Sign in to follow this  
mll

[Discussion] Arizona/OEL

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, mll said:

Both won't have trouble reaching the floor.  Adding Eriksson just increases the amount they are spending.  It's more cost efficient to simply promote a prospect or sign a player on a league minimum deal than paying Eriksson 5M over 2 years.

Arizona won’t but Ottawa has over $12 million coming off LTIR and where are they going to find $12 million in cap space but not have to pay that in actual salary by taking on LE or another LTIR. League minimums are not going to make up $12 million. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, IjustNEEDaTROYgamble said:

Arizona won’t but Ottawa has over $12 million coming off LTIR and where are they going to find $12 million in cap space but not have to pay that in actual salary by taking on LE or another LTIR. League minimums are not going to make up $12 million. 

Chabot is starting an 8M deal - that covers a large part of the LTIR that is coming off their books + they were already above the floor so they don't even need to add 12M.  Their RFAs will also be getting raises.  They should have no trouble reaching the floor.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/27/2020 at 12:33 AM, Where's Wellwood said:

Keep in mind, in the new CBA, NTC and NMC now stay with the player even if they were waived to be traded.

So if we trade for OEL, his NMC will still be active with us

That's pretty much bs. NHL players are pampered pretty well already and have their spots protected for living off their name and past performances so much.

 

Look at Louis Ericsson and the compliance buyout type guys on every NHL team stealing money.

 

There should be mechanisms in place where if a guy stops performing a team can renegotiate his deal and force him to have his salary converted to bonuses he only gets if he plays up to par. Effectively making a guy take a pay cut.

 

In the NFL they don't even get fully guaranteed long term deals much less no trades and no moves.

 

The NHL should implement the 5 year max rule on contract extensions instead of 7 or 8 or whatever it is.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Chip Kelly said:

That's pretty much bs. NHL players are pampered pretty well already and have their spots protected for living off their name and past performances so much.

 

Look at Louis Ericsson and the compliance buyout type guys on every NHL team stealing money.

 

There should be mechanisms in place where if a guy stops performing a team can renegotiate his deal and force him to have his salary converted to bonuses he only gets if he plays up to par. Effectively making a guy take a pay cut.

 

In the NFL they don't even get fully guaranteed long term deals much less no trades and no moves.

 

The NHL should implement the 5 year max rule on contract extensions instead of 7 or 8 or whatever it is.

 

 

Don’t agree on forcing the renegotiation, a contract is a contract regardless and still needs to follow employment law.

 

I wouldn’t however be against shorter term contracts being the norm of 4-5 years 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Chip Kelly said:

That's pretty much bs. NHL players are pampered pretty well already and have their spots protected for living off their name and past performances so much.

 

Look at Louis Ericsson and the compliance buyout type guys on every NHL team stealing money.

 

There should be mechanisms in place where if a guy stops performing a team can renegotiate his deal and force him to have his salary converted to bonuses he only gets if he plays up to par. Effectively making a guy take a pay cut.

 

In the NFL they don't even get fully guaranteed long term deals much less no trades and no moves.

 

The NHL should implement the 5 year max rule on contract extensions instead of 7 or 8 or whatever it is.

 

 

The league can’t just “implement “ that.  It has to be negotiated with the players  to be part of the CBA.  If you want another work stoppage , trying to take away guaranteed contracts is a sure fire way to do it. Fortunately all parties involved just signed a nice long extension 

Edited by qwijibo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could Oilers get in on this? I heard they might make big changes with their defence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This guy is way too overpaid for what he brings. No thanks. Also 29 years old. 
 

We need a Weber like defenceman to go with Hughes, but at a lower cap hit and age. Someone who can protect Quinn, be defensively reliable and have a good shot from the point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/9/2020 at 4:39 AM, grandmaster said:

This guy is way too overpaid for what he brings. No thanks. Also 29 years old. 
 

We need a Weber like defenceman to go with Hughes, but at a lower cap hit and age. Someone who can protect Quinn, be defensively reliable and have a good shot from the point. 

Ekman-Larsson is elite

  • Hydration 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Herberts Vasiljevs said:

Ekman-Larsson is elite

The guy has been a minus player for the last 7 seasons and has only reached the 50 point level once 5 years ago. No pal, that’s not an “elite” defenceman. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, grandmaster said:

The guy has been a minus player for the last 7 seasons and has only reached the 50 point level once 5 years ago. No pal, that’s not an “elite” defenceman. 

Well agree to disagree then

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/10/2020 at 2:27 PM, grandmaster said:

The guy has been a minus player for the last 7 seasons and has only reached the 50 point level once 5 years ago. No pal, that’s not an “elite” defenceman. 

That team is brutal. While I question OEL's desire to win a cup having signed that extension there, I believe he's elite. As in a number one dman on most teams that don't already have a number one.

  • Hydration 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/10/2020 at 2:27 PM, grandmaster said:

The guy has been a minus player for the last 7 seasons and has only reached the 50 point level once 5 years ago. No pal, that’s not an “elite” defenceman. 

