HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk Trade rumors, transactions, and free agent talk. Rumors must contain the word RUMOR in post title. Proposals must contain the word PROPOSAL in post title.

[NSH/VAN] Ryan Parent + Jonas Andersson for Shane O'Brien & Dan Genur, Parent waived

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-06-2010, 08:03 AM
  #151
orcatown
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,587
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jin View Post
I think Nashville gets a player that they want for a price they are willing to pay (due to the salary dumps of Parent and Anderson).



I think Vancouver gets Parent and Anderson for the Moose rather then sending O'Brien there - which is a win for them - especially considering the Moose have agreed to pay Anderson's salary because they wanted him and SOB wouldn't be the best influence on young players. You are also smart enough to know that O'Brien didn't make the Canucks and just cleared waivers while not having a restrictive salary ($1.6m is not much at all) and as a result really doesn't have much value at all. In fact, when someone clears waivers with such a small salary, it could be argued that they are a marginal NHLer especially when they were scratched 16 times in the prior year.

There are basically no cap implecations at all for either team since all players involved were either already sent or being sent to the minors. Calling this a cap move is a pile of BS.

Seems like a win-win to me.
But clearly the whole thing was precipitated by the cap issues the Canucks had. Otherwise O'Brien never gets put on waivers or in a position the Canucks had to trade him. The Canucks, as Gillis has stated, were not willing to lose their reputation as player -friendly franchise and thus tried to find a spot for O'Brien. But underlying the whole process, as the team has clearly stated, was the necessity to get cap compliant. In the end the Canucks were in a tight spot with O'Brien (lose cred by playing in the minors or trade him for whatever you could get) and the Preds could use this to their advantage. How difficult is that to understand?

Why parse and contrive everything to try make it look like a good deal for the Canucks.

Gillis did what he had to do. But unless there is dramatic turn in Parent's career or a sudden change in Andersson's career, the Canucks traded a perfectly serviceable NHL defenseman for really nothing. How that is win -win situation or how the cap was not involved in the situation is beyond me.

orcatown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-06-2010, 10:01 AM
  #152
The Big Foot
Registered User
 
The Big Foot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: Bhutan
Posts: 2,596
vCash: 500
SOB would have been a total cancer in Manitoba. Just look at the comments he made to the media about AV yesterday. You really want a guy like that getting wasted all the time and spouting off to the youngsters?

This is a win-win, anyone who argues otherwise doesn't know the reality of O'Brien's situation in Van. It's not like the Ehrhoff deal in the least. Ehrhoff didn't get put on waivers, he wasn't available for NOTHING the day before the deal went down. Sure Lukowich was part of the deal, salary dump there, but getting rid of SOB was the prime objective here and Gillis accomplished that.

The Big Foot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-06-2010, 10:01 AM
  #153
wholesickcrew
Registered User
 
wholesickcrew's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,954
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by orcatown View Post
But clearly the whole thing was precipitated by the cap issues the Canucks had. Otherwise O'Brien never gets put on waivers or in a position the Canucks had to trade him. The Canucks, as Gillis has stated, were not willing to lose their reputation as player -friendly franchise and thus tried to find a spot for O'Brien. But underlying the whole process, as the team has clearly stated, was the necessity to get cap compliant. In the end the Canucks were in a tight spot with O'Brien (lose cred by playing in the minors or trade him for whatever you could get) and the Preds could use this to their advantage. How difficult is that to understand?

Why parse and contrive everything to try make it look like a good deal for the Canucks.

Gillis did what he had to do. But unless there is dramatic turn in Parent's career or a sudden change in Andersson's career, the Canucks traded a perfectly serviceable NHL defenseman for really nothing. How that is win -win situation or how the cap was not involved in the situation is beyond me.
The Canucks had no plan on using that defenseman. If it weren't for the cap, O'Brien would start as the seventh dman -- he'd be in the pressbox. And given O'Brien's thoughts about being in the pressbox, it's clearly best to avoid that situation. Hence a trade could be seen as a good thing for the organization.

wholesickcrew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-06-2010, 10:30 AM
  #154
lennie
Registered User
 
lennie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,033
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by orcatown View Post
But clearly the whole thing was precipitated by the cap issues the Canucks had. Otherwise O'Brien never gets put on waivers or in a position the Canucks had to trade him. The Canucks, as Gillis has stated, were not willing to lose their reputation as player -friendly franchise and thus tried to find a spot for O'Brien. But underlying the whole process, as the team has clearly stated, was the necessity to get cap compliant. In the end the Canucks were in a tight spot with O'Brien (lose cred by playing in the minors or trade him for whatever you could get) and the Preds could use this to their advantage. How difficult is that to understand?

Why parse and contrive everything to try make it look like a good deal for the Canucks.

