HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Philadelphia Flyers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Briere refused to waive his NMC around the Trade Deadline?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-13-2013, 05:35 PM
  #26
MsWoof
Registered User
 
MsWoof's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,960
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by achdumeingute View Post
Because they frequently are?

LA didn't honor Richards and Carters, NSH didn't honor Weber's. It happens.
Richards and Carter's NTC never happened because they were traded before the NTCs kicked in.

MsWoof is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-13-2013, 05:43 PM
  #27
achdumeingute
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NorCal
Posts: 2,262
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MsWoof View Post
Richards and Carter's NTC never happened because they were traded before the NTCs kicked in.
They were part of the contracts. LA chose not to apply them.

achdumeingute is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-13-2013, 06:19 PM
  #28
TheKingPin
Registered User
 
TheKingPin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 7,903
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by achdumeingute View Post
Because they frequently are?

LA didn't honor Richards and Carters, NSH didn't honor Weber's. It happens.
As others have said there was no clause at the time of trade.

And not talking from brieres pov from money simply the family situation that is sited far more of then in these discussions. The money portion isn't that far off to say MUCH better for him

TheKingPin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-13-2013, 07:53 PM
  #29
achdumeingute
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NorCal
Posts: 2,262
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheKingPin View Post
As others have said there was no clause at the time of trade.

And not talking from brieres pov from money simply the family situation that is sited far more of then in these discussions. The money portion isn't that far off to say MUCH better for him
Briere could get a lucrative offer from a team like NYI that has a hard time bringing in top tier UFAs.

achdumeingute is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-13-2013, 09:26 PM
  #30
MsWoof
Registered User
 
MsWoof's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,960
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by achdumeingute View Post
Briere could get a lucrative offer from a team like NYI that has a hard time bringing in top tier UFAs.
With the cap dropping and the Islanders moving soon, plus they are now looking to be a playoff team, I am not so sure they would want an aging player who really doesn't do much of anything well anymore.

MsWoof is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-13-2013, 09:49 PM
  #31
Danglous
Registered User
 
Danglous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philly
Country: United States
Posts: 371
vCash: 500
$5 says he goes to Montreal if bought out

Danglous is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-13-2013, 10:11 PM
  #32
mouser
Global Moderator
Business of Hockey
 
mouser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: South Mountain
Posts: 11,449
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by achdumeingute View Post
They were part of the contracts. LA chose not to apply them.
Teams can only chose to not honor NTC/NMC's following a trade if the clause was not yet in effect at the time of the trade [e.g. Richards]. If the clause is already in effect [e.g. Heatley] then teams must honor it. In fact the default is that the clauses are not honored if not already in effect--the acquiring team has to formally notify NHL HQ following the trade that they are honoring the clause.

Weber is a different situation--when matching an offer sheet the matching team is not required to match any NTC/NMC details in the offer sheet, only the salary/term.

mouser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-13-2013, 11:11 PM
  #33
LI Fly Guy
Registered User
 
LI Fly Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 495
vCash: 500
Enough of the not waving cause his family nonsense. The ****ing guy just went to Germany to play during the lockout.

LI Fly Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-14-2013, 09:24 AM
  #34
bennysflyers16
Registered User
 
bennysflyers16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 16,542
vCash: 50
Any chance he retires ? His decline has been rapid as of late ? Give him a job and he stays win team.

bennysflyers16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-14-2013, 09:53 AM
  #35
SuchySays
Registered User
 
SuchySays's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Poconos
Country: United States
Posts: 2,203
vCash: 50
Thanks for the memories Danny!

SuchySays is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-14-2013, 10:02 AM
  #36
Broad Street Elite
Registered User
 
Broad Street Elite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 3,355
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LI Fly Guy View Post
Enough of the not waving cause his family nonsense. The ****ing guy just went to Germany to play during the lockout.
This was a 2 year commitment versus a 2 month commitment. Little bit different.

I really can't hate a guy for refusing to waive a clause he negotiated and or which most players give up certain other things to receive. I fault the team for allowing it as frequently as they do, but the player exercising his right is hardly as ridiculous as people seem to indicate.

Broad Street Elite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-14-2013, 11:03 AM
  #37
flyershockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 5,710
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broad Street Elite View Post
This was a 2 year commitment versus a 2 month commitment. Little bit different.

