[Rumour] UPD: Daly says no need to protect expiring contracts with NMC

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

I've never once suggested it wasn't possible, just that it would be stupid to make that assumption unless it was announced otherwise and that honoring a contract is not illogical, but please continue with your petty posts.

Except for the part where we were all saying that there were numerous ways where this exact scenario could play out - that such players could both have their contracts honoured AND be exempt from the expansion draft - and you kept arguing a point that you now, apparently, did not actually support.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Except for the part where we were all saying that there were numerous ways where this exact scenario could play out - that such players could both have their contracts honoured AND be exempt from the expansion draft - and you kept arguing a point that you now, apparently, did not actually support.

No you were stating it was "illogical" to honor a contract and I called you on that because it is utter bull####. I never once said it couldn't or shouldn't happen, you just were too fixated on arguing that I said it was logical to honor a contract.

[SportsJunky]

You were the fixated one Alberta Beef. I'd let it go now.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

No you were stating it was "illogical" to honor a contract and I called you on that because it is utter bull####. I never once said it couldn't or shouldn't happen, you just were too fixated on arguing that I said it was logical to honor a contract.

This was my first comment on the issue of expiring contracts with NMCs:

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

The most logical position is that NMCs for players with contracts valid for 2017-18 would have to be protected, but contracts expiring after 2016-17 would not.

Nothing in there about it being "illogical" to honor (sic) a contract. You responded by inventing the argument you are still pushing.

I replied with this:

Originally Posted by 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.

In other words, exactly what Bill Daly indicates is the reality.

But you go ahead and continue to pretend that you weren't in the wrong the entire time.

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by old-fart

Pittsburg really needs to consider dumping Fleury if possible, or they will have to expose Murray, won't they?

IMO the Pens should have to protect Fleury.

According to CapFriendly he has:

1) NMC
2) Limited NTC (List 18 teams he CAN be traded to)

SO IMO while he has a limited NTC, the NMC should mean he has to be protected in the event of an expansion draft. Many Pens fans argue that because of the limited NTC, his NMC is limited as well and therefore he doesn't have to be protected. I think a NMC is a NMC, there really is no such thing as a limited NMC.

I guess we will see.

[Incogneto]

Some bad names on that list:

Anaheim:
Kevin Bieksa

Boston
Zdeno Chara

Buffalo:
Zach Bogosian

Colorado:
Francois Beauchemin

Columbus:
David Clarkson
Scott Hartnell
Fedor Tyutin

Edmonton:
Andrej Sekera

Los Angeles:
Vincent Lecavalier (*Supposed to be retiring...)

Minnesota:
Jason Pominville

Montreal:
Jeff Petry

New Jersey
Ryane Clowe

New York Rangers
Marc Staal

Ottawa:
Bobby Ryan
Dion Phaneuf

Tampa Bay
Valtteri Filppula

Toronto:
Nathan Horton

Vancouver:
Henrik Sedin
Daniel Sedin

Winnipeg:
Toby Enstrom

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by SportsJunky

You were the fixated one Alberta Beef. I'd let it go now.

I am fixated because I reply when 3 or 4 different people argue with me? If I only reply to 1 person I get accused of dodging responses. Perhaps you should gain a better understanding of what a person is saying before you accuse them of being fixated.

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

I am fixated because I reply when 3 or 4 different people argue with me? If I only reply to 1 person I get accused of dodging responses. Perhaps you should gain a better understanding of what a person is saying before you accuse them of being fixated.

You were fixated because every time somebody in this thread stated that teams shouldn't have to protect a player with a NMC on an expiring contract because it was dumb to have to protect a player who is going UFA in a matter of days, you had to come flying in with your "letter of the law" BS and say that having to honor a contract was not dumb.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

IMO the Pens should have to protect Fleury.

According to CapFriendly he has:

1) NMC
2) Limited NTC (List 18 teams he CAN be traded to)

SO IMO while he has a limited NTC, the NMC should mean he has to be protected in the event of an expansion draft. Many Pens fans argue that because of the limited NTC, his NMC is limited as well and therefore he doesn't have to be protected. I think a NMC is a NMC, there really is no such thing as a limited NMC.

I guess we will see.

Did I miss any part of when each is valid?
Speculating: I'm assuming the NMC expires at some point and becomes the limited NTC?
So if that was at the end of 2017-18 (contract runs until 2018-19) he would have to be protected, one would think.

[sureLoss]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Did I miss any part of when each is valid?
Speculating: I'm assuming the NMC expires at some point and becomes the limited NTC?
So if that was at the end of 2017-18 (contract runs until 2018-19) he would have to be protected, one would think.

