Off Season Rumours

wprager wrote:If there is an expansion next year, as has been rumored, then the GMs will likely find out early, so they can make strategic trades to offset difficult decisions on whom to protect.  For example, you can only protect one goalie and the Penguins would have to protect Fleury, since he has a limited NTC.  They would have to preemptively trade Fleury or lose Murray in the expansion draft.  There are likely plenty of similar situations around the league.  Could be a record-setting off-season for trades.

I'm still not clear on that. What if a team has 20 players on NMCs? They get to protect more players?

I thought only NMC had to be protected

spader wrote:
I'm still not clear on that. What if a team has 20 players on NMCs? They get to protect more players?

No team has that many. Plus most of the players with NMC/NTC are older players, less desirable than younger/cheaper players.

Hoags wrote:I thought only NMC had to be protected

Well no rules have officially been confirmed. But in my opinion it would be both. NTC is still the biggest part of these clauses; NMC adds not being able to send the player down to the minors. Besides the NHLPA would fight tooth and nail to keep existing contract terms unaffected by the expansion draft.

wprager wrote:

spader wrote:
I'm still not clear on that. What if a team has 20 players on NMCs? They get to protect more players?

No team has that many.  Plus most of the players with NMC/NTC are older players, less desirable than younger/cheaper players.  

Hoags wrote:I thought only NMC had to be protected

Well no rules have officially been confirmed.  But in my opinion it would be both.  NTC is still the biggest part of these clauses; NMC adds not being able to send the player down to the minors.  Besides the NHLPA would fight tooth and nail to keep existing contract terms unaffected by the expansion draft.

A NTC shouldn't protect anyone from the draft. Draft=/=Trade. The clause is specific. The only chance players have of protection is with a NMC, I believe. No-movement is a different story than no-trade.

Hoags wrote:I thought only NMC had to be protected

Yeah, from the GMs last set of meetings, it sounds as if only players with NMC will have to be protected, and NTC guys will NOT have to be protected. I'm pretty sure this is how it will end up working.

This means the only guy the Sens will HAVE to protect is Phaneuf. This likely means that Methot gets left unprotected though, as I think Karlsson and Ceci will be the other D protected.

A NTC is meant to protect the player from an unwanted/unwelcomed move to a new team. A NMC also adds protection from being demoted to the AHL. The NHLPA will go ballistic if players on NTC can be moved without their approval.

But I guess we will see.

I'm sure the legal language in the contract is key.

NTC states they can't be "traded"(no trade here). NMC says they can't be moved anywhere etc.

They should have written a clause about expansion drafts in there. A NEDC so to speak.

If that's how the legal language is written. The NHLPA doesn't have a leg to stand on

Hoags wrote:I'm sure the legal language in the contract is key.

NTC states they can't be "traded"(no trade here).  NMC says they can't be moved anywhere etc.

They should have written a clause about expansion drafts in there.  A NEDC so to speak.

If that's how the legal language is written.  The NHLPA doesn't have a leg to stand on

Agreed. That's why there's a difference between the two. If Walt's interpretation was the common interpretation, there would be no need for two different types of clauses.

wprager wrote:A NTC is meant to protect the player from an unwanted/unwelcomed move to a new team.  A NMC also adds protection from being demoted to the AHL.  The NHLPA will go ballistic if players on NTC can be moved without their approval.

But I guess we will see.

Not exactly. A NTC is meant to protect the player from a trade to another team. That's it; that's all. It isn't meant to prevent movement, just a trade (which is why they can be moved to an AHL team, which wouldn't be "wanted" or "welcomed" by anybody if the NHL was the alternative).

wprager wrote:A NTC is meant to protect the player from an unwanted/unwelcomed move to a new team.  A NMC also adds protection from being demoted to the AHL.  The NHLPA will go ballistic if players on NTC can be moved without their approval.

But I guess we will see.

I'm just telling you what was reported after the last set of meetings on this subject. NMC players had to be protected, NTC players could be unprotected. I think even the NHLPA was involved in this discussion and they were OK with it.

tim1_2 wrote:

wprager wrote:A NTC is meant to protect the player from an unwanted/unwelcomed move to a new team.  A NMC also adds protection from being demoted to the AHL.  The NHLPA will go ballistic if players on NTC can be moved without their approval.

But I guess we will see.

I'm just telling you what was reported after the last set of meetings on this subject. NMC players had to be protected, NTC players could be unprotected. I think even the NHLPA was involved in this discussion and they were OK with it.

I concur

spader wrote:

wprager wrote:A NTC is meant to protect the player from an unwanted/unwelcomed move to a new team.  A NMC also adds protection from being demoted to the AHL.  The NHLPA will go ballistic if players on NTC can be moved without their approval.

But I guess we will see.

Not exactly. A NTC is meant to protect the player from a trade to another team. That's it; that's all. It isn't meant to prevent movement, just a trade (which is why they can be moved to an AHL team, which wouldn't be "wanted" or "welcomed" by anybody if the NHL was the alternative).

A trade to another team *is* a move. A NTC is a subset of a NMC the only difference being that NMC also means you cannot waive a player through to the minors. But the purpose of both clauses is to prevent a player's family life from being disrupted by a move.

So. Rumors. Who thinks Ott goes after Eriksson?

Would it make sense to trade Hoff + for a #1 center and sign Eriksson to a 5 year deal?

wprager wrote:

spader wrote:

wprager wrote:A NTC is meant to protect the player from an unwanted/unwelcomed move to a new team.  A NMC also adds protection from being demoted to the AHL.  The NHLPA will go ballistic if players on NTC can be moved without their approval.

But I guess we will see.

Not exactly. A NTC is meant to protect the player from a trade to another team. That's it; that's all. It isn't meant to prevent movement, just a trade (which is why they can be moved to an AHL team, which wouldn't be "wanted" or "welcomed" by anybody if the NHL was the alternative).

A trade to another team *is* a move.  A NTC is a subset of a NMC the only difference being that NMC also means you cannot waive a player through to the minors.  But the purpose of both clauses is to prevent a player's family life from being disrupted by a move.

You're absolutely correct but it all comes down to how it's worded in the player contract. I don't think they had expansion drafts in mind when they wrote them.

DefenceWinsChampionships wrote:So. Rumors. Who thinks Ott goes after Eriksson?

Would it make sense to trade Hoff + for a #1 center and sign Eriksson to a 5 year deal?

Nah, unless you can get Duchene, which is a huge if.

I'd love to see them sign Eriksson though. I have my doubts, but I'd love it. Perfect fit here.

Watching (a little anyway) Mark Scheifele and Stone play together...is amazing. I'd love to get Scheifele.

SpezDispensed wrote:

DefenceWinsChampionships wrote:So. Rumors. Who thinks Ott goes after Eriksson?

Would it make sense to trade Hoff + for a #1 center and sign Eriksson to a 5 year deal?

Nah, unless you can get Duchene, which is a huge if.

I'd love to see them sign Eriksson though.  I have my doubts, but I'd love it.  Perfect fit here.

Yeah my hopes is we go after Eriksson also but because we never really go after any FA of importance in the last while I have to temper my expectations.
Maybe when there's an arena downtown...

We might need someone to replace MacArthur also. He might be another hit away from retirement.

SpezDispensed wrote:Watching (a little anyway) Mark Scheifele and Stone play together...is amazing.  I'd love to get Scheifele.

Big fan of the pipe dreams you are eh?