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

[spockBokk]

Factually wrong. Once you waive NTC it is lost. That is unless the Sabres agreed to reinstall the clause to get him to waive it in the first place.
It’s a very obvious question I have yet to see answered in the media.
It does not automatically carry. That’s just wrong.

The obvious point of my post is that it makes no sense for Skinner, prior to waiving to go to BUF, to not have made sure his NMC followed. Name one instance where an NMC did not follow a player. I’ll wait...

 

[Thorton02]

Agree, why would Skinner waive to go to BUF, a team who has quite the history of dealing players at the deadline, without ensuring his NMC stayed in effect?

Sorry BUF fans, if you’re out of the playoff race by the deadline, your GM will have the same issue as CAR did in moving him.

I think Skinner saw what E Kane did with Buffalo, more specifically with Eichel. Kane put up big numbers riding shotgun to Eichel and then got paid. Skinner has a much better opportunity to do that on Buffalo than Carolina.

To me, that's Skinners insurance policy. If he gets with Buffalo and likes it there, then he has an owner with big pockets to get him paid. If not, he puts up big numbers and could get traded to a contender if Buffalo sucks yet again this year. Getting moved at TDL to a certain contender is much more appealing to me than to a team at the beginning of the year that gets riddled with injuries. Skinner and his agent thought this through clearly.

 

[HogtownSabresfan]

The obvious point of my post is that it makes no sense for Skinner, prior to waiving to go to BUF, to not have made sure his NMC followed. Name one instance where an NMC did not follow a player. I’ll wait...

There have been some. Tough thing to google and get an answer too because it's so specific. It's also almost never an issue because most of these guys get traded to playoff teams who have zero interest in reflipping them.

The fact is you DON'T know the answer and neither do I. We know guys do lose that right when waived. It's really comes down to a journalist asking Sabres if he still has this right. You would think one journalist in Caroline or Buffalo would have asked.

 

[is the answer jesus]

There have been some. Tough thing to google and get an answer too because it's so specific. It's also almost never an issue because most of these guys get traded to playoff teams who have zero interest in reflipping them.

The fact is you DON'T know the answer and neither do I. We know guys do lose that right when waived. It's really comes down to a journalist asking Sabres if he still has this right. You would think one journalist in Caroline or Buffalo would have asked.

I'm not saying you are wrong, but I can't think of a single occurence where a player had a NMC in effect which they waived to be traded to a new team only to no longer have that NMC honored by the next team. The only time I've seen a NMC get voided is when the player is traded before that NMC goes into effect.

 

[spockBokk]

I'm not saying you are wrong, but I can't think of a single occurence where a player had a NMC in effect which they waived to be traded to a new team only to no longer have that NMC honored by the next team. The only time I've seen a NMC get voided is when the player is traded before that NMC goes into effect.

Exactly, to my knowledge there have been absolutely 0 instances of a NMC not following a player to his new team. It’s certainly possible, but I’d be extremely surprised if Skinner no longer has his NMC.

 

[NotOpie]

I think Skinner saw what E Kane did with Buffalo, more specifically with Eichel. Kane put up big numbers riding shotgun to Eichel and then got paid. Skinner has a much better opportunity to do that on Buffalo than Carolina.

To me, that's Skinners insurance policy. If he gets with Buffalo and likes it there, then he has an owner with big pockets to get him paid. If not, he puts up big numbers and could get traded to a contender if Buffalo sucks yet again this year. Getting moved at TDL to a certain contender is much more appealing to me than to a team at the beginning of the year that gets riddled with injuries. Skinner and his agent thought this through clearly.

While Jeff Skinner may indeed thrive on Jack Eichel's wing, I would be super reluctant to bank on it. Skinner's a special talent from a pure goal-scoring perspective, but using his linemates or benefitting from them isn't something he has EVER demonstrated. He put up 37 with Victor Rask and Derek Ryan as his centermen....not because of how good or bad they were, but because they deferred to him and he's going to get his points regardless of who is on his line. Will he excel next to Eichel, I would certainly hope so, but I wouldn't necessarily count on it as a function of Eichel.

