mll Posted August 1, 2016 Share Posted August 1, 2016 He has an NMC and maybe they wanted to trade him and he refused. It's not for purpose of expansion because he is a UFA by the end of the season so he wouldn't need to be protected. I guess he won't be claimed - any interested team could just sign him on a cheaper deal after he is bought out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted August 1, 2016 Share Posted August 1, 2016 If a player has a no-move clause (NMC), it cannot restrict the team from exercising buyout and termination rights. Before termination, teams must notify players with NMCs of their intentions, giving the player a 24-hour window with the option to elect to be placed on waivers, or proceed with the buyout. So it sounds like Vermette has opted to be placed on waivers. Which would appear to mean that he'd accept going to any club that claims him. The Canucks would be 3rd in cue based on the season's standings. Pretty tempting to claim him imo - particularly when they have the cap space and it's only one year of term. Neither Toronto nor Edmonton have sufficient cap - would have to go slightly over and make space..... This is going to be interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Posted August 1, 2016 Share Posted August 1, 2016 I would happily take Vermette for a season. Not sure I understand this move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Neilsons Towel Posted August 1, 2016 Share Posted August 1, 2016 Claim him JB! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jam126 Posted August 1, 2016 Share Posted August 1, 2016 I'd like Vermette for a year. Pretty weird move... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mll Posted August 1, 2016 Share Posted August 1, 2016 6 minutes ago, oldnews said: If a player has a no-move clause (NMC), it cannot restrict the team from exercising buyout and termination rights. Before termination, teams must notify players with NMCs of their intentions, giving the player a 24-hour window with the option to elect to be placed on waivers, or proceed with the buyout. So it sounds like Vermette has opted to be placed on waivers. Which would appear to mean that he'd accept going to any club that claims him. The Canucks would be 3rd in cue based on the season's standings. Pretty tempting to claim him imo - particularly when they have the cap space and it's only one year of term. Neither Toronto nor Edmonton have sufficient cap - would have to go slightly over and make space..... This is going to be interesting. I thought a buyout cannot happen without the player going on waivers. If he refuses they would still need to put him on waivers to buy him out - where he could be claimed by any team. Or does the NMC prevent other teams from claiming him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted August 1, 2016 Share Posted August 1, 2016 Have we claimed him yet?! This really seems like a no brainer. So many line combos and seems like the EXACT sort of the thing The Canucks need/have been looking for. The player, the term...even the cap hit is manageable. Perfect solution to shelter Baer/add depth. Have the hockey gods finally come around to the Canucks...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted August 1, 2016 Share Posted August 1, 2016 8 minutes ago, mll said: I thought a buyout cannot happen without the player going on waivers. If he refuses they would still need to put him on waivers to buy him out - where he could be claimed by any team. Or does the NMC prevent other teams from claiming him? It sounds to me like a NMC gives the player the option - of a straight buyout (option to avoid waivers / going to any team that may select him) - or to be placed on waivers - and given the fact he's on waivers, it would appear Vermette has exercised that option. I'm surprised he wouldn't opt to be straight up bought out and then have the option of signing anywhere he wants - with the buyout money in his back pocket - and if the managed to command 1.25 million in free agency (which imo is a no-brainer), he loses no money as a result. Given he's opted for waivers, perhaps he's aware of (a lack of) interest shown when Phoenix shopped him? Or he's fine with going to a team lower in the standings as he'll probably continue to play a prominent role and that may serve his chances of a follow up contract? Honestly - hard to figure out any aspect of this truly bizarre situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted August 1, 2016 Share Posted August 1, 2016 Making space for Vrbata lol? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apollo Posted August 1, 2016 Share Posted August 1, 2016 38 minutes ago, oldnews said: If a player has a no-move clause (NMC), it cannot restrict the team from exercising buyout and termination rights. Before termination, teams must notify players with NMCs of their intentions, giving the player a 24-hour window with the option to elect to be placed on waivers, or proceed with the buyout. So it sounds like Vermette has opted to be placed on waivers. Which would appear to mean that he'd accept going to any club that claims him. The Canucks would be 3rd in cue based on the season's standings. Pretty tempting to claim him imo - particularly when they have the cap space and it's only one year of term. Neither Toronto nor Edmonton have sufficient cap - would have to go slightly over and make space..... This is going to be interesting. This is an absolute no brainer. JB file the God damn papers. Fits exactly our cap limit and is expiring this year... We need his faceoff expertise. DAMN IT JB GET IR DONE! ... That is unless he just got tested positive for drugs or smth and it's stage 1 and hasn't been released publicly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mackcanuck Posted August 1, 2016 Share Posted August 1, 2016 Statement from Coyotes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted August 1, 2016 Share Posted August 1, 2016 1 hour ago, oldnews said: Elite faceoff guy. Good underlying numbers - solid two way player - still producing very respectable numbers. No real signs of decline. Reasonable cap hit and only one year of term. WTF is this? ARZ management must have seen a sub par hero chart or something Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShakyWalton Posted August 1, 2016 Share Posted August 1, 2016 1 minute ago, J.R. said: ARZ management must have seen a sub part hero chart or something Its their new rookie GM who is 27 years old making a big move.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
higgyfan Posted August 1, 2016 Share Posted August 1, 2016 1 hour ago, oldnews said: It's too late to tank for your Arizona boy. This is a player that would make a lot of NHL teams better. Elite faceoff guy. Good underlying numbers - solid two way player - still producing very respectable numbers. No real signs of decline. Reasonable cap hit and only one year of term. WTF is this? I agree that he still has some good nhl games left in him and would probably sign at a good price. I think he would want at least 2 years, which could be a problem for the Canucks. Someone is going to be talking to him asap. Hope it's not Vrbata! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apollo Posted August 1, 2016 Share Posted August 1, 2016 This really doesn't make sense though... Couldn't Arizona retain 1 mill and just trade him? Bizarre. Anyways JB WAKE up man. Get this guy. We need to win some damn faceoffs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apple Juice Posted August 1, 2016 Share Posted August 1, 2016 Strange move but it's probably something underlying that we don't know yet until it comes out later (if it does). For now, they save roughly 2m of cap this year to maybe sign other guys and let their young guns come and earn spots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted August 1, 2016 Share Posted August 1, 2016 5 minutes ago, Mackcanuck said: Statement from Coyotes Weak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'NucK™ Posted August 1, 2016 Share Posted August 1, 2016 5 minutes ago, ShakyWalton said: Its their new rookie GM who is 27 years old making a big move.. Sarcasm? since when is buying out a player considered making a big move lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShakyWalton Posted August 1, 2016 Share Posted August 1, 2016 Just now, 'NucK™ said: Sarcasm? since when is buying out a player considered making a big move lol sarcasm of course.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'NucK™ Posted August 1, 2016 Share Posted August 1, 2016 6 minutes ago, ShakyWalton said: sarcasm of course.... okay good looking at his age and contract it reminds me of the Burrows situation.. difference being that Burrows hasn't been bought out because of what he brings to the locker room Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.