Barré-Boulet, Kapanen or Heineman : Who's the one staying ?

[Tyson]

Roy has been MIA the whole camp................and was very underwhelming last year.
He needs some serious time in Laval to find his game.

Yep do not rush this player

Kapanen stays. No contest.

%

 

[Ozmodiar]

LOL, that would be like having a full no-trade clause, and then having a limited no-trade clause on top of it to emphasize "don' t even ASK me for these 6 teams".

It's nonsense. Not an option. No player has a limited no-trade clause on top of a full no-trade clause, at the same time. Gallagher has a combination NMC/L-NTC because the "no movement clause" that Gallagher has does not include trades.

You, @FerrisRox and @OnTheRun really need to get informed. Remember the Jeff Petry trade to Montreal in the summer of 2023 that caught him off guard? Jeff had a no movement clause but it did not protect him from a trade to one of the 16 teams not on his no-trade list.

Your take is simply WRONG.

A no-move clause may prevent the involuntary movement of a player from trade, loan or waiver claim.

In this case, a modified NTC was added giving the Habs the option to trade him to any team, less the 6 on his list.

A full no-move on its own would include trades.

 

[Habby4Life]

LOL, that would be like having a full no-trade clause, and then having a limited no-trade clause on top of it to emphasize "don' t even ASK me for these 6 teams".

It's nonsense. Not an option. No player has a limited no-trade clause on top of a full no-trade clause, at the same time. Gallagher has a combination NMC/L-NTC because the "no movement clause" that Gallagher has does not include trades.

You, @FerrisRox and @OnTheRun really need to get informed. Remember the Jeff Petry trade to Montreal in the summer of 2023 that caught him off guard? Jeff had a no movement clause but it did not protect him from a trade to one of the 16 teams not on his no-trade list.

Your take is simply WRONG.

He has a NMC and a LNTC, and what @OnTheRun simply stated is essentially how it works.

Btw - Jeff Perry had only a m-ntc, never had a nmc. You should understand this before using him as an example, get informed.

You have a problem with comprehension. Read his take slowly, think for a second, you will get there, lol.

“The No-Movement Clause:

A No-Movement Clause prohibits a team from moving a player by trade, waivers, or assigning that player to the minors without the player’s consent. This keeps the player with the pro team unless the player approves one of these moves. The player has the final say. Some players will often have a limited trade list here as well. A No-Movement Clause does not restrict a team from buying out or terminating a player’s contract.”

 

[Walksss]

He has a NMC and a LNTC, and what @OnTheRun simply stated is essentially how it works.

You have a problem with comprehension. Read his take slowly, think for a second, you will get there, lol.

How would it make sense to have a full no movement clause that would include trades as well as a 6 team no trade clause that runs concurrently? That makes sense to you?

I'm sure that the NTC covers only the 6 teams he has on his list, otherwise it wouldn't exist. Puckpedia and other sources all have it posted as a 6 team NTC so that's what it likely is.

 

[Habby4Life]

How would it make sense to have a full no movement clause that would include trades as well as a 6 team no trade clause that runs concurrently? That makes sense to you?

I'm sure that the NTC covers only the 6 teams he has on his list, otherwise it wouldn't exist. Puckpedia and other sources all have it posted as a 6 team NTC so that's what it likely is.

He has both, Full NMC, and a six team LNTC

Puckpedia and all other sources state he has a full no movement clause. This is exactly what it states, can’t be sent down, can’t be traded, and can’t be waived. He also has a limited trade clause that covers six teams. They can ask him to waive his nmc but don’t bother if they are on his 6 team list.

 

[Walksss]

Puckpedia and all other sources state he has a full no movement clause. This is exactly what it states, can’t be sent down, can’t be traded, and can’t be waived. He also has a limited trade clause that covers six teams. They can ask him to waive his nmc but don’t bother if they are on his 6 team list.

Sorry man that makes no sense. You can ask a player or other party to any legal agreement to waive whatever you like, you don't need a contract to give you legal permission to ask for a waiver lol.

You could even ask him to mutually terminate the whole contract, doesn't mean he's going to. And you definitely don't need a legal contract to ask him to.

 

[OnTheRun]

How would it make sense to have a full no movement clause that would include trades as well as a 6 team no trade clause that runs concurrently? That makes sense to you?

