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

Nikita Tryamkin | D


Drouin

Recommended Posts

According to Dhaliwal, Tryamkin's camp is wondering why they haven't signed yet.  Apparently the ask is just a 1 year deal between $2-3 million.  I would say for a 1 year deal the lower end should be considered.  It would be ideal for us as we can see if he can keep up with the faster league and we still have his rights at the end of it.

Other teams are signing players for smaller contracts like that.  Presumably the team wants a better idea of their cap situation and who else they can get back before committing to Tryamkin.  I don't see the big risk though, they have Stecher under club control and can wait to sign him if they somehow manage to bring Tanev back.

The NHL training camp starts in July, so there is a ticking clock out there that could result in him signing a KHL deal if he doesn't know whether an NHL contract will be offered.  Hopefully any KHL deal would have an NHL out clause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, qwijibo said:

It’s not that Gillis found a loophole that hardly anyone else did.  Teams were warned not to circumvent the cap.  Gillis has a cup contender and decided to circumvent the cap to make a run.  They knew there would be consequences. They didn’t care. 

The fact remains the NHL has to approve , and can disapprove any contract..  

It is there right, and obligation to review every contract, and has to be passed by the NHL before it is deemed Legal to everybody involved, including the NHL.

The NHL Approved RL’s contract..  

 

  This is not a process for them to approve,.    knowing that it is NOT subject to “approval”,.  and then disapprove subject to penalty.. 

That I beleive, is not legal in itself.       I think the term is “estoppel “.  ??

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SilentSam said:

The fact remains the NHL has to approve , and can disapprove any contract..  

It is there right, and obligation to review every contract, and has to be passed by the NHL before it is deemed Legal to everybody involved, including the NHL.

The NHL Approved RL’s contract..  

 

  This is not a process for them to approve,.    knowing that it is NOT subject to “approval”,.  and then disapprove subject to penalty.. 

That I beleive, is not legal in itself.       I think the term is “estoppel “.  ??

 

They had to approve it because strictly speaking it was a legal contract.  That said Gillis was fully aware that it violated the spirit of the CBA with regards to cap circumvention and knew there would be consequences (as the league earned teams not to circumvent the cap). It ducks that it went down like it did. But Gillis knew what he was doing and wanted a chance at the cup over worrying about future punishment for his actions 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, qwijibo said:

They had to approve it because strictly speaking it was a legal contract.  That said Gillis was fully aware that it violated the spirit of the CBA with regards to cap circumvention and knew there would be consequences (as the league earned teams not to circumvent the cap). It ducks that it went down like it did. But Gillis knew what he was doing and wanted a chance at the cup over worrying about future punishment for his actions 

I'd have to think retroactively chnage the rules is not exactly kosher either. The Leafs capologist, Gilman has made a similar move , beyond the spirit of the CBA and the Leafs intended to repeat this again to circumvent the Cap.

 

The thing is if Vcr had won the Cup, and they came so, so close no one in Vcr would have complained. The NHL is not an amateur organization, it's every man for himself world, plus of course as Lindros stated all teams are not equal in the NHL

  • Cheers 1
  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, qwijibo said:

They had to approve it because strictly speaking it was a legal contract.  That said Gillis was fully aware that it violated the spirit of the CBA with regards to cap circumvention and knew there would be consequences (as the league earned teams not to circumvent the cap). It ducks that it went down like it did. But Gillis knew what he was doing and wanted a chance at the cup over worrying about future punishment for his actions 

2 wrongs don’t make this right though..   and “future” punishment considerations is just a head shaking in this regard itself.

The NHL should have denied the contract on how it was broken down, and since they felt  it opened the CBA agreement asked everyone ( including the NHLPA) to come together to be pragmatic about it.

That is why theses things are written up the way they are in the CBA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Fred65 said:

I'd have to think retroactively chnage the rules is not exactly kosher either. The Leafs capologist, Gilman has made a similar move , beyond the spirit of the CBA and the Leafs intended to repeat this again to circumvent the Cap.

 

The thing is if Vcr had won the Cup, and they came so, so close no one in Vcr would have complained. The NHL is not an amateur organization, it's every man for himself world, plus of course as Lindros stated all teams are not equal in the NHL

I don’t love the retroactive punishment. But the CBA allowed for the contract when it was signed. They couldn’t follow through on the threats of consequences for teams breaking the spirit of the CBA until the new CBA was signed.  This wasn’t out of left field. Teams were warned 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Provost said:

According to Dhaliwal, Tryamkin's camp is wondering why they haven't signed yet.  Apparently the ask is just a 1 year deal between $2-3 million.  I would say for a 1 year deal the lower end should be considered.  It would be ideal for us as we can see if he can keep up with the faster league and we still have his rights at the end of it.

Other teams are signing players for smaller contracts like that.  Presumably the team wants a better idea of their cap situation and who else they can get back before committing to Tryamkin.  I don't see the big risk though, they have Stecher under club control and can wait to sign him if they somehow manage to bring Tanev back.

The NHL training camp starts in July, so there is a ticking clock out there that could result in him signing a KHL deal if he doesn't know whether an NHL contract will be offered.  Hopefully any KHL deal would have an NHL out clause.