Gillis did what he had to do. But unless there is dramatic turn in Parent's career or a sudden change in Andersson's career, the Canucks traded a perfectly serviceable NHL defenseman for really nothing. How that is win -win situation or how the cap was not involved in the situation is beyond me.

If you have a bag of tomatoes, and one of them is rotten. What do you do to keep the other tomatoes from getting rotten? You take out the rotten one so the others dont get spoiled.

Addition by subtraction. It works for me.

lennie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-06-2010, 10:45 AM
  #155
Rover*
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 13,845
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by orcatown View Post
But clearly the whole thing was precipitated by the cap issues the Canucks had. Otherwise O'Brien never gets put on waivers or in a position the Canucks had to trade him. The Canucks, as Gillis has stated, were not willing to lose their reputation as player -friendly franchise and thus tried to find a spot for O'Brien. But underlying the whole process, as the team has clearly stated, was the necessity to get cap compliant. In the end the Canucks were in a tight spot with O'Brien (lose cred by playing in the minors or trade him for whatever you could get) and the Preds could use this to their advantage. How difficult is that to understand?

Why parse and contrive everything to try make it look like a good deal for the Canucks.

Gillis did what he had to do. But unless there is dramatic turn in Parent's career or a sudden change in Andersson's career, the Canucks traded a perfectly serviceable NHL defenseman for really nothing. How that is win -win situation or how the cap was not involved in the situation is beyond me.
A perfectly serviceable NHL defensemen that was available to all 29 teams for no assets aside from cap space when he was put on waviers but yet no one seemed to want.

Rover* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-06-2010, 11:08 AM
  #156
Seth Lake
Registered User
 
Seth Lake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Nashville, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 8,855
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Seth Lake
Quote:
Originally Posted by skyze View Post
A perfectly serviceable NHL defensemen that was available to all 29 teams for no assets aside from cap space when he was put on waviers but yet no one seemed to want.
Poile said yesterday on the radio that this was probably the quickest deal he's ever put together because the frame work was already in place. At some point this offseason after doing his homework, Poile called Gillis and offered to take O'Brien off his hands on the condition that the trade was dollar for dollar. At that time Gillis declined and the issue was dead. Yesterday morning, Gillis called Poile to see if the offer was still on the table and it just happened to work out that our unproven No. 5 defenseman that OB would replace and our 14th forward equalled close to O'Brien $1.6 cap hit. Gendur was just a throw-in to balance out the contracts since both teams are up against the cap there.

Vancouver is against the salary cap, Nashville is against their internal cap, both are up against the contract limit. This trade really is a win-win due to the symmetry of the whole deal...

Seth Lake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-06-2010, 11:44 AM
  #157
ronthecivil
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 223
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pedrospecialk View Post
Not too much to say here, works out for both ends pretty well. Nashville fills out their d-corps while having the cap space to take on O'Brien. Vancouver gets their #1 target in cap space while taking a flier on Andersson and praying that Parent clears waivers.

Bit fuzzy on this but is Parent subject to re-entry if he gets called back up? (sorry if this was mentioned before).
When do we find out about that?

If he does make it it's operation heal up (quick, call Gary Roberts!) and properly this time then bring him in slow to regain the confidence, and we run the risk of reclaiming something that we have been dearly missing.

ronthecivil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-06-2010, 11:53 AM
  #158
Habsfan18
The Future
 
Habsfan18's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,163
vCash: 500
Any news on Parent? Did he clear waivers?

Or does he have until tomorrow to clear?

Habsfan18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-06-2010, 11:54 AM
  #159
Bobby Lou
We Surrender
 
Bobby Lou's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: The Crease
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,332
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habsfan18 View Post
Any news on Parent? Did he clear waivers?

Or does he have until tomorrow to clear?
He cleared.

http://communities.canada.com/thepro...r-waivers.aspx

Now we can argue whether that was a good or bad thing for the Canucks as some people seem to think Gillis was hoping he would be claimed.

Bobby Lou is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-06-2010, 12:04 PM
  #160
NuxFan09
Registered User
 
NuxFan09's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,285
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby Lou View Post
He cleared.

http://communities.canada.com/thepro...r-waivers.aspx

Now we can argue whether that was a good or bad thing for the Canucks as some people seem to think Gillis was hoping he would be claimed.
This is my theory. After O'Brien went through waivers and wasn't claimed, Gillis decided to try to deal him for someone of value that he figured would likely be picked up if put on waivers. I'm guessing Parent, given his past hype and potential, was a pretty good bet to be prime waiver pick-up material. Unfortunately, that has not been the case.

NuxFan09 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-06-2010, 12:12 PM
  #161
ronthecivil
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 223
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NuxFan09 View Post
This is my theory. After O'Brien went through waivers and wasn't claimed, Gillis decided to try to deal him for someone of value that he figured would likely be picked up if put on waivers. I'm guessing Parent, given his past hype and potential, was a pretty good bet to be prime waiver pick-up material. Unfortunately, that has not been the case.
The consolation of a reclaim project that could turn into a 5/6 defenceman next year on the cheap is pretty decent in itself.

