Heatley's press conference

hemlock wrote:

RobbyJ wrote:I asked a question yesterday and never got an answer/opinion so I'll ask it again.

Since Heatley provided the Sens with a written trade request AND a list of teams he would go to, does this in effect alter his NMC to a limited NMC, meaning if Heatley stayed all year would Murray have to ask Heatley to waive again next summer for any of the teams on his list or has Heatley in fact already waived the clause.

That's a damn good question. I don't know but it could depend on the wording of the letter. Perhaps there is a date which Murray has to operate under the terms of the letter (ie. Which teams Heatley will waive for).

In the future, Murray should not be giving any NMC/NTC unless he can get a clause that voids the ability for a player to block a move should he be the one to request a trade. To much power to the player here imo.

Or the NHL itself should use this as a precedent to alter the definition of an NMC/NTC. IMO a NTC/NMC should mean that the player cannot be traded unless he wants to. It should not mean that said player is effectively a free agent that gets paid.

This has been bothering me for a while...so I dug out my syphoning skills and pulled up his stats over the last couple of year for his main complaints.

Year	GP	ES min	ES min/GP	PP min	PP min/GP	SH min	SH min/GP	MINS	MIN/GP	# Shifts	SHIFTS/GP
2008/09	82	1284	15.66	334	4.07	31	0.38	1649	20.11	1815	22.13
2007/08	71	1192	16.79	316	4.45	34	0.48	1543	21.73	1635	23.03
2006/07	82	1253	15.28	409	4.99	62	0.76	1724	21.02	1956	23.85
2005/06	82	1136	13.85	470	5.73	127	1.55	1734	21.15	1806	22.02

So his time on ice did decrease but only by about 1 min 30 seconds a game which is about 3 shifts. Just to make sure the stats are relative Ottawa's special teams had the following rankings during the same time

Year	PP Rank	PP pts/%	Heatley PP pts	PK Rank	PK %
2008/09	10	66/19.5	15	15	81.5
2007/08	12	60/18.3	13	22	81.0
2006/07	14	72/17.9	17	10	84.5
2005/06	4	102/20.8	23	4	84.7

All I can tell is that he lost about a min per game of power play time over the last two years, but his Stats are about the same and the teams overall ranking has increased (relatively)

This to me is evidence that his excuse of a diminished role is a farce. For those that are frustrated and want to let Heatley know how pissed they are and how they don't believe his story can contact his agent at:

Stacey McAlpine
Sun Life Plaza - West Tower
144 - 4th Avenue SW, Suite 1600
Calgary, Alberta
T2P 3N4
Canada

Phone: 403-262-6225
Fax: 403-269-3537

asq2 wrote:

hemlock wrote:

RobbyJ wrote:I asked a question yesterday and never got an answer/opinion so I'll ask it again.

Since Heatley provided the Sens with a written trade request AND a list of teams he would go to, does this in effect alter his NMC to a limited NMC, meaning if Heatley stayed all year would Murray have to ask Heatley to waive again next summer for any of the teams on his list or has Heatley in fact already waived the clause.

That's a damn good question. I don't know but it could depend on the wording of the letter. Perhaps there is a date which Murray has to operate under the terms of the letter (ie. Which teams Heatley will waive for).

In the future, Murray should not be giving any NMC/NTC unless he can get a clause that voids the ability for a player to block a move should he be the one to request a trade. To much power to the player here imo.

Or the NHL itself should use this as a precedent to alter the definition of an NMC/NTC. IMO a NTC/NMC should mean that the player cannot be traded unless he wants to. It should not mean that said player is effectively a free agent that gets paid.

I think that may be one of the Owners sticking points when bargain starts.

Dawg's Wife wrote:This has been bothering me for a while...so I dug out my syphoning skills and pulled up his stats over the last couple of year for his main complaints.

