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

Who will be the first player to be traded under the new management?

Rate this topic


Rabbit

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, IBatch said:

Whatever happens behind closed doors is fine.   We aren't TO or NYR, where an endless supply of free agents wants to come and play here.   Or even Florida because really no taxes and what a lifestyle.   Can't post a letter to the fans like NYR did then just tell your guys in public, sorry we aren't honouring your contracts... or TO's blow up trying as hard a you can to tank for Mathews that Lou orchestrated.    TO and NYR know players will always come.   Vancouver doesn't have that luxury.    Unfortunately.    I also have no problem with this - sure it's what Bieksa went to ANA, Hamhuis almost went back, Burrows went to OTT and Hansen SJ.    But we aren't a club that can blatantly say "sorry your claused we don't care - and your getting traded" either.     JB had to overspend to attract them.   Just hope the capital he built pays dividends, in Myers it did. 

I guess there are only so many cars to sell in Vancouver. I see Quinn finally got his endorsement. The off ice earnings in big markets are a sweetener for sure. I am not talking about being aggressive in challenging contract stipulations. Bottom line there are only so many slots in the NHL and players move on a fairly regular basis. Ethically I don’t see anything wrong with advising a player that some other team is interested in him. It is a business and I suspect player agents drum that into their clients regularly. Management would be pretty discreet about revealing that interest as it could backfire on them easily. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Devron said:

Dwight Yoakam 

 

33 minutes ago, Nuxfanabroad said:

He'd best not marry Reginald Dwight...

 

23 minutes ago, Nuxfanabroad said:

But IMAGINE yer partner being Dwight Dwight?! :^)

But he'd be the dwight guy for dwight!

On topic, I figure JR will make a bold move to get us in the playoffs. I think a trade involving Brock and others for a top tier offensive minded dman. He has said that is one of our defiencies, and the stats show it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, IBatch said:

Whatever happens behind closed doors is fine.   We aren't TO or NYR, where an endless supply of free agents wants to come and play here.   Or even Florida because really no taxes and what a lifestyle.   Can't post a letter to the fans like NYR did then just tell your guys in public, sorry we aren't honouring your contracts... or TO's blow up trying as hard a you can to tank for Mathews that Lou orchestrated.    TO and NYR know players will always come.   Vancouver doesn't have that luxury.    Unfortunately.    I also have no problem with this - sure it's what Bieksa went to ANA, Hamhuis almost went back, Burrows went to OTT and Hansen SJ.    But we aren't a club that can blatantly say "sorry your claused we don't care - and your getting traded" either.     JB had to overspend to attract them.   Just hope the capital he built pays dividends, in Myers it did. 

You have a point.  But I think its a mix of reasons and a different mix as well for each player that rate above a particular GM's aggressiveness in that way.  Taxes probably is a big factor. But then Americans sign for Canadian teams all the time, so its not just about squeezing out the most money for all of them. Being closer to family is a two edged sword, it also means more scrutiny from local media. Some players just don't want to take that on. Other's like Stecher seemed to thrive in it.  The state of a new team at the time is probably a huge consideration as well on signing...how close to being a contender. But again, that changes if you are a veteran who will get ice time, or a younger player who may have to sit, or even be immediately sent down to the AHL, because the team is already stacked.  Then you can throw in the lifestyle of a large eastern mega city for younger players just cashing in on their first NHL contract I suppose would be a factor for some of them.  But in that case, Vancouver ain't just chopped liver.  Lots of ethnic restaurants to choose something else. I would think there would be at least a third of the league's cities below Vancouver in desirability to live.

