Mikhail Grabovski is available, fun to watch, and a risk worth taking

Cam Charron
August 19 2013 01:43PM

Occasional provider of useful information Steve Simmons wrote about reasons Mikhail Grabovski was not signed early on in the free agency period. It may be wise to hit "CTRL+F" to find your way down to the relevant section, especially if you're feeling a tad nauseous, dehydrated, and would like to keep your lunch in your belly:

The reason Mikhail Grabovski remains unsigned: According to one NHL GM, he wanted too much money and too much term in the early days of free agency.

“He was trying to cash in on getting the buyout and double dipping,” a general manager said. “And once everybody who wanted a centre signed them, there was no place for him to get the kind of deal he wanted.”

Now he’s unlikely to end up with either large money or long term. Although there are questions other than money about Grabovski that have been pondered in this strange hockey summer.

The rest of the analysis is hilarious. Simmons has waged a bit of a war against anybody who might think Mikhail Grabovski is a useful player. He pointed out that Grabovski did better under Ron Wilson's "free-flow offence" and neglects to mention that the Leafs allowed fewer shots against under Wilson than they did under Randy Carlyle.

I can imagine why Grabovski might want to double-dip. Had he simply gone to free agency this year pursuing the normal route rather than a buy-out, he'd likely have more suitors. NHL general managers like to target certain players, and it wasn't until a day before the window opened that it was known Grabovski would be on the market. As somebody who covers the Leafs and has watched just about each of their games over the last three seasons, I have to say that the decision by ex-Vancouver general manager Dave Nonis to buy him out was stupid, and it was stupid then, and it's stupid now no matter who has or hasn't signed Grabovski. It's been written ad nauseum. Grabovski is a good hockey player and the fact he is unsigned is peculiar.

It's no secret that the Canucks are as thin at centre as 2012 Calgary Flames first rounder Mark Jankowski. Brad Richardson took 56 faceoffs for the Los Angeles Kings last year and has been slot into that third-line centre role. Maxim Lapierre wound up playing up-and-down the lineup last year in the absence of Ryan Kesler, and the team also deployed diminutive probably-not-an-impact-NHLer Jordan Schroeder and Andrew Ebbett in top six roles.

Grabovski makes sense here, and he makes more sense if he's cheap. How he performed under Carlyle aside, the fact is that Grabovski was the second-highest scoring Maple Leaf over the last three seasons and the last four seasons. [Hockey Reference]

His usage this season was defensive and restrictive, and Carlyle was made out to be some kind of savant because Leafs shooters caught lightning in a bottle and powered the team to the playoffs with percentages in front of very strong goaltending. The only regular to not have a PDO of over 100% on the Maple Leafs was Mikhail Grabovski, yet he still ended up with a Relative Corsi of +1.0 over 60 minutes despite starting 252 faceoffs in the defensive zone to just 146 in the offensive zone, a high Corsi Rel QoC and a low Corsi Rel QoT. He somehow managed a positive penalties drawn to taken ratio as well. [Behind the Net]

Just doing some math here, if Grabovski is being paid $2,687,500.00 over the next eight seasons by the blue and white ATM in Maple Leaf Square, he'll need to be paid a little over $3-million to make back the money he lost due to the buyout. Is there room to fit him for $3-million in the Canucks current roster?

A $3-million contract, plus $1.2-million to Chris Tanev, puts the Canucks slightly below the cap. Some extra space will be made midseason by the injuries that are expected to come to David Booth and Ryan Kesler, though for the Canucks to have a chance at winning the Pacific Division those two will probably need to be healthy and productive.

That said, there is both space and an argument for the Canucks to sign Grabovski. One or two years isn't particularly high-risk, and the fact that no teams seem interested in Grabovski shouldn't put off Mike Gillis. The fact is that the Canucks should be looking at Grabovski particularly because nobody else is. With so much cash tied up in no-trade clauses, the Canucks need to exploit market inefficiencies to round up the rest of their roster. Paying the Brad Richardsons and Dale Weises of the world market value isn't going to accomplish the goal of improving the Canucks in the short-term.

