Trade calls didn't exist until Quebec tried to trade Lindros to 2 different teams at the same time. Much like that situation, the league will likely put something in place to prevent this from ever happening again.
Vegas / Anaheim voided Dadonov trade (upd: Ottawa forfeits 1st 24-26)
- Thread starter LadyStanley
- Start date
CupInSIX
My cap runneth over
mysterman2
Registered User
LastWordArmy
Registered User
The fact that this is taking so long while games are being played makes the league look incompetent
royals119
Registered User
Ultimately this still makes Vegas look the worst, regardless of who had the list when. If I'm a team GM, I'm going through all my contracts (or having my assistant or lawyer do it) to check who has what kind of NTC/NMC, and verify I have their up to date list of teams well before the deadline. Even if I have no intention of making a trade, I'm still making sure I have that data about a month out, so if I get a crazy last minute offer I'm not scrambling. I'm also not going to try to be sneaky and try to trade a player to a team he doesn't want to go to, just because his paperwork isn't on file. If I somehow believe, for whatever reason, that Dadenov didn't file a list of teams, I'm still going to call him (or his agent) up and say "Hey, we have a trade offer for you, but I don't have your no-trade list. Did you file a list, or do you want to give me an updated list right now?" Even if he didn't file the list, I'm don't want to be known as the guy who does that to a player on a technicality.
I'm guessing there will be no big announcement, and Dadanov is going to remain a Golden Knight, and Vegas will have to come up with a different way to be cap compliant. Is say this because it should be obvious that a decision has already been made (it doesn't take a day and a half to go through releveant emails, so everyone knows the scoop by this time)....and.....Dadanov is not with the Ducks...so he must still be a Knight.
Yukon Joe
Registered User
One of the most basic hearsay exceptions though is a statement made by a party to litigation.
In a criminal trial if the Accused tells police "yes I did it", that statement is admissible even though it was made out of court.
But if a third party witness tells police "the Accused did it", that statement is hearsay. You need the third party witness to be in court to say what they know.
Yukon Joe
Registered User
I was thinking to myself 'surely that can't be it - you have all the Canadian teams, plus New York, maybe Boston"
But according to this 2018 post by Jason Gregor (local sports radio host), the California teams at 52.2% pay the highest tax rates outside of Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal. Even New York based teams pay (slightly) less.
Comparing NHL Player Contracts
Do you know how much income tax you pay? Have you ever sat down and ca...
oilersnation.com
Yukon Joe
Registered User
LadyStanley
Registered User
Ottawa being questioned to find where the breakdown occurred in not giving VGK the no trade list?
IMHO that's where the blame/fault lies.
IMHO that's where the blame/fault lies.
Do you have evidence that Ottawa failed to pass along the list to Vegas? Or, are you surmising since it is impossible to believe that if Vegas had it in hand, that they would make this trade?
I would think the problem probably goes:
Ottawa trades him to Vegas.
Vegas isn't careful about the details of the trade list, either because Ottawa doesn't make a big deal of it, or Vegas assumes it no longer applies.
Problems with trade to Anaheim.
I would assume Ottawa can't be at fault, since the CBA clearly indicates, as we have seen in this thread, that the NTC follows the player, and it can't the responsibility of Ottawa to make sure Vegas has the details.
Right?
LadyStanley
Registered User
But Ottawa is the only entity with the NTC list. If they don't give it to VGK, then what? VGK statements are that they believed that player had not submitted timely list and no restrictions existed. (VGK was under no obligation to re-request list as it was due before they acquired player.)
That amounts to saying something like this:
Ottawa assumed it was Vegas' responsibility to get the contract details.
Vegas assumed it was Ottawa's responsibility to fill them on NTC details.
So, poor communication on both sides.
Yeah, I could see that.
Vegas can't be faultless because no GM who is trying to be thorough let's something like that slip without asking. But, it could also be true that Ottawa had lots going on and didn't report it.
I mean, you can say, "Ottawa is the only entity with the list." But, you know that the player and his agent have it. Is Vegas' communication with its players so poor that they can't verify something like that? At worst, that will damage the future of the Vegas franchise in the eyes of agents and players.
Yukon Joe
Registered User
Okay so this kind of analysis doesn't really apply, but just as a way of thinking about things...
Let's say you're selling your house. Let's say your house also has a huge leak in the basement. If that leak is obvious it is called a 'patent defect'. It should be obvious to the buyer that the leak exists and the seller has no duty to disclose.
But what if the water leak isn't obvious (because you put up fresh drywall to cover it up)? This is then called a 'latent defect'. If the seller doesn't disclose the existence of a latent defect the buyer can sue and win damages.
So is Dadonov's NTC a patent or latent defect? On the one hand it's mentioned right in his player contract (and although unofficial, on capfriendly and the like), which points to it being patent. On the other hand the exact teams on the list are not known, which points to it being latent.