I'm sure that the NTC covers only the 6 teams he has on his list, otherwise it wouldn't exist. Puckpedia and other sources all have it posted as a 6 team NTC so that's what it likely is.

Because you're not obligated to run each and every trade by the player.

You can simply ask if he is willing to be traded (waive his NMC) which in turn doesn't waive his M-NTC.

 

[Habby4Life]

Sorry man that makes no sense. You can ask a player or other party to any legal agreement to waive whatever you like, you don't need a contract to give you legal permission to ask for a waiver lol.

You could even ask him to mutually terminate the whole contract, doesn't mean he's going to. And you definitely don't need a legal contract to ask him to.

Because you're not obligated to run each and every trade by the player.

You can simply ask if he is willing to be traded (waive his NMC) which in turn doesn't waive his M-NTC.

Yes, bingo, if they ask if he his open to a trade and he says yes, his limited trade clause kicks in preventing the six teams unless he waives that too.

If you ask him to waive his NMC because they want to trade him and he says no, it’s done, lol.

The team can negotiate any trade the like with any team but when they ask go to waive his NMC and if needed his NTC and he says no, it’s all over.

This isn’t hard!!

 

[Walksss]

Yes, bingo, if they ask if he his open to a trade and he says yes, his limited trade clause kicks in preventing the six teams unless he waives that too.

If you ask him to waive his NMC and he says no, it’s done, lol.

This isn’t hard!!

Lol ok so you guys think there's a 6 team super duper no trade list that's legally enforced. You're right, it's not hard it's complete fantasy haha.

I'll ask Basu and Godin on Twitter and maybe they'll answer on there cause I'm far from convinced. That doesn't pass the smell test for ne.

 

[Habby4Life]

Lol ok so you guys think there's a 6 team super duper no trade list that's legally enforced. You're right, it's not hard it's complete fantasy haha.

Yeah, I do, they are standard clauses in nhl contracts. Lots of guys have them.

Yeah, the Senators are losing one of the next 1st round picks in the next couple of drafts for a botched trade when Vegas tried sending Danadov to the ducks who were on his ntc. The NHL voided the trade and penalized the Sens because the Sens didn’t provide the Knights his ntc when they originally traded him there. Thus, they traded to a team his contract (ntc) blocked.

Im surprised you never heard of this.

 

[Walksss]

Yeah, I do, they are standard clauses in nhl contracts. Lots of guys have them.

Yeah, the Senators are losing one of the next 1st round picks in the next couple of drafts for a botched trade when Vegas tried sending Danadov to the ducks who were on his ntc. The NHL voided the trade and penalized the Sens because the Sens didn’t provide the Knights his ntc when they originally traded him there.

Shit, as a hockey fan, I’m surprised you never heard of this. Must be new to the sport, lol.

Yes I know lots of players have similar contracts but they are usually full NMC for the first say 3-4 years of the contract which then converts to a modified NMC later in the contract, or whatever the situation is.

I can't speak to what this is, but I will say in most cases if a NTC is specified on these sites it generally means it's active for the years it's listed, that's my thought.

It seems very clunky that you would ask a player to waive their NMC and then they would have a second layer of NTC to determine their future. They would already completely control their future? I'm not seeing the point of that, I maintain that this is incorrect.

 

[Habby4Life]

Yes I know lots of players have similar contracts but they are usually full NMC for the first say 3-4 years of the contract which then converts to a modified NMC later in the contract, or whatever the situation is.

I can't speak to what this is, but I will say in most cases if a NTC is specified on these sites it generally means it's active for the years it's listed, that's my thought.

It seems very clunky that you would ask a player to waive their NMC and then they would have a second layer of NTC to determine their future. They would already completely control their future? I'm not seeing the point of that, I maintain that this is incorrect.

Well, you are wrong.

He has a full nmc and a limited ntc for the duration of his contract. Simple search on numerous sites and you would have your awnser in 2 mins.

Blame MB for giving it to him. In this case, Gally has full control.

Go ask Basu, lol

https://x.com/i/web/status/1316505571617648652

You’re welcome!
Many other places list the same info, ie puckpedia, etc

 

[Walksss]

Well, you are wrong.

