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

Nikita Tryamkin | D


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, mll said:

 

Players receive their base salary roughly every two weeks throughout the regular season - 1st pay-check in October and the last in April.  The calendar will be adjusted for next season.  

 

Tryamkin is RFA and to be allowed to play he has to be signed by 1 December - that deadline will adjust based on the new calendar but if he is not under contract by that new deadline he can't play for the season.  That's why he can't sign for this season.

 

For now the league is not allowing new ELCs to sign this season.  Romanov, Perunovich, Sorokin, etc are not allowed to join although guys like Boeser, Hughes, Makar, Tolvanen were in the past.  The NHLPA is fighting it as it's a CBA negotiated rule.  If that goes through and applies beyond just this season then Podkolzin would not be allowed to join once his season is over and will have to wait the start of the following season.

 

NYI is at risk of losing Sorokin because of that rule as he doesn't want to wait that long before playing.  His KHL team made it clear that they will not accept loans.  The KHL doesn't want to have players leaving the league.  They have even blacklisted several NHL agents like Millstein, Theofanous from doing business there earlier this year as they don't want them recruiting players to sign in the NHL.  

 

it dawned on me after reading your post mll, that if Tryamkin was to sign a longer contract....for example 4 yrs at 3.5, that Tryamkin could take some of that as signing bonus, which would work well for the Canucks as well. My understanding is that 50% can be in signing bonus...……...so the Canucks could sign him, with a signing bonus up to 7 million. in the first year, which then makes the last 3 years paid out at around 2 M per, with a 1M contract in the first year...…...

 

I am not real up on Signing bonus's but, something like that......it would certainly make his contract very moveable in the last 3 years, and if he did want to terminate long the line, the Canucks hit would be small

 

Also...….a question....are bonus's controlled by escrow? There is more than Tryamkin out there in this mess 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

https://eyesonisles.com/2020/06/04/islanders-ilya-sorokin-update-cska-moscow-1-year-extension/

 

I assume this is the Sorokin thing you mentioned. It doesn't sound like they will lose him, just that he may potentially be delayed a year further and it sounds like he does want to make the jump to the NHL and with NYI. They are in initial talks which seems like it's a fair thing to do to make plans for whatever happens.

 

It seems this rule right now simply applies for this season due to the circumstances. I'd be surprised if the league suddenly changes the CBA to extend beyond this season, so I highly doubt this affects Podkolzin, but we will see.

 

As for Tryamkin, as I mentioned, we could simply entice him with a signing bonus that he would get upfront if the concern is getting paid. Surely we will know the cap situation and will have decided to sign Tryamkin or not well before the December or extended date. If Tryamkin decides to throw away bigger money so he can simply play sooner than later, then that's on him. I think if Tryamkin's intention was to stay in the KHL, he would've done so a long time ago. He wants to return to the NHL, it's just a matter of making it work for both sides and that won't be at least until the cap for next year is announced so plans can be made. There's a lot of clarity still needed, but I still don't think this news is the end of Tryamkin here.

 

Which is putting NYI in a bind - limited cap space for next season and needing another goalie with Greiss being UFA.  Also shortens their window under team control and delays his development.  This could also be the new calendar for seasons going forward where there will always be some 5 months gap between the NHL start date and the KHL start date.  


Canucks cannot entice Rathbone to sign either.  He will be UFA in August 2021 per Thomas Drance.  If the Canucks can't sign him this year who knows if he will not just decide to go the free agency route next year.  

 

Why would the league change the rule in the 1st place?  They are calling those players "ringers".  Could it be because of Makar's impact last playoffs.  They are allowing junior players like Nick Robertson to suit up for the playoffs simply because he signed his contract in September.  Doesn't feel like it's a one off.

 

Can't pay a bonus before the next league year starts.  Could be in November/December.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, mll said:

 

Which is putting NYI in a bind - limited cap space for next season and needing another goalie with Greiss being UFA.  Also shortens their window under team control and delays his development.  This could also be the new calendar for seasons going forward where there will always be some 5 months gap between the NHL start date and the KHL start date.  


Canucks cannot entice Rathbone to sign either.  He will be UFA in August 2021 per Thomas Drance.  If the Canucks can't sign him this year who knows if he will not just decide to go the free agency route next year.  