I really can't hate a guy for refusing to waive a clause he negotiated and or which most players give up certain other things to receive. I fault the team for allowing it as frequently as they do, but the player exercising his right is hardly as ridiculous as people seem to indicate.
This. The management should be more to blame for how this whole thing has worked itself out. They are handing out these NMC/NTC's at a ridiculous rate. Can't fault a player for using something that was given to him by the team just because they want to change their minds on his value to the club. I clearly remember a lot of people questioning the decision to give the clause to him originally, because there was no way he was going to stay at a high level of play for the entirety of the contract due to age, size, talent drop off, etc.


Last edited by flyershockey: 04-14-2013 at 11:15 AM.
flyershockey is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-14-2013, 11:11 AM
  #38
Bernie Parent 1974
Registered User
 
Bernie Parent 1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 3,190
vCash: 500
good. hopefully this means he'll not be here next season !!

Bernie Parent 1974 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-14-2013, 11:18 AM
  #39
1865
Registered User
 
1865's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Chester, UK
Country: England
Posts: 9,176
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheKingPin View Post
Can't buy him out then
I'd rather not buy him out. If he sits on LTIR for the rest of his career that's better than him using up one of our amnesty deals.

Either way, get him out of Philadelphia.

1865 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-14-2013, 11:21 AM
  #40
1865
Registered User
 
1865's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Chester, UK
Country: England
Posts: 9,176
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coppy View Post
I really don't get people angry at Briere for not waving his NTC.

Lets say your employer came to you tomorrow and said "hey, we need you to move half way across the country... by tomorrow. Don't worry about your family and the life you've built for yourself here, you can handle that later. Btw, this doesn't mean your going to get paid anything extra. So, see ya."

How would you react?

Briere has built a life here. He obviously living here and likes playing for the team. There is no guarantee anyone would buy him out after the season. For a lot of teams, he would be perfect. Next year his actual salary is less than half his cap hit. For lower budget teams not worried about the cap, they'd probably keep him.

If I'm Briere, there is absolutely no reason to waive my NTC. If the Flyers want to buy me out at the end of the season, than let them. Then I can choose where I want to play next, and I have months, not hours before to make the move.
That's a ludicrous comparison. For starters, I don't earn millions of dollars a year to play hockey. If I did, I'd be much happier to move anywhere.

Secondly, I don't work in an industry where you can be expected to move across the country at a day's notice. Briere does, it's a hazard of the job.

1865 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-14-2013, 11:42 AM
  #41
Krishna
Registered User
 
Krishna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Canada
Posts: 82,048
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1865 View Post
I'd rather not buy him out. If he sits on LTIR for the rest of his career that's better than him using up one of our amnesty deals.

Either way, get him out of Philadelphia.
You can't just place a player on LTIR without a legit reason verified by league doctors.

Also, if he and pronger are on LTIR, we basically have no cap space in the summer to make any moves.

In the offseason, you get a 10% buffer on the cap, so this year the summer cap is about 70.7m

Pronger and Briere eat up about 15m combined.

Krishna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-14-2013, 11:47 AM
  #42
RJ8812
Gunner Stahl #9
 
RJ8812's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sudbury
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,701
vCash: 769
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoDu View Post
eh, I dunno, but I wouldn't take him back cheaper
neither would I

Time to move on

RJ8812 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-14-2013, 02:21 PM
  #43
flyerfanish
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 126
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krishna View Post
Pronger and Briere eat up about 15m combined.
Hmm.. Briere has a cap hit of 6.5?
I thought Prongers was less than 6?

flyerfanish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-14-2013, 02:22 PM
  #44
Krishna
Registered User
 
Krishna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Canada
Posts: 82,048
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyerfanish View Post
Hmm.. Briere has a cap hit of 6.5?
I thought Prongers was less than 6?
Apparently I can't maths or forgot numbers

11.5m

Krishna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-14-2013, 03:04 PM
  #45
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,406
vCash: 155
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broad Street Elite View Post
This was a 2 year commitment versus a 2 month commitment. Little bit different.

I really can't hate a guy for refusing to waive a clause he negotiated and or which most players give up certain other things to receive. I fault the team for allowing it as frequently as they do, but the player exercising his right is hardly as ridiculous as people seem to indicate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyershockey View Post
This. The management should be more to blame for how this whole thing has worked itself out. They are handing out these NMC/NTC's at a ridiculous rate. Can't fault a player for using something that was given to him by the team just because they want to change their minds on his value to the club. I clearly remember a lot of people questioning the decision to give the clause to him originally, because there was no way he was going to stay at a high level of play for the entirety of the contract due to age, size, talent drop off, etc.
The Flyers are just like most every team with their NTC/NMC clauses. The average looks to be around 5 or 6. The Flyers have nine (including Pronger and Fedotenko on a one year deal and only five are FULL no trade clauses). With the exception of LA and NYR, most of the teams with the lower numbers of NTCs are either very young and their best players are not eligible, or they aren't very good teams. With the exception of Bryz, none of these NTCs are all that concerning. Hartnell, Briere, Coburn, Schenn, Grossmann, Timonen, Pronger, Fedotenko are the guys with NTCs. I know everyone hates Coburn right now, but he is deserving of his NTC and I'd rather have him with the NTC than no Coburn at all. Hartnell same thing. Schenn and Grossmann you are gonna complain about? Timonen? Pronger? Fedotenko on a one year deal?

