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

[Rumour] Canucks trying to move Micheal Ferland's contract


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, aGENT said:

It does to a team already planning on operating in LTIR.

I get there are some clever workarounds but I think it's a stretch to say it has value. No one is going to pay to take the contract, it just might not cost quite so much to get rid of it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Potentially gets us out of LTIR where you can possibly bank cap space and/or use that cap space to pay bonuses so you don't carry them over to next year.

 

As a bonus, it's actually helpful (and with only this year left of commitment/risk) to any teams already planning on operating in LTIR (Vegas?).

sure but who goes with him? even if someone wants Ferland we then need to shed a roster player to be cap complaint don't we?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Potentially gets us out of LTIR where you can possibly bank cap space and/or use that cap space to pay bonuses so you don't carry them over to next year.

 

As a bonus, it's actually helpful (and with only this year left of commitment/risk) to any teams already planning on operating in LTIR (Vegas?).

Are we not over the cap as it stands though? Wouldn't trading his contract indicate that we need to move other cap out as well?

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

7 minutes ago, JM_ said:

sure but who goes with him? even if someone wants Ferland we then need to shed a roster player to be cap complaint don't we?

Why would we need to shed a player? As it is Ferland's contract is on the cap but our cap is increased by that amount, though it's possible I'm missing something.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, 6of1_halfdozenofother said:

This is one of those situations where there should be an insurance policy that allows the player to continue to be paid for a career-ending injury (in fact, all players signing league contracts should have this kind of policy as a condition of signing), and where a team can exit the contract with no penalty or cap consequence because the player retires permanently from play.

 

Having it stuck on the team's cap and using fancy accounting methods to allow other players to be "replacements" (even though in many cases, the "replacements" play different positions) is meaningless.  Allowing teams to trade contracts of players that are not going to play another game in the league also makes the league a complete joke.

 

And sports media should stop with speculation and innuendo and stick to facts.  This speculation crap is stupid, makes people stupid, and makes the league look stupid.  (though not like the league is doing itself any favours either)

it's like I've said all along... any player that goes on LTIR for more than 1 season should be automatically 'retired' . 

The trading of 'contracts' of players that have no intention of returning to play needs to be stopped. ie: Vegas has about $15 mill in potential LTIR. You can't explain this any other way than cap-circumvention. 

  • Cheers 3
  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, HorvatToBaertschi said:

Are we not over the cap as it stands though? Wouldn't trading his contract indicate that we need to move other cap out as well?

 

Just now, aGENT said:

Nope, we're cap compliant with him on the roster. 

Ergo, if we move his contract, his replacement will still be cap compliant.

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...