Friedman: Hartnell agreed to waive No move clause

[JacketsDavid]

I don't think Philly is happy with the trade at all. Umby has basically given the Flyers nothing since the trade and they still have another year of him which they will likely have to buy out. This trade ended up being one of the more lop-sided in recent history.

So how did it help the Jackets? Gave them a productive player but team is still near bottom.

if the Jackets were better in standing I agree it would be lopsided, but it didn't make the team better and we're stuck with longer contract.

Put it this way if the deal never happened:
Where would Philly be with 3 years of Hartsy left? Likely still a bad team.
Where would the CBJ be? Likely a bad team with 1 year of Umby left.
So not sure how that's a win - unless we can somehow flip Hartsy for something great in a trade.

 

[Nanabijou]

So how did it help the Jackets? Gave them a productive player but team is still near bottom.

if the Jackets were better in standing I agree it would be lopsided, but it didn't make the team better and we're stuck with longer contract.

Put it this way if the deal never happened:
Where would Philly be with 3 years of Hartsy left? Likely still a bad team.
Where would the CBJ be? Likely a bad team with 1 year of Umby left.
So not sure how that's a win - unless we can somehow flip Hartsy for something great in a trade.

This smacks of "the team sucked, therefore all players on the team must suck" philosophy. Hartnell is still an asset while Umberger is not. The final accounting on this deal is not done.

So, basically you are saying that you would be fine if we traded Hartnell back to Philly for Umberger last summer or right now? If so, then I guess we really do disagree and we'll leave it at that.

 

[JacketsDavid]

This smacks of "the team sucked, therefore all players on the team must suck" philosophy. Hartnell is still an asset while Umberger is not. The final accounting on this deal is not done.

So, basically you are saying that you would be fine if we traded Hartnell back to Philly for Umberger last summer or right now? If so, then I guess we really do disagree and we'll leave it at that.

I guess we do disagree.

We traded for Hartsy to become a better team. We have not.
Philly traded Hartsy to get rid of a long-term contract while they started to rebuild. Yes they expected Umby to be better but the team is where they expected to be.

It's not Hartsy's fault the team is where it is (I want to be clear about that).
Again I hope we can trade Hartsy to bring back a valuable asset, but my guess is we'll take on an Umby like contract (1 year left) to get rid of him. Again I hope I'm wrong, but length of his deal makes him tough to move.

 

[Inquiring Minds]

From the expansion draft thread, it is said that any player with NMC has to be protected. Does that still hold true if the player waives said clause?
Does that enter into the reasoning for this move? Is Hartnell helping the CBJ by not holding them to the NMC - they don't need to protect him? Not sure how that benefits Hartsy, but it sure would help the Jackets.

 

[JacketsDavid]

From the expansion draft thread, it is said that any player with NMC has to be protected. Does that still hold true if the player waives said clause?
Does that enter into the reasoning for this move? Is Hartnell helping the CBJ by not holding them to the NMC - they don't need to protect him? Not sure how that benefits Hartsy, but it sure would help the Jackets.

In recent note that went out to teams (under expansion draft thread I think) it says teams can ask players to waive NMC. So that is a very good thing for CBJ.

 

[major major]

Only by injury. No I don't think we're going to see the #3 pick, Bork, and Anderson make the team as an example. Party because of age and experience, also because they would actually have to get rid of another contract. Now as the season goes on we'll see more on the team because of injuries.

Yes, we get in love with our prospect. Even more so now that the farm team is doing well.

This "On the verge of a Tampa breakthrough" stuff isn't too compelling to be honest.

The team isn't just going to have 3 forward roster spots reserved for farm system forwards going into camp. That would be horribly poor planning. We'll probably have one; two if you consider moving one of our other forwards to the #13 spot. On defense we'll probably have the top six set with Werenski making the team and pushing a Golo, as an example, to the #7 slot.

Reserved for rookies? That's a straw man. No one's doing that. I expect the rookies i mentioned to steal the jobs because they're markedly better.

It seems like you're not actually evaluating players and just using a "that's too many rookies" heuristic.

 

[major major]

So how did it help the Jackets? Gave them a productive player but team is still near bottom.

if the Jackets were better in standing I agree it would be lopsided, but it didn't make the team better and we're stuck with longer contract.

Put it this way if the deal never happened:
Where would Philly be with 3 years of Hartsy left? Likely still a bad team.
Where would the CBJ be? Likely a bad team with 1 year of Umby left.
So not sure how that's a win - unless we can somehow flip Hartsy for something great in a trade.