 

Why would the league change the rule in the 1st place?  They are calling those players "ringers".  Could it be because of Makar's impact last playoffs.  They are allowing junior players like Nick Robertson to suit up for the playoffs simply because he signed his contract in September.  Doesn't feel like it's a one off.

 

Can't pay a bonus before the next league year starts.  Could be in November/December.  

 

So a couple of months wait for a more lucrative contract. Doesn't seem like an issue to me. However wouldn't it be whenever the free agency date would be? Bonuses can be paid out on July 1st prior, so if that date changes to say September 1st, then couldn't they have bonuses paid out as early as then even if the season isn't starting until later much like it has been in the past?

 

They would have to request this change for the new CBA, don't they? The NHLPA are fighting it, so while they could probably excuse it this season due to the circumstances (as this year would have more players available for the rest of the season compared to season's past), I can't see how they can change it beyond until at least the next CBA negotiations. What would be the purpose of a reserve list then?

 

There is uncertainty for Rathbone to sign immediately. With so much up in the air, he's deciding whether to stay in school for another year. There's a high possibility that Rathbone would start in the AHL and that league is even more up in the air than the NHL. I understand why he hasn't signed yet. He might make it to UFA, but we surely will have more clarity by next season and would try to get him locked up and if not, make a deal prior to him hitting UFA (similar to Kerfoot and Butcher). Based on his character though, I don't think he's going to jump ship that easily and with us not pressuring him and allowing him to make the best decision for him and his family will go a long way for his loyalty with us.

 

As I said for Sorokin, looks like it'll be a snag, but unlikely the end of his time with NYI. They still have Varlamov and they can sign a cheap backup for a year. It's not an ideal situation, but it's not catastrophic either.

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said:

it dawned on me after reading your post mll, that if Tryamkin was to sign a longer contract....for example 4 yrs at 3.5, that Tryamkin could take some of that as signing bonus, which would work well for the Canucks as well. My understanding is that 50% can be in signing bonus...……...so the Canucks could sign him, with a signing bonus up to 7 million. in the first year, which then makes the last 3 years paid out at around 2 M per, with a 1M contract in the first year...…...

 

I am not real up on Signing bonus's but, something like that......it would certainly make his contract very moveable in the last 3 years, and if he did want to terminate long the line, the Canucks hit would be small

 

Also...….a question....are bonus's controlled by escrow? There is more than Tryamkin out there in this mess 

Contracts have to respect certain limits and that would fall out of it.  The lowest salary can't be less than 50% of the highest year.  There's also a variability rule.

 

There are apparently CBA discussions to limit signing bonuses and have the salary remain flat throughout the contract.

 

There is escrow on bonuses.  Not sure about the payment/withholding arrangements but there is escrow.

 

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, theo5789 said:

So a couple of months wait for a more lucrative contract. Doesn't seem like an issue to me. However wouldn't it be whenever the free agency date would be? Bonuses can be paid out on July 1st prior, so if that date changes to say September 1st, then couldn't they have bonuses paid out as early as then even if the season isn't starting until later much like it has been in the past?

 

They would have to request this change for the new CBA, don't they? The NHLPA are fighting it, so while they could probably excuse it this season due to the circumstances (as this year would have more players available for the rest of the season compared to season's past), I can't see how they can change it beyond until at least the next CBA negotiations. What would be the purpose of a reserve list then?

 

There is uncertainty for Rathbone to sign immediately. With so much up in the air, he's deciding whether to stay in school for another year. There's a high possibility that Rathbone would start in the AHL and that league is even more up in the air than the NHL. I understand why he hasn't signed yet. He might make it to UFA, but we surely will have more clarity by next season and would try to get him locked up and if not, make a deal prior to him hitting UFA (similar to Kerfoot and Butcher). Based on his character though, I don't think he's going to jump ship that easily and with us not pressuring him and allowing him to make the best decision for him and his family will go a long way for his loyalty with us.

 

As I said for Sorokin, looks like it'll be a snag, but unlikely the end of his time with NYI. They still have Varlamov and they can sign a cheap backup for a year. It's not an ideal situation, but it's not catastrophic either.

 

They arbitrarily changed it.  That's why the NHLPA is fighting it.  It's putting teams at risk of losing players.  It's not insignificant.  The justification is that they are ringers but they are also allowing juniors to play provided they signed contracts earlier.  

