Canucks Place Mathieu Schneider On Waivers
Just reported by the Vancouver Sun. So Mike Gillis could not get a thing in return for the 40-year-old defenceman. I really wonder if there will be any takers on the waiver wire, and if there aren't any, what happens next? Do they keep him around in the system and call him back up in the future? Something tells me that isn't an option in Schneider's mind.
over 2 years ago
Sean Zandberg
72 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
I find this immensely satisfying only because as I was driving in to work today, Blake Price was going on about how he thought Gillis could get a reasonable return for Schneider.
If Schneider would go to the Moose, he’d be a great addition for them, but like Lukowich, it would be very difficult to get him back and through waivers. So a demotion would likely be for the rest of the season. On the upside, he’s likely meet the ice time minutes stipulated in his contact bonus structure. Would he still earn the bonuses if he were playing in the AHL?
Maybe Mathieu could run the power play for Avtomobilist Yekaterinburg
I kinda called MS getting waived in the other thread. Doesn’t surprise me since it’ll be tough to get anything for him.
I doubt MS would report to the Moose, it’s not worth it for him.
MS earn his bonuses playing in the AHL? I seriously doubt that!
by Sean Zandberg on Dec 29, 2009 11:30 AM PST up reply actions
I didn’t think so. I only wondered because it’s a one-way, not a two -way deal and so would pay him the same wherever he ends up.
by ThomasPratt on Dec 29, 2009 12:04 PM PST up reply actions
So where does he end up? MG didn’t seem to be too patient before dumping Schneider onto waivers. Anybody know where he lives? Does it have an AHL team nearby? The Moose don’t seem to be an option, as cyxj said earlier.
Please allow me to adjust my pants, so that I may dance the good time dance, and lead the onlookers and innocent bystanders into a trance.
Born in New York is all I know. I’d guess east coast.
by Sean Zandberg on Dec 29, 2009 12:40 PM PST up reply actions
We had been saying before this that, in order to clear the cap space for Demitra to return, we’d prob lose Welly, plus we’d have to lose SOB and call up Rome in his place.
But losing Schneider is, cap-wise, about the same as losing SOB, iirc. Does this mean that SOB will stay? But still bye-bye Welly in a few weeks? Or is there a more comprehensive trade in the works? Anyway, something’s gotta give.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
The Canucks may just have enough cap space to have Demitra back once Schneider is gone, especially if the team decides to send another forward down when Demitra returns. According to one web site (nhlnumbers.com), the Canucks currently have a cap space of $2.289M. If Schneider is gone, the team gains another $1.55M. With another minimum wager sent down ($0.5M roughly), the team would have $4.33M in cap space, just enough to fit Demitra’s $4M. My feeling is that either Glass or Hansen gets sent down. If Wellwood is gone, it’d most likely be through a trade.
Arg! Brain cramp! Doesn’t Schneider’s salary (or about half of it) still count against our cap even if we put him on waivers and he does or does not clear?
by Sean Zandberg on Dec 29, 2009 1:49 PM PST up reply actions
No, doesn't count
because his contract is not multi-year.
And for the 1/2 cap hit rule
it applies to call-up waiver, not send-down waiver. Right now he’s only placed on the send-down waiver.
Just found that too
Here. The Canucks believe there are teams interested in Schneider, but if he goes unclaimed he heads to Manitoba
by Sean Zandberg on Dec 29, 2009 2:04 PM PST up reply actions
Most likely the team most interested in him is confident that they can get him in the waiver, so they don’t want to trade for him. We’ll find out soon enough whether there’s really serious interest.
But why put him on waivers at all if there’s interest?
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
He doesn’t want to play for the team and has requested a trade, and the interest is not enough to result in any trade, but the team wants to get rid of his cap hit.
Why give up anything for him if you are confident the Canucks will have to place him on waivers, even if it’s just to clear cap space.
Speaking of which, I get the calculations aimed at fitting Demetra under the cap. I would assume they also need to make room for Grabner at some point, since he’s back and playing for the Moose. So it seems they will still have to trade or waive someone.
It’s true.
When are we going to see a Cory Schneider deal? We could package a current roster player with him.
by Sean Zandberg on Dec 29, 2009 2:52 PM PST up reply actions
According to nhlnumbers.com, Schneider’s current cap hit is $2.75m. It sounds like that site counts all bonuses in its calcs.
