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

[McDNicks17]

I think the offense dries up for Pu at the next level, but he could very well turn into a Letestu type depth forward.

I like his hockey sense enough to at least be a 3rd line player.

 

[beowulf]

Crazy how little Buffalo gave up for Skinner.

 

[Big Daddy Cane]

Not true. Buffalo would have had to pick it up.

And Cap friendly showed that Bogosian had a NMC for years after he was traded to Buffalo even though he didn’t. Whether the new team picked it up or not is something that’s hard to confirm after a trade. So CF lists that a players still has a NTC until they can confirm it either way.


Here’s the rules pertaining to NTC/NMC after a trade -

NHL CBA FAQ - CapFriendly - NHL Salary Caps

Have there been any cases in which a player that had an active clause gave it up?

Bogosian was Subban-ed. He would have been eligible for unrestricted free agency in the Summer of 2015, but was traded prior to July 1 of that year, before the clause kicked in. Such a circumstance made it a team decision alone. Bogosian had no say.

 

[WeDislikeEich]

Have there been any cases in which a player that had an active clause gave it up?

Bogosian was Subban-ed. He would have been eligible for unrestricted free agency in the Summer of 2015, but was traded prior to July 1 of that year, before the clause kicked in. Such a circumstance made it a team decision alone. Bogosian had no say.

I honestly have no idea. I don’t know of anywhere I could even find that information.

As I said in my above post, teams don’t usually seem to freely share that type of information, and I don’t trust capfriendly because I’ve seen them be incorrect on it in the past (and I was just using Bogo as an example of how capfriendly was wrong, not a direct comparison to Skinner)

Skinner very well may still have an active NMC. But my point was that we can’t just assume he does. We simply don’t know one way or the other.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

I honestly have no idea. I don’t know of anywhere I could even find that information.

As I said in my above post, teams don’t usually seem to freely share that type of information, and I don’t trust capfriendly because I’ve seen them be incorrect on it in the past (and I was just using Bogo as an example of how capfriendly was wrong, not a direct comparison to Skinner)

Skinner very well may still have an active NMC. But my point was that we can’t just assume he does. We simply don’t know one way or the other.

Actually, because of the expansion draft, we did know where to get that info because the NHL published it. I don't recall ever seeing case where a guy had a NMC already in place and it didn't stay in place after a trade. Wizniewski, Phaneuf, Rick Nash, Kessel, Clarkson, Hartnell, Horton, etc...were all guys that waived to be traded and had to be protected in the expansion draft because their NMC was still in effect (although Clarkson and Horton didn't due to LTIR I think but the NHL listed that they still had NMC's. The Canes bought out Wizniewski so they wouldn't have to protect him). Maybe there are some, I'm just not aware of any. I have seen cases where a guy has a NMC that IS NOT already in effect and the team chooses not to honor it though.

I'm fairly confident that in most every case, a player/agent tells a team he'll waive it to come to them, but wants them to agree to keep it in place before waiving it. There's no way to know for sure with Skinner, but based on other players, it seems very likely it still would be in place.

 

[UnleashRasmus]

I like his hockey sense enough to at least be a 3rd line player.

I'm a bit higher than most on Pu, I thought he was easily a better prospect and has been developed properly unlike Nylander. Nylander has the better high end skill, but his work ethic BLOWS. Pu has shown the ability to skate with and without the puck, transition in space while increasing his responsibilities and scoring. I think he's a good second line type candidate.

 

[greasysnapper]

Meh return for a guy who can score 30 goals/60 points.

Word is they had better offers from LA and one other western team during the draft & either they declined or Skinner blocked it.

More likely it was a fake news rumour.

Skinner said on Tim and Sid that this was the first ever deal they came to him about.

 

[pucky]

Lol why is buffalo trading for a lame duck player? They better hope or already be having convos he will re-sign there

Buffalo is not exactly in a great spot to lure top free agents

Maybe, that's why they're trying to trade for guys? It might help to get 'local' guys?

 

[WeDislikeEich]

Actually, because of the expansion draft, we did know where to get that info because the NHL published it. I don't recall ever seeing case where a guy had a NMC already in place and it didn't stay in place after a trade. Wizniewski, Phaneuf, Rick Nash, Kessel, Clarkson, Hartnell, Horton, etc...were all guys that waived to be traded and had to be protected in the expansion draft because their NMC was still in effect (although Clarkson and Horton didn't due to LTIR I think but the NHL listed that they still had NMC's. The Canes bought out Wizniewski so they wouldn't have to protect him). Maybe there are some, I'm just not aware of any. I have seen cases where a guy has a NMC that IS NOT already in effect and the team chooses not to honor it though.

I'm fairly confident that in most every case, a player/agent tells a team he'll waive it to come to them, but wants them to agree to keep it in place before waiving it. There's no way to know for sure with Skinner, but based on other players, it seems very likely it still would be in place.

How many of those guys were in the last year of their contract though?

Wisniewski was.

Phaneuf, Kessel, Clarkson, Hartnell, Nash all had term left. So it makes a lot more sense that they’d fight to keep their no trade protection.