 

Doubt he can sign a contract with an out clause - they complain enough about players leaving.  They've just forbidden 3 NHL agents to do business over there as they are upset that they are bringing players over to the NHL.  


The league is talking of a start date to next season in December and maybe even January.   That's a long time without playing.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, qwijibo said:

I don’t love the retroactive punishment. But the CBA allowed for the contract when it was signed. They couldn’t follow through on the threats of consequences for teams breaking the spirit of the CBA until the new CBA was signed.  This wasn’t out of left field. Teams were warned 

The teams were warned ??  Heck NJ did the same as Vcr

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Fred65 said:

The teams were warned ??  Heck NJ did the same as Vcr

And they have a recapture penalty on the books for Kovalchuk. The only reason it’s not bigger is that he only played a couple seasons under that contract so the cap benefit they got was limited and the penalty was spread over more than 10 years 

Edited by qwijibo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 × 3 bridge deal would be good.

Don't want to risk losing him after one year. (Actually 2 year deal if we can get a playoff this summer. One short season ) 3 million for a playoff season is more than fair.  At 3 he's better paid than Hutton by a bit.

Plus he can start training with the team right away. Unless everything is cancelled,  or JB might be figuring this season is done.

Edited by Hairy Kneel
  • Cheers 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hairy Kneel said:

3 × 3 bridge deal would be good.

Don't want to risk losing him after one year. Aa 4 year deal if we can get a playoff this summer. 3 million for a playoff season is more than fair.  At 3 he's better paid than Hutton by a bit.

Plus he can start training with the team right away. Unless everything is cancelled,  or JB might be figuring this season is done.

No deals signed dan be for this season... they are all for next season.

 

We don’t lose him after 1 year, he is still under club control as far as I know.  

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Hairy Kneel said:

Would one year put him into free agency?

If he is considered a Group 6 free agent, as some on here have suggested, he would become an unrestricted free agent after his next contract regardless of how long it is and how old he is according to the CBA  "Any Group 6 Player shall, at the expiration of his SPC, become an Unrestricted Free Agent and shall be completely free to negotiate and sign an SPC with any Club, and any Club shall be completely free to negotiate and sign an SPC with such Player, without penalty or restriction, or being subject to any Right of First Refusal, Draft Choice Compensation or any other compensation or equalization obligation of any kind." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mikkim said:

If he is considered a Group 6 free agent, as some on here have suggested, he would become an unrestricted free agent after his next contract regardless of how long it is and how old he is according to the CBA  "Any Group 6 Player shall, at the expiration of his SPC, become an Unrestricted Free Agent and shall be completely free to negotiate and sign an SPC with any Club, and any Club shall be completely free to negotiate and sign an SPC with such Player, without penalty or restriction, or being subject to any Right of First Refusal, Draft Choice Compensation or any other compensation or equalization obligation of any kind." 

If he were eligible to be a Group 6 free agent he already would be.  The age cut off for that is 25.  If he signs for 1 year he will go over the 80 game threshold and not be eligible for Group 6.

He isn't eligible for UFA status until the 2022-23 season asI understand it, so a 1 year deal keeps him under club control, a 2 year deal walks him into free agency, and anything beyond is buying UFA years.  A 1 year deal is ideal for us as it lets us see what he is without committing.
 

Group 6:

(i) Means any Player who is age 25 or older who has completed three (3) or more professional seasons, whose SPC has expired and: (i) in the case of a Player other than a goaltender, has played less than 80 NHL Games, or (ii) in the case of a goaltender, has played less than 28 NHL Games (for the purpose of this definition, a goaltender must have played a minimum of thirty (30) minutes in an NHL Game to register a game played). For the purposes of the foregoing, the term professional season shall: (A) for a Player aged 18 or 19, mean any season in which such Player plays in eleven (11) or more Professional Games (including NHL Regular Season and Playoff Games, minor league regular season and playoff games, and games played in any European professional league, while under an SPC), and (B) for a Player aged 20 or older, mean any season in which such Player plays in one or more Professional Games (including NHL Regular Season and Playoff Games, minor league regular season and playoff games, and games played in any European professional league, while under an SPC).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Provost said:

If he were eligible to be a Group 6 free agent he already would be.  The age cut off for that is 25.  If he signs for 1 year he will go over the 80 game threshold and not be eligible for Group 6.

He isn't eligible for UFA status until the 2022-23 season asI understand it, so a 1 year deal keeps him under club control, a 2 year deal walks him into free agency, and anything beyond is buying UFA years.  A 1 year deal is ideal for us as it lets us see what he is without committing.
 

Group 6:

(i) Means any Player who is age 25 or older who has completed three (3) or more professional seasons, whose SPC has expired and: (i) in the case of a Player other than a goaltender, has played less than 80 NHL Games, or (ii) in the case of a goaltender, has played less than 28 NHL Games (for the purpose of this definition, a goaltender must have played a minimum of thirty (30) minutes in an NHL Game to register a game played). For the purposes of the foregoing, the term professional season shall: (A) for a Player aged 18 or 19, mean any season in which such Player plays in eleven (11) or more Professional Games (including NHL Regular Season and Playoff Games, minor league regular season and playoff games, and games played in any European professional league, while under an SPC), and (B) for a Player aged 20 or older, mean any season in which such Player plays in one or more Professional Games (including NHL Regular Season and Playoff Games, minor league regular season and playoff games, and games played in any European professional league, while under an SPC).