If we need to drop a contract THAT bad trade one of our prospects for a pick and be done with it. It's not THAT hard.

ronthecivil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-06-2010, 12:28 PM
  #162
Saren
Multi Pass!
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Fhloston Paradise
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,088
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLake View Post
Poile said yesterday on the radio that this was probably the quickest deal he's ever put together because the frame work was already in place. At some point this offseason after doing his homework, Poile called Gillis and offered to take O'Brien off his hands on the condition that the trade was dollar for dollar. At that time Gillis declined and the issue was dead. Yesterday morning, Gillis called Poile to see if the offer was still on the table and it just happened to work out that our unproven No. 5 defenseman that OB would replace and our 14th forward equalled close to O'Brien $1.6 cap hit. Gendur was just a throw-in to balance out the contracts since both teams are up against the cap there.

Vancouver is against the salary cap, Nashville is against their internal cap, both are up against the contract limit. This trade really is a win-win due to the symmetry of the whole deal...
Next, we can work on getting Weber to Vancouver...

Saren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-06-2010, 12:59 PM
  #163
Bobby Lou
We Surrender
 
Bobby Lou's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: The Crease
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,332
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ronthecivil View Post
The consolation of a reclaim project that could turn into a 5/6 defenceman next year on the cheap is pretty decent in itself.

If we need to drop a contract THAT bad trade one of our prospects for a pick and be done with it. It's not THAT hard.
Ya, the question now becomes whether Parent can re-start his career with a year in Manitoba as they'll be a chance for him to take Alberts spot on the bottom pairing next season (Bieksa may also be gone).

Bobby Lou is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-06-2010, 01:50 PM
  #165
bmah03
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 228
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ronthecivil View Post
The consolation of a reclaim project that could turn into a 5/6 defenceman next year on the cheap is pretty decent in itself.

If we need to drop a contract THAT bad trade one of our prospects for a pick and be done with it. It's not THAT hard.
It's actually not that easy. Most teams are fairly close to the 50 allowed contracts and every team has their own depth prospects they don't need to trade for one. Unless you're talking about giving up a good prospect and finding a team looking to move a good pick that's not going to be very easy.

bmah03 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-06-2010, 03:11 PM
  #166
lightning_legwand*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Ontario, CANADA
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,202
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Big Foot View Post
SOB would have been a total cancer in Manitoba. Just look at the comments he made to the media about AV yesterday. You really want a guy like that getting wasted all the time and spouting off to the youngsters?

This is a win-win, anyone who argues otherwise doesn't know the reality of O'Brien's situation in Van. It's not like the Ehrhoff deal in the least. Ehrhoff didn't get put on waivers, he wasn't available for NOTHING the day before the deal went down. Sure Lukowich was part of the deal, salary dump there, but getting rid of SOB was the prime objective here and Gillis accomplished that.


Yeah, ok! He is mouthing off to the youngsters now eh!


brutal, too bad you didnt know him...

lightning_legwand* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-06-2010, 03:45 PM
  #167
Bobby Lou
We Surrender
 
Bobby Lou's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: The Crease
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,332
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightning_legwand View Post
Yeah, ok! He is mouthing off to the youngsters now eh!


brutal, too bad you didnt know him...
O'Brien is absolutely not a player you want on your farm team; well I'm a bigger fan of his then some people no-one can deny he has some serious off-ice issues (which is why he keeps switching teams). Though some seem to think his problems were magnified in Vancouver due to press-coverage he was also summarily dumped from Anaheim and Tampa Bay (with similar statements from the organizations and fans), which are not hockey obsessed markets.

Bobby Lou is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-06-2010, 04:23 PM
  #168
JAK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 901
vCash: 500
Even if Ryan Parent and Jonas Andersson never plays another NHL game. The Canucks management achieved what they wanted to do, to get Shane O'Brien away from the Canucks organization.

Had this deal not gone down, SOB would have been loaned to another AHL club for sure, he was not going to Manitoba to ruin our prospects.

SOB might not have been a cancer in the lockerroom in the traditional sense, but he has attitude problems and have no self control off ice.
He's been spotted numerous times during off nights, and this past off season, in night clubs in Vancouver, smoking, drinking, and partying.

He's probably a great guy, but he just doesn't cut it as a professional athlete.

JAK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-06-2010, 04:26 PM
  #169
Red
Registered User
 
Red's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: VanCity
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,081
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightning_legwand View Post
Yeah, ok! He is mouthing off to the youngsters now eh!


brutal, too bad you didnt know him...
I don't see what knowing him ~as a person~ has to do with anything. He takes out everything to the media here, bad-mouths the coaching staff and then complains that the organization bad-mouthed him in the media (when in fact, he did so first a few years ago!). That, along with his other off-ice issues is not a good influence for our young players.

