Year After Acquiring Weber; Subban, Canucks Sign O'Reilly

That's Offside!
July 02 2014 12:45PM

VancouverCanucks1

The Canucks continued to make small moves to shore up their fringe-NHL/AHL depth today, adding a couple of depth forwards in Cal O'Reilly (yes, he is related to Ryan - Cal is Ryan's older brother), and former Texas Star Dustin Jeffrey. Neither really look to have significant NHL upside and are probably nothing more than moves to strengthen what was a poor Utica Comets team last year, but both have had a cup of coffee in the NHL so we felt it's at least worth mentioning them. Read past the jump for a quick look at Vancouver's two newest forwards.

Cal O'Reilly

The elder O'Reilly (28 years old) began last year with Metallurg Magnitogorsk of the KHL before signing an AHL deal with the Comets about a quarter of the way through the season. He collected 7 goals and 38 assists for the Comets, finishing second on the team in scoring. It's not so much of a signing then as a re-signing, as O'Reilly has been a part of the Canucks organization for a while already.

In terms of an NHL track record, there's not really much there. He's kicked around the NHL with stops in Nashville, Phoenix, and Pittsburgh, but hasn't seen NHL action since 2011-2012. A small-ish skill guy (6'0, 188 lbs), he's really not viewed as a 4th line player by NHL coaches, but more importantly, he hasn't been a good NHLer over his career. Playing against weak competition, he carries a career 46.6% Fenwick, and posted a dreadful 41.8% mark despite a 55.8% ZoneStart% in his most recent NHL season. He's essentially Tom Sestito without the facepunchiness.

This move will help Utica though, so yay I guess. The big thing here is that as Ryan's older brother, Jim Benning has clearly signed him to an NHL deal to entice the younger O'Reilly to break off all negotiations with the Avalanche and demand a trade to the Canucks. With the lack of leverage provided by Ryan, the Avs will be forced to deal him for Nick Bonino, Luca Sbisa, and a late 1st round pick. It's foolproof.

Dustin Jeffrey

A 26-year old former Texas Star and presumable Willie Desjardins favourite, Jeffrey is probably a more likely option to fill a bottom-6 role for the Canucks going forward. He's been able to keep his head above water (50.8% Fenwick for his career) in a depth role with average zone starts against other 3rd and 4th line competition. He's been an NHL black ace for the last few seasons and hasn't seen any significant AHL action since 2010-2011, where he posted 45 points in 40 games with Wilkes-Barre/Scranton.

He did join the powerhouse Texas Stars later in the year and for their Calder Cup run, and presumably played a 2nd line role on that team, scoring well below his career AHL rate. He tallied 10 points in 21 regular season games, and added 12 more in 19 playoff contests, good for the 6th most on a stacked Stars squad.

Seeing as Coach Willie is familiar with him, he has more of a successful NHL track record, and brings more meat and potatoes to the table than O'Reilly (Jeffrey's an inch taller, but nearly 20 lbs heavier), we're probably likely to see Jeffrey in a 4th line role for the Canucks at some point this year. With a good camp, it also wouldn't be surprising to see him make the big team as a 13th or 14th forward. And even if he doesn't, he'll make Utica better too.

Vancouver also confirmed the signing of Bobby Sanguinetti today, and you can read what we had to say about that here. Jim Benning also signed 26-year old Comets D Alex Biega to a two-way deal yesterday, according to the French Bob McKenzie, Renaud Lavoie. Biega is strictly an AHL signing, but he was probably Utica's best defenseman last year in my viewings of them, and may be deserving of an NHL call-up at some point, but that's doubtful.

There are still some intriguing UFA options on the market, so we'll see what Jim Benning decides to do from here on out.

10df053f41f4bdaf4d65eca6e982e46d
Rhys Jessop - CanucksArmy's resident CHL buff/hater of prospects, depending on who you ask. Follow my ramblings on Twitter: @Thats_Offside. Email contact: thats.offside.hockey@gmail.com
Avatar
#1 JFR
July 02 2014, 02:01PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Props
10
props

Yes these are small insignificant moves on the surface, but if the Canucks are going to have an AHL affiliate in which the young kids learn how to win and play a system, these moves are key.

