HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Vancouver Canucks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Future Considerations

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-10-2004, 10:40 PM
  #1
kmad
Riot Survivor
 
kmad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 32,853
vCash: 500
Future Considerations

What's our official tally on future considerations?

I know we're owed one by Boston for Jiri Slegr, one by Los Angeles for Felix Potvin, and one by Philadelphia for Todd Warriner. What other transactions? How long has future considerations been around?


Last edited by kmad: 10-10-2004 at 10:55 PM.
kmad is offline  
Old
10-10-2004, 11:22 PM
  #2
Mizral
Registered User
 
Mizral's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Earth, MW
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,164
vCash: 500
I believe our 'futures' for Potvin was a 7th round pick several years back. Warriner I think ended up going for, well, nada pretty well. We might get back a pick for Slegr, but I doubt it. 'Future Considerations' is code for 'Sack of Pucks' in the NHL.

Mizral is online now  
Old
10-10-2004, 11:31 PM
  #3
MrMastodonFarm*
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 6,182
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Thompson
'Future Considerations' is code for 'Sack of Pucks' in the NHL.
Not all the time, Robyn Regehr was the future considerations in the Theo Fluery trade.

MrMastodonFarm* is offline  
Old
10-10-2004, 11:43 PM
  #4
ehc73
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Coquitlam, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,943
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to ehc73
The futures for Warriner ended up being nothing I think because he didn't re-sign with the Flyers.

ehc73 is offline  
Old
10-10-2004, 11:44 PM
  #5
RandV
It's a wolf v2.0
 
RandV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,506
vCash: 50
Regher was a different type of FC trade, a more legitamte use of it. I think basically Colorado said to Calgary, here's our 3 first round picks from last season (Tanguay, Regher, Skoula), give us Fleury now and you can take your pick in the summer. Usually FC just means a bag of pucks, but occasionally its meaningful.

RandV is offline  
Old
10-11-2004, 12:23 AM
  #6
Evil Sather
YOU KILL THE JOE
 
Evil Sather's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: YOU MAKE SOME MO
Posts: 1,961
vCash: 500
You forget the immortal 4th pick, Scott Parker. How dare you besmirch Mr. Parker.

Evil Sather is online now  
Old
10-11-2004, 12:42 AM
  #7
Burke's Evil Spirit
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 15,727
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ehc73
The futures for Warriner ended up being nothing I think because he didn't re-sign with the Flyers.
Yep. This is also true of Jiri Slegr. We're owed nothing.

Burke's Evil Spirit is offline  
Old
10-11-2004, 01:07 AM
  #8
THE SOVIET*
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: YOU OUTGHTA KNOWWWWW
Country: Sao Tome e Principe
Posts: 3,965
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to THE SOVIET* Send a message via Yahoo to THE SOVIET*
Actually, Jay, we got a 3rd rounder and selected Lukas Mensator with the Potvin futures

THE SOVIET* is offline  
Old
10-11-2004, 02:52 AM
  #9
spamojones
Registered User
 
spamojones's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 558
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandV
Regher was a different type of FC trade, a more legitamte use of it. I think basically Colorado said to Calgary, here's our 3 first round picks from last season (Tanguay, Regher, Skoula), give us Fleury now and you can take your pick in the summer. Usually FC just means a bag of pucks, but occasionally its meaningful.
TANGUAY wow. Tanguay or Regher...

anyways, back to the topic at hand...slegr's trade wasn't so much for what we would get, but rather as a favour to him, as he wasn't getting the ice time that was expected, so burkey shipped him off to boston so that he could actually play, rather than sit on the bench. (sorry it's late and i can't exactly think properly...turkey brain)

spamojones is offline  
Old
10-11-2004, 03:09 AM
  #10
MS
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 14,173
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandV
Regher was a different type of FC trade, a more legitamte use of it. I think basically Colorado said to Calgary, here's our 3 first round picks from last season (Tanguay, Regher, Skoula), give us Fleury now and you can take your pick in the summer. Usually FC just means a bag of pucks, but occasionally its meaningful.
Tanguay wasn't an option. I believe the options were Regehr, Skoula, Parker, and Riazantsev.