If that site says that we have cap space of 2.289 while apparently including those bonuses into its calcs, then we should count all 2.75m of their reported cap hit for Schneider as being added back to our cushion, no?
2.29 +
2.75
====
5.04
Was it that easy? Do we now have the space to bring back both Demitra and Grabner without losing anyone else? Have I mis-calc’d?
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
Definitely not that easy, and I can’t explain why. Not all the bonuses count against the cap. He hasn’t even reached any of them
by Sean Zandberg on Dec 29, 2009 2:12 PM PST up reply actions
Wait, now I see. We have a “bonus cushion” of 1.338m. When Schneider goes, I presume we lose 1.2m of that. So we get:
2.29 +
2.75
———
5.04 except we gotta drop Schneider’s bonuses, too so…
5.04 -
1.20
———
3.84 <== this is how much cap space we have
Grabner’s cap hit is apparently quite low at .288m so we total:
4.000 for Demitra +
0.288 for Grabner
———
4.288 <== this is how much cap space we need
And so we can figger out how far over the cap we are:
4.288 –
3.840
———
0.448 <== this is how much more space we need to clear
So apparently we’ll still need to lose 1 guy to make room for both Demitra and Grabner.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
Pretty sure that Grabner's cap hit is not 288K annually
The NHL minimum salary has never been below 450K in this new CBA. The 288K figure probably came from the fact that he has only played a few games in the NHL and is projected not to play more games. If he plays a full season, his cap hit is 843K with a very small bonus cushion of around 100K.
That number surprised me, too. If you’re right, and you prob are, then Grabner this year will still cost … more than Hansen or Glass … but less than Hordichuk, so maybe the player to go would be Hordi? He makes 750k whereas the others are around 500-550 and it could come down to the last 200k. Yikes!
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
Well done by all of you. I don’t have the patience to slog through the cap numbers for the team. I tip my hat to you all.
I sense a trade in the works, Gillis is shoppin for another shutdown guy, and i’m afraid Bieksa is bein offered up. Although Kaberle from T.O could be had for Bieksa and ??
Ah, just speculation for now.
As much as I am a Kaberle fan, I wouldn’t want him. We lose Bieksa, then I’d like to replace his grit. Kaberle is an Ehrhoff minus the defensive responsibility. You’d have to put a leash on the guy
Kaberle also costs about 500k more than Bieksa.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
What a great deal the Leafs are getting for Kaberle, huh? Insane.
by Sean Zandberg on Dec 29, 2009 2:53 PM PST up reply actions
The cap game is like the stock market, isn’t it? It’s not so much how good or bad a company/player is, it’s all about getting a good deal for what it is.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
Also cap space itself becomes an important commodity. White and Rahimi were not as important to the Sharks as gaining the cap flexibility to add Heatley. I’m guessing you’ll see a similar deal, where the return is mostly cap space, here in Vancouver soon.
So warm body goes out, players without a prayer come back. Nice, we’re turning into the NFL.
Please allow me to adjust my pants, so that I may dance the good time dance, and lead the onlookers and innocent bystanders into a trance.
I’m quite disappointed with Schneider…gotta say. I had high expectations for him, even at 40 years old.
by Sean Zandberg on Dec 29, 2009 4:14 PM PST up reply actions
Sorry Y man…gotta call bullshit there. We all know your feelings on MG…but this is not one you can put on him. Schneider was not playing consistent enough to earn more ice time, and pouted and left the team.
All Gillis did was give a former client a good contract and a great opportunity…Schneider bailed when he saw he might not make his bonuses, when his play was just not good enough to take advantage of the chance he was given.
You HAVE to put a guy like that on waivers or try to trade him…it’s cancer for the team if he hangs around bitching about ice time.
Schneider may have thought his role would be different, and Ehrhoff’s ascendance probably had something to do about it.
In the end, its the player that is the FAIL…not the GM…
But keep harping on Gillis…if that is what you have to do. It sure is what is expected of you by now! (JK now Y-man…)
;-)
The earliest use of the word with the spelling we recognize today is found in "L'Acadie: or Seven Years' Exploration in British America" by James Edward Alexander, published in 1849:
We also met a lusty fellow in a forest road with a keg of whisky slung round him who called to us 'Come boys and have some grog, I'm what you call a canuck"
This
All Gillis did was give a former client a good contract
Is what I was referring to.
