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

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Erratik

I don't get why anyone is mentioning the possibility of losing Gio, Brodie, or Hamilton. There is zero chance of that happening. If the rules force us to protect Wideman, he gets bought out, period.

If he's still injured, they might not be able to. It was a triceps injury so it could go on for months, I could see him still being injured during the buyout period and the Flames being unable to buy him out as a result. I can't see Wideman allowing the Flames to do that either because he's looking for a bounce back year so he can land another contract. He knows he will play somewhere at $5.25m next year if he doesn't allow the buyout, who knows what happens if he enters UFA? After the year he had, he might have to settle for a PTO, especially since he'd be coming off a bad injury, not to mention the baggage from his hit on Henderson.

If that's how it plays out, maybe the Flames decide they want to go to arbitration with Colborne so they get the second buyout window to use on Wideman, assuming he's healthy by then. Avoiding Wideman being forced into one of those protection slots has to be priority #1 if the article is right.

Gaudreau, Monahan, Bennett, Backlund

Brodie, Giordano, Hamilton, Wideman

Goalie

That leaves Frolik, Colborne, Jokipakka, Poirier, Shinkaruk, and Ferland as notables that would be exposed. Of all those guys, I would be upset about Ferland, Shinkaruk or Poirier the most, depending on how they progress next season. Any of the first three could easily be replaced in UFA IMO, but that doesn't mean I think they are 'bad' players.

Worst case scenario is the Flames have to keep Wideman and 1-3 of Ferland, Shinkaruk or Poirier break out in 16/17. If that happens, I think you would see that young guy get plucked pretty quick. Watch Shinkaruk put up 25 goals and get scooped up in expansion all because of Jay Feaster and Dennis Wideman

[MisterJoji]

So, is buying Wideman out after next season an option. If the buyout window begins 48 hrs after the playoffs end, would you then only have to buyout the final 2 weeks of remaining salary? I can't imagine the penalty for that would be too obtrusive.

[Finger Cookin]

Originally Posted by MisterJoji

So, is buying Wideman out after next season an option. If the buyout window begins 48 hrs after the playoffs end, would you then only have to buyout the final 2 weeks of remaining salary? I can't imagine the penalty for that would be too obtrusive.

Players earn their salary in the regular season. The Flames have no financial obligation to Wideman after the end of the regular season, save for bonuses that might be earned due to individual awards or something like that.

Financial cost and gain of buying him out in 2017 is $0.00. It's a huge win if that means he doesn't have to be protected in an expansion draft, though. I expect a lot of paperwork will be flooding the league offices after the playoffs end next season.

[Geeoff]

Originally Posted by blender

It seems as if forcing teams to protect immenent free agents who have NMCs is a purely punitive act by the league. What other purpose does it serve?

I guess the other purpose would be to have better players available for the expansion team, allowing them to be more competitive.

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

If he's still injured, they might not be able to. It was a triceps injury so it could go on for months, I could see him still being injured during the buyout period and the Flames being unable to buy him out as a result. I can't see Wideman allowing the Flames to do that either because he's looking for a bounce back year so he can land another contract. He knows he will play somewhere at $5.25m next year if he doesn't allow the buyout, who knows what happens if he enters UFA? After the year he had, he might have to settle for a PTO, especially since he'd be coming off a bad injury, not to mention the baggage from his hit on Henderson.

If that's how it plays out, maybe the Flames decide they want to go to arbitration with Colborne so they get the second buyout window to use on Wideman, assuming he's healthy by then. Avoiding Wideman being forced into one of those protection slots has to be priority #1 if the article is right.

Gaudreau, Monahan, Bennett, Backlund

Brodie, Giordano, Hamilton, Wideman

Goalie

That leaves Frolik, Colborne, Jokipakka, Poirier, Shinkaruk, and Ferland as notables that would be exposed. Of all those guys, I would be upset about Ferland, Shinkaruk or Poirier the most, depending on how they progress next season. Any of the first three could easily be replaced in UFA IMO, but that doesn't mean I think they are 'bad' players.