Most notable use of future considerations I can think of in Canuck history was the Murray Craven deal. The deal was at the deadline for Kron and Sandlak, but Sandlak had been terrific the previous season in the playoffs and Quinn didn't want to move him ... so the trade was Craven for Kron and futures, and Sandlak was sent to Hartford the following summer.

MS is offline  
Old
10-11-2004, 01:26 PM
  #11
MrMastodonFarm*
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 6,182
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandV
Regher was a different type of FC trade, a more legitamte use of it. I think basically Colorado said to Calgary, here's our 3 first round picks from last season (Tanguay, Regher, Skoula), give us Fleury now
Untrue, Alex Tanguay was never part of it. Colorado GM Pierre Lacroix and then Flames GM Al Coates both said Tanguay was not part of the deal.

I beleive it was Parker, Regehr, Skoula and Ramzi Abid, though I am not sure exactly. Again, Tanguay was never available to the Flames.

MrMastodonFarm* is offline  
Old
10-17-2004, 03:01 AM
  #12
Russian_fanatic
Registered User
 
Russian_fanatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,638
vCash: 500
It all depends how the player turns out.

Russian_fanatic is offline  
Old
10-17-2004, 04:25 AM
  #13
Superfluous U
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: At a Stone Prison on a Hill
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,036
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MS
Tanguay wasn't an option. I believe the options were Regehr, Skoula, Parker, and Riazantsev.

Most notable use of future considerations I can think of in Canuck history was the Murray Craven deal. The deal was at the deadline for Kron and Sandlak, but Sandlak had been terrific the previous season in the playoffs and Quinn didn't want to move him ... so the trade was Craven for Kron and futures, and Sandlak was sent to Hartford the following summer.
That seems a little shady. I would think the league would frown on something like that.

Superfluous U is offline  
Old
10-17-2004, 05:50 AM
  #14
orcatown
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,811
vCash: 500
At the time there was mention of the compensation for Slegr if he resigned with Bruins or if the Bruins went a certain distance in the playoffs. Maybe a smokescreen for a very confusing Canuck move.

orcatown is offline  
Old
10-17-2004, 02:39 PM
  #15
SedinFan*
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Lethbridge, Alberta
Posts: 10,543
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to SedinFan*
Quote:
Originally Posted by orcatown
At the time there was mention of the compensation for Slegr if he resigned with Bruins or if the Bruins went a certain distance in the playoffs. Maybe a smokescreen for a very confusing Canuck move.
Not confusing at all. Burke promised to move Slegr at a certain point of the season if he wasn't getting minutes. Slegr wasn't getting minutes, for whatever reason, we all can agree that he deserved more minutes, but that wasn't the case. Burke followed through with his promise that if he didnt get the minutes, they'd move him. The date approached, the minutes were the same, therefore the dealt him.

Confusing? No. Very simple.

SedinFan* is offline  
Old
10-17-2004, 06:08 PM
  #16
bubbabalue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Country: Croatia
Posts: 383
vCash: 500
It's not the fact that we traded Slegr, it's the fact that we gave him away for free.

bubbabalue is offline  
Old
10-17-2004, 06:48 PM
  #17
MS
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 14,173
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SedinFan
Not confusing at all. Burke promised to move Slegr at a certain point of the season if he wasn't getting minutes. Slegr wasn't getting minutes, for whatever reason, we all can agree that he deserved more minutes, but that wasn't the case. Burke followed through with his promise that if he didnt get the minutes, they'd move him. The date approached, the minutes were the same, therefore the dealt him.

Confusing? No. Very simple.
Confusing aspects about this deal:

1) Why are we signing a guy to be our #7 defender, and then promising him regular icetime? The two things are mutually opposing - most #7 defenders will spend half their time in the press box. Anyone signed to be the #7 guy should be well prepared to be a healthy scratch and committed to his role. If the player doesn't feel that way, sign someone else. Basically we put ourselves in the position where the player could not possibly fill the role he was signed to play - we sign him to be the #7 defender but promise him that if he's the #7 defender at the All-star break we'll gift him somewhere else and start from scratch to fill that hole. Moronic.

