[News] MAF has waived his NMC for the expansion draft - Page 4 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

CKPThunder · 06-12-2017, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

This is what I assume as well, but...

IIRC, when a player waives his NTC, the team that obtained him during a trade isn't required to continue with the NTC - meaning that the NTC comes completely off his contract. I believe this was the case. Most teams end up honoring it and include it back into the contract.

With expansion, I am not sure how this works. Fleury waived it for Vegas only, but does it become void automatically now as it would through a trade? If Vegas is merely acting on a cut-throat asset accumulation, and don't intend for Fleury to play for their organization, they do not have to show any goodwill and have the NTC placed back into the contract.

Anyone know for sure if I am right on the NTC being automatically removed after a trade (I am pretty sure I am, but not 100% sure here). IF I am right, does the NTC come off after the expansion draft as well?

I am curious myself.

I think the NTC/NMC can only be voided if the player agrees to waive or if the player is traded before the NTC/NMC goes into effect. I am pretty sure that Fleury's NTC/NMC is still valid even after agreeing to waive for the expansion draft.

Someone more experienced with the CBA can correct me but I believe this is how it is currently.

sureLoss · 06-12-2017, 02:14 PM

Players who waive NMC for the expansion draft are doing it only for the expansion draft. All their NMC and NTCs remain intact after the expansion draft.

opendoor · 06-12-2017, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Weitz

He would still need to waive and want to go there.

Not necessarily. He only has a partial NTC and if Vegas (or Pittsburgh) wanted to trade him to one of the 18 teams on his list he'd have no way to prevent it.

opendoor · 06-12-2017, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Players who waive NMC for the expansion draft are doing it only for the expansion draft. All their NMC and NTCs remain intact after the expansion draft.

And this applies for all transactions. Players who have an active NMC or NTC and waive it for a specific transaction will still retain the clause in their contract going forward. The only time it can be voided is when a player gets traded prior to his clause taking effect.

cannon7 · 06-12-2017, 02:18 PM

Anyone who doesn't think a goalie will want to go to LV hasn't looked closely at the calibre of D likely to be available in the expansion draft. An LV goalie is going to have a strong top-four in front of them, they may not win many games, but the goalie will have a lot of support defensively. It would be a good career move, I think, as you won't be as exposed as much. Not even sure I understand the rumor that Fleury was willing to go to Dallas, that is a high-risk destination if you're a goalie.

getbak · 06-12-2017, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CKPThunder

I think the NTC/NMC can only be voided if the player agrees to waive or if the player is traded before the NTC/NMC goes into effect. I am pretty sure that Fleury's NTC/NMC is still valid even after agreeing to waive for the expansion draft.

Someone more experienced with the CBA can correct me but I believe this is how it is currently.

Yes, that's how I understand it.

Quote:

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.

If the clause has already taken effect, even if the player has waived it once, the acquiring team must still honour it.

cannon7 · 06-12-2017, 02:37 PM

I think this lowers Antti Raanta's value a bit as it signals that Fleury will be exposed in the expansion draft. Prior to this going public, it was assumed the Pens would move him so as not to expose Murray. This just adds another option for LV int he expansion draft and as such lowers the value of the available goalies slightly. I still expect Raanta to be moved as I think they have lesser assets the Rangers could expose in goal.

Beninho · 06-12-2017, 03:23 PM

Geat news, last thing I want is the Flames to give up assets for an aging goalie who doesn't want to be here. Hated the speculation on him coming here and would way rather get a young goalie that could be with this team long term. Treliving should focus his attention elsewhere and let Pitt try to drive up his price with another team, stop with this Fleury #### he doesn't fit the team and has probably not even thought about coming here. With 3 cups in his bag who knows how committed he will be to any team he goes to.

Vinny01 · 06-12-2017, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beninho

Geat news, last thing I want is the Flames to give up assets for an aging goalie who doesn't want to be here. Hated the speculation on him coming here and would way rather get a young goalie that could be with this team long term. Treliving should focus his attention elsewhere and let Pitt try to drive up his price with another team, stop with this Fleury #### he doesn't fit the team and has probably not even thought about coming here. With 3 cups in his bag who knows how committed he will be to any team he goes to.

The thing is the Flames arguably have 3 young long term goalies so a stop gap is a good move imo.

I was in the pro Fleury camp but ever since I heard about the Vegas thing I moved on and do not want or expect him to come here.

Beninho · 06-12-2017, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinny01

The thing is the Flames arguably have 3 young long term goalies so a stop gap is a good move imo.

I was in the pro Fleury camp but ever since I heard about the Vegas thing I moved on and do not want or expect him to come here.

I understand the stop gap argument for an older goalie but the price it would take to get him to come here plus his salary just seems like a disaster waiting to happen. Now with Calgary confirmed to be on his no trade list tre needs to move on, pretty sure he probably moved on when Pitt probably asked for a first for MAF. They just won back to back cups, don't do them any favors, let Vegas take him.

dissentowner · 06-12-2017, 04:14 PM

I would rather have Smith anyhow.

Jason14h · 06-12-2017, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fire

It's nice of Fleury for doing the Penguins a solid by waiving his NMC for Vegas. He potentially lost out on a lot of money if the Penguins were forced to buy him out.

I assume they had a trade worked out at the deadline and gave him the option: Be traded as a rental (Dallas, LA, Cgy, ?) or waive NMC and go on a playoff run with the team you've won 2 cups with and played your whole career.

Pretty easy choice I imagine for Fleury.

CalgaryFan1988 · 06-12-2017, 05:10 PM

With his cap hit and inconsistent play, I wouldn't pick him up on waivers. I'm happy he doesn't want to come to Calgary.

codynw · 06-12-2017, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dissentowner

I would rather have Smith anyhow.

iamca · 06-12-2017, 07:57 PM

Raanta or Grubauer please.

Vinny01 · 06-12-2017, 08:11 PM

I am on the Mason train now. Free to acquire, played heavy workload in the past, entering prime years. He and Raanta would be my ideal tandem.

Still holding out hope Treliving swings a deal for Schneider though

Roof-Daddy · 06-12-2017, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinny01

I am on the Mason train now. Free to acquire, played heavy workload in the past, entering prime years. He and Raanta would be my ideal tandem.

Still holding out hope Treliving swings a deal for Schneider though

If we sign Mason there is no point in spending assets to get Raanta to be our back up for one year. At that point we either bring back Johnson, sign another UFA back up like Nilsson, or just let Rittich/Gillies battle for the back up spot if management is confident they are ready for that step.

FireGilbert · 06-12-2017, 08:43 PM

Interesting decision by Fleury. I thought he would make more money being bought out and then signing a long term deal where ever he wanted.

Maybe he's gambling that Vegas doesn't pick him and he can try for one more cup with the Pens?

Vinny01 · 06-12-2017, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

If we sign Mason there is no point in spending assets to get Raanta to be our back up for one year. At that point we either bring back Johnson, sign another UFA back up like Nilsson, or just let Rittich/Gillies battle for the back up spot if management is confident they are ready for that step.

That's a good point. Johnson would be my preferred backup unless Gillies is ready for 20-30 games next year

dammage79 · 06-12-2017, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

If we sign Mason there is no point in spending assets to get Raanta to be our back up for one year. At that point we either bring back Johnson, sign another UFA back up like Nilsson, or just let Rittich/Gillies battle for the back up spot if management is confident they are ready for that step.

Oooo, a Mason/Nilsson pairing. I'm down.