Also, It was be quite a dick move if Skinner didn’t want to sign here and still refused to waive his NMC for a couple months (and his first ever shot at playoffs, in a contract year no less).

And I find it a bit hard to believe that Botterill wouldn’t be able to find a team to send Skinner to that worked for him, even if they only recouped a 2nd + B prospect.

I still wouldn’t be at all surprised to learn that Buffalo didn’t pick up his NMC though.

Honestly though, I am not worried about it. For what Buffalo gave up to get Skinner, it was well worth the risk, NMC or not.

 

[ajpro20]

Not true. Buffalo would have had to pick it up.

And Cap friendly showed that Bogosian had a NMC for years after he was traded to Buffalo even though he didn’t. Whether the new team picked it up or not is something that’s hard to confirm after a trade. So CF lists that a players still has a NTC until they can confirm it either way.


Here’s the rules pertaining to NTC/NMC after a trade -

NHL CBA FAQ - CapFriendly - NHL Salary Caps

I guess it was changed up a bit from the past, but i'm not exactly wrong if it was picked up, but yeah it's 50/50 at this point. I was mostly making a point cause the guy was being arrogant lol, but yeah i can't see why skinner wouldn't ask his agent to ask the sabres to sign. It gives him more control for his pending ufa year

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

How many of those guys were in the last year of their contract though?

Wisniewski was.

Phaneuf, Kessel, Clarkson, Hartnell, Nash all had term left. So it makes a lot more sense that they’d fight to keep their no trade protection.


Also, It was be quite a dick move if Skinner didn’t want to sign here and still refused to waive his NMC for a couple months (and his first ever shot at playoffs, in a contract year no less).

And I find it a bit hard to believe that Botterill wouldn’t be able to find a team to send Skinner to that worked for him, even if they only recouped a 2nd + B prospect.

I still wouldn’t be at all surprised to learn that Buffalo didn’t pick up his NMC though.

Honestly though, I am not worried about it. For what Buffalo gave up to get Skinner, it was well worth the risk, NMC or not.

Seems like you are doing some mental gymnastics to try and convince yourself the NMC didn't stay with him for some reason. None of us know, so you certainly could be right, but based on precedent of every other trade I can remember, it's probably more likely it did stay with him. Seems to almost be standard practice.

I agree with you though that I don't think it matters though at all. Buffalo didn't give up that much, particularly with all the 1sts they already have, and they didn't trade for Skinner just to try and trade him again. If things work out, I think they want to keep him long term anyhow so an NMC/NTC is pretty irrelevant.

I disagree about the "dick move" statement though. Teams do what's best for the team all the time without regards to a player (Trade him, waive him, send him to the AHL, buy him out, etc....). Nobody calls it a dick move when that happens because it's just part of the business. A player gets traded AWAY from a playoff team at the deadline because the team wants a better player and nobody considers that a "dick move" to the player going to a non-playoff team. Players negotiate a NMC for a reason, so that they control where the will and won't go. If they choose to not waive it, it's their choice and not a dick move at all IMO.

 

[Vancouver Canucks]

Carolina loses this trade.

 

[bleedgreen]

Why would an nmc be a one time use only? It’s written into the contract. Of course Buffalo will still have to honor it.

They’ll be in the same boat as the Canes, though it may be easier to get Skinner to go somewhere at the deadline as a pure rental.

I think they’re re signing him.

 

[RibFrabcus]

Why would an nmc be a one time use only? It’s written into the contract. Of course Buffalo will still have to honor it.

They’ll be in the same boat as the Canes, though it may be easier to get Skinner to go somewhere at the deadline as a pure rental.

I think they’re re signing him.

I believe the acquiring team can choose to continue the NMC/NTC @Lempo probably can confirm

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

I believe the acquiring team can choose to continue the NMC/NTC @Lempo probably can confirm

Not exactly.

1) If the player has a NMC that is NOT yet in effect (for instance, if it starts in year 4 of a contract and the player is traded in year 2), then the team has a choice to honor it or not and the player has no say in it.

2) If the player has a NMC that is currently in effect, the team / player has to sign an addendum to keep it in effect. In this case the player has a choice because he can refuse to waive the NMC in the first place unless the acquiring team agrees to keep it in place once the trade is completed. I think that's why they almost always stay in place, because the player/agent makes sure of it before agreeing to waive it in the first place. So there's no guarantee it stays in place, but it usually does.

EDIT: the exact CBA wording.

If the Player is Traded or claimed on Waivers prior to the no-Trade or no-move clause taking
effect, the clause does not bind the acquiring Club.

An acquiring Club may agree to continue to be bound by the no-Trade or no-move clause, which agreement shall be evidenced in writing to the Player, Central Registry and the NHLPA, in accordance with Exhibit 3 hereof.

 

[RibFrabcus]

Not exactly.

1) If the player has a NMC that is NOT yet in effect (for instance, if it starts in year 4 of a contract and the player is traded in year 2), then the team has a choice to honor it or not and the player has no say in it.

