Bryan Murray Vs Dany Heatley: Who Blinks First?

wprager wrote:

Neely4Life wrote:Murray will make the guy play if the deal isnt right, glad he actually came out and said it though! Let him veto every good trade, go right ahead Heatley, I'll literally purchase my season tickets again just to boo is a$$ for 41 nights.

Wouldn't you rather tee off on a Heatley bobblehead? I think I could make some money here.

And ruin my Taylor Made R7, nooooooooo shot.

wprager wrote:So, assuming Murray doesn't blink and there is no trade by draft day, does anyone honestly think that Heatley reports to camp? He'll get his $4M July 1, is it really worth the aggravation and heaped-on abuse for his regular salary? It would be for me, without a question, but then I don't have his bonus.

If there's no trade, then I wonder if Murray can call for some "team-building" retreat or something (within the rules, of course)...say about July 1st?

Heatley shows, he gets his $4M, but has to face each and every team-mate and explain.
He doesn't show, and the $$ are delayed/withheld.

Neely4Life wrote:

wprager wrote:

Neely4Life wrote:Murray will make the guy play if the deal isnt right, glad he actually came out and said it though! Let him veto every good trade, go right ahead Heatley, I'll literally purchase my season tickets again just to boo is a$$ for 41 nights.

Wouldn't you rather tee off on a Heatley bobblehead? I think I could make some money here.

And ruin my Taylor Made R7, nooooooooo shot.

I'm suddenly happy that I hung onto my old POS driver - some no-name knockoff that would be just about right value for this sort of thing...

marakh wrote:

wprager wrote:So, assuming Murray doesn't blink and there is no trade by draft day, does anyone honestly think that Heatley reports to camp? He'll get his $4M July 1, is it really worth the aggravation and heaped-on abuse for his regular salary? It would be for me, without a question, but then I don't have his bonus.

He'll take the trade Murray will give him, garanteed 100%

If Murray tells him he is traded to Atlanta do you think he waives? I don't. No chance.

dennycrane wrote:Murray won't blink. Fans will support the team if Murray holds a hard line with Heatley. The 4 million against the cap is concerning, but I think Murray makes a deal before the draft is done. The rumours will be out of control by this time next week.

4 million against the cap? I thought it was a 4 million bonus that is structured into his overall actual money owed for next year, his cap hit will forever remain 7.5 million for the duration.

I think this is out of Melnyk's pocket, not off the cap.

wprager wrote:

...and might have been concerned about the team's sagging performance, as well.

Whaaaat??! The team stopped sagging when Clouston cam e on board. Accordingly, if this was a big concern to Heatley, he should have been ecstatic.

Dave, isn't Pronger's situation almost identical? Or did he not have a NTC? Overall, I don't see this as a watershed moment. Players have been asking for trades forever. This one happens to be a star, but that has also happened before (Pronger). The whole enforcing the contract is completely in the player's favor. Why even bother calling them binding contracts when the player can ask to get traded or to re-negotiate (Yashin). What if the New Yor Rangers asked Wade Redden to renegotiate or quit paying him until he did? Sure, using the Yashin analogy, the team would still owe him the salary eventually, but they could "sit out" for a year.

I agree with what you're saying here. I'm not quite sure where DTR was going with this. There is nothing special about this case. Players ask for trades all the time; Corvo did, Campoli did, Schaeffer did. Also, Heatley isn't reneging on his contract, he is asking for the rights of his contract to be transfered to another team. I doubt contracts will take on any changes in the future because of this. The superstar players will always get what they want. This will change nothing. As for contract being voided, that will NEVER happen in the NHL.

hemlock wrote:

marakh wrote:

wprager wrote:So, assuming Murray doesn't blink and there is no trade by draft day, does anyone honestly think that Heatley reports to camp? He'll get his $4M July 1, is it really worth the aggravation and heaped-on abuse for his regular salary? It would be for me, without a question, but then I don't have his bonus.

