Ray Ferraro comments on the Current State of the Canucks

[Betamax*]

We can still keep the Sedins and be a goon team. The Anaheim Ducks had Macdonald and Selanne on the first line. If the Canucks add Ladd and maybe Ott, they remind me a lot of that team, minus the top end talent on D.

Ive always wanted to cheer for a goon team. The Canucks are the most hated team in the NHL, might as well play like it.

I don't think the Canucks should or need to be a goon team. Whether your team is "tough" or not, inevitably players are going to get cheapshotted and sometimes injured.

You want a "tough" or "stiff" team so you have the capability to provide a response back i.e. the revenge factor. Whether you like it or not, revenge, uh, is usually a good feeling to have for the spirit of the team.

 

[cc]

There is some potential for the Canucks to become somewhat of a goonish team depending on how some of their prospects/projects develop. Archibald, lain, mallet and even dane fox who by his own words "likes to fight". Even grenier isn't too shy about dropping the mitts

 

[Betamax*]

There is some potential for the Canucks to become somewhat of a goonish team depending on how some of their prospects/projects develop. Archibald, lain, mallet and even dane fox who by his own words "likes to fight". Even grenier isn't too shy about dropping the mitts

Yeah, I think it goes beyond fighting and having a presence on the ice. You know, things like the other team's player hearing footsteps when retrieving the puck because they know there's a good chance he's going to get hammered to the boards.

 

[Betamax*]

Some are thoughtful and realize it's foolish to speak in absolutes.

PJ Stock is not one of these. Examples of good analysts who were players are Kelly Hrudey, Ferraro, and Aaron Ward. I've thought Alex Auld has been pretty good in his limited appearances.

Another example of a "good analysts" is Ed Olczyk. He was on the TEAM this morning and went out of way to give his 2 cents on the Hartley / Torts confrontation.

He put the blame on Hartley (for in my words) "trolling" Coach Torts by hiding behind his players when Torts tried to get his attention on the bench. He said, if he didn't on purpose, ignore Torts, we likely wouldn't have seen Torts unleash his volcanic sized rage during the intermission.

Ed Olczyk was an ex-NHL coach as well, so he also brings that perspective in this opinion.

 

[Betamax*]

So Ferraro was on the Evening show yesterday (9:15am / 1st hour of the Rintoul show for those interested in the podcast) and gave his opinion on Horvat where based on closely watching his play at the WJHC he felt the type of impact he expects to see from him next season would be something closer to a Boone Jenner i.e. don't expect him to have the offensive impact of a McKinnon when he makes the club next season.

The other big issue he talked about was that he was not really a fan and fully supported the notion that a player has every right to tell management with words to the effect that they have every right to "take a hike" or something to that effect if they asked him to waive their NTCs and they didn't want to move.

This was of course asked within the context of whether the GM should be proactive and request a player that has negotiated NTC to waive it.

I disagree with Ferraro take on this and would be more in line with Rintoul's way of thinking that when one party isn't happy with the relationship, you have to work together to have an amicable split (if possible). I think we are headed that direction with at least one of the players on this roster with NTC.

 

[The Protein Shake*]

So Ferraro was on the Evening show yesterday (9:15am / 1st hour of the Rintoul show for those interested in the podcast) and gave his opinion on Horvat where based on closely watching his play at the WJHC he felt the type of impact he expects to see from him next season would be something closer to a Boone Jenner i.e. don't expect him to have the offensive impact of a McKinnon when he makes the club next season.

The other big issue he talked about was that he was not really a fan and fully supported the notion that a player has every right to tell management with words to the effect that they have every right to "take a hike" or something to that effect if they asked him to waive their NTCs and they didn't want to move.

This was of course asked within the context of whether the GM should be proactive and request a player that has negotiated NTC to waive it.

I disagree with Ferraro take on this and would be more in line with Rintoul's way of thinking that when one party isn't happy with the relationship, you have to work together to have an amicable split (if possible). I think we are headed that direction with at least one of the players on this roster with NTC.

Horvat's a second line shutdown centre in the juniors, against 15-19 year olds. You guys expected him to be an offensive juggernaut?

 

[Betamax*]

Horvat's a second line shutdown centre in the juniors, against 15-19 year olds. You guys expected him to be an offensive juggernaut?

