Canucks Sign Swiss Puck Mover Yannick Weber

Thomas Drance
July 05 2013 01:50PM

On Friday the Canucks dipped a toe into free-agency, at long last, signing Swiss defenceman Yannick Weber to a one year, one-way deal worth 650k next season.

Yannick Weber will turn twenty-five in late September, and he went unqualified after battling injuries and falling out of favour in Montreal this past season. More analysis, but not that much more, after the jump.

Generally speaking Yannick Weber's possession numbers have been inauspicious. He's also faced favourable circumstances in terms of playing limited minutes, facing soft competition, and starting most often in the offensive end of the rink. Weber's mostly been used as a power-play spcialist in Montreal over the past handful of seasons, though he never really morphed into a mainstay on the Habs first unit. 

What Weber has going for him is that he's still young, he's got a lot of experience on the power-play, he's a right-handed shot and obviously the Canucks see some untapped potential. I generally think this is precisely the sort of shot you need to take if you hope to identify the next Aaron Rome-type.

So yeah, it's something.

3136ae487fac57943f99a50e66e4d6cf
Thomas Drance lives in Toronto, eats spicy food and writes about hockey. He is an NHL News Editor at theScore, the ex-managing editor of CanucksArmy.com and an opinionated blowhard to boot. You can follow him on twitter @thomasdrance.
Avatar
#1 NM00
July 05 2013, 02:50PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
1
props
Unknown Comic wrote:

LA, Detroit and Toronto are all in a cap squeeze and have all let young defenceman become FFAs. They include Martinez, Muzzin, Brendan Smith, Gunnarson and Franson.

Using these comparables, I don't think an unsigned Tanev is as bad as you're making it out to be.

How exactly can the Canucks add even a $2 million player until they know what Tanev is going to slot in at?

Toronto is not in a cap squeeze. Hence, they were able to conduct business today. They have upgraded their roster with Clarkson and, based on the age of their best players, aren't in the urgent situation that the Canucks are in to win next year.

Barring multiple offer sheets, they'll be able to fit in their key RFAs just fine.

Detroit was also able to conduct business today. They have a surplus of forwards so they may need to move out a body or two.

LA has a better team than the Canucks and their business has been taken care of aside from resigning a few more RFAs.

The Canucks don't compare to any of the above teams. They have multiple areas to address to even maintain last year's performance. With a core of 10 players making $50 million and an average opening day age of 31.

So, yeah, an unsigned Tanev is pretty bad for the Canucks because they haven't conducted any serious and necessary business today.

Avatar
#2 Warpstone
July 05 2013, 01:54PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Well, it could be a lot worse. The deals today were only deals for the players singing them.

At worst, Weber becomes depth and the sub $1m price tag is nice.

Avatar
#3 Jeff Angus
July 05 2013, 02:08PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

I'm a fan. Low risk, medium upside.

Avatar
#4 Nat
July 05 2013, 02:13PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

/fires confetti cannon

Seriously though, seems like a low risk signing. I like it.

Avatar
#5 NM00
July 05 2013, 02:20PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

As long as he's not insurance in the event they can't resign Tanev, it's not a horrible shot.

So that's something.

Avatar
#6 Unknown Comic
July 05 2013, 02:29PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
NM00 wrote:

As long as he's not insurance in the event they can't resign Tanev, it's not a horrible shot.

So that's something.

LA, Detroit and Toronto are all in a cap squeeze and have all let young defenceman become FFAs. They include Martinez, Muzzin, Brendan Smith, Gunnarson and Franson.

Using these comparables, I don't think an unsigned Tanev is as bad as you're making it out to be.

Avatar
#7 Ruprecht
July 05 2013, 02:30PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

All things considered it's a good signing.

Avatar
#8 Jeff
July 05 2013, 02:39PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

For the price this could prove to be an interesting signing. Despite Weber's lack of success so far, he is capable of playing a #6 dman and can also play the wing, so in terms of keeping things cap friendly, this is good.

One thing he does have going for him is he has a great shot, and anyone with a good shot playing with the Sedins could prove to be useful on the PP.

Avatar
#9 JCDavies
July 05 2013, 03:01PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Apparently, the Canucks might lose this perennial Norris trophy candidate Tanev...

Avatar
#10 Rob
July 05 2013, 03:11PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@NM00

Signing Clarkson is only an upgrade if you ignore the fact that they bought out Grabovski. Taken together, that's a net negative. Throw in their other roster moves, and they're looking more and more like a lottery team.

Avatar
#11 NM00
July 05 2013, 03:12PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
JCDavies wrote:

Apparently, the Canucks might lose this perennial Norris trophy candidate Tanev...

Do you actually want the Canucks to get worse in ANOTHER area next year?

