NTC: No Trade Canucks

[stawns]

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.

i think his point is that those team handed out NTC's to guys who have proven that they can get it done and have earned those NTC's by winning their city a Cup. It's pretty hard to argue against that.

[elvis15]

i think his point is that those team handed out NTC's to guys who have proven that they can get it done and have earned those NTC's by winning their city a Cup. It's pretty hard to argue against that.

Well, Rask had nothing to do with them winning a cup (other than warming the bench) and he got $7M a year and an NMC. Scuderi picked an NTC up from the Penguins although I guess he was a part of the Kings run. Paul Martin got an NMC without having been a part of a cup winning team, as did Vokoun (NTC).

Much of our team was a part of the 2011 run to get to game 7 of the final, a final we might well have won if not for injuries. Why don't they deserve NTCs as a result?

[Absent Canuck]

They all deserve NTCs but at some point, either they waive or spend the best years of their career being a bubble team or outright rebuilding.

Soon many will be begging to waive their NTC.

[Gollumpus]

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.

You left Burrows off of your list.

A thing that is often left out in discussions about NTC's is how they affect a team, in a good way. To me, a player wanting a NTC is not just a sign that the player likes the organiztion or the city, and he wants to raise his family there. I see it as the player believing that he can win a Cup there and, assuming he also takes a pay-cut to get a NTC, that this is evidence that he is willing to help the team achieve that goal even at some personal expense.

With Luongo's deal (signed in 2010 - 11) I believe he agreed to take a twelve year term because he felt he was helping the future of this franchise by rolling his deal over a longer period of time. He could have said screw it and gone for a shorter term, and probably have gotten it. Things would be significantly different even if Luongo had a ten year deal with a $6.4 million cap hit, The team's cap was tight and an extra $1 million+ added to Luongo's cap hit might have meant that Gillis doesn't sign Malhotra, or (some fans darling) Torres, who were both signed in 2010.

So, do the Canucks have as effective a third line if Gillis can't afford Torres (who had his moments that season, both good and bad). Or, if Gillis decided to sign Torres, he might not have had the cap space to sign Malhotra. 2010 would have been a lot different if the Canucks had had Kyle Wellwood at 3C.

I also suspect that those who say that Schneider should have been traded sooner would have gotten their wish. The implication of that is that he wouldn't have been around for the Canucks to have traded him to the Devils for the ninth overall pick in this past draft.

And imagine if Luongo had an even shorter term and had a cap hit of $7 million (like Rinne or Rask). An even larger number of faces who have been here in the last three years probably wouldn't have been on this team. There are ten goalies with a higher cap hit than Luongo. Only two of those guys has actually "won" a Cup for his team, that being Quick and Ward (I don't count Rask). Six of those ten guys have some form of NTC, and as it turns out, Quick is not one of them.

So what about possible affects of other players' NTC's?

Kesler also signed a new deal in 2010, with a $5 million cap hit, six years, and a NTC. Let's assume he didn't get a NTC. I could see Kesler saying yes to the $5 million, but I believe he would have gone with a shorter term deal. Maybe he still signs here starting this season, but I suspect that there is an even better chance that he tests the free agent market. Maybe Gillis deals him at the deadline, or maybe not, as Kesler would have been coming off of a 17 game season and a serious back injury. So if Kesler was let go, then Hodgson might still be, which also means that Kassian wouldn't. And for those who say that still having Hodgson would be a good thing, I wonder how he would do with the kind of line mates that Kesler has had for these past few years, and just how good would the team's defense be without Kesler? IMO Kesler and Kassian > Hodgson.

Hamhuis and Garrison are often thought as wasted NTC deals, as they "wanted" to play here. Certainly they could have signed without an NTC, but would they have still agreed to a significant HTD without an assurance that the team wasn't going to move them at some point? If they were okay being moved about, they could have signed pretty much anywhere, and for a lot more money. Looking at players with comparable cap hits, not many have been traded while they have had an active contract. Jack Johnson was moved by LA to Colombus, but otherwise it seems that about the only reason that these guys wind up with another team is because they choose to move as a UFA.

They chose to go. This speaks to elvis15's point about these types of players not growing on trees. They are a rare commodity, and if you want them on your team then you have to trade a significant asset, or in their case pay them a big chunk of change. If you can mitigate that cost with a NTC then you'd be a stupid GM if you didn't take advantage of that option.

Higgins is a very good 2nd/3rd liner. He is solid on defense and can chip in on offense. For those who raise their eyebrows at that last part, over his time here with the Canucks, Higgins has scored at a pace of around a goal every four games. This isn't too bad for a guy who has spent most of his time on the third line.

Hansen. Really? This is one of the best, if maybe not THE best 3rd line winger in the NHL. Really. And he can contribute on offense more than likely able to get anywhere from 10 - 15 goals a season.

A lot of people say that Burrows is only "good" because he plays with the Sedins. Okay, this may be true. Burrows plays very well with the Sedins, so I believe that the team should take advantage of that by keeping him around for as long as possible. Anson Carter chose to leave Vancouver and cash in on his success with the Sedins. It is also of interest that some posters note that Ehrhoff plays well with the Sedins, and they were/are very vocal about him not getting signed to the type of significant contract which he got from Buffalo, yet Burrows is begrudged a similar deal. Funny how these things get left out of the conversation.

Burrows has (like other guys on this team) sacrificed some personal financial gain in order to help the team's cap situation. If you need proof of that with Burrows, then look at his previous contract. He was coming off of a 28 goal season, and was signed to a four year, $2 million contract. He scored 35, 26, 28 and 13 (shortened season) over that deal. Teddy Purcell, who a number of folks have suggested the Canucks should try and get, had a similar contract to Burrows last season and he scored 24 goals (the first time ever that he had broken the 20 goal mark). He was rewarded with a $4.5 million contract, and yet some posters here begrudge Burrows getting a NTC in his new deal "because he hasn't earned it".

Edler and Bieksa are seen by some as not being worth their contracts, including the NTC's which are part of them. Fine. If these guys are playing so poorly then you should rest assured that they are not being paid what they would be able to get had they left town as UFA's.

So who would be here on defense if the Canucks couldn't or wouldn't agree to terms (including a NTC, because these guys hadn't earned it)? Current roster: Alberts, Bieksa, Edler, Garrison, Hamhuis, Stanton, Tanev (Weber on waivers). About the only ones of which we might be sure would be Alberts, Stanton and Tanev. Looks kind of thing to me. But I'n sure that Gillis could fill those spots up with UFA's, right? Maybe the Canucks could have picked up Wideman. He would only cost about $650,000 more per season, but then, he might cost more as he got a NMC from Calgary.

Not bad for a guy who hadn't earned anything for his new team.

regards,

G.

EDIT: corrected myself where I saw that I left Cam Ward out of my discussion on goalies.

[Gollumpus]

i think his point is that those team handed out NTC's to guys who have proven that they can get it done and have earned those NTC's by winning their city a Cup. It's pretty hard to argue against that.

I don't necessarily disagree with the point which is under discussion, but it is easy to argue against. This being said, in your opinion, if Jason Garrison's deal is to be regarded as a bad one for the Canucks, because he got a NTC without having "earned" it, is the contract for Matt Carle a bad one for TB, and is Dennis Wideman's an even worse deal for Calgary?

TB gave Carle a contract with a cap hit of $5.5 million, and a modified NTC.

Calgary has given Wideman a contract with a higher cap hit ($5.25 million) than Garrison, and he hasn't earned his NMC, which is a much bigger deal than a mere NTC.

regards,

G.