Former Canucks: Players & Management V

[Scurr]

It's all out there if you care to search for it.

https://www.nhl.com/news/nhl-still-checking-hossa-pronger-other-contracts/c-536110

"Daly said at the time those contracts were registered an advisory letter was sent to the clubs notifying them that the League was going to investigate "the circumstances under which the contracts were negotiated to see if there is potential circumvention." There is no time limit to those investigations.

He added that deregistration is just one of several penalties that could be enacted, per Article 11 of the CBA. Other penalties, as outlined in Article 26 of the CBA, include fines against the club and/or the player, reducing the club's payroll for the following season, forfeiting draft picks, forfeiting games affected by the circumvention and suspensions of club officials, the player and his certified agent. "

I think you are still struggling with the concept of ratification in regards to a Collective Bargaining Agreement. They ratified them, or 'approved them', because they were legally bound to do so. Almost as soon as they were signed the league was very clear they would investigate these contracts and find a way to penalize them.

It isn't so much that the league retroactively punished these contracts, it's more that they were obligated to approve them but immediately sought ways to nullify the contracts or penalize the teams involved.

It was during these investigation periods that the league and NHLPA agreed on a process for them to be grandfathered in - I'm sure the NHL would've preferred to terminate these contracts but the NHLPA suggested the 'grandfathering' solution.

Also, remember that the league was investigating these, and warning teams, before the Luongo contract was signed:

"The NHL is looking to put a damper on these 10-plus-year contracts with throwaway years tacked on at the end," a league executive said last night. "They are building a strong case against Chicago to make an example of them. This issue won't just go away. Lots of other GMs are supporting the league here."

This quote is from July of 2009. I'm not sure exactly what you require in terms of warning, but it appears a very strong warning was given.

Thanks for doing my homework for me

There is a regular poster on this forum that called the punishment on these contracts way before it happened. I can't remember who it was, though.

 

[Diamonddog01]

Thanks for doing my homework for me

There is a regular poster on this forum that called the punishment on these contracts way before it happened. I can't remember who it was, though.

My pleasure. The complaining over this, or even worse, bizarre conspiracy theory that Brian Burke harboured a deep-seated vendetta against the Canucks specifically is one of my pet peeves on our forum. We are literally the only fanbase who still plays the victim over this; in addition to absolving the previous management of any responsibility over a predictable consequence which all parties were loudly, and strongly, warned about.

 

[arttk]

It's all out there if you care to search for it.

https://www.nhl.com/news/nhl-still-checking-hossa-pronger-other-contracts/c-536110

"Daly said at the time those contracts were registered an advisory letter was sent to the clubs notifying them that the League was going to investigate "the circumstances under which the contracts were negotiated to see if there is potential circumvention." There is no time limit to those investigations.

He added that deregistration is just one of several penalties that could be enacted, per Article 11 of the CBA. Other penalties, as outlined in Article 26 of the CBA, include fines against the club and/or the player, reducing the club's payroll for the following season, forfeiting draft picks, forfeiting games affected by the circumvention and suspensions of club officials, the player and his certified agent. "

I think you are still struggling with the concept of ratification in regards to a Collective Bargaining Agreement. They ratified them, or 'approved them', because they were legally bound to do so. Almost as soon as they were signed the league was very clear they would investigate these contracts and find a way to penalize them.

It isn't so much that the league retroactively punished these contracts, it's more that they were obligated to approve them but immediately sought ways to nullify the contracts or penalize the teams involved.

It was during these investigation periods that the league and NHLPA agreed on a process for them to be grandfathered in - I'm sure the NHL would've preferred to terminate these contracts but the NHLPA suggested the 'grandfathering' solution.

Also, remember that the league was investigating these, and warning teams, before the Luongo contract was signed:

"The NHL is looking to put a damper on these 10-plus-year contracts with throwaway years tacked on at the end," a league executive said last night. "They are building a strong case against Chicago to make an example of them. This issue won't just go away. Lots of other GMs are supporting the league here."

This quote is from July of 2009. I'm not sure exactly what you require in terms of warning, but it appears a very strong warning was given.

Uhhh they are building a strong case against Chicago and making an example of them.

Did they? No they didn't. They went out and continue to approve the Hossa contract that they set out to "make an example of". Like many has said, their actions did not follow what they say. If they were that against it, they would've never approved Hossa's contract along with Luongo's contract.