Worst case scenario is the Flames have to keep Wideman and 1-3 of Ferland, Shinkaruk or Poirier break out in 16/17. If that happens, I think you would see that young guy get plucked pretty quick. Watch Shinkaruk put up 25 goals and get scooped up in expansion all because of Jay Feaster and Dennis Wideman

As far as we know Wideman never required surgery for his injury, but even if he did a grade 1 triceps tear has a 3-5 month recovery time, he would easily be ready by August.

Also according to Burrows players in the first 2 years of their ELCs will be exempt from the expansion draft meaning both Shinkaruk and Poirier will be exempt.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by MisterJoji

So, is buying Wideman out after next season an option. If the buyout window begins 48 hrs after the playoffs end, would you then only have to buyout the final 2 weeks of remaining salary? I can't imagine the penalty for that would be too obtrusive.

Originally Posted by Finger Cookin

Players earn their salary in the regular season. The Flames have no financial obligation to Wideman after the end of the regular season, save for bonuses that might be earned due to individual awards or something like that.

Financial cost and gain of buying him out in 2017 is $0.00. It's a huge win if that means he doesn't have to be protected in an expansion draft, though. I expect a lot of paperwork will be flooding the league offices after the playoffs end next season.

I betcha this will end up being the loophole. I'm sure there's legalities in the CBA that require NMC to honored until the last day before free agency that can't be bypassed, leading to this silliness, while those same legalities will likely allow GM's just simply buy out the day before the expansion draft.

[Par]

Wideman is not injured or we would have heard above about it, I am pretty sure he gets bought out.

Here is a article talking about potential destinations for Wideman:


http://www.todaysslapshot.com/calgar...ennis-wideman/

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by jayswin

I betcha this will end up being the loophole. I'm sure there's legalities in the CBA that require NMC to honored until the last day before free agency that can't be bypassed, leading to this silliness, while those same legalities will likely allow GM's just simply buy out the day before the expansion draft.

I really do not think it would be permitted by the NHL, buyouts are for upcoming seasons.

[Roof-Daddy]

Buying out a player when all his money has already been paid out to him makes about as much sense as having to protect that same player from an expansion draft when he's never going to play another game for you.

[Finger Cookin]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

I really do not think it would be permitted by the NHL, buyouts are for upcoming seasons.

11.8 (c) of the CBA:

Originally Posted by CBA

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.

It's the club's option to buy a player out. The future seasons consideration is a mechanism to prevent cap circumvention, not to prevent or halt the actual buyout.

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

Buying out a player when all his money has already been paid out to him makes about as much sense as having to protect that same player from an expansion draft when he's never going to play another game for you.

And for that reason, maybe some wise folks from both parties will point this out and ask whether all the paperwork and filing is necessary to accomplish what could simply be agreed to in the terms of the expansion draft. We'll see!

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Finger Cookin

11.8 (c) of the CBA:


It's the club's option to buy a player out. The future seasons consideration is a mechanism to prevent cap circumvention, not to prevent or halt the actual buyout.


And for that reason, maybe some wise folks from both parties will point this out and ask whether all the paperwork and filing is necessary to accomplish what could simply be agreed to in the terms of the expansion draft. We'll see!

I was speaking specifically about buying a player out after the season with no remaining years left on the deal. The NMC is irrelevant to the actual buyout process, if this were allowed teams could have done this in the past when they are at the roster limit and wanted to make trades.

If these players are bought it it will be before the season starts, not after.

[Calgary4LIfe]

So, why would the NHL be forcing the protection of soon-to-be UFAs with NMCs?

To have more players available in the draft pool.

It is to every team's best interest - other than the expansion franchise(s) - to be able to protect as many players as possible. No expansion team is really going to waste a pick on an expiring contract that may never report. That's pretty safe to say.

So, if I was the GM for SJ, I would sit down with Thornton and Marleau, and say: "Listen, I am not going to re-sign you guys until the expansion draft is over and done with. We would be able to protect less players if we had to protect you two, but we will agree to a contract beforehand, and then we will sign it sometime after the expansion draft."

