Bruce Granville
Registered User
- Oct 11, 2014
- 5,062
- 3,555
The only thing out is that he doesn't want to play for Columbus. The thing about going to big city so his girlfriend can be a model is false per his agent.Panarin and common sense.
I don't think this is likely, but if Zucker did insist on using the threat of a 1-year contract in arbitration as leverage to get $6m+ maybe Zucker for Panarin makes sense?I've said this before, but I would offer Nino. He's under contract, scores goal, and is a LW. Then I would spend all year trying to sell Panarin on Minnesota. Still a chance he walks away, but maybe the team goes someplace in the spring.
That could work too if Zucker tells Columbus he would sign long-term with them. It gets tricky if, as Russo said on a recent podcast, Zucker is thinking either (1) I'll sign for reasonable $ if I get term from Minnesota because my wife wants to stay here or (2) I'm going to max $ with Vegas at free agency because that is killing 2 birds with 1 stone for me.I don't think this is likely, but if Zucker did insist on using the threat of a 1-year contract in arbitration as leverage to get $6m+ maybe Zucker for Panarin makes sense?
Zucker wouldn't necessarily have to clear anything with Columbus first. If we knew that he wanted (say) $6.5m x 7 years and Columbus was okay with that contract, it seems like a sign-and-trade would be the easiest option. I'm sure it's higher than they'd like, but under the circumstances a 30 goal LW on a long-term deal is far from the worst thing that could happen to them.That could work too if Zucker tells Columbus he would sign long-term with them. It gets tricky if, as Russo said on a recent podcast, Zucker is thinking either (1) I'll sign for reasonable $ if I get term from Minnesota because my wife wants to stay here or (2) I'm going to max $ with Vegas at free agency because that is killing 2 birds with 1 stone for me.
I'm pretty sure there's only a 1-year option, but I could be wrong.Say if Zucker and Wild don't get an agreement the Arb. presents a 1year or 2year options for us to choose correct?
It depends on who elected to go to arbitration. If the player elected, they select the term. If the team elected, they select the term. Can be 1 or 2 years.I'm pretty sure there's only a 1-year option, but I could be wrong.
Gotcha. So since Zucker made the election we can probably assume it'll be 1-year.It depends on who elected to go to arbitration. If the player elected, they select the term. If the team elected, they select the term. Can be 1 or 2 years.
He'll be 27 and a UFA next year no matter what so I think we can probably assume the Wild should absolutely not take the arbitration outcome.Gotcha. So since Zucker made the election we can probably assume it'll be 1-year.
They shouldn't, but in the off chance that Zucker is really hell-bent on going to UFA next year there's not a lot the Wild can do to stop him. The most Fenton could do is try to trade him before the hearing, but the team acquiring him would have to know they'd be in the same situation.He'll be 27 and a UFA next year no matter what so I think we can probably assume the Wild should absolutely not take the arbitration outcome.
It depends on who elected to go to arbitration. If the player elected, they select the term. If the team elected, they select the term. Can be 1 or 2 years.
I'm pretty sure there's only a 1-year option, but I could be wrong.
Sorry, hadn't had my coffee yet. Yes - what you described is correct. It's what I meant to say.You have it backwards. Club elects Arbitration, Player selects term. Player selects Arbitration, Club selects term. Unless the player is within 1 year of UFA, than it's automatically a 1 year term.
You're correct, it's only the 1 year option because Zucker is eligible for Group 3 free agency (UFA) next July.
Nailed it...why the rangers ? They’re worse than the wild by far...Dumba is going to the Rangers and Zucker is going home. Why would they sign on a losing team?
Russo reporting that the Wild are offering somewhere between $5.25M and $5.75M and Zucker is asking for over $6M. I would rather trade him than give him anywhere near $6M a year long term. Really bad feeling about this one.
If it does require $6m+ he should still be tradeable, but they'll have to act quickly. No doubt he'll want no-trade protection as well, but as far as I know the earliest they can start is next summer.Russo reporting that the Wild are offering somewhere between $5.25M and $5.75M and Zucker is asking for over $6M. I would rather trade him than give him anywhere near $6M a year long term. Really bad feeling about this one.
I don't even like the fact that they're discussing the numbers that they are. Fenton had to know all of this before the draft, and if so, Zucker should've been gone a while ago.If it does require $6m+ he should still be tradeable, but they'll have to act quickly. No doubt he'll want no-trade protection as well, but as far as I know the earliest they can start is next summer.
I don't even like the fact that they're discussing the numbers that they are. Fenton had to know all of this before the draft, and if so, Zucker should've been gone a while ago.