You wouldn't have to do either if you just agree that expiring contracts for pending UFAs are exempt from the draft entirely.
i bet legally you can't distinguish between an expiring contract and all the rest. Either a contract is valid, or it's not. So if you did that, you'd have to make all NMC exempt, and that would be letting the teams that signed NMCs off really easy in this draft.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Cleveland Steam Whistle For This Useful Post:
I actually think that this could be a counter move by the NHLPA to players with a NTC being exposed. The league decided to take the words no trade literally, and argue that an expansion draft does not constitute a trade. In turn the NHLPA decided that it wants the league to honor all NMCs until their expiry. Which is why in this case I am not sure if postponing free agency by a few days will have any effect.
One big question I have is - will a NMC expire on July 1st? or will it expire with the start of free agency? It seems the term of a NMC is negotiated with the team and is not specified in the CBA directly. This is why it will depend on the wording of each individual clause. I quoted the CBA article just in case; so what do you guys think?
Quote:
11.8 Individually Negotiated Limitations on Player Movement.
Spoiler!
(a) The SPC of any Player who is a Group 3 Unrestricted Free Agent under Article
10.1(a) may contain a no-Trade or a no-move clause. SPCs containing a no-Trade or a no-move
clause may be entered into prior to the time that the Player is a Group 3 Unrestricted Free Agent
so long as the SPC containing the no-Trade or no-move clause extends through and does not
become effective until the time that the Player qualifies for Group 3 Unrestricted Free Agency.
If the Player is Traded or claimed on Waivers prior to the no-Trade or no-move clause taking
effect, the clause does not bind the acquiring Club. An acquiring Club may agree to continue to
be bound by the no-Trade or no-move clause, which agreement shall be evidenced in writing to
the Player, Central Registry and the NHLPA, in accordance with Exhibit 3 hereof.
(b) A no-Trade clause or a no-move clause that is negotiated as part of an extension
of an SPC entered into pursuant to Section 50.5(f) may become effective immediately upon
registration of, but prior to the effective date of, such SPC extension, provided: (i) the Player
would otherwise have been eligible as of the immediately preceding July 1 prior to signing the
SPC extension to have a no-Trade or no-move clause pursuant to Section 11.8; and (ii) the Club
and the Player, who are parties to such SPC extension, agree that the no-Trade or no-move clause
is effective immediately upon execution of the SPC extension (or at some later date agreed to by
the Club and the Player) and evidence such agreement in writing in the SPC.
(c) A no-move clause may prevent the involuntary relocation of a Player, whether by
Trade, Loan or Waiver claim. A no-move clause, however, may not restrict the Club's Buy-Out
and termination rights as set forth in this Agreement. Prior to exercising its Ordinary Course
Buy-Out rights pursuant to Paragraph 13 of the SPC hereof, the Club shall, in writing in
accordance with the notice provisions in Exhibit 3 hereof, provide the Player with the option of
electing to be placed on Waivers. The Player will have twenty-four (24) hours from the time he
receives such notice to accept or reject that option at his sole discretion, and shall so inform the
Club in writing, in accordance with the notice provisions in Exhibit 3 hereof, within such twentyfour
(24) hour period. If the Player does not timely accept or reject that option, it will be deemed
rejected.
i bet legally you can't distinguish between an expiring contract and all the rest. Either a contract is valid, or it's not. So if you did that, you'd have to make all NMC exempt, and that would be letting the teams that signed NMCs off really easy in this draft.
The legal contract is that the player cannot be moved without consent. There's no legal reason the league needs to treat all NMCs the same, as long as they respect the previous statement. Expansion and protection rules are league rules, not law. They could easily say that expiring NMCs are exempt from the draft if they chose to.
The legal contract is that the player cannot be moved without consent. There's no legal reason the league needs to treat all NMCs the same, as long as they respect the previous statement. Expansion and protection rules are league rules, not law. They could easily say that expiring NMCs are exempt from the draft if they chose to.
I get what you are saying, but not sure it's that easy. NMC is simply a clause in a contract, not a type of contract that is different than other contracts.
I'm not so sure you could say no expiring NMCs are part of the draft, without excluding ALL expiring contracts.
Personally, I think it makes more sense to just have the expansion draft the same day free agency starts. That way expansion teams can know who it available on the market before they make their selections. It would give them the benefit of having the full picture.
It saves teams from having to protect expiring NMCs, and it would also give the expansion team the same playing field as the other 30 teams when it comes to planning. It's no secret that some teams let players walk based on who they think they have a chance of signing as a UFA.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
The Bishop case is interesting. Tampa needs to move him or buy him out, assuming he is not in their future plans. No team will take him unless it's a sign and trade, too big a risk. Trade is best for Tampa, but buy out is best for the player.
Personally, I think it makes more sense to just have the expansion draft the same day free agency starts. That way expansion teams can know who it available on the market before they make their selections. It would give them the benefit of having the full picture.
It saves teams from having to protect expiring NMCs, and it would also give the expansion team the same playing field as the other 30 teams when it comes to planning. It's no secret that some teams let players walk based on who they think they have a chance of signing as a UFA.
as others have pointed out in other threasds, the league will want the expansion team to have players to trade at the draft
The Bishop case is interesting. Tampa needs to move him or buy him out, assuming he is not in their future plans. No team will take him unless it's a sign and trade, too big a risk. Trade is best for Tampa, but buy out is best for the player.
Yeah, but if he doesn't want a trade they can't trade him, and them buying out a top 5 goalie in the league seems unlikely , even in these circumstances.
Yeah, but if he doesn't want a trade they can't trade him, and them buying out a top 5 goalie in the league seems unlikely , even in these circumstances.
They are (or will be) in a pickle, I assume Brad knows what to do
At what point will Vegas be allowed to start making trades? They should allow Vegas to make trades prior to the expansion draft. Then we can trade them Wideman for future draft picks.
The only question is, would Gio give up the captaincy?
Nope not C for iggy. All gio now. Iggy along for the ride
Really this would be my only concern with the move, screwing up team dynamics bringing iggy back. The roster is almost fully rolled over though so indont see a problem.
For the record, i was actually very much in the Iggy retirement 1 day contract thing but i believe this to be a better option
Last edited by shotinthebacklund; 06-05-2016 at 01:14 PM.
Reason: Typo
At what point will Vegas be allowed to start making trades? They should allow Vegas to make trades prior to the expansion draft. Then we can trade them Wideman for future draft picks.
Why would Vegas give up picks for a player they can have for free 10 days later or select in the draft?