He'll take the trade Murray will give him, garanteed 100%

If Murray tells him he is traded to Atlanta do you think he waives? I don't. No chance.

You're right, Atlanta is obviously a move that Heatley wouldn't accept and I'm sure Murray wouldn't even bother. I really don't see Murray listening to any offer from within our division either. Other than that, I bet Heatley isn't that stubborn about this.

wprager wrote: Dave, isn't Pronger's situation almost identical? Or did he not have a NTC? Overall, I don't see this as a watershed moment. Players have been asking for trades forever. This one happens to be a star, but that has also happened before (Pronger). The whole enforcing the contract is completely in the player's favor. Why even bother calling them binding contracts when the player can ask to get traded or to re-negotiate (Yashin). What if the New Yor Rangers asked Wade Redden to renegotiate or quit paying him until he did? Sure, using the Yashin analogy, the team would still owe him the salary eventually, but they could "sit out" for a year.

I did some research on the Pronger situation, and the similarities are striking. The 2006 article from Reuters News Service on the Pronger trade follows.

Oilers trade defenceman Pronger to Anaheim Ducks
Scott Pattison, REUTERS NEWS SERVICE, July 3, 2006

EDMONTON, Alberta (Reuters) - The Edmonton Oilers traded blue chip defenceman Chris Pronger to the Anaheim Ducks Monday, for rising offensive star Joffrey Lupul, prospect defenseman Ladislav Smid and a stockpile of draft picks.

The Oilers acquired the Edmonton-born Lupul and Smid from Anaheim, along with the Ducks' first round draft choice in the 2007 NHL Entry Draft, a conditional first round draft choice and their second round draft choice in the 2008 NHL Entry Draft in exchange for Pronger.

"You never want to trade one of the league's best players, but when it was clear that we were going to have to trade Pronger, we began looking at the overall structure of our team," Oilers' Assistant General Manager Scott Howson told an Edmonton radio station.

"We feel he's (Lupul) a player who's ready to explode offensively. Smid is a blue chip defenseman who is going to play in the league for a long time."

Pronger, considered the top prize in this year's National Hockey League free agent market that began Saturday, asked to be traded for unspecified personal reasons, after leading the underdog Oilers to the brink of winning the Stanley Cup against the eventual league champion Carolina Hurricanes.

Lupul, the Ducks' first round draft choice (seventh overall) in the 2002 NHL Entry Draft, just wrapped up his third professional season and second in the NHL, posting career-highs of 28 goals and 25 assists.

Pronger, 31, who logged close to 30 minutes of ice time for the Oilers during their recent Stanley Cup play-off run, scored 56 points for the copper and blue during the team's regular season campaign.

A former Norris Trophy winner, Pronger will now join another Norris Trophy winner on the Anaheim blueline, Scott Niedermayer, giving Ducks' coach Randy Carlyle possibly the most intimidating starting defensive duo in the NHL.

Pronger, traded to the Oilers from St. Louis prior to the 2005-06 regular season, signed a five-year, $31.25-million contract with Edmonton.

ARCHIVAL SOURCE: http://www.redorbit.com/news/display/?id=558284

---

I was not able to find out whether Pronger had an NTC.

While it's true that Pronger wanted out a year after signing the contract, one difference in his case was that he and his family had moved from St. Louis and had been in Edmonton only a year.

The reason given for the trade request was 'family issues', and there has been much speculation about the nature of those issues, with everything ranging from Pronger's wife being extremely unhappy in the city to rumours of Pronger having an extramarital affair--nothing being substantiated.

It also appears Kevin Lowe did everything to accomodate Pronger; I found no reports of a confrontation between the player and management.

The Heatley situation is markedly different in many ways, including the fact that Dany has become a fixture with the Senators having been with the club since 2005.

I suggested this may be a watershed event because it brings into question the basic enforceability of NHL player contracts.

There is an aspect of 'mutual assent' which, it could be argued, is being violated by Dany Heatley.

If, for example, Mr. Melnyk decided to put the matter in the hands of his attorneys, would he have grounds to sue Heatley for damages?