Losing in the AHL doesn't teach young kids anything except how to accept losing! Next year kids like Shinkaruk and Gaunce will probably be in Utica and I would rather them play quality minutes competing for top spot ion a playoff team, rather than playing heavy minutes and losing like last year. I'm hoping Horvat has a great training camp because going back to London Knights won't do him any good moving forward.

There is a direct correlation between the Kings franchise doing so well and their affiliate in Manchester doing well also. In fact we got Vey because they have so much organizational depth at center! Benning has made smart moves by getting younger and deeper, the organization has an AHL team in which to teach their system and style of play, not just loan guys to a team and hope they are getting the proper coaching.

Signing Miller was key because the pressure doesn't fall on Lack from trading camp on... What would happen if Lack would get injured at some point? Disaster, with no guarantee of the #1 pick... Buffalo and more draft rule changes. Younger guys get to learn under the pressure of playing for a playoff spot. That's where I first was impressed by Corrado, in the playoff series.

Avatar
#2 Barnabas
July 02 2014, 02:18PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
7
props

Thank you for this piece.

You mentioned:

"There are still some intriguing UFA options on the market, so we'll see what Jim Benning decides to do from here on out."

Can you please share your preferences of the top 5 options you feel we should pursue from this list? That way we can have a healthy debate about the merits of the choices and offer alternatives ... and get some insight into your thinking and rationale.

Avatar
#3 van
July 02 2014, 02:20PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
3
props

I think we can stop saying 'late 1st round pick' in our fake trades now

Avatar
#4 Lemming
July 02 2014, 05:26PM
Trash it!
8
trashes
Props
1
props

So much for Grabovski. On another note, the NYI could actually be decent next year. They might even sneak into the playoffs.

Benning really came in with a lot of fanfare, and I'm still waiting for him to make a move that I like/agree with.

So far it's just size, size, size, and overpaying for an unpredictable position.

Axis of Mediocrity, indeed...

Avatar
#5 Barnabas
July 02 2014, 06:07PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Props
3
props

@Lemming

Sounds like Lemming wants to build Rome in one day.

Building a successful organization takes time. It takes research and communication and buy in. It is easy to spend exorbitant amounts of money in the frenzy but what if said players don't work well with the coach? You need his input. What if the coach would like to integrate more youth into the lineup - you would be handcuffing him by going with the masses. Not every team participates in free agency - you do not have to shop just because you have room - it can come in handy later.

The best example heard recently was the LA Kings - they were pretty much set coming into free agency and did little. Look at Capgeek and Florida's forwards - many have been recruited through free agency - does that guarantee success?

Patience is a virtue - we need to give these guys time to do their due diligence and if not through free agency, initiate dialogue with teams (cap strapped as well as others) that have the kinds of players we would like and see if we can find common ground. At least with this leadership group, you have not alienated any partners.

Avatar
#6 NM00
July 02 2014, 06:31PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
7
props

@Lemming

To be fair, I think Aquillini would prefer to spend $18 million on Miller than $10.4 million on a Garrison buyout...

Avatar
#7 Lemming
July 02 2014, 06:42PM
Trash it!
5
trashes
Props
1
props

@Barnabas

If my only complaint I had was free agency, you'd be right. However, I question the Booth buyout, as well as the draft, which I thought was largely bad. Virtanen could turn out great, but my god, Nylander or Ehlers? Those two clearly have much more of a ceiling. You can win without size but not skill, and Benning seems to have drafted completely on size.

I reiterate that not only am I disappointed with the Miller signing and free agency so far, but with pretty much every move he's made in the past month. The Dorsett trade is another example of his apparent love of useless hockey players who can punch.

The only move I've liked so far is the Vey acquisition. He could legitimately be a decent hockey player. I'm not asking for Rome in a day, I'm only asking for some sense of optimism that we can build Rome sometime in the future based on what we have. I thought he could have drafted some truly high end pieces, but then he went all Gillis with the safe picks.

Virtanen could end up a decent to good player, but there were players available who might be stars one day...