There's definitely a potential clash of personalities between Grabovski and John Tortorella, but Grabovski's a risk worth taking. If he can skate the way he was in the 2011 and 2012 seasons, he's an injection of life the Canucks roster needs, since this team is on the verge of being very, very boring to watch.

Mike Gillis has talked about having a roster spot open for one of the kids to compete for, but I think that Schroeder should be in that competition. If he's one of the 12 NHL forwards the team has under contract, it's an indication the Canucks don't have enough depth to make it through a full season. They need skill, they need speed, and they need centremen. Most of all, Grabovski needs a team. It may not fit as well as Cinderella's slipper, but it's a chance worth taking.

63811cbf517d2d685ea09e103488ea3a
Cam Charron is a BC hockey fan that writes about hockey on many different websites including this one.
Avatar
#1 Betty Henderson
August 19 2013, 01:56PM
Trash it!
17
trashes
Props
2
props

On the verge of being very "Boring to watch" ? We don't even know what the TEAM will look like, and we see a statement like that? Here we GO !

Avatar
#2 antro
August 19 2013, 02:11PM
Trash it!
3
trashes
Props
16
props

Amen, amen, amen. I don't think it'll happen, but I sure wish it would. I think postponing the rise of Gaunce and Horvat another season or two, and having Lain/Schroeder as a fill-in for injuries would be good.

But I'm also sure NM00 will be here soon to tell us why it won't fit under the cap.

Avatar
#3 NM00
August 19 2013, 02:23PM
Trash it!
11
trashes
Props
8
props

"Just doing some math here, if Grabovski is being paid $2,687,500.00 over the next eight seasons by the blue and white ATM in Maple Leaf Square, he'll need to be paid a little over $3-million to make back the money he lost due to the buyout. Is there room to fit him for $3-million in the Canucks current roster?"

He's a free agent.

I suspect his asking price won't be based on making his 2013-2014 salary "whole".

If he can get more money, I'm sure he'll go for it.

And does Grabovski actually want to go back to being 3rd on a centreman depth chart?

I'm sure his agent noticed how that killed Derek Roy's market value.

If he wants to take a one year deal on a team where he can be properly utilized as a scoring centre to reestablish his market value, Vancouver makes little sense for him.

Avatar
#4 NM00
August 19 2013, 02:24PM
Trash it!
14
trashes
Props
0
props
antro wrote:

Amen, amen, amen. I don't think it'll happen, but I sure wish it would. I think postponing the rise of Gaunce and Horvat another season or two, and having Lain/Schroeder as a fill-in for injuries would be good.

But I'm also sure NM00 will be here soon to tell us why it won't fit under the cap.

You prefer delusions of Clarkson, Gordon and, my personal favourite, Luongo for Dipietro+.

Avatar
#5 Brian
August 19 2013, 02:52PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Props
13
props

@NM00

Who says Grabovski needs to play as a 3C? Play him with Booth and Kesler to create a legit 2nd line. Or 2C with Booth and Kassian and have Kesler play shut down with Higgins and Hansen.

If you are trying to say that he won't sign here because you think that he will be asked to play the same role as he did in TO, that doesn't make sense as Kesler will get the shut down minutes.

It would be logical for him to consider taking less knowing he is making 2.7 for nothing. But I'm sure " If he can get more money, he'll go for it". Who wouldn't?

Canucks lack both offensive power and Centre depth two things that Grabovski would provide and IMO would be worth allowing Tanev to split if it costs more than 3 million.

Avatar
#6 ScrappyCoocoo
August 19 2013, 03:03PM
Trash it!
4
trashes
Props
4
props

I would rather give our young guys the opportunity on those bottom 2 lines then give a bunch of dollars to someone for a year or get tied into anything that forces us to move out other core guys in the future, in my opinion this is a terrible idea.

Avatar
#7 jeepyjeep
August 19 2013, 03:24PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Props
2
props

he'll end up in carolina!!!!

Avatar
#8 NM00
August 19 2013, 04:01PM
Trash it!
13
trashes
Props
2
props

@Brian

"Who says Grabovski needs to play as a 3C?"

Not me.

I said 3rd on the centreman depth chart.

And he would quite clearly be 3rd behind Sedin & Kesler.