Year	GP	ES min	ES min/GP	PP min	PP min/GP	SH min	SH min/GP	MINS	MIN/GP	# Shifts	SHIFTS/GP
2008/09	82	1284	15.66	334	4.07	31	0.38	1649	20.11	1815	22.13
2007/08	71	1192	16.79	316	4.45	34	0.48	1543	21.73	1635	23.03
2006/07	82	1253	15.28	409	4.99	62	0.76	1724	21.02	1956	23.85
2005/06	82	1136	13.85	470	5.73	127	1.55	1734	21.15	1806	22.02

So his time on ice did decrease but only by about 1 min 30 seconds a game which is about 3 shifts. Just to make sure the stats are relative Ottawa's special teams had the following rankings during the same time

Year	PP Rank	PP pts/%	Heatley PP pts	PK Rank	PK %
2008/09	10	66/19.5	15	15	81.5
2007/08	12	60/18.3	13	22	81.0
2006/07	14	72/17.9	17	10	84.5
2005/06	4	102/20.8	23	4	84.7

All I can tell is that he lost about a min per game of power play time over the last two years, but his Stats are about the same and the teams overall ranking has increased (relatively)

This to me is evidence that his excuse of a diminished role is a farce. For those that are frustrated and want to let Heatley know how pissed they are and how they don't believe his story can contact his agent at:

Stacey McAlpine
Sun Life Plaza - West Tower
144 - 4th Avenue SW, Suite 1600
Calgary, Alberta
T2P 3N4
Canada

Phone: 403-262-6225
Fax: 403-269-3537

Thanks for breaking this down!

I'd send a letter to Heatley, but I'm sure if they started coming in droves, McAlpine would just shred them.

RobbyJ wrote:I asked a question yesterday and never got an answer/opinion so I'll ask it again.

Since Heatley provided the Sens with a written trade request AND a list of teams he would go to, does this in effect alter his NMC to a limited NMC, meaning if Heatley stayed all year would Murray have to ask Heatley to waive again next summer for any of the teams on his list or has Heatley in fact already waived the clause.

The short answer is -- No. Letters aren't legally binding documents, contracts are. The difference? Letters are one-way, signed only by one party, and contracts are two-way, signed by both parties.

Even if OTT worked out a deal for Heatley with one of his choice teams, we'd still have to go to him for the final word to OK the deal. That's because it's built into his contract. It's a case by case basis, every time.

Think of the letter as a guideline, strictly. It has no legal consequences.

As always Dr. Poo thanks for clearing that up.

hemlock wrote:As always Dr. Poo thanks for clearing that up.

However, you're right that the next CBA probably will have a clause, such that a player asking to be traded can no-longer have a NTC, or at least change the NTC to a limited NTC.

DW, in your post you said that his TOI went down by about a minute and a half, which you equated to approximately three shifts. However his number of shifts per game dropped by less than one.

So, really, he lost very little in terms of the number of shifts given, but his shifts were tightened up a bit. It's been brought up many times that Heatley takes longer shifts than his team mates. It has been well established that an NHL player can go full tilt for 30-45 seconds (except for Ovechkin). Longer than 45, and you will start making mistakes, turning the puck over and getting called for "lazy" penalties.

So, his ice time decreased by less than a shift per game -- from 23 to 22, roughly speaking. Th bigger change was in the length of each shift, which was necessary because he was no-longer being effective at the end of his shifts.

wprager wrote:

hemlock wrote:As always Dr. Poo thanks for clearing that up.

However, you're right that the next CBA probably will have a clause, such that a player asking to be traded can no-longer have a NTC, or at least change the NTC to a limited NTC.

I think they will certainly look at it. I don't know the numbers so I could be way off, but it seems like a very high number of players who met the UFA requirements (age and/or service) have a limited NTC at minimum. Nic Wallin has a NTC. What????

I only read the last 3 pages of this thread, so if this has already been brought up, my apologies.

I wonder what everyone thinks about Brennan's question and Dany's "reply". I can't call myself a fan of Brennan (I find him abrasive) and he certainly didn't win me over with the way he asked his question, but it was valid.

For those that didn't catch it or listen to the podcast, Brennan asked Dany if he'd turn in his "A". Dany dodged the question and only said he'd play for the Sens if he was still a Senator.