He has a full nmc and a limited ntc for the duration of his contract. Simple search on numerous sites and you would have your awnser in 2 mins.

Blame MB for giving it to him. In this case, Gally has full control.

Go ask Basu, lol

https://x.com/i/web/status/1316505571617648652

You’re welcome!
Many other places list the same info, ie puckpedia, etc

Fair enough, but that's dumb. It's kind of a moot point though cause this dude isn't getting traded ever. I'll still ask though, seems like a convoluted set of stipulations but that's Bergevin logic I guess.

 

[OnTheRun]

Fair enough, but that's dumb. It's kind of a moot point though cause this dude isn't getting traded ever. I'll still ask though, seems like a convoluted set of stipulations but that's Bergevin logic I guess.

It's not moot.
Two of the most active trade day in the NHL are both time limited and time sensitive, the TDL and the draft. So the team keep some leeway to work deals.

A team can ask a player to completely waive his NMC for trade purpose, without a specific destination. Ie: Are you okay to be traded before March 19? If the player said he is fine with that then you have whatever teams not on his M-NTC to work with.

 

[Walksss]

It's not moot.
Two of the most active trade day in the NHL are both time limited and time sensitive, the TDL and the draft. So the team keep some leeway to work deals.

A team can ask a player to completely waive his NMC for trade purpose, without a specific destination. Ie: Are you okay to be traded before March 19? If the player said he is fine with that then you have whatever teams not on his M-NTC to work with.

I meant it's moot in the fact that nobody is going to take on Gallaghers contract and KH is very unlikely to pay assets to make it possible.

However I was under the impression that teams go to the player to waive for specific teams when a hypothetical trade becomes possible. If teams just approach with a blanket 'waive your entire NTC' and then they'll deal you wherever and players have no control then I've learned something today.

 

[BaseballCoach]

He has a NMC and a LNTC, and what @OnTheRun simply stated is essentially how it works.

Btw - Jeff Perry had only a m-ntc, never had a nmc. You should understand this before using him as an example, get informed.

You have a problem with comprehension. Read his take slowly, think for a second, you will get there, lol.

“The No-Movement Clause:

A No-Movement Clause prohibits a team from moving a player by trade, waivers, or assigning that player to the minors without the player’s consent. This keeps the player with the pro team unless the player approves one of these moves. The player has the final say. Some players will often have a limited trade list here as well. A No-Movement Clause does not restrict a team from buying out or terminating a player’s contract.”

Realize what you are writing. You are agreeing that it is possible to have a NMC that permits trades.

The NTC clause is absolutely NOT just for "emphasis". In fact, it is the opposite. The M-NTC over-rides the NMC.

And Petry did have a NMC. No-Trade/No-Move Clauses — The Fourth Period

It's not just Petry and Gallagher who had this combination in 2023-24. So did:

• Draisaitl
• Ovechkin
• Coyle
• H. Lindholm
• Hall
• Zuccarello

Petry did not have to waive his NMC to get traded. He had a form of NMC that permitted trades to teams not on his forbidden list. And he got traded three times while having the NMC.

 

[BaseballCoach]

Well, you are wrong.

He has a full nmc and a limited ntc for the duration of his contract. Simple search on numerous sites and you would have your awnser in 2 mins.

Blame MB for giving it to him. In this case, Gally has full control.

Go ask Basu, lol

https://x.com/i/web/status/1316505571617648652

Gally does have both clauses, but it does not mean what you think it means. The Petry case proves it.

What Gally got was protection against being waived or going to an expansion team, but not protection against every possible trade.

A M-NTC list is unnecessary if the NMC always prohibited all trades. However, teams and players are allowed to negotiate this lesser level of protection, and eight players had that arrangement in 2023-24.

Oh and by the way, speaking of quoting Lebrun,

Pierre LeBrun

@PierreVLeBrun

Jeff Petry contract breakdown:2021-22, $5M salary2022-23, $4.5M salary, $3 signing bonus2023-24, $4.5 M salary, $3 signing bonus2024-25, $3M salary, $2M signing bonus and again, 15-team NTC (no list), and full NMC


4:09 PM · Sep 25, 2020

 

[BaseballCoach]

How would it make sense to have a full no movement clause that would include trades as well as a 6 team no trade clause that runs concurrently? That makes sense to you?

