Speculation: Trade & Free Agency Talk XXXVI

[TaLoN]

Im not sure how any reading or 11.8 (a) would lead to capfriendly's explanation that a team has an option to extend it if it's already in effect. The last sentence is clearly referencing the previous sentence related to a trade before it kicks in. I think capfriendly's FAQ is incorrect.

Whenever this topic comes up, I always ask the same thing. Show me a single instance of a player being traded with an active NTC or NMC where it didn't travel with them. I've yet to see a single instance of it.

.

A waived clause is not an active clause, thus the need for an addendum if the player wants it to travel with him.

 

[ThatGuy22]

A waived clause is not an active clause, thus the need for an addendum if the player wants it to travel with him.

"Active" is terminology we brought into it as short hand, which is why I posted the actual text from the CBA. CBA mentions nothing about active, vs inactive. CBA pretty clearly says that clauses can't take effect until a player reaches eligibility for Group 3 Unrestricted free agency. There is nothing in the CBA about a clause being inactive once it takes effect.

Further more, the trade protection is absolutely still in effect. "Waiving" trade protection is more or less media short hand. What's actually taking place is amending the trade protection to allow a trade to a specific team. The Trade protection is obviously still in effect, otherwise once a player "waives" they could be traded anywhere to anyone.

Also how would this work with Limited NTC, where a player has a list of 10 teams. If traded to a team not on the list does that team have the option to nullify the trade protection that wasn't waived? Again, that would make no sense.

It doesn't make sense when you look at the actual verbiage in the CBA regarding trade protection, which is more or less straight forward.

 

[TaLoN]

"Active" is terminology we brought into it as short hand, which is why I posted the actual text from the CBA. CBA mentions nothing about active, vs inactive. CBA pretty clearly says that clauses can't take effect until a player reaches eligibility for Group 3 Unrestricted free agency. There is nothing in the CBA about a clause being inactive once it takes effect.

Further more, the trade protection is absolutely still in effect. "Waiving" trade protection is more or less media short hand. What's actually taking place is amending the trade protection to allow a trade to a specific team. The Trade protection is obviously still in effect, otherwise once a player "waives" they could be traded anywhere to anyone.

Also how would this work with Limited NTC, where a player has a list of 10 teams. If traded to a team not on the list does that team have the option to nullify the trade protection that wasn't waived? Again, that would make no sense.

It doesn't make sense when you look at the actual verbiage in the CBA regarding trade protection, which is more or less straight forward.

Traded to a team not on the list means the clause was never waived, thus remains active.

A waived clause is an inactive clause. If it wasn't waived, it remains active.

Look at it this way... waive means to refrain from using. Once that is done, it's done. The clause no longer exists.

IF the player wants it to continue existence, the player agent needs to get an addendum in writing for the contract from the new team, and thus carry the clause forward.

IF the new team refuses to sign said addendum, the player has a hard choice to make, continue with his decision to waive and accept the trade and lose the clause, or refuse to waive, stay with his current team and keep the clause.

 

[ThatGuy22]

Traded to a team not on the list means the clause was never waived, thus remains active.

A waived clause is an inactive clause. If it wasn't waived, it remains active.

So as soon as player waives the clause he can be traded to anyone right? If the clause is inactive, there is nothing stopping him from being traded to anyone. Or is that completely illogical? And it makes more sense that the clause is amended to allow a specific trade similar to a limited NTC you just said would remain intact

You're simply wrong. Capfriendly's FAQ buying in to the Myth born out of Visnosky's grievance isn't evidence. They are not the NHL. The binding legal document that is the CBA is clear as day.

 

[TaLoN]

So as soon as player waives the clause he can be traded to anyone right? If the clause is inactive, there is nothing stopping him from being traded to anyone. Or is that completely illogical? And it makes more sense that the clause is amended to allow a specific trade similar to a limited NTC you just said would remain intact

You're simply wrong. Capfriendly's FAQ buying in to the Myth born out of Visnosky's grievance isn't evidence. They are not the NHL. The binding legal document that is the CBA is clear as day.

