aGENT Posted June 22, 2018 Share Posted June 22, 2018 8 hours ago, Tony Romo said: Eh not a big deal he re signed for decent terms, we’d all be happy if that was our pending UFA resigning like that. Great point on how he’s Devils property though! Unless we are missing something that’s illegal! We certainly would! (Part of why I was hesitant to post anything to begin with). 6 hours ago, Zenflamesfan said: So to hopefully clear some confusion, when Mike and I made the original trade it only happened because he offered a clause that sent Jonathan's rights back to me when the season ended for the Devils. I don't think the details were put in the trade post which is causing the confusion. That makes sense. The conditions met, there probably should have been a post saying something like 'JM's rights traded back to PHI...' Without that, things looked more than a bit fishy. Then add the very solid, club friendly deal (congrats on that BTW) without him even exploring free agency and a few of us were a bit... And if we're all being honest... probably a touch of sour grapes from some of us who were hoping to bid for his services 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuck2xtreme Posted June 22, 2018 Author Share Posted June 22, 2018 Yes their original trade had a stipulation included returning Marchessault's rights to the Flyers. I don't usually post those types of things beyond possibly "Future Considerations" but perhaps I should. So in that sense, fair enough, though I will mention that any club can give any player negotiating rights to any player if they wish, though they'd have to complete a trade to have the player actually sign early. As for the contract, while wanting to retain Jonathan all along, the Flyers made a deal ensuring they could still build with him as part of the future while giving him a chance to compete for a championship, which he won with the Devils. The oppourtunity to win a championship is of course what all players want, and the Flyers ensured that Jonathan got that oppourtunity. While perhaps the contract dollar amount probably could have been higher, he did get a 6 year term, which IMO is risky. He's had two very good seasons, but he's also already 27 and struggled to crack an NHL lineup until he was 25. Is he still worth $6 million by year 4 of this 6 year deal? Maybe, but maybe not. It's a good, and I think a fair deal right now. But it might be an albatross contract in 2021. Also, while most have us have signed a big pending UFA or two already coming up to the summer, this is the first, MAYBE second pending UFA the Flyers have signed. Beyond this there are a ton of factors that come into play that I won't bother to go into right now. I didn't think this was a deal that was going to offend everyone. It made sense, and I thought was fair for both sides. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arby18_ Posted June 22, 2018 Share Posted June 22, 2018 Personally, I think the contract is fine. Perhaps he could've found some extra bucks in July but that's a slick term. The issue, if there is one at all, is that we went back to PHI without anybody other than the teams involved knowing. I'm fine with the contract and also fine with the future consideration agreed to in the deal. Was just surprised to see a Devil sign in PHI ahead of July 1st. Knowing how it all worked out now, it's no big deal to me. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lethunder Posted June 22, 2018 Share Posted June 22, 2018 (edited) 7 minutes ago, _arby_18 said: Personally, I think the contract is fine. Perhaps he could've found some extra bucks in July but that's a slick term. The issue, if there is one at all, is that we went back to PHI without anybody other than the teams involved knowing. I'm fine with the contract and also fine with the future consideration agreed to in the deal. Was just surprised to see a Devil sign in PHI ahead of July 1st. Knowing how it all worked out now, it's no big deal to me. My thoughts exactly I would say a situation like this would definitely be a reason to have dollars invested in player relations. Edited June 22, 2018 by lethunder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primal Optimist Posted June 22, 2018 Share Posted June 22, 2018 (edited) I don't think the money or rather the contract is a big issue, but the idea that a deadline deal has a return to sender clause sticks in the gullet a little. WHile legal, apparently, maybe now after this trade brings it to light, we can petition for 'return to sender' rental deals to be not allowed in future? I don't think the NHL allows them, and we try to mimic that right? Just oppining as is my wont. Not a big issue to me really but since others had some thoughts i wanted to add mine, just my two cents though and i wouldn't want to see this deal undone as is by the existing rules. Can anyone find or know of an NHL example of this occurring? Edited June 22, 2018 by Primal Optimist 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
da.moose Posted June 22, 2018 Share Posted June 22, 2018 I'm with primal. I have no problem with the contract but the "return to sender clause" is sketchy in my opinion. I mean, when the trade was made I thought the value was lopsided but now it makes more sense. The Flyers really give up nothing but gain assets. If other teams start making trades like this it will definitely change trading moving forward. Hypothetically, If my team is sitting outside a playoff spot at the deadline next season, I could trade all my playoff players for assets under the condition that I got them back after the season ends. I really don't care where Marchesseault ends up and feel as though I've experienced and enjoyed particularly good business with both teams involved in the trade. I do think though that we should make a strict rule with regards to "return to sender" trades before things get complicated in the future. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primal Optimist Posted June 22, 2018 Share Posted June 22, 2018 ^this. I find both GM's to be of extremely high raport and comportment. No issues there at all. Thanks for the finely worded post da.moose! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuck2xtreme Posted June 22, 2018 Author Share Posted June 22, 2018 18 minutes ago, da.moose said: I'm with primal. I have no problem with the contract but the "return to sender clause" is sketchy in my opinion. I mean, when the trade was made I thought the value was lopsided but now it makes more sense. The Flyers really give up nothing but gain assets. If other teams start making trades like this it will definitely change trading moving forward. Hypothetically, If my team is sitting outside a playoff spot at the deadline next season, I could trade all my playoff players for assets under the condition that I got them back after the season ends. I really don't care where Marchesseault ends up and feel as though I've experienced and enjoyed particularly good business with both teams involved in the trade. I do think though that we should make a strict rule with regards to "return to sender" trades before things get complicated in the future. There's a huge difference between doing it once and giving a guy a chance to win a championship, and doing it with most playoff players every season. I will say that this is: - not the first time such a clause has been used. - not unheard of in the NHL (wasn't it an annual thing with Keith Tkachuk for a while? Rent him at the deadline and then he signs back in STL every summer?) - a very unique circumstance that I would imagine is not easy to duplicate successfully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monty Posted June 22, 2018 Share Posted June 22, 2018 @canuck2xtreme Can we still adjust our Front Office Budget if one was sent in last week? Minors budget is not where it should be for me. