|
Post by raymond on Nov 16, 2006 16:43:39 GMT -5
Does anyone know if Bourdon has a no trade clause. I keep hearing the rumor and I'm wondering if anybody has an inside track. I can;t see the Wildcats agreeing to it in the deal but, more surprising things have happened.
|
|
|
Post by bystander on Nov 16, 2006 21:06:59 GMT -5
well he might have a no trade clause... but do you honestly think if he has a chance to go play for a better team , that has a good chance of winning the championship and then the mem cup that he is going to say no. I doubt it.. Just to clarify ..I have no idea if he has a no trade clause or not..
|
|
|
Post by Dirty Afanasenkov on Nov 17, 2006 7:16:09 GMT -5
All that I've heard is that Vancouver has asked the Wildcats to NOT trade Bourdon as they are concerned about him being uprooted, going to another team and takin a hit developmental wise.
Unsure how reliable this is, but if its true then I say we ask Vancouver for a couple of things if they don't want us moving him.
1) Help in landing a HIGH end Euro for next two years. 2) Payment of Bourdon's expenses. 3) An agreement that Bourdon will play in the CHL next year.
|
|
|
Post by Porkchop on Nov 17, 2006 8:11:07 GMT -5
All that I've heard is that Vancouver has asked the Wildcats to NOT trade Bourdon as they are concerned about him being uprooted, going to another team and takin a hit developmental wise. Unsure how reliable this is, but if its true then I say we ask Vancouver for a couple of things if they don't want us moving him. 1) Help in landing a HIGH end Euro for next two years. 2) Payment of Bourdon's expenses. 3) An agreement that Bourdon will play in the CHL next year. That's a lot to ask ain't it?.........sounds like you might be getting a little greedy..........your points 1 and 2 sound good, but 3 is out to lunch.
|
|
|
Post by jimmy on Nov 17, 2006 8:54:12 GMT -5
All that I've heard is that Vancouver has asked the Wildcats to NOT trade Bourdon as they are concerned about him being uprooted, going to another team and takin a hit developmental wise. Unsure how reliable this is, but if its true then I say we ask Vancouver for a couple of things if they don't want us moving him. 1) Help in landing a HIGH end Euro for next two years. 2) Payment of Bourdon's expenses. 3) An agreement that Bourdon will play in the CHL next year. That's a lot to ask ain't it?.........sounds like you might be getting a little greedy..........your points 1 and 2 sound good, but 3 is out to lunch. Personally I think the Vancouver story is a crock ... he is better served with a contender ... in any event the three points above are absurd - Vancouver will never go for 3, nor should they... this year excluded, the Cats have done alright landing high end euros without the Canucks help in the past ... and covering Bourdon's expenses - do you mean his billeting and weekly allowance?? Does anyone expect RKI is going to allow someone to dictate how to run his hockey team just so he can save the cost of billeting one extra player? If that was the case, they wouldn't be carrying so many extra bodies and they would just send one home...
|
|
|
Post by wingman on Nov 17, 2006 9:10:27 GMT -5
Vancouver wants Bourdon to develop alot this year especially where that may have been slowed a bit last year due to his injury. It wouldn't surprise me if it were true, since Vancouver might be afraid that Bourdon could wind up with a team where he wouldn't develop, especially if he plays for a coach who would not use him properly or to their liking. Torchetti is a good coach who has coached in the NHL. So he knows the NHL game and knows how to prepare Bourdon for the NHL game, there are coaches in this league who are not the best at developing players. I think Moncton would be a good fit for Bourdon because he has a coach that can help him prepare for the NHL and can also be a leader on the team.