 

Injured players are also coming back with teams significantly exceeding the cap - no cap counting as it woulnd't work otherwise.  Penguins get Guentzel back after using his LTIR cap hit to get Zucker.  Canucks would have never been able to afford Toffoli without Ferland/Marksrtom on LTIR.  Those teams kept cap space for those new ELCs - they knew they were adding them after the deadline.  Yet they can't add them for now because the league considers them ringers.

 

It's actually a pretty bad situation for NYI.  He's an important part of their window.  They are losing a year.  It's cap management too with contracts expiring, players reaching UFA.  Unlikely that they can find a backup goalie at Sorokin's ELC cost that could provide the same level of play.   There's a reason he's considered their future starter. 

 

Every player whose rights belong to the team are on the reserve list.  Horvat, Boeser etc are on the reserve list.  It's limited to 90 players.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, mll said:

 

They arbitrarily changed it.  That's why the NHLPA is fighting it.  It's putting teams at risk of losing players.  It's not insignificant.  The justification is that they are ringers but they are also allowing juniors to play provided they signed contracts earlier.  

 

Injured players are also coming back with teams significantly exceeding the cap - no cap counting as it woulnd't work otherwise.  Penguins get Guentzel back after using his LTIR cap hit to get Zucker.  Canucks would have never been able to afford Toffoli without Ferland/Marksrtom on LTIR.  Those teams kept cap space for those new ELCs - they knew they were adding them after the deadline.  Yet they can't add them for now because the league considers them ringers.

 

It's actually a pretty bad situation for NYI.  He's an important part of their window.  They are losing a year.  It's cap management too with contracts expiring, players reaching UFA.  Unlikely that they can find a backup goalie at Sorokin's ELC cost that could provide the same level of play.   There's a reason he's considered their future starter. 

 

Every player whose rights belong to the team are on the reserve list.  Horvat, Boeser etc are on the reserve list.  It's limited to 90 players.

 

Yes they've arbitrarily changed it for this season given the circumstances. I just can't see how they can change it for the foreseeable future until the new CBA is negotiated. I'm not saying it's not insignificant, but I don't think it'll extend beyond this season.

 

Sorokin is their future starter and remains so even if he comes over a year later, they still have Varlamov signed for 3 more years. Their gameplan could be delayed by a year. They just need a stopgap backup (whether this goalie is of Sorokin's calibre isn't an issue as I doubt Sorokin walks in as the starter bumping down Varlamov immediately) until he can come over. However, they are in early talks, it's not a done deal yet as things are up in the air.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, janisahockeynut said:

it dawned on me after reading your post mll, that if Tryamkin was to sign a longer contract....for example 4 yrs at 3.5, that Tryamkin could take some of that as signing bonus, which would work well for the Canucks as well. My understanding is that 50% can be in signing bonus...……...so the Canucks could sign him, with a signing bonus up to 7 million. in the first year, which then makes the last 3 years paid out at around 2 M per, with a 1M contract in the first year...…...

 

I am not real up on Signing bonus's but, something like that......it would certainly make his contract very moveable in the last 3 years, and if he did want to terminate long the line, the Canucks hit would be small

 

Also...….a question....are bonus's controlled by escrow? There is more than Tryamkin out there in this mess 

It is a mess,.  And the league is not helping the Teams by guarding an unpredictable Cap at this time..

The league (Bettman) should just come out and up it by 5 mil.   Done.
 

Daly came out last week and said that Teams could sign players now, for next season. 

.. but how the hell does that help Franchises Manage if they don’t know their limits?

 

This is worse than verbal diarrhoea,.  We’re talking about verbal constipation .:picard: 

 

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, theo5789 said:

Yes they've arbitrarily changed it for this season given the circumstances. I just can't see how they can change it for the foreseeable future until the new CBA is negotiated. I'm not saying it's not insignificant, but I don't think it'll extend beyond this season.

 

Sorokin is their future starter and remains so even if he comes over a year later, they still have Varlamov signed for 3 more years. Their gameplan could be delayed by a year. They just need a stopgap backup (whether this goalie is of Sorokin's calibre isn't an issue as I doubt Sorokin walks in as the starter bumping down Varlamov immediately) until he can come over. However, they are in early talks, it's not a done deal yet as things are up in the air.

