[News] Feaster and Weisbrod relieved of duties. Burke will hire a new GM - Page 77 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

PeteMoss · 12-23-2013, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by macrov

On the return we got for regehr...what are the chances of a second rounder turning into a player that plays over 100 NHL games?

We got Butler back and he went into the line up immediately. And he was only 24. His actual value at the time was probably a late first rounder. We also dumped kotalik, which we paid a second for. And we got Bryon.

and feaster felt Byron was worth a second. So...

So, ignoring the 2nd we gave up for kotalik...we probably got the eqv of a 1st and a 2nd for Regehr straight up. And buffalo traded him for 2 seconds round picks. So we did ok.

Whether you like Butler or not, he's a player that's going to play over 400 games in a 5\6 role. That's the equivalent of a first round pick.

That's actually a fair point. Butler is better than the average 2nd round pick I would imagine. Fans do prefer the fantasy of the unknown versus a boring player like Butler.

Interestingly... we actually got Buffalo's 2nd round pick in the 2012 draft anyways (Patrick Sieloff). They didn't have a 2nd round pick in 2011 (traded to St.Louis before the Regehr trade).

Alberta_Beef · 12-23-2013, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by edslunch

No point arguing Whether Regher was still any good or not. The fact is the Sabres got a better return for him a year and a bit later which shows Feaster didn't get good value, and that Regier is an awesome trader

When Regehr waived his NMC to go to Buffalo is it entirely possible it was wiped from his contract at that point, meaning the Sabres had the luxury of trading him to the highest bidder.

Around the time of the trade it was rumored that the only team to make an offer for him that he was willing to waive for was San Jose and it was said to be lesser of an offer than the Sabres deal. Then the Sabres owner convinced Regehr to waive to go there.

That NMC severely limited the options and facts like that cannot be ignored.

EYE_Overstand · 12-23-2013, 01:34 PM

Someone on the back burner thread mentioned Burke was at the heats game last night and commented on the team...

1. We (heat) are to small
2. Lane mcdermid sort of addressed it
3. Likes Troy ward
4. Ferland a knee injury is "not good"

Didn't know where to post this for those who missed it

EYE_Overstand · 12-23-2013, 01:35 PM

Double post

mikeecho · 12-23-2013, 11:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

When Regehr waived his NMC to go to Buffalo is it entirely possible it was wiped from his contract at that point, meaning the Sabres had the luxury of trading him to the highest bidder.

Around the time of the trade it was rumored that the only team to make an offer for him that he was willing to waive for was San Jose and it was said to be lesser of an offer than the Sabres deal. Then the Sabres owner convinced Regehr to waive to go there.

That NMC severely limited the options and facts like that cannot be ignored.

It was my understanding that when a NMC is waived and a trade is made, the NMC is then void from that point onwards. Can any CBA experts advise?

Calgary4LIfe · 12-23-2013, 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikeecho

It was my understanding that when a NMC is waived and a trade is made, the NMC is then void from that point onwards. Can any CBA experts advise?

I have heard that, I have heard that it is up to the team receiving the player to include it moving forward, and I also heard that because it is in the player's contract, it remains on the player's contract for the remainder of said contract. I think the latter is the most likely, though I would also like confirmation.

trublmaker · 12-23-2013, 11:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EYE_Overstand

Someone on the back burner thread mentioned Burke was at the heats game last night and commented on the team...

1. We (heat) are to small
2. Lane mcdermid sort of addressed it
3. Likes Troy ward
4. Ferland a knee injury is "not good"

Didn't know where to post this for those who missed it

we are, we need to get back to Flames hockey where teams feared playing us. Go Flames

neo45 · 12-23-2013, 11:53 PM

Regher wasn't even asked to waive his NMC until after the trade with Buffalo was made and reported in the media. He initially said no...

So how is that an excuse for how bad the trade is? It's obvious that his NMC WASN'T limiting the teams Feaster was negotiating with

As for claiming that Butler, at ANY POINT was worth a late first round pick or even a 2nd round pick is a pipe dream. We'll be lucky to get a 3rd for him at the trade deadline, when his value will be it's highest ever. Byron also was never worth a second to any GM in the league other than Feaster. Hasn't he cleared waivers since?

Why do people have such a hard time accepting that Feaster was bad at trading and didn't get much respect from other GM's around the league?

dying4acup · 12-24-2013, 12:01 AM

Regehr had said, for a long time before being traded to the sabres, that if a the flames wanted to trade him to improve the team, he would cooperate.

I believe his NMC was still in place when he was traded after. Why wouldn't he want to be traded to the kings and play for Darryl Sutter? The man who made him famous, and rich beyond his wildest dreams.

