Speculation: Armchair GM Thread - 2019/20 Season Part 2

[Kahvi]

Condition was Neal to score 21 goals, and he didnt. No pick to Flames, simple as that

 

[Rubi]

Condition was Neal to score 21 goals, and he didnt. No pick to Flames, simple as that

No it's not. The agreement was made under the assumption that the Oilers would play 82 games. They didn't. They only played 71 therefore it s within the Flames right to expect some modifications to the original deal based on the percentage of games played.

No different than if I contract you to build me a house in 30 days and at the end of 30 days, if the house is completed, I will pay you $500,000.
Now let's say a huge storm comes up and forces you to stop construction 3 days short of the 30 day time limit thus allowing you to only complete 90% of the house.
I can't say sorry.. no money for you. You didn't finish the house in 30 days and just because you only had 27 days is not my problem.... thus giving me an almost completely built house for free.

 

[Kahvi]

No it's not. The agreement was made under the assumption that the Oilers would play 82 games.

Thats of course what common sense might say, but do you have a link to CBA or something where this is said

 

[Kahvi]

Also Neal pace has slowed down a ot recently so I wouldnt have bet for him to score 2 more goals

 

[Rubi]

....

No I don't have a link but I wouldn't be surprised if players use this type of argument to determine bonus eligibility where the player falls slightly short of the bonus goal where the player only got to play in 70 games, through no fault of the player or because of injury, but the bonus was structured on the premise of an 82 game season.

 

[Rubi]

Also Neal pace has slowed down a ot recently so I wouldnt have bet for him to score 2 more goals

In my argument Neal doesn't have to score ,2 more goals.

 

[SKRusty]

Condition was Neal to score 21 goals, and he didnt. No pick to Flames, simple as that

Rather than worry about a 3rd round pick, I hope the Flames are studying free agent players available in other leagues.

A third round pick has a 25% chance of becoming a bona fide NHLer (200 plus games) and a 5% chance of becoming a top 6 option in 6-7 years.

Free agents (few in Calgary's history) signed from Europe and the NCAA typically average a 40% chance of becoming a NHLer and a 15% chance of becoming an impact player. Chicago, Pittsburgh, St. Louis and Washington have all done fairly well here. With Calgary's stage of development these free-agents present the largest opportunities.

 

[Ace Rimmer]

No it's not. The agreement was made under the assumption that the Oilers would play 82 games. They didn't. They only played 71 therefore it s within the Flames right to expect some modifications to the original deal based on the percentage of games played.

No different than if I contract you to build me a house in 30 days and at the end of 30 days, if the house is completed, I will pay you $500,000.
Now let's say a huge storm comes up and forces you to stop construction 3 days short of the 30 day time limit thus allowing you to only complete 90% of the house.
I can't say sorry.. no money for you. You didn't finish the house in 30 days and just because you only had 27 days is not my problem.... thus giving me an almost completely built house for free.

If Neal went on IR for the remainder of the season, do the Flames still get the pick?

No.

 

[Rubi]

If Neal went on IR for the remainder of the season, do the Flames still get the pick?

No.

No because he'd be injured and thus unavailable to play in those final 11 games... But the thing is.. those final 11 games would occur.
In the case we have now.. the 11 games will not take place. The season, for the Oilers and the Flames has become a 71/70 game season.. not an 82 game season.

You can't make an agreement based on an Edmonton Oilers 82 game season and then when that 82 game season becomes a 71 game season, expect to the terms of original agreement to remain as is.

 

[Anglesmith]

No because he'd be injured and thus unavailable to play in those final 11 games... But the thing is.. those final 11 games would occur.
In the case we have now.. the 11 games will not take place. The season, for the Oilers and the Flames has become a 71/70 game season.. not an 82 game season.

You can't make an agreement based on an Edmonton Oilers 82 game season and then when that 82 game season becomes a 71 game season, expect to the terms of original agreement to remain as is.

I think you're going to find that, in fact, we can. The 3rd round pick condition would be triggered if the Oilers benefited from the trade significantly during the regular season, to the tune of 21 goals. Say what you want about prorating, but the shortened regular season also means a reduction of the impact of any one player during that season. From the Oilers' perspective, they made that condition under the assumption that they would be able to benefit from 82 games of James Neal this season. They have lost 11 games of that; they're the victims here. They did not get to benefit from 21 goals, therefore they did not benefit significantly enough to trigger the condition.

By your logic, if COVID had come earlier, say 10 games into the season when James Neal was on an absurd goal pace and Milan had yet to record a point (from memory), would the condition be filled? What about 3 games into the season when he had six goals? 2 games into the season when he had two goals?

For what it's worth, I'm sure that NHL teams have the ability to create a condition based on goal pace rather than goals if they want to. These teams did not agree to such a condition, though. The Flames agreed to this condition knowing full well that there was a chance of something preventing Neal from playing 82 games. Of these options, all of them had a much higher likelihood of occurring than COVID-19 cancelling 11 games of the season. But they agreed to it anyway.

