2ELIAS6 Posted August 2, 2014 Share Posted August 2, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ATLL765 Posted August 3, 2014 Share Posted August 3, 2014 (edited) 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 August 3, 2014 by ATLL765 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshall Posted August 3, 2014 Share Posted August 3, 2014 An NTC rarely stops a player from being traded. It just gives him leverage on his destination. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ATLL765 Posted August 3, 2014 Share Posted August 3, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted August 3, 2014 Share Posted August 3, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.