"It would be logical for him to consider taking less knowing he is making 2.7 for nothing"

He was set to make $6 million in 2013-2014 and now will make just under $1.8 million.

http://www.capgeek.com/player/178

I'm not sure where these crazy math figures are coming from.

For a guy who may very well have to take a one year deal to reestablish his market value, Vancouver makes little sense for his career.

The Canucks probably don't have the money to afford him nor are they an ideal landing spot for a player who belongs in a top 6.

Grabovski makes sense for many teams including Vancouver. Vancouver makes little sense for him, though.

Avatar
#9 BrudnySeaby
August 19 2013, 04:11PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
5
props

Whatever Gillis has been saying about resets, injecting youth into our line-up and all that, it's essentially all BS. Reset didn't turn out to be a reset, instead just a new coach. Youth in the line-up is great but won't enable the Canucks to compete for the big prize. So in that light, and in any light really, Grabovski is the best bet available to make the Canucks a contender. The young guns can then round out the line-up or move up the depth chart in case of injuries.

If the Canucks don't take a chance on Grabovski for next the next season (or 2) they are idiots. The Sedins can still compete at their top level, Kesler is healthy at the start of the season and hopefully can make it through a whole season with re-injuring, Luongo should report and be on fire to make it as the Olympic starter (and who knows what happens after this season), a relatively stable D-core that when Tanev resigns has options on the right side for the first time in a couple of seasons and only needs another left D-man.

Really, the time is now if you want another chance at winning during the Sedin era and the young players are not going to do that if you need to rely on them down the middle.

Avatar
#10 Matt
August 19 2013, 05:09PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Props
1
props

@NM00

It depends if Grabovski wants to be the top centreman on a team, or if he wants to win. The Canucks with another top-6 centreman are legitimate contenders. If you were offered $3 million by Vancouver and by Calgary, would you rather play 18 minutes a night and have a shot at a deep playoff run, or play 22 minutes a night and know you're not making the playoffs?

Avatar
#11 clutchfan
August 19 2013, 05:14PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
0
props

It will be painful for a while, but in the mid-long term, better for nucks to go with youth in my opinion instead of Grabovski. Cheaper and same talent or better players if they pan out...

Avatar
#14 NM00
August 19 2013, 05:17PM
Trash it!
10
trashes
Props
2
props

@Matt

That's a false dilemma.

Between Vancouver and Calgary are a host of options where Grabovski can be paid, play in the top 6 or have a shot at contending.

Or possibly two or three of those options.

And if Grabovski's #1 priority is to win, he would be better off on a team like Chicago, for example.

Avatar
#15 NM00
August 19 2013, 05:28PM
Trash it!
9
trashes
Props
1
props

"How did you wind up with that $1.8-million?"

From the capgeek link I provided in my previous post.

Here it is again:

http://www.capgeek.com/player/178

This is a business not a charity outfit.

Grabovski may have been bought out.

However, it does not follow that he will take less simply because he has that buyout money in the bank.

Did Lecavalier?

http://www.capgeek.com/player/884

"If he's looking for a payday, the point of Simmons' column"

Oxymoron.

I still haven't seen a logical reason for Grabovski to choose Vancouver.

And even in fantasy land where Grabovski accepts 1 year $3 million because he deems Vancouver as the best career opportunity (ha), that would be stretching out the cap dollars pretty thin.

The Canucks, using your estimate for Tanev, would be right at the cap with a 22 man roster and limited flexibility for in-season transactions unless someone like Booth begins the season on the IR.

Avatar
#16 Brian
August 19 2013, 05:29PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@Cam Charron

I was wrong earlier and so are you I think Cam. 21.5 remaining but I think buyout is 2/3rds over 8 years so as NMOO said 1.79 per year. I do agree that I don't think he will get a big salary, not because he doesn't deserve it but because of cap implications this season.

Avatar
#17 Ted
August 19 2013, 05:49PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
4
props

I love coming here. NM00 provides the BEST comedy!

I don't think I want Grabs here. He seems to be a malcontent and who knows what you get when he's placed in a system.

I don't think he did himself any favors when he made some rough departing remarks about the Laughs.

Grabs isn't getting much love right now but we're still in August. You never know. I don't see him being in the drivers seat in regards to dictating what he'll make. He may have to suck it up and take a 1 year deal on the cheap.

