Canucks face $315,000 bonus cap-hit carryover for 2016-17

It was confirmed in late April by that the Vancouver Canucks are facing a $315,000 cap hit for bonuses that will count towards next season. The bonus overages were accrued this season but because the Canucks were up against the cap, it could not be applied this season, hence the carry over into next.

All this is to say that the news itself isn’t exactly breaking, so much as the details involved therein are now clearer and more defined.

Canucks management confirmed this figure to me, and also advised me, that they will face this carryover for the following players and reasons:

  • Ben Hutton received a games played bonus
  • Andrey Pedan received a games played bonus
  • Markus Granlund received a games played bonus
  • Bo Horvat obtained an ice-time bonus

As per team policy, the specific amounts for each player and bonus were not disclosed. However, it was revealed that Horvat’s bonus made up the majority of the amount.

The bonus that Ben Hutton received is not surprising given that he wasn’t expected to play a full season in the NHL. Hutton hit the max bonus available in his contract for games played. Generally similar players to Hutton will see a handful of games or spend the majority of their first professional season in the AHL. It’s fair to say, that even if all of the $315,000 (which it isn’t) was Hutton’s, that it was money was well earned.

Andrey Pedan and Markus Granlund signed their entry level contracts with their previous organizations before being acquired by the Canucks. Pedan appeared in 13 NHL contests for the Canucks this season while Granlund appeared in 47 games between Calgary and Vancouver.

Lastly, Horvat received his max bonus for average ice time per game – which was 17:08. Given that the Canucks were without Brandon Sutter for most of the season, the bonus is well earned. Horvat posted 16 goals and 24 assists this past season.

If the salary cap remains flat, the $314,000 is just 0.4% of the total amount available, so nothing to worry about when looking at next season – but it is good to have some clarity to see which players received those bonuses. All four players are expected to be a part of the Canucks organization going forward, so it’s fair to say that it was money well spent.

  • Steampuck

    As long as we’re not giving any bonus money to anyone named Dorsett, Prust, Sbisa or Bartkowksi from last year I’m happy; performance based extras for a few young guys are well worth it.

    Actually, assuming that bonuses are similar to what the potential is for next year ($1.8625 million) the $315k is pretty paltry (I’m guessing a bunch of bonuses for the vets have to do with wins or playoff success) and speaks more to our high levels of sucking than anything. I’d be curious to see what the management group do with our existing RFAs and UFAs than dipping into the market as the CA series has been doing. I’m assuming Baertschi, Etem, Pedan and Vey all get re-upped around $1 million (more for Vey and maybe even a bridge contract), Hamhuis, Vrbata, Weber and Bartkowski all walk. Would you try and resign Kenins, Zalewski, Grenier, Fedun, Cannata and Friesen for minors depth or let some of their contracts go and try to graduate some of the other prospects?

    Man, looking over the D depth we have in the system AND in the NHL makes the trade for Gudbrandson look even better to me.

    • Steampuck

      Can you imagine an average ice time bonus for Dorsett and the furor that would provoke? I can’t decide if that would be absolutely horrendous, or whether it would be a positive sign that JB & co. are totally just trolling us…

  • Steampuck

    I’d be curious to know whether Granlund’s bonus is prorated based on time with Calgary or whether the Canucks owned the contract at the end of the season and were therefore responsible for it. Doesn’t matter, really. Just wondering.

    Also nice to see bonuses based on youth success. Horvat played a ton more than he should have, but good to see him and Hutton as key cogs. Hopefully Pedan and Granlund’s make similar steps next year.

  • The salary cap is a complicated beast.

    Adding up the following salaries: Vrbata $5M, Prust $2.5M, Hamhuis $4.5M, Bartkowski $1.75M, and Weber $1.5M = $15.25M. This is how much cap space we should have. Subtract Gudbransons $3.5M = $11.75M

    General Fanager says we have $9.5M

    • Vanoxy

      Luongo is on the books for $800,000

      That still leaves a mil + unaccounted for.