 

[Jimson Hogarth*]

Uhhh they are building a strong case against Chicago and making an example of them.

Did they? No they didn't. They went out and continue to approve the Hossa contract that they set out to "make an example of". Like many has said, their actions did not follow what they say. If they were that against it, they would've never approved Hossa's contract along with Luongo's contract.

Their actions are bound by the CBA I don't know how it can be said clearer.

 

[Michael Dal Swolle]

They didn't reject them as they were legally unable to. Which seems to be consistently confused with approved as in supported, or allowed. When you are looking at bargaining agreements you don't get to chose what you can reject in the way most are interpreting that here.

There can be no, "do this or we'll reject the contract, even if it's valid; and if you do what we ask, we'll approve the contract, even if it's a circumvention." There is only "we reject it because it is prohibited by the CBA," or alternatively, "we approve it because it is allowed by the CBA."

These contracts were grandfathered in - under the terms of the 'penalty' if you chose to view it as such.

"A well placed source reports that the league has informed the Players' Assn. that the league will grandfather the recently submitted Kovalchuk 15-year, $100M contract, Luongo's [...] and Hossa's [...] deal [...] into the CBA under the following conditions:

1. That the cap hit on future [...] contracts will not count any seasons [...] with the player over 40 years of age. [...]

2. That the cap hit on future contracts longer than five years will be calculated under a formula granting additional weight to the five


years with the highest salary.

The league has given the PA [...] until Friday at 5 pm to accept these conditions. If the PA refuses [...] the league [...] will reject the Kovalchuk contract [...] [void] the Luongo contract [and] open proceedings for a formal investigation into the Hossa contract."

So the league was going to reject the Kovaluchuk deal, and conduct a formal investigation into the Hossa contract. This may have led to the Luongo contract being nullified as well.

Retroactive punishment my ass. The NHLPA agreed with these terms, grandfathered the offending contracts in and both parties then closed the loophole in the new CBA.

The Canucks as well as the other teams who did this very rightly faced appropriate and justified consequences for their behaviour.

This argument doesn't make any sense. The league absolutely had the power under the old CBA to void contracts, which it exercised in Ilya Kovalchuk's case. If the league felt the Luongo, Hossa, or any other contracts were cap circumvention then the league should have exercised that power. Why would the league be "legally bound" to register Luongo and Hossa's SPCs but able to reject Kovalchuk's as they did?

The "warning" argument doesn't even make sense if taken at face value. The time for a legitimate warning would have been BEFORE acceptance of the contract, not after. What does Gillis want to do if he wants to avoid these penalties, when it was far from clear at the time that they would even apply? Demand the league deregister the contract?

The penalties Daley makes reference to are also for actual acts of cap circumvention, which the league should have considered in choosing to register Luongo's SPC and ostensibly did not find in the case of Luongo's contract. It's bush league to accept a contract as cap compliant then apply penalties later rather than using the EXISTING structure to challenge a contract for cap compliance (which, again, they did in Kovalchuk's case) which is the thrust of the argument that these penalties are retroactive and unfair.

And having been a regular lurker of these boards at the time, the general consensus that I recall was the thrust of the same argument- that the league had already accepted Luongo, Hossa, etc's contracts as cap compliant.

 

[Diamonddog01]

This argument doesn't make any sense. The league absolutely had the power under the old CBA to void contracts, which it exercised in Ilya Kovalchuk's case. If the league felt the Luongo, Hossa, or any other contracts were cap circumvention then the league should have exercised that power. Why would the league be "legally bound" to register Luongo and Hossa's SPCs but able to reject Kovalchuk's as they did?

The "warning" argument doesn't even make sense if taken at face value. The time for a legitimate warning would have been BEFORE acceptance of the contract, not after. What does Gillis want to do if he wants to avoid these penalties, when it was far from clear at the time that they would even apply? Demand the league deregister the contract?

The penalties Daley makes reference to are also for actual acts of cap circumvention, which the league should have considered in choosing to register Luongo's SPC and ostensibly did not find in the case of Luongo's contract. It's bush league to accept a contract as cap compliant then apply penalties later rather than using the EXISTING structure to challenge a contract for cap compliance (which, again, they did in Kovalchuk's case) which is the thrust of the argument that these penalties are retroactive and unfair.

