But to be fair, you can't compare offensive production only. They are clearly different players. Del Zotto could barely get signed last year, oft injured, etc.
I just don't think Sbisa is a terrible signing is all (and i realise i'm in the minority on that one). A bit overpaid, sure, but mgmt were securing some stability on the backend with the planned ejection of Bieksa. - dbot
I think Benning thinks Sbisa has the potential to be a top 4 defender, I disagree with that assessment but that is why he paid him what he did.
If he only wanted to secure some stability for the "planned" movement of Bieksa, there would of been many other options available. Look no farther than his signing of Bartkowski, Bruins signed Irwin and the many other deals that have and will go down for bottom 6 defenders.
I don't really want to start another if he was worth the contract discussion but I don't get the argument that it was signed because they needed stability.
Benning believes in him otherwise you don't commit to a player with a 3 year contract.
I think Benning thinks Sbisa has the potential to be a top 4 defender, I disagree with that assessment but that is why he paid him what he did.
If he only wanted to secure some stability for the "planned" movement of Bieksa, there would of been many other options available. Look no farther than his signing of Bartkowski, Bruins signed Irwin and the many other deals that have and will go down for bottom 6 defenders.
I don't really want to start another if he was worth the contract discussion but I don't get the argument that it was signed because they needed stability.
Benning believes in him otherwise you don't commit to a player with a 3 year contract. - belcherbd
The fact he believes in him so much is the scary part.
People can choose to ignore it but it's a legit concern. And he was a RFA, there was no need to give him that money. Even as a UFA, there no way in hell he was going to get that kind if money when you look at what other better or equal defenders got. It raises a red flag for both his evaluation and negotiating skills.
Location: I stay away from the completely crazy rumours on the internet.I will occasionally debunk them-Eklund Joined: 04.18.2010
Jul 16 @ 5:58 PM ET
So then nhl fav teams like boston or toronto would be so far over the cap every year without the nhl clamping down.
Like I said there must be a deterrent - SMBDragon
being over the cap would mean that the team is circumventing the cba. the nhl has pretty broad leeway when it comes to punishment, basically it's what bettman decides.
while not an entirely perfect example, the kovalchuk affair is an example of what happens when the league deems a contract is circumvention of the cap.
basically, the league will cancel contracts that put a team over the cap.
Location: I stay away from the completely crazy rumours on the internet.I will occasionally debunk them-Eklund Joined: 04.18.2010
Jul 16 @ 6:03 PM ET
I think Benning thinks Sbisa has the potential to be a top 4 defender, I disagree with that assessment but that is why he paid him what he did.
If he only wanted to secure some stability for the "planned" movement of Bieksa, there would of been many other options available. Look no farther than his signing of Bartkowski, Bruins signed Irwin and the many other deals that have and will go down for bottom 6 defenders.
I don't really want to start another if he was worth the contract discussion but I don't get the argument that it was signed because they needed stability.
Benning believes in him otherwise you don't commit to a player with a 3 year contract. - belcherbd
i think that's the crux of the issue. some people believe that he is a viable dman.
others (myself included) would rather have paid him 3.6m to leave the team.
like i said, it comes down to your opinion of the player.
having said that though, sbisa isn't that big a deal. the team isn't a contender so it's not as if he will cost the team a playoff round or cup. basically, he will help secure a better draft position. mole hill made into a mountain.
Are you saying that the NHL allows Bos or Tor to be over the cap every year?
No teams are allowed to be over the cap, period. - belcherbd
No im saying if theres any teams that tend to get away with no punishment its them. Toronto is nhl head office and shanahan s running the team. Boston owner jeremy jacobs is chairman of BOG of nhl. They get away with murder.
being over the cap would mean that the team is circumventing the cba. the nhl has pretty broad leeway when it comes to punishment, basically it's what bettman decides.
while not an entirely perfect example, the kovalchuk affair is an example of what happens when the league deems a contract is circumvention of the cap.
basically, the league will cancel contracts that put a team over the cap.
I see. Although kovalchuk was term length issue I believe. And structured to lower the cap hit. Thats why.....I dont think it was being over the cap.
No I do remember a thing where you could be over the cap on seaason onset and it wojld just cost you. Not sure if it was this cba or the last cba or if it applied to complete season, but it was there 100% for sure.
I see. Although kovalchuk was term length issue I believe. And structured to lower the cap hit. Thats why.....I dont think it was being over the cap.
No I do remember a thing where you could be over the cap on seaason onset and it wojld just cost you. Not sure if it was this cba or the last cba or if it applied to complete season, but it was there 100% for sure. - SMBDragon
You can't be over the cap at the start of the season. No exceptions
Location: I didn't read it , BC Joined: 09.21.2013
Jul 16 @ 6:15 PM ET
I see. Although kovalchuk was term length issue I believe. And structured to lower the cap hit. Thats why.....I dont think it was being over the cap.
No I do remember a thing where you could be over the cap on seaason onset and it wojld just cost you. Not sure if it was this cba or the last cba or if it applied to complete season, but it was there 100% for sure. - SMBDragon
I think there are some exceptions to the cap when it comes to rookie contracts and performance bonuses. I thought those were the only bonus exceptions, but I think Iginla in Boston got some bonuses and was more expensive than Boston had budgeted.
Anyway, I think those bonuses can put you over the cap, but you can make up for it on the next season.
But then again, that wouldn't be over the cap at the onset of the season, just at the end of the season. (I confuse myself)
Location: I stay away from the completely crazy rumours on the internet.I will occasionally debunk them-Eklund Joined: 04.18.2010
Jul 16 @ 6:16 PM ET
I see. Although kovalchuk was term length issue I believe. And structured to lower the cap hit. Thats why.....I dont think it was being over the cap.
No I do remember a thing where you could be over the cap on seaason onset and it wojld just cost you. Not sure if it was this cba or the last cba or if it applied to complete season, but it was there 100% for sure. - SMBDragon
At the signing of the 2005 cba, bettman gloated that the nhl was the only league with a true hard cap. It was a point of pride for him.
Unless you are referring to the 10% overage during the off season, no team has been able to or can exceed the cap (this CBA or the last).
Location: I stay away from the completely crazy rumours on the internet.I will occasionally debunk them-Eklund Joined: 04.18.2010
Jul 16 @ 6:18 PM ET
I think there are some exceptions to the cap when it comes to rookie contracts and performance bonuses. I thought those were the only bonus exceptions, but I think Iginla in Boston got some bonuses and was more expensive than Boston had budgeted.
Anyway, I think those bonuses can put you over the cap, but you can make up for it on the next season.
But then again, that wouldn't be over the cap at the onset of the season, just at the end of the season. - hillbillydeluxe
Some bonuses can be carried over until the next season (unless in last yr of the CBA) but those earned (meaning paid out) are then subtracted from the teams cap for the following season.
i think that's the crux of the issue. some people believe that he is a viable dman.
others (myself included) would rather have paid him 3.6m to leave the team.
like i said, it comes down to your opinion of the player.
having said that though, sbisa isn't that big a deal. the team isn't a contender so it's not as if he will cost the team a playoff round or cup. basically, he will help secure a better draft position. mole hill made into a mountain. - RealityChecker
He's basically the tank commander. But the guy in charge of running this rebuild/retool is high on him when basically all evidence suggests he's barely a NHL player. He doesn't create any offense and this team bleeds goals when he's on the ice.
It's weird that they're so invested in his potential while Kassian was basically given away for free despite putting up over 30+ even strength points over his last 82 games with limited minutes. With consistent PP time or top 6 minutes, he's basically a 40+ point player. And with both PP time + top 6 minutes he had a chance to potentially become a 45-50 point player which is great 2nd line production.
And now we're paying 5M between 2 4th line wingers who have a combined 2 playoff goals in almost 100 playoff games.
You can't be over the cap at the start of the season. No exceptions - CanuckDon
You can't be over the cap per se, but performance based bonus laden contracts are allowed. In the instance where the player earns the bonuses, the cap for the team will be reduced the following season by the amount the team eventually was over the cap by.
For example, say the Canucks have 1M in cap space, and the sign player A for 1M and 3M in bonuses. If player A earns his bonuses, the Canucks cap will be reduced by 3M the following season.
i think that's the crux of the issue. some people believe that he is a viable dman.
others (myself included) would rather have paid him 3.6m to leave the team.
like i said, it comes down to your opinion of the player.
having said that though, sbisa isn't that big a deal. the team isn't a contender so it's not as if he will cost the team a playoff round or cup. basically, he will help secure a better draft position. mole hill made into a mountain. - RealityChecker
Bingo - I would carry him on my back personally to the airport. And as to your comment with respect to some people viewing Sbisa as a viable option, I actually don't think I've seen more than one or two people on here who feel he's worth a look and considered him to be a good signing. It seems to be a general consensus that the deal was not a good one and that Sbisa is drastically overpaid and under-skilled. Let's rally around that, people . To me, it will always be a mistake and a significant one at that (much much worse than the Miller signing). But perhaps Benning sees something (although I don't know what that could be) that we don't. Its' all rather dubious, in my mind but at the very least it's a bit of a headscratcher.
I think there are some exceptions to the cap when it comes to rookie contracts and performance bonuses. I thought those were the only bonus exceptions, but I think Iginla in Boston got some bonuses and was more expensive than Boston had budgeted.
Anyway, I think those bonuses can put you over the cap, but you can make up for it on the next season.
But then again, that wouldn't be over the cap at the onset of the season, just at the end of the season. (I confuse myself) - hillbillydeluxe
bonuses other than signing bonuses are applied the following year as they are unknown for the upcoming season.
For example if Horvat whose base salary is 832.5 K gets 30 goals in 2015/16 season which triggers a bonus of in his case 850K his cap hit in 2016/17 would be his base + performance bonus + signing bonus for a total of 1.775 million.
i think that's the crux of the issue. some people believe that he is a viable dman.
others (myself included) would rather have paid him 3.6m to leave the team.
like i said, it comes down to your opinion of the player.
having said that though, sbisa isn't that big a deal. the team isn't a contender so it's not as if he will cost the team a playoff round or cup. basically, he will help secure a better draft position. mole hill made into a mountain. - RealityChecker
Stop being so rational.
You'll drive that whiny, little troll, Nucker away.
Location: I stay away from the completely crazy rumours on the internet.I will occasionally debunk them-Eklund Joined: 04.18.2010
Jul 16 @ 6:29 PM ET
He's basically the tank commander. But the guy in charge of running this rebuild/retool is high on him when basically all evidence suggests he's barely a NHL player. He doesn't create any offense and this team bleeds goals when he's on the ice.
It's weird that they're so invested in his potential while Kassian was basically given away for free despite putting up over 30+ even strength points over his last 82 games with limited minutes. With consistent PP time or top 6 minutes, he's basically a 40+ point player. And with both PP time + top 6 minutes he had a chance to potentially become a 45-50 point player which is great 2nd line production.
And now we're paying 5M between 2 4th line wingers who have a combined 2 playoff goals in almost 100 playoff games. - Nucker101
The rebuild comes down to the draft. If benning hits on enough picks, the team will be set quite nicely. If not, abandon all hope
But these ancillary issues like the signings and trades for low level players won't mean much.
I agree that they could be a harbinger of misfortune.... But looking at it from the long view, perhaps benning wants good character, hard nosed guys b/c he foresees a couple seasons of losing.
Either view can be supported. But there really is no need to get hysterical. Criticicize but don't go chicken little. Big picture that sh!t.
The rebuild comes down to the draft. If benning hits on enough picks, the team will be set quite nicely. If not, abandon all hope
But these ancillary issues like the signings and trades for low level players won't mean much.
I agree that they could be a harbinger of misfortune.... But looking at it from the long view, perhaps benning wants good character, hard nosed guys b/c he foresees a couple seasons of losing.
Either view can be supported. But there really is no need to get hysterical. Criticicize but don't go chicken little. Big picture that sh!t. - RealityChecker
Stop being so rational.
You'll drive that whiny, little troll, Nucker away. - Marwood
I think we all know this team is on the decline no matter what but it's perfectly reasonable to be a bit afraid that the guy in charge of running the team paid 3.6 for a RFA who's barely a NHL player. The contract won't have any major long term impact but the real issue is the red flag it raises. I've already said that I think Benning seems like a decent scout, but his negotiating skills and asset management is a real concern. Plus he seems to overvalue defensemen that are physical and skate but aren't real smart or skilled. Sbisa, Bartkowski, Pedan all fit that mold. Tryamkin is a big unknown but he sounds similar.
Bingo - I would carry him on my back personally to the airport. And as to your comment with respect to some people viewing Sbisa as a viable option, I actually don't think I've seen more than one or two people on here who feel he's worth a look and considered him to be a good signing. It seems to be a general consensus that the deal was not a good one and that Sbisa is drastically overpaid and under-skilled. Let's rally around that, people . To me, it will always be a mistake and a significant one at that (much much worse than the Miller signing). But perhaps Benning sees something (although I don't know what that could be) that we don't. Its' all rather dubious, in my mind but at the very least it's a bit of a headscratcher. - Zogg
While it has been beaten to death on this forum and others, I also don't accept the notion that it is no big deal. Will it stop the canucks from winning a cup, probably not but it is certainly conceivable that his contract among others has prevented the team from taking advantage of some team's cap issues or even the buyers market that is occurring the 2nd tier of UFA's.
Sbisa or a comparable player at Irwin money, Miller or a comparable player at Hiller money, Dorsett or a comparable at Beagle money would give the Canucks an additional 5 million to go after other useful players.
People like to shrug off the money and say, it was only 500K too much or whatever but as Russel Peters once said, save 50 cent here, save 50 cent there, now you have a dolla!!
While it has been beaten to death on this forum and others, I also don't accept the notion that it is no big deal. Will it stop the canucks from winning a cup, probably not but it is certainly conceivable that his contract among others has prevented the team from taking advantage of some team's cap issues or even the buyers market that is occurring the 2nd tier of UFA's.
Sbisa or a comparable player at Irwin money, Miller or a comparable player at Hiller money, Dorsett or a comparable at Beagle money would give the Canucks an additional 5 million to go after other useful players.
People like to shrug off the money and say, it was only 500K too much or whatever but as Russel Peters once said, save 50 cent here, save 50 cent there, now you have a dolla!!
- belcherbd
Obvious troll post!!! It's a rebuild any change is gud guyz!
(I confuse myself) 
. To me, it will always be a mistake and a significant one at that (much much worse than the Miller signing). But perhaps Benning sees something (although I don't know what that could be) that we don't. Its' all rather dubious, in my mind but at the very least it's a bit of a headscratcher. 
