Rumor: Interest in Marleau (report: willing to waive NMC for LA, ANA, NYR)

[Pinkfloyd]

Because Patrick Marleau wants to win the Stanley Cup. And maybe he wants to do right by the SJ Sharks before he retires. Or maybe he wants to be on a big market team before he retires to inflate his post-career value. Could even be because after 19 years, he just wants to play hockey somewhere else.

There are a lot of reasons.

Other than, my family lives here, what are the reasons to stay?

The only reason that has any credibility is winning the Cup. lol at do right by the Sharks before he retires. He's already done that many times over. And please stop pretending like family isn't important here. Considering it impacts practically everything with his life, there's no sense in marginalizing it like you are.

 

[Sysreq]

To your first part the simple response is what may have worked for your family is not universally applicable. The family thing isn't that big of a deal on the whole of it since his career is winding down but it's his choice and there are a lot more reasons to stay in San Jose for him than there is for him to go to New York. But you're the one on the other side of it marginalizing how important the family issue may be because family is more important to some people, especially when it comes to moving when it isn't necessary, than it is to others.

Might be an issue for him, might not be. Lot of different people have different opinions. I feel like we can both agree that enough words have been spilled on that topic. The truth is, only time will tell - but I think we both know that

As for Smith, you would be incorrect. He's been injured pretty much all year so there's no evidence to support your claim that he doesn't fit the system or that DeBoer is playing guys ahead of him. I don't know where you get that he was benched due to performance.

To quote Kurz: "Ben Smith has experienced a setback from his head injury, although DeBoer said that his benching in the third period of the loss in Dallas was not due to health."

http://www.csnbayarea.com/sharks/sharks-notes-columbus-disappointing-deboer-talks-torts

Even before he got injured, Smith was a healthy scratch.

As for Torres, I sincerely doubt that the Sharks would have gotten the roster spot they seemingly requested if they could've just waived Torres to save the cap space. If that weren't the case, they would've waived him already.

I genuinely think SJ is hoping to keep him around as a cruise missile for the play-offs. In any case, I can't answer that specific question. If it is, or is not possible, we don't know. I've always maintained that. But again, its not even necessary for Nash to fit on our roster.

In either instance, you're waiving a player and getting nothing for them when they can be useful when available...and for what?

Well, a better player with more value than either over any term. But again, and I must stress this, waiving either is not a requirement to fit Nash into our roster. You were the one suggesting that we would need to dump additional salary to make it fit.

But to your point about return: What do you think is a fair return for either player? I am really curious as to what you think we can get. Honestly, I would flip either for anything if it could be done. It's my assertion that neither would fetch anything. And in fact, I suspect either would clear waivers without much problem.

The idea that Marleau no longer fits is absolutely ridiculous. Marleau plays any system you want to implement. McLellan was not dump and chase hockey. I don't know what you were watching and that line he's currently on does not play dump and chase hockey. I don't know what you have been watching this year.

A player isn't a commodity asset. Different players have different strengths and weaknesses. While they can all fit into ANY system, certain players do perform better with systems more aligned with their specific style. Patty comes from an era when you want big, physical guys who can get into corners quickly and get the puck to the net. That's dump-and-chase hockey. That is what Patty Marleau is built for.

DeBoer's system doesn't rely on that. It's much more akin to Joe Thornton's style. You want to carry the puck over the blue line, maintain possession, and cycle in order to create space. Worst case, as long as you "hold the puck" the other team can't be gaining offensive chances.

Dump and chase is a strategy DeBoer uses, because its one of the fundamental techniques of hockey - but he tries to use it sparingly, and is looking for players like Thornton, Donskoi, Couture and Hertl. These are the guys who you see night after night making controlled entries that lead to increased zone time. When they get the puck, they hold onto it in order to give their line mates time to get open. Patty doesn't do that.

The only time Patty really controls the puck over the blue line is on a break away, which usually ends in a low-probability shot attempt and a prompt turn over.

Nash plays DeBoer's style though. Much like Thornton, he uses his size to shield the puck to buy time for his line to setup a cycle.

Patty's age is NOT an issue.

No, it very clearly is. His trade value will never increase from this point. You were so concerned about maybe getting a 7th for Smith, and yet you want to let a franchise player retire without getting ANYTHING back? Talk about being pennywise, dollar foolish. A deadline trade will never amount to anything even close to what Nash brings to the table.