Keep in mind Skinner was tried with Eric Staal, Jordan Staal, Victor Rask, Elias Lindholm, and Derek Ryan. The only center that he ever seemed to have any chemistry with was Jussi Jokinen early in his career. While most of those guys aren't in Eichel's league, the fact that he seemed to always end up being a one-man show on a line with lesser talent should be telling.

I truly wish him well in Buffalo and think he'll have a hell of a year given it is his contract year. Maybe he changes his MO and works well with linemates. It would be a significant change in how he's played the came heretofore.

 

[Djp]

I believe you are wrong on that one. The only way a NTC gets nixed is if you trade for a player and it hasn't activated yet. In that case, the team can opt out of it, but otherwise it persists.

True...but it also depends on what verbal agreement was said between buffalo and Skinner. If Skinner doesn’t seem to have any chemistry and isn’t resigned then he is traded.

Skinner looks at it if he is able to put up numbers with a good offensive center then that increase his value either if buffalo resigns him or he goes to the open narket

 

[Djp]

While Jeff Skinner may indeed thrive on Jack Eichel's wing, I would be super reluctant to bank on it. Skinner's a special talent from a pure goal-scoring perspective, but using his linemates or benefitting from them isn't something he has EVER demonstrated. He put up 37 with Victor Rask and Derek Ryan as his centermen....not because of how good or bad they were, but because they deferred to him and he's going to get his points regardless of who is on his line. Will he excel next to Eichel, I would certainly hope so, but I wouldn't necessarily count on it as a function of Eichel.

Keep in mind Skinner was tried with Eric Staal, Jordan Staal, Victor Rask, Elias Lindholm, and Derek Ryan. The only center that he ever seemed to have any chemistry with was Jussi Jokinen early in his career. While most of those guys aren't in Eichel's league, the fact that he seemed to always end up being a one-man show on a line with lesser talent should be telling.

I truly wish him well in Buffalo and think he'll have a hell of a year given it is his contract year. Maybe he changes his MO and works well with linemates. It would be a significant change in how he's played the came heretofore.

This is the unknown with Skinner

Was he the puck carrier because he needed to be.

Thus was an issue with Eichel and Kane.

If he can function as a non puck hog then he could do really well with Eichel.

 

[Butch 19]

I love Cliff Pus game. In my opinion a very good trade for the Canes.

apostrophes serve a noble purpose....

 

[bleedgreen]

As long as he doesn’t carry it through nuetral zone ice and defers to Eichel there it’ll work great. Skinner has poor puck management skills through the middle, and that’s where most of his negative issues are.

You won’t mind his “puck hogging” in the offensive zone. He passes just fine there if he has someone to work with and he’s fun to watch regardless. He’s a much better playmaker than he gets credit for, and it shows itself in the offensive zone cycles. The way he does the 10 to 2 skating often leaves him with his head up on his forehand, he sees the options very well. The options are the issue. If he thinks he can score better than the guy he would pass to he keeps it. When he’s out there with someone good he gives it up. He’ll give it up with Eichel.

 

[tsujimoto74]

As long as he doesn’t carry it through nuetral zone ice and defers to Eichel there it’ll work great. Skinner has poor puck management skills through the middle, and that’s where most of his negative issues are.

You won’t mind his “puck hogging” in the offensive zone. He passes just fine there if he has someone to work with and he’s fun to watch regardless. He’s a much better playmaker than he gets credit for, and it shows itself in the offensive zone cycles. The way he does the 10 to 2 skating often leaves him with his head up on his forehand, he sees the options very well. The options are the issue. If he thinks he can score better than the guy he would pass to he keeps it. When he’s out there with someone good he gives it up. He’ll give it up with Eichel.

Yeah, Eichel is definitely the guy you want lugging the mail from blue line to blue line. His controlled zone exits and entries are absurd. If Skinner can defer to Eichel in the D and neutral zones, they should be all right together. Lord knows Jack could use a legitimate finisher on his wing.

