Eklund Rumor: MAF to LA Kings?

[ClydeLee]

Seems people want to ignore what could be a wise move if it were something like moving away Brown's contract but then also all the, forced to keep MAF talk, well then maybe that's looking better as an idea and let Quick be taken in the expansion draft.

 

[Jaan]

I don't see any logical way for the Kings to carry MAF and Quick once he comes back. However, when Quick does come back, the need for MAF could grow among other teams in the league. Once MAF waives his NMC, it goes away. So he could be traded anywhere.

Pearson for MAF+Wilson

then later something like:

MAF to Calgary for picks or a young player...whatever.

Long shot I realize but...it's just so hard to make a trade with these two teams and these players.

It doesn't "go away". The same rules apply in trading him as in this potential trade and he has to be protected in the expansion draft. Thus making this an even worse trade idea.

 

[rick3652]

It doesn't "go away". The same rules apply in trading him as in this potential trade and he has to be protected in the expansion draft. Thus making this an even worse trade idea.

once you get trade you have to negotiated with the new team to get the NMC back. Read this from Capfriendly for PK

CLAUSE DETAILS: NMC begins on July 1, 2016; NMC was not honoured by NSH after the trade on June 29, 2016

 

[mouser]

once you get trade you have to negotiated with the new team to get the NMC back. Read this from Capfriendly for PK

CLAUSE DETAILS: NMC begins on July 1, 2016; NMC was not honoured by NSH after the trade on June 29, 2016

That's because Subban was traded Before the clause went into effect. Teams can choose not to honor a NMC/NTC if the player is traded before the clause kicks in. If the player is traded After the clause kicks in then the new team does not have a choice--it's still in effect.

 

[rick3652]

That's because Subban was traded Before the clause went into effect. Teams can choose not to honor a NMC/NTC if the player is traded before the clause kicks in. If the player is traded After the clause kicks in then the new team does not have a choice--it's still in effect.

not sure you are correct please read

A player with a no-trade or no-movement (cannot be placed on waivers) clause must accept a move by waiving his clause in order for a trade to go through and be accepted by the NHL. List compiled from various sources, including NHL documents, internal sources and other media outlets.

Please Note:
- some players who previously had a no-trade or no-movement clause may not have one for the 2015-65 season
- some players who previously had a no-trade or no-movement clause may no longer as a result of waiving their respective clause in a previous trade

 

[ThatAvsGamer]

We now know MAF won't be traded

 

[mouser]

not sure you are correct please read

A player with a no-trade or no-movement (cannot be placed on waivers) clause must accept a move by waiving his clause in order for a trade to go through and be accepted by the NHL. List compiled from various sources, including NHL documents, internal sources and other media outlets.

Please Note:
- some players who previously had a no-trade or no-movement clause may not have one for the 2015-65 season
- some players who previously had a no-trade or no-movement clause may no longer as a result of waiving their respective clause in a previous trade

I am quite confident I'm correct. If you can cite any examples of players who waived a NMC or NTC and thus didn't have one on their new team after being traded I'm all ears.

 

[nhlfan9191]

That's because Subban was traded Before the clause went into effect. Teams can choose not to honor a NMC/NTC if the player is traded before the clause kicks in. If the player is traded After the clause kicks in then the new team does not have a choice--it's still in effect.

Pretty sure the NTC vanished when we traded Subban.

 

[xxxx]

If you listened to the Bob McKenzie podcast, he was talking about this situation and said that such a scenario of Bishop or Fleury to Los Angeles is very unlikely and unreasonable. He could imagine for example Pavelec being dealt from WIN.

And the reason is simple. When Quick is back, what then? Goalies like Fleury or Bishop don't want to be #2. And especially Fleury, who would be then likely exposed for Las Vegas. Bishop will be an UFA after this season at least, but still such a deal makes no sense.

And that's not even to mention that the Penguins wouldn't do this to Fleury. And that they may have their own plans with Murray and "The Flower". This trade is simply not going to happen, not even in alternate reality.

 

[Trolfoli]

If you listened to the Bob McKenzie podcast, he was talking about this situation and said that such a scenario of Bishop or Fleury to Los Angeles is very unlikely and unreasonable. He could imagine for example Pavelec being dealt from WIN.

And the reason is simple. When Quick is back, what then? Goalies like Fleury or Bishop don't want to be #2. And especially Fleury, who would be then likely exposed for Las Vegas. Bishop will be an UFA after this season at least, but still such a deal makes no sense.

And that's not even to mention that the Penguins wouldn't do this to Fleury. And that they may have their own plans with Murray and "The Flower". This trade is simply not going to happen, not even in alternate reality.

Not with that attitude.

 

[Dylonus]

I'll tell you exactly why it's BS.

From everything I've looked up, Quick has no NTC or NMC... (I could be wrong). However, FLEURY DOES.