Brennan came off as a jerk with the way he asked the question and the little jab he threw in at the beginning ("Sorry I didn't return your calls this summer Dany"), but he absolutely had a good point.

I think Murray gives the "A" to Fisher or Spezza. Thoughts?

spader wrote:I only read the last 3 pages of this thread, so if this has already been brought up, my apologies.

I wonder what everyone thinks about Brennan's question and Dany's "reply". I can't call myself a fan of Brennan (I find him abrasive) and he certainly didn't win me over with the way he asked his question, but it was valid.

For those that didn't catch it or listen to the podcast, Brennan asked Dany if he'd turn in his "A". Dany dodged the question and only said he'd play for the Sens if he was still a Senator.

Brennan came off as a jerk with the way he asked the question and the little jab he threw in at the beginning ("Sorry I didn't return your calls this summer Dany"), but he absolutely had a good point.

I think Murray gives the "A" to Fisher or Spezza. Thoughts?

I think Clouston and his stiaff will be desiding who gets the A, not Murray. But in the end I think it's Fisher who will get the A. Hartsberg gave Heatley the A to stroke his ego and it had little to no effect on Heatley's performance. If anything I think he saw it as a way to avoid being accountable. Fisher should have been wearing the A 2 years ago. But instead it went to guys like Redden and Heatley. Time to give credit where credit is due.

Snuh wrote:

spader wrote:I only read the last 3 pages of this thread, so if this has already been brought up, my apologies.

I wonder what everyone thinks about Brennan's question and Dany's "reply". I can't call myself a fan of Brennan (I find him abrasive) and he certainly didn't win me over with the way he asked his question, but it was valid.

For those that didn't catch it or listen to the podcast, Brennan asked Dany if he'd turn in his "A". Dany dodged the question and only said he'd play for the Sens if he was still a Senator.

Brennan came off as a jerk with the way he asked the question and the little jab he threw in at the beginning ("Sorry I didn't return your calls this summer Dany"), but he absolutely had a good point.

I think Murray gives the "A" to Fisher or Spezza. Thoughts?

I think Clouston and his stiaff will be desiding who gets the A, not Murray. But in the end I think it's Fisher who will get the A. Hartsberg gave Heatley the A to stroke his ego and it had little to no effect on Heatley's performance. If anything I think he saw it as a way to avoid being accountable. Fisher should have been wearing the A 2 years ago. But instead it went to guys like Redden and Heatley. Time to give credit where credit is due.

Amen to that.

While I've heard that Fish is not a very vocal fella in the locker room, it's his performance and work ethic that makes him worthy of the "A" in my books.

Does anyone else think some of the normal, they-want-to-be-there-Sens players ought to haze the hell out of Mr. Cry-Baby Heatley? LOL

Good catch on the typo....of course I meant to say Clouston will strip the "A".

hemlock wrote:

cas wrote:

hemlock wrote:

cas wrote:

hemlock wrote:Somewhere, Doug Wilson is smiling ear to ear. He now knows that his Dung lowball offer is the best Murray can hope for now. My bet is that within a week or so, we will be seeing a deal involving Cheechoo to the Sens.

I'm going to refute that.

-Bryan Murray is a dinosaur.
-He wants a Cup.
-He knows he likely won't have a better roster to work with in Ottawa for the foreseeable future.
-He knows he's one bad move, one bad season, one missed playoff or playoff tank job away from getting canned.
-Ottawa's best chance at a Cup is with Heatley on the roster. Him being a distraction is a far better risk to take than to pwn him off and get trinkets in return; sending a clear message to the current roster that he doesn't trust them to handle this themsleves.

Dany Heatley will be an Ottawa Senator this season, if only for the reason that Bryan Murray needs him to be.

Are you suggesting that Murray thinks this team right now could compete for a cup? Not with our defensive corps. We are a few years away from contending imo. Why keep Heatley around during that, to potentially taint our youth?

Oh...and even if we're really not Cup contenders, we're more of a contender with Heatley than we are with Cheechoo. Plain and simple.

We aren't a contender with either guy, plain and simple, so what difference does it make? It now looks like Heatley has driven the final nail into the coffin containing a suberb package for him. Murray may now be forced to take what he can get, hence my post on the Cheechoo+Erhoff+prospects deal.

Do you honestly believe it's reasonable to keep him here the entire year or perhaps even beyond that, if no deal of equal value or greater presents itself?

First of all, lets just cut out this "greater value" idea :^^^^: thats laughable. Obviously we're not going to get back Burns, PMB, Cuma, 1st or Frolov, Doughty, Tuebert, 1st for Heatley. As for equal value, clearly that seems like a long shot. So lets, instead, assume the presence of a deal that presents less than equal value but a return that addresses multiple needs (of which there really aren't many in this org anymore, save for a legit #1) then certainly that deal will be looked at very carefully. Otherwise, no deal should be accepted just because its there.

Cheechoo and Ehrhoff is an insulting offer and just a horrendous return. We all know that Heatley's camp has been talking to teams (which btw is the a dumb Diddle move for the ages by Murray) and obviously Doug Wilson won't be willing to give up a good return when he KNOWS that he's one of the only teams Heatley will waive for. How many backroom dealings like this actually remain honourable? There's going to be some straight talk between the agents and the GM to let them know that "they're all on the same side"...

Anyways, I think that whole side of it is fairly obvious and so I'm not going to go on about it. The point is: if Heatley stays here, he can only stay for the remainder of the season. No more. If we start getting past the draft and Heatley is still here, I'll be worried. Its a gamble to take, but its the right move given the circumstances.

It also wouldn't surprise me to see Heatley play well for a couple of weeks, while some team struggles out of the gate, and they pony up for Heatley.

And my point is that we're more of a contender - much more of a contender - with Heatley than we are with Cheechoo. This is more about our GM than most fans realize. Murray is running out of time and a healthy top-6 including a productive Foligno, a renewed Spezza, a consistent Fisher and Kovalev, a non-Wing Dang Doodle Heatley, and a still-going Captain does actually make us a legit contender in a conference as even as the East. Obviously thats a lot of things going right, but its not exactly out of the question.

hemlock wrote:

FireOnIce wrote:

hemlock wrote:

cas wrote:

hemlock wrote:Somewhere, Doug Wilson is smiling ear to ear. He now knows that his Dung lowball offer is the best Murray can hope for now. My bet is that within a week or so, we will be seeing a deal involving Cheechoo to the Sens.

I'm going to refute that.

-Bryan Murray is a dinosaur.
-He wants a Cup.
-He knows he likely won't have a better roster to work with in Ottawa for the foreseeable future.
-He knows he's one bad move, one bad season, one missed playoff or playoff tank job away from getting canned.
-Ottawa's best chance at a Cup is with Heatley on the roster. Him being a distraction is a far better risk to take than to pwn him off and get trinkets in return; sending a clear message to the current roster that he doesn't trust them to handle this themsleves.

Dany Heatley will be an Ottawa Senator this season, if only for the reason that Bryan Murray needs him to be.

Are you suggesting that Murray thinks this team right now could compete for a cup? Not with our defensive corps. We are a few years away from contending imo. Why keep Heatley around during that, to potentially taint our youth?

Hemlock, I'm not sure if it you that keeps saying it or if it is a bunch of posters, but I will jump down your throat just for the fun of it here.

I've said this many times om here: Heatley tainting our youth is not going to happen. We have Alfie, Phillips, Fisher, Neil, Donovan, maybe Volchenkov, maybe even Kovalev and Spezza looks to be ready as well from recent interviews to keep the youth on the right path. Say what you want about our past issues - true or not - but character players learn from past mistakes and will not let them repeat.

Giving into Heatley sends more of a message in my opinion to the youth and there is nothing the leaders can do about that as management is above them.

Prepare for Heatley on opening night and LOVE IT! He will play hard, the Olympics will see to that. Murray willl find the opportune time to trade Heatley and bring maximum return. (I should make that my new signature as I have been saying them long enough as well).

