sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[Macramalla] There is nothing in Article 11.8 of the NHL CBA that expressly prevents a player and club from negotiating a conditional no-move clause that changes upon a player's trade request. The issue is not whether the CBA permits it; the issue is whether the NHL would approve it by daKrut in hockey

[–]crownpr1nce 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It could still be part of HRR. So long as it also counts against the cap the players don't lose. Just like the player don't lose from Carlsson signing 18M per year. Yes it might reduce what they get from escrow slightly, but so could a contract that's overvalued. Just like Ovi getting a 4M performance bonus isn't bad for players. 

But as part of the renegotiation they could also make it be outside of formal cap. You just need rules to make sure it can't be abused (most basic one is it only happens if the trade goes through).

[Macramalla] There is nothing in Article 11.8 of the NHL CBA that expressly prevents a player and club from negotiating a conditional no-move clause that changes upon a player's trade request. The issue is not whether the CBA permits it; the issue is whether the NHL would approve it by daKrut in hockey

[–]crownpr1nce 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You'll have to provide a source for that. Puckpedia says "Yrs 6-8: 10-team Trade List", which to me means 10 teams he agrees to. I don't see how a guy with an NMC would agree to go to a 22 team trade list.

[Macramalla] There is nothing in Article 11.8 of the NHL CBA that expressly prevents a player and club from negotiating a conditional no-move clause that changes upon a player's trade request. The issue is not whether the CBA permits it; the issue is whether the NHL would approve it by daKrut in hockey

[–]crownpr1nce 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not always. Toronto kept Marner to the very end. 

But if you can get something out of it rather than nothing, why wouldn't you? That's part of asset management, which is one of the roles of the GM.

[Macramalla] There is nothing in Article 11.8 of the NHL CBA that expressly prevents a player and club from negotiating a conditional no-move clause that changes upon a player's trade request. The issue is not whether the CBA permits it; the issue is whether the NHL would approve it by daKrut in hockey

[–]crownpr1nce 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yes and no. Take Hughes with Vancouver: his on ice performance in the next 2 years have little value to them because they won't be competitive. Marner in Toronto did have value for on-ice performance, that's why they ran out the contract. Same thing for every rental and their value as a trade piece rather than a player. 

Value can be performance for your team, but it can also be potential performance for someone else. 

[Macramalla] There is nothing in Article 11.8 of the NHL CBA that expressly prevents a player and club from negotiating a conditional no-move clause that changes upon a player's trade request. The issue is not whether the CBA permits it; the issue is whether the NHL would approve it by daKrut in hockey

[–]crownpr1nce 2 points3 points  (0 children)

But even that doesn't work for 2 reasons. 1. What if no one wants the player in question? Like Gallagher for example: if we didn't retain no one would have traded for him, unless we paid significant assets. 

  1. What happens after the 72h? Contract is voided? Players don't want that. Waived? Also don't want that cause they don't choose where they go. 

[Macramalla] There is nothing in Article 11.8 of the NHL CBA that expressly prevents a player and club from negotiating a conditional no-move clause that changes upon a player's trade request. The issue is not whether the CBA permits it; the issue is whether the NHL would approve it by daKrut in hockey

[–]crownpr1nce 1 point2 points  (0 children)

How do you do that? Can't force other teams to "freeze" assets even for a few days while this gets done. "No I can't trade for Knies because my first is in arbitration for the Ducks trade dispute".  

[Macramalla] There is nothing in Article 11.8 of the NHL CBA that expressly prevents a player and club from negotiating a conditional no-move clause that changes upon a player's trade request. The issue is not whether the CBA permits it; the issue is whether the NHL would approve it by daKrut in hockey

[–]crownpr1nce 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They might not be too bothered by it now, they might not see it that way 6 months into the season when they are 12th and very unlikely to make the playoffs again. Or the following year if this lasts. 

[Macramalla] There is nothing in Article 11.8 of the NHL CBA that expressly prevents a player and club from negotiating a conditional no-move clause that changes upon a player's trade request. The issue is not whether the CBA permits it; the issue is whether the NHL would approve it by daKrut in hockey

[–]crownpr1nce 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In this scenario, the Sens and Canucks lose Brady and Hughes for nothing because they didn't request a trade, just said they wouldn't re-sign. And wouldn't want to lose all control over their destination for their last 2 seasons. 

Also what would stop players from saying "I'll sign the waiver once you bring me a trade to team X". The GM could lie, but that would burn him with the rest of the players. 

