[Rumour] Canucks trying to trade Halak

[iinatcc]

18 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said:

Not even Edmonton wants Halak anymore...

It's funny in one period Halak both collected an extra 1.25 million and managed to kill his trade value 

[JeremyCuddles]

1 hour ago, iinatcc said:

It's funny in one period Halak both collected an extra 1.25 million and managed to kill his trade value 

Eh. He played really solid all season, he just looks bad cause Greener couldn't coach to save his life. Also I don't think I'd say a player will kill their trade value on one bad game, on the 2nd night of a back to back, with a roster that has a revolving door of players on the protocol. Yes it wasn't a good look. But he has like 6-8 other games he looked either good or really solid. We forgot he's played like 2 games under Boudreau and 8 under that trash can of a coaching staff that came before him.

 

A 2.90 GAA and a .903 save percentage, that includes getting absolutely shelled last game. Look at the 2 games he played prior. His last start he had 20 saves on 21 shots. Game before he had 34 saves on 35 shots in an OT loss. Come on. Guy is a really good backup. This fanbase went from circle jerking backups to roasting them after one bad game. Can we find a middle ground?

[HKSR]

So on 650, it sounds like Halak's bonus is based on 10 STARTS... not 10 APPEARANCES in a game... so technically, he hasn't hit his bonus yet.

 

Now, this is totally unethical, but they said what the Canucks could presumably do if Halak refuses to waive for a trade is to start Demko in every game, but simply pull him and put Halak in afterwards.  I don't think this organization would ever do that... but that is a clear case of working around a contract lol.

[-Vintage Canuck-]

 

[HKSR]

1 minute ago, -Vintage Canuck- said:

 

Fine, Demko plays every game for the rest of the season.  

 

Disclaimer:  Sounds like Halak hasn't hit his bonus yet -- 10 starts, not 10 appearances.  He is at 9 starts so far.

[DeNiro]

15 minutes ago, HKSR said:

Fine, Demko plays every game for the rest of the season.  

 

Disclaimer:  Sounds like Halak hasn't hit his bonus yet -- 10 starts, not 10 appearances.  He is at 9 starts so far.

I mean after last start I wouldn’t be surprised if they just play Demko both games of the back to back.

 

Points are too important now to drop games like the Isles game that they should have won.

 

Carry 20 forwards and D and call up Martin if we have to. Halak should not get another start unless absolutely necessary.

[qwijibo]

54 minutes ago, HKSR said:

Fine, Demko plays every game for the rest of the season.  

 

Disclaimer:  Sounds like Halak hasn't hit his bonus yet -- 10 starts, not 10 appearances.  He is at 9 starts so far.

You think it’s reasonable to start Demko for 33 consecutive games to avoid paying a bonus? 

[DeNiro]

54 minutes ago, HKSR said:

Fine, Demko plays every game for the rest of the season.  

 

Disclaimer:  Sounds like Halak hasn't hit his bonus yet -- 10 starts, not 10 appearances.  He is at 9 starts so far.

Not sure if it’s been mentioned yet but Halak’s other bonus is 250k if he has a .905 SV%.

 

He currently has a .903 SV%…
 

They could totally play hardball with him and say if you don’t waive you’re not starting another game. Therefore no bonus money.

[DeNiro]

Just now, qwijibo said:

You think it’s reasonable to start Demko for 33 consecutive games to avoid paying a bonus? 

Nope, call up Martin and run with 3 goalies.

 

Martin deserves to back up over Halak anyways.

[BPA]

3 minutes ago, DeNiro said:

Nope, call up Martin and run with 3 goalies.

 

Martin deserves to back up over Halak anyways.

Can you have 3 goalies on the roster?

[DeNiro]

Just now, BPA said:

Can you have 3 goalies on the roster?

Yep.

 

We’d have to run with 13 forwards and 7 D but it absolutely can be done.

 

Do that and Halak waives. No way he risks passing up on 2 million dollars in bonuses.

[Gurn]

25 minutes ago, DeNiro said:

Not sure if it’s been mentioned yet but Halak’s other bonus is 250k if he has a .905 SV%.

 

He currently has a .903 SV%…
 

They could totally play hardball with him and say if you don’t waive you’re not starting another game. Therefore no bonus money.

apparently the bonus is for starting 10 games, not playing in 10 games.

Hardball, but poisonous, would be starting Demko for every game, but pulling him after the first whistle.

Could/would lead to a team meltdown, a reluctance from other players to sign with the Canucks 

AND the league would probably hit us with some kind of penalty; for "cap manipulation"- retroactively of course.

[DeNiro]

3 minutes ago, gurn said:

apparently the bonus is for starting 10 games, not playing in 10 games.

Hardball, but poisonous, would be starting Demko for every game, but pulling him after the first whistle.

Could/would lead to a team meltdown, a reluctance from other players to sign with the Canucks 

AND the league would probably hit us with some kind of penalty; for "cap manipulation"- retroactively of course.

Wouldn’t need to.

 

Martin can back up and start any of the back to back games. He earned it with his play anyways.

 

They need to lay it on the table for him. We’re too tight against the cap to play him like three or four more games and get hit with that bonus. And frankly his play this season has just been okay.

He can accept a trade to the Caps or whatever team is interested in him. Go on a playoff run, boost his SV% and get his bonus money. OR he can get replaced with Martin and practice for the rest of the season. 
 

It may be harsh but he has to be reasonable too. This team is in a different position than when Benning gave him that contract.