And having been a regular lurker of these boards at the time, the general consensus that I recall was the thrust of the same argument- that the league had already accepted Luongo, Hossa, etc's contracts as cap compliant.

I think you are struggling with 'approve' in the layman sense of the term vs 'approve' in a legally binding sense given the terms of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

The league did not have the choice, or power, to veto those contacts, despite wishing to do so. Which is the whole point.

I can't speak as to what Gillis should've done, but given the ample and loud warnings that there would be consequences to these the more prudent course of action would've been to steer clear of this all together.

They conducted an investigation into the Hossa contract in an attempt to find a means to invalidate it. They then investigated the Kovalchuk contract and later agreed to drop the formal investigation of all contracts by dictating to the NHLPA the "penalties" that have caused so much whining.

 

[Michael Dal Swolle]

I think you are struggling with 'approve' in the layman sense of the term vs 'approve' in a legally binding sense given the terms of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

The league did not have the choice, or power, to veto those contacts, despite wishing to do so. Which is the whole point.

I can't speak as to what Gillis should've done, but given the ample and loud warnings that there would be consequences to these the more prudent course of action would've been to steer clear of this all together.

They conducted an investigation into the Hossa contract in an attempt to find a means to invalidate it. They then investigated the Kovalchuk contract and later agreed to drop the formal investigation of all contracts by dictating to the NHLPA the "penalties" that have caused so much whining.

The only thing I'm struggling to understand is your use of the term "approve", which, by the way, isn't a term I used in my post at all.

The league appears to have had, and currently have, the power to "veto" SPCs by rejecting and declining to register them. They did so with the Kovalchuk contract: http://espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=5450174

The PA filed a a grievance regarding this decision which was denied at arbitration: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4...mZjA3OGE4/view?ddrp=1&authkey=CNaVz6EG&hl=en#

So, yes, when you say the league did not have the power to "approve" contracts, I don't know what you mean, because there appears to clearly be the power to do so per Article 11.6 of the 2005 CBA (11.6 Rejection of SPCs and/or Offer Sheets; Subsequent Challenge and/or De-Registration of SPCs and/or Offer Sheets). It's not an approval process per se but it is a discretion to deny SPCs, which is functionally the same thing.

As for your point about the warning, again, if you receive the warning only AFTER you've already taken the action you aren't supposed to do, it's useless. Really, it isn't a warning at all.

 

[Canucker]

The only thing I'm struggling to understand is your use of the term "approve", which, by the way, isn't a term I used in my post at all.

The league appears to have had, and currently have, the power to "veto" SPCs by rejecting and declining to register them. They did so with the Kovalchuk contract: http://espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=5450174

The PA filed a a grievance regarding this decision which was denied at arbitration: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4...mZjA3OGE4/view?ddrp=1&authkey=CNaVz6EG&hl=en#

So, yes, when you say the league did not have the power to "approve" contracts, I don't know what you mean, because there appears to clearly be the power to do so per Article 11.6 of the 2005 CBA (11.6 Rejection of SPCs and/or Offer Sheets; Subsequent Challenge and/or De-Registration of SPCs and/or Offer Sheets). It's not an approval process per se but it is a discretion to deny SPCs, which is functionally the same thing.

As for your point about the warning, again, if you receive the warning only AFTER you've already taken the action you aren't supposed to do, it's useless. Really, it isn't a warning at all.

Well said. This post wins.

 

[Diamonddog01]

The only thing I'm struggling to understand is your use of the term "approve", which, by the way, isn't a term I used in my post at all.

The league appears to have had, and currently have, the power to "veto" SPCs by rejecting and declining to register them. They did so with the Kovalchuk contract: http://espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=5450174

The PA filed a a grievance regarding this decision which was denied at arbitration: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4...mZjA3OGE4/view?ddrp=1&authkey=CNaVz6EG&hl=en#

So, yes, when you say the league did not have the power to "approve" contracts, I don't know what you mean, because there appears to clearly be the power to do so per Article 11.6 of the 2005 CBA (11.6 Rejection of SPCs and/or Offer Sheets; Subsequent Challenge and/or De-Registration of SPCs and/or Offer Sheets). It's not an approval process per se but it is a discretion to deny SPCs, which is functionally the same thing.