|
|
|
Post by Cristobal Huet on Nov 17, 2006 9:20:02 GMT -5
All that I've heard is that Vancouver has asked the Wildcats to NOT trade Bourdon as they are concerned about him being uprooted, going to another team and takin a hit developmental wise. Unsure how reliable this is, but if its true then I say we ask Vancouver for a couple of things if they don't want us moving him. 1) Help in landing a HIGH end Euro for next two years. 2) Payment of Bourdon's expenses. 3) An agreement that Bourdon will play in the CHL next year. That's an unreasonable request and I doubt it was ever made. Bourdon being traded and possibly getting more playoff and possibly Memorial Cup time would only help his development. What could the Canucks give the Cats for them to just hold onto their big chip in the poker game and not cash it in? The Cats are a rebuilding team(unless they get some hair brain idea they are contenders) and need to move 2 or 3 of their most marketable assets to ensure they are a contender in 08-09 and pretty decent next year. Put Bourdon Marquardt MacDonald Welton and Sniderman's names out there and see what teams come back with. Bourdon is the obvious one to move. The other 4 it would depend on what is the return, especially in the case of Marquardt as he is likely to return at 20. Moving 1 of Welton or MacDonald for good return, then getting a reliable, low cost 20 year old (or Belanger)...Cote Lomanno Begin Aubut Simich Robillard Champagne Blais Boies Bertrand Lafontaine.
|
|
|
Post by Cristobal Huet on Nov 17, 2006 9:22:55 GMT -5
Vancouver wants Bourdon to develop alot this year especially where that may have been slowed a bit last year due to his injury. It wouldn't surprise me if it were true, since Vancouver might be afraid that Bourdon could wind up with a team where he wouldn't develop, especially if he plays for a coach who would not use him properly or to their liking. Torchetti is a good coach who has coached in the NHL. So he knows the NHL game and knows how to prepare Bourdon for the NHL game, there are coaches in this league who are not the best at developing players. I think Moncton would be a good fit for Bourdon because he has a coach that can help him prepare for the NHL and can also be a leader on the team. Bourdon will get a ton of ice time and play in all situations on whatever team he plays for.
|
|
|
Post by gongshow on Nov 17, 2006 9:25:45 GMT -5
Vancouver wants Bourdon to develop alot this year especially where that may have been slowed a bit last year due to his injury. It wouldn't surprise me if it were true, since Vancouver might be afraid that Bourdon could wind up with a team where he wouldn't develop, especially if he plays for a coach who would not use him properly or to their liking. Torchetti is a good coach who has coached in the NHL. So he knows the NHL game and knows how to prepare Bourdon for the NHL game, there are coaches in this league who are not the best at developing players. I think Moncton would be a good fit for Bourdon because he has a coach that can help him prepare for the NHL and can also be a leader on the team. Bourdon will get a ton of ice time and play in all situations on whatever team he plays for. well put,for once i agree 100% with what Billy said.
|
|
|
Post by Dirty Afanasenkov on Nov 17, 2006 11:03:10 GMT -5
I'll agree that point #3 is excessive... but I did start a discussion ddin't I? As for point 1. If the team is getting their hands tied by not being able to move Bourdon I see no reason why we can't try and gain top level talent in this manner. Perhaps Vancouver was planning on taking a certain euro and want him to come to NA to get some "North American game exposure" and the guy has talent, what better place than here? *assuming the guy is a blue chip prospect and is a game breaker* As for point 2. Again, our hands are tied, why not try and get Vancouver to help with Bourdon's expenses while he is here. And for point 3.... that was just an idea I floated, do I expect no. I expect Bourdon in the AHL next year, if he was eligible this year, thats where he would have been. But by sending him back to the Q, thats one more year that his contract is "extended".
