Miscellaneous NHL Talk XIX

[FLYguy3911]

Absolutely.

As in two legs, two arms, two eyes and two ears.

The rest? Not so much.

Dude. You should know this by now. Any defenseman over 6'4 that can stand on skates is Coburn. And then you can go from there.

Example- Hagg is a 6'2 Coburn

 

[Ryker]

Sure they do, once a player waives his no trade clause it ceases to exist.

No.

We have had this debate on the board before and I believe that the team acquiring the player has the option of keeping that trace clause in the contract. Most do out of good faith because they usually won't trade a player who just arrived.

The acquiring team has the option of picking or not picking up the clause only in the event that it has not kicked in yet. Once it's in full effect, then the team has no choice anymore. A waiver is a one-off thing, and the player that waives his clause and submits to getting traded still has it in his contract once he arrives to his new team. So any future movements or trades are again restricted as per the conditions in the clause.

 

[Random Forest]

Sens fans are *****ing about St. Louis fans offering Ty Rattie + Patrik Berglund + 1st for Spezza.

Which is absurd considering they gave up Noesen + Silfverberg + 1st for Ryan. I take the STL offer every day over the Ryan deal.

Canucks and Sens fans are going to be in tears once Kesler and Spezza are traded.

 

[Jray42]

Take a look at this gem:

The only prospects with pre-draft hype equal to or greater than that of McDavid since the lockout have been Crosby and Tavares and both of them are easily superior to Giroux. Giroux is 26 and has most likely peaked offensively and now most likely has only downhill to go.

Yes, proven over potential goes pretty far, but it only goes so far. ...(cont.)

 

[LegionOfDoom91]

Sens fans are *****ing about St. Louis fans offering Ty Rattie + Patrik Berglund + 1st for Spezza.

Which is absurd considering they gave up Noesen + Silfverberg + 1st for Ryan. I take the STL offer every day over the Ryan deal.

Canucks and Sens fans are going to be in tears once Kesler and Spezza are traded.

I actually prefer Berglund & Rattie over Silverberg & Noesen. I guess the 10th overall pick would swing the trade in Anaheim's favor but I highly doubt either Anaheim nor Ottawa was expecting the pick that high when the deal first went down.

 

[Random Forest]

I actually prefer Berglund & Rattie over Silverberg & Noesen. I guess the 10th overall pick would swing the trade in Anaheim's favor but I highly doubt either Anaheim nor Ottawa was expecting the pick that high when the deal first went down.

Yeah, I think objectively Berglund+Rattie is much better than Silf+Noesen.

But also consider that Ottawa wasn't exactly expecting their pick to be 10th. When the trade went down, I'm sure they thought their pick would be around 16-22, so even that's pretty even.

 

[Hollywood Cannon]

San Jose opens up against the Kings in LA. That's gonna hurt.

 

[Blackhawkswincup]

I think Sen fans are right in not wanting anything to do with Berglund

He has regressed bigtime in recent years and has struggled badly in playoff career outside of 11-12

 

[GKJ]

San Jose opens up against the Kings in LA. That's gonna hurt.

They close in LA, too.

Just in case they're not ready to hear about it.

 

[healthyscratch]

Originally Posted by healthyscratch
Sure they do, once a player waives his no trade clause it ceases to exist.

No.

Uh, yes.

A NTC does not travel with a player if a) the player waives a full NTC or b) the player is traded within the terms of a limited or modified NTC. In addition, if the player is traded before his NTC takes effect, it vaporizes unless — in rare circumstances — the acquiring club agrees in writing to be bound by it.

http://www.capgeek.com/faq/what-s-the-difference-between-a-NTC-and-NMC

 

[Ryker]

Uh, yes.

http://www.capgeek.com/faq/what-s-the-difference-between-a-NTC-and-NMC

Do you want to point me to an actual legal source for what you're claiming? And by that, I don't mean a website that summarizes things. I checked the CBA and can assure you that what's being claimed on capgeek does not follow from it. So unless you have found another source, then that information is false.

In either case, capgeek says only an NTC would be voided, but not an NMC (dookie88 was asking about both).

 

[CanadianFlyer88]

Do you want to point me to an actual legal source for what you're claiming? And by that, I don't mean a website that summarizes things. I checked the CBA and can assure you that what's being claimed on capgeek does not follow from it. So unless you have found another source, then that information is false.

In either case, capgeek says only an NTC would be voided, but not an NMC (dookie88 was asking about both).

