance and nothing more.

I also think you are in the minority on your comments on Krajicek. His offense will come and the last couple of games he's showing that he can skate with the puck and is starting to create. Krajicek has looked very good in adjusting to a new system and playing 20 minutes a night thus far.
User avatar
tantalum
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1911
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 3:41 am
Location: Carl Junction, MO

Postby MarkMM » Fri Oct 20, 2006 10:13 am

Krajicek and Bieksa have both impressed me thus far this season, Krajicek moves the puck nicely and pinches selectively and wisely, and while that means his offensive opportunities are limited, he is also less of a defensive liability than Jovo or Baumgartner were. That was expected from his scouting reports, but what I've found to be a big relief is that while he's not the most physical defenseman and can still improve, positionally he's been dependable on the back-end.

Bieksa's a bit of the opposite, he was dependable and tough defensively, but has stepped it up offensively this season, creating opportunities and moving the puck well.

Yes, our defense's offense is a step down from last season but that was expected AND planned, if I have a concern, it's the physicality of our defense, Mitchell has been quieter than I expected and without Bourdon getting regular ice-time, we're not being very intimidating back there which will be important when we need to protect Luongo.
Mark
MarkMM
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 511
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 2:28 pm
Location: Delta, BC

Postby Harold » Fri Oct 20, 2006 11:00 am

ClamRussel wrote:
tantalum wrote:
Kel wrote:
nuxfanindallas wrote:600,000 on Baumer or 450,000 on Fitzpatrick? To me it's a no brainer--Baumer all the way.


It's $1.2 millon on Baumer vs $450K on Fitzpatrick


Also add another $1.2 mil to Baumer because it's a two-year deal. I don't believe a team paying half his salary goes beyond the year in whcih he was claimed on recall waivers.

He won't be worth $1.2 mil next year either even if he gets sents down (which he isn't) and they have to put him on recall waivers later. it isn't a 600k hit to the cap. It's 600k this year and $1.2 mil next year I believe.


If we did get him at 6 bills for this year it would be a no-brainer w/ the state our defence is in.....Fitzpatrick is at best a no.7, Bourdon is NOT ready, Tremblay sucks, Kraijeck cannot seem to get it done offensively (Hedican syndrome....skates like Coffey but has subpar vision & instincts), Mitchell has struggled imo....the best bet for our PP beyond Ohlund, Salo & Bieksa just might be Coloumbe right now. Baumer could come here and be w/o a doubt our no.5 and round out the 2nd PP unit....if not the first. He had GREAT chemistry there w/ Ohlund & the Sedins last year... thats his forte. Not giving him too much on his plate allows him to be a great support guy. The other thing to consider is Nonis could renegotiate his deal for next year....offer him a 2 yr extension at less money. If Baumer knows whats good for him he'd take it. Perhaps Nonis could get him for 3 yrs at 1.8 total which would be fair. That would give him security on a team that he's a great fit on and the Canucks wouldn't have to consider a guy like Yannic Tremblay or Fitzpatrick.

Ohlund Salo
Mitchell Bieksa
Kraijeck Baumgartner
Fitzpatrick

That is MUCH better than what we're looking at right now. I'm sure Luongo would concur. Its actually pretty good imo.


I'm sorry but the 'with the state our defence is in' comment has to be your most off-the mark comment I've heard you make - and that includes anything you've said about Fedorov or Reid. Our defence has been outstanding this season, and one of the main reasons we are still right in the mix and not have a Philadelphia Flyers-type season. Edmonton has a great offence and we limited them to what 17 and 20 shots in back-to-back games. And Mitchell has been so steady and a rock back there - how in the hell has he struggled?
And why talk about Tremblay when he is a Moose defenceman? No chance he sees time with the team unless there are significant injuries, and there are not. As this defence sits right now it has done an amazing job and is one of the top D's in our division.
Harold
CC Veteran
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 12:10 pm
Location: Edmonton

PreviousNext

Return to Canucks Corner Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 3 guests

cron