Could Leafs Threaten To Bench Tucker?
June 10th, 2008 by SteveAs Ron Wilson said in his opening address to the media at the ACC this afternoon, Darcy Tucker seems to be wearing down. He also happens to be one of the few Leafs who could fetch a decent draft pick or young player in return on the open market. Unfortunately, Darcy - through his agent - has yet again reiterated he has no interest in waiving his No Trade Clause.
It also has been made clear that buying him out would actually just be giving the player the freedom to go wherever he chooses, at a $1 million discount to whomever he signs with as a result. His agent made the point in the press recently that the main reason Tucker included the NTC in negotiations was specifically because he wanted to play for Toronto, but they wanted him at a discount. He accepted the “discount” in exchange for the security of knowing he controlled where he played.
If the Leafs do threaten to buy him out, they actually lose $1 million and don’t gain anything in return except for a couple of million in cap space over the next few years. If I was the Leafs I’d just accept that you’re going to pay Darcy’s $3 million a year and bench him indefinitely, until he comes to the conclusion that he wants to play… somewhere… anywhere.
Holding out is a tactic regularly employed by younger players who have zero leverage in contract negotiations in pro sports. They aren’t free-agents so they can’t offer their services to other clubs… so all they can do to force action is WITH HOLD services until the team agrees to move them somewhere else.
This would be the opposite situation, where the team WITH HOLDS ice time from the player, until the player agrees to be moved somewhere else. Darcy Tucker is currently 33 years of age. Benching him for an extended period would possibly alienate other players on the team, but it would also indicate that the new regime was not going to accept the status quo. I am unclear as to whether Tucker can be moved to the Marlies based on his NTC. He would have to clear waivers for that process to complete, so that too could absolve the Leafs of his contract. Either way, if the Leafs don’t decide to keep him with the big club, something will have to give.
Asking Darcy for a selection of teams he would like to play for would still give him a level of control over his situation, but it would also allow the Leafs to obtain some return on the transaction.
Posted in Uncategorized
4 Responses to “Could Leafs Threaten To Bench Tucker?”
By eyebleaf on Jun 11, 2008
i want tucker to stay. the youths can learn from him. he’s a warrior.
By Steve on Jun 11, 2008
He’s a warrior that takes ill advised penalties, whines to the referees, is often out of position defensively, and whose main offensive tactic is the goalmouth tap in when he remains unchecked.
He isn’t big enough to do enough consistent damage physically or to sustain his style of play long term. He also sets a bad example with his cantankerous disposition towards the press. Not that I don’t understand said issues.
I don’t disagree that he could teach the youngsters something - but that isn’t really where the team is at right now. They need to have a minor face lift and a change of direction, and keeping every member of the old guard is never going to lead to that… especially if you don’t ditch the old leadership, Tucker included.
I would move Tucker, Sundin, and McCabe specifically because of their positions as the “faces” of the franchise for he past 10 years or so. They’ve had their turn… change in this instance is worthwhile. We’re not talking about tearing apart a winning team here.
By Koopa Kid on Jun 12, 2008
So what’s with the amnesia regarding NTC’s in Toronto lately? Does everyone just believe that management is too stupid to get rid of overpaid, underperforming guys? Simple fact is “moving” Tucker, Sundin, and McCabe is next to impossible, Tucker and McCabe can’t be sent to the minors and Sundin presumably blocked a trade this past season. Hell, in less than a month he’ll be able to decide his own destiny and there’s no say that anyone in MLSE will have about it.
The Tucker situation is dangerous, if Wilson doesn’t like him and he won’t waive his clause then all that we can do is bench him. That’s poison in a locker room to have that sour puss as a healthy scratch. The Pens did it with Recchi, but he’s 5 years older than Tucker and there’s good odds Tucker will still have something left in the tank, at least this season.
By Steve on Jun 15, 2008
McCabe’s contract is not as prohibitive as many seem to assume. In fact, with the increasing salary cap, and a similarly rising salary minimum, salary structures like McCabe’s will become appealing to smaller market franchises that are seeking to hit a certain cap number while paying less money.
If you can grab a player who is being paid less than his cap number, that’s a good idea. This would be yet another reason the Islanders are being tossed out as a destination for McCabe. If you toss in the fact that he lives there in the off season, that his wife is from there, and that they were finalists for his services when he signed his deal with the Leafs, and it becomes less “impossible” to accept the idea of him being moved.
Sundin doesn’t have to be moved since he’s an UFA and is not under contract at all beyond July 1st. If the Leafs want out from under his salary commitments, all they have to do is not resign him.
Tucker’s cap buyout isn’t prohibitive at $1 million a year, no matter what Nick Kypreos tells you. That being said, giving up Tucker for nothing strikes me as being an unfortunate waste of the asset. He’s not making a ridiculous amount of money, and he’s not done yet as a player. I just don’t think he will be, or should be, back with the Leafs. The benching scenario is just a possibility… I’m not sure it’s likely. Either way, I don’t expect him to be back.