[News] Expansion decision expected by June 22

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

I disagree, the most logical (and legal) would be any player with a valid NMC on the date of the draft has to be protected. Ignoring a clause in a contract just because it is expiring is not really logical at all.

Might be legal, but it wouldn't be logical at all.

Being forced to protect a player who isn't under contract to play another game for your team would be completely stupid and totally illogical.

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

I disagree, the most logical (and legal) would be any player with a valid NMC on the date of the draft has to be protected. Ignoring a clause in a contract just because it is expiring is not really logical at all.

Doesn't the new "courting period" a week before the actual end of the contract kind of counter that the contract goes to the 30th? Sure players can't sign until the first but they are free to talk to anyone and work out all aspects of the contract. Seems the league allows some flexibility already.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

As I suggested earlier, they can fiddle with the dates to get to a place that makes sense logically, and contractually. I think they will get there. Perhaps more interesting when the Governors meet, is whether influential teams will push expansion back another year, to allow more NMC to expire.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

As I suggested earlier, they can fiddle with the dates to get to a place that makes sense logically, and contractually. I think they will get there. Perhaps more interesting when the Governors meet, is whether influential teams will push expansion back another year, to allow more NMC to expire.

Seems to me the money involved is way too much for any team arguing to delay for that reason.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Seems to me the money involved is way too much for any team arguing to delay for that reason.

That is likely true.

[Vulcan]

A possibility would be no expansion and Carolina moving to Las Vegas. It would clear up the family mess in Carolina. NHL could charge big for the re-location and it would balance the two conferences.

[Jay Random]

Even if the Las Vegas group were willing to pay $500 million for the Carolina franchise (which they might be), a big chunk of that money would have to be paid to Karmanos, which leaves less for the rest of the league. I'm afraid the owners are dead set on collecting that $500m and sharing it with no one but themselves.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

Might be legal, but it wouldn't be logical at all.

Being forced to protect a player who isn't under contract to play another game for your team would be completely stupid and totally illogical.

on no planet is being forced to uphold a contract illogical

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Robbob

Doesn't the new "courting period" a week before the actual end of the contract kind of counter that the contract goes to the 30th? Sure players can't sign until the first but they are free to talk to anyone and work out all aspects of the contract. Seems the league allows some flexibility already.

No, not at all. It allows talking not transactions. If you want to trade a player with a NMC on June 30th at 11:58 pm, whether it's expiring or not the player would have to waive it. This is no different.

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

on no planet is being forced to uphold a contract illogical

What about contracts that are unenforceable, or ones that encroach upon other rights you have. The absolutism you show with regards to contracts seems a little extreme.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

on no planet is being forced to uphold a contract illogical

You're being pretty pedantic here, to the point you're coming away with the most illogical outcome. If you actually want to "enforce" the contracts, the NMC prevents the involuntary relocation of an NHL player. Even in a world, that only exists in your mind, where a team would draft a contract expiring in a couple days, the contract would still be enforced as the player would not be forced to move. It's the off-season.

Unless you're arguing about a NMC that expires, while the contact continues. That would be an interesting case.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by the2bears

What about contracts that are unenforceable, or ones that encroach upon other rights you have. The absolutism you show with regards to contracts seems a little extreme.

How is it extreme? You cannot move a player with a NMC without it being waived, it is that simple. Upholding a contract is not illogical in any way, it is sheer stupidity to call it illogical. Is it a crappy situation? Yeah, but not illogical in the slightest. It is no different than a player having to waive their NMC on an expiring contract to be traded on June 30th.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

You're being pretty pedantic here, to the point you're coming away with the most illogical outcome. If you actually want to "enforce" the contracts, the NMC prevents the involuntary relocation of an NHL player. Even in a world, that only exists in your mind, where a team would draft a contract expiring in a couple days, the contract would still be enforced as the player would not be forced to move. It's the off-season.

Unless you're arguing about a NMC that expires, while the contact continues. That would be an interesting case.

I never said I wanted that, simply pointing out that people saying it is illogical to not uphold a contract lacks understanding of what logic is. Upholding a legally binding contract is not illogical in any sense of the word.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

I never said I wanted that, simply pointing out that people saying it is illogical to not uphold a contract lacks understanding of what logic is. Upholding a legally binding contract is not illogical in any sense of the word.

It would be upheld though. The player would never be forced to move, the contract would not be violated. The only difference would be the expansion team having exclusive negotiation rights for like 2 weeks?

If someone really wanted to get that pedantic, as long as the NHL and NHLPA agree the rules can be whatever they want. If they wanted to make it that NMC that expire after July 1, 2017 are protected (or forced to be) they could just do that...

A no-movement contract "prevents the involuntary relocation of a Player, whether by Trade, Loan or Waiver claim." As defined in the CBA. There's nothing about expansion drafts.