Avatar
#12 adam
July 05 2013, 03:13PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

good point, when did tanev become so invaluable? he's a bit of a softee out there, can pass well and that's all you notice about the guy

Avatar
#13 NM00
July 05 2013, 03:17PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Rob wrote:

Signing Clarkson is only an upgrade if you ignore the fact that they bought out Grabovski. Taken together, that's a net negative. Throw in their other roster moves, and they're looking more and more like a lottery team.

They barely used Grabovski. They brought in Bolland.

Clarkson is an upgrade on MacArthur.

They have many young players with room to grow even though the team got lucky last year.

It's a completely different situation than what Vancouver needs to do considering the age of the Canucks core and lack of prospects.

Avatar
#14 JCDavies
July 05 2013, 03:18PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@NM00

Of course not, but a little perspective wouldn't hurt.

Avatar
#15 Nat
July 05 2013, 03:20PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
adam wrote:

good point, when did tanev become so invaluable? he's a bit of a softee out there, can pass well and that's all you notice about the guy

He's a valuable, very good defensemen - he doesn't put up points but you can trust him with pretty much anybody and he's really great in his own zone. Great first pass. In the Dan Hamhuis mold. He's worth it.

Avatar
#16 NM00
July 05 2013, 03:21PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
adam wrote:

good point, when did tanev become so invaluable? he's a bit of a softee out there, can pass well and that's all you notice about the guy

Tanev is not invaluable.

For some reason people are making up strawmen.

He's a useful 3rd pairing right shot defenseman.

I'd rather the Canucks not add #5 defenseman to the many positions from which they are likely to get less production next season.

Along with starting goalie, backup goalie, 3rd line centre and a host of depth positions.

And, you know, all the positions with older players who are likely to, at best, maintain performance next year.

Aside from possibly Kesler I suppose.

Avatar
#17 NM00
July 05 2013, 03:25PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
JCDavies wrote:

Of course not, but a little perspective wouldn't hurt.

The roster is old and getting worse. There is zero reason to expect the team to get better aside from better "luck".

"Apparently, the Canucks might lose this perennial Norris trophy candidate Tanev..."

Instead of creating strawmen, perhaps a little perspective wouldn't hurt you?

Avatar
#18 JCDavies
July 05 2013, 03:28PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@NM00

That's not a strawman, it's sarcasm.

Avatar
#19 Unknown Comic
July 05 2013, 03:45PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
NM00 wrote:

How exactly can the Canucks add even a $2 million player until they know what Tanev is going to slot in at?

Toronto is not in a cap squeeze. Hence, they were able to conduct business today. They have upgraded their roster with Clarkson and, based on the age of their best players, aren't in the urgent situation that the Canucks are in to win next year.

Barring multiple offer sheets, they'll be able to fit in their key RFAs just fine.

Detroit was also able to conduct business today. They have a surplus of forwards so they may need to move out a body or two.

LA has a better team than the Canucks and their business has been taken care of aside from resigning a few more RFAs.

The Canucks don't compare to any of the above teams. They have multiple areas to address to even maintain last year's performance. With a core of 10 players making $50 million and an average opening day age of 31.

So, yeah, an unsigned Tanev is pretty bad for the Canucks because they haven't conducted any serious and necessary business today.

Toronto has to sign Kadri, Bernier, Franson and Gunnarson plus fill 2/3 more roster spots with 13 million. That's a cap squeeze.

And the d-men are the comparables - you're concerned about an offer sheet. The listed d-men are just as likely to get offer sheets as Tanev because their teams are just as likely to be unable to match due to cap reasons.

Avatar
#20 NM00
July 05 2013, 04:08PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@Unknown Comic

"you're concerned about an offer sheet."

No. I'm "concerned" that the Canucks can't allocate as much money on quality depth players until they know how Tanev slots in.

An offer sheet is a secondary concern.

"Toronto has to sign Kadri, Bernier, Franson and Gunnarson plus fill 2/3 more roster spots with 13 million. That's a cap squeeze."

It's only a cap squeeze in your mind.

You have no idea how long each player will sign for and the AAV of each contract.

$7.5 mil for 7 players is a cap squeeze considering the areas Vancouver needs to address to maintain last year's performance.

Which, along with better luck, is all that can be hoped for at this point considering how terribly the Canucks have managed the cap.

Avatar
#21 horrible
July 05 2013, 08:56PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Let's not kid outselves, he has HORRIBLE underlying #'s. Worse than Cam barker, look at his possession #'s in sheltered mins. He's horrible.

There are PLENTY of depth d-men left who can he had for cheap that are way better options. Someone needs to can Gillis.

If this is the team we see in October, they ain't makin the playoffs in this new division.

Comments are closed for this article.