Avatar
#18 Brian
August 19 2013, 05:49PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
3
props
NM00 wrote:

"How did you wind up with that $1.8-million?"

From the capgeek link I provided in my previous post.

Here it is again:

http://www.capgeek.com/player/178

This is a business not a charity outfit.

Grabovski may have been bought out.

However, it does not follow that he will take less simply because he has that buyout money in the bank.

Did Lecavalier?

http://www.capgeek.com/player/884

"If he's looking for a payday, the point of Simmons' column"

Oxymoron.

I still haven't seen a logical reason for Grabovski to choose Vancouver.

And even in fantasy land where Grabovski accepts 1 year $3 million because he deems Vancouver as the best career opportunity (ha), that would be stretching out the cap dollars pretty thin.

The Canucks, using your estimate for Tanev, would be right at the cap with a 22 man roster and limited flexibility for in-season transactions unless someone like Booth begins the season on the IR.

Lecavalier has a cap hit of 4.5, he was signed to a cap hit of 7.7 so ya I would say he took less than he was making and maybe less than he's worth but time will tell.

Grabovski isn't worth 5.5 per season and I doubt he expects to receive another contract at 5.5 but if he takes a 58% reduction in salary like Lecavalier did he would be making about 3.2.

Logical reasons he wants to sign with Vancouver.

Better supporting cast than what he had in Toronto or Montreal.

Won't be relied on to be a shut down guy (could of sworn I've said that before but maybe its not logical).

Vancouver needs a player like him (offensive creativity). Might sound cheesy but he was just discarded by a team after being one of their best players and that has to hurt the ego.

Anyways not saying he is the greatest but IMO it would be silly not to be considering him at this point.

Avatar
#19 Peachy
August 19 2013, 05:59PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
9
props

@NM00

Why all the negativity?

The point of the article isn't so much that Grabo will definitely come to Vancouver, merely that the Canucks would do well to fully explore the opportunity.

Truly, if Grabo is willing to sign for less (because he's forced to for the myriad reasons provided by Cam), awesome. The Canucks will have successfully exploited a market inefficiency.

For all we know, the Canucks already have pursued him and it's not going to work. Cool. We move on.

Avatar
#20 JFR
August 19 2013, 06:27PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
4
props

Agreed Peachy, this article was floating the idea that a talented guy could come in and play the 3rd line center for less than he made last season because of the buyout. A lot of players will have to make 1-2 yr contracts at less than last seasons market value because of the lowered salary cap. van could be a very good destination for those types of players because it is a win know situation. Grabo could be a bargain or play in the KHL. All the teams willing to spend to the cap are almost out of cash and those that stay at the minimum are staying there until trade deadline with a playoff birth on the line.

Avatar
#21 NM00
August 19 2013, 06:48PM
Trash it!
5
trashes
Props
2
props

@Brian

You lost me when you began talking about cap hits as though that is how Lecavalier will be paid.

VL had 7 years and $45 million remaining on his contract.

He will receive over $32 million for his buyout.

He will also receive $22.5 million for the next 5 years.

And he still has the potential to make money on top of this in 2018-2019 & 2019-2020.

Even when one considers that the buyout is spread out over 14 years and that this, in effect, reduces the present day value, he quite clearly stands to make more money.

Avatar
#22 NM00
August 19 2013, 06:53PM
Trash it!
6
trashes
Props
1
props

@Ted

"I don't think I want Grabs here. He seems to be a malcontent and who knows what you get when he's placed in a system."

Rubbish.

He's a very good player who happens to have the "wrong" passport.

They have a name for this in other industries.

But in the NHL they hide behind the euphemism "xenophobia" that allows these ridiculous ideas to metastasize.

Avatar
#23 NM00
August 19 2013, 07:03PM
Trash it!
11
trashes
Props
0
props

@Peachy

Why all the blind optimism?

The author makes what I believe is an innocent mistake about Grabovski's buyout pay but then proceeds to use a made up number for the basis of how the Canucks can fit him in.

While ignoring the fact that a 22 man opening day roster squeezed right up to the cap is pretty unrealistic.

And also ignores a number of other factors that make it unrealistic.