      Without digging into it, I assume GF is assuming some of our AHL guys on ELCs will take a chunk of cap space??

      It’s a shame you need a degree in nerdology to figure this stuff out.

    • Steampuck

      It’s not simple, but it’s not complicated either. A quick look at General Fanager shows why. Sutter, Granlund, and Biega, and Gudbranson have extensions. Prust’s hit was only 1.6m because he was in the minors. Canucks were over cap last year and needed to use LTIR, because of the late additions (Groot, Etem, Granlund, Gudbranson) and call ups (Vey, Gaunce, and Pedan)

    • Dan B

      Sarcasm is not your friend…

      Let us not forget that Gillis & Gilman’s cap wizardry included the following:

      1) Offering Sundin $20 million before taking care of the Sedins…which nearly cost the Canucks the Sedins

      2) Offering Backes $7.5 million and quickly getting quid pro quo’d into paying Bernier $2.5 million

      3) Matching the Bernier offer sheet just to save face

      4) Luongo’s immovable contract which led to losing both Luongo and Schneider for subpar returns

      5) Signing Samulesson and not leaving a roster spot free for Grabner

      6) Not taking advantage of Mitchell’s gift to BC following his concussion issues

      7) Ballard

      8) Sturm

      9) Booth

      10) Giving out NTC to players like Burrows, Higgins & Hansen

      “Thank goodness the Canucks fired Laurence Gilman.”

      Despite your delusion, you are actually correct…

  • Vanoxy

    If anyone can provide details on if Higgins and Burrows potential buyouts affect the 2016/17 cap i would appreciate it.

    Looks like with those players bought out there would be even more room even though i suspect Burrows will stay. But who knows….

    Mr R

    • Vanoxy

      Max you can bury for the 2016-2017 season is $950,000 of any contract. With Higgins (as happened last year) that probably isn’t too bad as you’re on the hook for just over $1.5 million (not great but livable). It’s hard to justify with Burrows (although I guess the Blackhawks did it with Bickell) since it means you’d have $3.5 million counting for nothing.

      I don’t begrudge the contracts for either Higgins or Burrows (or Kesler, Bieksa, Garrison, Hamhuis, etc), but for those like Goon yearning for the genius of Gilman, all NHL teams juggle the cap and all have to deal with the constraints of cap and NTCs. He wasn’t a genius and his boss’ strategy of using them as a lure to get players to give an overall discount on cap hits came back to bite us when they aged out and the window to compete closed.

      • Goon

        “I don’t begrudge the contracts for either Higgins or Burrows”

        Straight up delusion…

        Both contracts represent paying for past performance, handing out NTC to players that have no business having them and, most importantly, the abortion that was Gillis’ managing of young players and the farm system.

        Grabner had some productive years and he should have had those productive years in Vancouver…

        It was inexcusable to dedicate $7 million to Burrows & Higgins before addressing the Luongo/Schneider situation.

        Burrows & Higgins personify the worst of a management team that should have been gassed before gutting the talent it inherited…

        • Dan B

          Was the Luongo/Schneider a case of money? I don’t think so. Was it horrifically mismanaged? Yes, in every case. While I agree with your earlier comment about the idiocy of chasing Sundin before resigning the Sedins I don’t think Burrows and Higgins had anything to do with the goalie situation. I don’t disagree with your overall point — once Gillis’ strategy (focus solely on building a vet-friendly environment replete with all kinds of perks and completely ignore both drafting and development) fell apart, the crash was bound to happen. I don’t think you can look at these two contracts in a vacuum however — $2.5 million for what was at the time a pretty serviceable depth player who could shuttle up and down the lineup in Higgins was not bad (and remember even two years ago he was a more than adequate player). And $4.5 million for Burrows may have been partly (mostly) legacy, but if you look at other players his age who got similar deals I’m not sure it stands out so much (only in the sense that this is not just a Canucks-thing; I think it’s league wide, which doesn’t necessarily justify it but as much as I know you loathe Gillis it’s not just on him). Some of Burrows comparable players at age AAV and terms are Cole, Lecavalier, Hemsky, Cammalleri, Jokinen, etc — chugging along but not exactly world beaters at nearly $5 million each.

