Speculation: Ducks' GM working to change terms of Bieksa's contract extension
- Thread starter alcolol
- Start date
Arthuros
Registered Snoozer
XxJammingxX
Registered User
- Mar 5, 2014
- 342
- 27
Its simple. Trade him to a team before it kicks in. That team chooses not to honour the NMC. Then take him back after July 1.
Clearly Dean Lombardi can assist with this
Clearly Dean Lombardi can assist with this
First, why would any team take Bieksa? Never mind the cap hit, but it could cause them to lose a player they don't want to lose. No one is taking Bieksa in a trade. The only other option is to buy him out.
Second, that wasn't a shot at Lombardi. In fact, I envy how he got out of Richard's contract. It was a joke. Not a big deal.
- Aug 24, 2011
- 28,769
- 13,786
A slightly convoluted plan:
Trade Bieksa for a 5th round pick next year to a team willing to help you out.
After July 1, trade back a 4th round pick next year for Bieksa.
Win win situation, assuming Bieksa wants to stay in Anaheim. Some random East coast team gets a free 1 round upgrade on a pick?
WhatTheDuck
9 - 20 - 8
It's also pretty windy by the ocean. I probably didn't think this through, but hey that's why we leave the contract details up to the lawyers. They would probably come up with something more sensible like a paper shredder or even fire without water.
XxJammingxX
Registered User
- Mar 5, 2014
- 342
- 27
How? It would work. CBA states the team trading for them don't have to honour the NMC clause. Thus it would be voided. The only wrinkle would be any significant bonuses being paid on July 1.
I think there'd clearly be penalties to both Anaheim and the other team if this happened. It's not against the rules, but I could see it getting penalized.
Wallet Inspector
Registered User
- Jan 19, 2013
- 6,286
- 5,816
Extending him was moronic in the first place.
Ducks already had Fowler, Lindholm, Vatanen, Despres, and Theodore and Montour as prospects. I understand trading for him just as a stop gap, but they really should not have sign him on for more years.
Ducks already had Fowler, Lindholm, Vatanen, Despres, and Theodore and Montour as prospects. I understand trading for him just as a stop gap, but they really should not have sign him on for more years.
Last edited:
The Mighty Duck Man
R-E-L-A-X
Actually it is against the rules. Can't reacquire a guy you trade after Jan 1 for at least a year IIRC.
Agreed. Apparently he wouldn't waive hit NTC with Vancouver unless he had an agreement with new for an extension. Still, beyond asinine move by our GM. Never mind that we could of had Beaucemin at nearly same price and term. Plus the NMC. He was smoking some strong stuff that day.
Finnish your Czech
J'aime Les offres hostiles
If he gets bought out, he'll lose some money. Doubt he'd get that much as a UFA in 2017.
You could basically just tell Bieksa to change his NMC to a full NTC in 16-17 (but not 17-18), and in exchange they won't buyout his contract.
It's a pretty small price to pay to ensure you stay on the team and get your full contract.
Kamiccolo
Truly wonderful, the mind of a child is.
Did you consider that the team getting him loses a player they would normally protect to upgrade from a 5th to a 4th?
Blue Goose
Registered User
Seems simple to me:
- After this coming season, ask Bieksa to waive his NMC for the Expansion Draft, so they can protect Fowler, Lindholm and Vatanen.
- Then, offer a 5th/6th rd pick to Vegas to NOT select Bieksa. They'd probably be better served taking Manson or Despres anyway, but it would be a nice gesture by Bob Murray.
Easy peasy.
Sojourn
Registered User
- Nov 1, 2006
- 50,523
- 9,377
Thanks for making me laugh.
I don't think Vegas needs to be enticed out of taking Bieksa. I'm pretty sure Anaheim will have other exposed players they'd prefer to have. Younger ones. Ones with more upside and/or more value as trade chips.
LT
Global Moderator
- Jul 23, 2010
- 42,475
- 14,152
You won't be able to reacquire players you traded away until after the expansion draft. I don't remember when that starts, though.