2) If the player has a NMC that is currently in effect, the team / player has to sign an addendum to keep it in effect. In this case the player has a choice because he can refuse to waive the NMC in the first place unless the acquiring team agrees to keep it in place once the trade is completed. I think that's why they almost always stay in place, because the player/agent makes sure of it before agreeing to waive it in the first place. So there's no guarantee it stays in place, but it usually does.

Ah thanks for the clarification!

 

[IceManCat]

this trade was a robbery

 

[Lempo]

I believe the acquiring team can choose to continue the NMC/NTC @Lempo probably can confirm

We had a lengthy discussion recently about it which ended as inclonclusive.

Firstly, there's the CBA 11.8 (from 2013), the wording of which would seem to refer only to players whose movement clause hasn't yet gone effective:

(a) The SPC of any Player who is a Group 3 Unrestricted Free Agent under Article
10.1(a) may contain a no-Trade or a no-move clause. SPCs containing a no-Trade or a no-move
clause may be entered into prior to the time that the Player is a Group 3 Unrestricted Free Agent
so long as the SPC containing the no-Trade or no-move clause extends through and does not
become effective until the time that the Player qualifies for Group 3 Unrestricted Free Agency.
If the Player is Traded or claimed on Waivers prior to the no-Trade or no-move clause taking
effect, the clause does not bind the acquiring Club. An acquiring Club may agree to continue to
be bound by the no-Trade or no-move clause, which agreement shall be evidenced in writing to
the Player, Central Registry and the NHLPA, in accordance with Exhibit 3 hereof.

But CapFiendly currently says that

What is a No-Move Clause (NMC)?
A No-Move Clause (NMC) can be added to a player's contract in the years after they are eligible for Group 3 Unrestricted Free Agency (7 Accrued seasons or 27 years of age), and has the following properties:

• Player cannot be traded without his consent (however, the clause can specify a modified no-trade clause that limits the NTC to a certain number of teams)
• Player cannot be placed on waivers without his consent
• Player cannot be assigned to the minors without his consent
• Player is not exempt from a buyout or contract termination
• 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 suspect that there has been some semi-official silent evolution in the practicality of how a Player with NMC is traded and that they as standard procedure nowadays make the addendum in order for the NMC to stay effective after the Trade. I also suspect that the reason for the presumed evolution may be some real world contract law hiccup (to which CBA is subject to) that causes that if a clause is voided between the initial parties (the Club and the Player) during the transfer of the (Standard Player) Contract, then it can't automatically bind the receiving third party (Acquiring Club) either. According to this the NHL contract actors would have agreed since the 2013 CBA came in force that the addendum measure is the legal way to have the movement clause travel with the Player in a Trade.

But @mouser said I'm wrong recently when I said that the NMC doesn't follow automatically, and mouser generally skates circles around me with this stuff.

Come clean your mess @mouser.

 

[westc2]

I'm guessing Carolina owed Buffalo a favor?

 

[westc2]

ROR was worse but this helps to balance it out for Buffalo.

Worse?? Buffalo got 2 middle six veterans, a good young prospect, a 1st and 2nd round pick. Berglund and Sobotka may be "salary dumps" but they're both still good players.

 

[Big Daddy Cane]

This trade falls somewhere on a spectrum that goes from (1) Skinner’s NMC limited the return and the Sabres got good value here to (2) the market for Skinner was less than the reaction in this thread would lead you to believe and the Sabres got so-so value themselves.

I’m struggling with the concept of Carolina getting robbed, in terms of value. You can make the argument that trading him right now was a sub-optimal organizational decision, but it’s not as if they turned down more value elsewhere to do Buffalo a favor. That doesn’t make any sense.

 

[Voight]

Why would an nmc be a one time use only? It’s written into the contract. Of course Buffalo will still have to honor it.

They’ll be in the same boat as the Canes, though it may be easier to get Skinner to go somewhere at the deadline as a pure rental.

I think they’re re signing him.

Its a choice. The team can decide to continue it, or say f*** it and leave the player hanging.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

This trade falls somewhere on a spectrum that goes from (1) Skinner’s NMC limited the return and the Sabres got good value here to (2) the market for Skinner was less than the reaction in this thread would lead you to believe and the Sabres got so-so value themselves.

I’m struggling with the concept of Carolina getting robbed, in terms of value. You can make the argument that trading him right now was a sub-optimal organizational decision, but it’s not as if they turned down more value elsewhere to do Buffalo a favor. That doesn’t make any sense.

I think it's simply that the "expected" value of a guy like Skinner at the trade deadline would be a 1st and a decent prospect. The Canes traded him well before the deadline and didn't get a 1st. Maybe the Sabre's 2nd will be very high and close to a late 1st, but there's probably just as much chance that it will be mid 2nd round and maybe later. So instead of giving up a 1st and good prospect for 2 months of Skinner, they give up a 2nd, good prospect and 3rd/6th in 2020 for a full year of Skinner.

No doubt the NMC, the Canes desire to move on now, rather than start the season with him, and the concern of losing him for nothing at the end of the season all played into that return, but it's still a bit disappointing.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

Its a choice. The team can decide to continue it, or say f*** it and leave the player hanging.

I don't think that's exactly accurate, as explained in above posts.