5v5 scoring is certainly an issue worth addressing but believing that the solution in some way is trading Marleau for Nash is a mistake, imo. I can't tell you that Marleau is a better possession player but I can tell you that the difference between Marleau and Nash in that regard relative to this team is minor. This team's 5v5 issues stem from a defense that does not have very much in terms of puck-moving capability and offensive instinct and a historic lack of forward depth beyond the top two lines getting it done with possession.

You agree that 5v5 scoring needs addressed. Yet you disagree that adding a player with better 5v5 scoring rates will help? See that doesn't make sense to me. Yes, we do need another offensive defense-man. Absolutely. But that is a separate issue. It's like turning down a free TV because you forgot to pay the power bill.

Having Nash over Marleau will not make the Sharks a better team. It will actually make the team worse. Not because Marleau is a better player than Nash but because it doesn't address the real issues of this team and it gives the team less assets in which to address it.

See and here is my problem: You've made an assertion with absolutely zero effort to back it up. Will Nash make the team better? I believe so. I provided numbers to explain my views and further the discussion. You simply asserted an opinion. I would LOVE to debate this further, I am really enjoying this - but in order to continue you need to provide facts and numbers. Otherwise we are just two strangers yelling at each other on the internet.

 

[CrypTic]

Sysreq, I don't see how we could fit Nash on the team without moving or waiving someone besides Marleau. Marleau makes $6.66M through 2016-17. Nash makes $7.8M through 2017-18. Per Hockey's Cap we have around $1M in cap space when Couture returns. I'm sure that they don't want to go all the way to the cap bc then you have no way to deal with injuries, etc. I doubt that they want to get any closer to the cap than they have been this season; we are essentially at the cap.

How do we fit Nash's cap hit without moving players besides Marleau? What do we do next year when Hertl and Nieto (and maybe Tennyson) need raises? Torres and maybe Smith and Brown will come off the books but they aren't making much (4.7 in the aggregate) so, after figuring in their replacements, that's not much, if any, money saved. And if our prospects don't pan out, where will the money come for acquiring their replacements? What about the year after that when Burns, Karlsson, Donskoi, Tierney (and maybe Wingels and Stalock) want more money? Thornton might be traded, retire, or make less but we'll need someone to replace Couture or whomever else is the 1C. We might not need to but I'm sure that the GM will want some cap room to make trades or acquisitions.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Getting benched in the 3rd period for a 4th liner is not exactly uncommon and it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with performance issues. Shortening the bench when losing is a common thing in this league. And even before he was hurt in Dallas, he was not a healthy scratch. He was injured then too.

As for Torres, it's possible to move suspended players. There's nothing in the CBA against it and it has been done in the past but getting the roster spot cleared was a request granted by the league for the Sharks. I'm sure there are reasons for that.

As for the value between Nash and Marleau, I'd actually say it's equal given the difference in cap hit. Marleau is not the same impact player as Nash but it's close. However, the difference in cap hit matters to a team up against it. Getting a better player doesn't always make sense especially if it's at the expense of depth or the ability to get better depth.

You're simply wrong about Patty's ability to play DeBoer's system. He's played practically every system of hockey and excelled at it. Patty pretty much plays off the talent that he's playing with and does what he can to optimize their abilities. It's why he's the one that moves off his line more than others because he's done it and is most capable of it. Hell, he has excelled with Thornton playing Thornton's style so that kind of throws that theory out the window. Marleau plays any style needed of him and does it very well. Sorry but that claim is pure bull.

Patty's age isn't an issue because he's still a useful player towards the end of winning hockey games. You're also misunderstanding what I am saying about Smith. I have no qualms about keeping or letting Smith go and it's not for value purposes. Keeping Smith is good for the team because he's a good 4th liner when he's healthy. It's depth the team can use.

As for the 5v5 argument, you do realize that the quality of team is an important factor in how well one may perform in that situation, right? Compare the teams overall 5v5 play in those years. It might help that the Rangers have had a much better goalie and a better overall blue line while having similar or better talent around the players in question and if the roles were reversed, I'd bet you'd see similar results the other way. But this idea that this is a free TV is simply false. You're paying more for what will likely be similar results from the same slot but you're then taking away the ability to address other things because you have less to work with.

