Or should we call it the 2021 season?

 

 

10 minutes ago, Goalie said:

Some rumors about Tkachuk and the flames room. The vets ain't pulling their weight. Sutter will force them to work. 

Not sure how force them to work will land with some. Obviously my hope is not well.

first things first...... the entire roster is staying at the Sutter Ranch to chore and calve for the rest of the season.....

 

 

https://www.sportsnet.ca/nhl/article/sources-nhl-espn-reach-seven-year-u-s-broadcast-deal/

 

I assume that there would be some sort of buyout? 

I'd assume they'd terminate his contract and he files for bankruptcy and then after his assets are liquidated they then sign him up again? 

13 hours ago, Brandon said:

I'd assume they'd terminate his contract and he files for bankruptcy and then after his assets are liquidated they then sign him up again? 

Except no court would allow that. As it stands, the creditors probably have first access to his contract. Unless they've worked out some deal, he won't be able to avoid repaying his creditors by declaring bankruptcy and then re-signing. 

I don't know how bankruptcies work in the US. 

In Canada, you wouldn't be allowed to do that. 

It doesn't sound like the Sharks organization will void his contract unless Kane's bankruptcy goes from Chapter 7 to Chapter 11 (which is typically used for business bankruptcies). I have no idea how that could be done but the possibility is being considered by creditors to whom he owes money.

https://www.thescore.com/nhl/news/2130714

Quote

The 29-year-old filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in January, citing $26.8 million in debt and $10.2 million in assets. There is $29 million remaining on Kane's pact with the Sharks.

"Several creditors, including Zions Bancorp, filed recently, asking the court, Professional Bank, and South River Capital to convert the bankruptcy from Chapter 7 to 11, which is typically used for businesses," Kaplan and Kurz wrote.

"The change would be significant because, under Chapter 11, the $29 million cited by the lenders as remaining on Kane’s contract would be available to creditors like Zions, which is owed $4.25 million. It would not be under Chapter 7, according to Zions, which argues Kane’s losses are business-related."

A hearing to determine the designation will take place later in March. Kane and the Sharks would reportedly be more interested in canceling the contract if a judge converts the case to Chapter 11.

https://www.canb.uscourts.gov/faq/general-bankruptcy/what-difference-between-bankruptcy-cases-filed-under-chapters-7-11-12-and-13

Quote

Chapter 7: Often called the liquidation chapter, chapter 7 is used by individuals, partnerships, or corporations who are unable to repair their financial situation. In chapter 7 asset cases, the debtor's estate is liquidated under the rules of the bankruptcy code. Liquidation is the process through which the debtor's non-exempt property is sold for cash by a trustee and the proceeds are distributed to creditors.

Chapter 11: Often called the reorganization chapter, chapter 11 allows corporations, partnerships, and some individuals to reorganize, without having to liquidate all assets. In filing a chapter 11, the debtor presents a plan to creditors which, if accepted by the creditors and approved by the court, will allow the debtor to reorganize personal, financial or business affairs and again become a financially productive individual or business.

Should be interesting to see how this plays out for Kane (and the Sharks), as it could set a precedent in the future for athletes with financial troubles.

I hope the Sharks don't get out from under that terrible contract. They deserve it. I hope they don't get cap relief either. 

My question- what were these guys thinking loaning this guy so much money? Did they do zero due diligence?

 

23 hours ago, FrostyWinnipeg said:

 

Vintage Torts. In other words: NOYB & STFU. 

So,

a) Does Torts last the season at this rate?

b) If yes to the first question, does Laine stay or look to get out ASAP?

1 hour ago, TrueBlue4ever said:

So,

a) Does Torts last the season at this rate?

b) If yes to the first question, does Laine stay or look to get out ASAP?

Either Laine or Torts makes it to next season.

I don't think it's Laine because #America

By the look on Laine's face, when Torts was leaning over his shoulder, it looked like Laine was disgusted and sorry he ever left the Peg......Some bad vibes going on with those two and one or the other are going to have to leave....Seems Tortorella was pulling the same gag on Dubois and the Jackets seen how that worked out...So who's the problem??? it's apparent the moody blue Jackets have a big one

4 hours ago, Stickem said:

By the look on Laine's face, when Torts was leaning over his shoulder, it looked like Laine was disgusted and sorry he ever left the Peg......Some bad vibes going on with those two and one or the other are going to have to leave....Seems Tortorella was pulling the same gag on Dubois and the Jackets seen how that worked out...So who's the problem??? it's apparent the moody blue Jackets have a big one

If that's the case, it's something a team cannot afford.  That's a lousy reason to lose a centre of Dubois' calibre. 