The league's explanation was not about the pandemic but about how these guys are ringers.  Boeser, Makar, Hughes made impacts after signing.  I wouldn't be so confident that it's just for this season.

 

A few wins makes a difference in making the playoffs.  If teams don't have reliable backups they could end up overworking their starter - see Price and it increases the risk of injuries.

It's also financial.  Teams can't just lose a year.  Players get older, become UFAs.

 

Sorokin also turns 25 this summer. At 27 he can be UFA.  With the discussions about changing the season's calendar - he could be UFA after just 1 season.  Less time to evaluate him too.


With training camp date set at 10 July they need a resolution soon as these guys would also need to get their visas and fly over.  Hopefully they just honour the rule.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Junkyard Dog said:

Down year? Anderson sustained a major season ending injury and has had an injury plagued season. He had surgery back in March and the estimated recovery was 4-6 months. We might want to stay clear of that. He's also 26. Savard is also a UFA in 2021, so we'd have him for a year, and is only a year younger than Tanev at 29. 

 

Personally I think we can do a lot better and younger considering we're giving up a core piece, we need to get a core piece back

Believe me Anderson is a core piece! Anderson's shoulder plagued him all this season and they eventually shut it down and decided on surgery. This was the cause of his down year and should not be a problem once he has recovered. Yep the recovery time is 4-6 months, same as Virtanen had in 2014. I would still make this deal, even with the risk associated with Anderson. IMO Anderson brings a completely different dimension than Boeser, has played over 20 playoff games, scored 27 goals last season.

 

Savard may be 29 but he is an entirely different player to Tanev, he hasn't suffered the same number of injuries and usually completes whole seasons without missing games. We will have the cap space to resign him in 2021 once Sutter, Baer, Pearson, Edler and Benn have moved on.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Kanukfanatic said:

Tanev played all 69 games this year.  :mellow:

And yet, he got hurt in the last game, and would have missed a few weeks had the games been played. Right at the most critical time of the year (like always).

 

If we want to build a team that can compete in the playoffs, it’s a good idea to build around players who are dependable, and will be ready to go when they start. As much as I like Tanev‘s game, he has a long history that proves he is absolutely not one of those players. 

  • Hydration 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, canuckledraggin said:

Disagree. He has proven he's a giant. It's comical to think that he can't have learned anything in the KHL in 3 years. He played with Datsyuk this year ftr. If you put him on Hughes right he opens up a huge chunk of ice for quick transition. If has the possession game, he'll be unstoppable.

 

He is an inch shorter than Myers.  Haha. 
yes.  He is a very large guy and he can skate.   
sure.  He probably improved while in Russia.(a lesser league).  
He was alright the second half of his season here.   
In reality, he wasn’t half as amazing as some of the size queens here remember. 
 

1.5-2 mill.  1-2 years is more than fair.   
3.5 for 4 years?    Come on now. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, D-Money said:

And yet, he got hurt in the last game, and would have missed a few weeks had the games been played. Right at the most critical time of the year (like always).

 

If we want to build a team that can compete in the playoffs, it’s a good idea to build around players who are dependable, and will be ready to go when they start. As much as I like Tanev‘s game, he has a long history that proves he is absolutely not one of those players. 

It's not unfair.

 

That said, barring an upgrade (Pietrangelo), IMO we're best off retaining him (likely at a home town discount) and his huge leadership presence and continue (Myers) surrounding him with additional talent so that he's less relied on when healthy and we have better replacements when/if he goes down.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, drummerboy said:

He is an inch shorter than Myers.  Haha. 
yes.  He is a very large guy and he can skate.   
sure.  He probably improved while in Russia.(a lesser league).  
He was alright the second half of his season here.   
In reality, he wasn’t half as amazing as some of the size queens here remember. 
 

1.5-2 mill.  1-2 years is more than fair.   
3.5 for 4 years?    Come on now. 

You haven’t seen him play for 3 years,  don’t base your opinions like those of the beer and barbecue sport personality/ journalists of this city.

Your thinking with your “gut” DB,   only a U.S. president can do that.