2) Why is does Burke's word have to be gold in this case? He could have waited until the deadline to see whether we'd need Slegr or whether we could have gotten a better deal and he still would have kept his word for the most part. Aside from his verbal promise to Slegr there's no reason to deal him at this point - you're telling me an NHL GM can't stretch that deadline a bit before making a decision?

Remember, Jovanovski went down a week later and Allen went down after that. Had he been kept, Slegr would have played all but about 2 of the games the rest of the way and the team would have been way better off than with the guys we had.

3) Why didn't we have a replacement in place when we dealt Slegr? We're playing stiffs like Grenier, Brookbank, Baumgartner and the like on the blueline for the last three months of the season, and are forced to waste a #6 pick to get a washed-up Bergevin to replace him. In such a tight race with Colorado, that could easily have been the difference between a division title and being the #4 seed.

The whole Slegr saga was a screw-up on Burke's part. There were solid veteran guys available during the offseason who we could've signed to fill the #7 spot and would have been happy to do so, and had we done so our roster would have been stronger in the playoffs than with Bergevin, and we wouldn't have wasted a mid-round pick either. You have to sign guys willing to play the role they're intended for.

MS is offline  
Old
10-17-2004, 07:32 PM
  #18
kmad
Riot Survivor
 
kmad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 32,853
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MS
2) Why is does Burke's word have to be gold in this case? He could have waited until the deadline to see whether we'd need Slegr or whether we could have gotten a better deal and he still would have kept his word for the most part. Aside from his verbal promise to Slegr there's no reason to deal him at this point - you're telling me an NHL GM can't stretch that deadline a bit before making a decision?
The verbal promise included by Christmas. Burke is a respected GM, he wouldn't want to screw an honest player like Slegr who doesn't complain for lack of icetime.


Quote:
The whole Slegr saga was a screw-up on Burke's part. There were solid veteran guys available during the offseason who we could've signed to fill the #7 spot and would have been happy to do so, and had we done so our roster would have been stronger in the playoffs than with Bergevin, and we wouldn't have wasted a mid-round pick either. You have to sign guys willing to play the role they're intended for.
Agreed - although in terms of asset management, it was a nothing move. Signed him for nothing and let him go for nothing. But that's a position you gotta fill as a GM.

kmad is offline  
Old
10-17-2004, 08:24 PM
  #19
jumptheshark
the burn out
 
jumptheshark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: hf retirement home
Country: United Nations
Posts: 57,645
vCash: 526
Quote:
Originally Posted by kmad
What's our official tally on future considerations?

I know we're owed one by Boston for Jiri Slegr, one by Los Angeles for Felix Potvin, and one by Philadelphia for Todd Warriner. What other transactions? How long has future considerations been around?


FC's can be anything---sometimes getting a team to play an ex-game in preseason, 1dollor, dinner, used cars, bag of pucks, and sometimes(once that I know of)that fc's was a team voting against a rule change at the NHL meetings

jumptheshark is offline  
Old
10-18-2004, 02:49 AM
  #20
MS
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 14,173
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kmad
The verbal promise included by Christmas. Burke is a respected GM, he wouldn't want to screw an honest player like Slegr who doesn't complain for lack of icetime.
I agree to a point. If Burke makes a promise, he should keep it, and of the three points I mentioned in my first post it's the one I'm least concerned about. But he probably could have hedged on it as far as the deadline and still held on to most of his integrity.

The big question is WTF he's doing making icetime promises to depth players. It's like signing a Mike Ricci to be your #3 center but promising to deal him if he doesn't get first-unit PP time. It makes no sense. Slegr was clearly signed to be the #7 defender, but promised he wouldn't be the #7 defender.


Quote:
Originally Posted by kmad
Agreed - although in terms of asset management, it was a nothing move. Signed him for nothing and let him go for nothing. But that's a position you gotta fill as a GM.
Not really though. Because we had to replace Slegr, the combined deal was essentially Slegr and a #6 for Bergevin. If we'd signed someone willing to play the #7 role during the offseason, we would have saved that pick.

And of course this was one of Burke's great patterns - bleeding draft picks away at every possible opportunity. And it's one of the main reasons our system looks so barren right now.

MS is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:48 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.