They've had to be forced to protect Fleury in that draft unless they bought him out (waste of money) or HOPEFULLY trade him again before June 18th; otherwise the Las Vegas team is just going to pick the unprotected Quick.

Literally no one on this planet would choose Fleury over Quick.

I can't see a trade working out here at all.

 

[Pens1566]

I am quite confident I'm correct. If you can cite any examples of players who waived a NMC or NTC and thus didn't have one on their new team after being traded I'm all ears.

I think the following link specified the N(T/M)C clause CAN follow, but is not required to. It's up to the acquiring team if they want to keep it or not.

https://www.capfriendly.com/faq#nmc

 

[flooredaccord]

I think the following link specified the N(T/M)C clause CAN follow, but is not required to. It's up to the acquiring team if they want to keep it or not.

https://www.capfriendly.com/faq#nmc

On June 22, 2012, ViÅ¡ňovský was traded to the New York Islanders for a second round pick in the 2013 NHL Entry Draft. Shortly thereafter, ViÅ¡ňovský filed a grievance through the National Hockey League Players' Association (NHLPA) seeking to void the trade, claiming that the no trade clause in his original contract with Los Angeles was still valid, since he never revoked it when Edmonton traded him to Anaheim.[7] An arbitrator ruled against ViÅ¡ňovský in this case and the trade was upheld

 

[Trolfoli]

On June 22, 2012, ViÅ¡ňovský was traded to the New York Islanders for a second round pick in the 2013 NHL Entry Draft. Shortly thereafter, ViÅ¡ňovský filed a grievance through the National Hockey League Players' Association (NHLPA) seeking to void the trade, claiming that the no trade clause in his original contract with Los Angeles was still valid, since he never revoked it when Edmonton traded him to Anaheim.[7] An arbitrator ruled against ViÅ¡ňovský in this case and the trade was upheld

That rule may have been reworked since then. I've heard it described as the "Carter rule".

 

[mouser]

On June 22, 2012, Višňovský was traded to the New York Islanders for a second round pick in the 2013 NHL Entry Draft. Shortly thereafter, Višňovský filed a grievance through the National Hockey League Players' Association (NHLPA) seeking to void the trade, claiming that the no trade clause in his original contract with Los Angeles was still valid, since he never revoked it when Edmonton traded him to Anaheim.[7] An arbitrator ruled against Višňovský in this case and the trade was upheld

The whole Visnovsky situation can be very confusing, here's what happened:

(1) Visnovsky signed a 5 year contract extension with LA beginning in 2008-2009. The contract included a NTC that was scheduled to go into effect on July 1st, 2008.
(2) LA->EDM: On June 29th, 2008 LA traded Visnovsky to Edmonton, before the NTC went into effect.
(3) EDM->ANA: On March 3rd, 2010 Edmonton traded Visnovsky to Anaheim. Before trading Visnovsky, Edmonton asked if he would waive his NTC for the trade and he agreed to do so.
(4) ANA->NYI: On June 22, 2012 Anaheim traded Visnovsky to the Islanders and Visnovsky later filed a grievance that the Ducks never asked him to waive his NTC.
(5) The arbitrator ruled that Visnovsky no longer had a NTC and lost his grievance.

So who created this whole screwed up situation? Edmonton. When players are traded (2), by default any future NTC/NMC that has not gone into effect is voided (e.g. Subban)--unless the team notifies the NHL, player, and PA in writing that they are honoring the cause (CBA 11.8a). Edmonton also clouded up the fiasco by asking Visnovsky to waive a NTC he no longer had before trading him to Anaheim (3).

After Visnovsky was traded from Anaheim to the Islanders (4) he filed a grievance (5) that his NTC wasn't honored. The arbitrator ruled Edmonton never notified the CBA parties that the team was going to honor the future Visnovsky NTC after the trade from LA (2). No parties at the grievance hearing (NHL, PA, team, player, agent) were able to produce a copy of a notification by Edmonton stating it would honor the future NTC clause that was not yet in effect for Visnovsky at the time of the trade (2).


TL;DR summary: A lot of folks and media mistakenly thought Visnovsky lost his NTC after waiving it for the EDM->ANA trade (3). He actually lost it two years earlier in the LA->EDM trade (2) when Edmonton didn't file the paperwork required by the CBA to keep Visnovsky's future NTC from being voided by the trade. Did Edmonton intend to honor the NTC in the trade and made a mistake not by filing the paperwork? Or did they simply not understand the CBA rules and mistakenly thought Visnovsky still had an NTC when they asked him to waive it? Who knows.

 

[colchar]

''It appears''

''could be''

This is a joke.

Of course it is, it is an Eklund rumour.

 

[captainpaxil]

Behind quick maf is expansion bait. Sad to say that about a multiple cup winner but its right. Price for Pitt would be my concern