Jedi

Your answer was zero. Thread moved before I replied. That said, please don't be so cavalier with the forum rules. Mkay?

Puck Daddy's picked up on the story, and adds some interesting insights to the whole mess... http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/blog/puck_dadd...?urn=nhl,176343

Exactly. The current CBA didn't negate all the terms and conditions of the deals used from the previous CBA. There was the 24% rollback of salaries, but that was really the only thing that affected contracts that were signed under the previous CBA. I doubt that any changes the new CBA brings about would be retroactive to current contracts. That would be handcuffing GM's in a way that would be completely unforeseeable.

In Z's case (and Franzen's as well), no, because the contract took effect before their 35th birthday. In Pronger's case, for instance, then yes. The contract takes effect after his 35th birthday, and so the remaining years would count against the cap if he retires before the contract is finished. A multi year deal that takes effect after the player turns 35 will count against the cap if the player retires. If the contract takes effect before the player turns 35, it does not.

If we were talking about a difference of a million or more, that might be one thing. That's enough to sign another player. But a difference of $150,000? That's a non issue. The league minimum salary this year is $500,000, so we couldn't use the savings on signing an extra player. So that idea is out. Now I know what you're thinking. "But I was talking about using that savings to attract another Free Agent!" Well, think about this. If we sign said "Free Agent" to a two year contract, that's a whopping difference of $75,000 per year on the cap hit. And that figure goes lower the longer the contract is for ($50,000 for 3 years, $37,500 for 4 years, $30,000 for 5 years, etc). I doubt that the difference of $75,000 per year on a two year deal would be the "tipping point" for the kind of free agent we're looking for.

But being two outs away from hoisting the World Series trophy in '97 was just as heartbreaking, for sure. At least it was to me. Yeah, I'm a Tribe fan. Right or wrong, I still despise Jose Mesa to this day.

The CBA only allows for the average to be used.

Wow. That's actually a brilliant signing by Philly. Not only does front loading the deal lower the cap hit, but also since Pronger's only 34, if he retires before the end of the contract they won't be on the hook for his salary.

Here's to a great career. First ballot HOF, without a doubt. One of the players on the Avs during the rivalry that I not only respected, but actually really liked. That said. This thread is about Joe Sakic, not Sidney Crosby. Let's keep it on track.

Moved to Rumor Mill.

I don't think so. It was reported on MLive that he was sent a qualifying offer. Had Leino gone UFA he would have been gone from Detroit. I guarantee you there are teams out there with the cap space to pay Leino more than the Wings would have.

I've edited the title for now, as this hasn't been announced formally yet. Highlighted for emphasis...

Huh. Someone's suggesting that our beloved Steve Yzerman might be going to our franchise's longest running rival (not a week after losing two free agents to them, and less than a year after losing Scotty to them), and we're spending time arguing about grammar?

Yeah, you should have seen the Hasek/Cujo/Legace wars that happened here in 03-04. Vitriolic is too kind a word to describe some of the attitudes that ran rampant that year...

The first time I went to Detroit we went to a restaurant that Brendan Shanahan happened to be at with his family (a few hours after a game too, so we were still in our Wings jerseys). And as badly as I wanted to go up and ask for a picture or autograph, I knew that it would be stepping over the line with his family there. It was enough for us to say "holy crap, that's Shanny that's 20 feet from us!" These guys are human beings just like the rest of us. And I know that they're in the spotlight enough as it is. Time with their families is their time, and I would never encroach upon that. As for Ozzie's reputation... He was much more vocal about things like that this year than in previous years from what I remember. It seems like every time he has a great game, there is always SOME reporter that wanted to ask things like "what would you say to everyone who said you were washed up" or "how does it affect you". And this year I remember him saying much more for those questions than in years past...

As an RFA, we'd have to offer him a pretty ridiculous amount in order to prevent Chicago from simPly matching our offer sheet. And if we did offer that large a salary, Chicago could just decide to let Kane walk and get a bunch of our draft picks as compesation...

