Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

NTC: No Trade Canucks


Recommended Posts


That number seems to have quite a meaning to the Vancouver Canucks this year.

After all, Pavel Bure's #10 was retired earlier this year and now Mike Gillis has to deal with ten No-Trade Clauses in his roster.

For a team that supposedly needs a roster change, it'll be quite difficult to make anything happen in the trade market with ten players who can shrug off any proposals they're included in.

That's not to say it's impossible but how does Gillis justify convincing Alex Edler that a trade to the Florida Panthers is a good career move?

Alex Burrows, do you really think he'll agree to go anywhere after making bank playing alongside the Sedins?

When signing players to contract extensions, teams agree to include No-Trade (Or No-Movement) Clauses because they reward team loyalty. It also means they're a significant asset to the organization-- a part of this team's core.

A month and a half into the season and it seems everyone but Gillis is desperate for this team to make a change.

But how does it happen?

The Sedins aren't going anywhere. Kesler will remain a Canuck. Garrison, Hamhuis, Bieksa and Edler all have full control over any possible trade destinations and considering two of them are from British Columbia and have come to call Vancouver their home, it's not a very easy sell at all.

Oh, and don't forget Roberto. He has a nice little clause as well.

So really, the only players of any value left without a clause are David Booth, Jannik Hansen, Chris Tanev or Zack Kassian.

Not taking a shot at any of those players but if you're hoping to add a significant addition to the roster, there are different reasons as to why it won't happen.

David Booth is struggling and has an extensive injury history. The Canucks wanted to use an amnesty buyout on him during the summer but Booth was protected by his injuries; teams can't buyout players on Injured Reserve. It wasn't until the buyout window closed that Booth was healthy again.

The Honey Badger is actually an important member to the team. His puck possession skills are nothing short of awesome and his utility around the depth chart is something playoff teams crave. There's really no point in getting rid of him if you're bringing back a rental player who basically does the same job.

Tanev actually might have the best value on this team but he won't fetch you a Thomas Vanek. Or a Matt Moulson. And for $1.5 million dollars, he's the best bargain for the Canucks on their blueline. Plus, John Torterella likely dreams of Tanev's shot-blocking prowess nightly so there's no need to go there yet.

As for Kassian, it seems clear you won't get a Cody Hodgson if you were to trade him. And considering how it would look for Gillis if he traded away Kassian after defending him countless times, it'd have to be a robbery of a deal to make that happen.

So at the end of the day, the Canucks are really left with very few options and a whole lot of regret. Hell, even Chris Higgins has a limited No-Trade Clause and he might have been the only player other teams are remotely interested in these days.

That's just the way it's been for Gillis during his time as General Manager. He makes a signing or a trade and at first, it looks great. But somehow, someway, it just turns out poorly. Cody Hodgson. That's all I need to say about that.

If the Canucks truly need a roster change, the best route might be through free agency. They'd have to find a way to get rid of an unnecessary contract first. So maybe trading Andrew Alberts for a bag of pucks might be in the near future. Or Dale Weise. For anything.

Even if it's a fifth round pick, it provides cap relief and a roster spot for Gillis to dip into the open market.

The team covets a well-rounded center and there are names out there. Gilbert Brule is playing the best hockey in a long time, albeit with the Portland Pirates of the AHL. Could bringing him back under a Torterella system work out for him? Maybe.

Jason Arnott was previously available until he decided to retire after little interest. If this team really, desperately needed a change, wouldn't they have at least kicked the tires on him? Too late now, Mike.

This team is tied to their core through good times and the bad. Even if they don't want to be.

Maybe their GM shouldn't be throwing out NTC's like it's a signing bonus.

But then again, this is Vancouver we're talking about. The No Trade Canucks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think some players wouldn't mind getting moved to their hometowns. Like, if we went to Burrows if we could move him to MTL, it would be our best chance to move him... wouldn't it?

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty much this.. im lookong for a point in all that text but I cant seem to find one

All I see is an amalgamation of about 378,416.2 threads of the exact same nature and little to no genuine substance.

Our players have NTC's, We need a trade Player X is expendable, Player Y would net X in return, Player Z is underachieving. Player T isn't worth their contract.

Kinda rehashing the same nonsense over and over again in an incredibly long post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 l

How are we Richards?

It is called redundancy. Regardless of how well written a post is, it still needs substance. Just writing down the names of players with NTC's and then calling the team the No Trade Canucks isn't really meaningful nor adding anything to the general discussion.

This is a matter there are about a dozen threads for in regards to NTC's as are the other matters the OP pointed out.

As someone pointed out the entire novel was blown out of the water like A Million Little Pieces with one sweet summarization. NTC's = discounts. = cap space ='s better team because of it.

A long rambling diatribe is in no way made better just because of the sentence structure and syntax if it contains no genuine point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm fine with character guys like Kesler, Burrows, Bieksa and Edler. Those are our go to guys in the playoffs. What I don't like is Hamhuis, Garrison and Higgins. They're the essence of what this team is right now. They give it their all every night but have nothing to bring in terms of consistency on the offensive side of things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Create New...