oldnews Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 Lol gotta love old news condescending attitude especially when he is wrong. http://www.thefourthperiod.com/no_trade_list.html You're speaking too soon - again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 “Yes, we signed Phil long-term; we think he’s a good player. I think he’s still top-20 in goals this year despite the fact he’s had a difficult time lately, but he doesn’t have a [full] no-trade,” Nonis said. http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/dave-nonis-trade-deadline-phil-kessel-toronto-maple-leafs-fire-sale-mlse-report/ I find the [full] part interesting - as well as the NT wording. You might not appreciate the difference between a limited NTC and a limited NMC - which is what Nonis gave Kessel - NMC is more limiting - if Kessel wants to go anywhere at all. A NMC means that he can't be moved unless he consents, can't even be waived - so the veto power is entirely in Kessel's hands. Nonis can try all he wants to put lipstick on it. Kessel the coach killer can be Kessel the GM killer if he so desires. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 Kessel doesn't have a NTC. He has a NMC. It is a limited NMC - to 8 teams that he can accept a trade to - if he so desires. You might want to inform yourself what the difference between NTC and NMCs are.Lol what a reach.. What's the difference in your opinion? You claimed they were handcuffed but meanwhile Kessel has never held all the cards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 I find the [full] part interesting - as well as the NT wording. You might not appreciate the difference between a limited NTC and a limited NMC - which is what Nonis gave Kessel - NMC is more limiting - if Kessel wants to go anywhere at all. A NMC means that he can't be moved unless he consents, can't even be waived - so the veto power is entirely in Kessel's hands. Nonis can try all he wants to put lipstick on it. Kessel the coach killer can be Kessel the GM killer if he so desires. Why listen to the g.m right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 I don't think the Leafs will even be able to move Kessel at all. It won't happen. They and the media will spin it as 'he's too valuable to our team.' Phaneuf is gonzo though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 Why listen to the g.m right? You're not really listening to the GM - and you're not realizing that precisely what I am telling you is not incompatible with the words he chose to lipstick this with. Again, here is the source - which if I remember correctly, is exactly what capgeek also represented - if you want to argue it, you'll have to claim more credibility than those sources. http://www.thefourth...trade_list.html NMC - limited to 8 teams - if Kessel feels like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 I don't think the Leafs will even be able to move Kessel at all. It won't happen. They and the media will spin it as 'he's too valuable to our team.' Phaneuf is gonzo though. Now imo Phaneuf is the bigger hurdle. As for what you said about Kessel you might just be on to something. I certainly wouldn't be surprised at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 You're not really listening to the GM - and you're not realizing that precisely what I am telling you is not incompatible with the words he chose to lipstick this with. I certainly don't need to carry on an argument with you. You said I didn't know what I was talking about and I told you what Kessel's General manager said. I realize half of what you say is condescending jibberish and other half is argument for the sake of argument. I suggest we stop railroading the old bump threads. Again I will take the words of the G.M responsible for the future of PK before I take your words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 I don't think the Leafs will even be able to move Kessel at all. It won't happen. They and the media will spin it as 'he's too valuable to our team.' Phaneuf is gonzo though. I agree. I think Phaneuf will be an easier move - is a better hockey player imo despite his limits - is a top 4 D, something teams need more than a one-dimensional winger - and as far as I'm concerned, is a better cap value as well. He also doesn't come with the reputation of being a coach killer, someone who shows up to camp out of shape, etc. His NMC is limited to 12 teams - I could see him being easier to work with than Kessel as Phaneuf has been the butt of Toronto's blame for some time, while Kessel gets this "Phil can't do it all alone" delusion credited to him, while being the greater liability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 Now imo Phaneuf is the bigger hurdle. As for what you said about Kessel you might just be on to something. I certainly wouldn't be surprised at all. Not if they take back a guy like Richards. I believe they want the C from his chest without him being in the room so they'll make a sideways deal to shed him. I think they'll make that happen come hell or high water. Any Kessel deal they will need to sell to the media and fans...and I don't think that deal exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 Not if they take back a guy like Richards. I believe they want the C from his chest without him being in the room so they'll make a sideways deal to shed him. I think they'll make that happen come hell or high water. Any Kessel deal they will need to sell to the media and fans...and I don't think that deal exists. Oh yes I agree a Richards deal for Phagoof is plausible, I'm just saying don't expect anything of value for Dion. Ridding themselves of that lengthy cap hit is value enough imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 Oh yes I agree a Richards deal for Phagoof is plausible, I'm just saying don't expect anything of value for Dion. Ridding