Not really. I'm glad you brought up the Kovalchuk contract as it quite clearly demonstrates the league's position and the fact that they were not able to reject this contracts previously:

"A person familiar with the review of Kovalchuk's contract who requested anonymity because he is not authorized to discuss the matter, told The Star-Ledger today the NHL "has never -- in the history of the League -- seen a 17-year deal. We've never approved (a) contract that takes (a) player to age 44. And we've never approved anything as dramatically front-loaded as this contract is."

Basically the league rejected the contract on the grounds that it took him to 44 years of age - which the previous contracts didn't. The NHLPA filed a grievance of course, and the NHL was fully aware that they would do so if any of the contracts were rejected. So they waited until they could prove in an arbitration why this one was illegal under the CBA. They wanted to reject the other contracts - hence the investigations and advisory letters for each one. If they did reject them there would've been grievances and their case was not as strong as they Kovalchuk one. So, no, they weren't really able to reject the previous contracts.

As for your point about the warning, again, if you receive the warning only AFTER you've already taken the action you aren't supposed to do, it's useless. Really, it isn't a warning at all.

When the league is investigating a contract, as they did before the Luongo contract, and stating they 'want to make an example' of Chicago that seems like a warning to me. Or you confused by the term warning as well?

 

[Michael Dal Swolle]

Not really. I'm glad you brought up the Kovalchuk contract as it quite clearly demonstrates the league's position and the fact that they were not able to reject this contracts previously:

"A person familiar with the review of Kovalchuk's contract who requested anonymity because he is not authorized to discuss the matter, told The Star-Ledger today the NHL "has never -- in the history of the League -- seen a 17-year deal. We've never approved (a) contract that takes (a) player to age 44. And we've never approved anything as dramatically front-loaded as this contract is."

Basically the league rejected the contract on the grounds that it took him to 44 years of age - which the previous contracts didn't. The NHLPA filed a grievance of course, and the NHL was fully aware that they would do so if any of the contracts were rejected. So they waited until they could prove in an arbitration why this one was illegal under the CBA. They wanted to reject the other contracts - hence the investigations and advisory letters for each one. If they did reject them there would've been grievances and their case was not as strong as they Kovalchuk one. So, no, they weren't really able to reject the previous contracts.



When the league is investigating a contract, as they did before the Luongo contract, and stating they 'want to make an example' of Chicago that seems like a warning to me. Or you confused by the term warning as well?

Your original position was that the CBA "legally bound" the league to approve contracts. That is false. Just so we're clear on that.

You are NOW saying the league didn't want to challenge the contract on the grounds of cap circumvention because they weren't sure it would be found to be such by an arbitrator. Not the same argument, and not a better one. The factors pointed to in the Kovalchuk decision could also be found in the Luongo contract. The league could have won that case, they had their chance to challenge and they chose not to. Plus, Luongo's contract takes him to age 41- how is that substantially different from 44? And if it is substantially different, doesn't it suggest that this might not be cap circumvention (which would put the league in the wrong on this whole situation)? If the league didn't like the contract, that was the time to raise it, not let the contract run for several seasons then impose severe penalties long after the fact.

You also admit the letters weren't warning at all, then. So all Gillis had to go on is chatter around the league that they weren't happy about the Chicago/Hossa contract pertaining to a different player in different circumstances? And again, after the league had already registered these contracts and allowed them to run for a season? I don't possibly see how anyone could look at those circumstances and say Gillis or any other GMs had any sort of warning.

I'd prefer you not resort to being condescending. I just happen to disagree with your perspective.

 

[Diamonddog01]

Your original position was that the CBA "legally bound" the league to approve contracts. That is false. Just so we're clear on that.

You are NOW saying the league didn't want to challenge the contract on the grounds of cap circumvention because they weren't sure it would be found to be such by an arbitrator. Not the same argument, and not a better one.

No, I am saying the exact same thing. They are not mutually exclusive and are the same argument for all intents and purposes. The legal process is not an overnight one, I'm sure they had lawyers peruse the minutiae of the CBA and inform that there was no legal basis to reject the contract. Which undoubtedly took time.

When a contract did arise that they had grounds to both reject it and win an arbitration case against it they pursed that course of action immediately.

The factors pointed to in the Kovalchuk decision could also be found in the Luongo contract. The league could have won that case, they had their chance to challenge and they chose not to. Plus, Luongo's contract takes him to age 41- how is that substantially different from 44? And if it is substantially different, doesn't it suggest that this might not be cap circumvention (which would put the league in the wrong on this whole situation)? If the league didn't like the contract, that was the time to raise it, not let the contract run for several seasons then impose severe penalties long after the fact.

