"may" as is "maybe"?

That would be strange. Maybe as part of the trade negotiations the destination team works it out with his agent that the NTC is carried forward??
- GoneFullRetard

I think the may is that Capgeek doesn't have the details. I don't think it is hard and fast on how clauses travel with a trade

well then really whats the point in having a ntc if it only works once? The player usually has a ntc so he can more or less decide where he does or does not want to go, but if it only works once, then it was pointless in the first place because the player ends up in a place he doesn't want to be.
- Deadmau55

But he has to waive initially to get traded there, so how is that a place he does not want to be?

Heatley's no trade did not move. Did he want to go to Minnesota? I doubt it.

And it's komiserik that canucks fans ( Contract and suckyness) don't want. See now that we are communicating we feel each others problems, I feel like we are in therapy. We both don't want there contracts so lets just not make a trade end of story ( I wish I was gm)
- pker2theend

that's what i've been saying all day

Yeah well, think that won't be a big issue when the leafs make the playoffs for years.
- Deadmau55

what are the playoffs

well then really whats the point in having a ntc if it only works once? The player usually has a ntc so he can more or less decide where he does or does not want to go, but if it only works once, then it was pointless in the first place because the player ends up in a place he doesn't want to be.
- Deadmau55

If you want to stay with the team you originally signed with you can use it but once you lift it you say ADIOS NTC

Kneughter, you are basing your arguements on things you don't know, like 1) the salary below cap hit will be attactive to teams reaching the floor. Uh, not necessarily. the last 3 or 4 years won't matter... what makes you think he definitely decided to walk away from 6 million + (last 4 years I think).

You *may* be right, but it is not something that someone should count on. Counting on these things being true would be risky, if not irresponsible.
- GoneFullRetard

GFR.... you don't need to make any assumption.... if you dont want Lu when he is 39... you send him down to the minors. *POOF* hes gone and so is his cap hit.

The owners will not have an issue with biting 1 million a year for a few years while he dwindles in the minors. Which if I was going to guess... he would not want to make 1 million a year while playing in the minors.

Obviously I have NO IDEA what he plans to do... if I were to bet money... hes earned 61 million out of 64 million... I don't think he would pass up the chance to spend more time with his family in order to be a back up or play in the minors and make 1 million while doing it.

But aside from that... doesn't matter what he wants... its what the organization wants... and if they dont want him.. they can send him down to the minors. Or even possibly trade him to another team that is looking for a goalie and is wanting to hit the cap floor without paying much out in terms of actual money. (cheap ownership)

I wish people could see that.

If the deal was 3 or 4 years, I would be all over offering a good return.

The problems is that it is 10 years, until he is 43, and, despite what gets posted around here there are no "outs" and no guarantees whatsoever that he leaves the last few years on the table and retires.
- GoneFullRetard

agree

TELL. THAT. TO. MIKAH555!!!

At least Juice will provide MORE THAN FAIR warning and is willing to let a lot of the petty things slide. In fact, he has been more than fair with you here today considering some of the bullsh!t you've posted, let alone your user name and avatar.

Just to give you an idea of how petty Mikah555 can be, after the Canucks lost to the Kings in the first round I posted a " ," no words just a " " and I got 3 (frank)in' days FOR THAT!


- As_I_See_It

Precisely.

Pretty sure that next to Howard, I'm the most lenient ref on this site. If a leafs fan went into the Canucks blog with a username "no cups" and an avatar of a sign saying "forever" they would get banned for even posting in the blog.

I wish people could see that.

If the deal was 3 or 4 years, I would be all over offering a good return.

The problems is that it is 10 years, until he is 43, and, despite what gets posted around here there are no "outs" and no guarantees whatsoever that he leaves the last few years on the table and retires.
- GoneFullRetard

He would be wrth a fortune with 4-5 left his return could partially rebuild a new expansion team IMO

I bet Gillis is selling that he's made a side deal with Lou that he wont fulfill the last 4 years of the deal and it's really only a 6 year deal to all the potential suiters. I mean I can't see there being anything wrong with that can you. I don't think the NHL would mind at all if he was openly admitting to making that deal structured that way on purpose knowing he wont last all 10. THE NHL would be fine with that, right.
- burn

Well I get the sarcasm, and of course it is not OK...

But I also think this is the exact kind of stuff, like tampering, that goes on all the time.

what are the playoffs
- The_Vark

Come on brother, few tweaks here and there and your right back in the hunt. Nothing worth doing is ever easy.

And it's komiserik that canucks fans ( Contract and suckyness) don't want. See now that we are communicating we feel each others problems, I feel like we are in therapy. We both don't want there contracts so lets just not make a trade end of story ( I wish I was gm)
- pker2theend

Yup, I agreed with you (and Vantel) the other day about this on the Leafs thread.

It would not surprise me at all to see no trade happening with the Leafs.

For all that it looks like a fit, The Leafs can't afford to give up assets and aren't about to make a serious cup run, so it really makes no sense for either team.

...and I am hoping no Luongo. If we give up nothing much of value then I will hope he plays well for us and that he really doesn't stick around for the whole 10 years

But he has to waive initially to get traded there, so how is that a place he does not want to be?

Heatley's no trade did not move. Did he want to go to Minnesota? I doubt it.
- GoneFullRetard

Fair point.

Well I get the sarcasm, and of course it is not OK...

But I also think this is the exact kind of stuff, like tampering, that goes on all the time.
- GoneFullRetard

No doubt that is why he did that deal that way.... but I doubt Gillis is going to admit it. NJD lost a 1st and they didn't admit anything.

Come on brother, few tweaks here and there and your right back in the hunt. Nothing worth doing is ever easy.
- Deadmau55

the thing with the leafs is they can go 2 ways

1, you get lou and try and land a 1 centre and start trying to make a push

2, you start selling and building

i don't know what the right answer is

GFR.... you don't need to make any assumption.... if you dont want Lu when he is 39... you send him down to the minors. *POOF* hes gone and so is his cap hit.

The owners will not have an issue with biting 1 million a year for a few years while he dwindles in the minors. Which if I was going to guess... he would not want to make 1 million a year while playing in the minors.

Obviously I have NO IDEA what he plans to do... if I were to bet money... hes earned 61 million out of 64 million... I don't think he would pass up the chance to spend more time with his family in order to be a back up or play in the minors and make 1 million while doing it.

But aside from that... doesn't matter what he wants... its what the organization wants... and if they dont want him.. they can send him down to the minors. Or even possibly trade him to another team that is looking for a goalie and is wanting to hit the cap floor without paying much out in terms of actual money. (cheap ownership)
- kneughter

That is the ONLY real compelling arguement, that he can be sent down. Burke doesn't love doing that... but then maybe he won't be around then anyway

the thing with the leafs is they can go 2 ways

1, you get lou and try and land a 1 centre and start trying to make a push

2, you start selling and building

i don't know what the right answer is
- The_Vark

option 2.....but 3 years ago, burke built the marlies and did a great job, time for new ownership to cut him loose, he can seriously set this club back if he deviates from the original plan anymore

Come on brother, few tweaks here and there and your right back in the hunt. Nothing worth doing is ever easy.
- Deadmau55

We may get back in the hunt for the playoffs.

We may have WAY more depth in the minors than we did before.

but we are nowhere near being actual contenders. We have no stars in farm system and very few on the Leafs; in fact, only 1 (maybe 2) legitimate stars and one very promising young D.

It is just not close to good enough.

Come on brother, few tweaks here and there and your right back in the hunt. Nothing worth doing is ever easy.
- Deadmau55

Spoken like a true fan who hasn't forgotten how only a few years ago they were in our shoes...sort of.

the thing with the leafs is they can go 2 ways

1, you get lou and try and land a 1 centre and start trying to make a push

2, you start selling and building

i don't know what the right answer is
- The_Vark

All you need is Lu and your in playoffs, nothing else I garentee.

All you need is Lu and your in playoffs, nothing else I garentee.
- pker2theend

Lou could help but the leafs have very little anyways, if we truly are still rebuilding 3-4 years away puts lou 36-37 years old andno longer in his prime, Lou may be worth more than that but from a leafs point of view see why e would have to be cheap

the thing with the leafs is they can go 2 ways

1, you get lou and try and land a 1 centre and start trying to make a push

2, you start selling and building

i don't know what the right answer is
- The_Vark

I think, from the outside looking in, and im not pretending that I know tons about the leafs, but I think getting to the playoffs should be the number one thing right now, not building for the future. Because when you get there, anything can happen. I think the leafs should get lou, and be set in goal for a while, because he can, and should get you there. Then anything can happen. Get your players that playoff experience, then work from there. I think top players would rather go to a team that can get to the playoffs and roll the dice, rather then a rebuilding team.

We may get back in the hunt for the playoffs.

We may have WAY more depth in the minors than we did before.

but we are nowhere near being actual contenders. We have no stars in farm system and very few on the Leafs; in fact, only 1 (maybe 2) legitimate stars and one very promising young D.

It is just not close to good enough.
- GoneFullRetard

You know the real crappy part.

Think about the leafs teams in the early 2000's that many thought could win the cup...and let's compare them to what the leafs have in place now.

Sundin - nothing even half close
Roberts - nope
Tucker - nope
Domi - nope
High scoring defensive pair in Kaberle and McCabe - nope
Belfour/Joseph - nope
Mogilny - Kessel I guess

They are so far from having a team that allows us to say "maybe a contender" and even with those names above they still didn't win crap...that's how unbelievably far away this team is.

option 2.....but 3 years ago, burke built the marlies and did a great job, time for new ownership to cut him loose, he can seriously set this club back if he deviates from the original plan anymore
- MindFr3eak

i think the smart thing to do would to extened burke so he dosen't feel the need to try and save his job that way he can build the team. because as soon as your bring in another gm he will change everything and it will take twice as long to get on track. and weather you like him or not the fact is burke is a good gm

Wow.

That is all.