From the CBA:

11.8 Individually Negotiated Limitations on Player Movement.
(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.

(b) A no-Trade clause or a no-move clause that is negotiated as part of an extension of an SPC entered into pursuant to Section 50.5(f) may become effective immediately upon registration of, but prior to the effective date of, such SPC extension, provided: (i) the Player would otherwise have been eligible as of the immediately preceding July 1 prior to signing the SPC extension to have a no-Trade or no-move clause pursuant to Section 11.8; and (ii) the Club and the Player, who are parties to such SPC extension, agree that the no-Trade or no-move clause is effective immediately upon execution of the SPC extension (or at some later date agreed to by the Club and the Player) and evidence such agreement in writing in the SPC.

(c) A no-move clause may prevent the involuntary relocation of a Player, whether by Trade, Loan or Waiver claim. A no-move clause, however, may not restrict the Club's Buy-Out and termination rights as set forth in this Agreement. Prior to exercising its Ordinary Course Buy-Out rights pursuant to Paragraph 13 of the SPC hereof, the Club shall, in writing in accordance with the notice provisions in Exhibit 3 hereof, provide the Player with the option of electing to be placed on Waivers. The Player will have twenty-four (24) hours from the time he receives such notice to accept or reject that option at his sole discretion, and shall so inform the Club in writing, in accordance with the notice provisions in Exhibit 3 hereof, within such twenty-four (24) hour period. If the Player does not timely accept or reject that option, it will be deemed rejected.


... that's all I could find in the CBA on NTCs/NMCs.

 

[Ryker]

From the CBA:

11.8 Individually Negotiated Limitations on Player Movement.
(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.

(b) A no-Trade clause or a no-move clause that is negotiated as part of an extension of an SPC entered into pursuant to Section 50.5(f) may become effective immediately upon registration of, but prior to the effective date of, such SPC extension, provided: (i) the Player would otherwise have been eligible as of the immediately preceding July 1 prior to signing the SPC extension to have a no-Trade or no-move clause pursuant to Section 11.8; and (ii) the Club and the Player, who are parties to such SPC extension, agree that the no-Trade or no-move clause is effective immediately upon execution of the SPC extension (or at some later date agreed to by the Club and the Player) and evidence such agreement in writing in the SPC.

(c) A no-move clause may prevent the involuntary relocation of a Player, whether by Trade, Loan or Waiver claim. A no-move clause, however, may not restrict the Club's Buy-Out and termination rights as set forth in this Agreement. Prior to exercising its Ordinary Course Buy-Out rights pursuant to Paragraph 13 of the SPC hereof, the Club shall, in writing in accordance with the notice provisions in Exhibit 3 hereof, provide the Player with the option of electing to be placed on Waivers. The Player will have twenty-four (24) hours from the time he receives such notice to accept or reject that option at his sole discretion, and shall so inform the Club in writing, in accordance with the notice provisions in Exhibit 3 hereof, within such twenty-four (24) hour period. If the Player does not timely accept or reject that option, it will be deemed rejected.


... that's all I could find in the CBA on NTCs/NMCs.

Exactly, that was my point

 

[CanadianFlyer88]

Exactly, that was my point

I think capgeek is essentially correct, though, because it must be in rare circumstances where the acquiring club would agree to continue the NTC/NMC.

 

[HBDay]

What is the overall view on Simmonds amongst you guys? Just for kicks what would you want in return for him? Especially from the Canadiens but also in general. I've always really liked simmonds play.

 

[Random Forest]

What is the overall view on Simmonds amongst you guys? Just for kicks what would you want in return for him? Especially from the Canadiens but also in general. I've always really liked simmonds play.

Nothing in particular interests me from the Habs (other than Subban and Pacioretty). If Simmonds were dealt, it would have to be for a #1 defender, and since not many teams have an excess of those, it doesn't make sense to deal a 30 goal scorer on a long-term <4m contract.

 

[Ryker]

I think capgeek is essentially correct, though, because it must be in rare circumstances where the acquiring club would agree to continue the NTC/NMC.

No, the passage addresses only the case of a trade/waiver claim prior to the NTC/NMC kicking in. It does not specifically address the case where those clauses have kicked in already, which is the one we were debating. Hence, unless there is some other legal foundation for it, the only change to the contract is in one of the parties to the contract (the NHL club), as is default for a trade.