 

[thundernuts]

1 hour ago, DeNiro said:

Not sure if it’s been mentioned yet but Halak’s other bonus is 250k if he has a .905 SV%.

 

He currently has a .903 SV%…
 

They could totally play hardball with him and say if you don’t waive you’re not starting another game. Therefore no bonus money.

In doing so, they would risk alienating any future UFA's from signing here.  Mistreating a well respected player can have it's draw backs.

 

It will be interesting to see how they handle this.

[DeNiro]

1 minute ago, thundernuts said:

In doing so, they would risk alienating any future UFA's from signing here.  Mistreating a well respected player can have it's draw backs.

 

It will be interesting to see how they handle this.

Don’t agree.

 

He signed for one season and hasn’t really performed. He should have always realized there’s a chance they could ask him to waive.

 

He hasn’t earned backup duties over Martin at this point. Putting him in as backup over Halak would be completely justified.

[aGENT]

3 hours ago, thundernuts said:

In doing so, they would risk alienating any future UFA's from signing here.  Mistreating a well respected player can have it's draw backs.

 

It will be interesting to see how they handle this.

I don't think it would be hard to sell him on going to a contender for a playoff run  personally... We'll see.

 

But I agree, playing hardball doesn't accomplish much in this situation.

[Miss Korea Bob.Loblaw]

12 hours ago, DeNiro said:

Don’t agree.

 

He signed for one season and hasn’t really performed. He should have always realized there’s a chance they could ask him to waive.

 

He hasn’t earned backup duties over Martin at this point. Putting him in as backup over Halak would be completely justified.

Halak has a legitimate right to say no.  As Canucks fans we think these NMCs are worthless letters added to the ends of contracts.  They're not.  They are earned by veterans who've done the dirty work in their earlier days and now want a bit of stability in their lives.

 

The change in management means nothing.  He is a well-respected professional athlete putting in the work and doing his best.  He is also exercising a right that was specifically laid out in his contract.  If you think Halak should've expected management to try and move him, then management should've also expected the likelihood of Halak saying no.

 

Besides, he isn't even playing that bad.  On the one hand, you're suggesting Halak hasn't performed.  Which is absurd, since you've just admitted he is extremely close to earning all his performance bonuses.  He has been used as a reliable backup, and has put up stats as expected by management.  He has quite literally done his duty and deserves to get paid.  Now you're suggesting front office do everything they can to block that from happening?  Put simply, it would be underhanded and unprofessional.

Edited February 15, 2022 by Bob.Loblaw

[Boudrias]

5 hours ago, Bob.Loblaw said:

Halak has a legitimate right to say no.  As Canucks fans we think these NMCs are worthless letters added to the ends of contracts.  They're not.  They are earned by veterans who've done the dirty work in their earlier days and now want a bit of stability in their lives.

 

The change in management means nothing.  He is a well-respected professional athlete putting in the work and doing his best.  He is also exercising a right that was specifically laid out in his contract.  If you think Halak should've expected management to try and move him, then management should've also expected the likelihood of Halak saying no.

 

Besides, he isn't even playing that bad.  On the one hand, you're suggesting Halak hasn't performed.  Which is absurd, since you've just admitted he is extremely close to earning all his performance bonuses.  He has been used as a reliable backup, and has put up stats as expected by management.  He has quite literally done his duty and deserves to get paid.  Now you're suggesting front office do everything they can to block that from happening?  Put simply, it would be underhanded and unprofessional.

I won’t argue the value of NTC or NMC in contracts. They are there and cannot be ignored. That said they are also part of a negotiation process. Players want some say on where they go if they are moved. That creates lists which are part of the agreements. It does not mean that the Canucks can’t bring offers to Halak on the chance that it might appeal to him. Again, part of the process of yay or nay. 
 

No player is above the organizations drive to win a Cup. Players wishes and desires are secondary. Contracts are to be honoured.

[eeeeergh]

5 hours ago, Bob.Loblaw said:

Halak has a legitimate right to say no.  As Canucks fans we think these NMCs are worthless letters added to the ends of contracts.  They're not.  They are earned by veterans who've done the dirty work in their earlier days and now want a bit of stability in their lives.

 

The change in management means nothing.  He is a well-respected professional athlete putting in the work and doing his best.  He is also exercising a right that was specifically laid out in his contract.  If you think Halak should've expected management to try and move him, then management should've also expected the likelihood of Halak saying no.

 

Besides, he isn't even playing that bad.  On the one hand, you're suggesting Halak hasn't performed.  Which is absurd, since you've just admitted he is extremely close to earning all his performance bonuses.  He has been used as a reliable backup, and has put up stats as expected by management.  He has quite literally done his duty and deserves to get paid.  Now you're suggesting front office do everything they can to block that from happening?  Put simply, it would be underhanded and unprofessional.

Yep. People forget hes a person, and theres a reason he wanted the NMC, even though he knew he wasnt coming to a very good team. He's married, and has a kid, so i think its forgiveable that he'd want a little bit of stability in his life. 

[thundernuts]

23 hours ago, DeNiro said:

Don’t agree.

 

He signed for one season and hasn’t really performed. He should have always realized there’s a chance they could ask him to waive.

 

He hasn’t earned backup duties over Martin at this point. Putting him in as backup over Halak would be completely justified.

And he negotiated a contract that contains a NTC.  He has no obligation to waive it.  Martin's 3 games in Vancouver have been fantastic, but let's face it, the main reason the Canucks would want to move Halak is to save cap space.  Whether you agree or not, that can rub players the wrong way, especially UFA's that are looking to sign with a team that they can feel some level of trust and respect with.