[tomdavie]

Wetcoaster, on Dec 23 2007, 02:42 AM, said:

What would ever motivate Salo, Ohlund or Mitchell) to waive the NTC???? Their contracts are locked for the duration and they took significant discounts to play in Vancouver. All three have said so publicly. In fact Salo's agent was quite exasperated with his client and said so publicly.

If a proosal is not reasonable in your opinion, then report it to a mod as the Board Rules suggest.

I am very sorry to hear this.

Then there is NO way he will waive it.

Maybe the cap will go up or we can work around it another way. Looks like Bieksa or Krajicek are on the bubble.

[The King of Kings]

tomato sauce, on Dec 19 2007, 04:11 PM, said:

Thanks for the post...since I was just gonna post Ovechkin for a 6th round pick

Hinkil, on Dec 19 2007, 04:14 PM, said:

well said, though i doubt it'll change anything.

I cannot stop laughing...

[PLOGUE]

Wetcoaster, on Dec 23 2007, 01:42 AM, said:

What would ever motivate Salo, Ohlund or Mitchell) to waive the NTC???? Their contracts are locked for the duration and they took significant discounts to play in Vancouver. All three have said so publicly. In fact Salo's agent was quite exasperated with his client and said so publicly.

If a proosal is not reasonable in your opinion, then report it to a mod as the Board Rules suggest.

What would motivate them to agree to a trade? I don't know, just off the top of my head, the coach telling one of them that their role is going to be reduced. Maybe next year Bourdon really steps up, or the Canucks pull of some kind of deal on draft day to land another defenseman. Who knows, who cares. The point that I was making is that people don't need to continuously repeat that there is a NTC there. We know that, we all know that, having you type that right after someone else did it doesn't make it any more known. Leave the post alone and it will die.

I don't know if your last point is a general thing for everyone else..or if you are responding to me personally. If you are taking my post and responding to me..I can only say..what? I was referring to all the people who post in proposals..not the person making the proposal.

[Wetcoaster]

PLOGUE, on Dec 23 2007, 02:11 AM, said:

What would motivate them to agree to a trade? I don't know, just off the top of my head, the coach telling one of them that their role is going to be reduced. Maybe next year Bourdon really steps up, or the Canucks pull of some kind of deal on draft day to land another defenseman. Who knows, who cares. The point that I was making is that people don't need to continuously repeat that there is a NTC there. We know that, we all know that, having you type that right after someone else did it doesn't make it any more known. Leave the post alone and it will die.

I don't know if your last point is a general thing for everyone else..or if you are responding to me personally. If you are taking my post and responding to me..I can only say..what? I was referring to all the people who post in proposals..not the person making the proposal.

And because of the NTC they are not going to be moved. Therefore including them in trade proposals is not reasonable nor realistic - hence contrary to the Board Rules.

Quote

Proposals that you come up with should be realistic, and well thought out. Spammy proposals lacking substance will be locked or deleted. Proposals must be realistic. Ridiculous proposals only invite trolling and attacks, and will be closed.

Obviously it bears repeating because it seems many posters just simply do not get it.

If there was a situation where one of the NTC's was unhappy then there might be room to suggest a NTC waiver and that does not exist. Absent that there is absolutely no incentive for a player to waive a NTC. He cannot be paid more, he cannot restructure his deal - he is locked in until his contract expires.

I was responding to your third point. You say let it die - I say kill it.

[CanucksRealist]

PLOGUE, on Dec 22 2007, 10:13 PM, said:

2. Not every trade proposal that involves Salo, Ohlund, Naslund, Mitchell, etc requires the above mentioned monkeys to post NTC OMG R u STUPID??? more than once. Most people know that there are players with NTC on this team. They are simply trying to find a deal that would work if the player with the NTC would waive it. These proposals also do not need everyone and their dog telling us why someone would not waive their NTC. You don't know the players personally, please don't try to tell everyone that they won't go to Florida because they like the snow in Canada..or they won't go to LA because their mom's dog need to be babysat every other Tuesday.

In response to this I will suggest a rule that would settle both our grievances.

PROPOSAL RULE #5:

A member may only propose a trade including a player with an NTC if he or she provides logic reasoning explaining why that player would waive it.

The original post presented by the OP can be condensed into simple rules like the above that can be easily interpretted and followed.

This post has been edited by CanucksRealist: 23 December 2007 - 08:57 AM

[Canucks_nhl]

finally this thread got sticky

This post has been edited by Canucks_nhl: 24 December 2007 - 04:07 PM

[canucks9314]

tomato sauce, on Dec 21 2007, 11:43 AM, said:

well, that certainly counts you out, doesn't it?

Lol nice one!!

[32JT55]

put flinch as proposal forum mod if he wants.

but for him to lock threads are to be based on those guidelines not personal preferences etc..

not doubting that flinch would do that just making a suggestion to crack down on these wierd proposals

[Flinch]

Using the report feature and explaining why the proposal doesn't work could also work.