Bieksa on OTR

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

Moderator: Referees

User avatar
DonCherry4PM
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1069
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 10:27 pm

Re: Bieksa on OTR

Post by DonCherry4PM » Thu Jul 15, 2010 2:29 pm

Okay, one, we haven't signed Raymond yet. We are just above the cap and need to allot at least 2.5 and more likely 3 million for that deal. Getting rid of a bunch of little contracts is not going to allow that contract to fit along with Hodgson and still have enough players.

I do not understand the sentiment of trading Ehrhoff unless it is certain that he isn't going to sign next year. The guy was our best defenseman last year. With Salo's injuries, he is integral to the style of play that the team now plays. How can you drop a guy with 44 pts. and a +36 for a guy with 22 points and -5 (55 games to be fair). I guess if MG and he come to an impasse with regard to resigning, but I think you have to do everything you can to make this guy one of our core group.

I just don't really see a way for Bieksa to fit on the current team without giving up something else of greater value.
Invincibility lies in oneself.
Vincibility lies in the enemy.

- Sun Tzu

Fred
CC Legend
Posts: 3433
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 7:00 pm

Re: Bieksa on OTR

Post by Fred » Thu Jul 15, 2010 4:03 pm

I must have missed some thing ( couild eb because I'm out in Nova Scotia and out of touch ) Erhoff doesn't want to resign ? is this speculation. Probably because of the tax structure in Vcr :)
cheers

User avatar
DonCherry4PM
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1069
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 10:27 pm

Re: Bieksa on OTR

Post by DonCherry4PM » Thu Jul 15, 2010 5:14 pm

Fred, no speculation, just saying that unless MG knows that he will be unable to resign EhrHoff, he should keep him. Hence, as I assume he knows no such thing - MG should keep him.
Invincibility lies in oneself.
Vincibility lies in the enemy.

- Sun Tzu

User avatar
Tciso
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 1647
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:44 am

Re: Bieksa on OTR

Post by Tciso » Thu Jul 15, 2010 8:19 pm

DonCherry4PM wrote:Okay, one, we haven't signed Raymond yet. We are just above the cap and need to allot at least 2.5 and more likely 3 million for that deal. Getting rid of a bunch of little contracts is not going to allow that contract to fit along with Hodgson and still have enough players.

I just don't really see a way for Bieksa to fit on the current team without giving up something else of greater value.
There is a lot of addition and subtraction to do.

We will likely get $500k in IR relief for Burrows. Alberts and Hordi free up 1.8mil. Salo is good for another $1mil in cap relief in all likelyhood. If Rome is out #8 dman, does he need to clear waivers? if not, he frees up more salary. And, we have yet to look at any additional IR relief that is likely to come along.

Overall, I'd say we will be very tight to the cap, but I also think it is in the realm of doable.
The Cup is soooooo ours!!!!!!!

trouble

Re: Bieksa on OTR

Post by trouble » Thu Jul 15, 2010 10:28 pm

When you have a healthy top 4 they will be playing most of the game.. The 5th and 6th spots will only see maybe 5 to 10 minute's per game. So those spots are more or less fill ins.. You do not want a guys making close to 4 million playing in the 6th and 7th spots

Alberts, Ballard, Edler, Ehrhoff, Hamhuis , O'Brien, Rome and Oberg all shoot left

Bieska, Salo and Baumgartner are the only right hand shots

So if your thinking Ballard, Hamhuis, Edler and Ehrhoff as your top 4. Then you have 4 left handed shots. Not sure how that is gonna work

User avatar
DonCherry4PM
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1069
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 10:27 pm

Re: Bieksa on OTR

Post by DonCherry4PM » Thu Jul 15, 2010 10:54 pm

Tciso wrote:
DonCherry4PM wrote:Okay, one, we haven't signed Raymond yet. We are just above the cap and need to allot at least 2.5 and more likely 3 million for that deal. Getting rid of a bunch of little contracts is not going to allow that contract to fit along with Hodgson and still have enough players.

