SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 Normally, I'd be congratulating Gilman on his continued excellence in negotiating extensions. However, I kinda think that the $2.5 million AAV has more to do with what Hansen was willing to accept. Given than the Canucks already set some internal salary benchmarks with the Higgins deal, it's really no coincidence that Hansen was given an equal cap hit. My gut feeling is that Hansen requested an equal deal to what Higgins was given and it was a no-brainer for the Canucks to agree. Hansen is probably being quite honest when he's quoted as saying he "got exactly what he wanted" from the Canucks on this deal. I wouldn't be surprised if he sent his agent in with a set of terms and the Canucks just agreed to everything, without any further negotiation. This deal shows that Hansen has really bought-in to the Canucks' longterm plans and wants to be here for as long as possible and to support the team's ability to improve the roster by spending more money elsewhere. He certainly left money on the table (he's easily worth over $3 million on the Canucks' internal salary structure and would command much more than that on the open market). He's a superior player to Higgins in nearly every way (countless stats and nonstatistical measures reflect this fact) and his agent would have had little trouble making a case for a higher average salary given what the Canucks had already commited to Higgins' extension. Instead, Hansen only required an identical $2.5 million AAV. This deal will most likely prove to be a bargain that is equal, or possibly superior, to Burrows' old $2 million AAV contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeburn Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 Well I think you're embellishing again - or at least reading more 'tone' into that than necessary. Oh, okay. Sure. In any event, speaking of skipping over the point, your claim that a limited NTC somehow 'ties the hands' of management is a 'misunderstanding' of limited NTCs imo - although I think you know that a limited NTC is nothing like a NMC, but are simply continuing with your bent to burn mike. An NTC is an NTC, no matter how limited. And, as I'm sure you know, any NTC has the value to the player of granting additional control over his future, which by definition equates to management having less control. Any way you slice it, rationalize it, marginalize it, or altogether obfuscate it, NTCs have the effect of reducing/limiting management's control over an asset. That's the entire point of NTCs. Just ask Hansen. ps: You really don't have to drag this out, and by so doing make an even bigger deal of the valid point that's been flagged. You could just lift your arms, agree to the facts, and resume enjoying all the good news involved in the news of Hansen's extension. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noseforthenet Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 Normally, I'd be congratulating Gilman on his continued excellence in negotiating extensions. However, I kinda think that the $2.5 million AAV has more to do with what Hansen was willing to accept. Given than the Canucks already set some internal salary benchmarks with the Higgins deal, it's really no coincidence that Hansen was given an equal cap hit. My gut feeling is that Hansen requested an equal deal to what Higgins was given and it was a no-brainer for the Canucks to agree. Hansen is probably being quite honest when he's quoted as saying he "got exactly what he wanted" from the Canucks on this deal. I wouldn't be surprised if he sent his agent in with a set of terms and the Canucks just agreed to everything, without any further negotiation. This deal shows that Hansen has really bought-in to the Canucks' longterm plans and wants to be here for as long as possible and to support the team's ability to improve the roster by spending more money elsewhere. He certainly left money on the table (he's easily worth over $3 million on the Canucks' internal salary structure and would command much more than that on the open market). He's a superior player to Higgins in nearly every way (countless stats and nonstatistical measures reflect this fact) and his agent would have had little trouble making a case for a higher average salary given what the Canucks had already commited to Higgins' extension. Instead, Hansen only required an identical $2.5 million AAV. This deal will most likely prove to be a bargain that is equal, or possibly superior, to Burrows' old $2 million AAV contract. Agreed. 100% psyched that he wants to be a canuck for a long time and that he left so much on the table. If he outscores Burrows again this year, he could easily make a case for 5 mil on the open market. I mean, Burr is getting 4.5 now. That definitely isn't out of the realm of possibility. I also like how this can put pressure on Kassian to succeed. To me, he's got 1 more year to prove he belongs in the top 6. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 Oh, okay. Sure. An NTC is an NTC, no matter how limited. And, as I'm sure you know, any NTC has the value to the player of granting additional control over his future, which by definition equates to management having less control. Any way you slice it, rationalize it, marginalize it, or altogether obfuscate it, NTCs have the effect of reducing/limiting management's control over an asset. That's the entire point of NTCs. Just ask Hansen. ps: You really don't have to drag this out, and by so doing make an even bigger deal of the valid point that's been flagged. You could just lift your arms, agree to the facts, and resume enjoying all the good news involved in the news of Hansen's extension. Am enjoying the good new, for sure - and additionally assisting those who may take this kind of silly alarmism seriously that the 'hypotheticals' being peddled here are unduly dramatized and closer to fiction than 'fact'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeburn Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 Am enjoying the good new, for sure - and additionally assisting those who may take this kind of silly alarmism seriously that the 'hypotheticals' being peddled here are unduly dramatized and closer to fiction than 'fact'. Any way you slice it, rationalize it, marginalize it, or altogether obfuscate it, NTCs have the effect of reducing/limiting management's control over an asset. That's the entire point of NTCs. Just ask Hansen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 I wonder if Jannik likes pie? