BabychStache Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 Isn't this the exact kind of thing Arizona is for? Dump Flower in the desert. Send AZ a 3rd round pick with MAF for Smith. Problem solved. Smith is then exposed and Vegas picks him up. He could almost commute to work from Phoenix If i'm MAF i don't mind this idea either. AZ has a pretty decent future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 13 minutes ago, Rick Blight said: I still don't understand this. The media release says "The 32-year-old is signed through the next two seasons at a reasonable $5.75-million cap hit, but a 12-team no-trade list can dictate where he is traded to, not to mention if he's willing to waive it to spend the final years of his career with an expansion club. Fleury has a NMC and not a NTC so I don't understand why he would have to provide any kind of list. The NHL CBA describes a NMC as: A No-Movement Clause prohibits a team from moving a player by trade, loan or waivers, or assigning that player to the minors without the player's consent. Something is off with this media release. He can't have a contract that calls for a list of 12 teams as that would contravene the CBA NMC definition. He doesn't have a full NMC, it's a limited NMC/Modified NTC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 Just now, ForsbergTheGreat said: He doesn't have a full NMC, it's a limited NMC/Modified NTC Yeah, it's one of those weird hybrid clauses we've seen show up in contracts written over the past few years. Modified NTC with a NMC. In the past, NMC meant no movement, full stop. No trades. No AHL. And that's still the case with players that have a clear NMC. Hybrid clauses, like Fleury's "modified NTC, NMC," mean that the modified NTC determines the limits of the trade protection, and the NMC is generally understood as protection from AHL assignments. At some point, the NHL determined that "no movement" applied to the expansion draft, so players with hybrid clauses must be put on the protected list (because of their NMC), even though they don't have full trade protection (because of their modified NTC). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stelar Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 3 hours ago, Beary Sweet said: imagine we ended up with Fleury if we walk from Miller because he wants to be near LA for his wife and sign Fleury.. could be a good mentor for Marky Marky doesn't need a mentor at this point...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WHL rocks Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 3 hours ago, Go Faulk Yourself said: RIP any remaining trade value he had He hasn't had any trade value for couple of seasons. If anything he's had negative trade value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WHL rocks Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 2 hours ago, Devon Jade said: Miller for Penguins' 1st and Fluery? Something like this could work. Very realistic proposal. Pens 1st is going to be between 25th and 30th and they get Miller who has played great for the playoff run just incase the kid falters. Otherwise to make a trade the Pens are going to have to take a bad contract back and I don't think they want that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neversummer Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 16 minutes ago, WHL rocks said: Something like this could work. Very realistic proposal. Pens 1st is going to be between 25th and 30th and they get Miller who has played great for the playoff run just incase the kid falters. Otherwise to make a trade the Pens are going to have to take a bad contract back and I don't think they want that. Do you think Miller would want to go to Pittsburgh as rental? I think he has a NVM or No Trade type of contract as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 19 minutes ago, WHL rocks said: Something like this could work. Very realistic proposal. Pens 1st is going to be between 25th and 30th and they get Miller who has played great for the playoff run just incase the kid falters. Otherwise to make a trade the Pens are going to have to take a bad contract back and I don't think they want that. Wouldn't we have to protect MAF? I thought he had one of those nasty NMCs. Or would we buy him out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WHL rocks Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 5 minutes ago, Neversummer said: Do you think Miller would want to go to Pittsburgh as rental? I think he has a NVM or No Trade type of contract as well. He might as PIT is a Cup contender and MIller doesn't have a Cup yet. Miller has played great and if he feels he can take the nets from the kid in PIT then why not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WHL rocks Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 5 minutes ago, Alflives said: Wouldn't we have to protect MAF? I thought he had one of those nasty NMCs. Or would we buy him out? I would trade him in the summer before the entry draft. eat some cap/take a bad contract back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 Just now, WHL rocks said: I would trade him in the summer before the entry draft. eat some cap/take a bad contract back. If we come out with Pittsburgh's first I'm all in. It's a really good idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WHL rocks Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 Just now, Alflives said: If we come out with Pittsburgh's first I'm all in. It's a really good idea. It's possible. MAF sucks and can't be depended on in the playoffs. PIT gets Miller who's been great this year and get rid of a terrible contract. We get a late 1st. It will be tough to trade that contract in the summer but it could be done. Look at TO, they got rid of 2 terrible contracts, much worse and longer than MAF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 3 minutes ago, WHL rocks said: It's possible. MAF sucks and can't be depended on in the playoffs. PIT gets Miller who's been great this year and get rid of a terrible contract. We get a late 1st. It will be tough to trade that contract in the summer but it could be done. Look at TO, they got rid of 2 terrible contracts, much worse and longer than MAF. MAF might be great on a team with no pressure. Maybe Arizona or Vegas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 7 minutes ago, WHL rocks said: It's possible. MAF sucks and can't be depended on in the playoffs. PIT gets Miller who's been great this year and get rid of a terrible contract. We get a late 1st. It will be tough to trade that contract in the summer but it could be done. Look at TO, they got rid of 2 terrible contracts, much worse and longer than MAF. MAF might be great on a team with no pressure. Maybe Arizona or Vegas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neversummer Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 9 minutes ago, WHL rocks said: It's possible. MAF sucks and can't be depended on in the playoffs. PIT gets Miller who's been great this year and get rid of a terrible contract. We get a late 1st. It will be tough to trade that contract in the summer but it could be done. Look at TO, they got rid of 2 terrible contracts, much worse and longer than MAF. Um ... did you mean Fleury or Miller ? To my memory, last time Miller tried something like this, it didn't go over very well ... Miller in St. Louis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WHL rocks Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 1 minute ago, Neversummer said: Um ... did you mean Fleury or Miller ? To my memory, last time Miller tried something like this, it didn't go over very well ... Miller in St. Louis. MAF = Fleury. Miller had one go at it with STL. How often does something like that work out. STL traded for Gretzky to play with Hull at the trade deadline too. Didn't work out. Does it mean Gretzky sucked in playoffs? Fleury has sucked for years in the playoffs. That's been the story in PIT every playoff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Blight Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 If the Canucks traded their 1st round pick and a bad contract to get an expiring contract back would you guys be happy with that? You would be all over ownership for not buying out the bad contract and saving the 1st round pick. So, why wouldn't Pittsburgh just buy him out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Blight Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 1 hour ago, SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME said: Yeah, it's one of those weird hybrid clauses we've seen show up in contracts written over the past few years. Modified NTC with a NMC. In the past, NMC meant no movement, full stop. No trades. No AHL. And that's still the case with players that have a clear NMC. Hybrid clauses, like Fleury's "modified NTC, NMC," mean that the modified NTC determines the limits of the trade protection, and the NMC is generally understood as protection from AHL assignments. At some point, the NHL determined that "no movement" applied to the expansion draft, so players with hybrid clauses must be put on the protected list (because of their NMC), even though they don't have full trade protection (because of their modified NTC). Sid & Forsberg, thanks for the clarification. Had no idea there was a modified NMC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HotDogHorvat Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 1 hour ago, WHL rocks said: He hasn't had any trade value for couple of seasons. If anything he's had negative trade value. and moreso as I mentioned, its not like GM's are so blind they cant decipher the situation on their own, and now somehow because Pits mentioned it they would be like "oh darn we had no idea they were had a goaltending/protection issue with expansion coming! who knew, thankfully they told us! lol' - if any GM needing a goalie wasn't already able to determine this on their own, they shouldn't have their job! The minute expansion rules were announced, every gm analyzed his own team, and as importantly, other teams and their expected challenges /handcuff situations to see where he may have leverage to get some players on the cheap. Basic management Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whale Tail Posted January 13, 2017 Share Posted January 13, 2017 If we could trade fleury for anything... don't you think Pit would do that to instead of giving up their 1st when they have depleted their prospects in the cup hunt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.