Friedman: potential CBA modifications as NHL/NHLPA continue negotiations

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Crown Royal

Currently, the acquiring team gets to chose, which IMO is fine for guys like Lucic where he could veto the trade if they don't honor it, but was completely unfair to players whose clauses haven't kicked in yet because it was negotiated into the contract to start at a certain point, they should still get that.

In many circumstances, contracts reference effective terms which are in place as of the date of execution of that agreement. I would question if the PA would be doing its job if all existing contracts were subject to terms which are subject to change.

(I imagine that any change to which they would be subject would be the CBA terms as agreed by the parties, and there would be consideration then of existing contracts in force and affected)

[MrMike]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

In many circumstances, contracts reference effective terms which are in place as of the date of execution of that agreement. I would question if the PA would be doing its job if all existing contracts were subject to terms which are subject to change.

(I imagine that any change to which they would be subject would be the CBA terms as agreed by the parties, and there would be consideration then of existing contracts in force and affected)

I feel like we should label users as Law Associates or close to as such as to further point our stupid questions to.

But honestly, how does someone trade for a contract but disallow certain terms of the contract? I'm guessing its in the writing/terms of the CBA when certain clauses come into effect only with certain agreements with certain employers.

( I can't believe this wasn't brought up after Jeff Carter and Mike Richards honestly)

Wasn't Subban another example? Are there any others recently I am missing?

[The Cobra]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

Teams will just have to pay full price for a player and take the risk that they won't re-sign instead of attaching a conditional pick that waters down the value. At least that's how I see it.

I think it will help even more when it comes to players with more than a year left on their deals. Like if the Flames trade Johnny this off season, they won't have to have some BS 2022 pick attached to the deal that the value changes on based on whether or not he'll re up with them.

Tre won't have to listen to some GM whine "oh we can't be sure Johnny will sign an extension with us. We can't even talk extension for a year yet, so instead of 2 picks in 2020 plus a prospect and roster player, we'll just give you one pick for 2020 and then attach a second pick in 2022 and if he signs with us it will be a higher pick"

You get every GM on the east coast pulling that crap and then you're waiting two years for that asset to come to fruition and you don't even have a clue how valuable it will be.

I’m not sure it’s really “pulling that crap” when in reality they don’t know the value of the asset they are obtaining.

I’m guessing now that the value of the player will depend on how likely the player traded will eventually sign an extension. So, somewhere between the value of the player with an extension in place and the value of the player as a pure rental.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[sureLoss]

per TSN, the CBA is being modified to be "Feaster proof":

https://www.tsn.ca/talent/details-em...ment-1.1492091

> No European Waivers: We should call this the Ryan O’Reilly Rule. Players who play in Europe will no longer require waivers to come back to the NHL, provided they sign their NHL contract by Dec. 15. Previously, if a player played in Europe after the start of the regular season, waivers were required. The Flames signed O’Reilly to an offer sheet in 2013 during the lockout while he was holding out from Colorado in the KHL; if the Avalanche had not matched, he would have been subjected to waivers and the Flames likely would have lost him.

[Sylvanfan]

There's a lot more to be done around NMC's in Contracts to make it "Feaster" proof.

[Crown Royal]

Originally Posted by MrMike

So it only has to do with clauses that haven't kicked in yet? I believed if a player waived his clause once he didn't have to, but that goes against what I've learnt about the Lucic deal.

So its more of a signing a player into UFA years, where he gets to earn NMC/NTC but trading him before that clause kicks in, the next team still has to honour when that clause kicks in.

I can't believe it wasn't already that way, no wonder why they are fighting for this.

Technically it has to do with all NMC/NTCs. I'm not great with wording things so I will give a few examples.

Say we trade Gaudreau before his NTC kicks in like some want us to do. Under the current agreement, the new team could choose to scrap that NTC and Gaudreau loses that trade protection.

With Milan Lucic, he waived his NMC to come here. Under the current agreement we could have told Milan that we were not willing to honor his NMC going forward. The difference between this scenario are the Gaudreau one is Lucic had the power to nix the trade if the movement protection wasn't honored. But, if it was something he wasn't concerned about, he could have said yes to the trade and we could have scrapped the clause.

The scenario I am not sure of is when a player has an active NMC/NTC but is traded to a team the clause does not apply to such as Kadri to Colorado. I'm not sure if Colorado was allowed to do away with his NTC or not since he never actually had to waive it to go there.

The new system is much cleaner and makes way more sense.

[Freeway]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

per TSN, the CBA is being modified to be "Feaster proof":

https://www.tsn.ca/talent/details-em...ment-1.1492091

It wasn't just Feaster...

[Freeway]

Originally Posted by Crown Royal

Technically it has to do with all NMC/NTCs. I'm not great with wording things so I will give a few examples.

Say we trade Gaudreau before his NTC kicks in like some want us to do. Under the current agreement, the new team could choose to scrap that NTC and Gaudreau loses that trade protection.

