Speculation: Ducks' GM working to change terms of Bieksa's contract extension

[alcolol]

In light of the next year's expansion draft and the ruling that players with NMCs must be protected within said draft, Anaheim's GM Bob Murray is rumored to be "working to change Kevin Bieksa's no-move clause." His two-year contract extension kicks in on July 1st and with it, the NMC. Not knowing that a GM could renegotiate the terms of a previously agreed upon contract so long as it hasn't begun, I decided to do some digging within the CBA...

11.10 No Renegotiation. In no event shall a Club and a Player negotiate a change in any terms
of a Player's SPC for the then-current season or for any remaining season of an SPC (except as
provided for in Section 11.8(b)). This provision shall not prohibit a Player and Club from
negotiating an extension to an existing SPC in accordance with the terms of Section 50.5(f)
hereof, or from negotiating a new or reformed SPC or Offer Sheet in the limited context
and time-frame expressly set forth in Section 11.6(a)(vi) above.

Assuming I have not missed any relevant articles within the CBA, is it fair to say Bob Murray may--pending the approval of Bieksa and his agent--renegotiate the contract extension to omit the NMC?

Click to read more...

 

[Mr Misty]

What is the incentive for Bieksa unless they give him more money, which combined with his play makes him more likely to not be drafted, which sticks Anaheim with more expensive Bieksa at the same time they are struggling with their budget?

 

[HanSolo]

Don't know what financial benefits can be included in such a renegotiation but if there's a way to do it, they have to. It's absolutely scary to think that come the expansion draft the Ducks are gonna protect: Hampus Lindholm, Sami Vatanen...and Kevin Bieksa.

Stupid reactionary move to losing Beauchemin in the first place.

 

[WhatTheDuck]

Can the revision be that the contract gets lit on fire and thrown into the ocean?

 

[wraparound]

Maybe the renegotiated terms will be something like a NMC that kicks in AFTER the expansion draft? Because nobody will likely take him & that would allow GMBM to protect the more vulnerable D?

 

[Mr Misty]

Maybe the renegotiated terms will be something like a NMC that kicks in AFTER the expansion draft? Because nobody will likely take him & that would allow GMBM to protect the more vulnerable D?

That makes a lot of sense and it would be a neat trick to pull off.

 

[alcolol]

What is the incentive for Bieksa unless they give him more money, which combined with his play makes him more likely to not be drafted, which sticks Anaheim with more expensive Bieksa at the same time they are struggling with their budget?

In the event he doesn't agree to a re-negotiation, Bieksa would likely be looking at a buyout after next season.

Don't know what financial benefits can be included in such a renegotiation but if there's a way to do it, they have to. It's absolutely scary to think that come the expansion draft the Ducks are gonna protect: Hampus Lindholm, Sami Vatanen...and Kevin Bieksa.

Stupid reactionary move to losing Beauchemin in the first place.

I do not believe the length and dollar amount of the contract can be re-negotiated; as such, there wouldn't be any financial benefits other than the opportunity cost of not ditching the NMC (see comments above on a potential Bieksa buyout).

Can the revision be that the contract gets lit on fire and thrown into the ocean?

Only if you have unprescribed drugs and are crossing national borders

Maybe the renegotiated terms will be something like a NMC that kicks in AFTER the expansion draft? Because nobody will likely take him & that would allow GMBM to protect the more vulnerable D?

This, or replacing the NMC with a full NTC.

 

[mouser]

In light of the next year's expansion draft and the ruling that players with NMCs must be protected within said draft, Anaheim's GM Bob Murray is rumored to be "working to change Kevin Bieksa's no-move clause." His two-year contract extension kicks in on July 1st and with it, the NMC. Not knowing that a GM could renegotiate the terms of a previously agreed upon contract so long as it hasn't begun, I decided to do some digging within the CBA...



Assuming I have not missed any relevant articles within the CBA, is it fair to say Bob Murray may--pending the approval of Bieksa and his agent--renegotiate the contract extension to omit the NMC?

The clause you quoted does not support that it can be renegotiated.

11.10 No Renegotiation. In no event shall a Club and a Player negotiate a change in any terms
of a Player's SPC for the then-current season or for any remaining season of an SPC (except as
provided for in Section 11.8(b)). This provision shall not prohibit a Player and Club from
negotiating an extension to an existing SPC in accordance with the terms of Section 50.5(f)
hereof, or from negotiating a new or reformed SPC or Offer Sheet in the limited context
and time-frame expressly set forth in Section 11.6(a)(vi) above.