I'm sure that the NTC covers only the 6 teams he has on his list, otherwise it wouldn't exist. Puckpedia and other sources all have it posted as a 6 team NTC so that's what it likely is.

Someone who understands!

The M-NTC permits trades to teams NOT on the 'no' list.

The combination of NMC and M-NTC exists so that teams and players are able, if they wish, to provide protection against demotion and exposure in an expansion team entry draft, but NOT certain trades.

 

[BaseballCoach]

A no-move clause may prevent the involuntary movement of a player from trade, loan or waiver claim.

In this case, a modified NTC was added giving the Habs the option to trade him to any team, less the 6 on his list.

A full no-move on its own would include trades.

Correct! The M-NTC softens the NMC.

 

[FerrisRox]

You, @FerrisRox and @OnTheRun really need to get informed.

This is hilariously ironic.

 

[FerrisRox]

How would it make sense to have a full no movement clause that would include trades as well as a 6 team no trade clause that runs concurrently? That makes sense to you?

Because some players want the the security protection of a no-move clause - they cannot be waived and have their life turned upside down with no say at all in where they might be headed, but they are willing to allow for a trade - should they grant explicit permission - to a handful of teams. It's also an extra layer of control for the player - the team needs him to waive his NMC before the handful of teams on the LNTC can even be considered.

It's not complicated and it's not rare.

 

[Ozmodiar]

Correct! The M-NTC softens the NMC.

Probably why the wording in the CBA (for no-move) is “may prevent”. (Subject to the conditions of a NTC)

 

[BaseballCoach]

Because some players want the the security protection of a no-move clause - they cannot be waived and have their life turned upside down with no say at all in where they might be headed, but they are willing to allow for a trade

Correct so far

- should they grant explicit permission

Oops!!

This right here is the error you folks are making.

The permission is granted right in the contract. The team does not need to ask when the trade is being worked on provided the team they want to trade with is not on the no-trade list.

- to a handful of teams. It's also an extra layer of control for the player

YES! Extra control for team. No need to ask for permission! It's not control if you have to ask.

- the team needs him to waive his NMC before the handful of teams on the LNTC can even be considered.

Cheese is Price, Nooo!! (And in Gallagher's case, the great majority of teams are NOT on his list. It's not just "a handful").

It's not complicated and it's not rare.

It's not complicated, just misunderstood. Jeff Petry was traded by Pittsburgh back to Montreal without ever waving his NMC. Why? Because he gave his permission back in 2020 when he signed the extension. All he can do from year to year is change the teams on his list. Montreal was not on the 2023-24 list, so he got traded without being asked to waive.

 

[BaseballCoach]

This is hilariously ironic.

LOL. Still awaiting your admission that @Walksss, @Ozmodiar and I are correct. With a M-NTC allowing trades to certain teams, the club does not need to ask for specific permission for a trade to a permitted team.

I supplied the Jeff Petry proof, and instead of thinking that through, you guys are just doubling and tripling down on error.

 

[CGG]

The answer to the question is Kapanen, although ABB likely stays as a 14th forward, avoiding waivers.

Mailloux, Engstrom, Heineman cut. All will likely play some games this year for the CH though.

Hughes wants to not put anyone on off-season LTIR. With Laine and RHP injured, I think the only way to do that and have 20 healthy bodies is with a bunch of paper transactions:

Roy to the minors (temporarily)
Struble to the minors (temporarily)
Kapanen to the minors (temporarily)
Xhekaj to the minors (temporarily)

Random minor leaguers like Gignac or Condotta, plus Trudeau, brought up to the team. Temporarily.

ABB on the roster. Mostly because his salary is only $775,000 and we probably don't need 8 D, so might as well carry a 14th forward who probably won't play much. He may eventually get waived, but you don't need to do that at the start of the season.

One vet (my pick is Anderson but it could also be Dvorak or Armia) waived and sent to the minors. Temporarily. If someone picks up Anderson, rejoice, but it won't happen.

That leaves a 23-man roster, including 3 injuries (Laine, RHP, Price) and about $48,000 in cap space. Then put some of those injuries on LTIR, bring back Xhekaj, Anderson, Struble, Kapanen and send Gignac/Condotta and Trudeau to the minors.