The player gets to talk to the team he's waiving for to see if they will sign an addendum. He can choose to waive or not AFTER said discussion.

He's not blindly waiving. Parise was willing to waive for a trade to the Islanders specifically... but never actually waived. Ladd was willing to waive for the Wild specifically, but never actually waived. They had their discussions, and were awaiting final trade decisions before they would have officially waived.

Cap friendly knows way more about this than any of us... I'll take their word on it myself.

 

[ThatGuy22]

The player gets to talk to the team he's waiving for to see if they will sign an addendum. He can choose to waive or not AFTER said discussion.

He's not blindly waiving. Parise was willing to waive for a trade to the Islanders specifically... but never actually waived. Ladd was willing to waive for the Wild specifically, but never actually waived. They had their discussions, and were awaiting final trade decisions before they would have officially waived.

Cap friendly knows way more about this than any of us... I'll take their word on it myself.

I'll take the word of the CBA, the text of which isn't vague at all.

CapFriendly isn't affiliated with the NHL in any way. While they are very good, their FAQ is not infallible. And there is a lot of misconception's on this due to the Visnosky grievance where he was traded before his NTC was in effect to Edmonton, and they choose not to honor it then. Then he was traded to Anaheim, and three years later tried to block a trade to NYI. The process in CapFriendly's FAQ is similiar to what was said would have needed to show evidence the NTC/NMC was still valid after the LA/Edmonton trade.

There is two things i've said you still have not addressed.

1) What's to stop a team from trading the player to anyone besides the team the player is traded to? If there is something stopping that, this is proof the clause is still active.
2) Show me a single instance in NHL history of a player being traded after their clause was effective, that did not have it after a trade?

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 twentyfour (24) hour period. If the Player does not timely accept or reject that option, it will be deemed rejected.

 

[TaLoN]

I'll take the word of the CBA, the text of which isn't vague at all.

CapFriendly isn't affiliated with the NHL in any way. While they are very good, their FAQ is not infallible. And there is a lot of misconception's on this due to the Visnosky grievance where he was traded before his NTC was in effect to Edmonton, and they choose not to honor it then. Then he was traded to Anaheim, and three years later tried to block a trade to NYI. The process in CapFriendly's FAQ is similiar to what was said would have needed to show evidence the NTC/NMC was still valid after the LA/Edmonton trade.

There is two things i've said you still have not addressed.

1) What's to stop a team from trading the player to anyone besides the team the player is traded to? If there is something stopping that, this is proof the clause is still active.
2) Show me a single instance in NHL history of a player being traded after their clause was effective, that did not have it after a trade?

None of that talks about a waived clause.

 

[ThatGuy22]

None of that talks about a waived clause.

Because there is no such thing as a waived clause. There is no such thing as an active or inactive clause. Thats the entire point. You can't find a single word about waiving a clause in the CBA.

It's confusing the generic term that the media and we all use. Ie " Parise was willing to waive his NMC" with the legal reality of how it takes place. "Parise was willing to amend his NMC to allow a trade to NYI".

That's why they can't turn around and trade him to anyone, and no one can find a single instance of a player losing the clause after it was in effect.

CapFriendly's FAQ confuses the reason Visnosky lost his grievance ( agent failed to get Edmonton to honor the clause that wasn't in effect yet, thus 3 trades later it's bull) with trades once they are in effect.

 

[TaLoN]

Because there is no such thing as a waived clause. There is no such thing as an active or inactive clause. Thats the entire point. You can't find a single word about waiving a clause in the CBA.

It's confusing the generic term that the media and we all use. Ie " Parise was willing to waive his NMC" with the legal reality of how it takes place. "Parise was willing to amend his NMC to allow a trade to NYI".