Your facts used aren't disputing the argument I'm making. I'm not saying one way or the other who the better player is between Marleau and Nash. The argument is that you have to make the right calls on acquisitions based on team needs and cap space. Something you are not even acknowledging in the slightest. We don't have the cap space to make a one on one trade for Nash. We accomplish nothing by waiving someone like Smith to acquire that space because we will have to call up a player of similar cost to replace Smith in the lineup by doing so. The team loses the ability to address the need for more offense from the blue line because the cap space has been eaten up. Thus the only way to really do something like that is to rob Peter to pay Paul. Something that also does not make the team better. The Nash facts are assuming that that is all Nash's ability when it absolutely is not. All details that have to be taken into account even if we assume that clauses would even be waived and teams have interest.

Nash would not be worth the cost to acquire even if it were just a straight swap because in reality, it's never as simple as a straight swap.

 

[Nolan11]

Getting benched in the 3rd period for a 4th liner is not exactly uncommon and it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with performance issues. Shortening the bench when losing is a common thing in this league. And even before he was hurt in Dallas, he was not a healthy scratch. He was injured then too.

As for Torres, it's possible to move suspended players. There's nothing in the CBA against it and it has been done in the past but getting the roster spot cleared was a request granted by the league for the Sharks. I'm sure there are reasons for that.

As for the value between Nash and Marleau, I'd actually say it's equal given the difference in cap hit. Marleau is not the same impact player as Nash but it's close. However, the difference in cap hit matters to a team up against it. Getting a better player doesn't always make sense especially if it's at the expense of depth or the ability to get better depth.

You're simply wrong about Patty's ability to play DeBoer's system. He's played practically every system of hockey and excelled at it. Patty pretty much plays off the taulent that he's playing with and does what he can to optimize their abilities. It's why he's the one that moves off his line more than others because he's done it and is most capable of it. Hell, he has excelled with Thornton playing Thornton's style so that kind of throws that theory out the window. Marleau plays any style needed of him and does it very well. Sorry but that claim is pure bull.

Patty's age isn't an issue because he's still a useful player towards the end of winning hockey games. You're also misunderstanding what I am saying about Smith. I have no qualms about keeping or letting Smith go and it's not for value purposes. Keeping Smith is good for the team because he's a good 4th liner when he's healthy. It's depth the team can use.

As for the 5v5 argument, you do realize that the quality of team is an important factor in how well one may perform in that situation, right? Compare the teams overall 5v5 play in those years. It might help that the Rangers have had a much better goalie and a better overall blue line while having similar or better talent around the players in question and if the roles were reversed, I'd bet you'd see similar results the other way. But this idea that this is a free TV is simply false. You're paying more for what will likely be similar results from the same slot but you're then taking away the ability to address other things because you have less to work with.

Your facts used aren't disputing the argument I'm making. I'm not saying one way or the other who the better player is between Marleau and Nash. The argument is that you have to make the right calls on acquisitions based on team needs and cap space. Something you are not even acknowledging in the slightest. We don't have the cap space to make a one on one trade for Nash. We accomplish nothing by waiving someone like Smith to acquire that space because we will have to call up a player of similar cost to replace Smith in the lineup by doing so. The team loses the ability to address the need for more offense from the blue line because the cap space has been eaten up. Thus the only way to really do something like that is to rob Peter to pay Paul. Something that also does not make the team better. The Nash facts are assuming that that is all Nash's ability when it absolutely is not. All details that have to be taken into account even if we assume that clauses would even be waived and teams have interest.

Nash would not be worth the cost to acquire even if it were just a straight swap because in reality, it's never as simple as a straight swap.

I don't expect we will trade Marleau at all. But if we were to, we can make a Marleau + Brown for Nash work for both teams, cap-wise. Rangers wouldn't have to, but they would have option of burying brown in the minors. We lose that option but would still have a million in space to play revolving roster spot with our kids. Not ideal but it works.

Next season we would have enough space to extend our RFAs with departure of Torres and demers retained coming off the books. (Plus maybe smith departure). Bit tricky but easily manageable.

 

[spintheblackcircle]

I don't see Marleau waiving this year. However, if he is still a really good player next year and the Sharks decided not to re-sign him, I can see him waiving next year if a chance to move him to a top flight team comes along.

His wife can want to stay in San Jose as much as she wants, but if the Sharks tell Marleau we aren't re-signing you, I can see him saying "ok, I will waive".

.....however, I would much prefer the Sharks to be playoff teams the next two years so that decision doesn't have to be made.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

I don't expect we will trade Marleau at all. But if we were to, we can make a Marleau + Brown for Nash work for both teams, cap-wise. Rangers wouldn't have to, but they would have option of burying brown in the minors. We lose that option but would still have a million in space to play revolving roster spot with our kids. Not ideal but it works.

Next season we would have enough space to extend our RFAs with departure of Torres and demers retained coming off the books. (Plus maybe smith departure). Bit tricky but easily manageable.

And then where do the Sharks get the cap space to acquire what they actually need? Even if they did Marleau and Brown for Nash, they're still with less space to acquire what will actually help them 5v5 which is more offense from the blue line AND losing Brown in said trade is a very minor thing cap wise because you're still having to replace him at a minimum of 500k cap hit. This team doesn't need Nash to the point that they should sacrifice the space they have that should be going towards improving the blue line.

I don't see Marleau waiving this year. However, if he is still a really good player next year and the Sharks decided not to re-sign him, I can see him waiving next year if a chance to move him to a top flight team comes along.

His wife can want to stay in San Jose as much as she wants, but if the Sharks tell Marleau we aren't re-signing you, I can see him saying "ok, I will waive".

.....however, I would much prefer the Sharks to be playoff teams the next two years so that decision doesn't have to be made.

I can't see a situation where the Sharks didn't decide to re-sign Marleau. If he's still a good player, he's worth having on the team. It just will need to be at a reduced rate. It could still be possible that if one of them goes, they both go as well. I don't see a situation where only one goes. I don't think Marleau will waive even if they decide beforehand not to re-sign. He can just play out his season there and then move on like pretty much all of the stars on this team have done under Wilson.

 

[DarrylshutzSydor]

Might be an issue for him, might not be. Lot of different people have different opinions. I feel like we can both agree that enough words have been spilled on that topic. The truth is, only time will tell - but I think we both know that



To quote Kurz: "Ben Smith has experienced a setback from his head injury, although DeBoer said that his benching in the third period of the loss in Dallas was not due to health."

http://www.csnbayarea.com/sharks/sharks-notes-columbus-disappointing-deboer-talks-torts

Even before he got injured, Smith was a healthy scratch.



I genuinely think SJ is hoping to keep him around as a cruise missile for the play-offs. In any case, I can't answer that specific question. If it is, or is not possible, we don't know. I've always maintained that. But again, its not even necessary for Nash to fit on our roster.



Well, a better player with more value than either over any term. But again, and I must stress this, waiving either is not a requirement to fit Nash into our roster. You were the one suggesting that we would need to dump additional salary to make it fit.

But to your point about return: What do you think is a fair return for either player? I am really curious as to what you think we can get. Honestly, I would flip either for anything if it could be done. It's my assertion that neither would fetch anything. And in fact, I suspect either would clear waivers without much problem.



A player isn't a commodity asset. Different players have different strengths and weaknesses. While they can all fit into ANY system, certain players do perform better with systems more aligned with their specific style. Patty comes from an era when you want big, physical guys who can get into corners quickly and get the puck to the net. That's dump-and-chase hockey. That is what Patty Marleau is built for.

DeBoer's system doesn't rely on that. It's much more akin to Joe Thornton's style. You want to carry the puck over the blue line, maintain possession, and cycle in order to create space. Worst case, as long as you "hold the puck" the other team can't be gaining offensive chances.

Dump and chase is a strategy DeBoer uses, because its one of the fundamental techniques of hockey - but he tries to use it sparingly, and is looking for players like Thornton, Donskoi, Couture and Hertl. These are the guys who you see night after night making controlled entries that lead to increased zone time. When they get the puck, they hold onto it in order to give their line mates time to get open. Patty doesn't do that.

The only time Patty really controls the puck over the blue line is on a break away, which usually ends in a low-probability shot attempt and a prompt turn over.

Nash plays DeBoer's style though. Much like Thornton, he uses his size to shield the puck to buy time for his line to setup a cycle.



No, it very clearly is. His trade value will never increase from this point. You were so concerned about maybe getting a 7th for Smith, and yet you want to let a franchise player retire without getting ANYTHING back? Talk about being pennywise, dollar foolish. A deadline trade will never amount to anything even close to what Nash brings to the table.



You agree that 5v5 scoring needs addressed. Yet you disagree that adding a player with better 5v5 scoring rates will help? See that doesn't make sense to me. Yes, we do need another offensive defense-man. Absolutely. But that is a separate issue. It's like turning down a free TV because you forgot to pay the power bill.



See and here is my problem: You've made an assertion with absolutely zero effort to back it up. Will Nash make the team better? I believe so. I provided numbers to explain my views and further the discussion. You simply asserted an opinion. I would LOVE to debate this further, I am really enjoying this - but in order to continue you need to provide facts and numbers. Otherwise we are just two strangers yelling at each other on the internet.

You said in your first post "And its not like his kid's wouldn't love to spend a few weeks in NY. Between West Coast road trips, family vacations, holiday breaks, etc its not going to be so different."

I for one have been very vocal about thinking that Marleau should be one to be moved, but FAMILY is definitely important to EVERY player. Martin St Louis demanded a trade from Tampa to the NYR to be closer to his family. Marleau is not going to accept a deal unless he is almost forced to by management. Definitely wouldn't want Nash in return either, much more would prefer young blue chip prospect(s) and picks.

 

[Nolan11]

And then where do the Sharks get the cap space to acquire what they actually need? Even if they did Marleau and Brown for Nash, they're still with less space to acquire what will actually help them 5v5 which is more offense from the blue line AND losing Brown in said trade is a very minor thing cap wise because you're still having to replace him at a minimum of 500k cap hit. This team doesn't need Nash to the point that they should sacrifice the space they have that should be going towards improving the blue line.



I can't see a situation where the Sharks didn't decide to re-sign Marleau. If he's still a good player, he's worth having on the team. It just will need to be at a reduced rate. It could still be possible that if one of them goes, they both go as well. I don't see a situation where only one goes. I don't think Marleau will waive even if they decide beforehand not to re-sign. He can just play out his season there and then move on like pretty much all of the stars on this team have done under Wilson.

I can't argue your point that this team needs further help on the blue line and would be better off fixing that hole. Cause you are right. But if we did a brown plus Marleau for Nash it does not preclude another deal happening for the blue line, it just makes the cap portion of that more interesting. You have to give to get so we would have to trade maybe wingels + for blue line help.

Heck, DW could turn around and move Nash for that blue line help. Once he waives the NTC sharks don't have to honor it. He won't, or at least shouldn't, but he could.

 

[CrypTic]

I can't argue your point that this team needs further help on the blue line and would be better off fixing that hole. Cause you are right. But if we did a brown plus Marleau for Nash it does not preclude another deal happening for the blue line, it just makes the cap portion of that more interesting. You have to give to get so we would have to trade maybe wingels + for blue line help.

Heck, DW could turn around and move Nash for that blue line help. Once he waives the NTC sharks don't have to honor it. He won't, or at least shouldn't, but he could.

Why not? AFAIK, that only applies to NMC/NTCs that haven't yet kicked in at the time of the trade (and IIRC only for RFAs).

 

[WantonAbandon]

Yes, teams will always be interested in Marleau so long as he decides to lace up, but the central question is: Is Marleau interested in them?
Secondly I think Marleau is the type of player that could score 20 goals at 42

 

[Pinkfloyd]

I can't argue your point that this team needs further help on the blue line and would be better off fixing that hole. Cause you are right. But if we did a brown plus Marleau for Nash it does not preclude another deal happening for the blue line, it just makes the cap portion of that more interesting. You have to give to get so we would have to trade maybe wingels + for blue line help.

Heck, DW could turn around and move Nash for that blue line help. Once he waives the NTC sharks don't have to honor it. He won't, or at least shouldn't, but he could.

Certainly you have to give to get. There's no arguing that but you're only going to have so much to give and putting more into less forwards will take away the ability to get d-men when it is needed to improve the team. I'm pretty sure it happened recently that they didn't have the space to go after certain guys at the deadline. I think it was in the year of the collapse. It doesn't necessary preclude us from making another deal but it all but guarantees that it will make the team have to deal something they likely need in order to address something that is more of a need. Robbing Peter to pay Paul type of thing. It will be like the Demers for Dillon deal.

As for Nash, no he can't. The NMC/NTC will still apply regardless of whether he waives it. It carries over to his new team. That exception only happens if the clause has yet to come into effect or it is specifically written in the contract that once it is waived, he loses the right going forward. The latter, as far as I know, has never been written into any player's contract. Mostly because I don't think teams care to make it easier for the next team getting the player.

 

[Nolan11]

Why not? AFAIK, that only applies to NMC/NTCs that haven't yet kicked in at the time of the trade (and IIRC only for RFAs).

Certainly you have to give to get. There's no arguing that but you're only going to have so much to give and putting more into less forwards will take away the ability to get d-men when it is needed to improve the team. I'm pretty sure it happened recently that they didn't have the space to go after certain guys at the deadline. I think it was in the year of the collapse. It doesn't necessary preclude us from making another deal but it all but guarantees that it will make the team have to deal something they likely need in order to address something that is more of a need. Robbing Peter to pay Paul type of thing. It will be like the Demers for Dillon deal.

As for Nash, no he can't. The NMC/NTC will still apply regardless of whether he waives it. It carries over to his new team. That exception only happens if the clause has yet to come into effect or it is specifically written in the contract that once it is waived, he loses the right going forward. The latter, as far as I know, has never been written into any player's contract. Mostly because I don't think teams care to make it easier for the next team getting the player.

Thank you for the clarification on CBA. I knew if we traded Couture before his July 1 NTC that the receiving team did not have to honor the NTC and somehow I translated that thought into a player waiving..... I stand corrected.

Personally, I am on the willing to trade a core player or two for the right defenseman side of the fence. I think we are at least one big-move away from truly contending, and that move should be done this year. (Couture for Seth Jones + 2nd type trade is the tier I am thinking).

If Marleau asked for a trade, I would be willing to see him go. I personally want him to retire in teal but if he asks, we should find him a home. Tampa makes sense and having a cap-dump Carle returning + a 1st and a good prospect would be areasonable return. We could then turn around and trade Dillon to buffalo or jets (both need LHD help). Carle would work for a vet 3rd pair with Tennyson. Not great but probably serviceable.

 

[Hangemhigh]

Otherwise we are just two strangers yelling at each other on the internet.

So a normal day at HFboards.

Are there any rumors of Nash wanting out of NY? That is the only thing missing from your well reasoned posts.

 

[pappaf2]

As for Nash, no he can't. The NMC/NTC will still apply regardless of whether he waives it. It carries over to his new team. That exception only happens if the clause has yet to come into effect or it is specifically written in the contract that once it is waived, he loses the right going forward. The latter, as far as I know, has never been written into any player's contract. Mostly because I don't think teams care to make it easier for the next team getting the player.

How did the Sharks trade heatly for havlat then? He didn't seem to know that he was traded until it happend as far as I recall.


We'll never mind, just read an article that said heater had a limited ntc window that had opened up around the time of the trade

 

[hohosaregood]

How did the Sharks trade heatly for havlat then? He didn't seem to know that he was traded until it happend as far as I recall.


We'll never mind, just read an article that said heater had a limited ntc window that had opened up around the time of the trade

That was Setoguchi.

 

[Led Zappa]

That was Setoguchi.

Seto was traded right after he signed an extension. No indication he had a NTC AFAIK. If he did it wasn't in effect yet.

 

[hockeyball]

How did the Sharks trade heatly for havlat then? He didn't seem to know that he was traded until it happend as far as I recall.


We'll never mind, just read an article that said heater had a limited ntc window that had opened up around the time of the trade

Heatley had a 'window' of some kind in his clause, that's how he was traded.

 

[T0uGh C0oki3]

I think this whole "Marleau is moving" thing is a smokescreen for a bigger move.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

I think this whole "Marleau is moving" thing is a smokescreen for a bigger move.

The Marleau is moving thing is just someone bs'ing Friedman, imo. He wasn't even sure if he should run with it.

 

[Barrie22]

I think this whole "Marleau is moving" thing is a smokescreen for a bigger move.

Unless you are talking league wide, then there really isn't much bigger on the sharks then trading marleau. Thornton would pretty much be the only other move that could top trading away the franchise leader in almost every category and a player that has spent something like 18 years in san jose.

 

[pappaf2]

Heatley had a 'window' of some kind in his clause, that's how he was traded.

Yeah I did some looking after I posted. Funny, when I happened from what I remember there was no mention of him having a window in his contract, even on this board. I guess I just assumed there wasn't because that info didn't come out until some time after the trade happend.

 

[Led Zappa]

Yeah I did some looking after I posted. Funny, when I happened from what I remember there was no mention of him having a window in his contract, even on this board. I guess I just assumed there wasn't because that info didn't come out until some time after the trade happend.

Even Capgeek didn't get all the info on NTC's. Hockey's Cap has some. Some just say modified. Could be pick 6 you won't go to. Could be pick 6 in the last year only. Some I'm sure are pure NTC's. Martin has one that is pick 6 teams he will not go to according to Hockey's Cap, but I'd bet it's a full NTC for at least 2 years.

 

[drunksage]

http://www.csncalifornia.com/sharks/source-sharks-marleau-would-accept-trade-one-three-teams

Rangers, Ducks, Kings acceptable trade destinations according to "an NHL source," reports Kurz.

 

[Sysreq]

Sounds like we're getting Nash.