[News] Expansion decision expected by June 22

[codynw]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

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.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by 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.

$210M to Karmanos and $290M to the NHL owners leaves $10M for each team and leaves future expansion on the table for when the Canadian dollar makes sense for Quebec and Seattle is ready. Forbes values the Hurricanes at $225M and with the latest news that may be optimistic.

I'm not saying this will happen but it's a possibility that can make sense.

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

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.

Or...

not showing good judgment : not thinking about things in a reasonable or sensible way : not logical

[Resolute 14]

Dude, there are no shortage of ways to legally implement the obvious solution.

Not the least of which is the NHL and NHLPA agreeing that pending UFAs on expiring contracts are simply exempt entirely.

Also, going to a dictionary definition like that is pretty much the ultimate "I've argued way too strongly for an extreme interpretation and I have no idea how to get out of this mess" admission.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

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

In what way would not-protecting an expiring NMC breach the contract?

You can keep spouting out your argument, but if you want to be so pedantic about "upholding" the contract, you should be at least able to provide reasoning on how the contract was breached. A NMC very clearly protects the "Trade, Loan or Waiver claim" as defined by the CBA. The player is not traded, loaned or claimed by waiver.

It's such an absurd argument. I'll bet you $100 that Wideman, as his contract is today, will not need protection under any condition for the expansion draft.

The only mention of the expansion draft in the CBA is this:
Expansion Draft, Team Relocation. Any Player forced to move as a result of being
claimed in an expansion draft, or as a result of a team relocation, shall be paid $6,000. (This
payment shall not affect or be credited against "moving expenses" to which the Player might
otherwise be entitled).

So if Wideman were to be claimed, he gets $6000...

[Oling_Roachinen]

In fact the more you look at the CBA and the player contracts, the more absurd your argument becomes.

"For purposes of this Article, any transfer of a Player by a Club by way of Trade,
Waivers, expansion, team relocation, Loan, or Recall shall be referred to as a "Transfer." A
Player subject to a Transfer shall be referred to as "Transferred." "

While a NMC is clearly defined such that:

"A no-move clause may prevent the involuntary relocation of a Player, whether by
Trade, Loan or Waiver claim."

The fact that the CBA was specific in the forms of transfers including relocation and expansion draft, but did not state that a NMC prevents such an act, is an argument that it does not.

Again, the NHL and NHLPA will agree to the rules of the expansion draft and that will be that.

[Resolute 14]

It would be interesting to see a Carolina Hurricanes player exercise their NMC when the franchise relocates to Quebec though.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

It would be interesting to see a Carolina Hurricanes player exercise their NMC when the franchise relocates to Quebec though.

Their NMC does not protect against franchise relocation though. It would be interesting, but I don't think they would win out on that one. They are neither traded, loaned or waived.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

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.

il·log·i·cal
i(l)ˈläjək(ə)l/
adjective
lacking sense or clear, sound reasoning.
"an illogical fear of the supernatural"
synonyms:irrational, unreasonable, unsound, unreasoned, unjustifiable, groundless, unfounded;


You go ahead and give us that clear, sound reasoning then. Because "it's an irrelevant clause in an irrelevant contract" isn't that. Explain what a NMC is in your understanding and tell us how it applies to this situation.

We aren't even talking about voiding a contract here, we're talking about honouring the spirit of a clause that wouldn't be violated anyway. It's illogical.

Wouldn't have to play a game. Wouldn't have travel to LV, wouldn't have to do anything. The last cheque comes in April, so they wouldn't even be getting a single paystub from their "new team."

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Their NMC does not protect against franchise relocation though. It would be interesting, but I don't think they would win out on that one. They are neither traded, loaned or waived.

I know. I was applying AB's extremist logic to the other event you bolded.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I know. I was applying AB's extremist logic to the other event you bolded.

Extremist logic that upholding a contract is logical? Now that is about the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

Extremist logic that upholding a contract is logical? Now that is about the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

By the logic you've pigeonholed yourself into, which is not actually part of the SPC or CBA, you would also be arguing that a franchise can't move as long as a player has a NMC...otherwise it would be a breach (again by your logic, not the actual contracts).

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

By the logic you've pigeonholed yourself into, which is not actually part of the SPC or CBA, you would also be arguing that a franchise can't move as long as a player has a NMC...otherwise it would be a breach (again by your logic, not the actual contracts).

The league & PA have agreed to uphold NMCs, I am not even sharing opinions just simple facts. I haven't pigeonholed myself into anything except saying upholding a contract if the player(s) refuse to waive is not illogical.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

The league & PA have agreed to uphold NMCs, I am not even sharing opinions just simple facts. I haven't pigeonholed myself into anything except saying upholding a contract if the player(s) refuse to waive is not illogical.

When did they do that?

Do you have evidence stating the NMCs of expiring contracts need to be honoured?

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

When did they do that?

Do you have evidence stating the NMCs of expiring contracts need to be honoured?

I never said that they agreed to that specifically. No word has come out one way or another about that instance specifically (likely because it only affects about a dozen players). I was stating they have agreed to honor NMC's, which has been reported several times.

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

on no planet is being forced to uphold a contract illogical

Talking about contracts in general.

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

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.

Ah, I see. Now you've shifted back to talking about specifics.

If you don't see how your earlier statement is extreme, then there's probably not much use trying to convince you otherwise.

All 'x' is 'y'. Doesn't leave a lot of room for nuance.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by the2bears

Talking about contracts in general.



Ah, I see. Now you've shifted back to talking about specifics.

If you don't see how your earlier statement is extreme, then there's probably not much use trying to convince you otherwise.

All 'x' is 'y'. Doesn't leave a lot of room for nuance.

How is it extreme? I left room for players being able to waive them. The pack mentality here is sad and pathetic. 5 posters go after one guy and he tries to word things a bit differently to get his point across and he is suddenly extreme and put down. But I'm done with this argument, enjoy.

[May 25, 1989]

Someone needs to ask Mr. Treliving at the next season ticket holders meeting his understanding right now on whether Wideman will have to be protected with an expiring contract and a NMC. Get it done CP!!!

[Robbob]

The next event is on June 15th, if I get my confirmation I'll ask.

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

How is it extreme? I left room for players being able to waive them. The pack mentality here is sad and pathetic. 5 posters go after one guy and he tries to word things a bit differently to get his point across and he is suddenly extreme and put down. But I'm done with this argument, enjoy.

I answered you quite reasonably, "pack mentality" for sure