King T Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 This may be redundant but I can't find anything. to the point: could the Sedins retire at the end of the season in order for the Canucks to be able to protect more players from the expansion draft because of their exempt status due to the no movement clause they have? Only to change their mind before or at the start of next season?? if not should the Canucks pressure a retirement in order to not lose a granlund or beartschi etc...? i am a sedin fan but because we have to protect them we will likely lose a key piece moving forward all because they have one more or less with the Canucks? thoughts please Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coastal.view Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 29 minutes ago, King T said: This may be redundant but I can't find anything. to the point: could the Sedins retire at the end of the season in order for the Canucks to be able to protect more players from the expansion draft because of their exempt status due to the no movement clause they have? Only to change their mind before or at the start of next season?? if not should the Canucks pressure a retirement in order to not lose a granlund or beartschi etc...? i am a sedin fan but because we have to protect them we will likely lose a key piece moving forward all because they have one more or less with the Canucks? thoughts please sounds kinda fraudulent and completely unethical to me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canucks Curse Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 Better solution would be to trade Hansen and Ericksson getting them to waive NTC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King T Posted January 13, 2017 Author Share Posted January 13, 2017 Ya but it is plausible ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coconuts Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 I imagine the league will come down hard on anyone who manages to work their way around the expansion rules. Doubt it'd be worth it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Blight Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 45 minutes ago, King T said: This may be redundant but I can't find anything. to the point: could the Sedins retire at the end of the season in order for the Canucks to be able to protect more players from the expansion draft because of their exempt status due to the no movement clause they have? Only to change their mind before or at the start of next season?? if not should the Canucks pressure a retirement in order to not lose a granlund or beartschi etc...? i am a sedin fan but because we have to protect them we will likely lose a key piece moving forward all because they have one more or less with the Canucks? thoughts please Why wouldn't every player on every team retire and re-sign in this manner if it were possible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Neilsons Towel Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 46 minutes ago, King T said: This may be redundant but I can't find anything. to the point: could the Sedins retire at the end of the season in order for the Canucks to be able to protect more players from the expansion draft because of their exempt status due to the no movement clause they have? Only to change their mind before or at the start of next season?? if not should the Canucks pressure a retirement in order to not lose a granlund or beartschi etc...? i am a sedin fan but because we have to protect them we will likely lose a key piece moving forward all because they have one more or less with the Canucks? thoughts please The Trades, Rumours, Signings subforum is not meant for hypothetical proposals and discussions such as this. It also requires all threads in that subforum to contain Tags, which yours did not. Instead of locking your thread I have moved it to Proposals and Armchair GM'ing. Please try to read the description/requirements/stickies for the subforum prior to creating a thread. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sedinyoureyesontheprize Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 Yea La says hello. Quote 30 minutes ago, coastal.view said: sounds kinda fraudulent and completely unethical to me The Los Angeles Kings terminated Mike Richards’ contract Monday, claiming the underachieving forward committed a “material breach” of its terms. The move is a surprising tactic in the Kings’ prolonged attempt to get out from under the last five seasons of the 12-year, US$69 million deal signed by Richards with Philadelphia in 2008. The Kings acquired Richards in 2011, and he played a key supporting role on their two Stanley Cup champion teams. But Richards’ scoring production has declined sharply during his tenure in Los Angeles, culminating in just 16 points from 53 games last season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c00kies Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 I'm curious to how the retirement thing would work, but for sure you can't re-sign them right after. I thought you had to stay out of the league for a year if you retired, but I could be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cripplereh Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 better plan like other teams have done in the past give them the CBJ's second rounders that we are owed and tell them they must pick up Gaunce or someone else Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwijibo Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 Once you file your retirement papers you're put on a list of voluntarily retired players. You can't play while on the list and can't be removed from the list for one year unless you have unanimous approval from every team in the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuxfanabroad Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 Bigger problems in the world. As sport fans, we tend to build up these issues beyond their importance. I'd ask one of them to kaibosh their NMC, or hang 'em up. Silly to lose young assets for their super slow-motion, status quo. What should(& will) happen are likely two seperate matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Vintage Canuck- Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 16 hours ago, King T said: This may be redundant but I can't find anything. to the point: could the Sedins retire at the end of the season in order for the Canucks to be able to protect more players from the expansion draft because of their exempt status due to the no movement clause they have? Only to change their mind before or at the start of next season?? if not should the Canucks pressure a retirement in order to not lose a granlund or beartschi etc...? i am a sedin fan but because we have to protect them we will likely lose a key piece moving forward all because they have one more or less with the Canucks? thoughts please You only need to protect NMC's if the players chose to not waive that clause. Chances of a Vegas choosing one twin, for one year, a 7 mill, is slim to be begin with. Sedins could do this team a favor, waive their clause and we'd be able to protect 2 more forwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coastal.view Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 19 hours ago, Setyoureyesontheprize said: Yea La says hello. The Los Angeles Kings terminated Mike Richards’ contract Monday, claiming the underachieving forward committed a “material breach” of its terms. The move is a surprising tactic in the Kings’ prolonged attempt to get out from under the last five seasons of the 12-year, US$69 million deal signed by Richards with Philadelphia in 2008. The Kings acquired Richards in 2011, and he played a key supporting role on their two Stanley Cup champion teams. But Richards’ scoring production has declined sharply during his tenure in Los Angeles, culminating in just 16 points from 53 games last season. well you forgot to update your history on this transaction la was forced to buy out richards as they normally would have and his buyout is part of their cap hit going forward so la really did not get away with anything in the end, they simply bought out richards as per the buyout rules and will be paying him until the 2030 - 2031 season very long buy out term Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coryberg Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 On 12/01/2017 at 10:34 PM, cripplereh said: better plan like other teams have done in the past give them the CBJ's second rounders that we are owed and tell them they must pick up Gaunce or someone else If we gave up a second they better be picking Biega Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coryberg Posted January 14, 2017 Share Posted January 14, 2017 22 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said: You only need to protect NMC's if the players chose to not waive that clause. Chances of a Vegas choosing one twin, for one year, a 7 mill, is slim to be begin with. Sedins could do this team a favor, waive their clause and we'd be able to protect 2 more forwards. Could see mcphee taking one as a big F You to the canucks for pulling that. He has the cap space and could trade Henrik at the deadline for a lot as a rental. Or maybe just ransom him back to us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cripplereh Posted January 15, 2017 Share Posted January 15, 2017 14 hours ago, coryberg said: If we gave up a second they better be picking Biega that was an example could probably give them a 4th or so depending Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mll Posted January 15, 2017 Share Posted January 15, 2017 On 1/14/2017 at 0:14 AM, coastal.view said: well you forgot to update your history on this transaction la was forced to buy out richards as they normally would have and his buyout is part of their cap hit going forward so la really did not get away with anything in the end, they simply bought out richards as per the buyout rules and will be paying him until the 2030 - 2031 season very long buy out term Was not a buyout but a settlement. They have a recapture penalty because he had one of those front loaded contracts à la Luongo. It's added to whatever amount they are paying him until 2030-31. It apparently benefits them because the buyout is a higher cap penalty then the recapture cap hit and the settlement that they now have on their books. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beeekz37 Posted January 15, 2017 Share Posted January 15, 2017 This team is going to let the Sedins do what the Sedins want purely out of respect to their loyalty to this team. It doesn't matter if they only put up 20pts from here on out, they are here until they retire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.