Why is Grabo going to go from 3rd on Toronto's centre depth chart to 3rd on Vancouver's?

That was a terrible spot for Grabo in Toronto and Roy in Vancouver in 2013.

For some reason people believe that free agency is like buying items at a grocery store.

On the plus side, at least there haven't been any delusions about Gilman as a cap wizard and Gillis as a business wizard (because, you know, the franchise value has increased since Gillis was hired in 2008) lately.

The underwhelming reset seems to have made people a touch more realistic.

Avatar
#24 NM00
August 19 2013, 07:12PM
Trash it!
5
trashes
Props
4
props

@BrudnySeaby

"Whatever Gillis has been saying about resets, injecting youth into our line-up and all that, it's essentially all BS."

It was Luongo's team.

Then it was Schneider's team.

Now it has been "reset" so it is, once again, Luongo's team.

Game, set and match to Mr Gillis.

Avatar
#25 Peachy
August 19 2013, 09:58PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
6
props

@NM00

Lol, I never said that Grabo was coming to Vancouver, nor even that it was likely.

Really, it isn't a likely occurrence. Slightly better than 1/29 odds maybe?

But there's no one in this thread (or even the article) suggesting that it's likely, only that it might be cool, or conversely might be uncool. There are good reasons to hold both opinions. It's the summer. We don't have anything to do but speculate and make assumptions.

And what's with slagging Gilman here? No one's bringing him up. Moreover, he's previously demonstrated the capability to understand an incredibly complex set of parameters and find creative ways of giving the team a competitive advantage. Is it his fault that the rules were changed? Definitely not. (Arguably it was Gillis', fine. But no one had brought him up either.)

Avatar
#26 GrogZilla
August 19 2013, 10:10PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

I like Grabovski & would love to see him on the Canucks, but there's just no way it's gonna happen. They need to resign Tanev but they also need another D. I expect they'll eventually sign one of Alberts, Fistric or Murray.

Gillis might be looking for another forward, but if so it's gonna be a late bargain basement signing like Torres was a few years ago.

There's really no room to sign Grabovski, even if he was willing to come to Vancouver & take a big discount. There just isn't the cap space.

Avatar
#27 Ruprecht
August 19 2013, 10:16PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

No way we spend our last kernel of cap space to make it happen. If we're able to fill the hole it has to be from within or we have to move salary to afford the upgrade, plain and simple.

Avatar
#28 pheenster
August 19 2013, 11:25PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Props
6
props

Like many of us, I don't expect great things from the Canucks this season. That said, if they do play well and have some success, the very best thing about it will be watching NM00's head explode. I sincerely hope that Canucks Army posts a live video stream of the event so that we can all share in the unbridled joy of the moment.

To get back on topic, I think if we took one thing away from what Cam wrote it's that the Canucks are going to have to get a steal of a deal on someone to enhance their prospects for this season in any tangible way. Grabbo would fill that bill. Another guy I'd kind of like them to take a shot at is Damien Brunner. He could be had for less than Grabovski, played pretty well for the Wings last season, and still has a little bit of upside potential. Not an advanced stats guy so not sure how he stacks up in that area.

Avatar
#29 Ted
August 19 2013, 11:30PM
Trash it!
4
trashes
Props
2
props

@NM00

Sorry, I'm going to go with the Toronto media over you when discussing Grab's abilities. The link was provided and the point totals are there. Plus, he made some pretty nasty comments on the way out the door. If he is such an asset then why hasn't someone signed him already?! Lots of teams have room for a fair contract. It has nothing to do with his nationality. He whined and complained and his point totals dropped - those are facts.

Avatar
#30 Neil B
August 19 2013, 11:36PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
3
props

Logical reasons that Grabbo might sign in Vancouver:

1. Success in a high profile market will only increase his market value. The only other high-profile hockey markets are done with him. (The converse is unlieky to be an issue; hockey players tend not to ask "where can I fail most safely?")

2. If Kesler is healthy, Grabbo will get sheltered minutes & matchups with decent linemates. If Kesler is not healthy, Grabbo will be the #2 centre.

3. A successful one-year term with Vancouver slays all his ghosts (not a team player, can't play a structured game, etc.), and allows him a bigger payday next season, when the cap increases again.