With Milan Lucic, he waived his NMC to come here. Under the current agreement we could have told Milan that we were not willing to honor his NMC going forward. The difference between this scenario are the Gaudreau one is Lucic had the power to nix the trade if the movement protection wasn't honored. But, if it was something he wasn't concerned about, he could have said yes to the trade and we could have scrapped the clause.

The scenario I am not sure of is when a player has an active NMC/NTC but is traded to a team the clause does not apply to such as Kadri to Colorado. I'm not sure if Colorado was allowed to do away with his NTC or not since he never actually had to waive it to go there.

The new system is much cleaner and makes way more sense.

The clause would still apply as it was active at the time of the trade.

[Finger Cookin]

The change supports Feaster's interpretation, doesn't it?

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by Finger Cookin

The change supports Feaster's interpretation, doesn't it?

Exactly. Why change it if Feaster was wrong and would have had to put ROR on waivers? They're changing it because he was right and used poor wording in the rule to his advantage.

[getbak]

Here's what the CBA currently says with regards to no trade and no movement clauses...

11.8 Individually Negotiated Limitations on Player Movement.

(a) The SPC of any Player who is a Group 3 Unrestricted Free Agent under Article 10.1(a) may contain a no-Trade or a no-move clause. SPCs containing a no-Trade or a no-move clause may be entered into prior to the time that the Player is a Group 3 Unrestricted Free Agent so long as the SPC containing the no-Trade or no-move clause extends through and does not become effective until the time that the Player qualifies for Group 3 Unrestricted Free Agency. If the Player is Traded or claimed on Waivers prior to the no-Trade or no-move clause taking effect, the clause does not bind the acquiring Club. An acquiring Club may agree to continue to be bound by the no-Trade or no-move clause, which agreement shall be evidenced in writing to the Player, Central Registry and the NHLPA, in accordance with Exhibit 3 hereof.

(b) A no-Trade clause or a no-move clause that is negotiated as part of an extension of an SPC entered into pursuant to Section 50.5(f) may become effective immediately upon registration of, but prior to the effective date of, such SPC extension, provided: (i) the Player would otherwise have been eligible as of the immediately preceding July 1 prior to signing the SPC extension to have a no-Trade or no-move clause pursuant to Section 11.8; and (ii) the Club and the Player, who are parties to such SPC extension, agree that the no-Trade or no-move clause is effective immediately upon execution of the SPC extension (or at some later date agreed to by the Club and the Player) and evidence such agreement in writing in the SPC.

(c) 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 sounds like the new agreement will remove the last two sentences of the first section.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Roof-Daddy

Exactly. Why change it if Feaster was wrong and would have had to put ROR on waivers? They're changing it because he was right and used poor wording in the rule to his advantage.

They’re changing it because he was wrong, we absolutely would have lost ROR to waivers had Colorado not matched, and I imagine they would rather that situation not happen again.

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

They’re changing it because he was wrong, we absolutely would have lost ROR to waivers had Colorado not matched, and I imagine they would rather that situation not happen again.

Absolutely? I'd like to see you prove that, since it didn't happen that's impossible.

I think the league would have had egg on their face because the wording of the rule was open for interpretation and so now they are changing it avoid THAT from happening again.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

They’re changing it because he was wrong, we absolutely would have lost ROR to waivers had Colorado not matched, and I imagine they would rather that situation not happen again.

I have no idea who was right/wrong/confused/ignorant , but the only thing I’m absolutely sure of is that we would not have lost ROR on waivers as well as the associated draft picks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

I have no idea who was right/wrong/confused/ignorant , but the only thing I’m absolutely sure of is that we would not have lost ROR on waivers as well as the associated draft picks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So whoever claimed him would have sent the compensation to Colorado?

[Freeway]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

So whoever claimed him would have sent the compensation to Colorado?

Here would've been the chain:
1) Flames sign ROR to offer sheet.
2) Colorado opts not to match.
3) Flames send compensation to Colorado.
4) ROR has to go through waivers, is claimed by somebody.


Colorado gets the picks, Mystery Team gets the player, Flames get nothing.

[MrMike]

Wouldn’t have happened. We would have gotten ROR or not lost the picks. No way the NHL screws a team because of language ambiguity. They’re not there to screw any of their fan bases or owners over.

[getbak]

Or...

1. Flames sign ROR to offer sheet.
2. Colorado opts not to match.
3. O'Reilly prepares to join the Flames.
4. Media member posts game sheets indicating that O'Reilly played 2 games in Russia after the start of the NHL season.
5. Flames file grievance and NHL launches investigation, suspending the contract.
6. League determines that O'Reilly's agent failed to disclose important information about his client's status and voids the contract.
7. O'Reilly is forced to sign with Colorado for whatever they want to give him, or sit out the rest of the season.

[Strange Brew]

Yeah he was not going on waivers IMO. Which is not the same as defending Feaster.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Jacks

If I'm understanding right they would exceed 50% temporarily but would have to pay back that difference over the next few years.

That seems to be the case. Which would present some generational inequities amongst the players you’d imagine.