Membre depuis
20 juill. 2021
Messages dans les forums
Messages par jour
Forum: NHL30 mars à 22 h 0
Forum: NHL30 mars à 21 h 10
Forum: Trade Machine Proposals29 mars à 8 h 53
Forum: Chicago Blackhawks25 mars à 22 h 19
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>CFMan</b></div><div>Everyone is praising Davidson for this but I'm feeling underwhelmed. The optics of this trade is an obvious win for Davidson, 2 firsts and 2 "young" prospects. Are Raddysh and Katchouk really considered prospects anymore? Hagel is younger than Raddysh, and is the same age as Katchouk, dont know why the beat writers are basically advertising them as 18/19/20 year olds. Both Katchouk and Raddysh have an ATOI of around 10 min (11 for Raddysh 9 for Katchouk) So theyre playing 4th line roles on a stacked lightning team. I guess the only explanation is that the Lightning are so skilled that these guys just cant move up but its kinda worrying they couldnt get bigger roles on the team considering TJ, Gourde, Coleman, Goodrow, idk who else but at least 4 forward roster positions opened up and their entire third line poof disappeared, so bigger opportunities were there and both players were unable to capitalize on it. Kind of makes you worry when a team like the lightning cant make the most of their cheap depth players but somehow the blundering hawks are supposed to turn them around? Not to mention that their Jfresh player cards didnt even look that good either, so theyre doing a job and they werent even doing a great job of it. The lightning are at least a top 5 team in the league if not THE top team so they have a really good chance of winning the cup this year and the next couple of years (2023/24 where the firsts are). So we are looking at late firsts in the range of 28-32 both years. So 2 VERY late firsts, essentially early seconds considering 31/32 were second round picks just years ago. In my eyes this looks like 2 seconds and 2 bottom 6ers for a middle 6 winger emerging as a top 6 player. Hagel on a TERRIBLE hawks team has been consistently good and will easily be a 50 (maybe more) point guy on TB easily.You could have had Hagel stay for the remainder of this contract and see where you're at in the rebuild and possibly make him a part of your success in the future. I dont know somebody talk me down from this and tell me Im wrong because I want to be.</div></div>

Sorry, I can’t say you’re wrong. I had many of the same thoughts as you on this trade. (See my comments on the trade forum.) I think it could work out for both teams but it has a better chance of working out for Tampa. If the Hawks had to trade Hagel, it’s a good return, but they didn’t have to trade him.
Forum: NHL Trades25 mars à 17 h 35
Forum: NHL Trades25 mars à 9 h 30
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>OldNYIfan</b></div><div>Forfeiting the pick is clearly the right penalty -- otherwise, Las Vegas could work the same exact deal with another club not on Dadonov's NTC ten-team-no-trade list and suffer no consequences for having created this mess. In my opinion, the NHL should immediately put a freeze on this draft pick pending a final determination.</div></div>

A second-round pick doesn’t seem like a severe enough penalty if this was a deliberate attempt to circumvent the no-trade clause or Vegas should have known better. It’s unfair to the players involved, and also to the Ducks who might have been able to make a different trade if they knew this one wasn’t going to go through. It was good to see Dadonov welcomed back by the team and the fans and having a good game last night (even though I would really like to see Vegas miss the playoffs).

However, if what’s on CapFriendly is what’s in the CBA, it may not be clear whether the no-trade clause was voided when he was traded from Ottawa to Vegas:

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>anelson115</b></div><div>
- The clause can travel with the player even if he consents to being traded or is claimed on waivers
-- This requires that the acquiring team sign an addendum to the contract ensuring that the clause does in fact travel with the player (written by the player's agent)
-- If the acquiring team refuses to sign the addendum, and the player waives his clause anyway, at that point the clause may be nullified

If Vegas signed the addendum, then it’s clear that the clause still applies, but this doesn’t say what happens if there’s no addendum and the player was traded without having to waive the clause. (If Vegas wasn’t on Dadonov’s no-trade list, Ottawa could have traded him there without him waiving the clause.)