Probable reason he won't: In$ufficient fund$.

Avatar
#32 JFR
August 20 2013, 07:53AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
3
props
NM00 wrote:

"I don't think I want Grabs here. He seems to be a malcontent and who knows what you get when he's placed in a system."

Rubbish.

He's a very good player who happens to have the "wrong" passport.

They have a name for this in other industries.

But in the NHL they hide behind the euphemism "xenophobia" that allows these ridiculous ideas to metastasize.

Xenophobia? Such a big word. Obviously your contribution to this discussion is to hack away at others comment. Contrarianism is the easiest form of debate. Canucks need centers and Grabo is a center, would he fit, probably better than what they have now, will he come to Canucks??? Probably not. Amazing that you break down different styles of hockey ei.. Russian, Finnish, Swedish and North American down to Xenaphobia. Keep IT Simple......well you now the rest I assume?

Avatar
#33 JDM
August 20 2013, 09:24AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
1
props

Here's my thing... if you can get him on a relatively low-risk deal (i.e. 3 years or less) for below fair market value (i.e. 3.5M AAV or less), do it, and do something else to fix the resulting cap crunch. Although if he wants $4M and we can make it happening by moving a Bieksa, I wouldn't necessarily be averse to that, either.

Grabvoski, imo, is too good a player to pass up if you have the opportunity to nab him.

According to Capgeek, a 1.2M AAV leaves Vancouver with 3.3M in cap space. with Mike Santorelli as the extra forward, Schroeder, Richardson, Weise on the roster. Now, MGGM has stated that their internal calculation would suggest that there is more, but let's assume Capgeek is right.

That's pretty darn close. Would he sign for 3.3M? Unsure. If not, though, I'd still be okay paying him 3.5 and moving a piece for additional cap space or simply holding Tanev out until he signs for ~$1M

Avatar
#34 orcasfan
August 20 2013, 09:44AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
0
props

At 5'11" and 183 lbs, I'm not sure the Canucks would want him as a top 9 C, especially at a probable salary of between 4-5 mil. If he's slotted in as 3rd line C, that's too much money. Is it possible he could play 2nd C (with Kesler on the wing)? Maybe...but if that doesn't work, then you've got all that salary tied up (in a tight cap year).

Has he peaked already? Hard to say, but his numbers are not on the up trajectory. If he came cheaper - say around $3 mil - it might be worth it. Otherwise, no thanks.

This team has to start giving it's deserving youngsters some seasoning. It will take at least a couple of full seasons to get them up to performance potential. If they don't get a chance this year because the top 9 spots are all spoken for, then when?

Avatar
#35 NM00
August 20 2013, 10:47AM
Trash it!
4
trashes
Props
2
props

@JFR

I suggest you look up what 'xenophobia' means.

Your comment suggests you don't understand what it means.

Avatar
#36 NM00
August 20 2013, 10:49AM
Trash it!
4
trashes
Props
0
props

@pheenster

I'd love if the Canucks did better than another 1st round exit this season.

Barring good luck, though, it's not going to happen.

Supporting the Canucks and supporting management blindly are two different things.

Avatar
#37 NM00
August 20 2013, 10:51AM
Trash it!
4
trashes
Props
0
props

@Neil B

If you had started with insufficient funds, you wouldn't have needed all the other rationalizations.

Avatar
#38 Brian
August 20 2013, 12:08PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
NM00 wrote:

You lost me when you began talking about cap hits as though that is how Lecavalier will be paid.

VL had 7 years and $45 million remaining on his contract.

He will receive over $32 million for his buyout.

He will also receive $22.5 million for the next 5 years.

And he still has the potential to make money on top of this in 2018-2019 & 2019-2020.

Even when one considers that the buyout is spread out over 14 years and that this, in effect, reduces the present day value, he quite clearly stands to make more money.

Don't hide behind arrogance, you still have explained this statement. "However, it does not follow that he will take less simply because he has that buyout money in the bank.

Did Lecavalier?"

I used his cap hit, other wise known as the total amount payed divided by the number of years signed because it shows how much he earns per year on average. It really shouldn't be too difficult to understand the point I was making .

If you like I can compare the total salary from one contract to another.