We've had this discussion before. By definition every trade that we made that made the team better was bad because the team still wasn't very good. And according to some bad is good because it sometimes means better draft picks. You can't evaluate trades that way unless you're in a hardcore rebuild. The point has to be to make the team better and Hartsy did that unquestionably. You go from his 110 pts to Umbergers 30 (?), and you can subtract a lot of wins from the last two years.

 

[JacketsDavid]

We've had this discussion before. By definition every trade that we made that made the team better was bad because the team still wasn't very good. And according to some bad is good because it sometimes means better draft picks. You can't evaluate trades that way unless you're in a hardcore rebuild. The point has to be to make the team better and Hartsy did that unquestionably. You go from his 110 pts to Umbergers 30 (?), and you can subtract a lot of wins from the last two years.

Well Philly was in a hard core rebuild - hence the reason they made the trade. So you can evaluate from their side. From the CBJ side we went from 93 points, acquired Hartnell and went to 89 and 76 points. Again not because of Hartnell but he didn't improve the team where the CBJ FO thought he would.

Guess bottom line we'll need to see what happens to Hartnell. Again my guess is we trade him for a Umby like player (1-2 years left and bottom 6 forward or 3rd pairing dman) with similar dollars on contract. Now if Hartnell brings us a valuable piece then long-term it may work out.

 

[major major]

Well Philly was in a hard core rebuild - hence the reason they made the trade. So you can evaluate from their side.

The Flyers are definitely retooling (not rebuilding). They thought they weren't giving up much in terms of production. Go back and look at their public statements at the time, and what all of their fans said. You can also ask them now if they'd rather have had Hartnell for their playoff run (a good clue to you that they're not rebuilding). They were epically, and embarrassingly, wrong about the drop off in production.

From the CBJ side we went from 93 points, acquired Hartnell and went to 89 and 76 points. Again not because of Hartnell but he didn't improve the team where the CBJ FO thought he would.

I'm absolutely baffled by your attempt at logic.

You can infer that going from Umberger's 30 pts to Hartnell's 110 pts (their production the last two years) gave us a significant boost in our win totals.

You can't infer from team win totals alone that an individual player didn't help the team, because everything else is changing.

 

[CBJx614]

Reserved for rookies? That's a straw man. No one's doing that. I expect the rookies i mentioned to steal the jobs because they're markedly better.

It seems like you're not actually evaluating players and just using a "that's too many rookies heuristic".

Took the words out of my mouth. Ive got a feeling Bjorkstrand, Werenski and Puljujärvi will steal jobs away at training camp.

People seem to forget how dissatisfied Torts was with a lot of players. Saying at camp hes gonna find out who really wants to be here. Hes gonna push these guys to their limits in training camp and the young guns are hungry.

 

[Jackets16]

I guess we do disagree.

We traded for Hartsy to become a better team. We have not.
Philly traded Hartsy to get rid of a long-term contract while they started to rebuild. Yes they expected Umby to be better but the team is where they expected to be.

It's not Hartsy's fault the team is where it is (I want to be clear about that).
Again I hope we can trade Hartsy to bring back a valuable asset, but my guess is we'll take on an Umby like contract (1 year left) to get rid of him. Again I hope I'm wrong, but length of his deal makes him tough to move.

So, were the Jenner and Wennberg picks bad then? I mean, they must be, since we are bad.

 

[Jackets16]

From the expansion draft thread, it is said that any player with NMC has to be protected. Does that still hold true if the player waives said clause?
Does that enter into the reasoning for this move? Is Hartnell helping the CBJ by not holding them to the NMC - they don't need to protect him? Not sure how that benefits Hartsy, but it sure would help the Jackets.

Did he waive it or just give the team a list of teams he would okay a trade too? I think he still has his NMC, but is allowing Columbus to trade him to certain teams. I have no clue, though, with this stuff.

 

[Jackets16]

Reserved for rookies? That's a straw man. No one's doing that. I expect the rookies i mentioned to steal the jobs because they're markedly better.

It seems like you're not actually evaluating players and just using a "that's too many rookies heuristic".

I also don't look at them as rookies. One, they have all played in the NHL. Two, I think they got more experience winning the AHL playoffs than some rookies do playing 10 minutes per game in the NHL.

 

[Viqsi]

So, were the Jenner and Wennberg picks bad then? I mean, they must be since we are bad.

Yep. And the Saad trade was positively disastrous, because Chicago is still good.

 

[LetsGOJackets!!]

Yep. And the Saad trade was positively disastrous, because Chicago is still good.

Yep.. dreadful trade. We trade Johansen & the Preds go to the playoffs and we go home.. another terrible terrible deal

 

[Xoggz22]

Depending on the actual details of this situation, I wonder how much his time in the press box under Torts factors into him moving on. Tyutin is another who spent time in the press box and would likely waive to be moved.