On that note, I bet that Burke would sell his left...pinky finger for a damn like Regehr in his prime! I would!

sureLoss · 12-24-2013, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikeecho

It was my understanding that when a NMC is waived and a trade is made, the NMC is then void from that point onwards. Can any CBA experts advise?

http://www.capgeek.com/faq/what-s-th...-a-NTC-and-NMC

Quote:

If a player waives a clause to accept a trade to a new team, it is rare he will do so without a promise that the acquiring team will continue to honour the clause. Brad Richards, when traded from Tampa Bay to Dallas in 2007-08, is an example of this. However, if the player is traded before a clause has kicked in, that clause is automatically ruled void.

It is basically up to the new team whether the clause persists after a trade, but then the player can block trade to new team unless new team agrees to keep it.

Considering how Buffalo meet with Regehr in person I can't imagine them not agreeing to Regehr keeping his NTC intact after going to Buffalo.

devo22 · 12-24-2013, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikeecho

It was my understanding that when a NMC is waived and a trade is made, the NMC is then void from that point onwards. Can any CBA experts advise?

no, not automatically. Look at this video of the Gaborik trade call:

If you pause at 54 seconds, you can see the memorandum that Gaborik signed to waive his clause to go to Columbus. At the bottom it says "After said trade occurs, the no-trade provision remains in full effect."

Calgary4LIfe · 12-24-2013, 03:54 PM

How about in Cammalleri's case where he has a limited no-trade? I am assuming since Calgary was probably not on his list of 'x' amount of teams, does that mean his provision is still intact since he didn't have to waive, or is it the discretion of the receiving team (Calgary) to continue honoring those as well?

Alberta_Beef · 12-24-2013, 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

How about in Cammalleri's case where he has a limited no-trade? I am assuming since Calgary was probably not on his list of 'x' amount of teams, does that mean his provision is still intact since he didn't have to waive, or is it the discretion of the receiving team (Calgary) to continue honoring those as well?

I thought I Cammalleri said he didn't have a NTC at last years exit meetings. But it would also be up to the discretion of the acquiring team I would think, or more or less negotiated in the trade.

EYE_Overstand · 12-24-2013, 11:52 PM

He has to submit a list of 10 teams, prior to the start if the season, he won't accept a trade to

Zarley · 12-25-2013, 12:09 AM

I was under the impression that each NTC or NMC was negotiated individually with terms that may vary on a case by case basis. Is this true?

FAN · 12-25-2013, 01:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

How about in Cammalleri's case where he has a limited no-trade? I am assuming since Calgary was probably not on his list of 'x' amount of teams, does that mean his provision is still intact since he didn't have to waive, or is it the discretion of the receiving team (Calgary) to continue honoring those as well?

Why assume that Calgary was not on his list of teams that he would be willing to go to? The biggest reason Cammy left here in the first place was due to money. Regardless, I think it's in the discretion of the team acquiring Cammy (Calgary) whether or not to honor that NTC.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

I thought I Cammalleri said he didn't have a NTC at last years exit meetings. But it would also be up to the discretion of the acquiring team I would think, or more or less negotiated in the trade.

I believe Calgary was on the list of teams Cammy would accept a trade to so there wouldn't have been any negotiation between Cammy and the Flames as far as honouring his NTC is concerned.

Calgary4LIfe · 12-25-2013, 02:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FAN

Why assume that Calgary was not on his list of teams that he would be willing to go to? The biggest reason Cammy left here in the first place was due to money. Regardless, I think it's in the discretion of the team acquiring Cammy (Calgary) whether or not to honor that NTC.

I assumed that Calgary was NOT one of the teams listed in his LNTC.

Alberta_Beef · 12-25-2013, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FAN

I believe Calgary was on the list of teams Cammy would accept a trade to so there wouldn't have been any negotiation between Cammy and the Flames as far as honouring his NTC is concerned.

I am talking about when questioned about the Flames possibly trading him, he said he didn't have a NTC and it would be up to the team if they wanted to keep him.

kyuss275 · 12-25-2013, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

I am talking about when questioned about the Flames possibly trading him, he said he didn't have a NTC and it would be up to the team if they wanted to keep him.

He said he didn't have a NMC. There is a big difference. Without NMC they can trade him to anybody that is not on list without consulting him.

EYE_Overstand · 12-25-2013, 06:21 PM

I am all for speeding up the rebuild. This depends on quality trades, development, draft picks this season, and UFAs this yr and next.

Also getting quality consistantly goal tending.

If the flames play the same way, but keep adding quality pieces in the next few seasons... Then I wouldn't bet against playoffs the season after next.