Heatley's NTC no longer valid in San Jose?

TheHockeyNews' Adam Proteau alludes to this fact in an article promoting their upcoming issue...

http://www.thehockeynews.com/articles/28419-.html

"I’ve seen a couple of light-hearted references to the possibility of Dany Heatley demanding a trade out of San Jose should things not go well between him and the Sharks.

There’s just one small problem with that line of thinking: Heatley’s infamous no-trade clause that got him out of Ottawa is no longer valid; that much was confirmed exclusively to The Hockey News for our most recent cover story (issue date: Oct. 12)."

Has anyone else heard this? Does he no longer have a NTC in San Jose?

If that is true... sweet.

Dung, I forgot to say something about this. I read it too. If they're saying it it must be true.

If so, EAT IT HEATLEY!! You might end up back in Atlanta if you don't shape up.

That doesn't make sense. Heatley waived his NTC to go to the Sharks, then when the Sharks accepted him, the full contract was also accepted - WITH the NMC. NMC don't go away like that, it's part of the initial contract.

EDIT: Also, I find THN to be sliding down a slippery slope of not really getting stuff correct lately, so that raises a slight concern as well. I'm curious though...someone sniff out the facts!

SensGirl11 wrote:Dung, I forgot to say something about this. I read it too. If they're saying it it must be true.

If so, EAT IT HEATLEY!! You might end up back in Atlanta if you don't shape up.

I wonder if he knew that would be the case when he requested a trade?

SpezDispenser wrote:That doesn't make sense. Heatley waived his NTC to go to the Sharks, then when the Sharks accepted him, the full contract was also accepted - WITH the NMC. NMC don't go away like that, it's part of the initial contract.

EDIT: Also, I find THN to be sliding down a slippery slope of not really getting stuff correct lately, so that raises a slight concern as well. I'm curious though...someone sniff out the facts!

That's what I thought... but THN seems to suggest that is not the case now.

Seriously though, he might have an okay year in SJ, but I think his days of Eliteness are almost over for him. We got out of it right on time. He did us a favour. Now we have a young stud in Michalek, 4 years his junior, and a possible come back kid in Cheechoo. Even if Cheechoo doesn't get back to his old self, I'm still happy with the trade.

Apparently he's on the 2nd PP unit in SJ too. Too funny.

SpezDispenser wrote:That doesn't make sense. Heatley waived his NTC to go to the Sharks, then when the Sharks accepted him, the full contract was also accepted - WITH the NMC. NMC don't go away like that, it's part of the initial contract.

EDIT: Also, I find THN to be sliding down a slippery slope of not really getting stuff correct lately, so that raises a slight concern as well. I'm curious though...someone sniff out the facts!

I agree there, what you said is right, the Sharks accepted Heatley's contract as is, including that no movement clause, if it somehow disappeared, I would be extremely pissed if I was Bryan Murray or the Sens or whoever else that would be outraged at this (mostly us)

SensFan71 wrote:
I agree there, what you said is right, the Sharks accepted Heatley's contract as is, including that no movement clause, if it somehow disappeared, I would be extremely pissed if I was Bryan Murray or the Sens or whoever else that would be outraged at this (mostly us)

I was gonna say the same thing, I would expect some Dung to hit the fan if this was the case. Murray and Melnyk would crap tacks after all the ridiculous Dung that NMC put them and the org. through.

When a player waives a NTC/NMC, either limited or full, the team acquiring the player has the right to rip it up, honour it or renegociate the terms.

SpezDispenser wrote:

SensFan71 wrote:
I agree there, what you said is right, the Sharks accepted Heatley's contract as is, including that no movement clause, if it somehow disappeared, I would be extremely pissed if I was Bryan Murray or the Sens or whoever else that would be outraged at this (mostly us)

I was gonna say the same thing, I would expect some Dung to hit the fan if this was the case. Murray and Melnyk would crap tacks after all the ridiculous Dung that NMC put them and the org. through.

Sorry to say, but Murray is the one that gave him the NMC. If it is somehow void and nul now, there's not much they can say about it. They really have to go over the NMC rules, it's just ridiculous what we went through with him. But, again, I'll look at is as a blessing for us that we got Michalek out of the deal. Everything happens for a reason.

RobbyJ wrote:When a player waives a NTC/NMC, either limited or full, the team acquiring the player has the right to rip it up, honour it or renegociate the terms.

Interesting... that's news to me. Is that documented anywhere? The CBA?

EDIT: I've seen that referenced for an up-coming NTC/NMC that has not kicked in yet and the player is traded before it kicks in. The team receiving the player can either honour it or rip it up if they so choose.

RobbyJ wrote:When a player waives a NTC/NMC, either limited or full, the team acquiring the player has the right to rip it up, honour it or renegociate the terms.

That's diddling ridiculous. I'm not saying anything against you Robby, but I don't believe that for a second.

If that was the case and I was in Bryan Murray's shoes, I would strike a deal with SJ for our 1st round pick where they take Heatley and our 1st and then ship Heatley right back to us so the diddling NMC is null and void. Then I swear to God, I'd trade Heatley+ to Atlanta (if they'd take him) for Zach Bogosian.

I would do that and Diddle my reputation of other GMs are unhappy. Diddle you, Diddle Heatley, Diddle everyone involved. When a player demands a trade, his NTC/NMC should be null and void - and I'll figure a way to get around it.

SensGirl11 wrote:Seriously though, he might have an okay year in SJ, but I think his days of Eliteness are almost over for him. We got out of it right on time. He did us a favour. Now we have a young stud in Michalek, 4 years his junior, and a possible come back kid in Cheechoo. Even if Cheechoo doesn't get back to his old self, I'm still happy with the trade.

Apparently he's on the 2nd PP unit in SJ too. Too funny.

I think he'll be great offensively in SJ for at least a couple of years, but I still don't think he's going to be the guy that puts them over the top in the playoffs. I also agree that we're better with this trade depth-wise, future/cap-wise and that minor detail... having players who actually want to be here.

SpezDispenser wrote:That's diddling ridiculous. I'm not saying anything against you Robby, but I don't believe that for a second.

Here is the only reference in the CBA that I can find that talks about a NMC being non-binding during a trade...

Snippet from CBA Section 11.8:

"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."

I can't find any mention of this applying when a player waives an existing no-trade/no-move clause. I'll continue looking...

If you click the "digital" link for the upcoming article, you can get a preview of the magazine that let's you read the Heatley article. Here is the relevant piece that talks about his NTC not being valid in San Jose.



Nice flexibility for Wilson and the Sharks if things go sour with Healtey. He can't hold them hostage with it like he did the Sens. Frig.