No, but I expect him if healthy to be on the team next season and play a top nine role (likely 3rd liner to start the season).

 

[Reverend Mayhem]

I disagree with Ferraro take on this and would be more in line with Rintoul's way of thinking that when one party isn't happy with the relationship, you have to work together to have an amicable split (if possible). I think we are headed that direction with at least one of the players on this roster with NTC.

I agree with Ray here, on the basis that it is a full NTC. If it's a partial, then whatever.

 

[biturbo19]

So Ferraro was on the Evening show yesterday (9:15am / 1st hour of the Rintoul show for those interested in the podcast) and gave his opinion on Horvat where based on closely watching his play at the WJHC he felt the type of impact he expects to see from him next season would be something closer to a Boone Jenner i.e. don't expect him to have the offensive impact of a McKinnon when he makes the club next season.

The other big issue he talked about was that he was not really a fan and fully supported the notion that a player has every right to tell management with words to the effect that they have every right to "take a hike" or something to that effect if they asked him to waive their NTCs and they didn't want to move.

This was of course asked within the context of whether the GM should be proactive and request a player that has negotiated NTC to waive it.

I disagree with Ferraro take on this and would be more in line with Rintoul's way of thinking that when one party isn't happy with the relationship, you have to work together to have an amicable split (if possible). I think we are headed that direction with at least one of the players on this roster with NTC.

As far as Horvat goes, i'd say he's bang on with that. Anybody expecting a Nathan MacKinnon-like potential 30 goal rookie season out of Horvat is out of their mind. Heck, he may never post a 30g season in his career. He's nothing like the pure offensive player that MacKinnon is. He's a good prospect, and brings plenty of other elements to the table...but he's not a MacKinnon type prospect.

Also hits the nail on the head regarding players right not to waive their NTCs. It's incredibly inconvenient from an armchair GM perspective and the sort of perspective someone like Rintoul is coming from...but from a players perspective, those NTCs mean something, and they were included in deals for a reason. If they agree to move on amicably, that's their prerogative. But for the GM who handed these stupid NTCs out like candy to half the entire team on long-term deals, he has to respect those unless their is a mutual desire to move on.

It's not convenient, but that's the price Gillis is going to pay for his own mess he's created. If we were talking about a new GM coming in, one who didn't hand out all of these NTCs to these players, i can see them having some grounds for asking a player to consider waiving their NTC. But not when Gillis is the guy who agreed to those terms.

 

[canucksfan]

No, but I expect him if healthy to be on the team next season and play a top nine role (likely 3rd liner to start the season).

I think third line is fine. He has to earn it though. Sending him back to juniors I don't think would hurt him.

 

[Wolfhard]

So Ferraro was on the Evening show yesterday (9:15am / 1st hour of the Rintoul show for those interested in the podcast) and gave his opinion on Horvat where based on closely watching his play at the WJHC he felt the type of impact he expects to see from him next season would be something closer to a Boone Jenner i.e. don't expect him to have the offensive impact of a McKinnon when he makes the club next season.

The other big issue he talked about was that he was not really a fan and fully supported the notion that a player has every right to tell management with words to the effect that they have every right to "take a hike" or something to that effect if they asked him to waive their NTCs and they didn't want to move.

This was of course asked within the context of whether the GM should be proactive and request a player that has negotiated NTC to waive it.

I disagree with Ferraro take on this and would be more in line with Rintoul's way of thinking that when one party isn't happy with the relationship, you have to work together to have an amicable split (if possible). I think we are headed that direction with at least one of the players on this roster with NTC.

Sounds like a lot of wasted breath for Ferraro. If Horvat had McKinnon's offensive upside, he'd have gone 1st overall. I've never heard of anyone expecting that type of output from him.

As far as the NTC, that's also a given. Players have NTCs for one reason. To use them. So yes, they have the right to invoke it. I seem to remember both Iginla and Sundin doing exactly that. Sundin took a lot of heat for it too. However there's nothing to ensure fair treatment from the team after you invoke it.

 

[Ryp37]

Really? You mean Horvats not going to have a number one pick in whats looking like one of the deepest drafts type rookie season?

Thanks Ray, my expectations are now tampered with this unqiue humbling view

 

[Lonny Bohonos]

So Ferraro was on the Evening show yesterday (9:15am / 1st hour of the Rintoul show for those interested in the podcast) and gave his opinion on Horvat where based on closely watching his play at the WJHC he felt the type of impact he expects to see from him next season would be something closer to a Boone Jenner i.e. don't expect him to have the offensive impact of a McKinnon when he makes the club next season.

The other big issue he talked about was that he was not really a fan and fully supported the notion that a player has every right to tell management with words to the effect that they have every right to "take a hike" or something to that effect if they asked him to waive their NTCs and they didn't want to move.

This was of course asked within the context of whether the GM should be proactive and request a player that has negotiated NTC to waive it.

I disagree with Ferraro take on this and would be more in line with Rintoul's way of thinking that when one party isn't happy with the relationship, you have to work together to have an amicable split (if possible). I think we are headed that direction with at least one of the players on this roster with NTC.

His point regarding Horvat is based on the foolish ass idea some fans have that Horvat will take over for the Sedins, be the go to guys that keeps the nucks above water

It may be the case that it happens but based on probabilties of draft picks and based on his skill set the nucks will be fortunate if he turns into a "Kesler" 2-3 years down the road.

His point with the NTC if you listened to what he said has everything to do with the fact that the players gave up something for that control ie you have to monetize the NTC.

Why would a player gice that up?

 

[Betamax*]

Really? You mean Horvats not going to have a number one pick in whats looking like one of the deepest drafts type rookie season?

Thanks Ray, my expectations are now tampered with this unqiue humbling view

I think Ray's angle was more in line with what Lonny stated below:

His point regarding Horvat is based on the foolish ass idea some fans have that Horvat will take over for the Sedins, be the go to guys that keeps the nucks above water

It may be the case that it happens but based on probabilties of draft picks and based on his skill set the nucks will be fortunate if he turns into a "Kesler" 2-3 years down the road.

His point with the NTC if you listened to what he said has everything to do with the fact that the players gave up something for that control ie you have to monetize the NTC.

Why would a player gice that up?

Sure, but his point doesn't take into account that the landscape changes and so does a situation in the relationship between the player and organization and things don't go as planned. i.e. players give a "home town" discount so they can in theory use the money to spend it on other players to give the team a better chance to win.

Now, what if things don't go according to plan and it's like we are seeing the Titanic headed towards an iceberg?

Look when you enter a marriage ... in THEORY, you make vows among other things ... "... , for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part."

But you know that in REALITY, this is what we see:

source: http://graphs.net/divorce-rates.html

IMO, a NTC provides the player the last say and the opportunity to block a trade to certain teams, so they have a some control over the situation (i.e. they can't be shipped to the NHL equivalent of Siberia i.e. Edmonton if they don't want to go there) and that a team that was hoping to ship him there might have to take less (maybe significantly less) and move him to another team he would be okay to go to.

But I don't think it's unethical for a GM to ask a player to waive their NTC/NMC if they think it's in the organizations best interest to move said player. But the player has the right to invoke it of course if the situation isn't right for them to do so.

Tell me I'm wrong.

 

[Willting*]

So Ferraro was on the Evening show yesterday (9:15am / 1st hour of the Rintoul show for those interested in the podcast) and gave his opinion on Horvat where based on closely watching his play at the WJHC he felt the type of impact he expects to see from him next season would be something closer to a Boone Jenner i.e. don't expect him to have the offensive impact of a McKinnon when he makes the club next season.

The other big issue he talked about was that he was not really a fan and fully supported the notion that a player has every right to tell management with words to the effect that they have every right to "take a hike" or something to that effect if they asked him to waive their NTCs and they didn't want to move.

This was of course asked within the context of whether the GM should be proactive and request a player that has negotiated NTC to waive it.

I disagree with Ferraro take on this and would be more in line with Rintoul's way of thinking that when one party isn't happy with the relationship, you have to work together to have an amicable split (if possible). I think we are headed that direction with at least one of the players on this roster with NTC.

If a player has a NTC clause it imparts much of the control of his future into his own hands. The GM recognizes this when they hand out NTC's. Power is all the players.