The argument could be made that the Agreement had been made in good faith and that Heatley was compensated in an exceptional manner; and that his actions have damaged the Ottawa Senators Hockey Club--for example, potential sales of season tickets, to name one factor.

Could the attorneys make a case calling upon Heatley to return part of his salary, or if the July 1 date passes without a resolution, sue him for the bonus money, saying that Heatley breached the good faith of the Agreement?

Legal experts would have a more precise view, but it appears this is a situation that could get very, very messy.

As a footnote, remember Bryan Murray's words on the matter: "For the moment, Dany Heatley has a contract with the Ottawa Senators, and we expect him to honour that contract." A very strong and clear statement saying, in effect, that Murray interprets Heatley's actions as meaning that Heatley wishes to abrogate or otherwise rescind the Agreement which binds him to the Senators.

Dave, while I am no legal expert, I really think you are making something out of nothing. Have you heard any hint from the Sens' organization that suggests they are even considering taking legal action? Is there any precedent in all of professional sports that suggests the Sens would have a legal leg to stand on if they desired this route? My guess is that the answer is no to both questions. I certainly haven't heard anything along these lines.

I get that you are trying to incite discussion, that's a good thing, but this topic feels really strained. Heatley will get traded and things in the NHL will run as usual. This will not change anything except for the Sens and the other team involved.

Unless the deal is unreal, I don' tthink Murray links, he may lisp, but not blink. I am getting the feeling we could see a holdout here.

davetherave wrote:Then, on June 4, Murray received a phone call from Stacey McAlpine, one of Heatley's agents, the player wanted out of Ottawa.

http://www.ottawasun.com/sports/hockey/2009/06/03/9656946-sun.html

This article was published on June 3rd.......

I'm telling you guys, this has a lot to do with Heatley's request.

SpezDispenser wrote:

dennycrane wrote:Murray won't blink. Fans will support the team if Murray holds a hard line with Heatley. The 4 million against the cap is concerning, but I think Murray makes a deal before the draft is done. The rumours will be out of control by this time next week.

4 million against the cap? I thought it was a 4 million bonus that is structured into his overall actual money owed for next year, his cap hit will forever remain 7.5 million for the duration.

I think this is out of Melnyk's pocket, not off the cap.

Oh man, look at all the damage Booboo's article has done...

Let me set the record straight:

-- Heatley's $4 mil "bonus" is actually just part of his payment for the 2009-10 season, as it was negotiated for the contract. He makes $8 mil this year, $4 mil with that one-time payment bonus, $4 mil in salary paid from October 2009 to April 2010. The "bonus" isn't anything in excess of his regular pay, just a different way of paying the money already owed -- one that gets the money to Heatley faster.

-- In the new CBA, a player's cap hit is ALWAYS constant over the life of the contract. (The only exception I can think of is Alfie's, which is so because his old contract had 'option years' -- those are no longer an option under the new CBA.) In the case of Heatley, that figure is $7.5 mil / yr.

-- Whoever holds Heatley's rights during the season gets stuck with his cap hit. If he's an Ottawa Senator come October, we start the season with his $7.5 mil on the books. If he's playing for another team, that team starts the season with his $7.5 mil on the books. If he plays part of the season with us and part of the season with another team, the two teams will split the cap hit proportionally.

-- Whoever pays that $4 mil bonus, then, makes ABSOLUTELY no difference in terms of cap consequences. If we pay it on July 1st and then move Heatley before the start of next seasons, that payment doesn't count against our cap -- and the team who trades for him, who will only have to pay his $4 mil salary for the rest of the year, is still stuck with the full cap hit of $7.5 mil. The only persons impacted by this are Melnyk (and his wallet, which will be $4 mil lighter) and the owner of the new team Heatley ends up with (and his wallet, which won't have to shell out $4 mil). That's it.