There is some talk that only a full NMC needs to be protected. If a player has a NMC but can name teams he can or can't be traded to the argument is that a team shouldn't be forced to use a protection spot on the player because technically the player can be moved.

Fleury would fall under that category where he has a NMC but has to name 12 teams he cannot be traded to.

Whether that is the case, I guess we will find out.

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Did I miss any part of when each is valid?
Speculating: I'm assuming the NMC expires at some point and becomes the limited NTC?
So if that was at the end of 2017-18 (contract runs until 2018-19) he would have to be protected, one would think.

They are both valid from what I can tell.

The NMC means he can't be sent to the minors (or in this case can't be exposed in an expansion draft), but he can still be traded anytime as long as the team they trade him to is on his list.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

You were fixated because every time somebody in this thread stated that teams shouldn't have to protect a player with a NMC on an expiring contract because it was dumb to have to protect a player who is going UFA in a matter of days, you had to come flying in with your "letter of the law" BS and say that having to honor a contract was not dumb.

I was simply saying honoring a contract is not illogical, which it is not. I would never sign a contract without a full intention of honoring it and I expect the same from everyone else. Does it make sense to make them exempt? Sure. But it also made sense not to due to the contract. Just because my opinions are too complex for you to understand does not mean I am fixated on anything.

Frankly I didn't give two ####s which way this turned out because I firmly believe the Flames would have bought Wideman out if he had to be protected.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

There is some talk that only a full NMC needs to be protected. If a player has a NMC but can name teams he can or can't be traded to the argument is that a team shouldn't be forced to use a protection spot on the player because technically the player can be moved.

Fleury would fall under that category where he has a NMC but has to name 12 teams he cannot be traded to.

Whether that is the case, I guess we will find out.

Complicating things a little... I wonder when he has to name or update his list of 12 teams? Could he add, today, "Las Vegas" and force the Pens to protect him?

So many little wrinkles to this...

[EldrickOnIce]

According to this, it is believed to be 'before the start of every NHL season', whatever that means:

It also includes a limited no-movement clause, which essentially means he can’t be waived or sent to the minors, and a modified no-trade clause.
General manager Jim Rutherford declined to elaborate on the no-trade clause, but it is believed to allow Fleury to, before each season, submit a list of 12 teams to which he cannot be traded. His current deal lets him name eight to which he cannot be dealt.

http://www.post-gazette.com/sports/p...s/201411050241

[Chingas]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

I was simply saying honoring a contract is not illogical, which it is not. I would never sign a contract without a full intention of honoring it and I expect the same from everyone else. Does it make sense to make them exempt? Sure. But it also made sense not to due to the contract. Just because my opinions are too complex for you to understand does not mean I am fixated on anything.

Frankly I didn't give two ####s which way this turned out because I firmly believe the Flames would have bought Wideman out if he had to be protected.

I don't think anyone would say that honoring a contract is illogical. However the contract in this scenario is not the issue, it was the perceived problem potentially being created by the League within a new framework. The situation that would requires teams to protect a player that could no longer offer any value to them was illogical. So in reality the contract per say wasn't really the rub, a new set of guidelines were. You decided to take an obtusely literal position on the scenario repeatedly clutching to the contract angle.

I know i should probably keep quiet and let it go. However your insistence that you are smarter than everyone else because no one other than yourself wanted to take such a literal view of one part of the equation has pushed me over the edge.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

According to this, it is believed to be 'before the start of every NHL season', whatever that means:


http://www.post-gazette.com/sports/p...s/201411050241

rs to

I don't think that article is correct, or is misinterpreting the clauses. According to the CBA the NMC is not modifiable. It is there to prevent a player from being traded, waived or being sent to the minors and doesn't talk about options to alter the clause. If the player were to agree to waive the NMC then the conditions in the limited NTC would then be applied, but only after the NMC was waived. For expansion, you have a NMC it counts against your protection list, or so Daley suggested.

[Dan403]

So with the Wideman thing cleared up, what will our protected list look like?

[Ashasx]

Gaudreau
Monahan
Bennett
Backlund
Frolik
Shinkaruk
Colborne

Giordano
Brodie
Hamilton

Gillies

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Dan403

So with the Wideman thing cleared up, what will our protected list look like?

There still needs to be clarity on the requirement of exemption for young players which is probably still being hammered out. Rumours have circulated around ELC years, other years of pro-experience, etc. which will make a difference. Probably safe to say that at least these guys are confirmed for now.

Gaudreau
Monahan
Bennett
Frolik
Backlund
6th forward
7th forward

Brodie
Giordano
Hamilton

Goalie

[EldrickOnIce]

I'm confused.
I had thought Gillies would have been exempt. Need to read up more I guess.