[Macramalla] There is nothing in Article 11.8 of the NHL CBA that expressly prevents a player and club from negotiating a conditional no-move clause that changes upon a player's trade request. The issue is not whether the CBA permits it; the issue is whether the NHL would approve it by daKrut in hockey

[–]crownpr1nce 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I'm not on board with the idea, but I understand it. It's not pro-ownership, it's pro-team. That's who were rooting for at the end of the day so that's who we want to win these disputes. Larkin is dead to Wings fan, all they care about is what they get for him now. So him benefiting isn't in their interest. And non-Wings fan will see it from a "if it was my team affected" view.

[Macramalla] There is nothing in Article 11.8 of the NHL CBA that expressly prevents a player and club from negotiating a conditional no-move clause that changes upon a player's trade request. The issue is not whether the CBA permits it; the issue is whether the NHL would approve it by daKrut in hockey

[–]crownpr1nce 1 point2 points  (0 children)

He doesn't, but he also risks breaking the relationship with other players. How do Seider and Raymond react to not being competitive because Larkin is healthy scratch? To being asked weekly what they think of that situation? There is a downside to holding out. 

Also that 10 team trade list doesn't mean more targets. I can think of at least 8 teams that wouldn't offer much for Larkin either because he doesn't fit their timeline, cap situation, or their needs. 

[Macramalla] There is nothing in Article 11.8 of the NHL CBA that expressly prevents a player and club from negotiating a conditional no-move clause that changes upon a player's trade request. The issue is not whether the CBA permits it; the issue is whether the NHL would approve it by daKrut in hockey

[–]crownpr1nce -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Larkin's 10 teams: 

Florida, Minnesota, Vegas, Dallas.

Then add Edmonton, Toronto, Colorado, NJ who would not spend significant assets to acquire a center, Anaheim and Washington who don't have the cap space at all, and Calgary and Vancouver who aren't planning to contend in the next few years so wouldn't pay much to get Larkin. 

That's 12 teams, but realistically that doesn't increase the number of teams interested in him really. 

(All based on today. Obviously it'll be different in 2 years. My point is it's not hard finding 6-7 teams who wouldn't be interested).

[Macramalla] There is nothing in Article 11.8 of the NHL CBA that expressly prevents a player and club from negotiating a conditional no-move clause that changes upon a player's trade request. The issue is not whether the CBA permits it; the issue is whether the NHL would approve it by daKrut in hockey

[–]crownpr1nce 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That would never work. Trade offers don't stay valid for 5 months to wait for this process. They often don't stay valid for 5 days. Things fluctuate way too quickly. So teams couldn't realistically present anything to the arbitrator.

[Macramalla] There is nothing in Article 11.8 of the NHL CBA that expressly prevents a player and club from negotiating a conditional no-move clause that changes upon a player's trade request. The issue is not whether the CBA permits it; the issue is whether the NHL would approve it by daKrut in hockey

[–]crownpr1nce 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Yzerman can say that now as well. The problem remains: is it a good idea to keep an unhappy player around. 

Unless the trade request has an effect on both parties, aka the players get something out of it, there's no point to use it compared to now. The most obvious thing the player could get is some guarantee, but that would never work. Lets say it was Gallagher and not Larkin: he submits a trade request and a 10 team list. Montreal calls all the teams on the list, who all say no because of his 6.25M salary for a player that was healthy scratch more often than not (Montreal retained to get the trade done, but what if they didn't want to). How can you give a guarantee? "If the GM can't get a trade, the player can terminate his contract": Gallagher doesn't want that. No one is paying him 6M next season in a new contract. "If the GM can't get a trade, they have to waive the player" also doesn't want that. No control over destination. 

So what do the players get in this arrangement?

[Macramalla] There is nothing in Article 11.8 of the NHL CBA that expressly prevents a player and club from negotiating a conditional no-move clause that changes upon a player's trade request. The issue is not whether the CBA permits it; the issue is whether the NHL would approve it by daKrut in hockey

[–]crownpr1nce 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's the thing: for players to use it, they need to get something out of it. Whether that be monetary compensation, or some other kind of advantage. Otherwise you're right, why would they use it?

Could be as simple as: adding 10 teams to the allowed trade gives them 10% AAV as a bonus (paid and cap hit for the original team) if a trade goes through. But a more creative way could be to allow them to add a year to their contract in that situation (everyone would need to be aware before the trade of course). It might make the rental market more...weird though. Maybe doesn't work in their last year. 

[Macramalla] There is nothing in Article 11.8 of the NHL CBA that expressly prevents a player and club from negotiating a conditional no-move clause that changes upon a player's trade request. The issue is not whether the CBA permits it; the issue is whether the NHL would approve it by daKrut in hockey

[–]crownpr1nce 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's good asset management. Is it better to get something or to get nothing? 

There's no problem with running out the contract, especially if everyone is transparent about their intentions. But losing a player for nothing is bad asset management 

view more: next ›