Briere may or may not have refused to waive his NTC this year, but how do you think this team would have done in the playoffs without him during the years he spent here? Don't think they would have missed that PPG+ in the playoffs...rather not have him on the team? Or maybe you would want to pay him more?

If you don't want to offer a NTC, you likely will pay more money for the player, or miss out all together. It is easy to say that he shouldn't have given Briere a NTC, but then you have to figure his salary would have been higher or he would have went somewhere that would have given him the NTC. You do realize that during a negotiation it is not just the GM throwing out offers, right? The players ask for these. If you say no, sure a guy might still sign for the same price, but in many cases the price goes up or they walk.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-14-2013, 05:48 PM
  #46
flyershockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 5,710
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
The Flyers are just like most every team with their NTC/NMC clauses. The average looks to be around 5 or 6. The Flyers have nine (including Pronger and Fedotenko on a one year deal and only five are FULL no trade clauses). With the exception of LA and NYR, most of the teams with the lower numbers of NTCs are either very young and their best players are not eligible, or they aren't very good teams. With the exception of Bryz, none of these NTCs are all that concerning. Hartnell, Briere, Coburn, Schenn, Grossmann, Timonen, Pronger, Fedotenko are the guys with NTCs. I know everyone hates Coburn right now, but he is deserving of his NTC and I'd rather have him with the NTC than no Coburn at all. Hartnell same thing. Schenn and Grossmann you are gonna complain about? Timonen? Pronger? Fedotenko on a one year deal?

Briere may or may not have refused to waive his NTC this year, but how do you think this team would have done in the playoffs without him during the years he spent here? Don't think they would have missed that PPG+ in the playoffs...rather not have him on the team? Or maybe you would want to pay him more?

If you don't want to offer a NTC, you likely will pay more money for the player, or miss out all together. It is easy to say that he shouldn't have given Briere a NTC, but then you have to figure his salary would have been higher or he would have went somewhere that would have given him the NTC. You do realize that during a negotiation it is not just the GM throwing out offers, right? The players ask for these. If you say no, sure a guy might still sign for the same price, but in many cases the price goes up or they walk.
Yeah, the number of NTC's match up with other teams as far as averages, but the players that have them for the Flyers is concerning. I see a lot of complimentary guys, and guys who's contracts keep them here past their primes. Maybe it's just me, but I would only give those clauses to guys who are star players, and Briere certainly doesn't fit that. Most people accepted the fact that Briere wouldn't be worth the money he's being paid in the last couple years of his deal, but also thought the team could have moved him to a team that was looking for cap space at a cheap price. Well, his NTC pretty much kills that, and an extra year or two on his deal may interfere with resigning a player that could provide a long term impact for the team.

flyershockey is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-14-2013, 06:00 PM
  #47
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,406
vCash: 155
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyershockey View Post
Yeah, the number of NTC's match up with other teams as far as averages, but the players that have them for the Flyers is concerning. I see a lot of complimentary guys, and guys who's contracts keep them here past their primes. Maybe it's just me, but I would only give those clauses to guys who are star players, and Briere certainly doesn't fit that. Most people accepted the fact that Briere wouldn't be worth the money he's being paid in the last couple years of his deal, but also thought the team could have moved him to a team that was looking for cap space at a cheap price. Well, his NTC pretty much kills that, and an extra year or two on his deal may interfere with resigning a player that could provide a long term impact for the team.
Eh, I don't know that it kills anything. It is all speculation as to whether or not he declined to waive his NTC (unless I missed something). And with the exception of Fedotenko who is on a one year deal, the players with NTCs is most certainly not complimentary. Starting goalie, your top four defensemen, Briere who was a much more important part of this team prior to this year, and Hartnell who is on the top line, and also Pronger who would be our #1 defender and captain.