The contract in the first place is the fail.
You liked him well enough before:
Name the top 10 NHL defensemen
09-17-2008, 11:45 AM
Lidstrom
Niedermayer
Pronger
Rafalski
Zubov
Boyle
Chara
Gonchar
Campbell
Schneider
by yoata
A year ago you labeled him a top 10 D-man, which’d make him cheap like borscht at $1.5m for a single year, but now you say it was fail at the time? Maybe the Center For Advanced Hindsight will hire you after all!
“Research Into What Might Have Been”
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
LOL
You really are that sad aren’t you?
15 months is a long time when you are 40, and what I thought then is totally irrelevant, I didn’t sign him to a $2.75M cap hit (nice spin), Gillisgan did. And Schneider hasn’t earned played well enough to even be our #7 dman, that = FAIL.
Except of course in your rose tinted world where the great Gillsgan’s piss tastes like cherry koolaid.
what I thought then is totally irrelevant
Easily the most timeless comment I’ve ever seen you make.
I didn’t sign him to a $2.75M cap hitIncorrect, it was a $1.5m contract. $2.75m was the maximum hit with full bonuses (which could also be deferred beyond this year), to be incurred if and only if Schneider played up to his “top-10” rating, a cheap price for that level of performance had it occurred. But thanks for bolding your error.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
Take a look
at any cap site, the hit incudes bonuses.
Timeless?
Again, how is what I thought 15 months ago relevant to whether or not Schneider has been a good signing by Gillis?
Good for you, you know how to use google and are obviously obsessed with me for some reason, but that does absolutely zero to change the fact that this is yet another bad move by Gillisgan, and you know it.
Take a look
at any cap site, and then subtract the “bonus cushion.” In Schneider’s case it was $1.2m.
If you use nhlnumbers, for example, there’s a link near the bottom of the page to a legend that explains the terms.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
Yes.
By your own standards, Gillis got a top-10 D-man for a maximum of $2.75m, less if the guy was mediocre, and close to nil if he bombed out.
That’s a very good signing, just as doubling your bet with 4 of a kind is a very good poker play. Sure, the odd time the other guy might have a royal flush, but we gotta play the odds.
Moreover, Gills structured a contract that let him cut the player, that was only a year long, and that put almost half the value into bonuses. Now, with Schneider gone, those bonuses count squat against the cap.
So yeah, a very good signing. If another veteran top-10 D-man with Stanley Cup experience came along next summer and wanted the same contract, I’d give it to him in a heartbeat.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
LOL
AV said he was signed as a 7th dman, bonus or not that’s way too much cap hit for that position, but spin it all you like, this is yet another FAIL.
Not talking about the best laid plans here we are talking about RESULTS, and the RESULT of this signing is the same as the result of almost every other move Gillisgan has made that was supposed to IMPROVE the team, FAILURE!
But don’t let that keep you from spinning, yet again despite the FACTS to the contrary, you are completely and totally incapable of criticizing Gillisgan, beginning to think you are him you are so loyal in your worship.
In a heartbeat?
Notice I rated Zubov even higher 15 months ago and he’s won 2 cups and is even younger, does that automatically mean he’s worth even more? Ready to throw the big bucks at him to be our #7 too?
You’re looking at the deal in hindsight, whoop dee diddle. I’m looking at it in foresight, as in “if the same deal came along, would I take it?” That’s what decision-makers do.
I sure would take it. I repeat: if a top-10 D-man with Stanley Cup experience came along next summer and wanted the same contract, I’d give it to him in a heartbeat.
You wouldn’t. OK, that’s your opinion. I would and you wouldn’t.
p.s. Schneider was also signed as a QB for the PP, so #7 D-man understates the importance of the role he was being intended to fill.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
YOU
are looking at the deal in “what could have been” sight.
I am looking at the deal in WHAT WAS sight, as in RESULTS, as in FAIL…
You just described hindsight. I’ve never met someone who considered it a virtue before.
Good decision, good outcome
Good decision, bad outcome
Bad decision, good outcome
Bad decision, bad outcome
All are possible anytime in life. Good decision makers look forward, concentrate on column 1 and play the odds well.