I guess there's also the fact that if he's valuing size so early, I have no reason to believe he'll ever take skill over size, which fills me with a lot of pessimism. I won't give that up until he gives me a reason. The attempt at meat and potatoes is what happened last year. Does no one remember that madness!?!

God, this is turning into a sad rant, but I just don't see how the team is going to return to any real challenging position under this philosophy. Skilled teams win cups , not big ones.

Avatar
#8 NM00
July 02 2014, 07:14PM
Trash it!
3
trashes
Props
4
props

@Lemming

Vrbata has skill...

Avatar
#9 argoleas
July 02 2014, 07:21PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Props
0
props
NM00 wrote:

Vrbata has skill...

Hmm, I wonder how the team will handle Burrows. Seems like they dont see last year as a complete anomaly. As a right-handed shot, Vrbata will take Kesler's spot on the PP.

Avatar
#10 NM00
July 02 2014, 07:24PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Props
2
props

@argoleas

Pretty reasonable contract too.

Neither Miller or Vrbata are going to hamstring the Canucks the way that some other contracts have.

Or had the potential of doing in the case of Garrison.

Avatar
#11 Lemming
July 02 2014, 07:31PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Props
0
props

@NM00

Just saw that, finally, a signing I'm happy with.

Avatar
#12 argoleas
July 02 2014, 07:38PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
0
props
NM00 wrote:

Pretty reasonable contract too.

Neither Miller or Vrbata are going to hamstring the Canucks the way that some other contracts have.

Or had the potential of doing in the case of Garrison.

That is true. Cost over term, and that makes them pricier but much more palatable. Also confirms that braintrust had no confidence in Booth bouncing back, as opposed to just a salary dump.

Now we have a bit of a traffic jam there on the right side. My guess is that Jensen will spend most of next season in Utica, which I dont think is a bad idea. Same for Gaunce and Shinkaruk. I only see Horvat possibly making it to the major team.

Avatar
#13 argoleas
July 02 2014, 07:39PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
0
props
Lemming wrote:

Just saw that, finally, a signing I'm happy with.

And that will probably be it, save for Tanev and Kassian, and maybe Weber, unless they are pushing other NTCs to go away.

Avatar
#14 NM00
July 02 2014, 07:42PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Props
0
props

@argoleas

Vrbata may very well be our top goal scorer this season.

Certainly a step towards a playoff spot at least.

The centre depth is still scary shallow, though...

Avatar
#15 argoleas
July 02 2014, 07:48PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
0
props
NM00 wrote:

Vrbata may very well be our top goal scorer this season.

Certainly a step towards a playoff spot at least.

The centre depth is still scary shallow, though...

As I see now, we have a good first line, assuming Sedins bounce back, and that is a big if, especially for Daniel. A couple of decent third lines, and a solid 4th line.

Benino-Kassian-Vey is probably their better 3rd line, but may not be good enough.

Avatar
#16 JJ-T
July 02 2014, 08:16PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
Props
3
props

Finally, a little bit of optimism around here. I'm not sure why most people thought Benning was going to fix everything overnight. We're still a few pieces away from a really good team, but I feel we're heading in the right direction. Our current state is to be expected.

Avatar
#17 Barnabas
July 02 2014, 11:09PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
Props
0
props

@Lemming

This response is with respect to Dorsett. Lemming states:

"I reiterate that not only am I disappointed with the Miller signing and free agency so far, but with pretty much every move he's made in the past month. The Dorsett trade is another example of his apparent love of useless hockey players who can punch."

Think back to the Boston series and the Daniel Sedin / Marchand incident. Think back to Chicago and the Duncan Keith Elbow. Think back to San Jose and the hits by Rafi Torres. As Trevor Linden stated, we need a presence in the lineup that will give the players confidence. Dorsett will provide that and I guess Sistito will too (if he remains).

When we play against certain teams, the toughness may not be as much of an issue but against others (e.g. San Jose with Torres, Brown, and now Scott) and Calgary, our skilled forwards will be somewhat intimidated when the rough gets going. Not sure if Dorsett will play every night but he has a vital role to play - and has history with the new coach to boot.

