Dan Tkaczuk

I'm surprised he's even in the Blues camp, but has he looked good at all? I know he has talent, but he's kind of like Varlamov. Any improvement in his game?

Here's your answer: Tkaczuk released (http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?ID=54813&hubName=nhl)

Too bad about Tkaczuk. I thought he was going to be a good prospect for us, but it didn't work out. I guess this means we now only have Varlamov left from the Turek trade, unless some draft choice remains.

Too bad about Tkaczuk. I thought he was going to be a good prospect for us, but it didn't work out. I guess this means we now only have Varlamov left from the Turek trade, unless some draft choice remains.

Im surprised we got anything for that fat tub of *****. Im surprised there is a team stupid enough to pay him cash money to be a pro goalie.

Here's your answer: Tkaczuk released (http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?ID=54813&hubName=nhl)

Na na na na
Na na na na
Hey hey hey
Good-bye!


:joker:

They need to make room some how. Possible Hemmi signing, and mcclemment comming in. Id rather have the could be's, than the hasnt yets playin. Worcestor should be better this season.

Tkaczuk was a Group II RFA right? Did the Blues sign him to a contract? I thought they did; although I'm not 100%. So, my main question is do the Blues have to pay Tkaczuk or was he at camp on a PTO? I was under the impression a player couldn't be released outright if he was under contract without the team having to pay the player some amount.

Yea, I dunno how that works Lappy. I do remember being shocked that he was qualified.

Yea, I dunno how that works Lappy. I do remember being shocked that he was qualified.

Well, I didn't expect that answer. I figured you or someone else would correct me actually. I would be very curious to know how all this works out because if Pleau has to pay Tkaczuk anything (which I suspect he does), that is quite a black mark against Pleau. I have a hard time believing that Tkaczuk participated in camp without a contract and I have an equally hard time believing that the Blues could just release him outright if he was under contract. If anyone hears something more detailed than the TSN version of it, please post it.

This is just conjecture, but I'm betting the Blues owe Tkaczuk nothing because he didn't make the team....otherwise you wouldn't be able to take a chance on a marginal player having a great camp and making your team if you had to pay him his contract when you released him.

This is just conjecture, but I'm betting the Blues owe Tkaczuk nothing because he didn't make the team....otherwise you wouldn't be able to take a chance on a marginal player having a great camp and making your team if you had to pay him his contract when you released him.

Well, I wasn't suggesting that they would have to honor the full amount of the contract. Usually there's a buyout figure in there or something similar and that's what I was thinking about. There's something odd about this one because he was qualified (which was silly in the first place really) and I can't imagine Tkaczuk went to camp without a deal at all. Maybe Tkaczuk didn't accept the qualifying offer because he wanted out of the organization and possibly the Blues told him to come to camp and if they didn't have a place for him, they would release him outright. If that's what happened, Tkaczuk took a heck of risk playing at camp without a contract in place. Plus, the easier option would have been just not to qualify him in the first place. If he didn't take the qualifying offer, he surely wanted out and as such, why would he perform well at a camp when he wants out? Sorry for the rambling but I just can't make sense of this one.

Pleau said something on the radio about Tkaczuk's rights still belonging to the Blues even though they released him. Pleau wasn't questioned about whether the Blues have to pay him anything.

:mad: Now we can't expose him in the waiver draft. (Of course, if it means we don't have to expose someone else as a result, then :mad: turns to :D.)

Thank goodness my 5-year old didn't get Tkaczuk's autograph on his jersey the other day - probably would have taken all the value off of it.

Pleau said something on the radio about Tkaczuk's rights still belonging to the Blues even though they released him.

???? How is that possible? If the Blues own his rights, then Tkaczuk would have to be under contract or Tkaczuk would have declined to accept the qualifying offer. That would mean the Blues will either pay him to play wherever he plays (if in North America) or Tkaczuk is considered a holdout. Either way, if the Blues retain his rights, then they didn't release him outright. It might be like last season where they're allowing Tkaczuk to go out and try to negotiate a place to play for himself again though. All of which begs the question: Why would Pleau even qualify him? This situation continues to get goofier.

I believe what happened is that he refused to sign the qualifying offer thus making him techically a holdout.

I believe what happened is that he refused to sign the qualifying offer thus making him techically a holdout.

I guess he's hoping Pleau will give him a raise like he did Brent? Have a bad season, earn $300,000 more?

Chances are Pleau did was he did to Marc Brown... he gave him the required 10% NHL salary raise but decreased the AHL salary because there is nothing in the CBA that requires a 10% raise at the AHL level.

I believe what happened is that he refused to sign the qualifying offer thus making him techically a holdout.

I can understand that, but why would Tkaczuk come to training camp and play without a deal? That's pretty idiotic on his part really. Even if he looked like Doug Weight out there, Pleau wasn't going to move higher than the qualifying offer anyway plus there's the risk of injury without a contract to fall back on.

Also, can you explain how the Blues could release him outright and still retain his rights? Just curious if you have a perspective on this that I'm missing because that seems totally contradictory. Perhaps TSN worded the article poorly or inaccurately? I really don't know.

He would come to camp with the idea of earning more than they were offering him.

I think the media used the wrong phrase when they said they released him outright.

He would come to camp with the idea of earning more than they were offering him.

Hmm, I have a hard time with that. One, Tkaczuk clearly doesn't want to be in the Blues organization; he's made that pretty clear by his actions. Two, he's taking a huge risk of getting injured while not under contract. There's very little chance of impressing Pleau when you don't want to be here anyway as far as I'm concerned and Pleau has no reason to move from the qualifying offer either. I also thought that's why they bring in guys on PTO and ATO's as well. Holdouts rarely come to camp without a deal in place, especially a guy with Tkaczuk's history with the Blues in the background.

Hemingway and Byrne are both holdouts and they were in camp also. With veterans, this never happens. With prospects, their mentality is that they have to earn a contract.

Chances are Pleau did was he did to Marc Brown... he gave him the required 10% NHL salary raise but decreased the AHL salary because there is nothing in the CBA that requires a 10% raise at the AHL level.

Did you get the e-mail I sent to you a few weeks ago about that issue?

Did you get the e-mail I sent to you a few weeks ago about that issue?

Yes, I did.. thank you. I have a feeling that this might be the same situation again.

Actually, Hemingway and Byrne were just plain unsigned after coming out of college and had no pro contract in place. Technically, they might be termed holdouts, but it's not the same scenario as Tkaczuk. I can also see Hemingway and Byrne doing it as the circumstances are different. Plus they are still considered prospects. Tkaczuk is on what? His third pro contract by now? And he's certainly not considered a prospect by the Blues nor do I believe he wants to be part of the Blues.

For the record, I'm not being argumentative for the sake of it; I really find the Tkaczuk situation to be pretty unique and confusing at the same time and just want to hear something that makes sense.

I guess I just don't see the situations being different. All 3 are players that are young, not under contract, and are Blues' property.

I guess I just don't see the situations being different. All 3 are players that are young, not under contract, and are Blues' property.

The difference is that Byrne and Hemingway could have decided to sit out this season (not a good option) and the Blues would lose their rights. The Blues only have a year after a player is out of college to sign draft picks. Neither one of them have had a pro contract yet and neither one of them have Tkaczuk's history with organization. There are some similarities between them, but I see the differences to be quite great. Maybe the differences just seem bigger than they are. Don't rightly know.

Yes, I did.. thank you. I have a feeling that this might be the same situation again.

As do I, which is why I brought it up. ;)