Let's talk about Larkin

[LGB73]

I don't see the situation as being that difficult for Yzerman. You tell Larkin you'll trade him for what a 1C is worth and he plays here until that presents itself. Whether that happens sooner rather than later, or ever, is up to Larkin and what teams he'll waive for. And by the way, he asked for a trade so in no way can he wear the C for the Redwings since he clearly doesn't want to be a Redwing.

[zoiks]

I don't see the situation as being that difficult for Yzerman. You tell Larkin you'll trade him for what a 1C is worth and he plays here until that presents itself. Whether that happens sooner rather than later, or ever, is up to Larkin and what teams he'll waive for. And by the way, he asked for a trade so in no way can he wear the C for the Redwings since he clearly doesn't want to be a Redwing.

And then Larkin dogs it, trashes the front office in every interview he does, and his trade value drops to the point that he can be moved to 1 of his teams of choice since the trade return is little, so he gets what he wants anyways. He’ll be traded before mandatory training camp begins.

[LGB73]

I don't see the situation as being that difficult for Yzerman. You tell Larkin you'll trade him for what a 1C is worth and he plays here until that presents itself. Whether that happens sooner rather than later, or ever, is up to Larkin and what teams he'll waive for. And by the way, he asked for a trade so in no way can he wear the C for the Redwings since he clearly doesn't want to be a Redwing.

And then Larkin dogs it, trashes the front office in every interview he does, and his trade value drops to the point that he can be moved to 1 of his teams of choice since the trade return is little, so he gets what he wants anyways. He’ll be traded before mandatory training camp begins.

See a lot of trashing of front offices by current players? See a lot of NHL players dogging it because they're unhappy with their current team? Doesn't happen as much in the NHL as other sports leagues. I wouldn't put Larkin in the category to do that. He'll go out and play to his best because that's a quicker way out than looking like you can't play or have no heart.

[Army's Mom]

I don't see the situation as being that difficult for Yzerman. You tell Larkin you'll trade him for what a 1C is worth and he plays here until that presents itself. Whether that happens sooner rather than later, or ever, is up to Larkin and what teams he'll waive for. And by the way, he asked for a trade so in no way can he wear the C for the Redwings since he clearly doesn't want to be a Redwing.

And then Larkin dogs it, trashes the front office in every interview he does, and his trade value drops to the point that he can be moved to 1 of his teams of choice since the trade return is little, so he gets what he wants anyways. He’ll be traded before mandatory training camp begins.

See a lot of trashing of front offices by current players? See a lot of NHL players dogging it because they're unhappy with their current team? Doesn't happen as much in the NHL as other sports leagues. I wouldn't put Larkin in the category to do that. He'll go out and play to his best because that's a quicker way out than looking like you can't play or have no heart.

What team is going to volunteer to take on a guy who signs an 8 year deal and then after 2 years demands a trade to one of three or four teams, pouts about it publicly, and trashes his employer publicly?

The worse Larkin behaves, the more he limits his own value and diminishes his chances for a happy ending.

If he's traded before training camp, it will be because he caved an accepted a trade to someone not on his initial list. TB and Vegas don't want him, and MN has nothing that lines up with DET's needs. So Larkin adds DAL to his list - the same team that's stuck in the Robertson pickle and also now with a disgruntled, almost-traded Harley? Yeah, sure they're going to move mountains to add Dylan friggin' Larkin.

I hope Yzerman lets him rot.

[CheapSeat]

Even the execs are getting done with this [nonsense]

Andy Strickland
@andystrickland
·
1h
Speaking to an #NHL Exec…he suggests if a player negotiates a no-trade or a no move clause in their contract but then requests to be traded prior to the expiration of their deal, the NTC should be voided and the team should be allowed to trade the player to any team in the league.

I agree with this. Craig Button was saying just that. The deal becomes null and void if you deviate from it.
With that said. Look for players pushing for more NMC rather than the NTC because of the waiver "loophole".

I would hope the NMC would include the same null and void clause. As that is the same exact thing. You requested a NMC clause and now you want movement. To me this is not about the fact that the player gets to stay on the same team. It just control that the player wants.

[zamadoo]

I don't see the situation as being that difficult for Yzerman. You tell Larkin you'll trade him for what a 1C is worth and he plays here until that presents itself. Whether that happens sooner rather than later, or ever, is up to Larkin and what teams he'll waive for. And by the way, he asked for a trade so in no way can he wear the C for the Redwings since he clearly doesn't want to be a Redwing.