 

He is a complete package.   It not only his size.   His potential has been untapped.

if you want to see his potential ,  watch this...

we do not have a defender who can break a cycle like he does, nor one who can keep a forward from standing alone in front of our net.

His point shot is always targeted to hit net or for a deflection or chaos.

He skates above average and uses that physically,  usually taking time and puck control from the opposing team

 

Lets not speculate on contract. His contract will pale in comparison to some of the bad, and expired players w3 carry.

It’s a player, we have rights to , with too many upsides to dismiss.

 

Edited by SilentSam
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, D-Money said:

And yet, he got hurt in the last game, and would have missed a few weeks had the games been played. Right at the most critical time of the year (like always).

 

If we want to build a team that can compete in the playoffs, it’s a good idea to build around players who are dependable, and will be ready to go when they start. As much as I like Tanev‘s game, he has a long history that proves he is absolutely not one of those players. 

This

 

Im fine with resigning Tanev but it cant be long term. If he does resign and Tryamkin signs then we have to trade Stecher and waive/trade Benn

 

Hughes-Tanev

Tryamkin-Myers

Edler-Rafferty

 

  • Hydration 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, mll said:

The league's explanation was not about the pandemic but about how these guys are ringers.  Boeser, Makar, Hughes made impacts after signing.  I wouldn't be so confident that it's just for this season.

 

A few wins makes a difference in making the playoffs.  If teams don't have reliable backups they could end up overworking their starter - see Price and it increases the risk of injuries.

It's also financial.  Teams can't just lose a year.  Players get older, become UFAs.

 

Sorokin also turns 25 this summer. At 27 he can be UFA.  With the discussions about changing the season's calendar - he could be UFA after just 1 season.  Less time to evaluate him too.


With training camp date set at 10 July they need a resolution soon as these guys would also need to get their visas and fly over.  Hopefully they just honour the rule.

 

Looking more into this, the solution seems simple. If the league feels they are "ringers", then allow them to sign and burn a year, but make them ineligible for the playoffs (but allow them to play in any remaining regular season games left). The PA take care of the financial gain for the players and the league takes away the advantage gained. Teams will have to decide if they want to rely on players to get them to the playoffs that they cannot use in the playoffs.

 

I understand there are risks involved in not allowing their plan come to fruition. But the point is they aren't necessarily "losing" Sorokin, but rather delaying him a year before he arrives which isn't the biggest loss. He wants to join NYI, this isn't a move to take him to UFA. If he wanted to hit UFA then this has been in the works even before this decision. If his goal was to burn a year of his ELC this year, then it makes more sense for him to wait a couple extra months and get to the NHL sooner rather than head back to the KHL and delay it even further.

 

I still don't think this is the end of Tryamkin here because of this news, there are still alternatives where in the end it still makes most financial sense for him to come here and if his desire was to return, a few extra month wait isn't going to be the end of the world. There are some NHL teams that are eliminated already and will have to wait almost 10 months to play again, will those players bolt to the KHL?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, theo5789 said:

Looking more into this, the solution seems simple. If the league feels they are "ringers", then allow them to sign and burn a year, but make them ineligible for the playoffs (but allow them to play in any remaining regular season games left). The PA take care of the financial gain for the players and the league takes away the advantage gained. Teams will have to decide if they want to rely on players to get them to the playoffs that they cannot use in the playoffs.

 

I understand there are risks involved in not allowing their plan come to fruition. But the point is they aren't necessarily "losing" Sorokin, but rather delaying him a year before he arrives which isn't the biggest loss. He wants to join NYI, this isn't a move to take him to UFA. If he wanted to hit UFA then this has been in the works even before this decision. If his goal was to burn a year of his ELC this year, then it makes more sense for him to wait a couple extra months and get to the NHL sooner rather than head back to the KHL and delay it even further.

 

I still don't think this is the end of Tryamkin here because of this news, there are still alternatives where in the end it still makes most financial sense for him to come here and if his desire was to return, a few extra month wait isn't going to be the end of the world. There are some NHL teams that are eliminated already and will have to wait almost 10 months to play again, will those players bolt to the KHL?

 

Tryamkin is not impacted by this decision.  He is RFA and can't play regardless what the league decides with players like Sorokin.  