I think all the moves the new management is making are based on lengthy discussions and assessments and not impulsive moves which the old regime sometimes made (or so it seemed).

I think we will hear about Doug Lidster signing on and the RFA's getting sorted out in the next couple of weeks - and then probably a break for everyone to recharge - they cannot keep going at this pace.

Avatar
#18 JCDavies
July 03 2014, 09:58AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
NM00 wrote:

To be fair, I think Aquillini would prefer to spend $18 million on Miller than $10.4 million on a Garrison buyout...

I'm surprised you are not attacking the Miller deal as market-jumping and an over-payment like you have other signings in the past...

Avatar
#19 NM00
July 03 2014, 10:55AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@JCDavies

Miller was signed as an unrestricted free agent.

I'm not sure that it qualifies as a market jumping contract a la Burrows.

Though I have said that it was a year too long and that I prefer the Hiller contract...

Avatar
#20 JCDavies
July 03 2014, 11:14AM
Trash it!
3
trashes
Props
0
props

@NM00

Who else was going to give Miller that contract?

You like the AAV and the NTC?

Avatar
#21 NM00
July 03 2014, 11:51AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@JCDavies

I don't like either.

Though, to be clear, it's a partial NTC.

I certainly do not consider it a good contract.

But it's not Luongo bad, either.

And the nice deal on Vrbata along with the Garrison/Vey trades pretty much make up for it...

Avatar
#22 JCDavies
July 03 2014, 12:15PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@NM00

Higgins' contract isn't Luongo bad either but you spilled a lot of ink criticizing that contract...

In the past you have been pretty vocal when the team over-spends unnecessarily but you have been pretty quiet when it comes to the Miller contract.

Re: the *partial* NTC:

I imagine Miller's list will look something like this:

  • [insert desired trade destination]
  • NY Rangers
  • Montreal
  • Boston
  • Los Angeles

It wouldn't be hard to fill a five team list with four teams (or five) that aren't realistic options...

"And the nice deal on Vrbata along with the Garrison/Vey trades pretty much make up for it..."

So because they made a good deal they are free to make a bad one?

Avatar
#23 NM00
July 03 2014, 12:37PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
3
props

@JCDavies

Pretty quiet?

I criticized the contract the day it was signed.

It was Canada Day, though, so I'm sorry if it wasn't timely enough to meet your standards...

I have also said that a goaltender should have been behind a top line centre and top line winger on the priority list.

"So because they made a good deal they are free to make a bad one?"

If that simplifies things for you, sure.

As it stands, I remain neutral towards this management team.

I gave the previous management team five years before suggesting someone else should be given the keys to the franchise.

I'd need to see quite a bit more bad before joining the #fireLinden brigade...

Avatar
#24 JCDavies
July 03 2014, 01:01PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@NM00

"I criticized the contract the day it was signed."

Ryan Miller may be signed for a year too long. BUT it could be quite a bit worse.

That comment approached criticism, I guess...

"As it stands, I remain neutral towards this management team.

I gave the previous management team five years before suggesting someone else should be given the keys to the franchise.

I'd need to see quite a bit more bad before joining the #fireLinden brigade..."

This must be why I haven't seen you refer to Jared McCann as Ricky Romero yet...

I thought it was more about thinking critically and challenging false narratives but your position now seems to have been more about the management team making the moves than the actual moves themselves...

Avatar
#25 NM00
July 03 2014, 01:10PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@JCDavies

"This must be why I haven't seen you refer to Jared McCann as Ricky Romero yet"

I put Virtanen in the same boat as Horvat & Kassian in terms of using a premium pick on a player that may very well be destined for the 3rd line of the future.

As Romero was selected over Tulo, so too was Virtanen selected over Ehlers & Nylander.

That would be a more appropriate analogy to make here...

"I thought it was more about thinking critically and challenging false narratives but your position now seems to have been more about the management team making the moves than the actual moves themselves"

Yes, I can see that you have been trying to stretch what I have said to take it into this place.

Well done...

Avatar
#26 JCDavies
July 03 2014, 01:39PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@NM00

"Yes, I can see that you have been trying to stretch what I have said to take it into this place."