          • Dan B

            The salary cap for the 2013-2014 season was locked in at $64.3 million…

            If memory serves, this is the only time GMs knew exactly what the cap would be the following season.

            And the way the Canucks decided to get under the cap was buying out Ballard (which was obvious) and moving Schneider…

            There was nothing stopping the Canucks from going with Luongo & Schneider for 2013/2014 like they had done the previous 3 seasons aside from cap mismanagement.

            Instead, they dedicated $12 million to Edler, Burrows & Higgins (only Edler was valuable enough to do this) and then boxed themselves into a subpar return on Schneider…

            It has nothing to do with loathing Gillis.

            If I don’t provide a counter to the truths that these basement bloggers and you delusional Canuck fans have held since the day NM00 appeared on the scene, nobody else will…

            None of you rubes actually like Gillis.

            Most of you just never had the stones to criticize him in 2013 based on his acceptance of analytics and the W-L record…

          • Dan B

            Rubes, delusional, yawn.

            Anyway, yes, I don’t particularly like Gillis but I also wasn’t in love with him because of “analytics” in his heyday. Having been a Canucks fan for many years I thought his approach which focused entirely on the now and in building up a good pro environment was worth a shot. We missed it, but in all honesty I don’t know that it was any worse of an attempt than the strategy that Benning and co are embarking on (focusing on drafting and developing young players). I’m not going to rehash all the Gillis era but I’ll just say the idea that anyone has built from scratch is ludicrous with very few exceptions in the NHL. Even Stan Bowman wasn’t solely responsible for building the most recent Blackhawks dynasty as a number of the core players he had were “inherited” from Tallon. Gillis was “gifted” some pretty amazing core players and you’re right he did little to add to their long term but in the short term he did everything to make them a success. I’m glad he’s gone but good lord man, does everything for you have to be in such black and white?

        • Dan B

          I really did not mind, and understood Borrows’ contract. He was a underpaid for being a top line player, and I think you sometimes need to provide allowances that pays for past performances, or else as Kobe Bryant would say – then no one good will ever want to play for your team. Yah that’s an extreme example, but I get the gist of the merit. That said, I think there would have been a lot of teams willing to give Burrows that contract if he were a free agent and would have been given market price accordingly.

          What I don’t get – and I still don’t – are the four year contracts with no trades that were given to Higgens and Hansen. Was that the market price for these guys? I don’t know, and I do not think so. Yes, Hansen has arguably outperformed his contract, but Higgens was always replaceable.

          As far as Gillian – can people stop living the dream of giving Assistant Managers so much street cred! If he was so awesome, some team would have scooped him up ASAP. Cripes, Arizona did not even give him a smell test and hired a teenage math geek instead. Which I totally get. If your team sucks balls year after year, you got to try something different. But that’s another argument for another topic.

    • Dan B

      You can simulate contract buyouts on general fanager.

      For Burrows, his contract hit is 4.5m. Buyout cap hit is 2.5m in the first year and 1m in the second. Total savings is just 1m. And you’d need to replace him with a player that costs the same.

      Sending him to the minors gets almost as much total savings *but* he’s available if you need an NHL-ready callup.

      Higgens is due 2.5m. Buyout is 833k in this year and next year, again you only save 833k in total. You’d save 900k sending him to the minors.

      The Canucks aren’t tight against the cap so it doesn’t make much sense to me to save money this year but have to pay more next year.

      Buyouts are for more expensive players. For cheaper players, it’s better just to demote them.

      I’d rather send them both to the AHL if they can’t help the team on opening day.. and then they can be called up when injuries hit. And if someone claims them, problem solved.