 

[Betamax*]

If a player has a NTC clause it imparts much of the control of his future into his own hands. The GM recognizes this when they hand out NTC's. Power is all the players.

To a point. But if the organization demonstrates that they don't feel the player fits into their future plans ... and they make said player feel "unwanted" well ... how much power does the player really have?

Especially, if the team reduces the players ice time or does other "hockey moves" i.e. takes him off the PP to actively point it out.

Pro hockey players like any other human, for the most part, like to feel "wanted."

You know what I mean?

 

[StIllmatic]

Damn, I really thought Horvat would match a first overall pick's offensive production...

 

[particularsolution]

To a point. But if the organization demonstrates that they don't feel the player fits into their future plans ... and they make said player feel "unwanted" well ... how much power does the player really have?

Especially, if the team reduces the players ice time or does other "hockey moves" i.e. takes him off the PP to actively point it out.

Pro hockey players like any other human, for the most part, like to feel "wanted."

You know what I mean?

There is no way a GM in his right mind is going to alter a player's role in an effort to bully him into waiving his NTC. That is an awful way to run a business and guarantees other (valued) employees will leave at the first opportunity.

 

[PhilMick]

Horvat's a second line shutdown centre in the juniors, against 15-19 year olds. You guys expected him to be an offensive juggernaut?

What the mother**** is this?

 

[Verviticus]

But I don't think it's unethical for a GM to ask a player to waive their NTC/NMC if they think it's in the organizations best interest to move said player.

Tell me I'm wrong.

you're wrong in the case of nmcs for sure

 

[Just A Bit Outside]

Interesting little read from P(S)uck Daddy on the situation current with the Canucks and the team we are trying to emulate, Detroit:

http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nh...ontenders-trending-topics-145159104--nhl.html

 

[Wolfhard]

Interesting little read from P(S)uck Daddy on the situation current with the Canucks and the team we are trying to emulate, Detroit:

http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nh...ontenders-trending-topics-145159104--nhl.html

All I got from that was the meaningless opinion of someone who clearly knows nothing about the team other than what division we're in, and how old our players are.

 

[Betamax*]

you're wrong in the case of nmcs for sure

Why?

 

[Betamax*]

There is no way a GM in his right mind is going to alter a player's role in an effort to bully him into waiving his NTC. That is an awful way to run a business and guarantees other (valued) employees will leave at the first opportunity.

Well, the reduced role on the team which is a coach's decision might occur prior to requesting the player lift his NTC. It might be done, because ... uh, the player isn't effective on the ice and they feel that a trade would work out for both sides.

 

[BlackAces]

I think Ray's angle was more in line with what Lonny stated below:





Sure, but his point doesn't take into account that the landscape changes and so does a situation in the relationship between the player and organization and things don't go as planned. i.e. players give a "home town" discount so they can in theory use the money to spend it on other players to give the team a better chance to win.

Now, what if things don't go according to plan and it's like we are seeing the Titanic headed towards an iceberg?

Look when you enter a marriage ... in THEORY, you make vows among other things ... "... , for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part."

But you know that in REALITY, this is what we see:

source: http://graphs.net/divorce-rates.html

IMO, a NTC provides the player the last say and the opportunity to block a trade to certain teams, so they have a some control over the situation (i.e. they can't be shipped to the NHL equivalent of Siberia i.e. Edmonton if they don't want to go there) and that a team that was hoping to ship him there might have to take less (maybe significantly less) and move him to another team he would be okay to go to.

But I don't think it's unethical for a GM to ask a player to waive their NTC/NMC if they think it's in the organizations best interest to move said player. But the player has the right to invoke it of course if the situation isn't right for them to do so.

Tell me I'm wrong.

I agree in some cases. However a few of our "hometown discounts" really are hometown. I think Garrison and Hamhuis wanted a NTC because part of the reason they signed here was to be close to home in the first place.

I agree some players on this team have a NTC for the sole purpose that they don't wake up one day in Vancouver and the next in Edmonton which is why I think Edler is one who would move his NTC if it means he will still go to a playoff team.

In my opinion the Sedins, Hamhuis, Garrison and possibly Bieksa and Burrows wouldn't waive their NTCs because they have started a family here and that may trump going to a contender.