HF Habs: - Trade Proposal Thread: From Here to Free Agency | Page 373 | HFBoards - NHL Message Board and Forum for National Hockey League
Toggle sidebar

HF Habs: Trade Proposal Thread: From Here to Free Agency

  • If you are having issues logging in, we have found opening the log in page in a new tab/window rather than using the pop out should resolve these issues. We are working to get this resolved and thank you for patience.
  • Due to the increased volume of league transactions, the Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk section is temporarily restricted to where threads may only be started by moderators and sponsors. We anticipate that this restriction will be lifted some time after the first round of the draft.
Apoplectic Habs Fan said:
Well its not a lot but on a tire fire like the Leafs, he did something right

Silly roll eyes shows level here these days in the panic of FOMO
Click to expand...
I am not panicking at all actually. I am just reading through all you people panicking because there hasn't been a Habs trade yet and bringing up Carlo like he is going to fix our issue is laughable at best. The guy is big but is soft as baby poop.
 
Reality is simple. Hugo MO seems to be one massive trade each year btw Draft-deadline.
He's going after a 2C, and making it work.
2W & 2RHD can wait.

My belief remains: there are only two assets that will acquire a 2C (1ab) wirthy of a fit within our core: Larkin, Thomas, EP40 (25% retained)

To get any of these guys, Hage + 1st at minimum is all but gone, and rightfully so.

And i will celebrate once he nails down one of these guys. They are all perfect fir our top 6.

The remainder can be developed or added later. But 2C is desperation level. One if the reasons Knies failure was a blessing in disguise.
 
MSLs Parabols said:
His hit totals is not so bad historically. Last year was an outlier which suggests me he played banged up.

What makes him so attractive to me is his 1 year of contract remaining at a mere 4M.
Click to expand...
He shouldnt cost much, or a week ago I thought he wouldnt.

If he doesnt work out, they can let him walk, or even when/if they make a deal at the deadline send him as part of it.

Would much prefer he came with Knies, though
 
JoelWarlord said:
No it's not. It's a clause in a contract that says the team can not trade, waive, assign the player to the minors without his permission. It has never been assurance that the player will not ask for a trade.
Click to expand...
A NMC is a clause that says that team can't trade a player or demote a player. The player can waive that clause for a specific team, a list of teams, or completely. If I were the NHL I would stop these types of controlled waives and a say a waive is all or nothing. Simple really.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Galaxydoggystyle
ExpatHabs said:
>>A NMC is an assurance that the player won’t be moved for both parties.
Well... that's not correct. It's the protection the player has against his contract being loaned to the AHL. And a NTC is the right the player has against his contract being traded within the NHL. It doesn't apply to both parties equally.

>I> think that breaking a contract should have consequences for the party asking to break it.
1. Breaking a contract is grounds for suspension, fines, termination, and penalties.
2. Asking to break a contract is bogus -- NHL contracts cannot be broken without suspension, fines, termination, and penalties.
3. Asking for a trade does not break a contract in any way.
4. Usually contracts have consequences defined in them, as far as we know there are no terms to reprimand/punish players for requesting trades in the CBA and it's highly unlikely there will be in the next one (because it's not reasonable)

>I> think less players would ask for it to be waved if they became less in control of their fates.
The whole point of a NTC is to have control of one's fate. They usually give up a lot of cash to have this control. Being able to control where you get traded to is very much part of the NTC.

>>But as of now, teams that are attractive destinations can maintain their power by not having to give as much in a trade since the team being “forced” to tradethe player has limited options. I use forces since a request for a trade must be responded to as an unhappy player is rarely good for team spirit.
You're getting to the point here. There is no mechanism that forces a team to trade a player. Not one.

Teams trade players only when the team decides. Having an unhappy player seems like bad vibes but take a step back and ask: how many players are unhappy with their coach or their gm or their team and just have to suck it up and get to work? Tons of them!
Click to expand...
My understand is that there is a no trade clause, where a player can still be demoted. And a no movement clause where a player cannot be traded or demoted.

"A Player with a No-Movement Clause cannot be loaned to the minor leagues or transferred, claimed on waivers or traded without the Player's consent."

A player has the right to waive the clause but it is a controlled by the player how much they may waive the clause (1 team or more).

If I were the NHL I would say that this flexibility is illegal, and it is all or nothing if the player requests it. If a team requests it, I would allow the player to negotiate under what terms.

I think the origins of the NMC is to have certainty. You can buy a house, your spouse can get a job, your kids can go to a specific school. It was designed for stability and so that a player isn't whisked across the continent overnight. But now it is being used to strong arm a team and weaken a team's trading strength. I don't think either of us can get into the heads of the original discussion on this topic, but feel free to quote the genesis of this clause at its inception.

Yes, the forcing I guess is more the limiting of options. They could have kept Brady and he just wouldn't have re-signed with them.

This is an idea I feel is good. I don't feel we need to argue a difference of what each of us may feel is good.
 
Let me get this straight. Allegedly, we have/had Z on the table + our draft pick + another prospect/player for Knies.

Yet, a 4th overall pick in a weak draft, where, according to some of his biggest fans, you won’t be able to pick a better player than Z, would do the trick?

If a team that is not tanking prefers an unknown pick (who would be available come 4th) to Z, either their GM is a complete incompetent or our fanbase’s evaluation of Z (or Hage for that matter) is ridiculously too high.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SlyWalker, Gustave, HitHard and 2 others
Some people are willing to do anything for a trade just for the sake of doing a trade. Im perfectly fine even tho I want a trade to wait it out instead of massively overpaying or getting a guy we really dont need. While I do have Hage OR Zar on the table I ain't going to gut what we have to get a player that isnt exactly what we need.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Milhouse40, sandviper, Jaynki and 1 other person
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

  • ... and 36 more.
    • Total: 199 (members: 140, guests: 59)

    Latest posts

    Ad

    Ad

    Top Bottom