CanucksCorner.com Forums

Rossi is a good player, surprised he and Perfetti fell as far as they did. Winnipeg and Minny did well.

I guess Buffalo wants to get Eichel some scoring wingers and Quinn was probably the best sniper in this class

Micky wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 10:15 pm

Strangelove wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 7:07 pm

Mëds wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 7:04 pm

Strangelove wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 4:32 pm

Micky wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 4:18 pm

Strangelove wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 3:55 pm

Micky wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 3:53 pm

Strangelove wrote: ↑Wed Oct 07, 2020 2:43 pm
What I was actually doing was: Calling you a gomer for suggesting trading for OEL would shorten our window somehow.

That's exactly what I think it could do.

Okay Mick, as usual please feel no need to expand on your gomerish thoughts...

We have too many players to replace and sign now and over the next two to three years. His contract is huge and it is restrictive for a long
period of time. We need to build around Pettersson, Hughes, Horvat. Be nice if that could be done all from within the organization but it can't.
I like the player, not the amount of cap he'll take.

Not enough room for OEL's contract??

Gonna need to see your math there Gomes...

Eriksson out all by himself covers 70% of OEL's cap hit.

Baertschi coming off the books next year (if not before) will cover the remainder.

So it's two players out (one non-roster and the other non-essential) to bring in one key piece of a new core.

Edler coming off the books next year gives us $6M in free space.

The math seems simple.

Yup, lots of room for OEL moving forward.

Your like a used car salesman. 57,750.000.00 with no out clause.

THAT'S your math?

And "You're".

It's kinda funny that some folks are saying:

"It's a full NMC!!! We'll be stuck with it for the duration!! OH NOES!!!"

... whilst talking about a player we'll get only if he waives that full NMC.

Not to mention that NMC lasted only what, 2 years (provided he does get traded). The NMC is still a concern with the Kesler-esque limitations, but the least of my concerns.

Strangelove wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 12:23 pm It's kinda funny that some folks are saying:

"It's a full NMC!!! We'll be stuck with it for the duration!! OH NOES!!!"

... whilst talking about a player we'll get only if he waives that full NMC.

Have you heard that? If so it changes things a bit. Not enough, but a bit.

Micky wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 1:00 pm

Strangelove wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 12:23 pm It's kinda funny that some folks are saying:

"It's a full NMC!!! We'll be stuck with it for the duration!! OH NOES!!!"

... whilst talking about a player we'll get only if he waives that full NMC.

Have you heard that? If so it changes things a bit. Not enough, but a bit.

Ummm, what?

Nuckertuzzi wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 1:11 am Coupled with the parts going to AZ it does have the potential of shortening the window a few years, especially if his play starts to decline in a few years.

If his play declines we pay the price to dump the contract

... like all teams with open windows tend to do.

The parts rumoured to be going back to Arizona are not going to shorten the window.

Yeahno, the window will remain open as long as Petey and Hughes are stars.

Micky,

The NMC follows the player undertake new CBA. Previously once a player waived it the acquiring team had to agree to pick it up or it was gone forever, not anymore, it automatically follows.

What Doc is say......

Is why fret over full NMC when we see guys all the time willing to waive them, albeit under certain conditions. And yes, trying to trade a player on a NMC is tricky and you never get full value so it is a risk, but the player is still moveable, to some extent.

Hockey Widow wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 1:19 pm Micky,

The NMC follows the player undertake new CBA. Previously once a player waived it the acquiring team had to agree to pick it up or it was gone forever, not anymore, it automatically follows.

What Doc is say......

Is why fret over full NMC when we see guys all the time willing to waive them, albeit under certain conditions. And yes, trying to trade a player on a NMC is tricky and you never get full value so it is a risk, but the player is still moveable, to some extent.

Thanks for explaining the failure to communicate.

I'm surprised Micky missed that since it's been discussed twice over the previous two days.

And btw Wids, in-force NMCs have always traveled with the player.

