2015/2016 Trade Speculation and Rumors v2

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by MissTeeks

The Fourth Period for Fleury:

Marc-Andre Fleury (limited, can submit a list of 12 teams he will not accept trade to)

Yeah, but then he has a No-Move clause as well correct?

No-Move clauses and No-Trade clauses are two different things I thought.

So Fleury supposedly has a No-Trade Clause that is limited to 12 teams, but then he has a No-Move clause as well that doesn't allow him to be sent to the minors, or in this case doesn't allow him to exposed in an expansion draft.

At least that's what I thought.

[bax]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

Yeah, but then he has a No-Move clause as well correct?



No-Move clauses and No-Trade clauses are two different things I thought.



So Fleury supposedly has a No-Trade Clause that is limited to 12 teams, but then he has a No-Move clause as well that doesn't allow him to be sent to the minors, or in this case doesn't allow him to exposed in an expansion draft.



At least that's what I thought.

This is how I understood it as well.

[dissentowner]

I am just going by what sportsnet said in this article
http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/m...-label-fleury/

An interesting aspect of the recent deal worked out by the NHL and NHL Players’ Association regarding expansion draft rules is that only players with a full no-movement clause will have to be protected by their team, according to a source.

Fleury’s contract includes a no-movement clause for the purposes of waivers or being assigned to the American Hockey League, but it is limited when it comes to trades. Each year he submits a 12-team list of teams where he can’t be dealt.

As a result, he’s not exempt from the expansion process and the Penguins would have to decide between protecting either him or Murray if both remained on the roster through the end of next season. It might ultimately force general manager Jim Rutherford into making up his mind sooner in order to trade one away and get a return on the asset.

[Ashasx]

The idea that we'll have to protect Wideman when he'll become a UFA 2 weeks later is still boggling my mind.

[mdubz]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

The idea that we'll have to protect Wideman when he'll become a UFA 2 weeks later is still boggling my mind.

Why would an expansion team want a player who is a UFA in 2 weeks anyways? He wouldn't be picked up regardless of his NMC.

[Soccergirl1987]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

The idea that we'll have to protect Wideman when he'll become a UFA 2 weeks later is still boggling my mind.

Are you sure that's the way it works? I thought that UFAs weren't included in the lists or the salaries (min 25% of your roster or whatever it is)?

[JJ1532]

Originally Posted by mdubz

Why would an expansion team want a player who is a UFA in 2 weeks anyways? He wouldn't be picked up regardless of his NMC.

Yep. Besides, I'm convinced he'll be gone way before then.

[SuperMatt18]

I still don't see UFA's being included - the criteria will probably be something like "A player must have a contract that is valid for the 17/18 NHL season to be eligible for the expansion draft - not including RFAs where a team holds their rights"

That would then rule out all UFAs

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by Soccergirl1987

Are you sure that's the way it works? I thought that UFAs weren't included in the lists or the salaries (min 25% of your roster or whatever it is)?

There was a discussion in the expansion thread and the wording seems very much that the Flames will have to protect Wideman.

But to me it completely defeats the intended purposes of the rule and expansion because Wideman will never be picked as a UFA by an expansion team, so why would we have to honour his NMC? You're protecting him from nothing.

[Fire]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

There was a discussion in the expansion thread and the wording seems very much that the Flames will have to protect Wideman.

But to me it completely defeats the intended purposes of the rule and expansion because Wideman will never be picked as a UFA by an expansion team, so why would we have to honour his NMC? You're protecting him from nothing.

It's pretty much 100% guaranteed Treliving would buy Wideman out if he had to protect him in an expansion draft. Sucks about the wasted cap space the following season, but better than losing Giordano, Brodie or Hamilton in the expansion draft.

[Badgers Nose]

Unless he wants the Flames contract to be his last, Wideman will accept a trade. Flames will bury him under young defencemen this season and he will risk getting Glencrossed.

[Vinny01]

Worst case scenario is buying out Wideman

[saillias]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

Worst case scenario is buying out Wideman

More like best case scenario IMO. No trade is going to be pretty. Cap retention or equal money coming back. Like the David Jones return but without the 6th. So why bother?

[JJ1532]

Originally Posted by saillias

More like best case scenario IMO. No trade is going to be pretty. Cap retention or equal money coming back. Like the David Jones return but without the 6th. So why bother?

Cap retention works fine for me, even up to 50%. Especially if it sweetens the return, which it should, because you are getting a capable point producer for a bargain price.

I'm just not sure what the managements stance is on Wideman. Obviously things are up in the air now that Dennis' biggest fan in Hartley has gone, but what does Treliving want to do with him? Will he actively look to trade him, or is he going to wait for offers to come in? Or does he want to keep him, polish him up next season and trade him at the deadline. Be very interesting to see f Wideman is still with us come October. I don't think he's unmoveable as some have suggested. I think with retained salary, he would be a decent addition for a number of teams. Not even that bothered by the return either.

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by saillias

More like best case scenario IMO. No trade is going to be pretty. Cap retention or equal money coming back. Like the David Jones return but without the 6th. So why bother?

Well, hopefully moving Wideman results in the Flames moving some cap to another area of the roster, while freeing up a D spot for Nakladal/Wotherspoon/Kulak etc.

For instance:

Some Isles fans (I know, just fans) think a Halak for Wideman trade would be good, because they still have a solid D core with Boychuk, Leddy, DeHann and Hickey, and would allow Snow to possibly move Hamonic for a young top six forward instead of a young D man.

I've suggested a Wideman for Michalek trade. The Leafs have a young D and could use a veteran RH PMD, they have a glut of forwards, especially over paid veteran ones. Michalek is a big, fast winger that would be more useful to the Flames than Wideman would be, and if he continues with his injury troubles that would afford the Flames an opportunity to call up one of our many near NHL ready young forwards.

Lots of examples like that.

My biggest hope is they retain a bit of salary and just deal him for picks, but I'd be more than happy with a deal like the examples above happening instead.

[RoughRiderRowdy]

Targeting Jake Allen out of St. Louis with emergence of Elliott?

[midniteowl]

Originally Posted by RoughRiderRowdy

Targeting Jake Allen out of St. Louis with emergence of Elliott?

I think St Loo will trade Elliott instead because of his emergence, his value will never be any higher. The way I look at this is pretty similar to Montreal way back when they have Halak and Price.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Why would they trade either of them? What's their incentive? They needed both of them this year and likely will need both of them next year. Having two solid goalies is a good thing. You don't need to trade one of them away at this point IMO unless someone is overpaying for one of them.

[iloveicedhockey]

And Elliott is UFA next year so a team could use assets only for him to walk.

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by JJ1532

Yep. Besides, I'm convinced he'll be gone way before then.

He's untraceable if that's the case. The smart thing would be to buy him out