 

I think all  those considerations outweigh any perceived reputation of a team because of a one time pressure from one GM on previous players with NTC NMC, to wave those.  And that that would effect any future FAs wanting to play in cities that had a GM that did that.  One of the main reasons is that GMs don't last forever. It would be kinda dumb for a player and agent to snub a city in perpetuity simply because of this happening. Which would only probably happen once in that GMs tenure for that team. (and if it doesn't work they'll be gone soon)  Most players understand that business is business.  They are not blind. They can see the team floundering and in need of a rebuild. That things aren't going as well as they, and their GM, thought it was going to be. They many not want to be the one that leaves, but then again, they may.  Like you said, keep it behind closed doors, at least as long as you can.  Also, there's degrees of pressure.  Simply telling a player that there is interest, and would they consider waiving is a start.  Trading the better veterans without NTCs first for futures, then coming back around and asking again now when that NTC player realizes all that's left is a skeleton crew.  Dirty maybe? But I'm not looking for a boy scout for the GM. Just results.  Sometimes a Buono, not a Benning, is in order.

 

Years later, if the new revamped team is performing well, you will then attract the next generation of talent simply because its now a winner.  Whether it has a different GM by then or not.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, IBatch said:

Pearson would have to waive.  He wanted a NMC for a reason - and personally i'm against asking guys to waive them.  One thing JB did right was respect this and wait for the old core to come to him - like Bieksa, Hansen and Burrows eventually did.    And like Edler, the Sedins and others didn't.    It keeps UFAs interested in coming here...and it absolutely is part of creating a winning team (UFAs that is).    Horvat, Miller, BB etc know they will be treated well too, if we sign them and they want to sign here long term for their legacy deals. 

Absolutely, and agree 100%...

Asking players to waive their NTC or NMC's are like asking them expecting them to take a reduction in salary...

They players often already signed reduced salary contracts for them knowledge they knew were they were going to spend the next x amount of years...

 

The important part being, next time a GM tries to use the lure of NMC to get a player at reduced rate, they will say no... the agent will advise them accordingly..

 

PS. Its fair of management to let the players know if there is a change in their plans, or interest from other teams, but these things should be kept in private....

Edited by spook007
  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, kilgore said:

You have a point.  But I think its a mix of reasons and a different mix as well for each player that rate above a particular GM's aggressiveness in that way.  Taxes probably is a big factor. But then Americans sign for Canadian teams all the time, so its not just about squeezing out the most money for all of them. Being closer to family is a two edged sword, it also means more scrutiny from local media. Some players just don't want to take that on. Other's like Stecher seemed to thrive in it.  The state of a new team at the time is probably a huge consideration as well on signing...how close to being a contender. But again, that changes if you are a veteran who will get ice time, or a younger player who may have to sit, or even be immediately sent down to the AHL, because the team is already stacked.  Then you can throw in the lifestyle of a large eastern mega city for younger players just cashing in on their first NHL contract I suppose would be a factor for some of them.  But in that case, Vancouver ain't just chopped liver.  Lots of ethnic restaurants to choose something else. I would think there would be at least a third of the league's cities below Vancouver in desirability to live.

 

I think all  those considerations outweigh any perceived reputation of a team because of a one time pressure from one GM on previous players with NTC NMC, to wave those.  And that that would effect any future FAs wanting to play in cities that had a GM that did that.  One of the main reasons is that GMs don't last forever. It would be kinda dumb for a player and agent to snub a city in perpetuity simply because of this happening. Which would only probably happen once in that GMs tenure for that team. (and if it doesn't work they'll be gone soon)  Most players understand that business is business.  They are not blind. They can see the team floundering and in need of a rebuild. That things aren't going as well as they, and their GM, thought it was going to be. They many not want to be the one that leaves, but then again, they may.  Like you said, keep it behind closed doors, at least as long as you can.  Also, there's degrees of pressure.  Simply telling a player that there is interest, and would they consider waiving is a start.  Trading the better veterans without NTCs first for futures, then coming back around and asking again now when that NTC player realizes all that's left is a skeleton crew.  Dirty maybe? But I'm not looking for a boy scout for the GM. Just results.  Sometimes a Buono, not a Benning, is in order.

