Salmonberries Posted May 15, 2015 Share Posted May 15, 2015 He's earned the right to finish it out here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tas Posted May 15, 2015 Share Posted May 15, 2015 He's earned the right to finish it out here. nobody ever earns the right to hinder the team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VanGnome Posted May 15, 2015 Share Posted May 15, 2015 Green is good offensively but thats it, he's undisciplined and sloppy in his own end. His career +58 has more to do with being on a high scoring team as opposed to solid defensive play. He'd also come in at around $6mil+ which is too much for us to spend right now. As for your comment on Bieksa wants to stay, that's just it he wants to stay he's gone out of his way to state it numerous times. He has a ntc if a player with a ntc wants to stay and finish his contract he can and will like Sundin in Toronto. Benning holds no allegiance to Bieksa. Bieksa is also quoted as saying (the source came from a TV interview) "I'm going down with the ship. I'm here as long as I have a contract or they don't want me here" It's a rough paraphrase, but it's close enough. Bieksa isn't dumb. He knows that if he's not wanted on the team by management, there are other teams in the league who would want him. He might want to stay, but he won't die on the hill if it means playing bottom pairing minutes or waived and buried in the minors (I realize only 900k is freed up in that situation). Bottom line is, there are other things beside trading that Benning can do to make things miserable if Bieksa should not want to play ball. I hope it doesn't get that far, but all a NTC does, is provide a player some assurance in a situation that should they be moved, they are moved to a team that's favorable to them and not at the whim of the team (ie best return regardless of the team being dealt to). Every player has a shelf life, just as any coach, GM, President, etc etc. Hell I love Vancouver, it's where I'm from. I didn't want to go to Manitoba for 4 years, but I did because it's what was necessary at the time. By that token, Bieksa has put down roots here, raised a family and I respect that he wants to stay for reasons other than hockey, but at the end of the day it's a business and the players are unfortunately commodities. Obviously organizations try to account for the human aspect in any situation as much as possible, but sometimes the impact and health of the team is of paramount importance, over and above the compassionate thing to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spotted Zebra Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 He's earned the right to finish it out here. Neither him nor Burrows have Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted May 17, 2015 Share Posted May 17, 2015 nobody ever earns the right to hinder the team. Neither him nor Burrows have I disagree with both of you. Both of those guys negotiated their contracts in good faith and both took less money to ensure that they would have control over their playing situation for the duration of their contracts. The fact that they took less money, gave the Canucks' management more flexibility within the Cap to sign other players. It works both ways. The players take one for the team and sometimes, the team takes one for the player. Both of these guys have years of stellar service to this organization and absolutely have earned the right to play out their contracts if they choose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WHL rocks Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 I can't see JB asking Bieksa to waive. I'd be disappointing if he did. KB is a Canuck thru and thru. Every one knows the heart and leadership he bring to the organisation. Hamhuis will get a better return and I can see him being asked to waive. To me Tanev and Hamhuis have the same game. Only need one of those 2 and since Tanev is younger you keep him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shazzam Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 I can't see JB asking Bieksa to waive. I'd be disappointing if he did. KB is a Canuck thru and thru. Every one knows the heart and leadership he bring to the organisation. Hamhuis will get a better return and I can see him being asked to waive. To me Tanev and Hamhuis have the same game. Only need one of those 2 and since Tanev is younger you keep him. Yeah they can bring a good defensive game. What does Bieksa bring again? Don't tell me leadership because it doesn't mean anything when you can't play on the ice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
48MPHSlapShot Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 I disagree with both of you. Both of those guys negotiated their contracts in good faith and both took less money to ensure that they would have control over their playing situation for the duration of their contracts. The fact that they took less money, gave the Canucks' management more flexibility within the Cap to sign other players. It works both ways. The players take one for the team and sometimes, the team takes one for the player. Both of these guys have years of stellar service to this organization and absolutely have earned the right to play out their contracts if they choose. The thing is, those contracts were given out by a management regime that is not longer in power. Benning has no allegiance to either of those players, or the contracts that they negotiated in "good faith". Whether or not they "took one for the team" is irrelevant. Their contracts are hindering the team moving forward and need to be moved. It's that simple. Long and short of it is that it's a business, and Bieksa and Burrows are no longer best for business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WHL rocks Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 Yeah they can bring a good defensive game. What does Bieksa bring again? Don't tell me leadership because it doesn't mean anything when you can't play on the ice This is a rebuilding team. It's going to have youth on it. Bieksa may no longer play as a top 4 Dman over the next cpl years but what he does bring is very important for development of younger players. And if you know he's no longer a top four Dman on the ice I'm pretty any GM who trades for Bieksa will also know this, that's IF KB waives his NTC to begin with. The return for KB will not be what he's worth to this team. When Burke traded for Trevor LInden to bring him back to the Canucks I remember him saying he paid the 1st round pick plus because to the Canucks Linden was worth more than he would be on another team. He gave up a 1st and 3rd while no other GM would pay that price. KB is the same kinda deal. He's worth more to the Canucks than they will get in return for him and he is an important member of this team's leadership group. KB makes $2.5 mill next year which is a great price for what he brings. His cap hit is $4.5 which won't make him suitable to a Cup contending team. I don't think there's any chance KB waives to a non contender for multiple reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 The thing is, those contracts were given out by a management regime that is not longer in power. Benning has no allegiance to either of those players, or the contracts that they negotiated in "good faith". Whether or not they "took one for the team" is irrelevant. Their contracts are hindering the team moving forward and need to be moved. It's that simple. Long and short of it is that it's a business, and Bieksa and Burrows are no longer best for business. I think Benning knew what he was getting into when he took the job. When you become an NHL GM, you assume contracts that are on the books. Just because the regime is new doesn't mean that players who took paycuts should have to give up the concessions they got in lieu of money. I find it interesting that the consensus seems to be that Benning wants to get rid of Bieksa. Last off-season he asked someone with a NTC to waive, but it wasn't Juice. Why do people think that is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WHL rocks Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 Bieksa plays a high risk game on a lot of nights, not unlike what Jovanovski was doing back in his day. However, to play high risk, you have to demonstrate the high rewards to back it up, and it's looking more and more like his high reward days are in the rearview mirror. Hamhuis on the other hand plays a decent D-first, two-way game. He hasn't had the goals (or points) to show for his play, because he's usually had to act as the defensive backstop for whoever his D-partner is. You can never have too many Tanevs or Hamhuises in the lineup, because they make decent break-out passes and are usually the first back to prevent breakaways. In my post you are responding to I wrote "Hamhuis will get a better return....". So I agree with you that Hamhuis is a better player. However neither Hamhuis nor Tanev bring the toughness that Bieksa does. Neither drops the mitts as often as KB. So Its better to have a KB on the team due to lack of toughness to begin with. Take out KB and your left with an even softer team. Hamhuis would be much more desirable to a Cup contending team, and it's unlikely either player waives to a non contender. Also to the Canucks Bieksa is worth more than what his potential return would be. IF one of those 2 are asked to waive imo it would be Hamhuis. Ofcourse no one knows what will happen. JB or Linden might not even know at this point. This is just conjecture based on my experience of following the NHL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.