And then Larkin dogs it, trashes the front office in every interview he does, and his trade value drops to the point that he can be moved to 1 of his teams of choice since the trade return is little, so he gets what he wants anyways. He’ll be traded before mandatory training camp begins.

See a lot of trashing of front offices by current players? See a lot of NHL players dogging it because they're unhappy with their current team? Doesn't happen as much in the NHL as other sports leagues. I wouldn't put Larkin in the category to do that. He'll go out and play to his best because that's a quicker way out than looking like you can't play or have no heart.

What team is going to volunteer to take on a guy who signs an 8 year deal and then after 2 years demands a trade to one of three or four teams, pouts about it publicly, and trashes his employer publicly?

The worse Larkin behaves, the more he limits his own value and diminishes his chances for a happy ending.

If he's traded before training camp, it will be because he caved an accepted a trade to someone not on his initial list. TB and Vegas don't want him, and MN has nothing that lines up with DET's needs. So Larkin adds DAL to his list - the same team that's stuck in the Robertson pickle and also now with a disgruntled, almost-traded Harley? Yeah, sure they're going to move mountains to add Dylan friggin' Larkin.

I hope Yzerman lets him rot.

I'm leaning more towards this side of the argument.

I could understand the frustration of a player who signed the contract to basically make him a lifer with the team who drafted him if it was under the notion that they were going to immediately push for contention, and then two years later they're round-tripping the rebuild while other teams, like the teams he requested a trade to, will do what seems insane to acquire players to win.

However, this seems to be emotional and personal. Larkin seems to think he's McDavid, and I'm not even convinced he's better than Nugent-Hopkins overall. Did he even consider if any of those teams would want him at all? Would they even call if Yzerman said he's available? FLA is probably just laughing and can't wait to bully him around if he gets on the ice this season.

[Army's Mom]

Even the execs are getting done with this [nonsense]

Andy Strickland
@andystrickland
·
1h
Speaking to an #NHL Exec…he suggests if a player negotiates a no-trade or a no move clause in their contract but then requests to be traded prior to the expiration of their deal, the NTC should be voided and the team should be allowed to trade the player to any team in the league.

I agree with this. Craig Button was saying just that. The deal becomes null and void if you deviate from it.
With that said. Look for players pushing for more NMC rather than the NTC because of the waiver "loophole".

I would hope the NMC would include the same null and void clause. As that is the same exact thing. You requested a NMC clause and now you want movement. To me this is not about the fact that the player gets to stay on the same team. It just control that the player wants.

I can all but guarantee the owners are laughing their butts off at Larkin, and are collectively hoping to see Yzerman force Larkin into voiding his contract.

If there's one thing wealthy business owners cant stand, its workers getting uppity. It wouldn't shock me to see them make an example of him, Kaepernick-style.

His next contract might be with Magnitogorsk

[Old_Goat]

First things first: Pull the "C" off that sweater immediately. There really is no need to explain to the him, his teammates nor the fans why. He says he wants to quit the team.

And just because NMCs are available so what, you do not have to do them, so just don't. If a player demands that, then that should give a team pause.

[blues2112]

First things first: Pull the "C" off that sweater immediately. There really is no need to explain to the him, his teammates nor the fans why. He says he wants to quit the team.

And just because NMCs are available so what, you do not have to do them, so just don't. If a player demands that, then that should give a team pause.

Huh?!?!? Goat, you make a lot of presumptions. First, how reliable is what is 'posted"? Second, rather than consider the worst, even of all is I-chatter is legit (90-plus NOT) perhaps his teammates quietly applaud for standing up? Third, please directly source when, in his words, "he wants to quit the team."

[BleedingBleu]

Even the execs are getting done with this [nonsense]

Andy Strickland
@andystrickland
·
1h
Speaking to an #NHL Exec…he suggests if a player negotiates a no-trade or a no move clause in their contract but then requests to be traded prior to the expiration of their deal, the NTC should be voided and the team should be allowed to trade the player to any team in the league.

I might be in the minority here, but that’s exec speak and not remotely rational. I think of the exact opposite where the team wants to force a trade and to a team not on the player’s list. Or an alternative where life changes quickly in the NHL, and I signed a commitment ages ago under different circumstances.

