Rumor: Rumors and Proposals Thread | Slow days of summer
- Thread starter s7ark
- Start date
- Status
The Devils nearly had to be taken over by the NHL due to crushing debt and potential bankruptcy. Internal budgets and financial uncertainty likely had an impact on Lou's ability to construct a team.
Conte(now fired) hasn't been nearly as good as his reputation suggests he is over the last decade as well.
OilerFan4Life
Registered User
Oh sweet! At least McDavid will be safe assuming it takes place for the 2017/2018 season
McOilbleeder
We are all Kloppites
Hasn't Lou gone on record to say he doesn't believe in rebuilds?
Honestly, between this, the Babcock hire and the 1093704374 management figures (Shanny, Dubas, Hunter, Lou and Babcock), I really doubt they were ever going to rebuild.
Del Preston
Registered User
- Mar 8, 2013
- 63,171
- 78,956
Their fans and the media act like they are now guaranteed a Cup within five years. How long until we hear there is a power struggle in the front office?
joestevens29
Registered User
- Apr 30, 2009
- 53,830
- 16,924
The fact that it is Toronto I didn't see them doing much more than a one year retool. They'll be back to trying to get big fish again and will force it.
joestevens29
Registered User
- Apr 30, 2009
- 53,830
- 16,924
Someone asked gregor yesterday, I suspect he will find out for sure and let us know.
Fourier
Registered User
If I had to guess I would say that if a player had a NMC then that player would have to be on your protected list. Not sure how this would play out with a NTC.
s7ark
RIP
- Jul 3, 2003
- 27,579
- 175
As soon as the roster they have starts to bow out of the playoff race early, the finger pointing will start.
NTC shouldn't matter. It isn't a trade. I would expect NMC players to have to be on the protected list though
Samus44
Enjoy the ride.
- Aug 5, 2010
- 9,317
- 2,088
I think the fact that the NHLPA would have to approve expansion would make it possible that the NMC's wouldn't be in effect for an expansion draft, i'd imagine all NHL players not on ELC's would be eligible. It'll be interesting.
oXo Cube
Power Play Merchant
You think the NHLPA would vote in favor of NMC's being voided in regards to an expansion draft?
Fourier
Registered User
I actually think that the NHLPA will require NMC's to be honoured. I am not sure what they would negotiate for NTC's.
it is just an opinion but Global Moderator KBD209 had this to say
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1915291
Quote:
Originally Posted by ranold26 View Post
Are players with NMC/NTCs exempt from being exposed in an expansion draft?
We haven't had one since the cap came in... curious on it.
By the letter of the CBA, NTCs/NMCs have no effect on expansion drafts - an NMC only effects player movement by "Trade, Loan or Waiver claim".
Now, the NHLPA may disagree and file a grievance to force NMC players to be protected - but I would expect an arbitrator to reject that argument. Other sections of the CBA explicitly refer to an expansion draft - including $6K compensation for players moved, along with the usual reimbursements of moving costs that any traded player gets. The fact that the CBA recognizes the possibility of an expansion draft and chose not to include it in the definition of the NMC gives a strong suggestion that teams would not be forced to protect NMC players.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBA Article 11.8
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.
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1915291
Quote:
Originally Posted by ranold26 View Post
Are players with NMC/NTCs exempt from being exposed in an expansion draft?
We haven't had one since the cap came in... curious on it.
By the letter of the CBA, NTCs/NMCs have no effect on expansion drafts - an NMC only effects player movement by "Trade, Loan or Waiver claim".
Now, the NHLPA may disagree and file a grievance to force NMC players to be protected - but I would expect an arbitrator to reject that argument. Other sections of the CBA explicitly refer to an expansion draft - including $6K compensation for players moved, along with the usual reimbursements of moving costs that any traded player gets. The fact that the CBA recognizes the possibility of an expansion draft and chose not to include it in the definition of the NMC gives a strong suggestion that teams would not be forced to protect NMC players.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBA Article 11.8
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.
Just look at the Leaf's roster, it's pathetic. Even Lou couldn't turn this thing around quickly. He'll be retired before they're in the playoffs.
Leaf fans coining the term "elite management" has been one of the highlights of my time on HFBoards.
I could be wrong, but I thought the earliest expansion draft would be for the 2017/2018 season. If that's true, then Ference's contract is up anyways!
In the past only first and 2nd year players were exempt from needing a to be protected weren't they?
oXo Cube
Power Play Merchant
There has been some speculation that maybe the league might think about speeding up the process because:
A) The NHL would presumably like to be handed a billion dollars
B) There isn't really a ton of reason not to now that they only have the 2 viable options. Both Vegas and QC could easily be ready to go for 2016-17
Paralyzer
Oilers Win Cup in 2025
Bob Nicholson-Kevin lowe-Peter Chiarelli-Todd Mclellan
vs
Brendan Shanahan-Lou Lamoriello-Kyle Dubas-Mike Babcock
I take ours only because we didn't bleed as many picks and didn't overpay.
vs
Brendan Shanahan-Lou Lamoriello-Kyle Dubas-Mike Babcock
I take ours only because we didn't bleed as many picks and didn't overpay.
I think they are banking on Stamkos not resigning in Tampa and see that as their way out of the mess they are in.
Paralyzer
Oilers Win Cup in 2025
They won't get Stamkos. Just like they won't get McDavid
If that's what they are banking on, they are in for a big surprise.- Status
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
Grand Final Brisbane Lions vs Sydney Swans - MCG, MelbourneWagers: 10Staked: $10,821.00Event closes- Updated: