Bryan Murray Vs Dany Heatley: Who Blinks First?

MurderOnIce wrote:If DW is right, Barry and McAlpine are probably in hot water with the PA.

Neely4Life wrote:Again, the agents, royally screwed up this time. They screwed with the wrong GM.

Dawg's Wife wrote:Further, Edmonton was told that the deal must be reworked and a better return is expected.

asq2 wrote:

Dawg's Wife wrote:Further, Edmonton was told that the deal must be reworked and a better return is expected.

SpezDispenser wrote:The first thing I thought of was MPS. :^^^^: Or Eberle, or Gilbert.

But, Edmonton fans insist that there's no chance they'd send over a freshly drafted player like MPS.

Diddle you, give him.

SpezDispenser wrote:

asq2 wrote:

Dawg's Wife wrote:Further, Edmonton was told that the deal must be reworked and a better return is expected.

The first thing I thought of was MPS. :^^^^: Or Eberle, or Gilbert.

But, Edmonton fans insist that there's no chance they'd send over a freshly drafted player like MPS.

Diddle you, give him.

PKC wrote:

Could Murray be such a bad Donkey GM, that he would be the first GM ever to fleece a team for a player that can essentially deal with only them? Could you imagine that?

Tambellini: "Well, we are the only team that really wants him. And I feel like we've made a pretty generous pitch here."

Murray: "More." "Bend over further"

Tambellini: "OK"

SpezDispenser wrote:Let's put it this way, I wouldn't want to be the Oilers dealing with Murray. BUT, they did arrange a pretty smart deal to get Heatley in the first place.

But I see what you're saying. If Heatley waives his NTC and agrees to Edmonton, Murray turns around and says, the first deal's deal, but now you know you can have Dany Diddling Heatley - and the price has doubled.

I dare you to say no. Your fan base would implode when Murray leaked that you nixed a deal.

It's...diabolical.

PKC wrote:
You don't want to play with fire though. There is a certain amount of respect these guys have for each other when they make deals, because some GMs tend to look at other GMs and teams if they've had past dealings in good faith with them. Just something to keep in mind.

davetherave wrote:A few things to bear in mind....

As far as the letter from Heatley requesting the trade goes, its potential impact depends on the wording of the no-trade clause and the contract itself.

When dealing with contracts, a number of them will contain a specific paragraph saying that the Parties agree to the Terms and Conditions of the Agreement as contained therein, and that no subsequent document may be construed as altering or voiding the contract, and that only unless the Parties specifically agree to do so.

This gets very, very complicated...and can have lawyers arguing for months.

And as far as Edmonton is concerned, they are not, as far as I know, obligated to take the deal if the terms of the deal are changed.

davetherave wrote:A few things to bear in mind....

As far as the letter from Heatley requesting the trade goes, its potential impact depends on the wording of the no-trade clause and the contract itself.

When dealing with contracts, a number of them will contain a specific paragraph saying that the Parties agree to the Terms and Conditions of the Agreement as contained therein, and that no subsequent document may be construed as altering or voiding the contract, and that only unless the Parties specifically agree to do so.

This gets very, very complicated...and can have lawyers arguing for months.

And as far as Edmonton is concerned, they are not, as far as I know, obligated to take the deal if the terms of the deal are changed.

PKC wrote:

This is going to set precedents of biblical proportions. Wasn't I the first one to say that by demanding a trade he violated the terms of his contract?

wprager wrote:

PKC wrote:

This is going to set precedents of biblical proportions. Wasn't I the first one to say that by demanding a trade he violated the terms of his contract?

Nah, I'm sure it was N4L