themselves of that lengthy cap hit is value enough imo. How is getting Richards back ridding themselves of that cap hit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 How is getting Richards back ridding themselves of that cap hit? Richards is 5.75 and can play an effective 3rd line role while providing leadership and experience to a team that desperately needs it. If that deal went through I'm thinking Richards would be named captain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 Richards is 5.75 and can play an effective 3rd line role while providing leadership and experience to a team that desperately needs it. If that deal went through I'm thinking Richards would be named captain. And there will be little else involved in the deal. Maybe a depth prospect and a 2nd/3rd. They still only would save 1.25 mil for about the same amount of years. Hardly ridding themselves of the cap hit when they will also need another body to play D. The point is…. these are not going to be slam dunks for their '#1D' and "top 5 scorer" This is the slow burn for the franchise that has screwed up so badly over the last decade that they will not be getting better anytime soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awalk Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 I find the [full] part interesting - as well as the NT wording. You might not appreciate the difference between a limited NTC and a limited NMC - which is what Nonis gave Kessel - NMC is more limiting - if Kessel wants to go anywhere at all. A NMC means that he can't be moved unless he consents, can't even be waived - so the veto power is entirely in Kessel's hands. Nonis can try all he wants to put lipstick on it. Kessel the coach killer can be Kessel the GM killer if he so desires. I'm fairly certain the only difference between a no trade clause and a no movement clause is simply that with a no trade clause he can still be put on waiver and sent to the AHL. With a no movement clause he absolutely cannot. So either way, neither the NTC or the NMC are "full" -- meaning that Kesssel was required to give a list (reportedly 8) of teams that he would accept a trade to upon signing the agreement. That should be all she wrote for that. If you know of another difference between a NTC and a NMC that isn't just semantics pls do let me know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl's Jn Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 confused with this... this is a sign and trade.. has to be. The owner group admitted the fact that him and dion aren't part of the rebuild plan!. or was this just desperate cry to push them... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 And there will be little else involved in the deal. Maybe a depth prospect and a 2nd/3rd. They still only would save 1.25 mil for about the same amount of years. Hardly ridding themselves of the cap hit when they will also need another body to play D. The point is…. these are not going to be slam dunks for their '#1D' and "top 5 scorer" This is the slow burn for the franchise that has screwed up so badly over the last decade that they will not be getting better anytime soon. I'm not sure anyone said it would be a slam dunk. Phaneuf, yes gets paid like a number1 defenseman and yes he is the Leafs number one but he isn't a number1 defenseman. As far as cap space is concerned it's not near as important as you're indicating given the full rebuild plan. It's not just Phaneuf and Kessel, this team needs a whole new culture change along with a whole new identity. Again I don't think anyone expects huge returns, some decent pieces to move forward with and a proven winner and leader in Richards and I think that's a good start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 I'm fairly certain the only difference between a no trade clause and a no movement clause is simply that with a no trade clause he can still be put on waiver and sent to the AHL. With a no movement clause he absolutely cannot. So either way, neither the NTC or the NMC are "full" -- meaning that Kesssel was required to give a list (reportedly 8) of teams that he would accept a trade to upon signing the agreement. That should be all she wrote for that. If you know of another difference between a NTC and a NMC that isn't just semantics pls do let me know. There is an important difference actually. A limited no trade clause does not need to be "waived" in order to deal that player to one of the teams on their list - that player must actually consent to being moved if their team completes a deal with one of the teams named in the limiting (NTC) clause. It limits a team to dealing with certain teams, but does not require a player "waive" it to go to those teams. A no movement clause means you can't move the player - period - without their consent. It will be interesting to see how this pans out, because if in fact - as reported by numerous sources - Kessel has a limited NMC - Kessel would have to waive that previous to being dealt to the teams on his list of 8. So he will/would have veto power in that case. Nonis appears to be either denying that the reported LNMC exists, or trying to finesse his wording. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caboose Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 I'm pretty sure that a no move means no trades and no waivers. Limited no move works as a limited no trade but still no waivers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 I'm pretty sure that a no move means no trades and no waivers. Limited no move works as a limited no trade but still no waivers. You hope. I miss capgeek. No sure why the hell NHL numbers can't include information regarding limiting clauses - we want to know these things and arguably, this is information that should be readily available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.