The same issue came up with Doan and the idea that his NMC would have invalidated his contract if the team relocated. Most agreed that it wouldn't. (I don't know if any players on Atlanta had NMC at the time but that would be a good case).

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

It would be upheld though. The player would never be forced to move, the contract would not be violated. The only difference would be the expansion team having exclusive negotiation rights for like 2 weeks?

If someone really wanted to get that pedantic, as long as the NHL and NHLPA agree the rules can be whatever they want. If they wanted to make it that NMC that expire after July 31, 2017 they could just do that...

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make other than you are arguing for the sake of arguing. I'm simply saying upholding a valid contract is not illogical, that's all.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

I never said I wanted that, simply pointing out that people saying it is illogical to not uphold a contract lacks understanding of what logic is. Upholding a legally binding contract is not illogical in any sense of the word.

It is illogical if you're holding up a legally binding contract that is for all intents and purposes over.

Honouring a NMC on an expiring contract? Illogical. It laughs in the face of the entire reason the NMC exists. The NMC gives a player control over where he plays. Being drafted by an expansion team right before your contract expires doesn't impact that at all.

No player is gunning for that NMC thinking:
"It's good you know, it means I can't be demoted, can't be traded without my permission, oh, and I can't be drafted by an expansion team five days before I hit UFA."
"Oh, you'd have to sign with them?"
"No, I'd just be on a new team for five days, and then be UFA regardless. But that's five days I'd have to... talk to them... if I wanted to. Ew."

Just because something is legally binding, does not mean it is logical.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make other than you are arguing for the sake of arguing. I'm simply saying upholding a valid contract is not illogical, that's all.

There's nothing in the contract that protects the player from an expansion draft. Period. Okay, it's not sooo black and white so as long as the NHL and NHLPA agreed, that would be what the ruling was.

Again, A no-movement contract "prevents the involuntary relocation of a Player, whether by Trade, Loan or Waiver claim." As defined in the CBA. There's nothing about expansion drafts.

If the NHL and NHLPA agree that NMC must be protected (for free or at the cost of a spot, or whatever the case may be), they could also define which NMC need to be protected. Full NMC for the duration of the contracts, NMC at the time of the expansion, NMC for the following year. etc.

The idea that Wideman would need to be protected because of his NMC on an expiring contract is asinine, illogical, and does not have a legal basis.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It is illogical if you're holding up a legally binding contract that is for all intents and purposes over.

Honouring a NMC on an expiring contract? Illogical. It laughs in the face of the entire reason the NMC exists. The NMC gives a player control over where he plays. Being drafted by an expansion team right before your contract expires doesn't impact that at all.

No player is gunning for that NMC thinking:
"It's good you know, it means I can't be demoted, can't be traded without my permission, oh, and I can't be drafted by an expansion team five days before I hit UFA."
"Oh, you'd have to sign with them?"
"No, I'd just be on a new team for five days, and then be UFA regardless. But that's five days I'd have to... talk to them... if I wanted to. Ew."

Just because something is legally binding, does not mean it is logical.

It would be illogical not to allow the players to waive their NMC, it may even be illogical for the player to refuse to waive it. But it is not illogical to uphold a valid contract if the player does not waive it. If it's a concern, they can be bought out later this month; they have a year to rectify that problem if it is one.

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It is illogical if you're holding up a legally binding contract that is for all intents and purposes over.

Honouring a NMC on an expiring contract? Illogical. It laughs in the face of the entire reason the NMC exists. The NMC gives a player control over where he plays. Being drafted by an expansion team right before your contract expires doesn't impact that at all.

No player is gunning for that NMC thinking:
"It's good you know, it means I can't be demoted, can't be traded without my permission, oh, and I can't be drafted by an expansion team five days before I hit UFA."
"Oh, you'd have to sign with them?"
"No, I'd just be on a new team for five days, and then be UFA regardless. But that's five days I'd have to... talk to them... if I wanted to. Ew."

Just because something is legally binding, does not mean it is logical.

Thank-you!

It's absurd. Unreasonable. Preposterous, Flawed. Illogical.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

There's nothing in the contract that protects the player from an expansion draft. Period. Okay, it's not sooo black and white so as long as the NHL and NHLPA agreed, that would be what the ruling was.

Again, A no-movement contract "prevents the involuntary relocation of a Player, whether by Trade, Loan or Waiver claim." As defined in the CBA. There's nothing about expansion drafts.

If the NHL and NHLPA agree that NMC must be protected (for free or at the cost of a spot, or whatever the case may be), they could also define which NMC need to be protected. Full NMC for the duration of the contracts, NMC at the time of the expansion, NMC for the following year. etc.

The idea that Wideman would need to be protected because of his NMC on an expiring contract is asinine, illogical, and does not have a legal basis.

log·ic
ˈläjik/Submit
noun
1.
reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.



Upholding a valid contract meets the definition of logic. So continue spewing whatever you want, you still will not be right.