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuck2xtreme Posted June 22, 2018 Author Share Posted June 22, 2018 30 minutes ago, Monty said: @canuck2xtreme Can we still adjust our Front Office Budget if one was sent in last week? Minors budget is not where it should be for me. Thanks! Usually I'd say no since it's supposed to be once per season. But since we are still in that window between the draft and UFA starting, and there's been no actual boost from any of it yet, I don't see an issue with teams adjusting it. July 1st is the cutoff though. If you're going to adjust, it HAS to be before that. Otherwise, once and done. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monty Posted June 22, 2018 Share Posted June 22, 2018 Vegas Golden Knights Front Office Budget Minors Budget: $30M Training/Medical: $0M Player Development: $8M Player Relations: $7M @canuck2xtreme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ActionJax09 Posted June 22, 2018 Share Posted June 22, 2018 3 hours ago, Primal Optimist said: I don't think the money or rather the contract is a big issue, but the idea that a deadline deal has a return to sender clause sticks in the gullet a little. WHile legal, apparently, maybe now after this trade brings it to light, we can petition for 'return to sender' rental deals to be not allowed in future? I don't think the NHL allows them, and we try to mimic that right? Just oppining as is my wont. Not a big issue to me really but since others had some thoughts i wanted to add mine, just my two cents though and i wouldn't want to see this deal undone as is by the existing rules. Can anyone find or know of an NHL example of this occurring? I don’t have an issue with what was done because it was within the rules at the time. Both GM’s have good reputations in our league and I don’t think there was anything underhanded going on at all. But, I’m concerned with the precident it will now set. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted June 22, 2018 Share Posted June 22, 2018 4 hours ago, _arby_18 said: Personally, I think the contract is fine. Perhaps he could've found some extra bucks in July but that's a slick term. The issue, if there is one at all, is that we went back to PHI without anybody other than the teams involved knowing. I'm fine with the contract and also fine with the future consideration agreed to in the deal. Was just surprised to see a Devil sign in PHI ahead of July 1st. Knowing how it all worked out now, it's no big deal to me. Basically it in a nutshell. Now that it's all been cleared up, I don't think anyone has any issues now that we have all the info... other than perhaps the aforementioned sour grapes for not getting a chance to acquire his services 4 hours ago, canuck2xtreme said: Yes their original trade had a stipulation included returning Marchessault's rights to the Flyers. I don't usually post those types of things beyond possibly "Future Considerations" but perhaps I should. I think a post from the executive/commissioner updating everyone that: 'future considerations terms have been fulfilled and as per those terms, X asset is traded to Y team for Z asset' (or whatever), would clear up any similar confusion in the future. Just leaves a 'paper trail' everyone can follow and keeps things on the up and up so there isn't questions or confusion. As for the 'loophole', I'm fine with it personally. As you noted, it (occasionally) gets used in the NHL IRL and it gives yet another avenue for non playoff teams to improve and strengthen the league. Which I'd imagine we all want Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Romo Posted June 22, 2018 Share Posted June 22, 2018 It’s like In Football when players go on loan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuck2xtreme Posted June 23, 2018 Author Share Posted June 23, 2018 FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS: In order to satisfy the trade conditions of the Derrick Brassard/Conor Sheary trade, the New Jersey Devils have sent their 2020 3rd Round Draft Selection to the San Jose Sharks. This trade is now completed. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bombastik der Teutone Posted June 23, 2018 Share Posted June 23, 2018 Zadina dropped to 6th ...so another Redwing Last Year the Wings Picked Rasmussen ..well in the PuckLeague. Further i have a talent for the Canucks 1st Rounders lol .... Last Year Pettersson (CDCGML) ... now Hughes (Puck) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nail Posted June 23, 2018 Share Posted June 23, 2018 Only drafted 2 draft eligible prospects, but both rose from where I got them here! 76. Kirill Marchenko - Drafted 49th overall by Columbus (+27) 124. Bulat Shafigullin - Drafted 88th overall by Los Angeles (+36) Happy with both those picks! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuck2xtreme Posted June 23, 2018 Author Share Posted June 23, 2018 I am sooooo not happy... needed to bolster my defence, and I pushed very hard to get a pick in the 4th round as I watched my player drop back further and further... no chances to get a deal done. And then at 114, Philly takes my guy. And yesterday, Filip Johansson goes 24th overall. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primal Optimist Posted June 23, 2018 Share Posted June 23, 2018 The Rangers feel we had a successful draft, absolutely. Here it is stacked against the real NHL: 4th Left Wing Brady Tkachuk taken 4th by Ottawa +0 30th Dman Jared McIsaac taken 36th by Detroit -6 33rd Center Liam Foudy taken 18th by Columbus +15 58th Winger Samp Ranta taken 78th by Colorado -20 117th Goalie Kevin Mandolese taken 157th by Ottawa -40 Where it counts we feel we got future performers that will pay off for our club and certainly improve our team depth right off the get go, this was a deep draft and I couldn't be happier with our guys, from where we picked them. It will be a pleasure to watch them mature and come in and make a dent in the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuck2xtreme Posted June 23, 2018 Author Share Posted June 23, 2018 I took Rasmus Sandin at 28th, he went 29th. I took Joey Keane at 88th, he went 88th. Not bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts