HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=3)
-   -   CBA question (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=50666)

The Fuhr* 02-08-2004 10:24 PM

CBA question
 
Does anyone know what the CBA has to say about loaning players. Lets say Ottawa gives Anahiem a first round pick for the rights to Giguere for the rest of the season. Then when the seasons over Giguere returns to Anahiem. Is somthing like this possible.

GKJ 02-08-2004 10:28 PM

Yes. Glen Wesley was traded for a 2nd round pick (this draft) and then returned to Carolina.

McDonald19 02-09-2004 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by go kim johnsson
Yes. Glen Wesley was traded for a 2nd round pick (this draft) and then returned to Carolina.

Wasn't that a different situation...in Which Wesley became a UFA and then returned to Carolina...where as Giguere is on a long term contract...

Seachd 02-09-2004 12:26 AM

It's probably possible... It might be something like Giguere to Ottawa for a first and future considerations (being that he's traded back to ANA for nothing).

But it wouldn't happen. Giguere's a Duck, so he probably wouldn't want to play in the playoffs for a different team, and/or the Ducks' managment wouldn't want him to. I think it's very possible, but I don't think it'll ever happen.

V for Voodoo 02-09-2004 12:45 AM

The Wesley situation is different, because he chose to sign back with the Hurricanes when he became a UFA.
Nothing was pre-arranged between Toronto and Carolina.

For the original question, i don't know for sure, but seems to me the idea borders on collusion. Wouldn't fly.

Vatican Roulette 02-09-2004 02:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seachd
It's probably possible... It might be something like Giguere to Ottawa for a first and future considerations (being that he's traded back to ANA for nothing).

But it wouldn't happen. Giguere's a Duck, so he probably wouldn't want to play in the playoffs for a different team, and/or the Ducks' managment wouldn't want him to. I think it's very possible, but I don't think it'll ever happen.

It is possible.

Like you say, giggy for a 1st rounder in 04' with a stipulation that they trade giggy back to anaheim at whatever date. Works out for both clubs.

The reason it wouldn't work is that the NHL wouldn't approve the trade. They just wouldn't allow it(although i dont know why). Otherwise, this probably would have been going on a lot more in past years.

V for Voodoo 02-09-2004 02:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pavel datsyuk
The reason it wouldn't work is that the NHL wouldn't approve the trade. They just wouldn't allow it(although i dont know why).

Because then John Muckler may call up his old buddy Glen Sather and say 'Hey Glen, since you're missing the playoffs anyways, send us Leetch, Jagr and Holik for in exchange for a bunch of prospects, and we'll swap back after we win the cup. I'll owe you one when it's your turn to challenge for the cup.'

Of course, this is a farfetched scenario, the Rangers will never challenge for the cup, but what would stop it from occuring?

Mess 02-09-2004 03:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Voodoo Daddy
Because then John Muckler may call up his old buddy Glen Sather and say 'Hey Glen, since you're missing the playoffs anyways, send us Leetch, Jagr and Holik for in exchange for a bunch of prospects, and we'll swap back after we win the cup. I'll owe you one when it's your turn to challenge for the cup.'

Of course, this is a farfetched scenario, the Rangers will never challenge for the cup, but what would stop it from occuring?

I don't know why you guys have a problem with this ...There was a special rule put in place to avoid trading around a waiver draft .... but otherwise there is no Clause..

The deal wouldn't be as obvious as it was made out .... it would have the word future considerations and when Giggy was swaped back something would go back to Ottawa....

Like Giggy to Ottawa for 1st and Futures ..

then after the playoffs Giggy is traded back to Anaheim for Say Vishnovsky etc and possibly as pick or prospect headed to anaheim depending on Giggy performance in the playoffs..

Then the deal looks like Vishovsky for a 1st in the long run..

If you remember the Rob Blake trade to Colorado offered a delayed trade where LA could chose from a list of Avs prospects excluding Tanguay in the offseason while the trade was made at the deadline ... LA chose Jared Aulin later on...