I still advocate retaining some salary on both of these guys if they are moved. I would rather a small hit for the next 2-3 years and future assets than taking back another salary. We have players pushing their way into the lineup - it woudl appear - and clearing cap space would be helpful both short and long term.

 

[Inquiring Minds]

Did he waive it or just give the team a list of teams he would okay a trade too? I think he still has his NMC, but is allowing Columbus to trade him to certain teams. I have no clue, though, with this stuff.

This is the relevant question - if he has OKed a potential trade, hasn't he changed it from a No Movement Clause, to a qualified No Trade Clause? But most important to CBJ, he is no longer required to be protected, meaning he could be exposed to the expansion and the team can protect another player.

Just wondering.

 

[Nanabijou]

This is the relevant question - if he has OKed a potential trade, hasn't he changed it from a No Movement Clause, to a qualified No Trade Clause? But most important to CBJ, he is no longer required to be protected, meaning he could be exposed to the expansion and the team can protect another player.

Just wondering.

My guess is that he has to specifically list Las Vegas as one of his OK'd destinations. But, the way the story is heating up, I'm willing to bet that he's not on the Jackets roster on opening day.

 

[SuperGenius]

So how did it help the Jackets? Gave them a productive player but team is still near bottom.

if the Jackets were better in standing I agree it would be lopsided, but it didn't make the team better and we're stuck with longer contract.

Put it this way if the deal never happened:
Where would Philly be with 3 years of Hartsy left? Likely still a bad team.
Where would the CBJ be? Likely a bad team with 1 year of Umby left.
So not sure how that's a win - unless we can somehow flip Hartsy for something great in a trade.

The net result may have been the same with Umby or Hartnell, but the CBJ certainly had a better chance to take the next step with Hartnell versus Umberger.

Though the team has had two poor seasons, the injury riddled 2014-15 campaign and the disaster in 2015-16, I don't know that we have any idea where this team truly is. Is it really a bottom five team? I don't think it is and therefore I think that not only was the ceiling higher with Hartnell but that the results were generally better with him than if Umby had been retained.

Given Umby's downward spiral, the potential for the team would have been far lower with him. The realized potential could have actually been even worse than the results with Hartnell.

This is just based on pure performance - who knows what issues there were with Umby. Remember, he wanted out and showed up out of shape two seasons in a row. This team had developed a lazy attitude and as one of the leaders, he was responsible, guilty or not. Moving him also helped the culture. We may not have seen true benefits of it in terms of playoffs, but I'm convinced this is a better team than the results. This year will be the litmus test, for sure.

 

[SuperGenius]

I think if we knew how many times players were asked for their 'list', our heads would probably spin.

That said, of course Hartnell's a goner for the reasons specified. I think he's dealt by July 1. I think it sucks, because I love the guy, but I also want the cap space. Trading him while he still has good value seems sensible to me. It wouldn't surprise me if he has 20-25 goals until the last season of his career, but it's too big of a risk for the CBJ in their situation.

 

[Jackets16]

I think if we knew how many times players were asked for their 'list', our heads would probably spin.

That said, of course Hartnell's a goner for the reasons specified. I think he's dealt by July 1. I think it sucks, because I love the guy, but I also want the cap space. Trading him while he still has good value seems sensible to me. It wouldn't surprise me if he has 20-25 goals until the last season of his career, but it's too big of a risk for the CBJ in their situation.

There is a huge difference between a player being asked for a list and a player actually giving one.

 

[Crede777]

There is a huge difference between a player being asked for a list and a player actually giving one.

I think it is semantic, but when I see a player provided the team with his list, it sounds like an understanding has been reached. When a team asks a player for his list, sounds like they are kicking him out.

 

[SuperGenius]

There is a huge difference between a player being asked for a list and a player actually giving one.

I think when asked, most players give a list. Depending on how the NMC is written, it may even already exist or is something that must be provided when requested. In other words, I think there are few situations where a player refuses to provide it, although I suppose it can happen.

This really wasn't my point, though. I'm saying it happens more than we think and often it never comes out and/or nothing happens.

 

[blahblah]

Reserved for rookies? That's a straw man. No one's doing that. I expect the rookies i mentioned to steal the jobs because they're markedly better.

It seems like you're not actually evaluating players and just using a "that's too many rookies" heuristic.

Just wow.

 

[Jackets16]

I think when asked, most players give a list. Depending on how the NMC is written, it may even already exist or is something that must be provided when requested. In other words, I think there are few situations where a player refuses to provide it, although I suppose it can happen.

This really wasn't my point, though. I'm saying it happens more than we think and often it never comes out and/or nothing happens.

I seriously doubt that. Or, if they did, they would give teams they knew they couldn't be traded too. If it happened more often, we would hear about it more often.