If a player has an NMC, gets traded, and then has it in tact after the trade, isn't that the player waiving it situationally? - jmatchett383
No, because once you waive, the team doesn't have to reinstate it -- you could make that a condition of you waiving, which is what Hartnell reportedly did, but I seem to recall Bill Daly explaining that is not a parameter of the CBA. My memory can't be that bad, because it was something funky about Mike Richards' deal that made me pay attention
My understanding is that it's negotiated with the receiving team before the conclusion of the deal. I guess you can word it anyway you want. - mayorofangrytown
But isn't it viewed by the NHL as a separate and distinct transaction, that once you waive, it is no longer recognized by the league?
But isn't it viewed by the NHL as a separate and distinct transaction, that once you waive, it is no longer recognized by the league? - AllInForFlyers
But not until the trade goes through, so it stays in tact and part of his ongoing contract.
It's a bunch of word play really. I'm sure there are several different ways to frame it and there's not enough legaleze in my background to hash it out.
My point being, from how Bill Day explained it, you can't waive part of it. You waive all of it. And once you do, all of the protections are gone at the league level. You can then negotiate with the acquiring team to reinstate, which happens, but that isn't recognized by the league.
That's why I am saying I would never waive -- if I understood what Daly said, Vegas would not be under any obligation to not move you
But isn't it viewed by the NHL as a separate and distinct transaction, that once you waive, it is no longer recognized by the league? - AllInForFlyers
Think of it as one of those signs you hold up at an auction. If you didn't have a sign a team could jsut trade you or "move" you and you couldn't do anything about it. Since you do have a sign, the team knows they can't move you in any sort of deal you arent okay with or else you will hold up the sign. If they say we are going to move you here and take your sign, you just hold your sign up. If they say we will trade you here and you get to keep your sign, you might just hold onto your sign
Think of it as one of those signs you hold up at an auction. If you didn't have a sign a team could jsut trade you or "move" you and you couldn't do anything about it. Since you do have a sign, the team knows they can't move you in any sort of deal you arent okay with or else you will hold up the sign. If they say we are going to move you here and take your sign, you just hold your sign up. If they say we will trade you here and you get to keep your sign, you might just hold onto your sign
edit: i thought about using rape whistles - YuenglingJagr
and on a play like that where it was bang bang, in other words, no stop in play or momentum, that call should fall under the type of plays that can be reviewed - nastyflyergirl
After the last two years with goalie interference calls, I want less reviews rather then more.
I hate the time on the offsides review, but the rule is clear and the blue line cameras give a great view of the line. It is either good or not, off or not. The review on Subbans goal was very clear to the trained eye.
While a bang bang play, the second bang came after the whistle. The tap in was post whistle. You can't un blow the whistle.
Devils advocate, why not review offsides calls that may not be offsides, award a free penalty shot if up held.
The play was blown dead, nothing else matters after that.
TBH, you usually are very rational and have well thought out opinions. I am kind of surprised at your view on this. Seems a tad bit out of character. I would be pissed if it had happened to the Flyers but I didn't have any skin in the game so it doesn't matter to me.
BTW, they kept referring to it as the "disallowed goal". Wasn't actually disallowed. it was shot after the whistle, was NEVER a goal to begin with.
No different then a follow through shot that goes in after any offsides whistle. Play was blown dead, nothing else matters. Way too big a can of worms to open for coaches challenge.
This is accurate, however, doesn't mean he still can't be traded elsewhere. Still lots of options on table for Fleury .... - mayorofangrytown
Yes if they made a trade agreement he would have to okay that. I have already said I expect him to get traded. Him waiving just means it doesnt have to happen before Saturday
Yes if they made a trade agreement he would have to okay that. I have already said I expect him to get traded. Him waiving just means it doesnt have to happen before Saturday - YuenglingJagr
Yes if they made a trade agreement he would have to okay that. I have already said I expect him to get traded. Him waiving just means it doesnt have to happen before Saturday - YuenglingJagr
I just saw it right after your post. I thought it fit too well not to post it.
Location: The Annex, Scranton, PA Joined: 06.13.2013
Jun 12 @ 4:33 PM ET
Philly should get an MLB team. From trash to Champs and back again...
- mayorofangrytown
Yep. If '08 hadn't happened this would be a lot harder to swallow. But even with the decent prospect pool they've built, it still feels like there's no end in sight.
Yep. If '08 hadn't happened this would be a lot harder to swallow. But even with the decent prospect pool they've built, it still feels like there's no end in sight. - TobyFlenderson
The 2-3 guys that were supposed to be the future cornerstones are playing like Rod Barajas.
Yep. If '08 hadn't happened this would be a lot harder to swallow. But even with the decent prospect pool they've built, it still feels like there's no end in sight. - TobyFlenderson
If 08 hadnt happened they wouldn't have let Ruben Amaro run the team into the ground
I was under the impression that you can't do that -- that once it's in effect, it's in effect, but you can't waive situationally. You can waive, but then your new team decides whether to honor it or not?
That was the case with Mike Richards, was it not? And it's why Hartnell's is still intact? - AllInForFlyers
NMCs are waived on a case by case basis. Umberger and Hartnell waived theirs for the trade, then used them to prevent demotion/being traded later on.
If a player has an active NMC or NTC and agrees to a trade that player still retains the NMC/NTC on the new team.
The only time NMC or NTC's are voided is if the player is traded before the clause is scheduled to take effect. In that situation the clause is voided by default unless the acquiring team notifies the NHL in writing that it is honoring the future NMC/NTC. I'm not aware of this ever happening, though there may have been one shortly after the 2005 CBA.
Location: There aren't any answers. Only choices. Joined: 07.01.2007
Jun 12 @ 4:52 PM ET
Pierre LeBrun
✔
@PierreVLeBrun
This is accurate, however, doesn't mean he still can't be traded elsewhere. Still lots of options on table for Fleury .... - mayorofangrytown
From someone covering P'burgh (credentialed reporter)--Fleury's wife has been checking out houses and schools in Las Vegas for weeks. It's hard to imagine there's any doubt of where he is going. And hard to understand why supposedly "in the know" reporters like Friedman are reporting he might be flipped.
