Confirmed Trade: [CAR/BUF] Jeff Skinner for 2019 2nd, 2020 3rd and 6th, and Cliff Pu

[Slyfox]

So this team compared to the start of last year has lost Kane + O'Rielly and gained Dahlin + Skinner and 3rd/4th liners. Interesting to see how big the improvements will be.

 

[KingPuckChoo]

best fleecing of the decade

 

[Lempo]

Why would an nmc be a one time use only? It’s written into the contract. Of course Buffalo will still have to honor it.

Transfers of contract can be iffy legally in the general sense. The legal system often protects the third party from shenanigans the initial parties may have built in a contract that would be harmful for the third party in case of a transfer of contract.

Hypothetically the Club and the Player could argee from example that the Player gets a real good NMC for a sign&trade paper which the Player unofficially agrees to waive for the-signing Club for a Trade but then is adamant about it regarding the new Club. We have no way of knowing if there has been some behind-the-scenes legalizing about this stuff in the NHL.

If I'm not wrong, NMCs offered in Offer Sheets similarly doesn't bind the Current Team if the Current Team opts to match the term and money as stated in the Offer Sheet.

 

[The don godfather]

If pu scores 20 plus in his first year this trade can turn around in a hurry for the canes just saying.

 

[Big Daddy Cane]

I think it's simply that the "expected" value of a guy like Skinner at the trade deadline would be a 1st and a decent prospect. The Canes traded him well before the deadline and didn't get a 1st. Maybe the Sabre's 2nd will be very high and close to a late 1st, but there's probably just as much chance that it will be mid 2nd round and maybe later. So instead of giving up a 1st and good prospect for 2 months of Skinner, they give up a 2nd, good prospect and 3rd/6th in 2020 for a full year of Skinner.

No doubt the NMC, the Canes desire to move on now, rather than start the season with him, and the concern of losing him for nothing at the end of the season all played into that return, but it's still a bit disappointing.

I get all of that, but I see that as an argument for why this was not a trade Carolina should have made.

I guess, I see GMs not as salesmen, but as decision makers that approach these types of situations on the basis of what their organizations deem acceptable. Perhaps I’m wrong here, but I have gotten the impression from what I’ve read and heard that it’s not GMs talking other GMs in doing something. It’s not Team X fleecing Team Y. It’s Team Y not making a good decision and Team X being the beneficiary.

I have begun to avoid declaring winners and losers for that reason. Is this a smart trade for Buffalo? Yes. It’s a low-risk, high-reward type move. Is this a smart trade for Carolina? I’m skeptical, as the loss of Skinner hurts the on-ice product, imo, and I would have been comfortable forgoing that type of return to have him for the year; the depth in the organization is there to not obsess with asset accumulation.

I would feel the same way if this had swung in the opposite direction.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

I get all of that, but I see that as an argument for why this was not a trade Carolina should have made.

I guess, I see GMs not as salesmen, but as decision makers that approach these types of situations on the basis of what their organizations deem acceptable. Perhaps I’m wrong here, but I have gotten the impression from what I’ve read and heard that it’s not GMs talking other GMs in doing something. It’s not Team X fleecing Team Y. It’s Team Y not making a good decision and Team X being the beneficiary.

I have begun to avoid declaring winners and losers for that reason. Is this a smart trade for Buffalo? Yes. It’s a low-risk, high-reward type move. Is this a smart trade for Carolina? I’m skeptical, as the loss of Skinner hurts the on-ice product, imo, and I would have been comfortable forgoing that type of return to have him for the year; the depth in the organization is there to not obsess with asset accumulation.

I would feel the same way if this had swung in the opposite direction.

I get that's how you feel, but I was trying to put myself in other people's shoes to answer your question of why people think the Canes got robbed, so I was explaining why I think people felt that way. Most of them don't even know enough about the other teams to look at the overall decision on an organizational level, the ins and outs of a team, etc....they look at "Player X scores this much and can get this type of return, so if he doesn't, the team got robbed."

In my view, Skinner was 100% not going to be a Hurricane after this season because either the Canes weren't going to pay him what it would take, or he would move on via UFA. Therefore, there were only 3 options.

1) Trade him now, maybe for the best return you could get and move on.
2) Keep him to the deadline and get some play out of him this year and maybe increase the return at the deadline (and also risk an injury or that he won't waive at the deadline like Ray Whitney didn't).
3) Keep him for the full season and lose him for nothing.

It was pretty clear to me that Rod Brind'Amour wanted to move him now so that played a part in it. Trading him in August, when no team is desperate and his NMC then lessened the return IMO, but he Canes felt it better to move on now. Only time will tell if they were right or not.

 

[NotOpie]

I watched an interview and Skinner said he was only notified of waiving it to go to Buffalo.

He also had a very limited "list" of teams he was willing to go to. Credible reports indicated that a trade to LA at the draft was nixed. While the truth is likely somewhere in the middle, agents also express client's wishes so the actual trade request might never have made it to Skinner....

"Look, my guy said he's not going to a team like LA so I'm not even bringing that to him"

 

[Thorton02]

If pu scores 20 plus in his first year this trade can turn around in a hurry for the canes just saying.

20, what? Points? I would fully expect him to hit 20 points when he's ready for a full NHL season, but he'll never be a 20 goal guy.

Canes didn't get fleeced IMO. They got a solid prospect and pieces that are almost worth a late first. Considering what E. Kane got at the deadline last year, this looks about right for a good winger with some deficiencies. More than that, it sounded like the team needed to move on. I'm excited at what Skinner can bring, but it's very possible Buffalo just traded for yet another perennial loser.

 

[Lempo]

best fleecing of the decade

I salute you, sir.

 

[mouser]

Its a choice. The team can decide to continue it, or say f*** it and leave the player hanging.

I’m not aware of any situation in which a player waived their NMC/NTC to be traded and lost the clause as a result.

Whereas we have many many examples of players waiving to be traded and retaining the NMC/NTC after the trade.

 

[Pens x]

Waddell is a dunce.

 

[La Cosa Nostra]

I’m not aware of any situation in which a player waived their NMC/NTC to be traded and lost the clause as a result.

Whereas we have many many examples of players waiving to be traded and retaining the NMC/NTC after the trade.

They are probably incorrectly remembering the Bogo NMC. Buffalo acquired him before his NMC went into effect and were able to get out of honoring it. A player who already gets his NMC from said team and plays under it can waive it and still retain it iirc.

 

[HogtownSabresfan]

I’m not aware of any situation in which a player waived their NMC/NTC to be traded and lost the clause as a result.

Whereas we have many many examples of players waiving to be traded and retaining the NMC/NTC after the trade.

From Cap friendly: NHL CBA FAQ - CapFriendly - NHL Salary Caps

• The clause can travel with the player even if he consents to being traded or is claimed on waivers
  • This requires that the acquiring team sign an addendum to the contract ensuring that the clause does in fact travel with the player (written by the player's agent)
  • If the acquiring team refuses to sign the addendum, and the player waives his clause anyway, at that point the clause may be nullified

Sabres do not appear to have signed anything. I assume he's lost that clause. Media should be double-checking on this but Mike H at News has no idea about much

 

[Ricky Bobby]

So this team compared to the start of last year has lost Kane + O'Rielly and gained Dahlin + Skinner and 3rd/4th liners. Interesting to see how big the improvements will be.

I would expect them to be a fair bit better.

Okposo will be that much further removed from his concussion and should be a fair bit better. Middlestat will make a decent impact. Bogosian only played 18 games so you've gotta expect more out of him. Goaltending can't be any worse. ROR is gone but Berglund, Sobotka, Sheary are all legitimate 3rd line types that will give them quality depth.

 

[mouser]

From Cap friendly: NHL CBA FAQ - CapFriendly - NHL Salary Caps

• The clause can travel with the player even if he consents to being traded or is claimed on waivers
  • This requires that the acquiring team sign an addendum to the contract ensuring that the clause does in fact travel with the player (written by the player's agent)
  • If the acquiring team refuses to sign the addendum, and the player waives his clause anyway, at that point the clause may be nullified

Sabres do not appear to have signed anything. I assume he's lost that clause. Media should be double-checking on this but Mike H at News has no idea about much

Awesome, you can copy and paste from CF. Dozens of players have waived their NTC/NMC’s to be traded in the cap era and all kept those clauses after the trade.

My challenge to you: Name one single player who lost their NTC/NMC after waiving it.

 

[bottomofthefoodchain]

If pu scores 20 plus in his first year this trade can turn around in a hurry for the canes just saying.

He might score 20, in the AHL

 

[Yamazaki]

Great trade for the sabers. Can’t believe they got skinner for that pathetic package. If they kept ROR they would be a solid dark horse team.

 

[Icebreakers]

Cliff Pu isn't even a legitimate NHL prospect imo ( as in he shouldn't be in anyone's top 10). His numbers are much better than how good he really is. This trade is so lopsided.

 

[KPower]

What a fleecing...canes are a joke.

 

[nickdawg95]

So this team compared to the start of last year has lost Kane + O'Rielly and gained Dahlin + Skinner and 3rd/4th liners. Interesting to see how big the improvements will be.

lol yeah we only added skinner and dahlin if your gonna have an opinion please at least know who the sabres are adding this year, (Mittlestadt Sheary Hutton Ullmark Guhle PIlut Oloffson Berglund sobotka + much more) among the name you didn't feel the need to add

 

[Cardiac Jerks]

What a fleecing...canes are a joke.

No they’re not.

People like jokes.

 

[Lempo]

No they’re not.

People like jokes.

Counterpoint: It's 2018, jokes offend people.

 

[byrath]

If the player has a NMC that is NOT yet in effect (for instance, if it starts in year 4 of a contract and the player is traded in year 2), then the team has a choice to honor it or not and the player has no say in it.

That's always seemed very odd to me. I don't understand why the union hasn't gotten that fixed, it seems fundamentally wrong.

 

[Lempo]

Sabres do not appear to have signed anything. I assume he's lost that clause. Media should be double-checking on this but Mike H at News has no idea about much

If the current procedure in practice is such that even the players with active NMC need the addendum with the Acquiring Club (as described in CF), you can be damn sure the players' agents as a rule demand this addendum as the prerequisite for the player to agree to waive the clause for the trade.

Whether a team does it isn't public knowledge unless some party to it chooses to make it so.

 

[Lempo]

That's always seemed very odd to me. I don't understand why the union hasn't gotten that fixed, it seems fundamentally wrong.

Transferability is an important part of NHL SPCs. A Club handing a player they are not intending to keep a NMC that only bites the next Club kind of would go against that.

On the other hand, when a Player who is already UFA eligible signs an extension with NMC, they can by CBA agree (despite the general no renegotiation rule) that the NMC is effective immediately already during the final season under the previous SPC (so the Club can't trade the early extended player at that point).

It may be yet another case where RFA guys have been sold for the benefit of UFA guys.