|
|
|
Post by jimmy on Nov 17, 2006 11:06:17 GMT -5
I'll agree that point #3 is excessive... but I did start a discussion ddin't I? As for point 1. If the team is getting their hands tied by not being able to move Bourdon I see no reason why we can't try and gain top level talent in this manner. Perhaps Vancouver was planning on taking a certain euro and want him to come to NA to get some "North American game exposure" and the guy has talent, what better place than here? *assuming the guy is a blue chip prospect and is a game breaker* As for point 2. Again, our hands are tied, why not try and get Vancouver to help with Bourdon's expenses while he is here. And for point 3.... that was just an idea I floated, do I expect no. I expect Bourdon in the AHL next year, if he was eligible this year, thats where he would have been. But by sending him back to the Q, thats one more year that his contract is "extended". But why would our hands be tied? Why not just tell Vancouver to piss off, get our own euro, pay for Bourdon's board ourselves until Xmas, and then deal him for one or more top young players? That is where the scenario makes no sense - there is nothing in it for us...
|
|
|
Post by Cristobal Huet on Nov 17, 2006 11:10:53 GMT -5
I'll agree that point #3 is excessive... but I did start a discussion ddin't I? As for point 1. If the team is getting their hands tied by not being able to move Bourdon I see no reason why we can't try and gain top level talent in this manner. Perhaps Vancouver was planning on taking a certain euro and want him to come to NA to get some "North American game exposure" and the guy has talent, what better place than here? *assuming the guy is a blue chip prospect and is a game breaker* As for point 2. Again, our hands are tied, why not try and get Vancouver to help with Bourdon's expenses while he is here. And for point 3.... that was just an idea I floated, do I expect no. I expect Bourdon in the AHL next year, if he was eligible this year, thats where he would have been. But by sending him back to the Q, thats one more year that his contract is "extended". Bottom line... 1-I don't see Vancouver doing that, Vigneault understands the junior game 2-even if they did say that, what the hell are they going to do if the Cats trade him anyways? They have no power or recourse.
|
|
|
Post by wingman on Nov 17, 2006 11:40:24 GMT -5
NHL teams invest alot in their top prospects and want to make sure they develop while not playing for them in the NHL or their minor league teams. Would it not be reasonable to think that NHL teams do talk with their prospect's junior team to see if their prospect will be properly looked after while playing junior? Or that they may make suggestions or requests to the junior team regarding their prospects?
To me, it would not be surprising to have Vancouver talk with Moncton to see how Bourdon is going to fit in the Wildcats plans or what the Wildcats intentions are regarding Bourdon before they sent him back to junior. Vancouver might have asked that Moncton don't trade Bourdon because they feel Bourdon is better off playing for Moncton development wise. It is not entirely out of the question to see Vancouver make an agreement with the Wildcats where Moncton promises not to trade Bourdon in return for Vancouver giving something back in return (ie Canuck scouts keeping an eye out for junior prospects for Moncton, Europeans, etc). But I don't think they would have made any demands to Moncton about not trading Bourdon because Moncton has every right to trade Bourdon if they wish, they own his junior rights, Vancouver doesn't.
From a Wildcats point of view it may be in their best interests to trade Bourdon especially if they are in a rebuilding process, but from a Vancouver's point of view it may in their best interests to have Bourdon play for Moncton. But ultimately it is Moncton's decision and perogative what they do with Bourdon.
|
|
|
Post by forrest on Nov 17, 2006 11:43:39 GMT -5
Welton had a no trade clause in Quebec, but he agreed to come in here. I believe he has a no trade clause here in Moncton, but would certainly agree on a trade to a contender. I believe AMac also has a no trade clause. But I also think he would agree on a trade to a contender.
There are many players that have no-trade clause, but that can be easily broken when both management and the player agree on it... or when Management manipulates the situation to make it look like the kid has no other option.
It has happen in the past (right here in Moncton) that a player had a no-trade clause, didn't want to leave and they basically told him he had no choice if he wanted to play at this level.
|
|
|
Post by Dirty Afanasenkov on Nov 17, 2006 11:50:16 GMT -5
What I mean by our "hands are tied" is that I'm operating under the assumption that the Wildcats may have already agreed to not trading Bourdon.
The person that told me that "Bourdon was not allowed to be traded" heard it from the Cats front office.
Hopefully their is no truth to the story but if by trading period he isn't moved, I have a feeling some people will be pissed.
|
|