The first underlined section says team/player can negotiate an extension. Well, that already happened with Bieksa. The extension (which is actually just a completely new SPC) has already been signed and registered with the NHL.

The second underlined section says team/player can "negotiate a new or reformed SPC" in the limited context of Section 11.6(a)(vi). Section 11.6(a)(vi) covers the situation where the NHL rejects an SPC. That rejection could be due to something wrong with the SPC terms, or it could be that the SPC terms themselves would be fine, however the SPC would put the team over the salary cap or cause some other prohibited roster state. In other words if the NHL rejected the SPC then the team/player can submit a new SPC with different term. This section would not apply to Bieksa as his SPC was not rejected.

Section 11.8(b) applies to having an NMC in a new extension be retroactive to existing contract. In other words, this section says the existing contract can be modified to add an NMC/NTC as a result of the player signing an extension with an NMC/NTC. The clause does not allow for the extension SPC's NMC or NTC to be changed. So, again would not apply to Bieksa.

I'm sure Murray could ask Bieksa if he's willing to waive his NMC or make his NMC decisions on some criteria other then what's in the contract. However they cannot rewrite the contract term or make any binding agreements outside of the contract how the NMC will be applied.

 

[YP44]

In the event he doesn't agree to a re-negotiation, Bieksa would likely be looking at a buyout after next season.



I do not believe the length and dollar amount of the contract can be re-negotiated; as such, there wouldn't be any financial benefits other than the opportunity cost of not ditching the NMC (see comments above on a potential Bieksa buyout).



Only if you have unprescribed drugs and are crossing national borders



This, or replacing the NMC with a full NTC.

Bold 1: Do we know there would be a buyout window before expansion draft?
Bold 2: I know sarcasm but the termination sucked and sucks for LA. It was believed a deal with Richards to be traded was in the works (acquiring team was buying out) with LA giving up a large sweetener. Had that happened LA would have way less cap hit for Richards (none) today than they do (~$1.5M)

 

[TOGuy14]

This, or replacing the NMC with a full NTC.

Can't imagine he would move from NMC to NTC given his play recently, would open up the door for him to be sent down to the AHL.

 

[kasper11]

What is the incentive for Bieksa unless they give him more money, which combined with his play makes him more likely to not be drafted, which sticks Anaheim with more expensive Bieksa at the same time they are struggling with their budget?

The incentive is that the clause doesn't kick in until tomorrow.

He can be traded anywhere today. If he doesn't want to move, going from NMC to NTC could benefit him.

 

[alcolol]

The clause you quoted does not support that it can be renegotiated.



The first underlined section says team/player can negotiate an extension. Well, that already happened with Bieksa. The extension (which is actually just a completely new SPC) has already been signed and registered with the NHL.

The second underlined section says team/player can "negotiate a new or reformed SPC" in the limited context of Section 11.6(a)(vi). Section 11.6(a)(vi) covers the situation where the NHL rejects an SPC. That rejection could be due to something wrong with the SPC terms, or it could be that the SPC terms themselves would be fine, however the SPC would put the team over the salary cap or cause some other prohibited roster state. In other words if the NHL rejected the SPC then the team/player can submit a new SPC with different term. This section would not apply to Bieksa as his SPC was not rejected.

I'm sure Murray could ask Bieksa if he's willing to waive his NMC or make his NMC decisions on some criteria other then what's in the contract. However they cannot rewrite the contract term or make any binding agreements outside of the contract how the NMC will be applied.

Hmm. Perhaps GMBM is simply pursing Bieksa to waive his NMC outright.

 

[mouser]

Hmm. Perhaps GMBM is simply pursing Bieksa to waive his NMC outright.

That would be the most likely scenario IMO. Or agree to waive it just for the expansion draft.

 

[Mr Misty]

The incentive is that the clause doesn't kick in until tomorrow.

He can be traded anywhere today. If he doesn't want to move, going from NMC to NTC could benefit him.

Nobody would want him even if his upcoming NMC didn't mean he had to be protected in the expansion draft.

 

[mightyquack]

I wonder what would happen if he modified his NMC to include only Las Vegas as the team he'd waive it for. Would you still have to protect him then?

Can't imagine he would move from NMC to NTC given his play recently, would open up the door for him to be sent down to the AHL.