Not sure if TOR fires the coach or Hutchison 😆

 

Sounds like Nashville is seeking at 1st, and 2 prospects for Ekholm. 

 

Chevy should get that done fast, if he can. The market is growing and there's still a 14-day quarantine. 

21 hours ago, JCon said:

Sounds like Nashville is seeking at 1st, and 2 prospects for Ekholm. 

 

Chevy should get that done fast, if he can. The market is growing and there's still a 14-day quarantine. 

Who do you protect in the expansion draft?

59 minutes ago, Jimmy from Lockport said:

Who do you protect in the expansion draft?

If I have Ekholm? Morrissey, Pionk and Ekholm. 

 

The expansion draft is a problem for any deadline deals, unless it is a pure rental, and a 1st and 2 prospects is a steep price to pay.

Radical trade idea - is there a 3 way deal that could be done with the NYRangers? We send Morrissey to NY to re-unite with Trouba, since neither of them seems to be able to play without the other, and Trouba certainly isn’t coming back to Winnipeg, regardless of contract size. We get rid of a heavier contract and a player with potential but is hurting us now, the Rangers get a chance to have 2 good d-men whose whole has shown to be better than the sum of it’s parts to reinvigorate both, and perhaps they give up a first round pick and a another 3-4 defenceman, we flip that pick and maybe one of our own, or Niku and a forward prospect to Nashville for Echolm. So we get 2 d-men now and give up Morrissey and either prospect or draft pick but not both, Rangers give up a s-man and draft pick for Morrissey, and Nashville gives up Echols and gets 2 first rounders or first rounder (New York’s) and prospect (ours). Too crazy to even consider, or would we ask/get more in return for Morrissey? How badly do we want to keep a first round pick, and is this the way to do it?

Definitely a "no" to a Morrissey trade. Great contract and he'll settle down once he finds a partner.

I'm not sure why people are desperate to trade away a top 4 defender. 

Ekholm is not a rental. 

19 minutes ago, JCon said:

Definitely a "no" to a Morrissey trade. Great contract and he'll settle down once he finds a partner.

I'm not sure why people are desperate to trade away a top 4 defender. 

Ekholm is not a rental. 

This so Morrissey’s second year without Trouba and he has struggled both years, this year even more than last. How long before we find that magic partner for him? He has not played like a number one defenceman since he got paid like one. I think there is still potential, but would the Rangers give us a hefty haul where there would be risk and possible reward? And with Pionk angling for a bigger raise and DeMelo locked in at a good rate for 3 more years, do you really think we would expose him in the draft? 

21 minutes ago, JCon said:

Definitely a "no" to a Morrissey trade. Great contract and he'll settle down once he finds a partner.

I'm not sure why people are desperate to trade away a top 4 defender. 

Ekholm is not a rental. 

Because Morrissey has been bad for 2 seasons? Because every RHD on the Jets has played with 44 and nothing has changed? Why should he settle down?

He's the one whose supposed to settle his partner down.

K'Andre Miller and conditional 22 pick?

2 minutes ago, TrueBlue4ever said:

This so Morrissey’s second year without Trouba and he has struggled both years, this year even more than last. How long before we find that magic partner for him? He has not played like a number one defenceman since he got paid like one. I think there is still potential, but would the Rangers give us a hefty haul where there would be risk and possible reward? And with Pionk angling for a bigger raise and DeMelo locked in at a good rate for 3 more years, do you really think we would expose him in the draft? 

I'm not trading a top 4 defenseman when I'm desperate for top pairing defensemen. And, I'm certainly not trading unless I'm getting a young defenseman on a great contract with term. Rangers don't have that. 

2 minutes ago, FrostyWinnipeg said:

Because Morrissey has been bad for 2 seasons? Because every RHD on the Jets has played with 44 and nothing has changed? Why should he settle down?

He's the one whose supposed to settle his partner down.

K'Andre Miller and conditional 22 pick?

Who has Morrissey played with????