I just don't really see a way for Bieksa to fit on the current team without giving up something else of greater value.
There is a lot of addition and subtraction to do.

We will likely get $500k in IR relief for Burrows. Alberts and Hordi free up 1.8mil. Salo is good for another $1mil in cap relief in all likelyhood. If Rome is out #8 dman, does he need to clear waivers? if not, he frees up more salary. And, we have yet to look at any additional IR relief that is likely to come along.

Overall, I'd say we will be very tight to the cap, but I also think it is in the realm of doable.
I would disagree.

Assume we rid ourselves of 275k by replacing Hordi with plug (resign bliznack etc.). We get the 375K IR for Burrows missing 20 games (which I doubt) assuming that a 500k plug replaces him . We trade Obrien (1.6) away for a fourth round pick and sink Alberts (1.0) in the minors. Our total cap for the season drops to ((59.758))-(1.6+1+.375+.275)) or (59.758-3.250=56.508). We are now carrying 12 forwards and 7 defensemen and 2 goalies. Add a minimum of 2.5 (much more likely 3) for Raymond and 1.67 for Hodgson (2.5+1.67=4.17). They replace the salaries of bolduc and whoever else for 500k a piece so 4.17 - (.5+.5) for 3.17. 3.17 +56.508 does not an acceptable cap hit make ($59.678). And I would say that is on the conservative side assuming that we get rid of O'brien and Alberts contracts, that Raymond signs for only 2.5, that Burrows misses 20 games. I have ignored Salo as I think that his potential IR relief is at least offset by the likelihood that Raymond makes a bigger contract.

Now if Hodgson fails to make the team in any capacity along with Schroeder and Shirokov, then we free up roughly a million. In that case assuming all the other above conditions remain that same we could keep Bieksa. IMO unlikely at best.
Invincibility lies in oneself.
Vincibility lies in the enemy.

- Sun Tzu

User avatar
levelheaded
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1345
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 8:25 pm
Location: Toronto, but heart's in Vancouver

Re: Bieksa on OTR

Post by levelheaded » Fri Jul 16, 2010 10:05 am

Fred wrote:As to Rome, a 14 minute player? that's 23% of the game, I don't think he can handle that much of the game at the NHL level, it's like treading water for that time.
He averaged 15:10 a game this year and didn't look out of place.
Surpisingly I think Alberts started to show signs of turning the corner, he's not running a round trying to make a hit, stay deep and play the angles, he has hope IMO. Plus of course is a big body for the PK, great reach. I don't see Rome playing a lot of specalty team
I agree, his first few games were an outright disaster, but after he hit his alltime low by chasing the whistle he started to look a lot better. He's not a guy I'd want taking a regular NHL shift, but as a fill in he's alright so long as he's paired with someone mobile and capable of covering for his mistakes.

Fred
CC Legend
Posts: 3433
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 7:00 pm

Re: Bieksa on OTR

Post by Fred » Fri Jul 16, 2010 11:21 am

Rome, I don't know. The Canucks are heavy with soft D and unlike Erhoff for instance has nothing else to add. To me SOB is an ideal 6-7th D, he might not be the next Bobby Orr but at his spot he does bring some thing else to the table.

The current blue line

Edler, Salo, Erhoff, Ballard & Hamhuis are all qaulity players IMO now who do you go with for the final spot @ #6 an extras for the #7 spot ? I'd rather have Albert and SOB, assuming Bieska is toast.

Is there a rumour that Erhoff wants to move on and unwilling to sign an extension ???
cheers

User avatar
Jovorock
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
Posts: 902
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 12:46 pm
Location: Kelowna

Re: Bieksa on OTR

Post by Jovorock » Sat Jul 17, 2010 5:30 am

Fred wrote:
Edler, Salo, Erhoff, Ballard & Hamhuis are all qaulity players IMO now who do you go with for the final spot @ #6 an extras for the #7 spot ? I'd rather have Albert and SOB, assuming Bieska is toast.
The top five and SOB is pretty good, if not for cap room I would love to keep Bieska.Who is the idiot that gave Salo a no trade clause in is contract? Oh he is fired already.