That's why they can't turn around and trade him to anyone, and no one can find a single instance of a player losing the clause after it was in effect.

CapFriendly's FAQ confuses the reason Visnosky lost his grievance ( agent failed to get Edmonton to honor the clause that wasn't in effect yet, thus 3 trades later it's bull) with trades once they are in effect.

Obviously there is since players waive them for trades.

You and I are clearly not going to agree. Again, I'll take Cap Friendlies analysis.

 

[ThatGuy22]

Obviously there is since players waive them for trades.

You and I are clearly not going to agree. Again, I'll take Cap Friendlies analysis.

Fair enough. If you want to be willfully ignorant and trust something there is zero evidence of ever happening, the nhlpa would raise a fit about if it was tried and is clearly contradicted by the plain text if the CBA who am I to stop you.

 

[TaLoN]

Fair enough. If you want to be willfully ignorant and trust something there is zero evidence of ever happening, the nhlpa would raise a fit about if it was tried and is clearly contradicted by the plain text if the CBA who am I to stop you.

Or perhaps, Cap Friendly simply has details you don't.

Again, I'll trust Cap Friendly.

 

[ThatGuy22]

Or perhaps, Cap Friendly simply has details you don't.

Again, I'll trust Cap Friendly.

What's more likely. They misinterpreted the Visnosky Grievence ruling, or the actual text if the CBA is wrong...

 

[TaLoN]

What's more likely. They misinterpreted the Visnosky Grievence ruling, or the actual text if the CBA is wrong...

Or you're interpreting the CBA wrong and Cap Friendly has it right and the Visnovsky ruling is not even part of the issue at hand.

 

[AKL]

If there was a way to emancipate Eichel from Buffalo without giving up Kaprizov or Fiala I would pay pretty much anything. Poor guy can’t get a quality GM or team around him. That guy is almost exactly what we need.

 

[57special]

I would give up both for Eichel.

 

[grN1g]

Not for the price unfortunately, I'd give years of unprotected firsts if we can keep our top quality foward prospect pool.

 

[AKL]

I would give up both for Eichel.

Great then we’ll have the same problem Buffalo has

 

[AKL]

Not for the price unfortunately, I'd give years of unprotected firsts if we can keep our top quality foward prospect pool.

Like I said, keep Fiala and Kaprizov who are both safe bets to be quality top 6 guys, and I’d try to keep Khovanov to be the hopefully 2C behind Eichel, but anyone else, Boldy, unprotected 1sts included, I would easily give up

 

[grN1g]

I suppose I could stomach anyone not named Fiala Ek Kaprizov Khovanov Beckman Addison KK in a trade. I'd prefer to Keep boldy in that list though.

 

[AKL]

I suppose I could stomach anyone not named Fiala Ek Kaprizov Khovanov Beckman Addison KK in a trade. I'd prefer to Keep boldy in that list though.

You wouldn’t trade Addison or Beckman as part of a deal for Jack Eichel?

 

[grN1g]

I mean I would I just view that pool as a very quality list of players I believe will make it to the NHL and be good players. Just hard to let go of my shiny toys.

 

[AKL]

I mean I would I just view that pool as a very quality list of players I believe will make it to the NHL and be good players. Just hard to let go of my shiny toys.

Jack Eichel is a pretty shiny toy...

 

[grN1g]

Right but say Beckman Boldy Addison hit their potential that could be alot to give up with 1sts included. I guess my hope would be that he would need to publicly demand a trade which would definitely drive down the value a bit and hope you can give up picks and lesser prospects. Maybe a Greenway or Kunin included.

 

[grN1g]

Or a Dumba?

Dumba + Kunin + Lodnia + 1st +1st

 

[thestonedkoala]

Or a Dumba?

Dumba + Kunin + Lodnia + 1st +1st

Terrible.

We simply don't have enough to snag Eichel. I mean - if we got Barkov and then traded Barkov + for Eichel that might do it.