[Rumour] UPD: Daly says no need to protect expiring contracts with NMC - Page 4 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Robbob · 06-05-2016, 09:38 AM

The stupid thing is that all ufas can discuss contract talks a week before the contract ends as part of the grace period before July 1st. So if this is true, a player would have to be protected by team A while at the same time the player would be allowed to talk to any of the other teams about a new contract.

puffnstuff · 06-05-2016, 09:39 AM

If the contract expires in 10 days, what would the buyout be?

TheScorpion · 06-05-2016, 09:42 AM

Got an idea.

We trade Wideman to a team with no defence. Considering the options, the Oilers. Get whatever the heck you can for him, and then they can protect him without feeling too horrible.

This is still a really stupid rule. Holy mackerel.

Canada 02 · 06-05-2016, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by browna

That's assuming Gio is still on the roster by that point.

he does have a full NTC kicking in July 1 to make things complicated, but agree that you would try to move him rather than lose him for nothing; the acquiring team would need room to protect another D-man

Resolute 14 · 06-05-2016, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

Buy out has to happen. Yet another Feaster blunder that we get to live with. Why on Earth was a Wideman calibre player given a NMC. Dumb dumb GM.

Because it was the only way a Wideman calibre player signs with the Flames in the first place. Not that it makes the contract better, mind you.

Samonadreau · 06-05-2016, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

Got an idea.

We trade Wideman to a team with no defence. Considering the options, the Oilers. Get whatever the heck you can for him, and then they can protect him without feeling too horrible.

This is still a really stupid rule. Holy mackerel.

Nice try. Oilers still have D they would want to protect over an expiring ufa.

Wideman is un-tradeable if this go's through.

Derek Sutton · 06-05-2016, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikephoen

They'll probably just have the expansion draft on July 1st and then free agency can begin on July 5th or something like that. Problems solved.

This is the simplest solution that makes the most sense. Wasn't free agency delayed a day or two last year for some reason?

Resolute 14 · 06-05-2016, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by puffnstuff

If the contract expires in 10 days, what would the buyout be?

Actually, you make a good point. The buy-out period begins on either June 15 or 48 hours after the Stanley Cup is awarded. I had thought it was between the draft and free agency period.

mikephoen · 06-05-2016, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Actually, you make a good point. The buy-out period begins on either June 15 or 48 hours after the Stanley Cup is awarded. I had thought it was between the draft and free agency period.

So basically teams will be able to 'buyout' these contracts that have zero dollars left on them. And all this panic was over nothing.

Cleveland Steam Whistle · 06-05-2016, 10:20 AM

I haven't really been following the discussion, but as much as people want to be upset with the NHL if this is the decision they've come to, I'm guessing it's likely because they legally feel they are required too based on the NMC verbiage in contracts. As dumb as it sounds, and even if it's a moot point, if the contract is still valid during the draft, and being picked up by the expansion team is considered movement (whether the player ever plays there or not) they probably have to protect those contracts.

Cleveland Steam Whistle · 06-05-2016, 10:23 AM

That will be a fun outcome, and also point out of the hilariousness of contract law. So we are going to have to say that all expiring NMC must be protected? Correct. But any team that wants can buy that contract out before the draft, with no penalty? Correct. So why don't we jus say you don't need to protect them them, save everyone the trouble and paper work? Sorry, you can't, that would violate the players contracts.

Resolute 14 · 06-05-2016, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

That will be a fun outcome, and also point out of the hilariousness of contract law. So we are going to have to say that all expiring NMC must be protected? Correct. But any team that wants can buy that contract out before the draft, with no penalty? Correct. So why don't we jus say you don't need to protect them them, save everyone the trouble and paper work? Sorry, you can't, that would violate the players contracts.

You wouldn't have to do either if you just agree that expiring contracts for pending UFAs are exempt from the draft entirely.

sureLoss · 06-05-2016, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikephoen

So basically teams will be able to 'buyout' these contracts that have zero dollars left on them. And all this panic was over nothing.

That assumes the league allows a buyout of an expiring contract, which there has been no precedent for or any reason to attempt one.

Buyouts have been used up to now to end contracts with years after the upcoming July 1st.

underGRADFlame · 06-05-2016, 10:32 AM

Silly question but could you not ask the player with the expiring No-Move to waive it before the expansion draft?

Yoho · 06-05-2016, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by underGRADFlame

Silly question but could you not ask the player with the expiring No-Move to waive it before the expansion draft?

Or before the season?

Strange Brew · 06-05-2016, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Par

I don't think that Pronger gets picked anyway, hopefully the league throws the Coyotes a bone and say he is exempt from the draft(highly unlikely the league does this though).

Problem isn't that he gets picked. It is that you are forced to use one of your slots to protect him.

Anyway I just can't believe that this happens. Has anyone from the league or a team actually addressed this specific situation? It is absurd.

Ashasx · 06-05-2016, 10:47 AM

The team (besides the Flames) that really gets screwed by this is Tampa with Bishop.

They'll be forced to protect Bishop and expose Vasilevskiy right now regardless, but if they don't re-sign Bishop, he'll be exposed and become a UFA 10 days later. They'd have no goalies.

So when it comes to re-signing Bishop before the expansion draft, his camp will have all the leverage.

Literally the stupidest rule ever.

But, somehow, I imagine the only team that will end up getting screwed is the Flames.

Roof-Daddy · 06-05-2016, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ashasx

The team (besides the Flames) that really gets screwed by this is Tampa with Bishop.

They'll be forced to protect Bishop and expose Vasilevskiy right now regardless, but if they don't re-sign Bishop, he'll be exposed and become a UFA 10 days later. They'd have no goalies.

So when it comes to re-signing Bishop before the expansion draft, his camp will have all the leverage.

Literally the stupidest rule ever.

But, somehow, I imagine the only team that will end up getting screwed is the Flames.

Yikes, I missed that one.

I still want to know if MAF needs to be protected too. The guy has a Limited NTC and a NMC according to CapFriendly, and as ar as I know there is no such thing as a limited NMC. A No-Move clause is a No-Move clause and he should have to be protected, which means they have to either trade him within the limits of his NTC or leave Murray exposed.

Going to be interesting times.

FlamesNation23 · 06-05-2016, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ashasx

The team (besides the Flames) that really gets screwed by this is Tampa with Bishop.

They'll be forced to protect Bishop and expose Vasilevskiy right now regardless, but if they don't re-sign Bishop, he'll be exposed and become a UFA 10 days later. They'd have no goalies.

So when it comes to re-signing Bishop before the expansion draft, his camp will have all the leverage.

Literally the stupidest rule ever.

But, somehow, I imagine the only team that will end up getting screwed is the Flames.

If this is indeed the case then it should mean it would be much easier to trade for bishop or MAF because tampa and pitts need to get rid of them in order to not risk losing their young studs. I don't get how this is all bad. Cant we just buyout wideman and then trade for one of these goalies when the cost to acquire will be much less than before?

Ashasx · 06-05-2016, 10:59 AM

The problem with buying out Wideman is that it creates a pretty significant cap hit for 17/18, at a time when we will need to re-sign Bennett when we're already strapped for space.

Though the cost for Bishop at this point should be peanuts if all this ends up being true. But it also creates another risk for us if we trade for him during the off-season. If he doesn't re-sign with us (and again, his camp has all the leverage), we'd be forced to protect 2 players that aren't returning.