Trading Heatley isn't exactly giving in to him. It's now what's best for the team, not just Heatley. I agree that he'll come in and compete, until the Olympics, in fact I was one of the first to bring that point up when we discussed that remote (it seemed like it at the time) possibility that he could be back. After the Oylmpics, what happens is anyones guess. Personally, I think he'll make nice with the media and play only as hard as he has to until returning from Vancouver, or perhaps even the deadline, but after that, if he isn't moved, I don't think we'll see the same motivated player, but rather the selfish, lazy player that finished last season.

I wish I could be as optimistic as you for Murray getting "maximum" return, but maximum is relative, and what was the maximum return for Heatley 4 days ago, is probably more than it is today.

I'm fully prepared for Heatley to come back in October, but I sure as hell don't have to love it. Oh and about your signature: I hope for your sake that he isn't traded before opening night because you're going to get called out for it in a large way I suspect.

I have to say that this I agree with. You make a very good argument on why we should just get rid of him and get it over with, but I don't see that as a legitimate option.

Yes it rids us of the problem but it creates a whole slew of new ones:

a) The team feels slighted (even in the smallest way) despite being relieved. You have to know that players are fans too and that offense looks really good on paper. There's bound to be some kind of excitement about the new season if most of them are in fact (relatively) willing to accept Heatley back.

b) Murray doesn't stay true to his word and other GMs find out that all you have to do is wait long enough and Murray will break. This would be the longest last effect (assuming consummating a trade of poor value didn't cost him his job before the end of the season) and would have a far longer lasting effect on the organization.

c) We'd be a worse team on paper. Its up to the coaches and the players to make it work on the ice, but the GM has to give them the best chance he can. In this situation, it definitely sounds like that means Heatley being back in black.

Don't get me wrong, though; I see your point. I also think Heatley will come back after the Olympics (or maybe post deadline) and be the same lazy piece of dog Dung that he was all season last year.

As for his maximum return going down, I'd beg to differ. Murray has made it quite clear that he'll bring Heatley back and Heatley just made it quite clear that he'll report. That makes Murray's hand stronger and therefore brings Heatley's value up.

cas wrote:

hemlock wrote:

FireOnIce wrote:

hemlock wrote:

cas wrote:

hemlock wrote:Somewhere, Doug Wilson is smiling ear to ear. He now knows that his Dung lowball offer is the best Murray can hope for now. My bet is that within a week or so, we will be seeing a deal involving Cheechoo to the Sens.

I'm going to refute that.

-Bryan Murray is a dinosaur.
-He wants a Cup.
-He knows he likely won't have a better roster to work with in Ottawa for the foreseeable future.
-He knows he's one bad move, one bad season, one missed playoff or playoff tank job away from getting canned.
-Ottawa's best chance at a Cup is with Heatley on the roster. Him being a distraction is a far better risk to take than to pwn him off and get trinkets in return; sending a clear message to the current roster that he doesn't trust them to handle this themsleves.

Dany Heatley will be an Ottawa Senator this season, if only for the reason that Bryan Murray needs him to be.

Are you suggesting that Murray thinks this team right now could compete for a cup? Not with our defensive corps. We are a few years away from contending imo. Why keep Heatley around during that, to potentially taint our youth?

Hemlock, I'm not sure if it you that keeps saying it or if it is a bunch of posters, but I will jump down your throat just for the fun of it here.

I've said this many times om here: Heatley tainting our youth is not going to happen. We have Alfie, Phillips, Fisher, Neil, Donovan, maybe Volchenkov, maybe even Kovalev and Spezza looks to be ready as well from recent interviews to keep the youth on the right path. Say what you want about our past issues - true or not - but character players learn from past mistakes and will not let them repeat.

Giving into Heatley sends more of a message in my opinion to the youth and there is nothing the leaders can do about that as management is above them.

Prepare for Heatley on opening night and LOVE IT! He will play hard, the Olympics will see to that. Murray willl find the opportune time to trade Heatley and bring maximum return. (I should make that my new signature as I have been saying them long enough as well).