Legionnaire 02-09-2004 03:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Messenger
then after the playoffs Giggy is traded back to Anaheim for Say Vishnovsky etc and possibly as pick or prospect headed to anaheim depending on Giggy performance in the playoffs..

Then the deal looks like Vishovsky for a 1st in the long run..

The Kings definitely get screwed in that deal :joker:

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Messenger
If you remember the Rob Blake trade to Colorado offered a delayed trade where LA could chose from a list of Avs prospects excluding Tanguay in the offseason while the trade was made at the deadline ... LA chose Jared Aulin later on...

Actually, it was Nedorost. Tanguay was a roster player at the time.

Mess 02-09-2004 04:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Legionnaire
The Kings definitely get screwed in that deal :joker:

Kings??? Giggy and Vish play for the Ducks!!!!!

Motown Beatdown 02-09-2004 08:52 AM

I really wouldn't rule it out. One of the early Cujo rumors was Cujo to the Bruins for a 2nd rounder. Then at the end of the season Boston could send Cujo back to Detroit, no questions asked. But when Cujo had sugery the Bruins walked away from the deal and signed Potvin. If that isn't "renting or loaning" a player i dont know what is.

transplant99 02-09-2004 09:31 AM

Cant do that.

There is a rule in place that says a player cannot be traded for, and then traded back to his original team within a 1 year time frame.

Look no further than Dean McAmmond last year. He was traded in October to the Avs by the Flames. He was then (erroneously) traded back to the Flames at the deadline and was forced to sit out the remainder of the season.

Its a rule they though to include, for the very reason suggested above.

PhoPhan 02-09-2004 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Messenger
Kings??? Giggy and Vish play for the Ducks!!!!!

I assume he was laughing at the minor error you made. Visnovsky plays for the Kings, whereas Vishnevski plays for the Ducks.

The Fuhr* 02-09-2004 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by transplant99
Cant do that.

There is a rule in place that says a player cannot be traded for, and then traded back to his original team within a 1 year time frame.

Look no further than Dean McAmmond last year. He was traded in October to the Avs by the Flames. He was then (erroneously) traded back to the Flames at the deadline and was forced to sit out the remainder of the season.

Its a rule they though to include, for the very reason suggested above.


That was because mcAmmond was traded close to the Waiver draft and the rule was created so teams don't hide players on different teams and get them back after the waiver draft.

McDonald19 02-09-2004 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Messenger
Kings??? Giggy and Vish play for the Ducks!!!!!

Vishnevski...not Vishnovsky...

wazee 02-09-2004 01:25 PM

There is a rule that prohibits a roster player from being used as 'future considerations'. It was put into place to prevent teams from stacking their roster for a playoff run. I can not remember the case that prompted it, but the NHL closed that loophole a while back...

Legionnaire 02-09-2004 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by McDonald19
Vishnevski...not Vishnovsky...

This mistake is made so often it reminds me of those old commercials. You know, the ones with the plumber. "Call Jack Stephonski. Stephan...Jack Stephan."

That would make a great spot for FSW. And Vitaly Vishnovski throws a monster hit! Vishnevski...Vitaly Vishnevski! :p

fan mao rong 02-09-2004 06:58 PM

No loans in NHL, minors only.

McDonald19 02-09-2004 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Legionnaire
This mistake is made so often it reminds me of those old commercials. You know, the ones with the plumber. "Call Jack Stephonski. Stephan...Jack Stephan."

That would make a great spot for FSW. And Vitaly Vishnovski throws a monster hit! Vishnevski...Vitaly Vishnevski! :p

lol...yeah I can't believe that guy used the same commercial for like 20 years...I agree that would be a funny FSW commercial too...

Rodent 02-09-2004 11:23 PM

This, from the CBA:

13.36. A player traded by a Club within the four weeks prior to the Waiver Draft may not be reacquired by such Club within the forthcoming season.

There is nothing else in the CBA to prohibit loans.