 

[HogtownSabresfan]

I'm not saying you are wrong, but I can't think of a single occurence where a player had a NMC in effect which they waived to be traded to a new team only to no longer have that NMC honored by the next team. The only time I've seen a NMC get voided is when the player is traded before that NMC goes into effect.

It is has come up, I honestly can't remember. And a verbal agreement is questionable. The rule clearly states, once you waive NMC it is voided. The interesting fact would be if Sabres agreed to put it back on -- it clearly works against Buffalo if that happens.
I'd like some actual facts and have none. If you find a mention of this in media, either way, please share. I searched and searched to no avail. No addressed anywhere.

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

The rule clearly states, once you waive NMC it is voided. The interesting fact would be if Sabres agreed to put it back on

I mean, multiple people (who have proven well read on these matters) have said the opposite. Do you have the clear statement?

 

[WeDislikeEich]

I believe you are wrong on that one. The only way a NTC gets nixed is if you trade for a player and it hasn't activated yet. In that case, the team can opt out of it, but otherwise it persists.

I mean, multiple people (who have proven well read on these matters) have said the opposite. Do you have the clear statement?

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
• If the player is traded before the clause takes effect, the acquiring team can opt to void the clause

 

[HogtownSabresfan]

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
• If the player is traded before the clause takes effect, the acquiring team can opt to void the clause

Exactly, we don't know this fact. It changes the valuation of the deal. Someone please find out! I'm begging.

 

[WeDislikeEich]

Exactly, we don't know this fact. It changes the valuation of the deal. Someone please find out! I'm begging.

I’ve asked the same question.

This is typically not information that seems to be shared.

Like, for example, after the Bogosian trade (and yes, I know that Bogo’s NTC hadn’t gone into effect yet, but that’s not my point)-

we seen reports that his NTC was still in effect and reports it wasn’t picked up by Buffalo.
But we never found out for sure until he wasn’t protected in the expansion draft.

This just doesn’t seem to be information that is freely shared by teams.
Again, to use Bogo as an ex - even capfriendly didn’t have access to that information as they had Bogo wrongly listed with a NTC for years (until after the expansion draft) and Tim Murray was pretty damn open with the media.


All that has been reported on Skinner is that he waived to come to Buffalo.
We don’t know if his NMC was picked up again.

In most cases it seems that teams do pick up the NTC’s. But in most of those cases of players with NTC’s being traded where we know the other team picked up the clause, those players all had years left on their deals or were deadline rentals and obviously a NTC is meaningless in that scenario since the player isn’t going to be traded again before UFA anyway. So there aren’t many comparable’s that I’m aware of.

I really think/hope Botterill’s plan is to re-sign Skinner anyway. He doesn’t seem the type that would trade away future assets for a 1yr rental with no plans of signing him. So hopefully we won’t have to find out if he still has a NMC.

 

[NotOpie]

This is the unknown with Skinner

Was he the puck carrier because he needed to be.

Thus was an issue with Eichel and Kane.

If he can function as a non puck hog then he could do really well with Eichel.

He did quite a bit of "puck carrying" some effectively, and some poorly. But that's not the question....he all too often puts himself in 1 on 3 and 1 on 4 situations where he's absolutely sure he can stickhandle his way through....and it rarely worked.

He’s a much better playmaker than he gets credit for, and it shows itself in the offensive zone cycles.

I recall Skinner making some very good dishes....however.....

The options are the issue. If he thinks he can score better than the guy he would pass to he keeps it.

.....he frankly never felt there was anybody better than him to take the shot. Sometimes that was true, sometimes it was painfully obvious that he was just plain hogging the rock.

Exactly, we don't know this fact. It changes the valuation of the deal. Someone please find out! I'm begging.

CapFriendly has him retaining his NMC. Quite frankly, if you're Jeff Skinner, or any player, in that regard, who had negotiated a no movement clause, why would you give that up, especially given you're going to a team that is just as likely to be out of it at the deadline as the one you came from. You'd want to retain that say so in where you were going, even at the TDL. It costs you nothing. And benefits you handsomely.