 

Sorokin wants to play in the NHL - the only team he can sign with is NYI as he was drafted by them.  Doesn't mean he wants to be an Islander for life.  If he stays in the KHL next season he will be 26 when he comes over.  At that age he can only sign a 1 year ELC which could possibly bring him straight to UFA given the discussions of adjusting the calendar year going forward.  It's not him looking to become a UFA.  It's more expensive to sign UFAs than it is RFAs as they can also decide to part and look for a contract elsewhere.  


I find so understandable that NYI are upset.  Losing a player for a year has financial consequences but it also impacts a team's window.  

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, mll said:

 

Tryamkin is not impacted by this decision.  He is RFA and can't play regardless what the league decides with players like Sorokin.  

 

Sorokin wants to play in the NHL - the only team he can sign with is NYI as he was drafted by them.  Doesn't mean he wants to be an Islander for life.  If he stays in the KHL next season he will be 26 when he comes over.  At that age he can only sign a 1 year ELC which could possibly bring him straight to UFA given the discussions of adjusting the calendar year going forward.  It's not him looking to become a UFA.  It's more expensive to sign UFAs than it is RFAs as they can also decide to part and look for a contract elsewhere.  


I find so understandable that NYI are upset.  Losing a player for a year has financial consequences but it also impacts a team's window.  

 

 

Wasn't the original discussion that because the KHL is starting "on time" that this could be the end of Tryamkin here because he wouldn't want to wait 4 months for the NHL? Because this is what I'm referring to as to not really believe it's over and we are still in a holding pattern waiting on the NHL to have more concrete details.

 

We will see how it plays out as the NHLPA is still arguing against the ruling so perhaps this is all moot anyway. But as I said, if the NHL feels it's teams bringing in ringers, then an alternative is still to allow them to be signed to burn that year of ELC and just not have them eligible for the NHL playoffs. Seems like a reasonable compromise.

 

I understand why NYI would be mad because things cannot go according to plan. Sorokin's early talks of staying in the KHL for another year could simply be a tactic to get the NHL to change their ruling. If Sorokin really wants to get to the NHL, then what's a few more months wait? A brief time loss of income concern is very short sighted for potentially massive gains financially long term anyway (what if he gets hurt in the KHL?). So really it comes down to if Sorokin simply wants to waste away another year in the KHL if his goal is to be in the NHL already. Sorokin wasn't going to play this year barring injuries to Varlamov and Griess anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

Wasn't the original discussion that because the KHL is starting "on time" that this could be the end of Tryamkin here because he wouldn't want to wait 4 months for the NHL? Because this is what I'm referring to as to not really believe it's over and we are still in a holding pattern waiting on the NHL to have more concrete details.

 

We will see how it plays out as the NHLPA is still arguing against the ruling so perhaps this is all moot anyway. But as I said, if the NHL feels it's teams bringing in ringers, then an alternative is still to allow them to be signed to burn that year of ELC and just not have them eligible for the NHL playoffs. Seems like a reasonable compromise.

 

I understand why NYI would be mad because things cannot go according to plan. Sorokin's early talks of staying in the KHL for another year could simply be a tactic to get the NHL to change their ruling. If Sorokin really wants to get to the NHL, then what's a few more months wait? A brief time loss of income concern is very short sighted for potentially massive gains financially long term anyway (what if he gets hurt in the KHL?). So really it comes down to if Sorokin simply wants to waste away another year in the KHL if his goal is to be in the NHL already. Sorokin wasn't going to play this year barring injuries to Varlamov and Griess anyway.

Tryamkin is not impacted by that ruling.   He is RFA and not a new ELC player.  He had to be signed by 1 December to be allowed to play.   Benning doesn't want to negotiate a contract before he has a better idea of the cap.  It's more wondering how patient/confident he is that a contract will eventually get done.  He's likely not a priority or he would have already been signed so it leaves him wondering if he will even get the 2-3M he is asking for. 

 

It's NYI that are screwed by that rule not really Sorokin.  Sorokin wasn't going to play but he would have been in the fold and could start training with the team.  The KHL would likely pay him as much as his ELC - he's a top goalie there.  He's not losing money by delaying.  The issue is about NYI having him under team control for possibly only 1 year.  It affects their window, their cap as UFAs are more expensive and if he decides to leave as UFA they are left with an ageing Varlamov and possibly no future number 1. 

 

Edited by mll
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...