Interesting CBA Clause

Status
Not open for further replies.

vcx*

Guest
So because Marchant had a no trade clause with Columbus, the ducks can trade his sorry behind to any team that will take him?

Who wouldn't want Marchant? Columbus is eating half his pay, i'd take him.
 

Hockeyfan02

Registered User
Oct 10, 2002
14,755
0
Pistivity
Visit site
Dakine said:
Who wouldn't want Marchant? Columbus is eating half his pay, i'd take him.

Columbus is not eating half his salary. Marchant was never assigned to the minors. If he was recalled from the minors and claimed on waivers, then Columbus would be taking on half the salary. But right now Anaheim is paying his entire salary.
 

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
Dango said:
If I'm not mistaken, the 1/2 salary rule applies only to re-entry waivers.

Indeed you are not mistaken.

The half-salary rule only applies to callup/re-entry waivers.

For normal waivers the claiming team picks up the whole salary and cap hit. The old team is free and clear.

For callup waivers, the claiming team and old team split the players salary and cap hit (for the remainder of the contract) 50%/50%.

Marchant was claimed on normal waivers. He was NOT send down and recalled, so the callup waiver rules do not apply. The Ducks are on the hook for his whole salary and Columbus is completely off the hook.
 

kdb209

Registered User
Jan 26, 2005
14,870
6
19nazzy said:
http://www.tsn.ca/columnists/bob_mckenzie.asp
Actually, let's make that "had" a no-trade clause. The CBA stipulates no-trade clauses don't travel from team to team with the contract.
Actually, this is not anything new. It was exactly this way under the old CBA:
11.2. Individually Negotiated Limitations on Player Movement.

Contracts entered into on or after a player's 32nd birthday (or his 31st birthday on or after June 30, 1998) may contain a no-trade clause. Contracts containing a "no-trade" clause may be entered into prior to the player's 32nd birthday (or his 31st birthday on or after June 30, 1998), so long as the fixed term of the contract containing the no-trade clause extends through the player's 32nd birthday (or his 31st birthday on or after June 30, 1998) and the no-trade clause does not become effective until the player reaches his 32nd birthday (or his 31st birthday on or after June 30, 1998). If the player is traded prior to the no-trade clause taking effect, the clause does not bind the acquiring Club. The acquiring Club may separately agree to a no-trade clause.
Under the old CBA, the UFA age was 32 yo, dropping to 31 in '98.

Under this term, it is only NTC's that haven't kicked in yet that are invalidated by a trade. An active NTC that has been waived by a player to facilitate a trade that he approves or the NTC of a player picked up on waivers (see Marchant, Todd) are still binding on the new club.

The more I see of the new CBA, except for the obvious new additions and changes that have been publicized (salary cap, callup waivers, etc), the more and more it looks very much like the old one. As a rule of thumb, I've just assumed that if I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary, the terms of the new CBA are similar/identical to the old, and I've rarely been disappointed.
 

GKJ

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
185,669
37,463
Flukeshot said:
Marchant was never traded though was he? He was a waiver claim. So I think he no-trade clause still stands.



Well, he wouldn't waive it to go to Anaheim, so I'd be shocked if he wouldn't waive it should Anaheim want to trade him
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->