The change with the new CBA was to include not-yet-in-force NMCs to also travel with the player.

I know most people have always misunderstood that, I used to clarify it every once in a while.

Strangelove wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 1:04 pm

Micky wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 1:00 pm

Strangelove wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 12:23 pm It's kinda funny that some folks are saying:

"It's a full NMC!!! We'll be stuck with it for the duration!! OH NOES!!!"

... whilst talking about a player we'll get only if he waives that full NMC.

Have you heard that? If so it changes things a bit. Not enough, but a bit.

Ummm, what?

He's a really good player on a horrible team. I know he'd be great here for, barring serious injury, at least 3 or 4 years. Have you seen some of the hits he dishes out and how many he absorbs? I'll be on board with whatever the Canucks do but his contract is high and will have to be worked around for many moons. I know you can't win if you don't bet but we've moved on over to the high stakes table. That's if the Canucks are really hard after this at all.

Micky wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 1:28 pm

Strangelove wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 1:04 pm

Micky wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 1:00 pm

Strangelove wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 12:23 pm It's kinda funny that some folks are saying:

"It's a full NMC!!! We'll be stuck with it for the duration!! OH NOES!!!"

... whilst talking about a player we'll get only if he waives that full NMC.

Have you heard that? If so it changes things a bit. Not enough, but a bit.

Ummm, what?

You think Jim only moves on this if OEL will waive the NMC.

Micky, keep re-reading the previous two posts until you understand.

Strangelove wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 1:13 pm The parts rumoured to be going back to Arizona are not going to shorten the window.

Not unless it involves a 1st and one of our top prospects as per that rumour (again, just a rumour). Unless we make significant strides in the next few years, imo ELC's and the next wave of young talent is what will keep the window open for years on end. If we don't have that at our disposal when we've maxed out our big contracts, then we might end up spinning our wheels.

Look, that probably won't happen and there are other things you can do to change it if it does, and I agree as long we have the core together the window should be open for quite awhile. But we're talking about the potential and the potential is there if we give up too much of our futures.

Nuckertuzzi wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 1:55 pm

Strangelove wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 1:13 pm The parts rumoured to be going back to Arizona are not going to shorten the window.

Not unless it involves a 1st and one of our top prospects as per that rumour (again, just a rumour). Unless we make significant strides in the next few years, imo ELC's and the next wave of young talent is what will keep the window open for years on end. If we don't have that at our disposal when we've maxed out our big contracts, then we might end up spinning our wheels.

Look, that probably won't happen and there are other things you can do to change it if it does, and I agree as long we have the core together the window should be open for quite awhile. But we're talking about the potential and the potential is there if we give up too much of our futures.

I'm glad you agree that probably won't happen Nuck.

The rumoured deal would hardly make a dent in our prospects/futures in my opinion.

I guess it's possible I'm overrating our prospects and Jim's continuing drafting prowess

... but for what it's worth I personally can't see the window shortening at all if the trade happens.

To each their own though, would be pretty boring if we all thought the same way.

If Marky is signed send them any of, some of, but not all of Demko, Virtanen, Juolevi, Rathbone, Tryamkin rights, Lind

Yotes retain some salary and take back a contract

Strangelove wrote: ↑Thu Oct 08, 2020 2:02 pm To each their own though, would be pretty boring if we all thought the same way.

Exactly. That's the whole point of these forums.

Both arguments on this one have merit and that's why it's such a big deal to make. I mean hey what if OEL is a stud for 4-5 years or the remainder of the contract? Could happen. Then we get an even better window now. That's what Benning's banking on and I'd be lying if I said that possibility doesn't entice me.

For this team where it is now, I just know the importance of having and holding on to futures, and perpetually keeping the cupboard full. Stamkos and Hedman were drafted in '08 and '09 respectively. It took them 12 years get their first Cup because that team always has a full cupboard and that's exactly what it took to push them over the top.