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

Nikita Tryamkin | D


Drouin

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, mll said:

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. 

 

I just looked back and the Tryamkin issue was with another poster, my apologies.

 

Like I said, I get why it's not ideal that they can't get him signed sooner than later. However IMO, I don't get why Sorokin doesn't just wait a few months and can sign for NYI for next season instead of signing with the KHL. He may get paid sooner, but he would get fast tracked to the NHL if he waits. And as beneficial as it is for NYI to have look at him now, it is also beneficial for Sorokin to prove himself at the NHL level sooner, so he can get to the bigger payout if he proves his value here. This is a matter of burning that year of ELC in which he would only be delaying further if he stays in the KHL another year. NYI would have to plan for his potential UFA budget anyway. If they are concerned about Sorokin going to UFA, he could easily do that regardless of this outcome and NYI shouldn't have been putting all their eggs in one basket (What if Sorokin decided he never wanted to come over suddenly? What if he suffers a major injury? Etc).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 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.

 

 

11 hours ago, 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?

“ Ringers “ is not a fair way to look at a player that you drafted 2 or 3 seasons before and let develop in College Hockey for all the right reasons, and patiently waited for his arrival?..

  How would it be different than having them on your farm team for 2 - 3 years and then bring them up for playoff games?

 

A ringer is an unsigned, unprotected player you hire to play.

A UFA, One unaffiliated , and not rostered or on any protection list to the NHL or farm franchise.

 

we’re talking emergency goalies,.   True Ringers. ;) 

 

 

 

i

Edited by SilentSam
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hairy Kneel said:

How can a former 3rd rounder be a "ringer"?

 

Doesn't apply to Tryamkin.  He's not signing a new ELC.   He is a RFA and cannot sign for this season regardless of what happens with these new ELC players.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/12/2020 at 1:55 AM, qwijibo said:

They need to factor in whether or not the league will be able to get the playoffs in (and avoid massive penalties from the tv networks).  That revenue (or lack there of) will impact the cap.  They’re not waiting on it to make things difficult for GM’s.  They simply can’t calculate it until they know if the return to play plan will actually work 

Do you really think they'll be penalized by the networks? It's not like they just decided to cancel the season, the pandemic did that for them. I think if the networks pushed the NHL could take them to court. Not a good situation either way but I just don't think the networks have a legal leg to stand on. Although I am not a lawyer so am possibly speaking out of my @$$.

  • Hydration 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Fan since 82 said:

Do you really think they'll be penalized by the networks? It's not like they just decided to cancel the season, the pandemic did that for them. I think if the networks pushed the NHL could take them to court. Not a good situation either way but I just don't think the networks have a legal leg to stand on. Although I am not a lawyer so am possibly speaking out of my @$$.

Yes, you are speaking out of your butt. If somebody had contracted with you to provide you with some good or service, and was unable to do so because of the pandemic, you would be fine with paying them for something you did not receive? You must be very generous. Few people are that generous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Fan since 82 said:

Do you really think they'll be penalized by the networks? It's not like they just decided to cancel the season, the pandemic did that for them. I think if the networks pushed the NHL could take them to court. Not a good situation either way but I just don't think the networks have a legal leg to stand on. Although I am not a lawyer so am possibly speaking out of my @$$.

ace ventura GIF

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/24/2020 at 6:19 PM, SilentSam said:

Then the argument should be that 6 mil is too much for Edler,  and the thought of paying Tanev 5+ m per in UFA is eye rolling..
.. and don’t get me started on Dead head Eriksson.

The truth is we are arguing over a million dollars because of the above players and the Luongo Shtick.

So Tryamkin takes the heat over a difference of a million dollars because of other mis givings.

Lets scrutinize what is truly disproportionate,

the top end and the lack of attrition,

not the bottom end and the real future.

 

.. 2m for one season would put NT into UFA.

by then he will have proved himself to be worth 4+ per..

3 mil is close to appropriate for anything around to a 2-4 year deal.

I think the beginning of next season it’s without Tanev, signing him to anything long term is going to bite.. so is anything over what he already makes.. he is over rated.