I thought it was more about what you haven't said, to be honest, and I didn't have to twist anything to get there. My opening comment expressed my surprise that you haven't been more critical of one of the recent moves. The only plausible reason for your change in tone is the change in the management team. It wasn't ever about criticizing the individual moves, it was always about the management team in charge.

"I put Virtanen in the same boat as Horvat & Kassian in terms of using a premium pick on a player that may very well be destined for the 3rd line of the future.

As Romero was selected over Tulo, so too was Virtanen selected over Ehlers & Nylander."

Wasn't this about passing on players with more upside to take "safer players" that have lower upside but are more likely to play in the NHL? Are you saying that the Canucks didn't pass on any players with more upside when they selected McCann?

Avatar
#27 NM00
July 03 2014, 01:58PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@JCDavies

"My opening comment expressed my surprise that you haven't been more critical of one of the recent moves."

False.

I've criticized Miller & what appears to have been part of the process at the draft.

However, I'm going to wait for more than a couple of transactions before looking for a pitchfork.

"The only plausible reason for your change in tone is the change in the management team."

Really...

"Wasn't this about passing on players with more upside to take "safer players" that have lower upside but are more likely to play in the NHL? Are you saying that the Canucks didn't pass on any players with more upside when they selected McCann?"

Have I commented on the McCann selection?

Based on what I know about the players available, I would have preferred someone like Ho Sang.

Nothing about what the Canucks did at the draft excited me.

And there were a couple of worrying trends.

Most notably that this management team may very well be overvaluing local boys (the attempts to move up to draft Reinhart, selecting Virtanen above Nylander/Ehlers).

I'd just like to see a little more before overreacting to a couple of transactions...

Avatar
#28 JCDavies
July 03 2014, 02:13PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@NM00

""My opening comment expressed my surprise that you haven't been more critical of one of the recent moves."

False."

How can this be false? Did you miss the word more in the sentence?

"Have I commented on the McCann selection?"

I thought it was more about what you haven't said, to be honest

"However, I'm going to wait for more than a couple of transactions before looking for a pitchfork"

It wasn't ever about criticizing the individual moves

"Really..."

Is this an alternative plausible reason?

Avatar
#29 NM00
July 03 2014, 02:24PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@JCDavies

The "plausible" reason is based on your interpretation that I have not been appropriately critical of the recent transactions.

Your (mis)interpretations are not my problem...

Avatar
#30 JCDavies
July 03 2014, 03:27PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
NM00 wrote:

The "plausible" reason is based on your interpretation that I have not been appropriately critical of the recent transactions.

Your (mis)interpretations are not my problem...

This isn't about what level of criticism I think is appropriate, it is that you have been less critical of recent moves than you would have been if they had been made by the previous management team.

This is not a misinterpretation, you yourself admitted that you have been less critical about the recent transactions.

If your point was really to think critically and challenge false narratives, shouldn't those positions still stand? So, why the change? If before you were thinking critically and challenging narratives, what are you doing now?

Avatar
#31 NM00
July 03 2014, 04:50PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@JCDavies

"it is that you have been less critical of recent moves than you would have been if they had been made by the previous management team."

Was I less critical of Virtanen than I was of Horvat and Kassian?

You are free to read my comments in that thread.

Another commenter was suggesting Benning was doing the "right" thing by going after Reinhart and I wondered aloud whether or not management was simply chasing BC boys.

"This is not a misinterpretation, you yourself admitted that you have been less critical about the recent transactions."

I wrote that I am willing to wait for a few more transactions before getting a pitchfork...

"If your point was really to think critically and challenge false narratives, shouldn't those positions still stand? So, why the change? If before you were thinking critically and challenging narratives, what are you doing now?"

Logical leaps and assumptions abound.

If you have a specific point with which you disagree (such as Miller), you are free to share.

This vague and abstract stuff about not being critical enough is your own issue...

Avatar
#32 JCDavies
July 03 2014, 05:38PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

There is nothing vague or abstract to what I said at all. Your lack of criticism of some of the recent moves (and your criticism of previous moves) is due to the people making those moves and not to the actual moves themselves.

