What about the fact that the CBA states if the player hasn't provided an address to the team, they can just send the QO to his last known address? Who knows if the player will be at that address or not? Doesn't that support the idea that "to tender" means to just send the QO by the deadline, and not necessarily have it in the player's hand at the deadline?
I agree this is the best language that supports the preds position.
If its OK to send the deal to an address that may or may not be correct then having it in the players hand by the time deadline isnt the intent of the rule
I agree this is the best language that supports the preds position.
If its OK to send the deal to an address that may or may not be correct then having it in the players hand by the time deadline isnt the intent of the rule
I agree, by that language, that the Preds should be fine.
No, he didn't say he would sign at the Preds price but he was confident he would re-sign with the Preds (At his price.)
I didn't get that out of it. I just got that his agent is working for the best deal he can and he thinks Nashville is the place for him. Personally, I'd offer atleast a 3 yr 10million deal.
I agree this is the best language that supports the preds position.
If its OK to send the deal to an address that may or may not be correct then having it in the players hand by the time deadline isnt the intent of the rule
Problem with that is, it has been said they received them the next day.
The obvious argument against the idea that allowing a team to send a QO to a potentially wrong address meaning "tender" is simply offering, or sending, the contract is that if a player fails to inform his team of an address change it is his own fault, not that of the teams.
Just to play devil's advocate, if a team sends a QO to the wrong address because the player moved and failed to inform anyone then it is the player's fault. If a QO is sent to the wrong address because the team recorded the wrong information or provided the carrier with the wrong address then it is the team's fault. One situation should not create an advantage for the player. The other situation should create an advantage for the player. It may not seem fair that one side can make a mistake without issue while the other side cannot, but think about it this way. If a player makes the mistake then the NHLPA has no case, and the NHL certainly isn't going to go against its team. In that situation there simply are no two sides whereas in the situation involving the team making the mistake there are two sides.
I didn't get that out of it. I just got that his agent is working for the best deal he can and he thinks Nashville is the place for him. Personally, I'd offer atleast a 3 yr 10million deal.
3 year 10 mil?
The guy had 1 decent year. He hasn't proven himself, he has shown he refuses to shoot at times.
I have no doubt he will be a great player, he has shown flashes of brilliance. However, he is too inconsistent imo for a 10 million contract.
The obvious argument against the idea that allowing a team to send a QO to a potentially wrong address meaning "tender" is simply offering, or sending, the contract is that if a player fails to inform his team of an address change it is his own fault, not that of the teams.
Just to play devil's advocate, if a team sends a QO to the wrong address because the player moved and failed to inform anyone then it is the player's fault. If a QO is sent to the wrong address because the team recorded the wrong information or provided the carrier with the wrong address then it is the team's fault. One situation should not create an advantage for the player. The other situation should create an advantage for the player. It may not seem fair that one side can make a mistake without issue while the other side cannot, but think about it this way. If a player makes the mistake then the NHLPA has no case, and the NHL certainly isn't going to go against its team. In that situation there simply are no two sides whereas in the situation involving the team making the mistake there are two sides.
Here's what Section 3 says:
CBA NOTICES
To the extent that any provision of this Agreement requires the delivery of a
notice to any of the following individuals or entities, such notice shall be delivered to such
individuals or entities as follows: (Followed by various entities and contact information)
From the day after the conclusion of a Player's Playing Season
until the commencement of the Player's subsequent
Playing Season, notice(s) shall be sent via overnight
delivery to the Player's off-season address which the
Player provides to the Club, and if no such address is
provided by the Player, the notice(s) shall be sent via
overnight delivery to the Player's last known address.
If no method of service is specified in this Agreement, service of the required
notice shall be effectuated by either facsimile transmission or overnight mail delivery by an
established nation-wide delivery service (e.g., FedEx, Overnite, Airborne, etc.). In the event the
method of service specified is e-mail, but no e-mail address has been provided, that requirement
will be deemed to be waived. In the event the method of service specified is not available (e.g.,
overnight delivery to a specified address), the next most reasonable and efficient service
available shall be utilized, provided such service provides a written verification or other record
of delivery (e.g., certified or registered mail or delivery overnight).
