future considerations?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from abra-cadaver. Show abra-cadaver's posts

    future considerations?

    What does that even mean?  Is that just a trade loophole or another way of saying we gave Sturm away for absolutely nothing in return?  Or are we actually going to see some kind of compensation for Sturm?
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from WalkTheLine. Show WalkTheLine's posts

    Re: future considerations?

    I guess you could look at it as a loophole, although it is probably used more like that since the advent of a cap. The FC thing has been around for a long time.
    I believe, the FC can be anything except money and cannot in any way restrict the movement of the player. I recall one team doing a deal at the draft and the FC was an agreement not to draft a certain player. I also believe the FC need to be agreed upon at the time of the trade but there can be all sorts of conditions attached. If player traded performs to a certain level, re-signs, etc.

    Does anyone know if the FC can be nothing?

    In the cas of Sturm, I think it could be something like a conditional draft pick but probably not better than a 5th or 6th round pick.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from 50belowzero. Show 50belowzero's posts

    Re: future considerations?

    Future considerations could mean considerable cap relief in the future .
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from bruinsfan084evr. Show bruinsfan084evr's posts

    Re: future considerations?

    lights please 

    www.nesn.com/2010/12/peter-chiarelli-honest-about-salary-cap-considerations-in-marco-sturm-trade.html">Peter Chiarelli Honest About Salary Cap Considerations in Marco Sturm Trade

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: future considerations?

    Yeah, I think it means absolutely nothing in terms of players, prospects, or draft picks, but I do have to wonder if perhaps there is an agreement of some sort like WTL mentioned above.  I just don't know why the term would even be used if it was truly nothing.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from WalkTheLine. Show WalkTheLine's posts

    Re: future considerations?

    Thanks...I think I read that earlier but was too lazy to go back and hunt for it. Also too lazy to look up the FC language in the CBA. I think everything I stated above is accurate but maybe one of the posters with more free time than me will look it up.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from islamorada. Show islamorada's posts

    Re: future considerations?

    This is what PC could do to be cap compliant.  I look at this in terms of business.  LA did not lose assets to gain a good player albeit recovering from severe injury.  The Boston organization had to make a move.  Ryder should have been the player imo, but the organization had to make a decision.  It is unfortunate Sturm was injured at the beginning of the season, borrowed that from BookBoy.  Anyway, something has to be said about the working in the NHL with legitimacy.  The Bs did not want to lose Sturm, but they may have an organzition (LA) which can be a trading partner in the future.  Did you ever notice how some teams tend to trade to only certain other teams?  Trust.  I could elaborate on the Kessel trade but I swore not to speak on that issue.  
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from WalkTheLine. Show WalkTheLine's posts

    Re: future considerations?

    In Response to Re: future considerations?:
      Ryder should have been the player imo, but the organization had to make a decision.  It is unfortunate Sturm was injured at the beginning of the season, borrowed that from BookBoy.  Posted by islamorada[/QUOTE]

    I agree. Injury aside, I would much rather have Marco than Ryder. If Sturm had not been injured is there much doubt that Ryder would have been traded or demoted?
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from BTownExpress. Show BTownExpress's posts

    Re: future considerations?

    Consider that the Kings FO might (unofficially) owe the B's FO a favour.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: future considerations?

    In Response to Re: future considerations?:
    [QUOTE]lights please  www.nesn.com/2010/12/peter-chiarelli-honest-about-salary-cap-considerations-in-marco-sturm-trade.html " /> Peter Chiarelli Honest About Salary Cap Considerations in Marco Sturm Trade
    Posted by bruinsfan084evr[/QUOTE]
    Wow.No shortage of ridiculous fans that are posting on NESN too.Not sure if I feel better or worse that the crazies aren't limited to this site alone.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share