He signed for 85 million over 11 years then signed for 22.5 million over 5 years. That is a decrease in salary. Would he of signed that same contract as a non-bought out UFA, I don't know but history suggests that players who have been bought out and sign a new contract, take less on said contract.

Gomez, Ballard, Briere, Komisarek all signed deals that pay them less after being bought out. Maybe I'm missing something here but I don't understand how you think Lecavalier is making more money now that he has been bought out. The remainder of his contract 45 million over 7 years pays him an average of 6.4 per year, his current deal an average of 4.5, still a significant decrease in salary whichever way you want to look at the numbers.

Avatar
#39 NM00
August 20 2013, 12:26PM
Trash it!
3
trashes
Props
0
props

@Brian

Look at the NHL salary and buyout cost:

http://www.capgeek.com/player/884

I've already done the math for you above.

Lecavalier will make more money as a result of the buyout.

Daniel Briere will also make more money as a result of his buyout. Again, look at the NHL salary and buyout cost.

http://www.capgeek.com/player/749

Gomez, Ballard & Komisarek are all making less because the bottom has fallen out of their market values.

It's not hard to figure out the difference.

Avatar
#40 NM00
August 20 2013, 01:20PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Props
0
props

@Peachy

"I can imagine why Grabovski might want to double-dip."

Logically speaking, it does not follow that money in the bank equals taking a paycut on the next career gig.

"Grabovski makes sense here".

So does Shea Weber.

"Just doing some math here, if Grabovski is being paid $2,687,500.00 over the next eight seasons by the blue and white ATM in Maple Leaf Square, he'll need to be paid a little over $3-million to make back the money he lost due to the buyout. Is there room to fit him for $3-million in the Canucks current roster?"

The buyout total is incorrect. Grabo would need $4.2 million to be made "whole" for 2013-2014.

But there still hasn't been a logical connection between Grabo being bought out and being made "whole."

Lecavalier and Briere certainly weren't satisfied with being made whole.

The $3 million figure is completely arbitrary.

And it ignores the fact that an opening day 22 man Canuck roster RIGHT AT THE CAP is completely unrealistic.

"there is both space and an argument for the Canucks to sign Grabovski. "

The space is not there unless the Canucks want to leave zero flexibility for in-season transactions and want a 22 man roster.

And there's the question of whether or not Grabo wants to be 3rd on the centreman depth chart.

CoHo didn't.

Roy didn't.

Grabo didn't in TO.

The entire article is an exercise in wish fulfillment not unlike articles about Clarkson, Horton, Gordon etc.

Avatar
#41 Peachy
August 20 2013, 01:37PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@NM00

Easy man, rant at the right person at least.

Avatar
#42 Brian
August 20 2013, 01:48PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@NM00

Of course they will make more if you include what they are being paid from buyout and new contract. I thought we were debating whether Grabovski/Lecavalier etc. would take less on a new contract knowing that they had guaranteed money coming.

This quote seems to infer that you don't think that buyout money will convince Grabovski to take less on his next contract or that Lecavalier did.

"This is a business not a charity outfit.

Grabovski may have been bought out.

However, it does not follow that he will take less simply because he has that buyout money in the bank.

Did Lecavalier?"

Where in fact Lecavalier and those other bought out players did take less on their next contract. I agree wholeheartedly that Ballard, Komisarek and Gomez were also very much diminished players from when they signed previous contracts and there is a huge difference. I included them to show that no bought out player has signed a contract equal to or larger than the contract they had lost.

Avatar
#43 NM00
August 20 2013, 02:03PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Props
0
props

@Peachy

"Truly, if Grabo is willing to sign for less (because he's forced to for the myriad reasons provided by Cam), awesome."

"But there's no one in this thread (or even the article) suggesting that it's likely, only that it might be cool, or conversely might be uncool. There are good reasons to hold both opinions."

The "rant" was for you.

It's not realistic and people should stop pretending it is.

Avatar
#44 Brian
August 20 2013, 02:08PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
NM00 wrote:

"I can imagine why Grabovski might want to double-dip."

Logically speaking, it does not follow that money in the bank equals taking a paycut on the next career gig.

"Grabovski makes sense here".

