Another Stupid CBA Question
 

Let's suppose we want to trade Hartnell. Of course he has a no trade clause.
And let's say he says no. Can management, say: Well Scottie you have two
choices you say yes to the trade or we are going to waive you. And see what
happens.

1. Can you waive a player that has no trade contract?

2. And if we can waive a player with a NTC contract, would anybody take
a chance on Scottie? And if nobody takes him, what are the Flyers options
for Scottie then?

Ditto Briere.

Why ask at all? Scottie is getting paid 1st/2nd monies and used as a 3rd/4th line
player and Briere ( and don't get me wrong I love Scottie and Danny) is getting
1st line monies and as of now has no chemistry with Voracek and Simmonds. And
is not playing as good as a 2nd line center should.

And would take Danny's place: Schenn And Scottie's place: move someone up
your choice at this time most likely anybody ( except Shelley of course).

I am one of those who think of Shelley as an exceptionally wonderful person,
but not so wonderful ice hockey player. Ditto Walker. Waive or buy out their
contracts.

Just asking! Many thanks for reading

Yes a player with an NTC can be waived. Briere could not because he has a No Movement Clause. If Hartnell clears waivers he can be assigned to the Phantoms or kept on the roster. If sent to the Phantoms his cap hit disappears. If Hartnell were to refuse to report the Flyers could terminate his contract. Hartnell would likely be claimed though in my opinion.

A player with a NTC can be waived. He can still be "claimed" by another team but the player has the right to refuse the "claiming". In the case of Hartnell, the flyers could then send him down to the minors and be rid of his cap hit. Thus, Hartnells options are to refuse to be trade or to be sent to the minors. As was noted aboe he COULD refuse to report to the minors and then the Flyers could "invalidate" his contract and terminate him without any reprocussions.

Regard someone like Briere who has a NMC, the player can still be waived, he can be claimed by another team, but the player can still refuse to permit the claiming. The flyers could try to send him down to the minors but with the NMC the player can refuse to be sent down and then the team would HAVE to keep him on the active roster.

I do want to chime in to say that it is 2 games into the season. I expect that both Hartnell and Briere will play better, and it is premature to be honestly -- I know your question is hypothetical -- considering moving them.

Player with NTC: can be waived and claimed by another team. The player has no rights to block the waiver or the claim.

Player with NMC: the player cannot be placed on waivers without his permission. If the player agrees to being waived then he cannot block any team from claiming him.

Is this thread serious. I just can't comprehend anymore. How many times does 2 games have to be stated. christ...............

so which one is it?

on a similar note what are the rules for a player with a terminated contract? as mentioned above if a player is assigned to the minors after clearing waivers but refuses to report and is "terminated" or however you put it does he then become a free agent? is there a time period the player must wait to before signing with another team? can that play sign with the same team that just "terminated" his contract for less money? Just Curious

and yeah i agree with most people on here its way too early to be thinking about dumping someone. i mean 2 games is nothing.

If anyone is wondering about a precedent, the Sergei Fedorov trade that sent him from Anaheim to Columbus was supposed to include Todd Marchant going to Anaheim. He had a NTC and refused to waive it, so Columbus just waived him. Anaheim claimed him.


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-7AuXiwP6wY...t-todd-cup.jpg
Profit.

mouser is right. The Blue Jackets did that 05/06 with Todd Marchant, they aquired Fedorov from the Ducks, needed capspace to do that but couldn't send Marchant back due to his NTC. They waived him and the Ducks claimed Marchant.

Edit: What GKJ said.

Many thanks for the thoughtful responses. I was curious. This CBA is sometimes
hard to understand not because it is hard but because why would the owners agreed to some of this? I would love to see unlimited UFA after 6 years after being drafted or 24 years of age which ever applies. At 24 everybody is a UFA and the owners could hand out 1 year contracts only. So that every player is only good for 1 year. Would keep them on their toes. But the team that did own his rights has the right to match the offer, but the player had the option of playing for either team. Players choice. So every year, your team could be totally different. All 22/23 players. Of course there would be a max salary cap.

No minimum and no revenue sharing. The teams would only get ticket sales, % of the revenues for food, parking, your team souvenirs, regional TV and radio. The NHL goes public, sell shares and any revenues for national TV and Radio would go to shareholders as dividends. Never happen. But I would love to see all the sports go this route. Why should the sleeze-ball owners reap all the profits??????? Hey I would buy a 50,000 shares
at $10.00 a share, if my dividend was 9% per share. In a hearbeat. That is the approximate % the owners make ( at least the good teams in good markets). Some make much much more.

Hmmm, Ok. I guess I was wrong. thanks for the clarification.