Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Go Back   Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community > Main Forums > Fire on Ice: The Calgary Flames Forum
Register Forum Rules FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-30-2016, 07:42 PM   #4601
Red Potato Standing By
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Exp:
Default

Does the NMC follow the player? I thought it could be removed once the player was traded
Red Potato Standing By is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2016, 07:53 PM   #4602
Karl
Franchise Player
 
Karl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Toronto
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zethrynn View Post
Does the NMC follow the player? I thought it could be removed once the player was traded
Yes. The only way you can get a player to waive a NMC is if the GM asks the player AND the player agrees to do that.
Karl is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Karl For This Useful Post:
Old 05-30-2016, 08:06 PM   #4603
DJones
First Line Centre
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Exp:
Default

Kind of partial to Brown and Jost.

Wouldn't be mad if they gambled and traded down.

If we stick at #6, I just hope someone reaches for a defensemen
DJones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2016, 08:14 PM   #4604
Vinny01
Franchise Player
 
Vinny01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: CGY
Exp:
Default

I am not a fan of trading down but if it happens I hope they use the assets to land both a stud goalie, top 6 forward and draft once in the second round (i.e. Trade our first for a lower pick and a 2nd then trade 3 of 4 of the 2nds for players that help next year)
Vinny01 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Vinny01 For This Useful Post:
Old 05-31-2016, 12:02 AM   #4605
Calgary4LIfe
Franchise Player
 
Calgary4LIfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zethrynn View Post
Does the NMC follow the player? I thought it could be removed once the player was traded
I was confused about this myself before. According to Cap Friendly:

https://www.capfriendly.com/faq#nmc_ntc

Quote:
A No-Movement Clause (NMC) prohibits a team from moving a player, or assigning a player to the minor division without their consent (by trade, loan or waivers). This ensures the players’ presence on the team, unless they consent to moving. However, an NMC does not prevent a team from buying out or terminating a players contract. An NMC follows a player even if they waive the clause and are traded, but it does not protect a player from being bought out.

A No-Trade Clause (NTC) is less restrictive, and only places restrictions on player movement as a result of trades. A player with an NTC cannot be traded to another team unless the player provides consent. However, player consent is not required for placement on waivers or assignment to minors. An NTC does not follow a player if they waive a full NTC, or are traded within the terms of a limited or modified NTC.
So yes, Clarkson still has his NMC. Often teams as a goodwill gesture will reinstate a player's NTC once acquiring a player with such a clause. I am betting that in at least some of those cases, it was part of the agreement for said player to agree to move to the new team. However, NTCs do in fact get lifted after a trade, but NMCs do not.
Calgary4LIfe is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Calgary4LIfe For This Useful Post:
Old 05-31-2016, 01:45 AM   #4606
Karl
Franchise Player
 
Karl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Toronto
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe View Post
I was confused about this myself before. According to Cap Friendly:

https://www.capfriendly.com/faq#nmc_ntc



So yes, Clarkson still has his NMC. Often teams as a goodwill gesture will reinstate a player's NTC once acquiring a player with such a clause. I am betting that in at least some of those cases, it was part of the agreement for said player to agree to move to the new team. However, NTCs do in fact get lifted after a trade, but NMCs do not.
Thanks for this. Yikes! Just confirms to me why the Clarkson contract is WAY too risky to take on under any circumstance or at any cost/benefit (even if it's to get the 3rd overall draft pick).

Last edited by Karl; 05-31-2016 at 01:48 AM.
Karl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2016, 01:48 AM   #4607
Krynn
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sylvanfan View Post
The thing is that you'd have to evaluate Trevor Kidd independently without considering Martin Brodeour as part of the equation.

Kidd actually was a starter for 3 ish years and was a key piece in a deal to get J.S. Giguere. So what was a player like that worth?

Had the Flames stayed put at 21, we don't know what would have happened. What we do know is that the Flames moved up to take Kidd, and was Kidd a good enough player that you could say was worth moving into the 11th spot in the draft to pick?

The likely answer in this case is no...but I think that's the sort of thing that analytics types would be looking to evaluate here.
At the time kidd was the best goalie of that draft and was considered a can't miss prospect. Marty was the 3rd best
No one really knows how a player will turn out .
Krynn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2016, 04:37 AM   #4608
T@T
Lifetime Suspension
 
T@T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Krynn View Post
At the time kidd was the best goalie of that draft and was considered a can't miss prospect. Marty was the 3rd best
No one really knows how a player will turn out .
I remember Potvin being the highest ranked goalie that draft by many "experts", but because he played on a very good team some felt his stats were exaggerated, Brodeur looked great by anyone who saw him but because he only played one year in the Q some felt he was unproven. Kidd turned out exactly what the scouting report in the hockeynews said. great spectacular save one minute, extreme softy the next.
This draft wasn't one of Fletcher's better moments, you know that when your best pick was Paul "Ficken" Kruse in the 4th round.