You can be pretty sure that if Wideman was playing like Wideman of 2 seasons ago, the Flames would want to retain him and would re-sign him (to hopefully a more friendly contract, but that isn't the point). Treliving would just work out the contract with Wideman, and not re-sign Wideman until the expansion draft, thereby gaining another 'protected player'.

I am sure other teams would try to use this 'loophole'.

I think you fix the issue of having to protect someone you are not interested in by saying that you can not re-sign the player for 1 calendar year (or even more) unless you use a protection slot.

I just don't see a realistic scenario where the NHL does indeed force a team to protect a player they have no interest in retaining. They will make some exceptions there with some added rules or caveats. Plus, as others have said, this is coming from Larry Brooks. I will wait until I hear something directly from the NHL, or at least McKenzie or Friedman before I panic.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by getbak

If they don't have the expansion draft before the entry draft, the Las Vegas team won't have any assets going into the draft to potentially make deals at the draft or before the expansion draft.

Also, the existing teams would be in limbo at the draft because they wouldn't know which players they're going to lose in the expansion draft. Teams would be reluctant to make any trades before the expansion draft that would affect their exposed list for the expansion draft. The only trades you'd see at the draft would be where teams were trying to position themselves better for the expansion draft rather than trying to make themselves better for the upcoming season.

Yes, they need to have the expansion draft before the entry draft.

But I still think there is an easy solution: simply have the expansion draft not be effective until July 1st.

Host the expansion draft on June 24th (or whatever), with the transactions taking effect on July 1st.

That would allow for the draft to take place, and let teams know where they stand. At the same time, it eliminates the issues of having a few days remaining on contracts.

[dissentowner]

It is a simple solution really, just have all the contracts that are valid for the start of the 2017-18 season as the ones that count for the protection list. So Wideman would not have to be protected because his contract expires after 16-17. Making a team protect a player for a few weeks is ridiculous, I cannot see the owners being on board with that.

[Finger Cookin]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

It is a simple solution really, just have all the contracts that are valid for the start of the 2017-18 season as the ones that count for the protection list. So Wideman would not have to be protected because his contract expires after 16-17. Making a team protect a player for a few weeks is ridiculous, I cannot see the owners being on board with that.

It doesn't affect 18 of the 30 clubs. The majority of the owners simply don't care enough to not just go along with it, I'd imagine. It could even be argued that it's an advantage for those 18 clubs - or for 19 clubs, if you count Vegas.

[blender]

Originally Posted by Finger Cookin

It doesn't affect 18 of the 30 clubs. The majority of the owners simply don't care enough to not just go along with it, I'd imagine. It could even be argued that it's an advantage for those 18 clubs - or for 19 clubs, if you count Vegas.

True, but it is about precedent and principle too. NHL owners aren't in the business of screwing each other over either. Seems like a good way to create enemies and division.

I don't believe it will happen.

[Sylvanfan]

Lets face it. This expansion draft potentially lets the Flames scoop a decent goalie for less than market value. So the trade off might not be that bad. Wideman is due a 6 million salary this yer so the buyout is 4. 1.25 hit this coming year and 2 next year. considering the team has operated under the cap for this many yers I think they could hack it. for Wideman it might be about future opportunity. with 23 new jobs opening up he will want to best show case himself to try and make sure he plays in the league past this year. No doubt though the injury could affect it. Do buyout numbers get impacted by escrow hold backs?

[savemedrzaius]

If there was an expansion draft I'm sure guys like Wideman for the Flames or Horton for the Leafs could waive their NMC. If the Flames talked to Wideman and said we aren't going to re-sign you and you will be a free agent in a week, I don't see what he would gain by refusing to waive his NMC. Same with Horton. He could waive it because he knows he isn't going to get claimed so it doesn't effect him in anyway.

[Alberta_Beef]

The "solution" is simple, allow the players to waive their NMC's if they so choose. If they waive they do not need to be protected, if they do not, they must be. There is some risk in the player saying no, but there really is no reason for them to decline if it is an expiring NMC.

[NiklasSundblad]

So what would happen if a team had two goalies with NMCs? It's unlikely, but possible.