FORMER Canucks Part |||

[Vector]

Couple of former Canucks notes:

• Vesey signs a PTO with the Rangers
• Gagner signs 1y/750k with the Jets

 

[MS]

Couple of former Canucks notes:

• Vesey signs a PTO with the Rangers
• Gagner signs 1y/750k with the Jets

It boggles the mind how some of these absolutely terrible ex-Canucks keep getting chance after chance in the NHL while guys who were actual useful players here get zero interest and end up in Europe.

 

[StreetHawk]

It boggles the mind how some of these absolutely terrible ex-Canucks keep getting chance after chance in the NHL while guys who were actual useful players here get zero interest and end up in Europe.

Vesey and gagner both played a few seasons for other clubs before their canucks stint.

How many of those Canucks you are talking about started with the Canucks? Gaunce got into a small number of game with Boston after he left. There’s something about them that other clubs don’t like, both the old school GMs and the newer school GMs.

 

[wonton15]

It boggles the mind how some of these absolutely terrible ex-Canucks keep getting chance after chance in the NHL while guys who were actual useful players here get zero interest and end up in Europe.

Vesey makes no sense. Gagner I see it for the veteran presence and some PP/PK utility - although it’s likely his last contract.

 

[StreetHawk]

Vesey makes no sense. Gagner I see it for the veteran presence and some PP/PK utility - although it’s likely his last contract.

VESEY is a pto only. Gagner it’s a low enough deal that they can bury if they want to plus for him having the A club in state probably helps. And Michigan is close to his family in Ontario.

 

[F A N]

Take the loss? Lol. How about you try not being confidently wrong? I have no idea how this conversation has gone this long and you haven’t been able to grasped that there is indeed a practical difference between a player with a NTC demanding a trade and a team initiating a trade with a player with a NTC. I haven’t changed the conversation one iota. You’ve meanered around rejecting the distinction but also somehow unknowingly dithering into actually pointing out the distinction with this quote:

"Huh? Why can't the team tell the player who now wants out to expand his list or he won't be traded? Again, maybe you're the type to suck it up and stay after your employer has told you they don't want you, but not everyone is like that."

Do you understand why the question you have posed above would be less effective if the team was initiating the trade? It’s easy if you try.

This isn’t rocket science.

Explain the practical difference? Player A is unhappy and wants to be traded but has full NTC and doesn't have to go to a team he doesn't want to. Player B is unhappy because the team wants to trade him but has has a full NTC and doesn't have to go to a team he doesn't want to.

This really isn't rocket science. I have no idea how this conversation has gone this long and you haven't been able to grasp that there is no practical difference here as far as the team having the leverage to force said player to go to a team that the player doesn't want to go.

 

[SeawaterOnIce]

 

[rypper]

I'm choosing to think of Mason Raymond. Or briefly Brandon Sutter.

 

[overboard]

Nothing can top Beef Jyrki

 

[Vector]

 

[F A N]

Bailey's performance stunk last year but kind of surprised he couldn't get another two-way deal that paid him a decent amount in the AHL.

 

[David Bruce Banner]

Still no one picking up on Motte, Eriksson, Beagle or Roussel?

 

[StreetHawk]

Motte will ultimately get a deal. Think he’s deciding between taking less right off the hop with a good team or getting more money from a weaker club and then get dealt at the tdl.

 

[Jyrki21]

Gee I wonder!

 

[SeawaterOnIce]

Gee I wonder!

 

[wonton15]

Still no one picking up on Motte, Eriksson, Beagle or Roussel?

Motte probably does not want a PTO and is scraping for $

 

[StreetHawk]

Motte probably does not want a PTO and is scraping for $

A guy like motte in his position as a bottom 6 guy is probably thinking money over a ring especially with the injuries he’s suffered over his career.
I’m sure if the Rangers offered him the max that they could bury in the A without taking a dead cap charge he’d take it. Just a matter of how low he is willing to accept vs hoping for a bigger payday with a weaker club. He won’t have much to any trade protection so does he want to leave his future up to that club or does he find the best fit for him th is season and hope for better offers next year.

 

[MS]

Bailey's performance stunk last year but kind of surprised he couldn't get another two-way deal that paid him a decent amount in the AHL.

No kidding.

The NHL ship has probably sailed, but this is still a guy who has 43 goals in his last 83 AHL games. He's an elite player at that level and guys like this usually have little problem getting a good-paying 2-way deal at worst.

 

[Hodgy]

Explain the practical difference? Player A is unhappy and wants to be traded but has full NTC and doesn't have to go to a team he doesn't want to. Player B is unhappy because the team wants to trade him but has has a full NTC and doesn't have to go to a team he doesn't want to.

This really isn't rocket science. I have no idea how this conversation has gone this long and you haven't been able to grasp that there is no practical difference here as far as the team having the leverage to force said player to go to a team that the player doesn't want to go.

The problem is you are assuming that all players who have NTCs and who are asked to waive their NTCs will be unhappy and not be willing to continue to play for their teams. This is obviously incorrect. We often here of players who are approach to waive their NTCs and who decline and thereafter continue to play for their team. We can also assume that this occurs and is never made public as well.

Your whole argument that there is no practical difference assumes that once you have asked any player to waive his NTC that such player will instantly become unhappy and effectively demand to be traded in the same way a player, like Kesler, who is unhappy and initiates a trade. This is very, very obviously not the case.

So there lies the practical difference. If a team requests a player to waive his NTC, and the player declines but is happy to continue to play for his team, then the team has no real leverage (other than perhaps threaten to waive the player). This is in stark contrast to a player like Kesler who has a NTC and initiates a trade because the team in this scenario can reject the trade request unless such player is willing to expand or waive his NTC. Obviously a team doesn't want to have a disgruntled player on their team, but the disgruntled player doesn't want to be there either, so the two parties both have leverage, compared to the other situation where only the player has leverage. And in Kesler's situate, he had TWO MORE YEARS left on his contract, and very obviously he didn't want to play out his contract in Vancouver, which is why Benning had leverage to get Kesler to expand or waive his NTC.

 

[Vector]

No kidding.

The NHL ship has probably sailed, but this is still a guy who has 43 goals in his last 83 AHL games. He's an elite player at that level and guys like this usually have little problem getting a good-paying 2-way deal at worst.

Turns out it’s an AHL deal with Bakersfield and an invitation to the Oilers camp. Still far less than I expected.

 

[MS]

Turns out it’s an AHL deal with Bakersfield and an invitation to the Oilers camp. Still far less than I expected.

His agent did not do a very good job.

 

[Bubbles]

Felt it was appropriate to post this, on the day of her passing:

 

[rypper]

Felt it was appropriate to post this, on the day of her passing:

.... are you saying the Queen is a former Canuck?

 

[Bubbles]

.... are you saying the Queen is a former Canuck?

Not sure where to put the vid, the OT thread?

 

[sting101]

unfinished business