Given that many players play until 41 years of age, and that no one except for Gordie Howe played until 44, they absolutely would've lost that case and they were very aware of that - which is why they chose not to reject it. 41 vs 44 is a massive difference when it comes to professional athletes so yes, it is substantially different. I mean technically they could've rejected it, and then gone to arbitration and lost but in effect their hands were tied. I'm sure the legal counsel they hired looked into this very carefully.

You also admit the letters weren't warning at all, then. So all Gillis had to go on is chatter around the league that they weren't happy about the Chicago/Hossa contract pertaining to a different player in different circumstances? And again, after the league had already registered these contracts and allowed them to run for a season? I don't possibly see how anyone could look at those circumstances and say Gillis or any other GMs had any sort of warning.

I'd prefer you not resort to being condescending. I just happen to disagree with your perspective.

What? I absolutely stated the letters were warning letters. And not just league chatter - a statement from a league executive which I've quoted several times now "The NHL is looking to put a damper on these 10-plus-year contracts with throwaway years tacked on at the end," a league executive said last night. "They are building a strong case against Chicago to make an example of them. This issue won’t just go away. Lots of other GMs are supporting the league here."

You honestly don't see a warning with this statement, which was made in July of 2009?

They are building a strong case against Chicago to make an example of them? The NHL is looking to put a damper on these types of contracts?

 

[opendoor]

Your original position was that the CBA "legally bound" the league to approve contracts. That is false. Just so we're clear on that.

You are NOW saying the league didn't want to challenge the contract on the grounds of cap circumvention because they weren't sure it would be found to be such by an arbitrator. Not the same argument, and not a better one. The factors pointed to in the Kovalchuk decision could also be found in the Luongo contract. The league could have won that case, they had their chance to challenge and they chose not to. Plus, Luongo's contract takes him to age 41- how is that substantially different from 44? And if it is substantially different, doesn't it suggest that this might not be cap circumvention (which would put the league in the wrong on this whole situation)? If the league didn't like the contract, that was the time to raise it, not let the contract run for several seasons then impose severe penalties long after the fact.

You also admit the letters weren't warning at all, then. So all Gillis had to go on is chatter around the league that they weren't happy about the Chicago/Hossa contract pertaining to a different player in different circumstances? And again, after the league had already registered these contracts and allowed them to run for a season? I don't possibly see how anyone could look at those circumstances and say Gillis or any other GMs had any sort of warning.

I'd prefer you not resort to being condescending. I just happen to disagree with your perspective.

Luongo's contract actually goes until just after his 43rd birthday. The idea that the league had no power to reject Luongo's deal but did for Kovalchuk's because it went until age 44 is an argument with no foundation.

As is the notion that any competent GM should've seen the retroactive punishment coming and avoided these deals. Virtually every one of the best run organizations took advantage of this loophole, most of them several times over.

 

[Diamonddog01]

Luongo's contract actually goes until just after his 43rd birthday. The idea that the league had no power to reject Luongo's deal but did for Kovalchuk's because it went until age 44 is an argument with no foundation.

As is the notion that any competent GM should've seen the retroactive punishment coming and avoided these deals. Virtually every one of the best run organizations took advantage of this loophole, most of them several times over.

Right, I forgot about that. The argument proposed at the time was that goaltenders age differently than skaters so Luongo may play until he is 43. So the foundation for the differences between the contracts was proposed by Gillis himself Of course the Kovalchuk contract hadn't come into existence yet.

Don't confuse the similar but non-circumvention deals signed with the group of cap circumvention deals that the league was upset about. These were

Ilya Kovalchuk, Roberto Luongo, Marc Savard, Chris Pronger and Marian Hossa.

No one saw the specific consequences, or 'retroactive punishment' coming, but it was abundantly clear that something would be done.

 

[Hit the post]

No one saw the specific consequences, or 'retroactive punishment' coming, but it was abundantly clear that something would be done.

With "certain people" in charge, you can almost forsee whatever that would come down, would inevitably hurt us. But then again, I wear a tin foil hat.

 

[Lindgren]

All season long, Patrick McNally was in and out of the line-up for the San Jose Barracuda, more out than in. I was curious as to whether he'd see post-season action. He wasn't dressed for the playoff opener yesterday. And... (the tension builds)

He's in the line-up tonight.