Minus is a borderline worthless stat. But yes, his point totals are lacking, but again you could just chalk that up to an absolutely brutal franchise that has done a piss poor job of building around OEL.

  • Hydration 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/8/2020 at 2:49 AM, Chip Kelly said:

That's pretty much bs. NHL players are pampered pretty well already and have their spots protected for living off their name and past performances so much.

 

Look at Louis Ericsson and the compliance buyout type guys on every NHL team stealing money.

 

There should be mechanisms in place where if a guy stops performing a team can renegotiate his deal and force him to have his salary converted to bonuses he only gets if he plays up to par. Effectively making a guy take a pay cut.

 

In the NFL they don't even get fully guaranteed long term deals much less no trades and no moves.

 

The NHL should implement the 5 year max rule on contract extensions instead of 7 or 8 or whatever it is.

 

 

I am not 100% sure but I don't think he is entirely right on that. I think the NTC/NMC staying is for cases like JT Miller who signed a new contract that had a NTC but Tampa traded him a few weeks before it kicked in so we did not have to honour that NTC but now if you trade a player right before their NTC kicks in it still kicks in on the new team. That is how it should work really if a player took less money for a NTC. 

 

If they waive their NTC I am pretty sure its void from that point on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/8/2020 at 11:49 AM, Chip Kelly said:

 

There should be mechanisms in place where if a guy stops performing a team can renegotiate his deal and force him to have his salary converted to bonuses he only gets if he plays up to par. Effectively making a guy take a pay cut.

 

 

This is just stupid because the coach has a mayor impact on a players career. 

The player is hired for, often, what he achieved earlier. If the coach then put him in a different position making it  impossible to reach the level he has before it's on the coach and the GM hiring him from the start.

We can talk about a lot of players that falls between two chairs.

 

If something, it should be easy to buy out players that don't fit the strategy of a new team.  But stop blaming the players... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, peaches5 said:

I am not 100% sure but I don't think he is entirely right on that. I think the NTC/NMC staying is for cases like JT Miller who signed a new contract that had a NTC but Tampa traded him a few weeks before it kicked in so we did not have to honour that NTC but now if you trade a player right before their NTC kicks in it still kicks in on the new team. That is how it should work really if a player took less money for a NTC. 

 

If they waive their NTC I am pretty sure its void from that point on.

I used to think that as well. But in the new CBA that clause, all clauses, follow the players contract from team to team. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, rekker said:

I used to think that as well. But in the new CBA that clause, all clauses, follow the players contract from team to team. 

https://www.prohockeyrumors.com/2020/07/examining-some-major-cba-changes.html

 

  • NMC/NTC: No-move or no-trade clauses that have been included in contracts but have not yet kicked in will remain even if a player is traded. In 2016, the Montreal Canadiens traded P.K. Subban to the Nashville Predators just a few days before his no-trade clause was set to begin. Under the old rules, the Predators had the choice of whether to honor that clause or not. They decided not to (Predators GM David Poile is notorious for not including no-trade clauses in most of his own deals) and subsequently traded Subban to the New Jersey Devils a few years later.

 

A player isn't waving that contract they haven't kicked in yet I do not think anything has changed when a player waives their NTC which should still void it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, peaches5 said:

https://www.prohockeyrumors.com/2020/07/examining-some-major-cba-changes.html

 

  • NMC/NTC: No-move or no-trade clauses that have been included in contracts but have not yet kicked in will remain even if a player is traded. In 2016, the Montreal Canadiens traded P.K. Subban to the Nashville Predators just a few days before his no-trade clause was set to begin. Under the old rules, the Predators had the choice of whether to honor that clause or not. They decided not to (Predators GM David Poile is notorious for not including no-trade clauses in most of his own deals) and subsequently traded Subban to the New Jersey Devils a few years later.

 

A player isn't waving that contract they haven't kicked in yet I do not think anything has changed when a player waives their NTC which should still void it.

Not what I heard on NHL radio the other day. What they were discussing is that the clauses, once they kick in, move with the player. No matter how many teams. Just what I heard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, rekker said:

Not what I heard on NHL radio the other day. What they were discussing is that the clauses, once they kick in, move with the player. No matter how many teams. Just what I heard.

I haven't seen the official CBA but from what I have read from other articles it was only for clauses that hadn't kicked in yet which made sense to me. The player isn't involved in that process at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, peaches5 said:

I haven't seen the official CBA but from what I have read from other articles it was only for clauses that hadn't kicked in yet which made sense to me. The player isn't involved in that process at all.

It's all the clauses whether they have already kicked in or not.  The clauses travel with the player even if he waives to be traded.  

 

Friedman:  No-move and no-trade clauses now travel with a player who has agreed to lift one, even if they haven’t kicked in (previously, the acquiring team had to agree).

 

From the CBA MOU:  CBA §11.8 amended to provide that No-Trade and No-Move clauses shall always travel with the Player in the event of an Assignment (by Trade or Waivers) of the SPC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.