Huckleberry Posted March 18, 2016 Report Share Posted March 18, 2016 If NMC are between the team and the player couldn't the league overrule the clause for the purposes of expansion? Technically the team isn't moving the player, the league is. There's most likely language written into the clause in this event but it makes an interesting question none the less. Problem is the league and nhlpa didn't include the NMC/NTC and expansion in the last CBA. I think they are affraid if they do this they might face going to court on each case and lose. That would really screw up the next season :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted March 18, 2016 Report Share Posted March 18, 2016 (edited) A one team expansion draft won't be that much of a problem. The worst the Sabres will be losing is a Larsson or a Foligno or a Pysyk and they might be able to trade guys like that before losing them for nothing. The new teams will have to get to the floor and it will be all about compromise. There will be a million (OK 30) side deals going on. Think of deals like you take Matt Moulson and we will give you a second rounder. Take Franson and we will give you Eric Cornel. Isn't pretty much the worst case scenario we protect Lehner, Kane, ROR, Risto, Bogo, Gorges and three of Pysyk, McCabe, Larsson Foligno Ennis Zemgus or any new acquisitions we sign this summer? We only lose one and most other teams will be losing similar caliber players to us. We also get the bonus of being able to hide our two most valuable forwards because they are so young. It's not going to be so bad. Edited March 18, 2016 by dudacek Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ducky Posted March 18, 2016 Report Share Posted March 18, 2016 (edited) I just read today that if a player is traded before his NTC or NMC kicks in, the team he is going to doesn't have to honor the clause. Why would a team honor it? I think that Myers and Bogo don't have a NMC any more. i don't like these clauses to begin with but I can see why they are there. Edited March 18, 2016 by Ducky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trettioåtta Posted March 19, 2016 Report Share Posted March 19, 2016 I just read today that if a player is traded before his NTC or NMC kicks in, the team he is going to doesn't have to honor the clause. Why would a team honor it? I think that Myers and Bogo don't have a NMC any more. i don't like these clauses to begin with but I can see why they are there. Surely it is hard coded into the contract? I.e. after July 1st 2017 a full NMC clause comes into effect. That can't be disputed, surely? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattPie Posted March 19, 2016 Report Share Posted March 19, 2016 Surely it is hard coded into the contract? I.e. after July 1st 2017 a full NMC clause comes into effect. That can't be disputed, surely? It would think it would be too. Maybe a better question: when a player has an NMC and then allows a trade, the language is usually "waive their NMC". Is that a permanent waive or just for that trade? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ducky Posted March 19, 2016 Report Share Posted March 19, 2016 From the CBA... 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. I can't think of a reason the acquiring club would honor the NTS or NMC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattPie Posted March 21, 2016 Report Share Posted March 21, 2016 From the CBA... 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. I can't think of a reason the acquiring club would honor the NTS or NMC. Interesting. I can't think of too many examples of this being applied though; how many instances are there (if I'm reading this right) where the player signs a contract during the last year of his existing deal, but then is traded before the new contract takes effect (July 1st, give or take)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted March 21, 2016 Report Share Posted March 21, 2016 I think contracts are often set up in way that the no-movement clause doesn't kick in for a few years. I believe Myers and Bogo both signed deals like that. Might be tied to when their UFA years would have started but no idea if that is a CBA thing or just something that was negotiated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ducky Posted March 21, 2016 Report Share Posted March 21, 2016 Interesting. I can't think of too many examples of this being applied though; how many instances are there (if I'm reading this right) where the player signs a contract during the last year of his existing deal, but then is traded before the new contract takes effect (July 1st, give or take)? You have misread it. For instance, Myers signed a deal that said beginning July1, 2016, he will have a NMC.....so did Bogo actually....they were traded before the NMC cut in so the acquiring team doesn't have to honor it and I can't think of a reason any team would. I think contracts are often set up in way that the no-movement clause doesn't kick in for a few years. I believe Myers and Bogo both signed deals like that. Might be tied to when their UFA years would have started but no idea if that is a CBA thing or just something that was negotiated. You have to be a certain age or have a certain amount of seasons before you are eligible for a NTC or a NMC... 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. 10.1 Unrestricted Free Agents . (a)Group 3 Players and Free Agents. (i) Any Player who either has seven (7) Accrued Seasons or is 27 years of age or older as of June 30 of the end of a League Year, shall, if his most recent SPC has expired, with such expiry occurring either as of June 30 of such League Year or June 30 of any prior League Year, become an Unrestricted Free Agent. Such Player shall be completely free to negotiate and sign an SPC with any Club, and any Club shall be completely free to negotiate and sign an SPC with such Player, without penalty or restriction, or being subject to any Right of First Refusal, Draft Choice Compensation or any other compensation or equalization obligation of any kind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IKnowPhysics Posted March 22, 2016 Report Share Posted March 22, 2016 Noticed that the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority has been been the primary sponsor of the NHL's Road Warrior highlights. Is there any doubt left about expansion/move to LV? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted June 1, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 1, 2016 Probably worth rebooting this with all the latest details. Might even be worth a pin until late June with the Bettman announcement that a final word should come June 22nd. Latest details: NHL BOG is expected to make their recommendation on June 22nd and we should have word then. The options are: expand to Las Vegas and Quebec City in 2017-18, expand to one of the two in 2017-18, expand to both or one during another future season, no expansion There is no longer a minimum salary required to be exposed during the expansion draft Players with NMCs are exempts from the expansion draft and will not count against your protected players Players with NTCs likely will need to be protected If a team has too many NMCs to the point where they can't expose the proper number of players they will be penalized by loss of draft picks and others Players with two years of pro experience will not need to be protected (meaning Jack and Sam are exempt if it's in 2017-18) Reports out there indicate just Las Vegas in 2017-18 is likely Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huckleberry Posted June 1, 2016 Report Share Posted June 1, 2016 Wonder what name they'll choose for the las vegas team. Will probably be something cheesy. Read they already have 14.000 season ticketholders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted June 1, 2016 Report Share Posted June 1, 2016 Las Vegas Huckleberries sounds good to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted June 1, 2016 Report Share Posted June 1, 2016 Las Vegas Huckleberries sounds good to me. My preference is still for the "Las Vegas Lines" which works on several levels but has ZERO % chance of being chosen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted June 2, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 2, 2016 I think they end up being named the Las Vegas Knights which is the preference of the owner. He said he plans on holding a team naming contest, but I feel like it'll be rigged. The colors are already decided as black, silver and gold. The Knights, especially if predominantly black, will be too close the the Kings for me. I like a reference to Vegas' lifestyle but it'll be tough to do so without it being too inappropriate. Maybe just the Las Vegas Nights? Fun fact: the winning name of the San Jose franchise's naming contest was the San Jose Blades but it was also the name of a local gang so they went with Sharks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted June 2, 2016 Report Share Posted June 2, 2016 The Sabres were almost the Mugwumps. Well, not almost. Someone entered that name in the contest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted June 2, 2016 Report Share Posted June 2, 2016 The Sabres were almost the Mugwumps. Well, not almost. Someone entered that name in the contest. Well, if Seymour & Norty were ALMOST on acid; the Sabres could've ALMOST been the Mugwumps. ;) Hey Norty, why's everything SOOOOOOO greeeen? Don't know man. But here's a GREAT entry. They say it's "Buffalo Stanley Cup Champions" spelled backwards. Snoopmuch Puck Lumpfel Olaf Fub? No man, that's not it. It's Mugwump. Wow. That's it man. Mugwumps. That's deep man. Yeah, man. Hey, why are you smoking my polo mallet man? :p Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PASabreFan Posted June 2, 2016 Report Share Posted June 2, 2016 The Buffalo Knoxen. Would have been one of the all time great team names. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted June 2, 2016 Report Share Posted June 2, 2016 My preference is still for the "Las Vegas Lines" which works on several levels but has ZERO % chance of being chosen. That's actually pretty good. The ECHL team was the Wranglers. I guess they are dumping that name. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted June 2, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 2, 2016 From Chris Johnston: Hearing the executive committee of the NHL's board of governors will meet Tuesday in NYC. A recommendation on expansion is expected there. Sounds like the recommendation is coming sooner than expected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted June 5, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 5, 2016 I'm stealing JJ's thunder here but wanted to make sure this was in the relevant thread since it's a question many have wondered: it sounds like NMCs are REQUIRED to be protected meaning they CAN'T be exposed but MUST be one of the players you proect. http://nypost.com/2016/06/04/how-nhls-mad-parity-quest-hurts-players-wallets-ambitious-teams/ NY Post also says Vegas is definitely happening for 2017-18. Contracts expiring after this coming season still need to be protected in the draft (meaning the Coyotoes, as JJ pointed out, will have to protect Chris Pronger). This is GREAT news for those hoping the Red Wings don't get Stamkos because it's going to make it VERY hard to deal Datsyuk's contract knowing you'll have to protect him regardless of his retirement and expiring contract status. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildCard Posted June 5, 2016 Report Share Posted June 5, 2016 I'm stealing JJ's thunder here but wanted to make sure this was in the relevant thread since it's a question many have wondered: it sounds like NMCs are REQUIRED to be protected meaning they CAN'T be exposed but MUST be one of the players you proect. http://nypost.com/2016/06/04/how-nhls-mad-parity-quest-hurts-players-wallets-ambitious-teams/ NY Post also says Vegas is definitely happening for 2017-18. Contracts expiring after this coming season still need to be protected in the draft (meaning the Coyotoes, as JJ pointed out, will have to protect Chris Pronger). This is GREAT news for those hoping the Red Wings don't get Stamkos because it's going to make it VERY hard to deal Datsyuk's contract knowing you'll have to protect him regardless of his retirement and expiring contract status. Damn, there goes my prediction Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted June 5, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 5, 2016 So, right now, our protected players would probably be: O'Reilly (required), Kane, Girgensons, Ennis, Larsson, Foligno Bogo, Risto, McCabe (could see Pysyk instead of Bogo) Lehner So we can acquire two forwards with no worry (exposing Foligno and/or Larsson wouldn't be bad at all). Another dman wouldn't be much of a worry either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brawndo Posted June 6, 2016 Report Share Posted June 6, 2016 From Jimmy Murphy Spoke to two NHL executives today that believe the Carolina Hurricanes could be relocated to Las Vegas & expansion put on hold for now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted June 6, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 6, 2016 There's just no way they'll have an answer to that by the time a recommendation is made (in fact, a recommendation is expected to be made tomorrow). The Hurricanes owner is refusing to sell to anybody with the intention to move it and also is requiring that whoever buys the team allows him to maintain control. That's highly unlikely and the solution is far away. I don't think the sources of that report know what they're talking about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.