Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Zubie#8

Andy Greene Signed +5 years @ $5M Per Season

155 posts in this topic

not too worried about wanting to trade away greene anyway.. we look to him for his leadership for the younger players as well..we seem to have a very well rounded type of player out of him on and off the ice which is great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not too worried about wanting to trade away greene anyway.. we look to him for his leadership for the younger players as well..we seem to have a very well rounded type of player out of him on and off the ice which is great.

I agree that trading Greene isn't really something I see happening anytime soon, but if in 3-4 years we find out that at least 3 of Merrill, Larsson, Gelinas, Santini and Severson are the real deal, he might be someone we'd look to trade for a quality top 6 forward. Especially if we could trade him right before he begins to decline, that would be really good for us.

There's a lot of ifs in there, but not sure that the NTC was the best idea. Wonder how much higher AAV would have been if not for the NTC. I could have lived with a 5/27.5. Looking back, I think a 4/24 with no NTC might be the ideal contract for the team. Gives us a few years to get a handle on what we have in our defenseman and prospects, but expires before we'd need to be paying out huge $$ to keep our d corps together.

Edited by ATLL765

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An NTC rarely stops a player from being traded. It just gives him leverage on his destination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An NTC rarely stops a player from being traded. It just gives him leverage on his destination.

While that's true, it's because if that leverage the player has in picking his destination that teams appear to have trouble getting assets of equal value in return for that player.

This is the biggest issue in my mind. Look at the Kesler trade; from most reports it seems as if Anaheim was the only place he was willing to go and it was because of this that Vancouver got a weak return for him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While that's true, it's because if that leverage the player has in picking his destination that teams appear to have trouble getting assets of equal value in return for that player.

This is the biggest issue in my mind. Look at the Kesler trade; from most reports it seems as if Anaheim was the only place he was willing to go and it was because of this that Vancouver got a weak return for him.

 

You can't sign a player like this early and not give him a no-trade clause.  It's the cost of doing business like this.

 

The difference is that Kesler wanted out of Vancouver and only wanted to go to Anaheim.  This makes things difficult on a GM.  When you go to a player and say 'We want to trade you', he probably won't name one place as a destination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0