3rd time: if a top-10 D-man with Stanley Cup experience came along next summer and wanted the same contract, I’d give it to him in a heartbeat.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
You just described
“Bad luck”
What does:
Bad outcome (bad luck)
after
bad outcome (bad luck)
after
bad outcome (bad luck)
after
bad outcome (bad luck)
after
bad outcome (bad luck)
describe?
Besides a whole lot of excuse making by the faithful?
Oh and when a management style of “good decisions with bad outcomes” creates a contender let me know. Personally I am fed up with Gillisgan’s “good intentions”, it’s time for results, lost past time in fact, though some seem to have an insatiable appetite for failure.
Dude…everyone knows you are a Gillis hater…we get it.
But get YOUR facts straight.
He signed him to a 1.55 deal that could become 2.75 if he hits performance bonuses that would make him worth that money.
It seems that anyone that disagrees with you about Gillis is a koolaid drinker.
Maybe we are all just a bit more rational, because we don’t let our hatred colour our opinions!
Just saying.
Ok cas’…you’re up!
;-)
The earliest use of the word with the spelling we recognize today is found in "L'Acadie: or Seven Years' Exploration in British America" by James Edward Alexander, published in 1849:
We also met a lusty fellow in a forest road with a keg of whisky slung round him who called to us 'Come boys and have some grog, I'm what you call a canuck"
I’m up? Hell, you just cleared the bases, not much more I can add!
I do see a pattern tho: yoata judges a player largely by the contract: e.g. Schneider was yoata top-10’er when he was being paid like a top-10’er. After his contract fell, so did yoata’s estimation of him, in that order.
He similarly disses line combinations based on the players’ salaries. Ditto for paying Schneider as a “7th D-man.” (You and I know he was brought in to be more than that, but yoata’s kinda thrashing by this point).
Judging the player by his contract is just another form of hindsight, really. You look back to what his value was judged to be at the time of his signing rather than at what he’s really doing right now or might do in the future.
In the same vein, he judges younger NHL’ers and their potential largely by looking back at their junior stats: e.g. Mason Raymond was just not a goal scorer in his books because Raymond’s junior stats were unimpressive. This was in spite of what we all saw on the ice. You can google old comments of his on the subject for confirmation of that in his own words.
In every case, it’s the same hindsight-based thought process repeated.
Thing is, he inevitably gets caught w/his pants down whenever players improve or decline, as happens all the time. I’ve had a lot of fun just quoting his own words back at him to point this out and he’s too arrogant to say “oops,” … which makes it even more fun!
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
by casual on Dec 31, 2009 11:22 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Ditto for paying Schneider as a "7th D-man." (You and I know he was brought in to be more than that, but yoata’s kinda thrashing by this point).
WRONG AGAIN.
Those were AV’s words, not mine, which Gillisgan “had nothing to add to” when asked about what AV said, so if he was signed to be more than that, then who’s failure is it? And if he wasn’t, then it’s a gross overpayment, take your pick, can’t have it both ways.
spin spin spin
as usual, what I have said is that the RESULT is a fail, you are the only one talking about the signing, talk about hindsight, failure is still failure regardless of the best laid plans.
So nothing changes in 15 months in your world?
On Raymond all I said was it wasn’t likely that he would be a top 20 scorer as some did, or that he would even be a top 6 forward consistently, but that I would be happy to be proven wrong, all based on his trajectory, but the jury is still out despite his recent good play he is very streaky so I would not carve his place on this team in stone just yet.
You
are obviously confused about the meaning of hindsight:
As in, how the hell does this:
In the same vein, he judges younger NHL’ers and their potential largely by looking back at their junior stats: e.g. Mason Raymond was just not a goal scorer in his books because Raymond’s junior stats were unimpressive. This was in spite of what we all saw on the ice. You can google old comments of his on the subject for confirmation of that in his own words.
In every case, it’s the same hindsight-based thought process repeated.
in any way = hindsight? You could claim I have hiindsight about Schneider, well you could have had I not said in Sept that I wasn’t sure how much he had left in the tank and that I thought Luko would be the better roster keep, so that little spin of yours is also smashed to smithereens OOPS.
However, attempting to predict what a young player’s potential is based on previous play is now in your completely fucked up world also an example of “hindsight” ???