If you want to pass it off as vague, abstract or a misinterpretation to avoid the criticism, then so be it.

"before getting a pitchfork"

Huh? You can't be critical of a signing or a draft pick without running a campaign to get someone fired? That statement of yours is consistent with what I have been saying, right? That your criticisms have never been about the individual transactions, they have been about the management teams that made them.

Avatar
#33 NM00
July 03 2014, 05:57PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@JCDavies

"Your lack of criticism of some of the recent moves (and your criticism of previous moves) is due to the people making those moves and not to the actual moves themselves."

Based on what exactly?

You are dot connecting in your own head without giving any concrete examples.

"You can't be critical of a signing or a draft pick without running a campaign to get someone fired?"

I have been critical of Miller (signing) and what appears to be the process of selecting Virtanen over Nylander/Ehlers (draft pick).

"That statement of yours is consistent with what I have been saying, right? That your criticisms have never been about the individual transactions, they have been about the management teams that made them."

False.

But you are free to try again if you have something concrete as opposed to your own delusions...

Avatar
#34 JCDavies
July 03 2014, 06:20PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@NM00

""Your lack of criticism of some of the recent moves (and your criticism of previous moves) is due to the people making those moves and not to the actual moves themselves."

Based on what exactly?"

Show me some criticism of the Miller deal that comes anywhere close to what you wrote on Higgins, Hansen, Burrows.

Show me some criticism of the McCann pick that comes anywhere close to what you wrote about the Horvat and Gaunce picks.

Where is this criticism? You can't produce it because it doesn't exist.

Avatar
#35 JCDavies
July 03 2014, 06:21PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@NM00

"False"

With which part is it inconsistent?

Avatar
#36 NM00
July 03 2014, 07:31PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@JCDavies

"Show me some criticism of the Miller deal that comes anywhere close to what you wrote on Higgins, Hansen, Burrows."

Hansen?

Have I criticized his contract?

Miller signed two days ago on Canada Day.

You should be able to understand why less has been written about his contract compared to Burrows' contract which was signed a while ago, with the salary cap about to go down, two starting goalies on the roster, a dead contract defenseman on the roster and the Canucks in a cap crunch...

"Show me some criticism of the McCann pick that comes anywhere close to what you wrote about the Horvat and Gaunce picks."

Have I singled out Gaunce before?

I certainly have mentioned Horvat, though, as I have mentioned Virtanen since they both required premium picks.

It's not hard to figure out why more ink has been spilled on a selection from the 2013 draft as opposed to one on the 2014 draft...

"Where is this criticism? You can't produce it because it doesn't exist."

Am I expected to provide criticism for every move with which I disagree on this forum in a timely fashion?

You are certainly not convincing me.

For your sake, I hope you are convincing yourself...

Avatar
#37 NM00
July 03 2014, 07:41PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@JCDavies

As a follow up to Hansen:

http://canucksarmy.com/2013/9/29/canucks-lock-up-jannik-hansen-for-four-more-years

Where did you (mis)interpret that I put the Hansen contract in the same boat as Burrows & Higgins?

It certainly was not at the time the extension was signed...

Avatar
#38 JCDavies
July 03 2014, 08:34PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@NM00

"Have I singled out Gaunce before?"

Was Gaunce not included in your criticisms of Gillis strategy of choosing low ceiling high floor players?

If that is not a good enough example, why not use your criticisms of the Schroeder and Shinkaruk after they fell?. McCann fell too did he not?

"Have I criticized his contract?

Miller signed two days ago on Canada Day.

You should be able to understand why less has been written about his contract compared to Burrows' contract which was signed a while ago..."

You need more time? How long did it take you to criticize the Shinkaruk pick?

http://canucksarmy.com/2013/6/30/canucks-end-hunter-shinkaruk-slide-with-the-24th-overall-pick#comments

http://canucksarmy.com/2013/6/30/a-messy-resolution#comments

Huh, same day...

And the Horvat selection?

http://canucksarmy.com/2013/6/30/breaking-canucks-trade-schneider-acquire-9th-overall-pick

http://canucksarmy.com/2013/6/30/2013-canucks-draft-recap

Same day and the day after...