In the event the contact information changes for any of the aforementioned parties,
notice of such changes shall immediately be provided to all listed parties.
Keep in mind that the implied logic of specifying "overnight delivery" also works in favor of the Preds. Here's why:
If actual receipt (or some concept tied to receipt- such as actual delivery- rather than sending) is required, then the method of delivery is irrelevant and doesn't need to be specified. In other words, in that scenario, any method that actually gets the job done- fax, email, regular mail, two day express, pony express- would suffice.
Here (the argument goes) the parties wanted to specify a method of sending it because that method provides reasonable assurances that the delivery will get there on a reasonable schedule and can be tracked to facilitate that reasonable delivery.
If snow in Montana or foul-up in Memphis or train wreck in Bulgaria slows it up... it's still coming and we can track it down and keep up with it. If, on the other hand, receipt is required and the Preds are responsible for an unexpected train wreck in Bulgaria, let them decide the safest way to ensure delivery (email anyone?) rather than specifying this one form of delivery.
I think the Preds win the "tendering" argument on this basis. They complied with the methodology and the methodolgy was designed to provide reasonable assurances of reasonably timely notice.
One final point Preds should push: The June 25th deadline supports this theory because it gives some leeway for actual delivery in advance of the key July 1st date. [Of course agents would say that they need the full 6 days of notice to plan for UFA].
There may be some history of the negotiations that supports one side or the other (somewhat like legislative history is used to determine intent of statutes)-- not sure if it exists or would be allowed by the arb.
I didn't get that out of it. I just got that his agent is working for the best deal he can and he thinks Nashville is the place for him. Personally, I'd offer atleast a 3 yr 10million deal.
Yes we are. Our current leading scorer. If Joel Ward can get 3mil per year, you're telling me that SK74 can't???
SK is an injury waiting to happen ...I wouldn't sign him for that kind of money for a player who didn't show up for the playoffs. Who is a small non contact player who is soft and now exposed as being soft
Wait... how is SK an injury waiting to happen? He only missed 5 games last season. He isn't exactly soft either. He isn't Jordin Tootoo, but he isn't soft. I agree that $3.3mil/yr is steep, but for different reasons.
I think SK should get a 2 yr/$4-$4.5mil contract. If he wants to sign a contract that leaves him a UFA when it expires make it 3 yrs/$6mil
Again we are back to high stakes poker. I'm sure SK sees these deals and is licking his chops but how many teams are still gonna have cap room and a roster spot come july 8?
Will be very interesting tosee how poile plays this. Will 74 take a sure thing if poile makes a decent offer or will he roll the dice?
Wait... how is SK an injury waiting to happen? He only missed 5 games last season. He isn't exactly soft either. He isn't Jordin Tootoo, but he isn't soft. I agree that $3.3mil/yr is steep, but for different reasons.
I think SK should get a 2 yr/$4-$4.5mil contract. If he wants to sign a contract that leaves him a UFA when it expires make it 3 yrs/$6mil
The Duck slammed him against the boards and he wasn't the same player and now that he's exposed he's going to get hit now and you saying he isn't I say he is and would a waste of money. Let's see how your prediction goes or my prediction. We'll learn to stay away from those small european players or maybe not. We are so desparate for scoring that we can't see beyond. We'll sign him though and I think Ward will score more goals next year than SK will
The Duck slammed him against the boards and he wasn't the same player and now that he's exposed he's going to get hit now and you saying he isn't I say he is and would a waste of money. Let's see how your prediction goes or my prediction. We'll learn to stay away from those small european players or maybe not. We are so desparate for scoring that we can't see beyond. We'll sign him though and I think Ward will score more goals next year than SK will
Joel Ward will score more goals than Kostitsyn?
I'll take that bet. If you lose, will you leave the boards forever?