 

[Fig]

I think you're going to find that, in fact, we can. The 3rd round pick condition would be triggered if the Oilers benefited from the trade significantly during the regular season, to the tune of 21 goals. Say what you want about prorating, but the shortened regular season also means a reduction of the impact of any one player during that season. From the Oilers' perspective, they made that condition under the assumption that they would be able to benefit from 82 games of James Neal this season. They have lost 11 games of that; they're the victims here. They did not get to benefit from 21 goals, therefore they did not benefit significantly enough to trigger the condition.

By your logic, if COVID had come earlier, say 10 games into the season when James Neal was on an absurd goal pace and Milan had yet to record a point (from memory), would the condition be filled? What about 3 games into the season when he had six goals? 2 games into the season when he had two goals?

For what it's worth, I'm sure that NHL teams have the ability to create a condition based on goal pace rather than goals if they want to. These teams did not agree to such a condition, though. The Flames agreed to this condition knowing full well that there was a chance of something preventing Neal from playing 82 games. Of these options, all of them had a much higher likelihood of occurring than COVID-19 cancelling 11 games of the season. But they agreed to it anyway.

Are you saying they lost out on the opportunity to play Neal and we won out on not playing anyone?

 

[Rubi]

I think you're going to find that, in fact, we can. The 3rd round pick condition would be triggered if the Oilers benefited from the trade significantly during the regular season, to the tune of 21 goals. Say what you want about prorating, but the shortened regular season also means a reduction of the impact of any one player during that season. From the Oilers' perspective, they made that condition under the assumption that they would be able to benefit from 82 games of James Neal this season. They have lost 11 games of that; they're the victims here. They did not get to benefit from 21 goals, therefore they did not benefit significantly enough to trigger the condition.

By your logic, if COVID had come earlier, say 10 games into the season when James Neal was on an absurd goal pace and Milan had yet to record a point (from memory), would the condition be filled? What about 3 games into the season when he had six goals? 2 games into the season when he had two goals?

For what it's worth, I'm sure that NHL teams have the ability to create a condition based on goal pace rather than goals if they want to. These teams did not agree to such a condition, though. The Flames agreed to this condition knowing full well that there was a chance of something preventing Neal from playing 82 games. Of these options, all of them had a much higher likelihood of occurring than COVID-19 canceling 11 games of the season. But they agreed to it anyway.

Your argument is hypothetical where you make up a fantasy scenario. I'm talking about facts... and the fact is that Neal scored 19 goals in 71 games and was not given the opportunity to score another 2 because the NHL shut down the season early thus preventing the Oilers from playing an 82 game season.
I suggest that if this was a player bonus situation where the agreement was that Neal would be paid $500,000 if he scored 20 goals in the season (based on a normal 82 game season of course) that if the Oilers say to Neal.. "tough luck body... you didn't score 20 goals so no $500,000 for you" that Neal would likely do very well if he decided to sue for all or a portion of the bonus because he was performing up to the bonus terms and its not his fault that ownership decided to close up shop early thus preventing him the opportunity to score that 20th goal. No different than if the Oilers decided to arbitrarily bench Neal for the last 11 games of the season. Neal would have a solid law suit there.

 

[Anglesmith]

Your argument is hypothetical where you make up a fantasy scenario.

Indeed. If you feel like this is an invalid form of argument, why do you use one yourself later in the post?

I'm talking about facts... and the fact is that Neal scored 19 goals in 71 games and was not given the opportunity to score another 2 because the NHL shut down the season early thus preventing the Oilers from playing an 82 game season.

Well, yes, he had many opportunities to score more. He didn't, though. The loss of games was one factor working against him, but his general lack of competence after a hot start was another one. Hard to separate those factors.

I suggest that if this was a player bonus situation where the agreement was that Neal would be paid $500,000 if he scored 20 goals in the season (based on a normal 82 game season of course) that if the Oilers say to Neal.. "tough luck body... you didn't score 20 goals so no $500,000 for you" that Neal would likely do very well if he decided to sue for all or a portion of the bonus because he was performing up to the bonus terms and its not his fault that ownership decided to close up shop early thus preventing him the opportunity to score that 20th goal. No different than if the Oilers decided to arbitrarily bench Neal for the last 11 games of the season. Neal would have a solid law suit there.

I think you're right that both situations are correct, but you seem to be assuming that this would go down and be ruled in favour of the player, whereas I would assume the opposite. Obviously, you'd need to have access to the contract and all relevant legal documents to know whether there is something protecting players from this sort of thing with regard to bonuses, but if it really is simply a condition of "if X scores Y goals, he gets $Z," then no, I don't think there would be any legal recourse. Owners don't get compensated for lost ticket sales either, so why would they be legally mandated to pay for cancelled goals? Long story short, even in extreme cases like this, I don't think there is any legal basis to simply make up new rules. I'm not a lawyer, though.

 

[Body Checker]

If the season gets cancelled I don’t think we should get the Oilers 3rd round pick. If roles were reversed I’d argue we should be able to keep our 3rd round pick. However if they base other decisions on percentages or projections then I would argue that we should get it.