OOPS again, and now that you’ve made disparaging remarks about my ability to admit mistakes (despite me saying that I would be happy to be proven wrong about Raymond)), I wonder if you will admit either of yours… not fucking likely since I’ve pointred out many to you in the past and all you have done is abandon the threads…
I couldn’t believe how often Schneider seemed behind the play. He seemed too old to hold his own amongst younger men. AV had no choice in sitting him.
by Bobby Canuck on Dec 31, 2009 11:50 AM PST up reply actions
That was the thing that surprised me too Bobby. I remember being excited getting a player like him in the summer.
I was profoundly disappointed after watching him play in a few. Sure, the coming off injury thing might have been an excuse the first couple, but he was always reaching for guys in his own end, not reading the play as well as a 40 year old vet, and missing the net more than hitting it on the PP.
I wanted him to get better, but he didn’t. Now, after reading multiple reports from multiple sources of the diva bullshit and the “taking my bike and going home” attitude, I want him off the team so fast…
No one player is bigger than the team. That is Basic Team Building 101.
You can’t blame Gillis…everyone thought he would be a good fit and a veteran presence. Vets have been around enough to not act like that when they sit a few or play 3rd pair. Its a long season, and as Juice’s injury show, there would have been plenty of chances for him to improve.
MG thought he was getting a good used car and got a lemon. Nothing you can do about that except get rid of it yourself.
AV did have no chance but to sit him…and to hear the coaches recent comments, the sitting was well deserved for the shitty attitude regardless of how good or bad he played.
Peace
The earliest use of the word with the spelling we recognize today is found in "L'Acadie: or Seven Years' Exploration in British America" by James Edward Alexander, published in 1849:
We also met a lusty fellow in a forest road with a keg of whisky slung round him who called to us 'Come boys and have some grog, I'm what you call a canuck"
I agree. When we first heard that Schneider was a possibility, I thought “oh no, not at his price at his age!” but when I heard it was just a one-year $1.5m deal I was OK w/that, figuring he could still QB the PP and add a few minutes of regular D as well. But he just didn’t pan out, did he?
I always wondered why we got both Ehrhoff and Schneider; it seemed redundant. With the luxury of time, I think it now looks like Gillis was hedging his bets: he prob didn’t know till the last minute that he would even get Ehrhoff for sure but all along he wanted to make sure we improved our PP, so he went with Schneider too, and ended up w/both.
He then further hedged by giving Schneider a “safety contract,” with the shortest term possible, a low cap hit, and the right to turf him if, as happened, he needed to be turfed. (Hey Ottawa fans, this is how you do these things!)
Having both Ehrhoff and Schneider was a good hedge strategy: if Ehrhoff turned into Errorhoff then maybe Schneider could step in instead, and vice-versa. And it was awfully cheap: two potential QBs for the price of Rahimi, White and a minimal cap hit.
It worked well: w/Ehrhoff: we finally have the puck-moving D-man we always wanted, and gave up essentially nothing in return. W/Schneider we kinda did a probationary period and decided he didn’t fit and we no longer need him.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
yeah we don’t need him until another D-man gets hurt. Any guesses on who MG calls up next if a piece of glass breaks off Salo?
BTW, I said this elsewhere too, I liked the Schneider signing when it happened. I didn’t anticipate this much of a drop off for him in the end. It’s unfortunate.
by Sean Zandberg on Dec 31, 2009 2:20 PM PST up reply actions
No idea who might come up. None. Oberg?
I think everyone liked the signing once we realized it was at a cheap rate and not at all like Schneider’s previous contract. He then fell from grace as fast as I’ve ever seen.
Gillis musta had an inkling tho, maybe from watching him, cuz he made sure to load the contract w/bonuses instead of salary, plus the right for the team to dump the guy if they saw fit, making for an easy out.
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
It's called
getting old, that’s why you don’t tie up $2.75m in cap space on a 40 y/o dman not named Lidstrom.
I agree with you, I don’t want Kaberle and I don’t want to see Bieksa gert shipped out to only see him become the pissed off force that he still might become. I only threw that out there, cause Gillis seems to want another defenceman with a good breakout, and cause Bieksa is gettin ripped here.
Again though, it was only a thought.
Bieksa is truculent … but would Gillis wanna deal with Brian “The Rumor Monger” Burke?
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
Please, no photoshops, Sean, please!
The opposite of serious is not funny; the opposite of serious is unserious.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Nucks Misconduct
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Nucks Misconduct Store
Your clothing sucks. Go fix it.
