[News] Jason Spezza requests trade from Sens

[ForeverFlameFan]

Originally Posted by codynw

I would have assumed they didn't include the Oilers because they aren't actually an NHL team.

Not an AHL team either.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by cKy

Selanne retired. He is working for Finnish TV now. He is off the books for sure.

I'm envisioning a commercial where Selanne keeps forgetting his lines on the TV show, gets frustrated, pulls out his cell phone, calls Bob Murray "Hi Bob, I'm coming back".

[codynw]

Originally Posted by ForeverFlameFan

Not an AHL team either.

You have to give them some credit, they'd be a pretty decent AHL team.

[ForeverFlameFan]

Would trading Yandle for Spezza be a fair trade? With the emergance of Gormley, getting a center like Spezza would benefit the Coyotes. A Spezza-Vermette as the top 2 centers would be pretty good.

Yandle and Karlsson would be a very good pairing.

[Geeoff]

This is the #1 centre we've needed for Iginla all these years! Do it Sutter!

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by getbak

If he wanted to maximize his "no trade" list, he wouldn't bother putting Montreal or Toronto on it because you know Murray would never consider trading him to either of those teams.

Maybe not Toronto but from a financial stance you'd want to put Montreal on there because of the higher tax rate.

[Swayze11]

Originally Posted by ForeverFlameFan

Would trading Yandle for Spezza be a fair trade? With the emergance of Gormley, getting a center like Spezza would benefit the Coyotes. A Spezza-Vermette as the top 2 centers would be pretty good.

Yandle and Karlsson would be a very good pairing.

Sorry, what emergence of Gormley? He played 5 games and guys like Micheal Stone and Connor Murphy passed him in the depth chart quite easily.

From what I saw, he looked lost.

[Huntingwhale]

Funny to think that at one point the line of Heatley-Spezza-Alfreddson was easily the most dominant line of the decade. Then each and every one of them works their way out of Ottawa.

[Beatle17]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

His NMC clause is a list of 10 teams. Rumour has it, he wants to play in the US, so you can rule out the 5 other Canadian clubs. That would leave room for 5 American teams to be on the list, assuming that he uses all 10 spots in the clause.

I would bet the Islanders are on the list too, but if not, I could see them being interest. Florida is another team that seems to want players that can play now.

Just used your quote for the purpose of the first line. If any of these babies ask for a trade then the NMC should be ruled invalid. Just like that whiny little bitch St. Louis, "I want out but I will only go to NY Rangers". If they ask for a trade then they should accept the trade to wherever they end up, now if management asks them to waive the NMC then they should be able to supply a very small list of where the will accept to go.

[IgiTang]

Fully agree, if a player wants to opt out of his NMC clause, he should have to fully opt out. Not just kinda opt out by provided a short list.

[Oil Stain]

I bet he ends up on the Rangers. They will buy out Brad Richards and have room.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Beatle17

Just used your quote for the purpose of the first line. If any of these babies ask for a trade then the NMC should be ruled invalid.

Why?

Because it offends you?

[Beatle17]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Why?

Because it offends you?

It doesn't offend me. But to have a story about a guy asking for a trade and then listing where he will go is a bitch move (see Marty St. Louis). He signed a contract with a clause given, or negotiated for, because he wanted to stay in Ottawa. By this clause being in place the team is handcuffed when, or if, the player becomes underperforming or injury prone (see Spezza, Jason). Then when the player decides he doesn't like the pressure/what he is paid/his role etc., he demands a trade "but only to the teams I want to go to". So it's not an even playing field between team and player. If the NMC was negotiated in good faith then it should be honored in good faith, by both parties.

If one of the parties decides to alter the contract then they should be willing to remove one of the sticky points of the contract. If the player requests a trade then he should waive his NMC and if the team asks him to waive the clause then they should be limited by the player into where he will go. Spezza demands a trade but under his terms so he screws over the team that has made him rich over his career (see Jarome Iginla) by limiting where he will move.

Clearer for you.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Oil Stain

I bet he ends up on the Rangers. They will buy out Brad Richards and have room.

That's my thinking as well. Once the Rangers buy out Richards they will have a big void at center and they will likely be looking to take another run at the cup with key players like St. Louis and Lundqvist in their 30's.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Beatle17

It doesn't offend me. But to have a story about a guy asking for a trade and then listing where he will go is a bitch move (see Marty St. Louis). He signed a contract with a clause given, or negotiated for, because he wanted to stay in Ottawa. By this clause being in place the team is handcuffed when, or if, the player becomes underperforming or injury prone (see Spezza, Jason). Then when the player decides he doesn't like the pressure/what he is paid/his role etc., he demands a trade "but only to the teams I want to go to". So it's not an even playing field between team and player. If the NMC was negotiated in good faith then it should be honored in good faith, by both parties.

If one of the parties decides to alter the contract then they should be willing to remove one of the sticky points of the contract. If the player requests a trade then he should waive his NMC and if the team asks him to waive the clause then they should be limited by the player into where he will go. Spezza demands a trade but under his terms so he screws over the team that has made him rich over his career (see Jarome Iginla) by limiting where he will move.

Clearer for you.

I wonder if this is something teams can start asking for in the future.