 

[The don godfather]

If I were waldorf I would have included justin Faulk with skinner and a second round pick for buffalo first . This is quite an underwhelming package he received .

 

[NotOpie]

If I were waldorf I would have included justin Faulk with skinner and a second round pick for buffalo first . This is quite an underwhelming package he received .

And adding Faulk and a 2nd to get a 1st back makes it even more underwhelming.

 

[Big Daddy Cane]

What’s the incentive for Skinner to waive for Buffalo if the Sabres weren’t willing to honor his NMC? It would be one thing if he had asked for a trade and was desperate to get out of town. However, it was Carolina that was the motivated party here; the Canes had been openly flirting with trading him all off-season. Skinner was in the driver’s seat.

You can’t be 100% certain about it, but given the above combined with the lack of any comparable for what is being suggested, it’s a good bet that his NMC is in tact. Skinner not only leveraging his NMC to go to Buffalo, but also doing the Sabres a huge favor in allowing them to possibly trade him anywhere at the deadline, seems like a very rosy view of the situation.

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

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
• If the player is traded before the clause takes effect, the acquiring team can opt to void the clause

Thank you.

In practice, a team trading for a player traded before the ntc/nmc kicks in has no reason to pick up the clause, and a good reason not to. The player has no leverage to stop them. So quiescent clauses tend to get voided.

But if a player has an ntc/nmc, like Skinner's full nmc, the player can simply refuse to waive it until the acquiring team signs the addendum. So active nmc/ntcs tend to travel.

We don't know, but there's a good chance Skinner retained his nmc because what reason does he have to not do so? That said, it shouldn't be hard to get him to waive it to a good team at the deadline and recoup at least some of their loss, which is the only factor his nmc would play.

 

[Djp]

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
• If the player is traded before the clause takes effect, the acquiring team can opt to void the clause

I know for a fact if a team trades for a player before they have 6 full seasons and the contract has a NMC ir NRC that would take affect in his 7th yr as a pro the acquiring team can void this.

If you acquiring him after it kicks in there has been debate if that nullifies it. It appears it still it’s in effect after the trade.

During expansion draft players were asked to waive them

 

[Djp]

If I were waldorf I would have included justin Faulk with skinner and a second round pick for buffalo first . This is quite an underwhelming package he received .

The same logic applies...buffalo isn’t trading their 1st or any of the other 1sts they have for rental players at this time.

At the deadline...and they are certain in playoffs then they would move a 1st.

 

[Djp]

He did quite a bit of "puck carrying" some effectively, and some poorly. But that's not the question....he all too often puts himself in 1 on 3 and 1 on 4 situations where he's absolutely sure he can stickhandle his way through....and it rarely worked.



I recall Skinner making some very good dishes....however.....



.....he frankly never felt there was anybody better than him to take the shot. Sometimes that was true, sometimes it was painfully obvious that he was just plain hogging the rock.



CapFriendly has him retaining his NMC. Quite frankly, if you're Jeff Skinner, or any player, in that regard, who had negotiated a no movement clause, why would you give that up, especially given you're going to a team that is just as likely to be out of it at the deadline as the one you came from. You'd want to retain that say so in where you were going, even at the TDL. It costs you nothing. And benefits you handsomely.

On the last paragraph....

He is a UFA next season. He is going to a team with a top 10 center in the league so his numbers could be a lot better and show how good he is either to buffalo or the open market.

He stays in Carolina vs going to buffalo could mean $3M per year more in the next contract.

 

[Lempo]

I know for a fact if a team trades for a player before they have 6 full seasons and the contract has a NMC ir NRC that would take affect in his 7th yr as a pro the acquiring team can void this.

If you acquiring him after it kicks in there has been debate if that nullifies it. It appears it still it’s in effect after the trade.

During expansion draft players were asked to waive them

Re: the expansion draft, it was explicitly stated that the no movement clause is waived as one-off for the ED purpose only and stays in effect otherwise.