1) He is 25 ( Born Aug. 30 1994 )

2) He has more than 3 professional seasons ( European pro leagues count )

3) He has only played 79 regular season games in the NHL https://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=159881

So with that I believe that right now he would be considered Group 6 meaning any contract he signs would make him a UFA when the contract expires no matter how long it is.

Edited by mikkim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, mikkim said:

1) He is 25 ( Born Aug. 30 1994 )

2) He has more than 3 professional seasons ( European pro leagues count )

3) He has only played 79 regular season games in the NHL https://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=159881

So with that I believe that right now he would be considered Group 6 meaning any contract he signs would make him a UFA when the contract expires no matter how long it is.

How would that work?  He won’t have played less than 79 games when his next contract expires.  You can’t pick and choose criteria year by year.


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Provost said:

How would that work?  He won’t have played less than 79 games when his next contract expires.  You can’t pick and choose criteria year by year.


 

It's not about where he will be when his next contract ends, it's about where he is right now, right now he would be considered group 6 based on his age, pro years played, games played in NHL

Edited by mikkim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tryamkin, Rafferty and Brisebois...possibly OJ. The new face of the Canuck "D". It looks like a log jam with the current roster and the prospects knocking at the door..

 

No matter, Try will be a difference maker...need to sign this guy.

  • Like 1
  • Cheers 1
  • Huggy Bear 1
  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, mikkim said:

It's not about where he will be when his next contract ends, it's about where he is right now, right now he would be considered group 6 based on his age, pro years played, games played in NHL

That just doesn’t make any sense.  I  not sure I know any other way to explain it.
 

Right now he isn’t a Group 6 free agent. Part of the criteria for that is based on being under an SPC which he isn’t.

 

He won’t be a Group 6 UFA after a 1 year contract since he would have gone over the 80 games threshold.

 

It is a special category to protect players from just being kept under contract and in the minors forever.  It stops teams hoarding guys and never giving them a chance.  Teams have to play them 80 games before they are 25 or lose them earlier than the normal 27 years old.

 

https://puckpedia.com/player/nikita-tryamkin

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Pete M said:

Tryamkin, Rafferty and Brisebois...possibly OJ. The new face of the Canuck "D". It looks like a log jam with the current roster and the prospects knocking at the door..

 

No matter, Try will be a difference maker...need to sign this guy.

That is a pretty awful prospect...

 

We have a logjam of 5-9 D prospects but have none that are likely to be too 4 guys.  Rathbone is actually the guy that most scouts seem to see as having the most potential as a 2nd pairing guy...  But that is 2-4 years away.  Someone could surprise and exceed reasonable expectations, but you can’t count on that.

 

If Tryamkin can be a solid 3rd pairing shut down guy with the ability to play higher up in stretches during injuries... I think that would be a huge success for us.  A steady top 4 guy would be miraculous.
 

Edler is getting older and I can see him gradually reducing to a 3rd pairing on a series of 1 year contracts.  Tanev could be gone as soon as this offseason as he would be one of the top shut down D on the market and be able to command much more than we can or should pay for him.

Edited by Provost
  • Cheers 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, mikkim said:

1) He is 25 ( Born Aug. 30 1994 )

2) He has more than 3 professional seasons ( European pro leagues count )

3) He has only played 79 regular season games in the NHL https://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=159881

So with that I believe that right now he would be considered Group 6 meaning any contract he signs would make him a UFA when the contract expires no matter how long it is.

2) European leagues only count if he was on loan there while under an NHL contract.  He only has 2 pro-years and not the 3 to qualify.  Canucks wouldn't have his rights if he did.  As soon as he plays 1 NHL game he will disqualify entirely as he will have reached 80 NHL games. 

 

Provost posted the relevant CBA article a few posts earlier -  SPC stands for Standard Player Contract (as signed with a NHL team)

 

Group 6:

(i) Means any Player who is age 25 or older who has completed three (3) or more professional seasons, whose SPC has expired and: (i) in the case of a Player other than a goaltender, has played less than 80 NHL Games, or (ii) in the case of a goaltender, has played less than 28 NHL Games (for the purpose of this definition, a goaltender must have played a minimum of thirty (30) minutes in an NHL Game to register a game played). For the purposes of the foregoing, the term professional season shall: (A) for a Player aged 18 or 19, mean any season in which such Player plays in eleven (11) or more Professional Games (including NHL Regular Season and Playoff Games, minor league regular season and playoff games, and games played in any European professional league, while under an SPC), and (B) for a Player aged 20 or older, mean any season in which such Player plays in one or more Professional Games (including NHL Regular Season and Playoff Games, minor league regular season and playoff games, and games played in any European professional league, while under an SPC).

 

Edited by mll
  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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