Anaheim isn't going to put 4m worth of salary in the AHL, we don't have that luxury unfortunately. Nor has Bieksa's play been at an AHL level, he is still a more then capable 3rd pairing guy who can play solid PK minutes at the NHL level. In this regard going to a NTC would mean he stays in Anaheim (as Anaheim are not demoting him as he's better then some of our current defencemen) while not weakening the team he waived for in the first place to try and win a Cup.

 

[HanSolo]

I wonder what would happen if he modified his NMC to include only Las Vegas as the team he'd waive it for. Would you still have to protect him then?


Anaheim isn't going to put 4m worth of salary in the AHL, we don't have that luxury unfortunately. Nor has Bieksa's play been at an AHL level, he is still a more then capable 3rd pairing guy who can play solid PK minutes at the NHL level. In this regard going to a NTC would mean he stays in Anaheim (as Anaheim are not demoting him as he's better then some of our current defencemen) while not weakening the team he waived for in the first place to try and win a Cup.

My head hurts

 

[TorstenFrings]

Nobody would want him even if his upcoming NMC didn't mean he had to be protected in the expansion draft.

If he was traded before the contract kicked in, the NMC would not have to be honored by the new team.

Not that in this particular case it makes someone wanting him likely. And he still has a limited NTC in his expiring contract, so the GM would have to have a trade pretty much ready to go for it to be any kind of thread. He isn't going to find anyone to take that on in a hurry.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

The incentive is that the clause doesn't kick in until tomorrow.

He can be traded anywhere today. If he doesn't want to move, going from NMC to NTC could benefit him.

Bieksa has an NTC so he can't be traded anywhere today w/o his consent.

 

[Ambisextrous]

 

[DingDongCharlie]

Should have bought him out. Nobody is going to trade for him.

 

[Mr Misty]

If he was traded before the contract kicked in, the NMC would not have to be honored by the new team.

Not that in this particular case it makes someone wanting him likely. And he still has a limited NTC in his expiring contract, so the GM would have to have a trade pretty much ready to go for it to be any kind of thread. He isn't going to find anyone to take that on in a hurry.

He wouldn't be waiving it, the NMC would remain part of the new contract he signed that was approved by the league.

 

[thepuckmonster]

What's Bieksa's motivation to acquiesce? That he may get bought out next season? Okay, then he can go where he wants.

Seems like he has all the leverage here.

 

[tsujimoto74]

The clause you quoted does not support that it can be renegotiated.



The first underlined section says team/player can negotiate an extension. Well, that already happened with Bieksa. The extension (which is actually just a completely new SPC) has already been signed and registered with the NHL.

The second underlined section says team/player can "negotiate a new or reformed SPC" in the limited context of Section 11.6(a)(vi). Section 11.6(a)(vi) covers the situation where the NHL rejects an SPC. That rejection could be due to something wrong with the SPC terms, or it could be that the SPC terms themselves would be fine, however the SPC would put the team over the salary cap or cause some other prohibited roster state. In other words if the NHL rejected the SPC then the team/player can submit a new SPC with different term. This section would not apply to Bieksa as his SPC was not rejected.

Section 11.8(b) applies to having an NMC in a new extension be retroactive to existing contract. In other words, this section says the existing contract can be modified to add an NMC/NTC as a result of the player signing an extension with an NMC/NTC. The clause does not allow for the extension SPC's NMC or NTC to be changed. So, again would not apply to Bieksa.

I'm sure Murray could ask Bieksa if he's willing to waive his NMC or make his NMC decisions on some criteria other then what's in the contract. However they cannot rewrite the contract term or make any binding agreements outside of the contract how the NMC will be applied.

Yeah, this seems completely bogus/impossible. This isn't the NFL. You can't just renegotiate a player's contract.

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

What's Bieksa's motivation to acquiesce? That he may get bought out next season? Okay, then he can go where he wants.

Seems like he has all the leverage here.

Except Anaheim, where given his demand for an NMC in the first place, seems like the place he wants to be.

They won't pick him, so unless he actually wants out and pushes for the buyout, seems like a reasonable thing to do. But we'll see.

 

[caliamad]

Except Anaheim, where given his demand for an NMC in the first place, seems like the place he wants to be.

They won't pick him, so unless he actually wants out and pushes for the buyout, seems like a reasonable thing to do. But we'll see.

Heaven forbid if a player wants to actually try to help the organization that tried to do right by him.