 

[Rubi]

Indeed. If you feel like this is an invalid form of argument, why do you use one yourself later in the post?



Well, yes, he had many opportunities to score more. He didn't, though. The loss of games was one factor working against him, but his general lack of competence after a hot start was another one. Hard to separate those factors.



I think you're right that both situations are correct, but you seem to be assuming that this would go down and be ruled in favour of the player, whereas I would assume the opposite. Obviously, you'd need to have access to the contract and all relevant legal documents to know whether there is something protecting players from this sort of thing with regard to bonuses, but if it really is simply a condition of "if X scores Y goals, he gets $Z," then no, I don't think there would be any legal recourse. Owners don't get compensated for lost ticket sales either, so why would they be legally mandated to pay for cancelled goals? Long story short, even in extreme cases like this, I don't think there is any legal basis to simply make up new rules. I'm not a lawyer, though.

Well.. that's probably what civil courts are for. And who knows... maybe it will go to court or some kind of arbitration hearing at a minimum.

 

[InfinityIggy]

The condition was for Neal to score 21 goals. Not for Neal to play 82 games. Not for the Oilers to play 82 games.

21 goals. That is it. He won’t be hitting that mark, obviously.

We have no legitimate claim to the pick.

 

[Mobiandi]

I still think Treliving could've done better here and gotten more retention or at least a concrete pick

 

[Rubi]

The condition was for Neal to score 21 goals. Not for Neal to play 82 games. Not for the Oilers to play 82 games.

21 goals. That is it. He won’t be hitting that mark, obviously.

We have no legitimate claim to the pick.

Well you and I will have to agree to disagree.

A contract was made under the assumption that the Oilers would play their regular 82 game season, which they have for the past 24 years with the exception of one season.

This is strictly a contractual dispute. One of the terms of the contract (the length of the season), through no fault of the Flames, was changed significantly therefore the other terms should also change accordingly.

You can't contract someone to build a house in 30 days and promise to pay them $500,000 at the end of 30 days if the house is finished in that timeline, and then when the contractor is 95% finished after 27 days lock the doors to the house, depriving him access, and 4 days later say... sorry you didn't finish the house in the agreed upon 30 days so you get nothing. JMO.

 

[SKRusty]

The condition was for Neal to score 21 goals. Not for Neal to play 82 games. Not for the Oilers to play 82 games.

21 goals. That is it. He won’t be hitting that mark, obviously.

We have no legitimate claim to the pick.

In the strike shortened season bonuses were given by calculating a 82 game schedule. Many entry level players have bonuses based on performance and thus will be rewarded by extrapolating data.

The NHL will therefore expect Neal and Lucic's points & goals to be adjusted for an 82 game schedule. That said expect 2-3 regular season games to get the teams back into shape if the season is continued. This may or may not affect if Calgary gets the 3rd.

 

[Ace Rimmer]

Using the example above I may pay $500k for you to build my house in 30 days, and write into the contract give you a $50k bonus if you finish in 25 days.

You finish in 28 days because it rains for six days and that causes you 6days of delay, you can’t simply claim that “well I would have been done in less than 25 days if it didn’t rain” and expect the bonus.

things being out of your control do not affect set terms in a contract.

 

[InfinityIggy]

Well you and I will have to agree to disagree.

A contract was made under the assumption that the Oilers would play their regular 82 game season.

Contracts aren’t made on assumptions, they are made on stipulations. Unless the contract has a stipulation regarding the number of games the Oilers are to play, an ‘assumption’ is irrelevant.

 

[Rubi]

Contracts aren’t made on assumptions, they are made on stipulations. Unless the contract has a stipulation regarding the number of games the Oilers are to play, an ‘assumption’ is irrelevant.

Contracts are disputed and the terms and interpretation are challenged in court all the time. If it was as black and white as you want me to believe lawyers and judges would be out of work.
There is no way a contract can forsee every possible scenario which is why there are contractual disputes ALL the time.

 

[Rubi]

Using the example above I may pay $500k for you to build my house in 30 days, and write into the contract give you a $50k bonus if you finish in 25 days.

You finish in 28 days because it rains for six days and that causes you 6days of delay, you can’t simply claim that “well I would have been done in less than 25 days if it didn’t rain” and expect the bonus.

things being out of your control do not affect set terms in a contract.

Rain is an act of God thus uncontrollable. Premature cancellation of the season and locking the doors is an arbitrary act by Gary Bettman thus preventing any possibility whatsoever that Neal will score 21 goals.
The Flames have a case.

 

[Deen]

I think the Oilers will argue that Lucic could have torn it up the last few games to come within that 10 goal differential. I wouldn't expect to get it.

 

[Anglesmith]

Rain is an act of God thus uncontrollable. Premature cancellation of the season and locking the doors is an arbitrary act by Gary Bettman thus preventing any possibility whatsoever that Neal will score 21 goals.
The Flames have a case.

COVID-19 = rain

Deciding to suspend the season = deciding not to build in the rain. Don't know if I'd use the word arbitrary.