This team is long over due to be bringing its D prospects in to play.

Rafferty as a 25 year old will do fine.

Rathbone might be another sweet surprise like Hughes.

Breisboise is chomping at the bit.

 

again, I’m sure Tryamkin just wants to play, and what ever amount he signs for is probably more concerning for us than what it needs to be.

There are bigger fish to fry.

Tryamkin is the bottom of the pile, in regards to things to do list for JB. Please don't forget this player up'ed and left the Canucks high and dry because he wanted to play on a certain side of the ice, and he considered himself better then he was. We should have zero loyalty to him as he has us. Preferably we could deal his rights to get a pick. There is no room for a player who is a fair skater, is a fair outlet passer, and for his size plays as passive as he does.

  • Sedinery 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, WeneedLumme said:

Yes, you are speaking out of your butt. If somebody had contracted with you to provide you with some good or service, and was unable to do so because of the pandemic, you would be fine with paying them for something you did not receive? You must be very generous. Few people are that generous.

I don't know how the TV deals are structured do you? Do the networks pay one lump sum payment at the beginning of the season? If yes then of course the NHL would either have to pay them back or complete the season. If it's paid quarterly then perhaps the networks withhold the last payment. I personally doubt that they would have it structured to pay it all up front as that's a lot of cash and businesses like to hang onto their money as long as possible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fan since 82 said:

I don't know how the TV deals are structured do you? Do the networks pay one lump sum payment at the beginning of the season? If yes then of course the NHL would either have to pay them back or complete the season. If it's paid quarterly then perhaps the networks withhold the last payment. I personally doubt that they would have it structured to pay it all up front as that's a lot of cash and businesses like to hang onto their money as long as possible. 

Whether they have paid it up front or not is irrelevant. The fact is, I can't see the network lawyers agreeing to a contract that requires the network to pay for programming they don't receive. So if the league does not provide hockey (and of course the playoffs are the highest rated/most valuable games to broadcast) for them to broadcast, a massive amount of money does not get paid to, or will need to be repaid by, the league.

Edited by WeneedLumme
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, WeneedLumme said:

Yes, you are speaking out of your butt. If somebody had contracted with you to provide you with some good or service, and was unable to do so because of the pandemic, you would be fine with paying them for something you did not receive? You must be very generous. Few people are that generous.

@theo5789 @Fan since 82 @qwijibo

 

@WeneedLumme @Provost

Force Majeure

 
 Updated Apr 17, 2020

What Is Force Majeure? 

Force majeure refers to a clause that is included in contracts to remove liability for natural and unavoidable catastrophes that interrupt the expected course of events and prevent participants from fulfilling obligations.

 

 

...  all smart Corporations, Franchises, and Productions , especially involved in the Entertainment Industry have this Clause in all of their contracts.

Insurance Corporations actually offer this type of insurance.

 

 

 

Nobody is talking out of their “butt” on this issue. The NHL is actually sh%##iNg Bricks for not having it.

It’s a huge oversight if either party dosent carry this policy.

This should come into question by the NHLPA towards the NHL.

Edited by SilentSam
  • Hydration 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

he will still be an rfa if he signs a 1yr deal no? If so, we should go that route as he wouldn't eligible to Seattle would he as he isn't under contract. Isn't that why we signed Edler for 2 years so we wouldn't have to protect him?

 

Maybe we can get Toffoli to do the same, give him a similar deal to what he has or maybe 1yr 5m and see how he does with a full or close to full season with us then either flip him at the deadline or try to keep him to a longer deal after the Seattle expansion.


If that is a loophole then could see lots of teams try to sign players to 1yr deal to avoid having to protect them

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, captaincowbasher said:

Tryamkin is the bottom of the pile, in regards to things to do list for JB. Please don't forget this player up'ed and left the Canucks high and dry because he wanted to play on a certain side of the ice, and he considered himself better then he was. We should have zero loyalty to him as he has us. Preferably we could deal his rights to get a pick. There is no room for a player who is a fair skater, is a fair outlet passer, and for his size plays as passive as he does.