Now if capgeek has information that no-trade clauses are usually worded such that they are club-specific (e.g. "thou shall not be traded without permission from the Philadelphia Flyers" or an explicit voiding of the clause in the case the player waives it later on), then that is a different matter. However, even then they cannot just generalize and should have qualified their statement that this is what usually occurs, but is not the rule by default. It would be interesting to know how some of those clauses are structured, though.

 

[Striiker]

Only way I could see Simmonds being traded would be if it were something like Simmonds+ for Seth Jones. We need a #1D or someone with the potential to be one, nothing else is worth losing our leading goal scorer, whose on a fantastic contract, one of the best powerforwards in the league, and only getting better.

 

[healthyscratch]

Do you want to point me to an actual legal source for what you're claiming? And by that, I don't mean a website that summarizes things. I checked the CBA and can assure you that what's being claimed on capgeek does not follow from it. So unless you have found another source, then that information is false.

In either case, capgeek says only an NTC would be voided, but not an NMC (dookie88 was asking about both).

Ok. I provided proof, you're giving me your word. Solid work.

I'm not a contract lawyer, but it seems to be common sense that if you waive, or void, a particular section of a contract that it ceases to exist from that point on. I would think it would take a lawyer about 10 seconds in front of a judge to confirm that. (Unless of course the new organization agrees to put it back in, since you know, it's not there anymore.)

 

[Hollywood Cannon]

http://www.thehockeynews.com/blog/p...hows-how-nhl-veterans-enforce-on-ice-respect/

The word “respect†gets used a lot in NHL circles. But sometimes in hockey’s top league, respect is a nebulous concept: one player’s idea of competing hard and gaining an advantage is another player’s idea of a vicious slight. Here’s an previously-untold example:

It was the 2001-02 season – Sean Avery’s rookie NHL campaign – and his Detroit Red Wings were taking on the defending-champion Colorado Avalanche. Avery’s reputation as a big-time trash-talker already was well established from his formative years in the Ontario League – and when Avs captain and Hockey Hall-of-Famer Joe Sakic lined up near the Wings bench before a faceoff, Avery stood up and yelled at Sakic to get his attention.

However, in the two or three seconds it took Sakic to turn his head toward Avery, Red Wings veteran and star winger Brett Hull stood up, reached around another Detroit player, grabbed Avery by the back of the jersey and unceremoniously yanked him back to the seated position before he could utter another word.

“You do not get to talk to Mr. Sakic,†Hull said.

And that was that.

“I was like, ‘Look, you have not earned the right or anything else to be able to talk to Joe Sakic in any manner,’ †Hull said in a phone conversation late last week. “No matter what (Avery) was going to ay, it was not going to be good.â€

 

[flyershockey]

http://www.thehockeynews.com/blog/p...hows-how-nhl-veterans-enforce-on-ice-respect/

What a douchey story. I hate how young players are expected to play by a different set of rules until they've "earned enough respect" in the eyes of the league's elders.

 

[TheLegendkiller]

What a douchey story. I hate how young players are expected to play by a different set of rules until they've "earned enough respect" in the eyes of the league's elders.

Yeah I agree. Trash talking and being a pest are what make Avery effective. So just cause he's a rookie he's not allowed to do that? That doesn't make sense. Imagine If Hartnell told rookie Zac Rinaldo that he's not allowed to hit star players like Drew Doughty? Imagine how (more) useless he would be.

 

[RJ8812*]

One thing I don't understand is why the Leafs are so obsessed with trading Kadri. He would be one of the last players on the team I would be willing to trade

 

[Curufinwe]

Maybe he doesn't get on well with the coach they inexplicably didn't fire.

 

[CanadianFlyer88]

No, the passage addresses only the case of a trade/waiver claim prior to the NTC/NMC kicking in. It does not specifically address the case where those clauses have kicked in already, which is the one we were debating. Hence, unless there is some other legal foundation for it, the only change to the contract is in one of the parties to the contract (the NHL club), as is default for a trade.

Now if capgeek has information that no-trade clauses are usually worded such that they are club-specific (e.g. "thou shall not be traded without permission from the Philadelphia Flyers" or an explicit voiding of the clause in the case the player waives it later on), then that is a different matter. However, even then they cannot just generalize and should have qualified their statement that this is what usually occurs, but is not the rule by default. It would be interesting to know how some of those clauses are structured, though.

It's a grey area because there is no other clause in the CBA that I could find that talks about NTCs/NMCs. A team could easily argue that the second sentence I bolded does not necessarily apply only in cases where the player was traded prior to the NTC/NMC kicking in because there is no other language in the CBA for a case where a player has waived his NTC/NMC.