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

[Report] Bolts waive Dotchin for breach


TheRick

Recommended Posts

Weird that they would terminate him if it was just a conditioning issue.  Usually that just means the player will be demoted and be riding the bus for the rest of the season.

This would probably mean that there's something behind the scene.

 

Substance abuse?  Although usually the team and the NHL would step in with their substance abuse protocols.  

Domestic violence?  It would usually be leaked via criminal reporting.

Issues with other teammates?  Trading would be better.

Mental health?  Similar to the first one.

 

Maybe this player just doesn't want to continue his hockey career anymore?  Hockey is a job and sometimes a player wishes to change careers.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, higgyfan said:

Sounds like a lazy version of Guddy.  Besides, who does he replace?  Can't see JB sending Guddy, Stech or Tanev to Utica.

Canucks could pick him up on waivers and send him straight to Utica because Tampa would not be taking him back.

Slim chance some other team grabs him, but they would need to keep him on NHL roster or he comes back to us.

Not saying we should, but if they thought he was worth the effort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, lmm said:

Canucks could pick him up on waivers and send him straight to Utica because Tampa would not be taking him back.

Slim chance some other team grabs him, but they would need to keep him on NHL roster or he comes back to us.

Not saying we should, but if they thought he was worth the effort.

Probably better to just let the contract be terminated and sign him to a Utica deal if we were interested.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Provost said:

Probably better to just let the contract be terminated and sign him to a Utica deal if we were interested.

 

Given the Canucks inability or unwillingness to deal with players with issues, probably better to pass.

 

Remember when the Oilers, the team captained by that Gretzky guy, used to pick up every player with an history and get good value out of him? Muni and MacTavish come to mind, but I think there were more.

The NHL is a different place now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not even sure that generic “conditioning” can be considered a material breach of contract.

It would have to be something that makes him unable to fulfill his contract, or teams would just point to any instance of bad testing to get rid of unwanted players.

I wait to hear what the NHLPA says about it as they would take a dim view of contract termination.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, lmm said:

Given the Canucks inability or unwillingness to deal with players with issues, probably better to pass.

 

Remember when the Oilers, the team captained by that Gretzky guy, used to pick up every player with an history and get good value out of him? Muni and MacTavish come to mind, but I think there were more.

The NHL is a different place now.

We have a young group who are learning how to be professionals.  If we had a team full of vets and strong leadership, I could see us taking the risk, like we did with Torres.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, beni said:

Hard no on someone who has a contract terminated. Some of you are nuts for considering it

They are kids and given more money and fame than is healthy.

Some guys take time to grow up.

Kassian went through three teams but got his act together as an example.  Virtanen is still on the path, and had conditioning and partying issues... if he wasn’t a 1st round pick and us being so thin on prospects, we would likely have dealt with him more harshly.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...