Welcome to CDC,..  you might learn something here about hockey. .   dosent seem like you watch the sport.

Seems like you know a lot about Kleenex.

im sure you’ve found that they’re good for tears, a runny nose and cleaning your glasses.

We have fun here,.  This is going to be fun. 

 

 

Edited by SilentSam
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, theo5789 said:

You mean the guy that led our team in hits in only 66 games? The guy that can skate around defenders while being 6'7 250+lbs? A fair outlet passer is better than the Pouliot grenades that we had seen in the past. Don't forget he was ragdolling guys like Benn and Getzlaf who were thorns in our side because we couldn't contain them.

 

He isn't perfect, but there's certainly room for a player like him on our roster.

Michael Richards Ok GIF  ;) 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Canuckster86 said:

he will still be an rfa if he signs a 1yr deal no? If so, we should go that route as he wouldn't eligible to Seattle would he as he isn't under contract. Isn't that why we signed Edler for 2 years so we wouldn't have to protect him?

 

Maybe we can get Toffoli to do the same, give him a similar deal to what he has or maybe 1yr 5m and see how he does with a full or close to full season with us then either flip him at the deadline or try to keep him to a longer deal after the Seattle expansion.


If that is a loophole then could see lots of teams try to sign players to 1yr deal to avoid having to protect them

He can still be picked as an RFA and then they would hold his rights. The reason why it works for UFAs is because they can simply deny signing with them during the UFA early window.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SilentSam said:

@theo5789 @Fan since 82 @qwijibo

 

@WeneedLumme @Provost

Force Majeure

 
 Updated Apr 17, 

 

...  all smart Corporations, Franchises, and Productions , especially involved in the Entertainment Industry have this Clause in all of their contracts.

Insurance Corporations actually offer this type of insurance.

 

 

 

Nobody is talking out of their “butt” on this issue. The NHL is actually sh%##iNg Bricks for not having it.

It’s a huge oversight if either party dosent carry this policy.

This should come into question by the NHLPA towards the NHL.

I fully understand what a force majeure clause is.  They aren’t specific to sports and entertainment, effectively all commercial contracts and CBAs have them as standard.  For you to even muse about the NHL “shutting bricks” because they screwed up by not having one in their contracts shows you literally have zero knowledge about this stuff.

 

The NHL has a force majeure clause in the contract to clean their office toilets... they didn’t “forget” to put one in their major broadcast deals.

 

They do have those clauses, even basic contracts do as boilerplate.  I have written hundreds of them both as collective agreements and vendor/supplier agreements.  Every single one had either a standard force majeure clause or a customized one with specific language to the contract.

 

They don’t entitle either party to not fulfil their contractual obligations but still get paid (unless that was specifically written into the contract) and no side would ever allow that. That just isn’t what they are in the slightest.  It allows you out of your contractual obligations without penalty or additional remedy, that is very different.


So, it means the league can claw back guaranteed salary from players for games not played.  It also allows players to not play those games without their contracts being terminated for non performance. It can allow the broadcast partners to hold back paying for games that didn’t happen.

 

Force Majeure does not allow one party to come out whole at the expense of the other party like has been suggested.
 

it is even really doubtful that this would even fall under a force majeure clause and there almost certainly is a more specific clause about how to deal with missed games that were outside the control of either party.  Missed games are something that can be “foreseen” due to things like weather, etc.  Specific clauses over ride general ones in contract interpretation.  
 

On top of all of that, most jurisdictions have an additional “common law” tenet for contracts called “frustration”.  Even without a force majeure clause, that would allow for issues out of either party’s control.

 

They would also have “make good” remedies outlined for missed games which specifically outline the remedies for each side.  These are rooms full of expert lawyers on each side spending months on these contracts.  They aren’t idiots and you “random layman CDC guy” have caught them out.
 

The league has made it crystal clear that they will lose their broadcast revenue for games not played.  That is part of the billion dollars they keep talking about.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Provost
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
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...