Canucks Roster Decisions and the Salary Cap

J.J. Guerrero

Founder and Executive Editor of Canucks Hockey Blog. Proud Canadian, hardcore Canucks fan. I would like nothing more than watching the Canucks win the Stanley Cup. Against the Leafs.

You may also like...

  • NuckFan

    I have been reading that in order to get the LTIR relief both Salo and Burrows need to be on the “opening day roster” and then put on LTIR. How do the Canucks handle that? Briefly expose some players to waivers and hope they don’t get picked up?

  • http://canuckshockeyblog.com/ J.J. Guerrero

    I’ve heard that, but I’m not entirely sure that’s true. Section 50.10 of the CBA gives several illustrations for opening day. The one that is relevant in my opinion is this one:

    Illustration #4: The Upper Limit in a League Year is $40.0 million. A Player who has an SPC with an Averaged Amount of $2.0 million becomes unfit to play on the last day of Training Camp, and on the
    same day, his Club exercises the Bona-Fide Long-Term Injury/Illness Exception on such Player. On Opening Day, the Club has an Averaged Club Salary of $41.5 million (excluding Earnable Performance Bonuses up to the full amount of the Performance Bonus Cushion). The Club is deemed to have already fully replaced the unfit-to-play Player with any Player or Players on the Opening Day
    Roster. If these replacements are maintained through the conclusion of the season, the Club’s Averaged Club Salary is $41.5 million, as the Club is permitted to exceed the Upper Limit by $1.5 million because of the Bona-Fide Long-Term Injury/Illness Exception.

    This to me says that they are allowed to place Salo and Burrows on LTIR without having to expose anyone on waivers. The league will just assume that their replacement is already on the roster.

  • Kel

    Nice detailed analysis, but I really don’t think the Canucks would sacrifice a lot of depth to start the season only to save cap space for short term injuries. The team was over the cap to start the season last year because of LTIR to Demitra and M Schneider. I don’t think it will be different this time.

  • Kel

    Nice detailed analysis, but I really don’t think the Canucks would sacrifice a lot of depth to start the season only to save cap space for short term injuries. The team was over the cap to start the season last year because of LTIR to Demitra and M Schneider. I don’t think it will be different this time.

  • http://canuckshockeyblog.com/ J.J. Guerrero

    That’s a good point Kel. I remember thinking the same thing last year, but also thinking that the team was “lucky” that there always seemed to be someone on LTIR so they could still make moves.

    I guess my worry this year stems mostly from looking at the defense. We’ve essentially replaced Mitchell and Salo with Hamhuis and Ballard. In terms of durability this is an obvious upgrade. That said, the bottom part looks scary. We’ve waived SOB now and who knows if they’ll keep Bieksa. If they keep Bieksa, then having him as no. 5 is a nice luxury, especially if they can find a way to keep him when Salo comes back. But, if for cap purposes, they have to trade Bieksa, then we’re looking at Alberts, Rome and Sweatt as nos. 5 to 7 and I’m not convinced yet that’s better than where we were last year.

  • Kel

    I share the same concern, JJ, if the Canucks indeed end up not having any upgrade in the bottom pairing of defensemen. I think they’ll keep Bieksa unless one of Alberts, Rome or Sweatt show that they can play better than what they have shown lately. It’s a waste not to use the LTI exemption when your team is close to the cap and one of your regular $3.5M guy (Salo) gets injured.

  • Kel

    To clarify, I meant to say that if the Canucks indeed end up trading away Bieksa and therefore is not able to ice a better D-group overall than last season, I would be concerned as you are. I guess we’ll just wait and see, but it looks like Bieksa is staying for now, until (or unless) Salo becomes healthy enough to play.

%d bloggers like this: