Gene Parmesan
Dedicated to babies who came feet first
Why would his agent say anything? There is nothing in those posts that people don't already know.
Statement from Plattner // Plus DW Conference Call tweets
- Thread starter LadyStanley
- Start date
One thing like joseph said. weird wording considering marleau is already a top 6 winger lol.
And 2 for the ones saying no mention of thornton, well duh of course there wasn't. Wilson was talking about players that can replace burns on the wing. Thornton is 100% a center and no coach/GM/team is going to move thornton to the wing.
You guys/gals need to stop dissecting every single word that any one says about the team. Nobody knows what wilson is planning on doing or what he can actually get done.
Its pretty funny watching the dissecting of every word though, marleau wasn't mentioned in the guys that stepped up in the olympics. He is being traded.
Thornton doesn't get mentioned as a person that can replace the wingers that are leaving/being moved back to defense. He's being traded.
From what i can gather from reading some of john thorntons tweets on this board. It seems as if he likes to hear himself speak (i don't know how to word/say it, when it is for something typed/written lol).
Gene Parmesan
Dedicated to babies who came feet first
He's definitely been spouting off pretty regularly. I expect the self absorbed stuff since he's a sports agent and they love to feel important.
LadyStanley
Registered User
He had a no trade on both contracts. So the only way would be, if he had a certain clause that opens up the no trade clause during a specific time frame.
I just don't see any major openings though in the clause. Only one i really see is thornton can give a number of teams every season he would be willing to be traded to. Which is basically just what a no trade clause is in the most basic sense lol.
Gilligans Island
Registered User
Only DW knows for sure.
(And Joe, his agent...)
And apparently capgeek, too, since they insist they have verified it (a full NMC)...
Gilligans Island
Registered User
You've seen the contract or know for fact that Thornton has this type of clause - a list of teams he's willing to be traded to?
When Capgeek says a full NMC, I take that to mean no "outs" as you suggest exists
Gilligans Island
Registered User
Only DW knows for sure.
(And Joe, his agent...)
Question - DW keeps referring to the new CBA and alluding to flexibilities and windows. Since I know you're more familiar with the CBA than the rest of us, is there some standard clause in the new CBA that provides windows? (I.e., there is no such thing as a full NMC).
Maybe KDB knows if he is around.
Every single no trade, no move clause has an out. If of course the player agrees to it. Which is what i said, not to many players will be happy playing on a team that nobody wants him around. So a player will most likely give a list of teams he would be willing to be traded to. And even then though, as iginla proved the player still has the final say of which team he wants to be traded to.
The only difference between a full no trade clause and a full no move clause. Is a no trade just stops trades and trades alone. The team can still send that player down to the ahl or buy them out.
A no move clause means that player cannot be traded or sent to the ahl or waived. But can still be bought out.
Any player can waive the no trade though. Just some have more conditions then others.
Gilligans Island
Registered User
I don't think you know what you're saying. What you're referring to is a limited NTC (or NMC) - where a player either provides a blacklist (X teams he won't agree to be traded to) or a whitelist (willing to be traded to X teams). With this list, the GM can make a trade to a team on the list (if white) or not on the list (if black) without subsequent approval from the player. That's how we traded Heatley - no one knew he had a limited NTC. Brad Stuart has a limited NTC.
However, that's not what's being reported for Joe or Patty. What's reported is they have full NMCs, meaning if DW wants to trade them, he has to get their approval for said team. There is no black or whitelist.
And of course, if a player waives his full NTC/NMC, all bets are off and a trade can happen. That's not what Thornton's brothers insinuating though.
hockeyball
Registered User
- Nov 10, 2007
- 21,554
- 909
I'm afraid that the 'window' Wilson is alluding to is Stuart's. If we go into next season only minus stuart, boyle and Havlat with Joe still as captain and no significant add's...
Well Jux, you are getting your tank.
Gilligans Island
Registered User
How about nothing? It certainly creates a 3-way dynamic - potential acquiring team, DW and now Jumbo & his brother-agent - and doesn't help DW in his negotiations.
Gilligans Island
Registered User
I don't think it would be a tank if we just removed the peripheral players like Stuart, etc.
It would result in a 2nd or 3rd place finish in the Pac and a 1st round loss to the Kings or Ducks. Just more of the same disappointment.
Gilligans Island
Registered User
Heatley had a limited NTC (a blacklist clause where he listed 10 teams he would NOT agree to be traded to). The Wild obviously weren't on that list so DW was free to trade him without Dany's approval.
No that is not how waiving happens. Heatley (coming to san jose demanded a trade), which in your theory says he waived his no trade clause. But then the sens completed a deal with edmonton, and heatley declined to waive. And next thing you know he accepted the trade to san jose.
You are right some contracts have a specific set out time period in which the player sets out a list of yes and no teams. That no matter what the teams on the yes team he can be traded to.
Thornton i don't believe has that, but with that being said i am sure if wilson came up to thornton and said we want to move on and you are no longer in the plans for the team, will you waive your no trade clause. Thornton will say yes, but only to these teams. And even with that said if wilson comes back to thornton and says we have a deal thornton can still decline to waive (d*** move though).
No matter what, unless specifically written out in the contract the player has full control over where he ends up. Even if said player demands to be traded. And even if said player says he agrees to be traded to a team before hand and decides he doesn't when the trade happens (iginla)
Gilligans Island
Registered User
1) Heatley had a limited NTC (from his contract signed with the Sens). He had a blacklist clause as documented here: http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=6736349
Murray ignored it and arranged a deal with the Oilers, which we have to assume was on Heatley's blacklist. That's how that brouhaha happened. The Sharks obviously weren't on his blacklist so that's how we acquired him. Heatley didn't have to waive anything. The Sharks were a team he previously agreed to be traded to.
Fast forward to July 2011, Wilson traded Heatley to the Wild since they weren't on his blacklist. Heatley didn't have to waive anything. Wilson exercised his right as per the contract.
2) Thornton, as reported by capgeek, apparently has a full NMC. If that is the case, DW has to get his approval to be traded and to which team since it's outside the contract. The leverage is all in Joe's court and his brothers' tweets, to me, are posturing. He's making it harder for DW to trade Joe...
Like Thornton, Iginla had a full NTC (or NMC) - that's how the Flames had to take the worse deal from the Pens. The decision was fully in Iginla's court the entire time. Joe will have the same power and that's how we could end up with a worse deal, or, to me, even worse, end up 3 yrs later with Joe walking away and our team in worse shape since we don't get any value back...
3) lastly, of course a player, regardless if they have a limited or full NTC/NMC, can agree to waive it at any point if the GM asks. Or vice versa, if the player requests to be traded.
If they manage to trade Stuart and did nothing, we'd be icing Irwin and Mueller and I don't think DW is going to do that. However, even without just Boyle and Havlat, this team is still a playoff team.
LadyStanley
Registered User
Nope. It's a case-by-case (aka contract-by-contract) negotiated thing between player and team.
Historically, the Sharks have often given NTCs (cannot be traded from organization without permission) or NMCs (cannot be traded or demoted without permission), with the caveat that based on post season (and/or regular season) team performance, there is a 2-4 week window in which the team can make a trade. Sometimes there might be a list of teams involved.
In Galiardi's case, he was a pending RFA, but the organization was classy enough to ask where he'd like to be traded. He said Calgary, and all the Sharks got back was a 5th. (While they might have been able to get more if he was traded elsewhere, they gave him the respect he was NOT required to have in asking his desired team to be moved to.)
And has to be put on waivers to do so.
(But it's waivers for the purpose of buy out, rather demotion.)
Gilligans Island
Registered User
Thanks, LS. Interesting...
If that's the case, then what you write is effectively a limited NMC/NTC in my book.
To me, a full one would simply mean no outs whatsoever/the team has to ask the player for permission to be traded at any time, and any circumstance, period.
Gilligans Island
Registered User
Kawakami's article on the Sharks.
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/kawaka...arks-cushiony-culture-of-extreme-no-pressure/
DW at the proverbial fork in the road would be a way to sum it up. He's been down one road for so long but recognizing he may need to go in another...
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/kawaka...arks-cushiony-culture-of-extreme-no-pressure/
DW at the proverbial fork in the road would be a way to sum it up. He's been down one road for so long but recognizing he may need to go in another...
Quid Pro Clowe
Registered User
Kawakami is a troll. His interview the other day with Harbaugh was a microcosm of his journalism; Try to bait with tge same questions over and over again then make up stories.