So does Shea Weber.

"Just doing some math here, if Grabovski is being paid $2,687,500.00 over the next eight seasons by the blue and white ATM in Maple Leaf Square, he'll need to be paid a little over $3-million to make back the money he lost due to the buyout. Is there room to fit him for $3-million in the Canucks current roster?"

The buyout total is incorrect. Grabo would need $4.2 million to be made "whole" for 2013-2014.

But there still hasn't been a logical connection between Grabo being bought out and being made "whole."

Lecavalier and Briere certainly weren't satisfied with being made whole.

The $3 million figure is completely arbitrary.

And it ignores the fact that an opening day 22 man Canuck roster RIGHT AT THE CAP is completely unrealistic.

"there is both space and an argument for the Canucks to sign Grabovski. "

The space is not there unless the Canucks want to leave zero flexibility for in-season transactions and want a 22 man roster.

And there's the question of whether or not Grabo wants to be 3rd on the centreman depth chart.

CoHo didn't.

Roy didn't.

Grabo didn't in TO.

The entire article is an exercise in wish fulfillment not unlike articles about Clarkson, Horton, Gordon etc.

"But there still hasn't been a logical connection between Grabo being bought out and being made "whole."

Lecavalier and Briere certainly weren't satisfied with being made whole.

The $3 million figure is completely arbitrary."

I agree completely with this but it is different than saying these players are not willing to take a pay cut considering they have buy out money.

But I do believe there is cap space for Grabovski, but not both him and Tanev (at 1.2), hard to tell what the roster will look like but there are options to fit another salary in the 3 million range( I know it won't make him "whole" but can't see many team offering him much more).

http://capgeek.com/canucks/cap-calculator/

This roster is with 23 players and Grabovski at 3.2 and IMO the Canucks need another guy who can put the puck in the net more than they need Tanev at this point.

Avatar
#45 NM00
August 20 2013, 02:16PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Props
0
props

@Brian

"Of course they will make more if you include what they are being paid from buyout and new contract."

That's the point. Cam is talking about a bought out player trying to recoup the dollars lost.

"Where in fact Lecavalier and those other bought out players did take less on their next contract."

Briere did not.

Again, look at his NHL salary.

And, generally speaking, of course a player is going to "take less" than his previously bought out contract.

If his contract was "below market" he never would have been bought out in the first place.

He would have been traded.

The exception is Briere because of the cap diving nature of his previous contract.

But none of this has to do with the idea that a player will "take less" simply because he has buyout money in the bank.

These are independent transactions and should be considered as such.

Avatar
#46 NM00
August 20 2013, 02:24PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Props
0
props

@Brian

The Canucks are at 20 players and right around $60 million.

How would they fit Grabovski and, in all likelihood, two more defenseman onto a 23 man roster?

And who would these two defenseman be if one is not Tanev?

Avatar
#47 UkeeRob
August 20 2013, 10:40PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
1
props

I don't understand why these comments have to boil down to everybody ripping each other. I haven't commented in a couple months, why? I suggested at the time that the Canucks should explore the possibility of trading Schneider for a first rounder in a deep draft. Thereby giving them two first rounders to inject their prospect pool with high end talent to replace our aging core in the not too distant future. I was called a moron and told how it would never happen and that I was a delusional dreamer. Hmmm, funny how it turned out. My point is its a discussion forum, not a place to exhibit your condescending personality.

Avatar
#48 JCDavies
August 21 2013, 09:43AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

I don't think the buyout will have any impact on the deal Grabovski signs. Purely driven by the market IMO.

Avatar
#49 Ruprecht
August 21 2013, 10:56AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
JCDavies wrote:

I don't think the buyout will have any impact on the deal Grabovski signs. Purely driven by the market IMO.

Makes sense. Not that I know him personally, but he seems like that type of player. Seems pretty obvious to me that he'll go to the highest bidder and we simply do not have the cash to get into a bidding war with any player, let alone Grabovski. Sure it would be nice to be able to afford him, but then if he fails we're pretty much tied to him for the duration if he fails. He's already working on his third strike having left the Leafs and Habs with the door swinging at his ass. No thanks, too much risk and I'd rather take the chance elsewhere.

Comments are closed for this article.