Hunter.S-Kerouac Posted November 17, 2013 Share Posted November 17, 2013 The Sedins Kesler Burr Higgins Edler Bieksa Hamhuis Garri do we really need them? I would argue that there isn't a single one of them that is over paid. So unless you are proposing we trade Bobby Luo. I don't see what the problem is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilbur Posted November 17, 2013 Share Posted November 17, 2013 I agree. People don't seem to understand that David Booth isn't suddenly worth what he was when we got him because we want him to be. Heh, which says a lot because we gave up next to nothing to get him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maniwaki Canuck Posted November 18, 2013 Share Posted November 18, 2013 You guys are being dicks. It's refreshing to see a post that's well articulated and doesn't contain grammar and/or spelling mistakes. I stop reading as soon as someone uses incorrect words like "loose" instead of "lose" or other stupid mistakes. At least I could finish this. Edit: iPhone keeps submitting before I finish.. Agreed. At least OP knows the difference between "then" and "than" and didn't cover the floor with drool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeremyCuddles Posted November 18, 2013 Share Posted November 18, 2013 Yeah, sometimes. But then I read posts like yours and it gives me comfort that I don't have to associate with the common rabble unless I choose to do so. regards, G. We are so privilaged to have you join us down here in the dumps every now and then. You spoil us with your presence. Regards, N. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted November 18, 2013 Share Posted November 18, 2013 prospects and draft choices are what most of the teams holding the fire sales want anyway so the players going back will be mostly salary dumps. but is gillis willing to give up a first round pick for a top six guy (not a rental). If the guy was still producing, and had a good contract (term/cap hit) then I believe Gillis would ship out a future 1st round pick. The big stumbling block would likely be if the other team wants some of the Canucks' current, top prospects. We are so privilaged to have you join us down here in the dumps every now and then. You spoil us with your presence. Regards, N. Oh come on. This place is no where near to being in the dumps, except when you're around. regards, G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vcrguy Posted November 18, 2013 Share Posted November 18, 2013 I think Kessel brought his stick with him to contract negotiations. That and a box full of Krispy Kremes. So would you trade Burrows and Booth for Kessel? You'll probably say no because you're in denial, but Kessel is a stud and would make make the Sedins the best 2nd line in the league. And if the Sedins are you're second line (which is where they do their best) you would have a great team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vcrguy Posted November 18, 2013 Share Posted November 18, 2013 An overblown issue that is overstated all the time on these boards. Pretty redundant actually. Without getting into the differences between NTCs and NMCs, Pittsburgh has 10 Boston has 11 Chicago has 9 Vancouver has 10 Nowhere near as big an issue as it's made. so which team is the weakest of the 4 you've mentioned? It's ok to give NTC's if you do it properly. If you give them to players who don't deserve them, or don't make a difference, you wind up on the outside of the playoffs looking in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canorcas Posted November 18, 2013 Author Share Posted November 18, 2013 so which team is the weakest of the 4 you've mentioned? It's ok to give NTC's if you do it properly. If you give them to players who don't deserve them, or don't make a difference, you wind up on the outside of the playoffs looking in. Essentially what I'm arguing. NTCs for discounts, yeah, fine. The difference between us, Chicago, Boston and Pittsburgh? All three of the other teams have won Stanley Cups in the past 4 years. All three teams have NTCs to players mostly under 26. And one of them have two guys named Crosby and Malkin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted November 18, 2013 Share Posted November 18, 2013 So would you trade Burrows and Booth for Kessel? You'll probably say no because you're in denial, but Kessel is a stud and would make make the Sedins the best 2nd line in the league. And if the Sedins are you're second line (which is where they do their best) you would have a great team. good for a laugh at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted November 18, 2013 Share Posted November 18, 2013 One of those teams is not like the others. THAT is the issue. 10 NTC on a team that hasn't won anything vs teams that have each won the cup. Not apples to apples. Having said that I'm interested to see this team when completely healthy, including Schroeder. so which team is the weakest of the 4 you've mentioned? It's ok to give NTC's if you do it properly. If you give them to players who don't deserve them, or don't make a difference, you wind up on the outside of the playoffs looking in. Ok you two, compare them to teams that haven't won the Cup then. Split hairs until you're blue in the face - the actual issue here is NTCs - if you think a team needs to win a Cup before they sign players to reasonable contracts, imo you're out to lunch. Complain about anything you like but complaining about the kinds of contracts Gillis and Gilman have signed players to is absolutely the weakest of all the many (and many of them tedious) complaints about Canucks management. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted November 18, 2013 Share Posted November 18, 2013 so which team is the weakest of the 4 you've mentioned? It's ok to give NTC's if you do it properly. If you give them to players who don't deserve them, or don't make a difference, you wind up on the outside of the playoffs looking in. - Just want to understand the process here: you are okay with giving NTC's to players who deserve them. So, of the the ten players currently on the Canucks who have NTC's, who doesn't deserve theirs, and why? Let's now also assume that some of those guys have left as a UFA or even chose not to sign here as a UFA. Who do we think wouldn't be here? And if they are still here, just how much more do you believe that they would have to be paid to get them to sign here in the first place? - One of the reasons why some people don't like having (undeserving) players with NTC's is that it makes it difficult to trade them away, right? So, if in someone's opinion a Canucks player with a NTC is playing poorly (eg. Edler), it is believed that he would still bring back an asset like a top-6 forward, if only the team could trade him away. And yet, if the same player, without an NTC is playing poorly, but probably with a higher cap hit contract, he would somehow be a more desirable asset for them to acquire. To me this doesn't make any sense. regards, G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lmm Posted November 18, 2013 Share Posted November 18, 2013 - Just want to understand the process here: you are okay with giving NTC's to players who deserve them. So, of the the ten players currently on the Canucks who have NTC's, who doesn't deserve theirs, and why? Let's now also assume that some of those guys have left as a UFA or even chose not to sign here as a UFA. Who do we think wouldn't be here? And if they are still here, just how much more do you believe that they would have to be paid to get them to sign here in the first place? - One of the reasons why some people don't like having (undeserving) players with NTC's is that it makes it difficult to trade them away, right? So, if in someone's opinion a Canucks player with a NTC is playing poorly (eg. Edler), it is believed that he would still bring back an asset like a top-6 forward, if only the team could trade him away. And yet, if the same player, without an NTC is playing poorly, but probably with a higher cap hit contract, he would somehow be a more desirable asset for them to acquire. To me this doesn't make any sense. regards, G. the only players who deserve NTC are Hank and Dan. So to answer your question Kesler Higgins Hansen Bieksa Garrison Edler Hamhius Lou the reason is simple, none of those players bring something that cannot be got from another player. The easy example is Lou / Schnieder. Same example different players, what if Corrado steps up and becomes a $5 mil player? The only roster spots available are to get rid of our 2 most cost friendly D in Tanev or Stanton. If Corrado steps up we will need to get rid of 1 of those 4 NTC guys not one of our 4 best contracts. The problem Vancouver has faced for a long time is not being able or knowing when to get rid of players while they have value. The last time we missed the playoffs Naslund, Ohlund, Salo and I think Mitchell were all on NTCs. We ended up spending picks on trash and later all 4 players left for nothing. This years team looks a lot like that team, but again we will be looking to trade more picks and prospects for more Derek Roys because we have nothing to trade. Had Ohlund been tradable in 08 we might have drafted that second line player we are looking for now or we might have had the expendable player to trade for Versteeg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted November 18, 2013 Share Posted November 18, 2013 So you're saying it's easy to replace those players. Ok then... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lmm Posted November 18, 2013 Share Posted November 18, 2013 So you're saying it's easy to replace those players. Ok then... yes that is what I am saying OK then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chalky Posted November 18, 2013 Share Posted November 18, 2013 What I don't understand is why people want to trade assets to get similar assets back in return. I agree we are handcuffed by no trade/movement clauses but the return on Tanev or Hansen is Tanev or Hansen. We should not be trading key roster pieces for rental players like Vanek when we are not contending. I'd say trade the pieces that don't really fit anywhere for draft picks....like Schroeder for a 3rd. If you break down the line-up, we only have a couple deficiencies and are one to two forwards away from a 3 line team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted November 18, 2013 Share Posted November 18, 2013 yes that is what I am saying OK then? Well, didn't expect you to confirm it. If it's so easy to get players like Kesler, then why haven't the Leafs or Jets gone out and gotten a top line center they've been lacking for so long? The same for Luongo, when teams like Edmonton, Calgary, Philly, Florida, etc are all searching for options to shore up their net? And solid top 4 D-men grow on trees? One of the best 3rd liners in the game in Hansen? Higgins-like players can just be found at the corner store too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
higgyfan Posted November 18, 2013 Share Posted November 18, 2013 so which team is the weakest of the 4 you've mentioned? It's ok to give NTC's if you do it properly. If you give them to players who don't deserve them, or don't make a difference, you wind up on the outside of the playoffs looking in. Like the other Canadian teams, Vancouver is not a 'sought after' destination for UFAs. MG has determined that if he wants a good player for a decent cap hit, he has to dangle the NTC/LNTC as an incentive. If you look at the salary cap for most of the players with these contracts, it is lower that what they could have gotten. Most of the really good UFAs choose to go to American teams; preferably cup contenders, but also in more desirable locations. This is why no Canadian teams have won the SC for more than 2 dozen years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dogbyte Posted November 18, 2013 Share Posted November 18, 2013 ? While I agree the Canucks have too many NTCs it should be noted that without the NTCs players would not sign for so cheap. Sure, they might still give a hometown discount, but having an NTC to bargain with gives Gillis a lot more leverage. Who cares though, MG doesn't do anything effective with the money he saves by handing them out. Last year he had $13 million on the bench, and we are still missing a 2nd line scoring/playmaking threat so ... yeah who cares? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boudrias Posted November 18, 2013 Share Posted November 18, 2013 If it hasn't been made obvious yet, Alex isn't much of a scorer without Henrik and Daniel. And I don't see those names on the Canadiens roster. Not sure Montreal even wants to go there. Perhaps you should discuss that with Stevie Y a little more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canorcas Posted November 18, 2013 Author Share Posted November 18, 2013 Perhaps you should discuss that with Stevie Y a little more. I have no idea what point you're making. Yzerman? What? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.