As mentioned, this is just a way of thinking of the problem. Legally speaking it's all adjudicated by the CBA and league bylaws, not by common law property law principles.
But remember in all of this Dadonov is the innocent party - he submitted his list as he was supposed to. So even if it was Ottawa's mistake how can he beforced to be traded to a team on his no trade list when he has done nothing wrong?
Yukon Joe
Registered User
Pretty sure that Vegas talking with Dadonov's agent before the trade is made would be tampering.
Edit: nevermind, forgot the sequence of events. Vegas had Dadonov for months.
TSN Article:
If this series of events is accurate, and it would certainly explain Vegas' actions, then it's hard to blame anyone other then the Sens. There's still an argument to be made that Vegas should absolutely confirm NTC status as the acquiring team, and certainly this mistake will probably never happen again in the NHL, but if one were assigning levels of blame....
Interested to read the statement from NHL and all the other relevant parties whenever it all shakes loose.
Last edited:
mouser
Business of Hockey
Even if Ottawa misrepresented something, Vegas had 8 months to do some due dilligence to verify the NTC wasn't valid. Such as a simple call to Dadonov's agent.
The whole thing comes off as incompetent.
mouser
Business of Hockey
For the CBA afficionados out there, here is the ByLaw that bars players traded after the deadline from playing in any more regular season and post season games that season.
You may say to yourself, this rule must be obsolete because it has so much outdated information in. That would be incorrect.
Q: Why didn't the NHL update this By-Law with the newer language and changes?
A: This By-Law predates collective bargaining between the NHL and PA. Any changes to it would require collective bargaining with the PA. Rather then make changes in the By-Law itself the two parties instead put those changes into the CBA or other side agreements.
Since the By-Law was originally written:
- The trade deadline was changed from 26 days to 40 days
- Transactions go to New York, not Montreal now
- The "League Schedule of Championship Games" is now referred to as the Regular Season
However there is no change in the CBA making players transferred from one Reserve List to another after the deadline now eligible to play regular season games. Therefore this ancient By-Law is still in effect. Going by the language I'd assume it's at least 40 years old, possibly much older.
Large chunks of the By-Laws have been invalidated or replaced by newer CBA rules. However many of them still remain in effect, like this one. Another notable set of By-Law rules that still remain in effect are the Retirement List rules. These rules came up a lot during the whole Kovalchuk retirement/return to play discussion.
Finally: should be pointed out that this rule doesn't say Traded player, it says player transfersed from one Reserve List to another. This means the rule would apply to:
- Players under contract traded after the deadline
- Players claimed on waivers after the deadline
- Unsigned draft pick rights traded after the deadline
- Restricted free agent rights traded after the deadline
You may say to yourself, this rule must be obsolete because it has so much outdated information in. That would be incorrect.
Q: Why didn't the NHL update this By-Law with the newer language and changes?
A: This By-Law predates collective bargaining between the NHL and PA. Any changes to it would require collective bargaining with the PA. Rather then make changes in the By-Law itself the two parties instead put those changes into the CBA or other side agreements.
Since the By-Law was originally written:
- The trade deadline was changed from 26 days to 40 days
- Transactions go to New York, not Montreal now
- The "League Schedule of Championship Games" is now referred to as the Regular Season
However there is no change in the CBA making players transferred from one Reserve List to another after the deadline now eligible to play regular season games. Therefore this ancient By-Law is still in effect. Going by the language I'd assume it's at least 40 years old, possibly much older.
Large chunks of the By-Laws have been invalidated or replaced by newer CBA rules. However many of them still remain in effect, like this one. Another notable set of By-Law rules that still remain in effect are the Retirement List rules. These rules came up a lot during the whole Kovalchuk retirement/return to play discussion.
Finally: should be pointed out that this rule doesn't say Traded player, it says player transfersed from one Reserve List to another. This means the rule would apply to:
- Players under contract traded after the deadline
- Players claimed on waivers after the deadline
- Unsigned draft pick rights traded after the deadline
- Restricted free agent rights traded after the deadline
When you acquire a player you should verify what the conditions of his contract are.
Yukon Joe
Registered User
According to VGK they did - OTT said Dadonov had not submitted his 10-team list in time.
that's not up to the acquiring team to do that. Its always up to the team that is trading the player. Trouble is Vegas should been made aware of the no trade list via the trade from Ottawa which did not happen... Not even the NHL knew about it.
While I agree Vegas probably should've done more due diligence, based on Friedman's reporting it appears Ottawa either outright lied to Vegas or was incorrect that Dadonov had not submitted his no-trade list.
Vegas claims that Ottawa told them Dadonov did not submit a no-trade list prior to July 1st, which would nullify his NTC for the season. Did Ottawa...just forget he had an NTC?