Say a GM or HC gets fired, brings in an A-Hole like Mike Keenan or Mike Babcock without giving a care to what their players think. Suddenly, a player protests and asks to be moved and the new GM sends me to Vancouver, Calgary, or Winnipeg because some Exec thinks it’s a breach of contract? If it’s a breach, then end the contract and let them go to FA

Or say the franchise ownership decides to emphasize a youth movement, and parts with the core & veteran players that complimented that player’s skillset. The guy was clearly a great player and earned every bit of that NTC, but now is signed to a long-term commitment to a once stable franchise that has turned into an albatross.

That player has their own goals. They are likely removed from possible End-of-Year Award considerations, Allstar Nods, and Playoff contention, and are now staring at words like “mentorship,” “long seasons,” and “Draft Lottery.” The team will eventually come knocking on their door at try to trade them to somewhere [shirt]ty like Buffalo.

Let’s use the Parayko Trade Deadline Deal as an example…

Some A-Hole leaks the possible trade to Buffalo to pressure Colton into agreeing while the Twitterverse and other Social Media questions his fire for not accepting a deal to a 14x loser trying their first post season run. Suddenly, a former Stanley Cup Champion, who loves the area, has settled in with his family, and has played through injuries for the one franchise he’s ever known has his competitive nature mocked with Cancun Beach vacations rather than suiting up for the Pegula family?

I see no difference in a player proactively using their NTC powers to ask for an out than a team working a deal and pressuring them to go somewhere w/multiple years remaining on their contract.

[Bubble4427]

Even the execs are getting done with this [nonsense]

Andy Strickland
@andystrickland
·
1h
Speaking to an #NHL Exec…he suggests if a player negotiates a no-trade or a no move clause in their contract but then requests to be traded prior to the expiration of their deal, the NTC should be voided and the team should be allowed to trade the player to any team in the league.

I might be in the minority here, but that’s exec speak and not remotely rational. I think of the exact opposite where the team wants to force a trade and to a team not on the player’s list. Or an alternative where life changes quickly in the NHL, and I signed a commitment ages ago under different circumstances.

Say a GM or HC gets fired, brings in an A-Hole like Mike Keenan or Mike Babcock without giving a care to what their players think. Suddenly, a player protests and asks to be moved and the new GM sends me to Vancouver, Calgary, or Winnipeg because some Exec thinks it’s a breach of contract? If it’s a breach, then end the contract and let them go to FA

Or say the franchise ownership decides to emphasize a youth movement, and parts with the core & veteran players that complimented that player’s skillset. The guy was clearly a great player and earned every bit of that NTC, but now is signed to a long-term commitment to a once stable franchise that has turned into an albatross.

That player has their own goals. They are likely removed from possible End-of-Year Award considerations, Allstar Nods, and Playoff contention, and are now staring at words like “mentorship,” “long seasons,” and “Draft Lottery.” The team will eventually come knocking on their door at try to trade them to somewhere [shirt]ty like Buffalo.

Let’s use the Parayko Trade Deadline Deal as an example…

Some A-Hole leaks the possible trade to Buffalo to pressure Colton into agreeing while the Twitterverse and other Social Media questions his fire for not accepting a deal to a 14x loser trying their first post season run. Suddenly, a former Stanley Cup Champion, who loves the area, has settled in with his family, and has played through injuries for the one franchise he’s ever known has his competitive nature mocked with Cancun Beach vacations rather than suiting up for the Pegula family?

I see no difference in a player proactively using their NTC powers to ask for an out than a team working a deal and pressuring them to go somewhere w/multiple years remaining on their contract.

There is a big difference.
When the team asks a player to wave his NTC, many times it’s because the team sees a chance to improve the team (either short term or long term). The team is not doing it because they dislike the player.

When a player wants out….they are choosing to quit on the team because they don’t WANT to be there anymore. Parayko refused to waive his NTC, that doesn’t mean that the Blues stopped liking him as a player or person. The team saw an opportunity to possibly improve and attempted to do that. It doesn’t mean that they hate the player moving forward.

When the player wants out…they have basically stood up and said….”I hate the team/organization and I want to leave.” Big difference IMO.
Kinda tough to rally around a teammate that you KNOW doesn't want to be there.
Screw Larkin …he should sit and rot or expand his list.

[BleedingBleu]

Even the execs are getting done with this [nonsense]

Andy Strickland
@andystrickland
·
1h
Speaking to an #NHL Exec…he suggests if a player negotiates a no-trade or a no move clause in their contract but then requests to be traded prior to the expiration of their deal, the NTC should be voided and the team should be allowed to trade the player to any team in the league.

I might be in the minority here, but that’s exec speak and not remotely rational. I think of the exact opposite where the team wants to force a trade and to a team not on the player’s list. Or an alternative where life changes quickly in the NHL, and I signed a commitment ages ago under different circumstances.

Say a GM or HC gets fired, brings in an A-Hole like Mike Keenan or Mike Babcock without giving a care to what their players think. Suddenly, a player protests and asks to be moved and the new GM sends me to Vancouver, Calgary, or Winnipeg because some Exec thinks it’s a breach of contract? If it’s a breach, then end the contract and let them go to FA

Or say the franchise ownership decides to emphasize a youth movement, and parts with the core & veteran players that complimented that player’s skillset. The guy was clearly a great player and earned every bit of that NTC, but now is signed to a long-term commitment to a once stable franchise that has turned into an albatross.

That player has their own goals. They are likely removed from possible End-of-Year Award considerations, Allstar Nods, and Playoff contention, and are now staring at words like “mentorship,” “long seasons,” and “Draft Lottery.” The team will eventually come knocking on their door at try to trade them to somewhere [shirt]ty like Buffalo.

Let’s use the Parayko Trade Deadline Deal as an example…

Some A-Hole leaks the possible trade to Buffalo to pressure Colton into agreeing while the Twitterverse and other Social Media questions his fire for not accepting a deal to a 14x loser trying their first post season run. Suddenly, a former Stanley Cup Champion, who loves the area, has settled in with his family, and has played through injuries for the one franchise he’s ever known has his competitive nature mocked with Cancun Beach vacations rather than suiting up for the Pegula family?

I see no difference in a player proactively using their NTC powers to ask for an out than a team working a deal and pressuring them to go somewhere w/multiple years remaining on their contract.

There is a big difference.
When the team asks a player to wave his NTC, many times it’s because the team sees a chance to improve the team (either short term or long term). The team is not doing it because they dislike the player.

When a player wants out….they are choosing to quit on the team because they don’t WANT to be there anymore. Parayko refused to waive his NTC, that doesn’t mean that the Blues stopped liking him as a player or person. The team saw an opportunity to possibly improve and attempted to do that. It doesn’t mean that they hate the player moving forward.

When the player wants out…they have basically stood up and said….”I hate the team/organization and I want to leave.” Big difference IMO.
Kinda tough to rally around a teammate that you KNOW doesn't want to be there.
Screw Larkin …he should sit and rot or expand his list.

Did Larkin go to the press?

[moose-and-squirrel]

Even the execs are getting done with this [nonsense]

Andy Strickland
@andystrickland
·
1h
Speaking to an #NHL Exec…he suggests if a player negotiates a no-trade or a no move clause in their contract but then requests to be traded prior to the expiration of their deal, the NTC should be voided and the team should be allowed to trade the player to any team in the league.

I might be in the minority here, but that’s exec speak and not remotely rational. I think of the exact opposite where the team wants to force a trade and to a team not on the player’s list. Or an alternative where life changes quickly in the NHL, and I signed a commitment ages ago under different circumstances.

Say a GM or HC gets fired, brings in an A-Hole like Mike Keenan or Mike Babcock without giving a care to what their players think. Suddenly, a player protests and asks to be moved and the new GM sends me to Vancouver, Calgary, or Winnipeg because some Exec thinks it’s a breach of contract? If it’s a breach, then end the contract and let them go to FA

Or say the franchise ownership decides to emphasize a youth movement, and parts with the core & veteran players that complimented that player’s skillset. The guy was clearly a great player and earned every bit of that NTC, but now is signed to a long-term commitment to a once stable franchise that has turned into an albatross.

That player has their own goals. They are likely removed from possible End-of-Year Award considerations, Allstar Nods, and Playoff contention, and are now staring at words like “mentorship,” “long seasons,” and “Draft Lottery.” The team will eventually come knocking on their door at try to trade them to somewhere [shirt]ty like Buffalo.

Let’s use the Parayko Trade Deadline Deal as an example…

Some A-Hole leaks the possible trade to Buffalo to pressure Colton into agreeing while the Twitterverse and other Social Media questions his fire for not accepting a deal to a 14x loser trying their first post season run. Suddenly, a former Stanley Cup Champion, who loves the area, has settled in with his family, and has played through injuries for the one franchise he’s ever known has his competitive nature mocked with Cancun Beach vacations rather than suiting up for the Pegula family?