Again, The Senators were the one who gave Heatley that power when they agreed to the contract. If they wanted to include a stipulation that requesting a trade nullifies the NMC, then that's their fault for not including it before they signed him. Heatley's request for a trade still falls within his rights, because he still has the right to determine which team(s) he would agree to a trade to. Think of it this way. You go to a nice restaurant, one that you've never been to before. In your conversation with the waiter, you give him a list of things that you like to eat and ask him to find something along those lines. If he brings back something that's not on your list (ie, a salad when you don't like salads, or a steak but you're a vegetarian), are you just going to accept what he gives you? Perhaps that's an over-simplification of the scenario, but the concept is the same. How often do you accept being given something when it's not in line with what you're requesting? Yes, Heatley requested the trade, that's black and white. But what is also black and white is that his contract has no provision stating that he forfeits the NMC if he requests a trade. Res ipsa loquitur, Heatley's request for a trade isn't exploiting a loophole in the contract. Agreed. I for one am glad that we were too cap-strapped to be able to entertain any real offers for him.

He's attempting to circumvent his contract? How? The only way he circumvents his contract is if he refuses to play. Exercising his right to refuse to be traded or moved to another team is a clause in the contract, not a loophole. Even refusing to be traded to a specific team is a right given to the player in the clause. Did you even read the stories leading up to this fiasco? Heatley gave the Sens a list of teams that he would accept a trade to. The whole purpose of an NTC/NMC is to give a player a little bit of say in his fate. When the Senators included the NMC into Heatley's contract (something they did not have to do, BTW), they knew that there was a risk that this problem could happen. They did not expect at the time they offered the contract that this situation would present itself. However, they have no one to blame but themselves in the end, because Heatley is simply exercising one of his rights as stated in his contract. A contract that BOTH Heatley and the Sens agreed to, keep in mind. The NHL CBA allows NTCs and NMCs, and even has sections describing the rules and restrictions therein. This proves that a player using his clause to deny a trade is not using a loophole, it's using the power that the team and the league has given him by accepting the contract. NHLSCAP.com has a great page showing all (or at least most) players in the NHL with an NTC or NMC. It also has the section in the CBA that explains NTC/NMC's. Section B there pretty much puts it in black & white. The Senators gave Heatley the power to reject any trade or movement when they included the NMC in his contract. Heatley's exercising that clause in no way can be seen as exploiting a "loophole". Or if you're referring to Heatley stating he would only accept a trade to certain teams, that's not a loophole either. Look at the list of players with NTC's. Some of them have to submit a list like that every year to their team, or submit a list of teams they would NOT accept a trade to. The Senators had every right to try to include a clause like that in Heatley's contract, but for whatever reason they agreed to a full No Movement Clause. That clause, like it or not, rightfully gives Heatley all the power he wants over where he goes, and when he goes there.

The only way they can get rid of Heatley without his consent is to buy him out. Since he has a No-Movement-Clause, he can't be traded, waived or sent to the minors without his consent. Agreeing to play is all that is required as "fulfilling his end of the bargain". And there's no way, NO WAY the NHLPA would agree to the league having any kind of say in a player's NTC or NMC. If the Sens didn't want to worry about Heatley pulling this kind of a move, then it's their fault for agreeing to include the NMC in the contract.

Seriously. We get it. You don't like the fact that Draper and Maltby are still on the Wings. I think given their current cap hit, and the roles they provide for the team, that they still are useful to have around. That point is open to debate. But here's the deal. If you want to discuss your views, do so constructively and (preferably) with maturity. That point, however, is not open to debate.

Agreed. Once is quite enough to get your point across, thank you very much.

The Wings aren't going to get rid of Draper or Maltby. For the most obvious reason, they're both under contract, and fairly cheaply so given their roles & status with the team. ($1.53mil for Drapes, $883k for Malts). One reason that's a little less obvious is this. People always love the idea that players generally take less to get here/stay here. The reason for that is the fabled loyalty of the Red Wings. If Holland "cuts" guys like Draper and Maltby, who have won 4 Stanley Cups with Detroit, and have been with the team for over 1000 games, then we will end up losing the loyalty advantage. So take your pick. You want to field a competitive team. Do you "cut" Draper and Maltby, which would force us to overpay for any incoming talent (not to mention possibly have to overpay to keep our existing talent)? Or do you use the loyalty earned by hanging on to guys like Drapes and Malts, and help us put together a team built around guys who could easily make more money elsewhere?

It's buried on Sportsnet.ca's page. I can't find it through general browsing on their site (though, I may not be looking in the right place), but you can read the story here... http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/2009/06/30/hossa_wings/

No need to lurk for quite that long. However, this is still a rumor so it's getting moved to the Rumor Mill.

Keep it civil towards other board members, please.