[Rumour] Tony Gallagher: Sedins to Extend With Canucks - Page 2 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

DeluxeMoustache · 09-12-2013, 02:54 AM

Post apex, do not want. Good for Van.

Super Nintendo Chalmers · 09-12-2013, 03:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SebC

Why wouldn't you feed them offensive starts? Doesn't it make sense to start your top scorers in the the offensive zone?

AV took that philosophy to a ridiculous extreme.

Poe969 · 09-12-2013, 07:22 AM

I can just see the headlines as soon as they re-sign:

Sedins dive into another contract with canucks

CaptainCrunch · 09-12-2013, 08:50 AM

6 years 6.75 each nmc

Poe969 · 09-12-2013, 08:53 AM

how great would it be if only one of them got a NMC

Flash Walken · 09-12-2013, 09:45 AM

Problem with the idea of what the sedins earn is that they are a package deal, significantly limiting their individual bargaining power.

If they want to sign somewhere else, that somewhere else has to have 10-13 million in cap space to bring them in, not 5-6 if they were signing as individuals.

GreenLantern · 09-12-2013, 10:20 AM

Keegan Kanzig will be to the Sedins as Regehr was to Hemsky!

Wishful thinking

But fun to imagine.

Erick Estrada · 09-12-2013, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Problem with the idea of what the sedins earn is that they are a package deal, significantly limiting their individual bargaining power.

If they want to sign somewhere else, that somewhere else has to have 10-13 million in cap space to bring them in, not 5-6 if they were signing as individuals.

Yep. It will be interesting to see how this goes because I am of the opinion that the Sedins play will sharply nosedive when they get to 35 years as they aren't the most fleet of foot and looked even slower last year and the Canucks likely are looking for 2-3 years max.

Buff · 09-12-2013, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

6 years 6.75 each nmc

I must agree. It is not going to be less than their current cap hit. They may do what Jarome did a few times and sign for the same cap hit, but I think they can probably get at least 6.5 out of the Canucks. If they are looking to sign a deal that will see them end their careers in Vancouver then it will be long term with the nmc.

blankall · 09-12-2013, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

6 years 6.75 each nmc

I really hope so. They'll be 33 at the beginning of this year. That contract will take them well past their prime, if they aren't arleady out of it.

I honestly think the Canucks may miss the playoffs this year with a tougher division and aging/injury prone players. If they have Luongo, the Sedins, and Burrows all locked up long term, it'll prevent them from making any changes.

Tinordi · 09-12-2013, 10:54 AM

my bet is a 4 year deal 5.5 average

Bertuzzied · 09-12-2013, 11:02 AM

They would be smarter to wait a few months playing under Fonzie before extending.

calumniate · 09-12-2013, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bertuzzied

They would be smarter to wait a few months playing under Fonzie before extending.

True. Plus everyone wants to play for the Rangers at least once in their lifetime.

Vinny01 · 09-12-2013, 11:45 AM

I think they will take less than their current deal in exchange for 4-5 year term. I agree with Tinordi around 5.5 for 4-5 years.

d_phaneuf · 09-12-2013, 10:25 PM

anything less than 6 would be a huge discount and I would be happy

they were still ppg players and were on the 'unlucky' side in shooting % and pp% last year, their game shouldn't really decline too much with age like some players as it's not reliant on speed or power

Torts will still give them the majority of Ozone starts (he did it in NYR with his top guys) but having them play a bit more defensive as well won't hurt the team

Huntingwhale · 09-12-2013, 10:34 PM

Hope to god they sign to a longterm 40+ contract that pays them each over 7 million with a full NMC. However deep down, I think they will both sign cap-friendly deal.

Pontine · 09-12-2013, 10:57 PM

I think the Sedins want to finish their careers with the nucks, so I think they'll go for a lower cap hit at a longer term.

Psytic · 09-12-2013, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FAN

I disagree. Except for the year where they went to the Cup, I don't think the Canucks were all that great. They got their ass handed to them by Chicago two straight years not only because the Blackhawks were better, but because the Canucks had shaky goaltending, a slow defense, and poor scoring depth. In the last two seasons they couldn't score and their top 4 pretty much consists of guys who are 2nd pairing guys after Ehrhoff left. Winning in the regular season doesn't count for all that much when you easily get swept aside by other teams in the playoffs.

So this means that they have not been one of the best teams for a long time because the best team in the league kicked their ass? I don't like arguing for the Canucks cause I don't like that team but They have been consistently pretty darn good going back to the west coast express days give or take a few years. I'm not using Chicago as the bar for if a team is good or bad considering they are basically the pinnacle of the league. Put San Jose in there if you want a better idea of what I mean when I say good. Consistently good but not the pinnacle of the league.

FAN · 09-13-2013, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Psytic

So this means that they have not been one of the best teams for a long time because the best team in the league kicked their ass? I don't like arguing for the Canucks cause I don't like that team but They have been consistently pretty darn good going back to the west coast express days give or take a few years. I'm not using Chicago as the bar for if a team is good or bad considering they are basically the pinnacle of the league. Put San Jose in there if you want a better idea of what I mean when I say good. Consistently good but not the pinnacle of the league.

Umm... just like San Jose, the Canucks had a reputation for underachieving in the playoffs. After a while you have to consider whether they really are underachievers or simply not that good.

You said the Canucks were one of the best teams not to win the Cup. One of the best teams don't get lose 7 out of 9 playoff games the past two years and fail to advance past the second in others.

The WCE? They were 8th seeds until 2002-2003 where they barely beat St. Louis and lost to the Wild. The next year we beat them in the first round. The next season they missed the playoffs. That was the WCE years.

In 2006-2007 they barely got past the Stars and was beat by the Ducks. Sure the Ducks won the Cup that year but are you seriously claiming that team to be a good team? The following year they missed the playoffs.

In 2008-2009 they were beat by the Blackhawks but the Hawks weren't close to being the best team then. The next year the Hawks were great but it took a complete revamping of the defense to get the Canucks to the Cup finals the following year. After that they pretty much got swept aside the next two years.

Like I said, the year they went to the Cup finals as just about the only year the Canucks can claim to be one of the best teams in the league.

spuzzum · 09-13-2013, 01:19 PM

3 years @ 5.75M/per