I see no difference in a player proactively using their NTC powers to ask for an out than a team working a deal and pressuring them to go somewhere w/multiple years remaining on their contract.

There is a big difference.
When the team asks a player to wave his NTC, many times it’s because the team sees a chance to improve the team (either short term or long term). The team is not doing it because they dislike the player.

When a player wants out….they are choosing to quit on the team because they don’t WANT to be there anymore. Parayko refused to waive his NTC, that doesn’t mean that the Blues stopped liking him as a player or person. The team saw an opportunity to possibly improve and attempted to do that. It doesn’t mean that they hate the player moving forward.

When the player wants out…they have basically stood up and said….”I hate the team/organization and I want to leave.” Big difference IMO.
Kinda tough to rally around a teammate that you KNOW doesn't want to be there.
Screw Larkin …he should sit and rot or expand his list.

I hate the team? a little over the top I think. Bleu hits it on the head.. the org has changed directions and Larkin is sayin "this isn't what I signed up for'. IMO, that's not a horrible thing, and he has every right to not want to be stuck in a perpetual rebuild.

but this is a can't win scenario...Larkin wants to go someplace competitive, then he 'hates the org...etc'.. but parayko wants to stay, and he's a 'palm tree' guy..

[CheapSeat]

Even the execs are getting done with this [nonsense]

Andy Strickland
@andystrickland
·
1h
Speaking to an #NHL Exec…he suggests if a player negotiates a no-trade or a no move clause in their contract but then requests to be traded prior to the expiration of their deal, the NTC should be voided and the team should be allowed to trade the player to any team in the league.

I might be in the minority here, but that’s exec speak and not remotely rational. I think of the exact opposite where the team wants to force a trade and to a team not on the player’s list. Or an alternative where life changes quickly in the NHL, and I signed a commitment ages ago under different circumstances.

Say a GM or HC gets fired, brings in an A-Hole like Mike Keenan or Mike Babcock without giving a care to what their players think. Suddenly, a player protests and asks to be moved and the new GM sends me to Vancouver, Calgary, or Winnipeg because some Exec thinks it’s a breach of contract? If it’s a breach, then end the contract and let them go to FA

Or say the franchise ownership decides to emphasize a youth movement, and parts with the core & veteran players that complimented that player’s skillset. The guy was clearly a great player and earned every bit of that NTC, but now is signed to a long-term commitment to a once stable franchise that has turned into an albatross.

That player has their own goals. They are likely removed from possible End-of-Year Award considerations, Allstar Nods, and Playoff contention, and are now staring at words like “mentorship,” “long seasons,” and “Draft Lottery.” The team will eventually come knocking on their door at try to trade them to somewhere [shirt]ty like Buffalo.

Let’s use the Parayko Trade Deadline Deal as an example…

Some A-Hole leaks the possible trade to Buffalo to pressure Colton into agreeing while the Twitterverse and other Social Media questions his fire for not accepting a deal to a 14x loser trying their first post season run. Suddenly, a former Stanley Cup Champion, who loves the area, has settled in with his family, and has played through injuries for the one franchise he’s ever known has his competitive nature mocked with Cancun Beach vacations rather than suiting up for the Pegula family?

I see no difference in a player proactively using their NTC powers to ask for an out than a team working a deal and pressuring them to go somewhere w/multiple years remaining on their contract.

There is a big difference.
When the team asks a player to wave his NTC, many times it’s because the team sees a chance to improve the team (either short term or long term). The team is not doing it because they dislike the player.

When a player wants out….they are choosing to quit on the team because they don’t WANT to be there anymore. Parayko refused to waive his NTC, that doesn’t mean that the Blues stopped liking him as a player or person. The team saw an opportunity to possibly improve and attempted to do that. It doesn’t mean that they hate the player moving forward.

When the player wants out…they have basically stood up and said….”I hate the team/organization and I want to leave.” Big difference IMO.
Kinda tough to rally around a teammate that you KNOW doesn't want to be there.
Screw Larkin …he should sit and rot or expand his list.