Trading Heatley isn't exactly giving in to him. It's now what's best for the team, not just Heatley. I agree that he'll come in and compete, until the Olympics, in fact I was one of the first to bring that point up when we discussed that remote (it seemed like it at the time) possibility that he could be back. After the Oylmpics, what happens is anyones guess. Personally, I think he'll make nice with the media and play only as hard as he has to until returning from Vancouver, or perhaps even the deadline, but after that, if he isn't moved, I don't think we'll see the same motivated player, but rather the selfish, lazy player that finished last season.

I wish I could be as optimistic as you for Murray getting "maximum" return, but maximum is relative, and what was the maximum return for Heatley 4 days ago, is probably more than it is today.

I'm fully prepared for Heatley to come back in October, but I sure as hell don't have to love it. Oh and about your signature: I hope for your sake that he isn't traded before opening night because you're going to get called out for it in a large way I suspect.

I have to say that this I agree with. You make a very good argument on why we should just get rid of him and get it over with, but I don't see that as a legitimate option.

Yes it rids us of the problem but it creates a whole slew of new ones:

a) The team feels slighted (even in the smallest way) despite being relieved. You have to know that players are fans too and that offense looks really good on paper. There's bound to be some kind of excitement about the new season if most of them are in fact (relatively) willing to accept Heatley back.

b) Murray doesn't stay true to his word and other GMs find out that all you have to do is wait long enough and Murray will break. This would be the longest last effect (assuming consummating a trade of poor value didn't cost him his job before the end of the season) and would have a far longer lasting effect on the organization.

c) We'd be a worse team on paper. Its up to the coaches and the players to make it work on the ice, but the GM has to give them the best chance he can. In this situation, it definitely sounds like that means Heatley being back in black.

Don't get me wrong, though; I see your point. I also think Heatley will come back after the Olympics (or maybe post deadline) and be the same lazy piece of dog Dung that he was all season last year.

As for his maximum return going down, I'd beg to differ. Murray has made it quite clear that he'll bring Heatley back and Heatley just made it quite clear that he'll report. That makes Murray's hand stronger and therefore brings Heatley's value up.

Just reporting brings his value up? What if he reports with a crappy attitude and even worse work ethic? I don't see how that benefits us at all. All he's done since this whole thing became public is make his own value worse, and made things harder for Murray. I think he feels a deal will be made and he could care less about helping the Senators get a decent return. That to me is a very dangerous.

Point a) is possible yes, but do we really know the feelings of the other players? Do you think they want to deal with the non-stop questions about Heatley that will surely come throughout the season? The excitement will be there whether it's Heatley, or a package in his place. New season, a full year under Clouston, a potential stud goaltender, and young guys who will have the chance to go to the next level (Foligno), should ensure that. Plus the chance to redeem themselves after missing the playoffs last season.

Point b) I assume you mean Murray saying he wouldn't take less value then going out and doing exactly that, right? I don't think he has a choice. Memories are long and even if Heatley stays here for this season and plays nice with everyone and excels on-ice, people other GM's know that eventually something will have to give. Heatley won't play nice forever, and thus Murray will have to make a move at some point, whenever that may be. He's essentially gone back on his word if he makes a deal for less than value, which is the only realistic thing that will happen here imo.

Point c) I, for one, don't care about what the team looks like on paper. Really, what that comes down to is the return, and right now, a package of Cheechoo, Erhoff and say Couture, looks better to me than Heatley and the potential for disaster he brings.

All very valid points. I'm not 100% commited to my side of the argument so I'll just leave it as: who the Diddle knows?

...not me. Anything can happen at this point and any move made could end up being the wrong one. For now, though, I'd say keep Heatley long enough to play well for a few weeks before deciding what the maximum return is.

again i would like to bring up the fact that yes healtey does look better then cheechoo but if you put cheechoo with spez you should be able to get 30 goals out of him and cheechoo will work his donkey off every night where we haev no idea white kind of attitude adn work ethic heatley will bring