Red is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-06-2010, 06:45 PM
  #170
ronthecivil
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 223
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmah03 View Post
It's actually not that easy. Most teams are fairly close to the 50 allowed contracts and every team has their own depth prospects they don't need to trade for one. Unless you're talking about giving up a good prospect and finding a team looking to move a good pick that's not going to be very easy.
They will manage. As evidence by Gillis himself they want him filling that very noticible hole in your depth department.

Finding room for ONE contract won't be THAT hard. They have some to slide. All we need is Schaeffer and I think there's contracts to slide to make that happen.

Signing Schaeffer and keeping Parent are not mutually exclusive goals.

ronthecivil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-06-2010, 06:55 PM
  #171
lightning_legwand*
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Ontario, CANADA
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,202
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JAK View Post
Even if Ryan Parent and Jonas Andersson never plays another NHL game. The Canucks management achieved what they wanted to do, to get Shane O'Brien away from the Canucks organization.

Had this deal not gone down, SOB would have been loaned to another AHL club for sure, he was not going to Manitoba to ruin our prospects.

SOB might not have been a cancer in the lockerroom in the traditional sense, but he has attitude problems and have no self control off ice.
He's been spotted numerous times during off nights, and this past off season, in night clubs in Vancouver, smoking, drinking, and partying.

He's probably a great guy, but he just doesn't cut it as a professional athlete.

And how will he ruin your prospects?? haha

lightning_legwand* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-06-2010, 07:03 PM
  #172
ronthecivil
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 223
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightning_legwand View Post
And how will he ruin your prospects?? haha
Not our concern anymore one way or the other!

Probably overblown by the puritan canucks anyways but it's past history either way.

ronthecivil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-06-2010, 10:55 PM
  #173
predfan24
Registered User
 
predfan24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 3,115
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JAK View Post

SOB might not have been a cancer in the lockerroom in the traditional sense, but he has attitude problems and have no self control off ice.
He's been spotted numerous times during off nights, and this past off season, in night clubs in Vancouver, smoking, drinking, and partying.

He's probably a great guy, but he just doesn't cut it as a professional athlete.
So? I mean I get the concern over the guy. If his lifestyle is affecting his hockey career than yeah it's a problem. I do understand obviously last year it was with him being late to practice and him being overweight. As long as it doesn't affect his hockey play I could care less what he does in his spare time. Tootoo is known for enjoying Nashville's nightlife for a long time and it hasn't affected him. The two don't necessarily have to be correlated.

Besides his contract is only for one more year and if he pulls any crap here Trotz won't put up with it and we have guys like Aaron Johnson, Jon Blum and Roman Josi who are all capable of playing in that bottom pairing.

I acknowledge he is a risk but I don't think he is any more of a risk than SK74.

predfan24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-06-2010, 11:41 PM
  #174
Canuckee
Registered User
 
Canuckee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,309
vCash: 500
i think it was win-win for gillis if parent gets claimed we have an extra roster spot, if not we gain a low risk young player in parent who at this point is pretty much a prospect for the nucks. anyone know the ammount of games he can play in the nhl before having to do through waivers to be sent back down to the moose if he is ever recalled?

Canuckee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-07-2010, 02:26 AM
  #175
Rover*
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 13,845
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightning_legwand View Post
And how will he ruin your prospects?? haha
Setting a bad example by not being a professional. Same reason why Souray is being kept away from the Oiler prospects both on the main team and the farm.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ronthecivil View Post
Not our concern anymore one way or the other!

Probably overblown by the puritan canucks anyways but it's past history either way.


Quote:
Originally Posted by predfan24 View Post
So? I mean I get the concern over the guy. If his lifestyle is affecting his hockey career than yeah it's a problem. I do understand obviously last year it was with him being late to practice and him being overweight. As long as it doesn't affect his hockey play I could care less what he does in his spare time. Tootoo is known for enjoying Nashville's nightlife for a long time and it hasn't affected him. The two don't necessarily have to be correlated.
His lifestyle has affect his career. For Shane O'Brien its not correlation - its causation.

Quote:
Besides his contract is only for one more year and if he pulls any crap here Trotz won't put up with it and we have guys like Aaron Johnson, Jon Blum and Roman Josi who are all capable of playing in that bottom pairing.
AV didn't put up with it either which was why he was suspended and scratched. Of course rather than deal with matters internally he went to the media and complained.

Quote:
I acknowledge he is a risk but I don't think he is any more of a risk than SK74.
At least with SK74 you can argue he is cheap ($1million less than O'Brien) and his immaturity can be related to being young (23 years old compared O'Brien who is 27).

Rover* is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 02:05 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.