 

[M2Beezy]

Wiese game winner tonight for the hawks against the chokers

 

[Diamonddog01]

This is garbage and you lack a fundamental understanding of how journalism works.

When I say something like "Gillis attracted interest from other teams prior to taking the Canucks GM position" and using Dowbiggin's book as proof of that doesn't mean Dowbiggin is providing his "opinion" on things...especially when it is supported by an independent article I provided.

There is a big difference between saying something like "Gillis was a good GM" and "Gillis was hired by the Canucks." One is an opinion and another is a fact. Do you understand the difference?

If I were using Dowbiggin's book to support an argument that Gillis was a good GM, you might actually have a point. That isn't what I was doing and either you're being deliberately obtuse or lack [MOD].

Again: it is ridiculous the level of standards people put on here because they don't like Mike Gillis. I need three independently verified articles from approved sources and then maybe what I am saying isn't invalid. It is childish.

I'm not arguing that Gillis didn't attract interest from other teams prior to taking the Canucks GM position. You've been losing your mind over something I wasn't even arguing in the first place. I was more commenting on the reliability of Dowbiggin as a source in general as opposed to this one, specific and yes, independently reported, statement.

Chill dude.

 

[RandV]

Luongo's contract actually goes until just after his 43rd birthday. The idea that the league had no power to reject Luongo's deal but did for Kovalchuk's because it went until age 44 is an argument with no foundation.

As is the notion that any competent GM should've seen the retroactive punishment coming and avoided these deals. Virtually every one of the best run organizations took advantage of this loophole, most of them several times over.

Not sure how this derailed into the Luongo contract, but there's also a 4(?) year degree of separation from when it was signed and when we got screwed with bad timing when he asked for a trade.

Even if you assume when signing the deal that the league might retroactively ding you on it, that planning is for years down the road. You don't sign a contract like this expecting your player is going to ask for a trade only a few years later right before the next lockout. I've been saying this from the start, but if Luongo didn't want out it would have remained a great contract for us.

 

[me2]

Well it is the Benning era now and if Benning does not have a comprehensive plan to deal with Luongo contract repercussions well that's on him. Buck stops with, he's had 2 years to plan for it and will have more.

 

[Jimson Hogarth*]

Yup agreed it's Benning, and likely Bennings successor who have to deal with the poor cap management of the past GM.

Benning needs to include it in his plan at this point he has no choice but to face the grim reality that a very good goalie that is on his payroll won't be playing for his team.

 

[me2]

Yup agreed it's Benning, and likely Bennings successor who have to deal with the poor cap management of the past GM.

Benning needs to include it in his plan at this point he has no choice but to face the grim reality that a very good goalie that is on his payroll won't be playing for his team.

And what is his plan for the cap hit. That is his job now, I want to know how he deals with it.. He better be ready for it.

 

[F A N]

All season long, Patrick McNally was in and out of the line-up for the San Jose Barracuda, more out than in. I was curious as to whether he'd see post-season action. He wasn't dressed for the playoff opener yesterday. And... (the tension builds)

He's in the line-up tonight.

Looks like Benning was right when he said the Canucks had offensive Dman (Subban and Hutton) ahead of him. Now with Stecher signed, Benning's decision not to sign Mcnally appears to he a good judgement call.

 

[ayoshi]

Looks like Benning was right when he said the Canucks had offensive Dman (Subban and Hutton) ahead of him. Now with Stecher signed, Benning's decision not to sign Mcnally appears to he a good judgement call.

Was bound to happen one of these days

 

[me2]

Looks like Benning was right when he said the Canucks had offensive Dman (Subban and Hutton) ahead of him. Now with Stecher signed, Benning's decision not to sign Mcnally appears to he a good judgement call.

Depth is good not bad....

 

[F A N]

Depth is good not bad....

Sure but prospects need playing time. You don't want to stash Ahl prospects permanently down in the echl or sit them out. They won't develop that way. If they are offensive Dmen you want them to get Pp time. You don't just sign everyone who might have some potential. Last summer I said I am not so sure Mcnally is even ahead of guys like Sautner and there were some Benning haters who insisted I was dead wrong. Mcnally was looking like a failed prospect an given his age and development, he is unlikely to make it.