[News] Bouwmeester admits Flames have approached him about trade - Page 38 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

transplant99 · 03-31-2013, 12:44 PM

Quote:

"I think it's always a priority to have good defense," Holland said. "Obviously we've had a guy [Lidstrom] who was a cornerstone for 20 years and we knew we had to overhaul. I think we're in a good position because we've got a lot of competition. We're going to have to make some decisions on defense heading into the summer, but the young kids have really stated a case and allowed us to have some depth."

http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=663055

Yoho · 03-31-2013, 12:50 PM

Young kids not stating much of a case today 6-0 Chicago so far

timbit · 03-31-2013, 12:51 PM

Pierre pushing Bouwmeester and Glencross as very desirable pieces during Wings game on NBC and Crosby has a broken jaw....out indefinitely

kn · 03-31-2013, 01:08 PM

According to CapGeek, Bouwmeester has a "No-Trade Clause". How is this different from a "Limited No-Trade Clause" or "Modified No-Trade Clause"?

It seems since the Flames were working on a deal with the Islanders and only afterwards Bouwmeester said no, that he does not need to provide a list up-front. Otherwise, why would you waste time working on a deal with a team he wouldn't go to?

mrdonkey · 03-31-2013, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kn

According to CapGeek, Bouwmeester has a "No-Trade Clause". How is this different from a "Limited No-Trade Clause" or "Modified No-Trade Clause"?

It seems since the Flames were working on a deal with the Islanders and only afterwards Bouwmeester said no, that he does not need to provide a list up-front. Otherwise, why would you waste time working on a deal with a team he wouldn't go to?

Limited/modified NTC usually means the player submits a list of 5-10 teams that he cannot be traded to without permission. Full NTC means that he must give the ok before being traded to any team.

Igster · 03-31-2013, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrdonkey

Limited/modified NTC usually means the player submits a list of 5-10 teams that he cannot be traded to without permission. Full NTC means that he must give the ok before being traded to any team.

And to be clear, a full NTC means the player doesn't even have to listen. He could simply say "I'm not interested in being traded so go away and leave me alone."

kn · 03-31-2013, 01:53 PM

Ok, but then doesn't it make sense for a GM to go to the player and ask which teams he would be willing to go to first, rather than waste time consummating a deal with a team the player is not interested in?

It seems with a full NTC, this isn't possible. Bouwmeester is under no obligation to provide a list and Feester just has to hope he accepts.

Yoho · 03-31-2013, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kn

Ok, but then doesn't it make sense for a GM to go to the player and ask which teams he would be willing to go to first, rather than waste time consummating a deal with a team the player is not interested in?

It seems with a full NTC, this isn't possible. Bouwmeester is under no obligation to provide a list and Feester just has to hope he accepts.

another PR disaster is right around the corner on this one.

bubbsy · 03-31-2013, 01:56 PM

does anyone know the details of the bouwmeester NTC/NMC clause?

Does he provide a list, or just have to OK any deal?

GirlySports · 03-31-2013, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kn

Ok, but then doesn't it make sense for a GM to go to the player and ask which teams he would be willing to go to first, rather than waste time consummating a deal with a team the player is not interested in?

It seems with a full NTC, this isn't possible. Bouwmeester is under no obligation to provide a list and Feester just has to hope he accepts.

It may have just come up in conversation, GMs talk to each other all the time.

The Isles GM may have called Feaster saying he'd be interested in Bouw and he'll give us this and this and this. Feaster likes it and goes to Bouw, hey I got this deal to the Islanders, what do you think?

"NO".

Roof-Daddy · 03-31-2013, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bubbsy

does anyone know the details of the bouwmeester NTC/NMC clause?

Does he provide a list, or just have to OK any deal?

It's a full NTC.

There is no list that he has to provide, but similar to Iggy if he and the Flames decide to part ways, he can then provide a list (should be in writing, and signed off on by the player) of teams he'll accept a trade to.

calgARI · 03-31-2013, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drPepper1

Chris Butler for a first is looking like a possibility...

Well Doug Murray went for two 2nds

bubbsy · 03-31-2013, 02:05 PM

i wouldn't be surprised to hear bouwmeester willing to get out of CGY. It has been a pretty bad marriage to date. The thing about bouwmeester is i think it isn't just cup contending teams that will be looking at bouwmeester with interest. I think any team, playoff bubble teams included, would be interested in adding a big minute guy who has offensive flair to their blue line for this year, but more importantly, beyond.

I would love to see a playoff bubble team push for bouwmeester, and the return to include a mid-first round pick + other assets (prospects or young NHL roster guys).

kehatch · 03-31-2013, 02:14 PM

NM, answered above

flames_fan_down_under · 03-31-2013, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kn

According to CapGeek, Bouwmeester has a "No-Trade Clause". How is this different from a "Limited No-Trade Clause" or "Modified No-Trade Clause"?

It seems since the Flames were working on a deal with the Islanders and only afterwards Bouwmeester said no, that he does not need to provide a list up-front. Otherwise, why would you waste time working on a deal with a team he wouldn't go to?

I understand what your saying but it is possible that the Islanders approached Calgary with a deal in place. You're suggesting that Feaster is the one initiating the trade discussion with the Islanders where in this case perhaps it's the other way around and Feaster is just doing his due dilligence as a GM and exploring all trade opportunities offered to him.

IgiTang · 03-31-2013, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bubbsy

i wouldn't be surprised to hear bouwmeester willing to get out of CGY. It has been a pretty bad marriage to date. The thing about bouwmeester is i think it isn't just cup contending teams that will be looking at bouwmeester with interest. I think any team, playoff bubble teams included, would be interested in adding a big minute guy who has offensive flair to their blue line for this year, but more importantly, beyond.

I would love to see a playoff bubble team push for bouwmeester, and the return to include a mid-first round pick + other assets (prospects or young NHL roster guys).

CBJ or Nash

the_only_turek_fan · 03-31-2013, 02:50 PM

http://www.freep.com/article/2013033.../1053/sports05

I am starting to think that the Flames are not going to get a lot back for Bouwmeester or he will not get dealt at all.

bubbsy · 03-31-2013, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan

http://www.freep.com/article/2013033.../1053/sports05

I am starting to think that the Flames are not going to get a lot back for Bouwmeester or he will not get dealt at all.

bouwmeester wouldn't be looked at as a rental though. He's signed on for another year after this, and helps shore up a D group in detroit that has lost lidstrom/rafalski/stuart and never recovered.

afc wimbledon · 03-31-2013, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kn

Ok, but then doesn't it make sense for a GM to go to the player and ask which teams he would be willing to go to first, rather than waste time consummating a deal with a team the player is not interested in?

It seems with a full NTC, this isn't possible. Bouwmeester is under no obligation to provide a list and Feester just has to hope he accepts.

Feaster would/has approached all of his older players and ask them if they want to be around for a rebuild or if they'd prefer to go to a contendor, I have no doubt he would add that the team, while happy to keep a player would probably welcome the chance to trade them for assets.

The Original FFIV · 03-31-2013, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan

http://www.freep.com/article/2013033.../1053/sports05

I am starting to think that the Flames are not going to get a lot back for Bouwmeester or he will not get dealt at all.

You'd expect Holland to downplay a need for D in the media, he doesn't want to feed them and create a flurry that he's desperate and watch the price skyrocket. They're interested in Bouw, but are they willing to pay the price?