 

Years later, if the new revamped team is performing well, you will then attract the next generation of talent simply because its now a winner.  Whether it has a different GM by then or not.

They may not snub a team/city, but they would probably be more weary of signing at a discount, if the NMC isn't worth the paper its written on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, spook007 said:

They may not snub a team/city, but they would probably be more weary of signing at a discount, if the NMC isn't worth the paper its written on.

That may be true. But no one is saying that a NMC/NTC is worthless. Its about how well a GM can convince a player to waive it.  The final decision is still up to the player. At the very least it would ensure that the player can have a list of teams he will be traded to.  And probably every GM has engaged in this at one time or another.  I just think #1, there are degrees. ie. behind closed doors, gentle nudges a GM may start with.  And then trading his friends and teammates away first is another step.  And just the knowledge that another team would value him more at that point in his career. Those kinds of moves do not negate the legality of those contracts.  And #2, in any GM's tenure, something like this usually happens near the beginning, at least for the high profile players, (not a Pearson) and if it doesn't work, that GM, along with that reputation, is most likely gone before the next window of opportunity and the need for FAs at that time. 

 

Conversely, if it works, the team is a contender, and that GM is still there for years after, I think players will be attracted to play for a winning team while their own personal window is open, regardless.

 

It does have some consideration for sure. I just think its down the list of reasons players want or don't want to play in a particular city or even re-sign there.  You hear about players waiving all the time, I really don't think its as big a detriment to sign on a team as other issues I listed above. I am unaware of a blacklist of cities/GMs that are to be avoided by the NHLPA.

 

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, kilgore said:

That may be true. But no one is saying that a NMC/NTC is worthless. Its about how well a GM can convince a player to waive it.  The final decision is still up to the player. At the very least it would ensure that the player can have a list of teams he will be traded to.  And probably every GM has engaged in this at one time or another.  I just think #1, there are degrees. ie. behind closed doors, gentle nudges a GM may start with.  And then trading his friends and teammates away first is another step.  And just the knowledge that another team would value him more at that point in his career. Those kinds of moves do not negate the legality of those contracts.  And #2, in any GM's tenure, something like this usually happens near the beginning, at least for the high profile players, (not a Pearson) and if it doesn't work, that GM, along with that reputation, is most likely gone before the next window of opportunity and the need for FAs at that time. 

 

Conversely, if it works, the team is a contender, and that GM is still there for years after, I think players will be attracted to play for a winning team while their own personal window is open, regardless.

 

It does have some consideration for sure. I just think its down the list of reasons players want or don't want to play in a particular city or even re-sign there.  You hear about players waiving all the time, I really don't think its as big a detriment to sign on a team as other issues I listed above. I am unaware of a blacklist of cities/GMs that are to be avoided by the NHLPA.

 

Yes there is nothing wrong with GM speaking to a player or his agent and advising him, what his future plans are etc. 

And, of course, If a player can be traded Ito a contender from a team going nowhere, there's a good chance the player would be interested, but if not his clause should be respected...

If you trade all his friends away, he may also want to be let loose, and this is still fair play.

 

But there is a reason why players sign NMC's NTC's... If players are just gonna get dumped, when it suits the GM's, why would they sign them in the first place? 

A fair few players signed at, what was considered, team friendly contracts during MG premiership, and I remember a few them being fairly unhappy about being pushed out before their contacts ended...

 

I'm sure there isn't a list of cities/GMs that should be avoided, but I am also sure, that any agent worth his pay check, will be aware of Gm's that tend not to honour contract clauses, and will advise his client accordingly. They may still decide to sign for various reasons, but will probably be apprehensive signing at a discounted rate.

(obvious its just speculation)

 

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, mll said:

Seravalli's bet is on Miller.  He thinks he could be traded before a GM is even in place if Rutherford gets a deal he likes.  

 

 

 

Maybe it can't be avoided, but I absolutely hate all this media circus created and inflated by sports media on the idea of trading JT Miller.

 

It goes from one reporter making a lazy assumption that you just look at the most valuable player vs. cap hit on the team and put it out there as the most obvious and lucrative trade option.  Fine.  But then you get the next wave of reporters, some from the center of the universe, who expand and exaggerate it into a "story".  One that is updated daily.  Canucks Are Looking To Trade Miller!   And then that becomes the new reality.  Regardless how even Miller may be thinking. I hate how Miller now has to read this $&!#e on a daily basis. I know its part of the business, but its got to put at least a tiny seed in his mind that the team thinks it can do without him, and is looking to trade him off the team he is trying to give his 110% for every night.  And will that start to affect his performance on the ice? He's only human.

 

This is something you do on a start-from-scratch rebuilding team. Trade your best, most productive player, and one of the emotional leaders.  I thought we were past that?  Did JB really leave us with no other options to improve?  Even I'm not that pessimistic on the roster he left us with. There has to be a better option than trading JT now.

  • Cheers 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, IBatch said:

Pearson would have to waive.  He wanted a NMC for a reason - and personally i'm against asking guys to waive them.  One thing JB did right was respect this and wait for the old core to come to him - like Bieksa, Hansen and Burrows eventually did.    And like Edler, the Sedins and others didn't.    It keeps UFAs interested in coming here...and it absolutely is part of creating a winning team (UFAs that is).    Horvat, Miller, BB etc know they will be treated well too, if we sign them and they want to sign here long term for their legacy deals. 

Pearson has a NTC per capfriendly, not a NMC

 

He gets the full NTC this season but next season it becomes a modified NTC and he gets to submit a seven team no trade list

 

Where do you stand on that? Because the team would be fully within their rights to explore a trade once the season is done, that's what was negotiated by both sides

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, mll said:

Seravalli's bet is on Miller.  He thinks he could be traded before a GM is even in place if Rutherford gets a deal he likes.  

 

He's about as legit a source as you're going to get in the NHL, his getting the Seattle details was nuts 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, mll said:

Seravalli's bet is on Miller.  He thinks he could be traded before a GM is even in place if Rutherford gets a deal he likes.  

 

DId he say he thinks Miller will be traded before a GM is hired, or he thinks (given the right offer) JR could trade Miller?   Pretty much isn’t any player potentially traded given the right offer?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, kilgore said:

 

 

Maybe it can't be avoided, but I absolutely hate all this media circus created and inflated by sports media on the idea of trading JT Miller.

 

It goes from one reporter making a lazy assumption that you just look at the most valuable player vs. cap hit on the team and put it out there as the most obvious and lucrative trade option.  Fine.  But then you get the next wave of reporters, some from the center of the universe, who expand and exaggerate it into a "story".  One that is updated daily.  Canucks Are Looking To Trade Miller!   And then that becomes the new reality.  Regardless how even Miller may be thinking. I hate how Miller now has to read this $&!#e on a daily basis. I know its part of the business, but its got to put at least a tiny seed in his mind that the team thinks it can do without him, and is looking to trade him off the team he is trying to give his 110% for every night.  And will that start to affect his performance on the ice? He's only human.

 

This is something you do on a start-from-scratch rebuilding team. Trade your best, most productive player, and one of the emotional leaders.  I thought we were past that?  Did JB really leave us with no other options to improve?  Even I'm not that pessimistic on the roster he left us with. There has to be a better option than trading JT now.

Or... Maybe it's happening, because it makes sense.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As much as I’d hate to see Miller go, I’m tired of players leaving and the Canucks getting nothing in return. Miller is on a bargain contract now but he won’t be on his next contract. If the Rangers are determined to get him, Schneider (top 4 rhd) and Chytil would be a nice return and good ages for our core. I doubt Miller and Boeser both get traded, but if you can get decent picks for Pearson and Motte we are restocking a bare cupboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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