I hate the team? a little over the top I think. Bleu hits it on the head.. the org has changed directions and Larkin is sayin "this isn't what I signed up for'. IMO, that's not a horrible thing, and he has every right to not want to be stuck in a perpetual rebuild.

but this is a can't win scenario...Larkin wants to go someplace competitive, then he 'hates the org...etc'.. but parayko wants to stay, and he's a 'palm tree' guy..

Then players should realize that times change, and maybe not rely on a NTC or NMC. To request a trade and give at first 2 teams he would go to? Now its 3, that is completely ridiculous. If it were me. I would not even try and trade him at this point. I expect him to honor his contract and be ready to play come season opening.

[TheJackBurton]

Even the execs are getting done with this [nonsense]

Andy Strickland
@andystrickland
·
1h
Speaking to an #NHL Exec…he suggests if a player negotiates a no-trade or a no move clause in their contract but then requests to be traded prior to the expiration of their deal, the NTC should be voided and the team should be allowed to trade the player to any team in the league.

I might be in the minority here, but that’s exec speak and not remotely rational. I think of the exact opposite where the team wants to force a trade and to a team not on the player’s list. Or an alternative where life changes quickly in the NHL, and I signed a commitment ages ago under different circumstances.

Say a GM or HC gets fired, brings in an A-Hole like Mike Keenan or Mike Babcock without giving a care to what their players think. Suddenly, a player protests and asks to be moved and the new GM sends me to Vancouver, Calgary, or Winnipeg because some Exec thinks it’s a breach of contract? If it’s a breach, then end the contract and let them go to FA

Or say the franchise ownership decides to emphasize a youth movement, and parts with the core & veteran players that complimented that player’s skillset. The guy was clearly a great player and earned every bit of that NTC, but now is signed to a long-term commitment to a once stable franchise that has turned into an albatross.

That player has their own goals. They are likely removed from possible End-of-Year Award considerations, Allstar Nods, and Playoff contention, and are now staring at words like “mentorship,” “long seasons,” and “Draft Lottery.” The team will eventually come knocking on their door at try to trade them to somewhere [shirt]ty like Buffalo.

Let’s use the Parayko Trade Deadline Deal as an example…

Some A-Hole leaks the possible trade to Buffalo to pressure Colton into agreeing while the Twitterverse and other Social Media questions his fire for not accepting a deal to a 14x loser trying their first post season run. Suddenly, a former Stanley Cup Champion, who loves the area, has settled in with his family, and has played through injuries for the one franchise he’s ever known has his competitive nature mocked with Cancun Beach vacations rather than suiting up for the Pegula family?

I see no difference in a player proactively using their NTC powers to ask for an out than a team working a deal and pressuring them to go somewhere w/multiple years remaining on their contract.

I disagree with that.

This isn't college sports, these guys know a coach has a shelf for the most part of 3 seasons and therefore if they don't like them they can even potentially get them gone even faster. They also know signing a long term contract means that something like that is absolutely a possibility so if they don't take that into consideration when getting a guaranteed 70+ million dollars, well tough [shirt]. They want the security of them not getting traded to a destination they don't want to go, or even traded at all, then one of those possibilities is a coach or a player may join the team that they simply don't like or get along with.

As far as the Parayko situation goes, his NTC worked exactly as it should. There isn't anything in the NTC, at least as far as I'm aware of, that says Army can't discuss him in trade possibilities, but what the NTC does is guarantees that Parayko gets to say no to any and all trades. He exercised that right, and he's a still a Blue and is no longer being discussed in trade talks. The circumstances that were involved with it, that's part of dealing with an online world where you get paid for leaks and online clicks, but as we have learned Army isn't/wasn't the leaker it was someone from Buffalo.

You are comparing apples to oranges here. Larkin actively went to the Red Wings and said "I want out but only if you trade me to the exact team I want to go to." That's not the way it should work. You can't negotiate a clause that states a team can't trade you at all, turn around and say trade me, then dictate where you go and your team has to take whatever scraps they can get because they can't negotiate with multiple teams. If you demand to be traded, then there needs to be at minimum a 10 team list. Now the one thing Yzerman has is Larkin is under contract and his choices are: 1) expand his list 2) be disgruntled, but play out his contract 3) hold out until he's traded. Yzerman wants 1, Larkin doesn't want any of the 3, but will likely settle on 2 until 1 becomes necessary.

[UMR-alum-05]

I wish there was a way we could pry bransegg-nygaard out of there.

I'm sure we've tried and failed.