The Vancouver Canucks followed through on prior statements this morning, placing long-time forward Chris Higgins on waivers with the expectation that he’ll report to the Utica Comets on Wednesday if he clears.

Our editor JD Burke went into plenty of detail on the move after Trevor Linden declared it a possibility during last night’s first intermission. The idea of salary retention in a trade wasn’t really touched on, however, so here’s a few points to consider:

Assigning Higgins to Utica might be more valuable from a salary cap perspective than retaining salary in a trade. The difference between a full, 50% retention ($1.25 million) and sending him down and holding all but $950,000 on the cap ($1.55 million) is just $300,000, or just 0.42% of the ceiling.

Yes, that $300,000 is more than a retention-based trade would carry if the Canucks took no players back. But at the same time, you’re only able to retain three contracts at one time. Vancouver, as it stands, are one of thirteen teams with a retained salary on the books, and, thanks to the seven years remaining on Roberto Luongo’s deal, have the second-most years committed to retention in the league, trailing Toronto’s eight.

A hypothetical situation where this matters: Let’s say, in the darkest timeline, that the Canucks pursue a rental mega-deal involving Henrik and Daniel Sedin next year. Since they’ll be pending UFA’s, a 50% salary retention and natural mid-year cap progression would give them a combined cost of under $3.5 million to a team looking to acquire them for a couple of months. Alternatively, if the idea of the twins leaving is one you don’t want to humour, the same could be done with Dan Hamhuis and Radim Vrbata this year. The Philadelphia Flyers, who are the only team to use all three of their retentions, did one of these package deal type scenarios with Vincent Lecavalier and Luke Schenn last week.

As well, having Higgins clear waivers makes him more valuable to another team. Claiming him would mean that they couldn’t re-trade him for the rest of the year without offering him to every other team that put in a bid for free, and a trade shortly after clearance would give them a window where they could play him in the NHL and send him down to their without waivers if things don’t work out. It also allows him to get a few games in with the Comets and potentially bounce back a bit offensively.

Higgins hasn’t played in the AHL in over a decade; his last appearance coming during the 2004/05 lockout, where he scored 28 goals and picked up 51 points in 76 games with the Hamilton Bulldogs at the age of 20.

Truth be told, though, this entire situation is still a very weird one. The logistics behind wanting to make room for younger players make perfect sense, and a struggling, possibly still banged up Higgins being the odd man out is about as “well, duh” of a thought as you’ll get. But the public declarations along the way remain pretty unprecedented.

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

Is it a way for the Canucks to make the fans and media believe they know more than they should when they don’t know the full backstory? Maybe there’s something to all of this. For example, Higgins has a limited No-Trade Clause; maybe this was their way of trying to force him to waive it for an undesirable team, and waivers are their way of forcing him into the laps of his suitor. We don’t know for sure.

Or, maybe they sensed a media leak approaching and wanted to maintain control of the situation. Admittedly, the news climate of 2016 is much different than it was when the Canucks first came into the league, or even what it was ten years ago. We’ve evolved from a story like this being released to the public in a footnote of column in a print publication days after its discovery by a beat reporter, to an insider posting it on social media as soon as he knows and it being the talk of the entire North American hockey beat within the hour.

Sometimes, that insider isn’t even a mainstream media; it could be someone grinding away in the blogosphere, or a family member of an associated person not knowing when to shut up. Sometimes, the person themselves is at fault, not knowing the legalese behind opening their mouth at the exact moment.

It makes sense that the Canucks would like control of the situation, and truthfully, it’s a lot better than using a media mouthpiece to speak for you, a tactic that several NHL executives have used in recent years. You run the risk of degrading a player’s value, but in a situation like this one where you’re just trying to free up a roster spot, control over the situation could be worth the cost.

You may lose bargaining power by admitting you want to free up a roster spot, but you probably lose a lot more if people start making up rumours about a “falling out”. The Canucks made their intentions clear, showed the fanbase they mean business, outlined the process, and now wait for a conclusion.

Advertisement - Continue Commenting Below