I remember being choked they didn't take a kid from High River who had a bunch of points for Lethbridge, Mark Graig

Yeah, He sucked too!
T@T is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to T@T For This Useful Post:
Old 05-31-2016, 06:51 AM   #4609
Red Menace
Scoring Winger
 
Red Menace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Montreal
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Erick Estrada View Post
Someone remind me the last time the Flames made a pick between 20-30th overall that amounted to anything outside of Backlund? This is why you stay at 6th and take a player with higher odds of paying off.
The answer is 1985 and Joe Nieuwendyk at #27
The Flames have picked in spots #21 to #30 17 times since they moved to Calgary, and the large majority of those picks have been busts.
Niewuendyk, Backlund, Matteau are the only ones who really made it. (so far)
The rest of that list is pretty ugly:
Jason Muzzatti, Kent Manderville, Tim Erixon, Emile Poirier, Leland Irving, Matt Pelech, Greg Nemisz, Mark Jankowski, Morgan Klmichuk, Kris Chucko, Chris O'Sullivan, Dave Reierson, Nicolas Perrault, Mike Perovich

Your sentiment is bang on, don't trade down to the 20's for extra picks when you have a top 10 pick, use it...those opportunities don't come around too often (hopefully) and your chances of success are much much higher.

Last edited by Red Menace; 05-31-2016 at 06:57 AM.
Red Menace is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 13 Users Say Thank You to Red Menace For This Useful Post:
Old 05-31-2016, 09:04 AM   #4610
Lanny_McDonald
Franchise Player
 
Lanny_McDonald's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Menace View Post
The answer is 1985 and Joe Nieuwendyk at #27
The Flames have picked in spots #21 to #30 17 times since they moved to Calgary, and the large majority of those picks have been busts.
Niewuendyk, Backlund, Matteau are the only ones who really made it. (so far)
The rest of that list is pretty ugly:
Jason Muzzatti, Kent Manderville, Tim Erixon, Emile Poirier, Leland Irving, Matt Pelech, Greg Nemisz, Mark Jankowski, Morgan Klmichuk, Kris Chucko, Chris O'Sullivan, Dave Reierson, Nicolas Perrault, Mike Perovich

Your sentiment is bang on, don't trade down to the 20's for extra picks when you have a top 10 pick, use it...those opportunities don't come around too often (hopefully) and your chances of success are much much higher.
A little premature on a few of those names? Poirier, Jankowski and Klimchuk are still works in progress. Also, who gives a rip about players drafted 20+ years ago. Scouting and player development has changed so much in the past decade that it is almost a completely different game. For the Flames I think things changed with the departure of Sutter and the commitment to improving the scouting and player development departments by management. To me, the most important hire made was bringing in Michel Goulet, who has an incredible eye for talent. The Flames now have nine guys scouting the various amateur leagues, which is a massive improvement from years gone by.

I don't disagree with your sentiment of being hesitant to trade down, but I would not base that decision on information from 20 years ago. I would leave that decision to the scouts and what their confidence level is on the particular draft and quality of player available. If the player available at 20 is projected to be just as good as the player at 6, I support the move trading down. This may be one of those drafts where the best player, outside of the top three, comes late in the first. I trust the current crop of scouts to make the correct decision.
Lanny_McDonald is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
Old 05-31-2016, 09:12 AM   #4611
Five-hole
Franchise Player
 
Five-hole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The C-spot
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era View Post

I don't disagree with your sentiment of being hesitant to trade down, but I would not base that decision on information from 20 years ago. I would leave that decision to the scouts and what their confidence level is on the particular draft and quality of player available. If the player available at 20 is projected to be just as good as the player at 6, I support the move trading down. This may be one of those drafts where the best player, outside of the top three, comes late in the first. I trust the current crop of scouts to make the correct decision.


Good post, but I think you have a logic problem in the last part. It may well be true that the best player after 3 is picked at 24. It may well be true that the best player after 3 is picked at 121. That doesn't mean you should trade 6th for 24th.

The general quality of player picked from 4-10 will be higher than those picked from 24-30, like it is every year. Your best chance to get the best player is at 6, not at 24.

Hindsight fallacy, I believe is the issue.
Five-hole is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Five-hole For This Useful Post:
Old 05-31-2016, 09:20 AM   #4612
Calgary4LIfe
Franchise Player
 
Calgary4LIfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era View Post
A little premature on a few of those names? Poirier, Jankowski and Klimchuk are still works in progress. Also, who gives a rip about players drafted 20+ years ago. Scouting and player development has changed so much in the past decade that it is almost a completely different game. For the Flames I think things changed with the departure of Sutter and the commitment to improving the scouting and player development departments by management. To me, the most important hire made was bringing in Michel Goulet, who has an incredible eye for talent. The Flames now have nine guys scouting the various amateur leagues, which is a massive improvement from years gone by.

I don't disagree with your sentiment of being hesitant to trade down, but I would not base that decision on information from 20 years ago. I would leave that decision to the scouts and what their confidence level is on the particular draft and quality of player available. If the player available at 20 is projected to be just as good as the player at 6, I support the move trading down. This may be one of those drafts where the best player, outside of the top three, comes late in the first. I trust the current crop of scouts to make the correct decision.
Darryl Sutter was GM that got management to start opening up the purse strings, and even invest in their own AHL team to better control the development of their prospects, as well as start (I believe) a developmental side of their hockey ops.

