Sensible Commentary
Member Since
Jul. 25, 2016
Favourite Team
Pittsburgh Penguins
2nd Favourite Team
Arizona Coyotes
Forum Posts
Posts per Day
Forum: NHL TradesMar. 22 at 9:20 p.m.
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>TheBoyDuddus</b></div><div>BLOws my mind that the finger was originally being pointed at Dorion. I'm going to assume that Dorion did pass the list on if it was required but has anyone confirmed that the onus is one him to provide the lsit and not on Vegas to ask the required questions before completing a transaction?

Obviously Vegas is still a new franchise but theyre held in very high regard so wrapping my head around the fact that they had Dadonov for 8 months and never bothered to check in on the M-NTC is mind-boggling.</div></div>tbf i'm just going based off of what I heard Elliotte Friedman report, which is that both Vegas and the league front office were led to believe that Dadonov either didn't have a M-NTC or that his agent hadn't filed the paperwork on time to fulfill the M-NTC. the most recent tweet on this is here:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Latest on Dadonov: Somehow, on trade call from Ottawa to Vegas (a team Dadonov could not block), Golden Knights and NHL were led to believe protection had expired/not filed properly. But, there is correspondence proving no-trade paperwork filed correctly (and on-time) June 30.</p>— Elliotte Friedman (@FriedgeHNIC) <a href="https://twitter.com/FriedgeHNIC/status/1506311773791694850?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw" rel="nofollow noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">March 22, 2022</a></blockquote>

the thing is, as well, is that, mindbogglingly enough, there's no central registry for trade clauses, and it's a team-to-team thing, which means that both the league and Vegas had to rely upon Ottawa to report the existence of a trade clause. it depends on what happened during that initial trade call between Ottawa and Vegas:
- if no question was explicitly asked, and everybody just assumed Dadonov didn't have any trade clauses, that falls on both the league FO and Vegas for not doing their due diligence.
- but if Pierre Dorion was explicitly asked about a trade clause for Dadonov and he said no, either out of malice or neglect, that's <em>really bad</em> for Ottawa.
Forum: NHL TradesMar. 22 at 4:55 p.m.
Forum: NHL SigningsMar. 17 at 3:03 p.m.
Forum: NHL SigningsMar. 17 at 12:28 p.m.
Forum: Armchair-GMJan. 9 at 6:04 p.m.
Forum: Armchair-GMJan. 9 at 5:53 p.m.
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>EsoYeezus69</b></div><div>I’ve bolded the main things I’ll go over.

1. Klingberg has asked to be traded therefore chances are that he’ll probably not be on the teams roster next year, Nill’s acts of stupidity has shown off and Klingberg was the first to speak out. He’s tired of this joke of a franchise (tbh I don’t blame him). So if he’s out it’s a blow to our d core or more or less our team, which lowers our chances of competing for the cup.

2. Depending on the teams success this year really changes your points, because if we aren’t in a position to win this year, chances are Pavs, Rads and other upcoming free agents will be sold because they don’t bring any value to our team in a long term stand point. If they don’t get moved Nill should certainly get the can (he already should’ve gotten it a long time ago), and if he doesn’t then my other comment gets discarded because I won’t care for this joke of a franchise any longer.

3. After we most likely flop to make the playoffs Nill/Bones should both get fired and then a new GM and Coach get the duties to guide this team through a re-tool. During when our cap situation will most likely be loose and picks will be one of the most valuable assets. Bishop’s cap is only for next year, a year which we shouldn’t be competing.

4. In the scenario we somehow make the playoffs and we keep our upcoming free agents, if Bishop was to be traded it’d probably be in a package to a team like Arizona looking to get to the cap floor, but instead of a dumping of contract it’d be for an asset, which would help a cup run.</div></div>If the Stars do end up moving towards selling assets, this all makes a lot of sense. The main idea was really "who are the Coyotes going to be targeting in order to gain assets?", and those teams are, often, ones trying to push for a Cup, but if the Stars aren't exactly moving in that direction, then, yeah, there would be less incentive to need to trade Bishop.
Forum: Armchair-GMJan. 9 at 5:50 p.m.
Forum: Armchair-GMJan. 9 at 5:45 p.m.
Forum: Armchair-GMJan. 9 at 5:31 p.m.
Forum: NHLOct. 27, 2021 at 2:09 p.m.
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Alfie11</b></div><div>This is something I’ve been wondering as well, but I’m not sure it’ll happen. After all, the executives were responsible for protecting their player, reporting to the police, investigating/firing, etc. none of which happened. The players were “just” being assholes, not technically doing anything illegal, just morally wrong afaik. Unless it’s like, defamation? If toxic masculinity in hockey culture is gonna rear its nasty head and protect people who don’t deserve it, I think this is the point where it’ll start. It’ll get brushed off as regular insults/motivation or some bs. This objectively stupid culture may protect the likes of Chevy and Q as well but I really hope not, and I think following this report the league can’t afford to allow them to stay to protect their image, but in classic NHL fashion will then consider their work done. No I’m not cynical, you’re cynical 😤😤😤</div></div>you're right that I don't think the players will have any sort of legal action taken against them, but the court of public opinion operates differently (and still has some weight behind it).

do we look at the story of Andrew Ladd trying to revive his career in Arizona differently if we find out that he was party to the victimization of John Doe? do we start asking questions about whether Duncan Keith deserves to be a leader in the Edmonton locker room if he was also party to such things? does Jonathan Toews deserve to be captain if he was culpable? these are all valid questions that may need asking.
Forum: NHLOct. 27, 2021 at 1:51 p.m.
Forum: NHLOct. 27, 2021 at 1:30 p.m.
Forum: Chicago BlackhawksOct. 27, 2021 at 1:17 p.m.
Forum: Montreal CanadiensAug. 29, 2021 at 11:24 a.m.
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>F50marco</b></div><div>and they are literally right up to the cap at that point......... forget trade deadline acquisitions. Forget easy call ups when injuries happen. But more importantly and you agreed with me on this, what about next year? How much is Suzuki getting now? What happens when KK scores 41 points and demands 6M+ again next year?