I've said this before, but it bears repeating: I highly doubt that this bonus will be much of a consideration AT ALL in terms of moving Heatley. Anyone who wants him will pay it. If we don't move Heatley before June 26th or July 1st, it will have more to do with BM not getting the offer he wants, or Heatley not wanting to go to the destinations being proposed. This bonus thing is, in my humble opinion, a non-issue.

rooneypoo wrote:

SpezDispenser wrote:

dennycrane wrote:Murray won't blink. Fans will support the team if Murray holds a hard line with Heatley. The 4 million against the cap is concerning, but I think Murray makes a deal before the draft is done. The rumours will be out of control by this time next week.

4 million against the cap? I thought it was a 4 million bonus that is structured into his overall actual money owed for next year, his cap hit will forever remain 7.5 million for the duration.

I think this is out of Melnyk's pocket, not off the cap.

Oh man, look at all the damage Booboo's article has done...

Let me set the record straight:

-- Heatley's $4 mil "bonus" is actually just part of his payment for the 2009-10 season, as it was negotiated for the contract. He makes $8 mil this year, $4 mil with that one-time payment bonus, $4 mil in salary paid from October 2009 to April 2010. The "bonus" isn't anything in excess of his regular pay, just a different way of paying the money already owed -- one that gets the money to Heatley faster.

-- In the new CBA, a player's cap hit is ALWAYS constant over the life of the contract. (The only exception I can think of is Alfie's, which is so because his old contract had 'option years' -- those are no longer an option under the new CBA.) In the case of Heatley, that figure is $7.5 mil / yr.

-- Whoever holds Heatley's rights during the season gets stuck with his cap hit. If he's an Ottawa Senator come October, we start the season with his $7.5 mil on the books. If he's playing for another team, that team starts the season with his $7.5 mil on the books. If he plays part of the season with us and part of the season with another team, the two teams will split the cap hit proportionally.

-- Whoever pays that $4 mil bonus, then, makes ABSOLUTELY no difference in terms of cap consequences. If we pay it on July 1st and then move Heatley before the start of next seasons, that payment doesn't count against our cap -- and the team who trades for him, who will only have to pay his $4 mil salary for the rest of the year, is still stuck with the full cap hit of $7.5 mil. The only persons impacted by this are Melnyk (and his wallet, which will be $4 mil lighter) and the owner of the new team Heatley ends up with (and his wallet, which won't have to shell out $4 mil). That's it.

I've said this before, but it bears repeating: I highly doubt that this bonus will be much of a consideration AT ALL in terms of moving Heatley. Anyone who wants him will pay it. If we don't move Heatley before June 26th or July 1st, it will have more to do with BM not getting the offer he wants, or Heatley not wanting to go to the destinations being proposed. This bonus thing is, in my humble opinion, a non-issue.

All it takes is one of a bevvy of uninformed, useless Ottawa Sun writers to misinform half the population of the whole goddamn city...

Personally I think the NHL needs to look at NTC/NMC. If a player requests the trade then the NTC should be thrown out the window in order for the team needs to get the best value for its assets. If the team wishs to move the move the player then the player could use the NTC/NMC to control where he goes. In this case it appears its a double standard. Heatley wants out and wants to control his destination, regardless if its good for the team or not.

I like how Murray says he will have to pressure Heatley to accept the deal he likes even though its not on his list. I've mentioned it before but the time couldn't have been better with the Olympics around the corner. Can Heatley really afford to sit out if he wants to play in the Olympics and does Yzerman want someone on his team that holds himself higher than the team, especially if he isnt playing.

The Citizen's Allen Panzeri takes a look at the possible negative financial impact of Heatley's decision on the Senators' season ticket sales and marketing plans:

Sens prepare to market team minus 50-goal man Heatley
'There will be someone there to replace him'
Allen Panzeri, The Ottawa Citizen, June 16, 2009

They've just had their worst season in 12 years.
In a bad economy, they're fighting for a shrinking pool of entertainment dollars.

Now one of their superstars has demanded a trade.

Could it be any worse?

It sounds like a final-exam question in business school: For 20 per cent of your grade, describe how you would get this NHL franchise back on its feet.