But now you need more time...

Its never really been about the individual transactions because, like you said, you need "more than a couple of transactions before looking for a pitchfork".

With the previous regime you wouldn't have needed the extra time...

Avatar
#39 JCDavies
July 03 2014, 08:47PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@NM00

Fair.

I thought I remembered you criticizing Hansen's deal during his pretty awful season and suggesting that it was a mistake for the Canucks not to wait until the off-season to sign him. But perhaps I am wrong and you didn't criticize that deal by Gillis.

Either way, if you don't like Hansen as an example, replace him with your comments of the Sedins' contracts, particularly after the Thornton/Marleau deals.

Avatar
#40 NM00
July 03 2014, 09:22PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props
JCDavies wrote:

Fair.

I thought I remembered you criticizing Hansen's deal during his pretty awful season and suggesting that it was a mistake for the Canucks not to wait until the off-season to sign him. But perhaps I am wrong and you didn't criticize that deal by Gillis.

Either way, if you don't like Hansen as an example, replace him with your comments of the Sedins' contracts, particularly after the Thornton/Marleau deals.

There doesn't appear to be any new ground to cover in your first post so I suggest you figure out how to deal with your fixation about my criticisms and comment timeliness.

Again, if you have a concrete point I have made with which you disagree like Miller, please share and I will address at my convenience.

As for this post, I hope you can see the difference between Burrows/Higgins & Hansen and why I was fine with the latter and criticized the former.

With regards to the Sedins, yes, I did criticize their extensions (particularly at the macro level in terms of overall cap management) and felt the team should have waited until the offseason before addressing their contract statuses.

I stand by that.

And I don't believe any team with contention aspirations would have given the Sedins $14 million and 4 years this offseason.

Sedin, Sedin, Burrows, Higgins & Hansen were all signed well in advance of unrestricted free agency and, one could argue, all represent market jumping contracts.

Miller was signed as an unrestricted free agent.

His value was established on the open market.

His cap hit is comparable to other starting goalies and the term is shorter than many.

I am not sure why, in your original post in this thread, you refer to his contract as "market jumping".

While I feel the term is a year too long (and, yes, the cap hit a touch high and the NTC a potential hindrance), I do not feel it is as bad as some of the other contracts handed out on Canada Day (even though I would have preferred the funds to be devoted elsewhere).

The previous management team was never in a position to have to buy a starting goalie on the open market to try and improve a stale roster in an apathetic market.

If the previous management team would have signed a starting goalie on the open market this offseason, I would have asked what happened to the two goalies they inherited...

Avatar
#41 JCDavies
July 03 2014, 10:54PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@NM00

I think it's great that you have outlined some of your reasons for criticizing various transactions but that doesn't impact my original statement.

There are several reason you could criticize the Miller contract if you would choose to do so (AAV, NTC, term) but until pushed you didn't really offer any real criticism. The old regime, for which you already had your "pitchforks" out, would have been criticized for these things immediately.

Also, under the previous management team, the McCann pick would have also been met with criticism for either of the reasons I mentioned above.

My statements have nothing to do with "comment timeliness" but rather that your criticisms are not based on the actual transactions but rather on the management team that made them.

Avatar
#42 JCDavies
July 03 2014, 11:08PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
Props
0
props

@NM00

Re: Market Jumping

Market jumping was your word and I was trying to stick to the vocabulary that you had already set. In doing this I think I may have misunderstood how exactly you were using it.

Having said that I'm not exactly sure how the market established Miller's value. Who were the Canucks bidding against? Were there any other bidders? Miller himself admits that there wasn't much demand for his services:

http://www.theprovince.com/sports/hockey/canucks-hockey/Botchford+Ryan+Miller+landmines+ahead/9991300/story.html

It looks like the Canucks were bidding against themselves, which makes the situation vary similar to what would be found in "advance of unrestricted free agency" signings. What's worse is that in those pre-UFA signings teams can probably assume that there will be competition to sign the player if it reaches free agency. In Miller's case the Canucks should have probably been aware that there wasn't a big market for Miller's services.

Comments are closed for this article.