And again, giving these out to guys is a way to entice them to sign here either for cheaper or just over another team they may be considering. Homer isn't just calling people up and offer them. Players want them and usually give something up to get them. I don't know how the negotiations went, but if Briere (other player) said in his negotiations give me a NTC or I am signing for more money with MTL (or other team), what are you going to do, say no and then you miss out on the player you want and who was extremely valuable to this team for the majority of his time here?

The bottom line is, the Flyers are in line in terms of numbers and who they have given the NTCs to and their effect has also been in line with the rest of the league. Tons of guys have these clauses, very rarely do you see it really make a difference. The only guy I remember declining to waive is Kaberle. I remember Heatly being picky of where he was to go I think. Iginla seemed to force the Flames into taking a slightly worse deal. Other than that I don't remember it really hurting anyone else.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-14-2013, 06:35 PM
  #48
funghoul
retardo montalbon
 
funghoul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: upper drugs
Country: United States
Posts: 1,671
vCash: 500
the leafs got screwed a couple years ago with a bunch of guys. sundin stayed a couple years into the leafs trying to trade him until the pressure from the media and fans (and the lack of playoffs) caused him to relent and go to vancouver in that lame move. These guys shouldn't be blamed tho for refusing to be traded. I do hope that holmgren is learning how to dispense these contracts a little better tho. He's a little impatient and too eager to hand out ridiculous money and term to guys who haven't really proven their worth it. we all know bout bryz, but hartnell's contract sucks i think, and coburn better bounce back next year. also, meszaros is pretty much worthless at this point too. simmonds is still young. but he better not get crazy with couturier. god this year's sucked. there's not one player on this team i wouldn't consider trading. even giroux.

funghoul is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-14-2013, 07:51 PM
  #49
achdumeingute
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NorCal
Posts: 2,262
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mouser View Post
Teams can only chose to not honor NTC/NMC's following a trade if the clause was not yet in effect at the time of the trade [e.g. Richards]. If the clause is already in effect [e.g. Heatley] then teams must honor it. In fact the default is that the clauses are not honored if not already in effect--the acquiring team has to formally notify NHL HQ following the trade that they are honoring the clause.

Weber is a different situation--when matching an offer sheet the matching team is not required to match any NTC/NMC details in the offer sheet, only the salary/term.
well i had read differenly, thanks for the correction.

achdumeingute is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-14-2013, 08:16 PM
  #50
flyershockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 5,710
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
Eh, I don't know that it kills anything. It is all speculation as to whether or not he declined to waive his NTC (unless I missed something). And with the exception of Fedotenko who is on a one year deal, the players with NTCs is most certainly not complimentary. Starting goalie, your top four defensemen, Briere who was a much more important part of this team prior to this year, and Hartnell who is on the top line, and also Pronger who would be our #1 defender and captain.

And again, giving these out to guys is a way to entice them to sign here either for cheaper or just over another team they may be considering. Homer isn't just calling people up and offer them. Players want them and usually give something up to get them. I don't know how the negotiations went, but if Briere (other player) said in his negotiations give me a NTC or I am signing for more money with MTL (or other team), what are you going to do, say no and then you miss out on the player you want and who was extremely valuable to this team for the majority of his time here?

The bottom line is, the Flyers are in line in terms of numbers and who they have given the NTCs to and their effect has also been in line with the rest of the league. Tons of guys have these clauses, very rarely do you see it really make a difference. The only guy I remember declining to waive is Kaberle. I remember Heatly being picky of where he was to go I think. Iginla seemed to force the Flames into taking a slightly worse deal. Other than that I don't remember it really hurting anyone else.
Yet pretty much every single NTC that a Flyer has brings the possibility of disaster. Briere has been a mess. It's clear that the team probably wants to walk away at this point, but any trade has been vetoed by Briere. Btw, Bill Clement is supposedly the source that said he used his NMC. I don't really have that big of a problem with a NTC on a contract for a guy if he's in the prime of his career, but most of these NTC's keep guys around until after they start to decline, if not completely past their NHL usefulness. Briere is one example, but Pronger and Hartnell are others. Do you really think Pronger would be a great option for a number one dman at 40+, or that Hartnell will be worth the money he'll be paid at 35 or 36? Both contracts had/have the potential to be huge detriments to the team.

I'm not even going to get into the Bryz debate. Bryz isn't even worth his cap hit now, what's convinces you he'll be worth it at 35-39? The amnesty buyouts are the only saving grace.

Oh and you better hope Coburn turns his game around for next year. That's a big price tag for a guy that looked lost for most of the season. Add in the NTC and that's an immovable piece if he doesn't improve.

flyershockey is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:01 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.