However, Cyril Leeder, the new president of the Ottawa Senators, and Bryan Murray, executive vice-president and general manager, don't have the luxury of operating in the make-believe world of business school.

This is a question they must answer as the days move ever closer to the start of the 2009-10 NHL season, and there will be real-life consequences for every decision they make. The imminent loss of Dany Heatley, a two-time 50-goal scorer, both men agree, will make it more difficult to market the team, though obviously not impossible.

"I guess you could say it'd be tougher," Leeder said. "But, if and when Dany goes, there will be someone there to replace him, and we've got a pretty good team here with guys like (Daniel) Alfredsson and (Jason) Spezza, (Pascal) Leclaire, Chris Phillips, (Mike) Fisher. We've got some real marketable players.

"And I think what has been proven out by the fans here in Ottawa. They just want us to win, and, if it's with Dany Heatley or without Dany Heatley, it doesn't really matter to the fans in Ottawa.

"Just win some games."

Leeder also wasn't worried that Heatley's demand for a trade would put a black cloud over the organization.

"Every organization is going to have these types of issues with their players," he said. "We've had them on a regular basis, and it's just part of sport. You're going to have to deal with your players and their personalities and their wants and their likes and their dislikes."

How successful Leeder and Murray are will determine if the team meets its goal for season tickets.

Last year, the team sold 11,000 season tickets. As of Tuesday, Leeder said, the renewal rate was about 60 per cent. The goal is to get to 9,000 by the end of October.

Murray said that a successful marketing campaign would depend, in large part, on what he could obtain in a trade for Heatley.

"I would think people are going to watch carefully and see what comes back this way," he said. "We feel we have a couple of younger players who are getting close to (being good) players in the league, but there's no doubt, when you lose Dany Heatley or that calibre of player, there will be fans who will look to see what we do, and if our team is going up or down."

On the ice, Murray conceded it would probably take two players to replace Heatley.

"It's hard to give up 50 goals," Murray said.

"He didn't get it last year; a lot of people underachieved. But Dany Heatley's that calibre of goal scorer, so, to be better than that is going to be difficult, there's no question.

"When you lose a star, you lose a star, and they're hard to replace."

In fairness, Boo Boo doesn't know how the cap works, but DennyCrane does. I think he just slipped up there.

SpezDispenser wrote:In fairness, Boo Boo doesn't know how the cap works, but DennyCrane does. I think he just slipped up there.

He does it a lot though and just because it is in print it shapes the opinions of the sheep....

Mojo wrote:Dave, while I am no legal expert, I really think you are making something out of nothing. Have you heard any hint from the Sens' organization that suggests they are even considering taking legal action? Is there any precedent in all of professional sports that suggests the Sens would have a legal leg to stand on if they desired this route? My guess is that the answer is no to both questions. I certainly haven't heard anything along these lines.

I get that you are trying to incite discussion, that's a good thing, but this topic feels really strained. Heatley will get traded and things in the NHL will run as usual. This will not change anything except for the Sens and the other team involved.

Just asking the questions more than a few of us are asking...

When the highest paid player in the NHL last year demands a trade and it is played out in such a public and contentious fashion, it's not 'something out of nothing'.

It's a major event.

If you know anything about the conflicts--and nasty doesn't even begin to describe some of them--that have marred the history of labour relations in the NHL, you understand this.

"Net Worth" by David Cruise and Alison Griffiths is recommended reading for anyone who wants to know just how nasty it has been. Even given the fact this book was written in 1991, it remains the point of reference for hockey journalists who examine the business side of the NHL.

If the current situation escalates--and no one knows yet if it will--the ability of teams to secure their talent is, in principle, thrown completely into question.

It will also be interesting to see, should the situation arrive at an impasse, whether the NHLPA would intervene.

Could Heatley decide to 'sit out' the 2009-10 season? Return to Russia and the KHL where he played for Ak-Bars Kazan during the lockout? The Swiss League? All are possibilities.

Many questions...