Michel Goulet is a pro scout, not an amateur scout. He goes to the draft every year, but he is there as an advisor when trade scenarios pop out involving established players. He has absolutely no say on the amateur side.

I do agree that the entire scouting of the draft - and the prospect draftees themselves - are a totally different animal than what it was back then. Still, I imagine the odds of 'hitting' and 'missing' inverse at some point in the first round. At the very least, I would still expect players in the 2nd half of the draft to have generally have less of an impact to their team than a player taken earlier in the draft, as well as requiring more time to even start his career.

I, too, would trust the scouts if they chose to draft down as the last 7 or 8 years of drafting has shown a continual improvement... but I would be disappointed if that happened. I would be all for dropping a couple of spots, but not into the middle - third of the 1st round.
Calgary4LIfe is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Calgary4LIfe For This Useful Post:
Old 05-31-2016, 09:22 AM   #4613
Poe969
Franchise Player
 
Poe969's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Thunder Bay Ontario
Exp:
Default

I think the one thing being left out of the "trade down" scenarios is what would be given in order to trade down. If a team offers a third rounder to go from 6 to 20 then you say no but if the avs offered Barrie + 10 for 6, then you say yes. **that was just an example
If the ducks offered Andersen to switch picks, then maybe you think about it.

If a team overpays then you should consider it but it would have to be a big over payment.
__________________
Fan of the Flames, where being OK has become OK.
Poe969 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2016, 09:33 AM   #4614
CliffFletcher
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: May 2006
Exp:
Default

Trading down from 18th to 24th because you're pretty sure a guy you like will still be available make sense. At that stage of the draft there difference between prospects is a lot flatter, and comes down to how different teams see the players. Trading down from 6th to 12th, on the other hand, is a bad idea.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze View Post
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
CliffFletcher is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
Old 05-31-2016, 09:38 AM   #4615
Lanny_McDonald
Franchise Player
 
Lanny_McDonald's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Five-hole View Post
Good post, but I think you have a logic problem in the last part. It may well be true that the best player after 3 is picked at 24. It may well be true that the best player after 3 is picked at 121. That doesn't mean you should trade 6th for 24th.

The general quality of player picked from 4-10 will be higher than those picked from 24-30, like it is every year. Your best chance to get the best player is at 6, not at 24.

Hindsight fallacy, I believe is the issue.
I think you hav read that all wrong. I am saying that the if the scouts have come to the conclusion that the talent level of the players available between picks six and twenty are the same, and the best player on their list, the guy they think will be the best, is likely to be available later, they should trade down. Only they know this because they are the ones who have assessed the draft and determined the strength and then the order of the prospects. Everything in that process is predictive. I don't see where hindsight comes into play in that process?
Lanny_McDonald is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2016, 09:44 AM   #4616
Erick Estrada
Franchise Player
 
Erick Estrada's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: San Fernando Valley
Exp:
Default

Who's scouts have come to the conclusion that 6 - 20 are the same? Sure sounded from the Contoy interview that they have a short list of players they expect at the 6th spot and Burke said they didn't want to fall further than 7th in the draft lotter as they believe there is a critical drop off after 7 so it certainly sounds like the Flames don't plan on trading back.

I don't want the Flames to take a defenseman at 6 but if it came to that or trading out of the top ten I would take Juolevi at 6 100/100 times as there's a far greater chance he becomes a better player than any of the guys that go 15 or later. Far better chance.

Last edited by Erick Estrada; 05-31-2016 at 12:30 PM.
Erick Estrada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2016, 12:26 PM   #4617
puckedoff
First Line Centre
 
puckedoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Exp:
Default

Is there a reason we are not posting speculation/articles/measurements/PULLUP SCORES from the combine this year? We could freak out about that for a bit it would kill some time until the draft
puckedoff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2016, 12:33 PM   #4618
Royle9
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by puckedoff View Post
Is there a reason we are not posting speculation/articles/measurements/PULLUP SCORES from the combine this year? We could freak out about that for a bit it would kill some time until the draft
Interviews only started yesterday, perhaps some news is out there regarding these but probably not much. Actual fitness testing doesn't start until Saturday.
Royle9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2016, 12:33 PM   #4619
sureLoss
Some kinda newsbreaker!
 
sureLoss's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Learning Phaneufs skating style
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by puckedoff View Post
Is there a reason we are not posting speculation/articles/measurements/PULLUP SCORES from the combine this year? We could freak out about that for a bit it would kill some time until the draft
It is mostly interviews right now. Medical and phyiscal testing along with interviews with the media are the last few days.
sureLoss is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to sureLoss For This Useful Post:
Old 05-31-2016, 12:40 PM   #4620
cannon7
Needs More Cowbell
 
cannon7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Not Canada, Eh?
Exp:
Default

Forget trading down, I trade our two second round picks for a late first and grab a guy like Gauthier.
cannon7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
2016 nhl draft , nhl draft , nhl entry draft


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:58 PM.

Calgary Flames
2024-25




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2021 | See Our Privacy Policy