CanucksCorner.com Forums

Hilarious Loui remains the highest paid forward for another 2 seasons.

That’s a great signing for Jimbo. Qualifying him at $7.5 won’t be an issue, ensuring he’s here for four more years. A classic bridge contract. Love it.

Island Nucklehead wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2019 2:12 am That’s a great signing for Jimbo. Qualifying him at $7.5 won’t be an issue, ensuring he’s here for four more years. A classic bridge contract. Love it.

Genius contract negotiator. He stunned the world by signing Ferland far less than what everyone predicted, not too mention everyone from here to Timbuktu were crying out loud that Benning was gonna sign Myers for $8 million a year *see Blobbees posts with regards to that

Island Nucklehead wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2019 2:12 am That’s a great signing for JimbRo.

Slurp the sausage Island



You'll only gag at first

love the term,Brock will be playing his 3rd year for his new contract same time as Podkolzins rookie season.
Big things in 2022

Ben Hankinson is rather angry. This is a big issue. Will put up when it's available.

Cornuck wrote: ↑Mon Sep 16, 2019 9:23 pm
Seriously, I'm expecting a post from his kid any time now...

Oh. I missed this last night. I didn't this morning.

A few reasons why this deal makes sense for Boeser and the Canucks.

(1) Boeser has guaranteed lifetime earnings money. By which I mean, if he isn't a fool and he happens to get injured, he will have what he needs to not have to be concerned about future work. This should be a floor target for all players who can get it.

(2) The gap between RFA and UFA market value is narrowing. A bit more sanity in the FA market (Kevin Hayes quasi-UFA deal notwithstanding) and a little more insanity is entering the RFA market (thank KD). If this trend is going to continue, why spend more to get into UFA years when RFAs are getting something close to UFAs?

(3) When Boeser comes due for the next contract, he will be 25 and the next contract will cover only prime plus years. If he excels, he's going to be in a great spot. So will the Canucks -- by re-signing a star or by trading one.

(4) Luongo's recapture comes off the books when Boeser's deal expires. That's why 3 years ending @ $7.5M is better than a 4 or 5 year deal from the Boeser perspective. The team will have Pettersson and Hughes worked out in a structure that has to accommodate the final year of the recapture but Boeser's next deal has the Canucks with $3M of "found" money.

Great analysis their Saint. I love this contact, now will give Benning a B+ for the off-season. He gets an A if he moves Eriksson without giving up a major asset to do it.

UWSaint wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2019 7:53 am
(3) When Boeser comes due for the next contract, he will be 25 and the next contract will cover only prime plus years. If he excels, he's going to be in a great spot. So will the Canucks -- by re-signing a star or by trading one.

Why would the Canucks be in a good spot trading a star player? (Or did you mean, having to trade one). No room available.

My guess is Boeser's next deal will be in the neighbourhood of or close to, 8.5 million per year. Maybe even more.

Looks nice now though. To most.

If we get into a position where we have to choose to move one of our big 3 contracts it'll be Boeser thats expendable before Hughes or Pettersson. 1st line centers and franchise dmen are always kept over scoring type wingers

The Brown Wizard wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2019 8:58 am If we get into a position where we have to choose to move one of our big 3 contracts it'll be Boeser thats expendable before Hughes or Pettersson. 1st line centers and franchise dmen are always kept over scoring type wingers

I see I don't belong here now.
That is bullshit.
What if Pettersson can't find the chemistry with anyone else, or at least not to the same degree.
Hughes looked great in a small sample size at the end of last year. I hope his entire game, (as a defense man), is of great value to the team.
W/E
I'm the only one that thinks locking this guy up long term was a better plan.

micky107 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2019 9:11 am
I'm the only one that thinks locking this guy up long term was a better plan.

I don't think so, but you're possibly the only one who thinks it's "bad" to have him signed to a bridge.

I think a long-term deal would have been near $10 mil - buying ufa years is expensive, and as much as I love Brock, with his injuries I needed to see more from him before committing to that kind of money (see: Nylander).

Worst case scenario, Brock achieves his potential and we have to pay him a ton of money. That's not a lot of downside, versus being locked in at huge money and term up a 22 year old with a wonky back and wrist.

ESQ wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2019 9:18 am
I think a long-term deal would have been near $10 mil - buying ufa years is expensive, and as much as I love Brock, with his injuries I needed to see more from him before committing to that kind of money (see: Nylander).

LOL> Wasn't close to that. As soon as the interview with Hankinson is available, I'll try and put it up.

Brock is not Nylander. Very different personality and has "far better" leadership qualities. Or am I wrong about that too?