I don’t know if that’s what happened – Elliotte Friedman’s tweet does talk about paperwork being filed – but in any case, there should be an investigation, and if it turns out Vegas was at fault rather than it being due to an ambiguity in the CBA, there should be some penalty. I think it should be at least a first-round pick.
Forum: NHL Trades25 mars à 8 h 31
Forum: NHL Trades24 mars à 22 h 1
Forum: NHL Trades23 mars à 12 h 54
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Danny12357</b></div><div>What makes this funnier is that I was texting a friend about how this made no sense for Ottawa as it is, but even less when it's likely Dermott moves for similar value. I mean why not take a flier on a younger D man for half the money and hope for some upside. Then Vancouver reveals the master stroke of swapping Hamonic for Dermott at essentially no net cost, while also saving $1.5M on the cap next year.

It kind of reminds me of the deal where San Jose flipped Hoffman back to the east. Vancouver just made it very obvious how bad this deal was for Ottawa within minutes.</div></div>

Yeah, this is a weird one. Those of you who are suggesting that Ottawa would have been better off to trade the pick for Dermott instead of Hamonic are assuming that they had the opportunity to do that. I think GMs have their favourite trading partners and probably don’t call every other GM in the league before they make a deal. Dorion may not have known that Dermott was available for a mid-3rd-rounder.

A couple of other pieces of trivia around this that some of you might find mildly entertaining:

1) Vancouver got back their own 2022 third-round pick from Ottawa, but the pick they sent to Toronto isn’t the same 2022 third-round pick. It’s Winnipeg’s. Based on today’s standings, that would be exactly one pick after Vancouver’s, so if that holds, not only did Vancouver exchange Hamonic for Dermott, they also moved up one spot in the draft.

2) Both of these picks were traded for Nate Schmidt at different times. Vancouver traded their pick to Vegas to get Schmidt, then a year later flipped him to Winnipeg for their pick. Since these picks are going to be pretty close to equal, they got a year of Schmidt for nothing (other than his salary).
Forum: NHL Trades23 mars à 12 h 16
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>anelson115</b></div><div>This comes from the CapFriendly FAQ section on the CBA, and applies to NMCs and NTCs:

- The clause can travel with the player even if he consents to being traded or is claimed on waivers
-- This requires that the acquiring team sign an addendum to the contract ensuring that the clause does in fact travel with the player (written by the player's agent)
-- If the acquiring team refuses to sign the addendum, and the player waives his clause anyway, at that point the clause may be nullified
- If the player is traded before the clause takes effect, the acquiring team can opt to void the clause

Seems to me that the issue is with the last bullet point - specifically, whether or not Dadonov's M-NTC was in effect prior to being traded to Vegas by Ottawa. If it was, there may also be an issue with the first bullet point - did Dadonov and Vegas sign an addendum stating that his M-NTC would carry over? I'm not an expert in this, so I might be wrong, but this is how I see it. Will be interesting to see how it plays out as this may set a precedence for the league going forward.

Hope this helps!</div></div>

That is helpful. Thanks.

Looking at Dadonov’s contract details, CapFriendly says the no-trade clause applied to all three years of the contract, so the clause was in effect when he was traded to Vegas. That rules out the last bullet point and takes us to the first point. The question is what happened, or what should have happened, when he became Vegas property. It sounds like Vegas would have had to sign the addendum for his no-trade clause to continue to apply. I don’t know if they signed it, but you’d think they’d know if they did, so let’s assume they didn’t. In that case, it’s not clear to me from this FAQ what would happen. It says, “if the acquiring team refuses to sign the addendum, and the player waives his clause anyway, at that point the clause may be nullified.” However, if Vegas wasn’t on Dadonov’s no-trade list, he could have been traded without waiving the clause – Ottawa did not need his consent to trade him to a team that wasn’t on the no-trade list. So if he didn’t waive the clause, does that mean it wouldn’t be nullified even if Vegas never signed the addendum?

I just noticed that CapFriendly is now showing Dadonov back on Vegas, so I guess the trade has been nullified. That must mean that Dadonov’s no-trade clause was still in effect, and Anaheim was on his no-trade list. I guess either Vegas forgot they signed the addendum, or they didn’t sign it, but the answer to the question in the last sentence of the paragraph above is yes, and Vegas didn’t know that the clause would still be in effect if he didn’t have to waive it to be traded from Ottawa to Vegas. (I’m giving them the benefit of a doubt and assuming this was an honest mistake, and not a deliberate attempt to try to trade a player to a team on his no-trade list.)

As my high school physics teacher used to say, now that you’re thoroughly confused, carry on.