IF KK signed an offer sheet on July 1st, I'd be wayyyyy more forgiving. The team had cap space, Danault wasn't coming back, etc. etc. After the team signs a bunch of players and training camp starts in a month? That put the team in a bind gong forward that they shouldn't have had to be in and didn't plan for.

The ramifications of this are far deeper than you think. The timing was terrible.</div></div>So what i'm going to say about this whole situation comes from a vaguely different perspective, and it is not particularly meant to be a "well, you're wrong, and here's why" sort of deal. But my take on this whole thing devolves into two related but semi-distinct points:

1) Jesperi Kotkaniemi should really be trying to make as much money as he can, at the end of the day, because the team he plays for is certainly going to try and bilk him out of as much of it as they think they can get away with.
It's that sort of line of thinking, that players need to pay their dues before they can make it big, that led to this current system of restricted free agency, along with this nebulous idea that a team and the players that play for it are one big happy family. Hockey is still a <em>business</em>, at the end of the day, and young players get the short end of the stick for hand-wavy intangible reasons that are frankly kinda dumb. You see the extreme end of this in the NFL, with non-guaranteed contracts and running backs that last, like, a few years before injuries and concussions ruin their careers. NFL players have to make as much money as they can with the short playing window that they have. Hockey players frankly should be doing the same thing, because who knows how long their window of opportunity will last to make it big in the NHL.
On top of that, the pandemic has really made it plainly obvious that sports leagues and sports team owners have a severe disdain for anything that is not <em>making money</em>, up to and including the health and safety of their players. Again, you see the extreme end of this in the NFL, where, last season, an entire <em>fifth</em> (as in, 20%) of the league's players wound up on the COVID-19 injury reserve list. Sports teams very much see their players as commodities as opposed to human beings, and, as much as hockey fans might not like to think it, this extends to the NHL, too. Frankly, I think this means that, conversely, players should have a more detached view of their attachment to a team, as well.
$6.1M is a <em>lot</em> of money, and definitely more than the 2-year, $2.5M AAV contract that had supposedly been extended to Kotkaniemi, per Elliotte Friedman; on top of that, Friedman said on the 31 Thoughts podcast that he's fairly certain that the Hurricanes have already discussed what a long-term contract would look like with Kotkaniemi and his agent, making it look like they've done their due diligence. Arpon Basu's reporting in The Athletic also seems to imply that Kotkaniemi, at one point, thought he would be getting a long-term extension from the Habs, but that that thinking changed. This sorta leads into my second point:

2) I think the relationship between Kotkaniemi and the Habs really badly deteriorated, but that it wasn't <em>just</em> on Kotkaniemi's end, and he thinks the Habs have done <em>him</em> dirty in some number of ways. I think Basu's reporting sums up this situation far better than I can, so I'll just drop a couple of quotes from the article he wrote about it:

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quote:</div>Last season, Kotkaniemi struggled to find consistency, but it should be noted he didn’t benefit from any consistency either in terms of linemates or role. He was 20, remember, and while some would argue the onus was on him to make the best of his situation – it’s a fair argument – it could just as easily be argued the Canadiens did not put him in a situation to succeed.

Then the playoffs began and Kotkaniemi was a healthy scratch. When they ended roughly six weeks later in the Stanley Cup Final, Kotkaniemi was again a healthy scratch. He played a bunch of games in between, 19 to be precise, and produced eight points. He didn’t exactly set the world on fire, but he also turned 21 the day before the Canadiens lost in the Final with him watching from the stands in Tampa.

And then, once the playoffs were over, Kotkaniemi heard his general manager say this: “If I don’t have a choice, if I don’t see there’s a fit, then I’m going to have to rely and hope that KK gets the job done. That’s just the reality of being a GM in the National Hockey League. Sometimes, you can’t fill those spots, you have to be careful, and if it’s not there, you hope the young player’s going to take the next step. I don’t know that for sure, but that might have to be the case with KK.”</div>
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quote:</div>The Hurricanes’ motives here are not purely hockey-related, but when they made that offer to Kotkaniemi, they showed more belief in him than the Canadiens had shown in nearly two years. His own GM told the world that the worst-case scenario for his team would be to settle on having Kotkaniemi be its second-line centre this season. So for those who were offended by the fact Kotkaniemi agreed to a contract that was so obviously an attempt to troll the Canadiens – with a base salary of $6,100,015 and a signing bonus of $20 as a way of getting both Kotkaniemi’s and Aho’s jersey numbers in the offer – perhaps Kotkaniemi was in a headspace where trolling the Canadiens was not all that disagreeable to him.</div>

As an aside (and this is more of a point 2a), I'm not particularly willing to extend any goodwill to Marc Bergevin in consideration of this situation, considering how recent events have played out and how he's handled them.