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipBlunt Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 I wonder if Jannik likes pie? He has twins.......so I'd assume so. For the record, I love pie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 ^me too. Speaking of NTCs, I can think of a case where I think it's just a dumb idea; overly gratuitous. That would be tacking one on top of an insane 8 yr, 64 million deal for one of the most over-rated, one dimensional players in the NHL... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thirteen Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 This has Burrows potential of a deal if he continues to be a offensive threat along with keeping up with his defensive play. I think he can score over 20 and if he does this deal is well worth it. Either way its still legit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyhee Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 I just hope that limited no-trade clause is pretty limited. Won't it be fun when they want to rebuild in a couple of years and none of our good players can be traded? With all the suggestions of trading Higgins, I tried searching for whether there was anything on his modified ntc but didn't find it. There was a lot of discussion on no trade clauses when Hansen was extended, including the comment above, but nowhere have I seen what the actual restrictions are. The only modified ntc that I remember seeing any report about what the terms were was Miller's (list 5 teams to accept.) Does anyone have a link to a report that says what the Hansen and Higgins modified no trade clauses provide, or does anyone remember that? Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VanGnome Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Jeeze, board necro much? I thought the Canucks re-re upped Hansen... until I looked at the creation date. I don't think those particular details were ever discussed. Typically speaking (if I remember correctly), a limited NTC is such that the player can submit a list of teams they will not waive to, typically it's a 5 team list. That would mean that all of the remaining 24 teams in the league would be in play. My guess as to the teams Hansen wouldn't waive to might include: New Jersey, Buffalo, Edmonton, Phoenix, Carolina -- though he does seem kind of like a Phoenix type player. A favorable trade could probably be made with Winnipeg. He fits their mold; ie inexpensive, some skill, can move up and down the line up and his wife is from there. Winnipeg could probably part with a prospect and a 3rd round pick for Hansen.. hell I would trade Hansen for Nic Petan straight up. He's a bit small but damn is he a gamer, and he's local... from Delta. I would even add a bit to get Petan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bure fan Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 With all the suggestions of trading Higgins, I tried searching for whether there was anything on his modified ntc but didn't find it. There was a lot of discussion on no trade clauses when Hansen was extended, including the comment above, but nowhere have I seen what the actual restrictions are. The only modified ntc that I remember seeing any report about what the terms were was Miller's (list 5 teams to accept.) Does anyone have a link to a report that says what the Hansen and Higgins modified no trade clauses provide, or does anyone remember that? Thanks. You serious? You bump this, to ask that? Boooooo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkpoet Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lock Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 With all the suggestions of trading Higgins, I tried searching for whether there was anything on his modified ntc but didn't find it. There was a lot of discussion on no trade clauses when Hansen was extended, including the comment above, but nowhere have I seen what the actual restrictions are. The only modified ntc that I remember seeing any report about what the terms were was Miller's (list 5 teams to accept.) Does anyone have a link to a report that says what the Hansen and Higgins modified no trade clauses provide, or does anyone remember that? Thanks. If you're going to ask just this, why necro a post from OVER A YEAR AGO?! lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyhee Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 If you're going to ask just this, why necro a post from OVER A YEAR AGO?! lol I struggled with that. The choices seemed to be to hijack the conversation away from the point on an existing thread, to open a new thread for a very short conversation when the subject might be elsewhere or find an old thread where at least their modified clauses had been discussed. I wasn't sure which to pick. I don't think those particular details were ever discussed. Typically speaking (if I remember correctly), a limited NTC is such that the player can submit a list of teams they will not waive to, typically it's a 5 team list. That would mean that all of the remaining 24 teams in the league would be in play. Do you have any source for that? Miller's was reported to be just the opposite-5 teams he WOULD waive for, and I don't ever remember seeing a report similar to the situation you describe. That doesn't mean there aren't some-I've just never seen a report about any of that nature and haven't managed to find what the nature of the Higgins and Hansen clauses are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lfergs Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 You serious? You bump this, to ask that? Boooooo If he created a new thread, you'd give him $&!# for that too. Good for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronalds.Kenins41 Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 If he created a new thread, you'd give him crap for that too. Good for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dasein Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 Damn it Troll bump Thought JB extended 36 again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter.S-Kerouac Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 Where should he have asked it??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdatb Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 Damn it Troll bump Thought JB extended 36 again Me to Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.