Salo is gone next year with his injury prone career, I would rather lose Salo than Bieska but that's the way things roll?
Keep your friends and your enemies very close
You never know when you might have to stab one
of them in the back!

Fred
CC Legend
Posts: 3433
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 7:00 pm

Re: Bieksa on OTR

Post by Fred » Sat Jul 17, 2010 6:46 am

I can't prove this but it's reported again and again on the radio that the Canucks winning percentage with Salo in the line up and when he is not in the line up is a big difference, becasue as AV states he's a smart hockey player, some thing you can't accuse Bieska with :D And to be honest I don't think Bieska's injury record is much better than Salo's .....maybe worse
cheers

trouble

Re: Bieksa on OTR

Post by trouble » Sat Jul 17, 2010 2:36 pm

Fred wrote:I can't prove this but it's reported again and again on the radio that the Canucks winning percentage with Salo in the line up and when he is not in the line up is a big difference, becasue as AV states he's a smart hockey player, some thing you can't accuse Bieska with :D And to be honest I don't think Bieska's injury record is much better than Salo's .....maybe worse
When Salo is healthy he is a top 4 d-men on any team. The guy can play the game at both ends of the ice..And lets not foget that slap shot . When Salo is playing on the PP the other team always has a player high to stop Salo from getting his shot away, which helps the Sedins keep the play low and leads to alot of goals.

Jelly
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 1130
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 12:20 am

Re: Bieksa on OTR

Post by Jelly » Sat Jul 17, 2010 9:05 pm

I don't even know if I want to post my views on our current cluster of DMAN, mostly because most of you know what I'd say anyways.

I believe Burrows can start the season on the LITR, maybe Kesler too? A couple games each would go a long way in terms of cap savings.

4 games each to start the year and that's about 350k in cap savings I believe.
This signature hates SOB as much as the guy who wrote this signature.

User avatar
Linden Is God
CC Hall of Fan Member
Posts: 1950
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 1:58 pm
Location: Timmins, Ontario

Re: Bieksa on OTR

Post by Linden Is God » Thu Jul 22, 2010 7:27 pm

Just a question to throw out there. What do you think or expect the return on Bieksa would be? I've read fro Kuzma he expects a pick and prospect. There's also been rumours of Bieksa for Tinordi or Bieksa for Filatov. What do you guys think?

Personally, I think a D prospect and a pick (2nd or 3rd) would be great.
GO CANUCKS GO !!!

:towel: :towel: :towel:

trouble

Re: Bieksa on OTR

Post by trouble » Thu Jul 22, 2010 10:31 pm

Linden Is God wrote:Just a question to throw out there. What do you think or expect the return on Bieksa would be? I've read fro Kuzma he expects a pick and prospect. There's also been rumours of Bieksa for Tinordi or Bieksa for Filatov. What do you guys think?

Personally, I think a D prospect and a pick (2nd or 3rd) would be great.

Ya with the Canucks so close to the Cap they would move Bieska for prospects and picks.

There is also rumors flying now that they may ask Salo to waive his NTC, But to me that makes no sense since Salo and Bieska are the only right shot they have

The Filatov rumors are still going strong but i really hope we don't trade for this kid. I'm not a fan of Russian players. He has already shown he is a big baby when he left The Jackets under contract to go play in the KHL cause he wasn't getting enough ice time

As for Tinordi. He is the player the Canucks wanted at the draft. But he is still a raw talent and The Habs would have to sweetin The deal to get that to happen.

User avatar
ClamRussel
CC Legend
Posts: 3992
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 10:50 am
Location: New South Wales, Australia

Re: Bieksa on OTR

Post by ClamRussel » Thu Jul 22, 2010 11:22 pm

I was about to disagree w/ you on your last point...but then I examined your signature and everything was all good.
"Once a King, always a King" -Mike Murphy

Post Reply