That doesn't mean there isn't a rule among the G/Ms, enforced by NHL HQ.

The CBA only includes stuff that affects managment/labor relations. The Waiver Draft's purpose is to ensure that minor leaguers get a shot at a major league job, with another club, if necessary. Therefore "13.36" is part of the CBA to prevent management from bypassing the purpose of the Waiver Draft and screwing a guy like Derek Armstrong by allowing NYR to keep him in Hartford forever.

There is no management/labor issue with trading a player elsewhere and then re-acquiring him a few months later. Therefore, the only other references to trade limitations within the CBA are "limited trade clause" associated. I.e., the CBA permits a player to seek a "no-trade" or "limited trade" clause and the CBA describes how such limitations are handled. But that's it.

Well, almost. There are the designated "blackout" periods within which ALL players are exempt from trade, such as the Christmas Holiday freeze. And that's covered in "13.13".

Now, it's very possible that NHL HQ might not approve a submitted trade for reasons outside the CBA. But there's nothing in the CBA itself to prohibit "loans" made via formal trades.

If anyone believes differently, would you please cite the specific CBA paragraph that I've overlooked.

Rodent 02-09-2004 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Voodoo Daddy
Because then John Muckler may call up his old buddy Glen Sather and say 'Hey Glen, since you're missing the playoffs anyways, send us Leetch, Jagr and Holik for in exchange for a bunch of prospects, and we'll swap back after we win the cup. I'll owe you one when it's your turn to challenge for the cup.'

Of course, this is a farfetched scenario, the Rangers will never challenge for the cup, but what would stop it from occuring?

This totally fails on two fronts: Common Sense and HQ

REASON 1: HQ
Ignoring the no-trade clauses you've just violated, the league would veto this deal not because of the CBA but because there is no talent balance and no "extenuating circumstance" to ignore the talent imbalance.

It's one thing for cash-poor Pittsburgh to dump a Kovalev or Jagr for marginal prospects. But there's no similar circumstance for Ottawa to do what you're describing or for Sather to perform the same kind of dump as did Craig Patrick.

Assuming Jagr did not have a no-trade clause, the Sens would be required to exchange talent of some value to gain approval by the league. This talent would doubtless be guys that Muckler would want for his playoff run anyway. I.e., NHL HQ would not approve the deal unless guys like Wade Redden and Patrick Lalime are going to New York. So why would Muckler make such a deal?

Understand that Bettman's veto would have nothing to do with CBA considerations. It would fall under the commissioner's mission statement to enforce the principles of competition.

REASON 2: Common Sense
You cannot look at such trades in total. I.e., in your mind you accept that the trade will be undone after the playoffs.

Bzzzzzzz.

You must look at each trade independently, with zero linkage to understand why this arrangement fails. In short: What's to prevent Muckler from screwing Sather by keeping Leetch and Holik and Jagr when glen wants them back?

"Integrity of John Muckler" you say?

Hah! Muckler has a boss. Let me spell it out:

Situation: Muckler and Slats agree on the trade and somehow get it past NHL HQ with smoke and mirrors.

Fine.

So now Ottawa has Leetch, and Jagr and Holik. and all they gave to NYR in exchange were a bunch of marginal prospects with the (wink, wink) understanding that it will all be "undone" over the summer.

I personally have no reason to doubt John Muckler's integrity.

But if I'm Muckler's boss and I see the trade that just went down, I fire Muckler before he gets a chance to undo the deal and send Holik, Leetch and Jagr back to New York.

Muckler gets to keep his integrity. And Ottawa gets to keep Jagr and Holik and Leetch and screw Sather who's now got marginal prospects and a pool of tears. Who's Sather gonna complain to when he wants his precious Jagr and Leetch and Holik back?

So now I ask you Voodoo Daddy...

Do you relly believe that Glen Sather (or any G/M for that matter) is going to risk such a disaster on a mere (wink, wink) gentlemen's agreement?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:09 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.