But a team could simply deny their trade request completely unless they waive their NMC for additional teams. Really, if the player wants out then the team actually has a lot of potential leverage there.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Beatle17

It doesn't offend me. But to have a story about a guy asking for a trade and then listing where he will go is a bitch move (see Marty St. Louis). He signed a contract with a clause given, or negotiated for, because he wanted to stay in Ottawa. By this clause being in place the team is handcuffed when, or if, the player becomes underperforming or injury prone (see Spezza, Jason). Then when the player decides he doesn't like the pressure/what he is paid/his role etc., he demands a trade "but only to the teams I want to go to". So it's not an even playing field between team and player. If the NMC was negotiated in good faith then it should be honored in good faith, by both parties.

If one of the parties decides to alter the contract then they should be willing to remove one of the sticky points of the contract. If the player requests a trade then he should waive his NMC and if the team asks him to waive the clause then they should be limited by the player into where he will go. Spezza demands a trade but under his terms so he screws over the team that has made him rich over his career (see Jarome Iginla) by limiting where he will move.

Clearer for you.

You are making a considerable number of statements that have no basis in fact.

1. When did Jarome Iginla demand a trade? (and why on earth do you think his situation is remotely comparable to Spezza's?)

2. How does requesting a trade "alter his contract"?

3. I gather you don't see the irony of claiming that a NMC should be "honoured in good faith by both parties" while making the argument that the team should not be obligated to honour the NMC.

4. An NTC/NMC does handcuff a team when it comes to negotiating trades, I agree. Problem is, the teams themselves agree to these restrictions, and they do so knowing full well what the potential outcomes are. They usually do so as part of a tradeoff whereby the player agrees to a lower salary, longer term or in the case of UFAs, agrees to sign there in the first place.


Ultimately, the sentiment that a player should forfeit an NTC/NMC by asking for a trade is little more than fans acting butthurt. Ottawa has no obligation to trade Spezza at all - and they certainly didn't need to publicize that Spezza wants out. They player can ask, but that's all they can do. The balance of power remains with the team.

[Beatle17]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

You are making a considerable number of statements that have no basis in fact.

1. When did Jarome Iginla demand a trade? (and why on earth do you think his situation is remotely comparable to Spezza's?) He didn't demand a trade but once he agreed he would only go to one team - his right but he still held the club ransom

2. How does requesting a trade "alter his contract"? It doesn't but it should. Spezza negotiated a NMC so the team can't move him on a whim, he walks in and asks to be traded, which in and of itself is fine, BUT it can only be to certain teams. What if the team said NO we won't get any offers that we would consider from your prospective teams so show up and play and keep your mouth shut.

3. I gather you don't see the irony of claiming that a NMC should be "honoured in good faith by both parties" while making the argument that the team should not be obligated to honour the NMC. No irony at all.

4. An NTC/NMC does handcuff a team when it comes to negotiating trades, I agree. Problem is, the teams themselves agree to these restrictions, and they do so knowing full well what the potential outcomes are. They usually do so as part of a tradeoff whereby the player agrees to a lower salary, longer term or in the case of UFAs, agrees to sign there in the first place. the player never takes less money, or a hometown discount as everyone likes to say, to receive a NMC. This is a fallacy like UFA's saying they want to go to a team that has a chance to win, they go to whomever pays them the most.


Ultimately, the sentiment that a player should forfeit an NTC/NMC by asking for a trade is little more than fans acting butthurt. Ottawa has no obligation to trade Spezza at all - and they certainly didn't need to publicize that Spezza wants out. They player can ask, but that's all they can do. The balance of power remains with the team.

No it doesn't remain with the team, the player wants out but limits the teams he can go to, which drops the offers the team is going to receive. So the team can keep an unhappy whiny player, which history shows will disrupt the dressing room and team concept - see Doug Gilmour Calgary Flames 1990's

I am not "butthurt" about this as you continue to say and assume. I believe that both parties negotiated a contract, with a NMC, to the benefit of both parties. Now the one party is changing the general understood agreement (the desire to mutually benefit team and player) to his own benefit. If he wants to change that part of the agreement then waive his choice of teams.

I think the players have been given too much over the years and wish the owners had locked them out for a couple seasons to get the HRR down to 25%, there's my "butthurt" part of any contract.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Beatle17

I am not "butthurt" about this as you continue to say and assume. I believe that both parties negotiated a contract, with a NMC, to the benefit of both parties. Now the one party is changing the general understood agreement (the desire to mutually benefit team and player) to his own benefit. If he wants to change that part of the agreement then waive his choice of teams.

The number of times you had to move the goalposts in your reply speaks volumes. But this is an interesting argument. I could reverse this argument and claim that any team that seeks to trade a player should likewise waive their choice of teams - i.e.: a team initiated trade request would thus require the player's approval to go to any team.

Ridiculous, right?

[driveway]

Originally Posted by Beatle17

I think the players have been given too much over the years and wish the owners had locked them out for a couple seasons to get the HRR down to 25%, there's my "butthurt" part of any contract.

You honestly think the players should only be entitled to 25% of HRR? That's ... ludicrous. It's such a ludicrous idea that it actually impacts the credibility of any other statements you make.

Also, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of a player contract. Neither Spezza nor the Senators are looking to change the terms of the contract - no one who is asking for a trade, or who is being traded is. The contract, is what's being traded. That's why a player's salary remains the same after he's traded to a new team, the parameters of the contract haven't changed at all, merely the name of a signatory.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by driveway

You honestly think the players should only be entitled to 25% of HRR? That's ... ludicrous. It's such a ludicrous idea that it actually impacts the credibility of any other statements you make.

In some ways he is right. maybe is the players only got 25% the owners could build there own arenas every 30 years , and have a reasonable expectation of turning a profit every year. Which all established businesses should have.

Just to play devils advocate.