HFBoards

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

Around the NHL VII - NHL Hockey Returns!

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-23-2012, 08:24 PM
  #176
Beerz
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 12,627
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
That's interesting - but what's to keep whichever team benefits from the first deal from pulling the plug on the second, besides of course honor?

Get it in writing?.... It's been done before...

Beerz is offline  
Old
07-23-2012, 08:37 PM
  #177
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,520
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beerz View Post
Get it in writing?.... It's been done before...
Well, sure. But what do you get in writing and who enforces it? Does the NHL recognize promises to conduct a trade? And does that promise then become a part of the first trade? If so, doesn't that functionally break down the difference between the two trades? And if not, and if you make the promise separately, why make the promise after the first deal is made? Or, in reverse, why make the first deal after the promise is made? And if the NHL doesn't enforce these sorts of deals, would you have to take it to federal court? It just seems like such a tricky legalistic maneuver that I have to question who is going to enforce it and under what guise.

haseoke39 is offline  
Old
07-23-2012, 08:49 PM
  #178
Beerz
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 12,627
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
Well, sure. But what do you get in writing and who enforces it? Does the NHL recognize promises to conduct a trade? And does that promise then become a part of the first trade? If so, doesn't that functionally break down the difference between the two trades? And if not, and if you make the promise separately, why make the promise after the first deal is made? Or, in reverse, why make the first deal after the promise is made? And if the NHL doesn't enforce these sorts of deals, would you have to take it to federal court? It just seems like such a tricky legalistic maneuver that I have to question who is going to enforce it and under what guise.

My head is spinning....... lol... I don't know the answers to these questions ..... I would think if a GM reneged on a deal he'd probably be black balled by rest of the GM's ...... the in writing contract would just serve as proof to rest of the league!?

Beerz is offline  
Old
07-23-2012, 09:44 PM
  #179
Zip15
Registered User
 
Zip15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 17,857
vCash: 396
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
Well, sure. But what do you get in writing and who enforces it? Does the NHL recognize promises to conduct a trade? And does that promise then become a part of the first trade? If so, doesn't that functionally break down the difference between the two trades? And if not, and if you make the promise separately, why make the promise after the first deal is made? Or, in reverse, why make the first deal after the promise is made? And if the NHL doesn't enforce these sorts of deals, would you have to take it to federal court? It just seems like such a tricky legalistic maneuver that I have to question who is going to enforce it and under what guise.
These teams have lawyers. It will be in writing and run by the league before the teams sign off on it--and it'll be approved. If Philly tried to renege, Bettman would likely demand specific performance. Regardless, I don't see an organization like the Flyers playing such juvenile games.

Zip15 is offline  
Old
07-23-2012, 09:58 PM
  #180
New Sabres Captain
ForFriendshipDikembe
 
New Sabres Captain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 39,509
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zip15 View Post
These teams have lawyers. It will be in writing and run by the league before the teams sign off on it--and it'll be approved. If Philly tried to renege, Bettman would likely demand specific performance. Regardless, I don't see an organization like the Flyers playing such juvenile games.
I don't think they can do it quite like that, but Holmgren would basically ostracize himself from other GM's if he reneged, so he wouldn't.

New Sabres Captain is offline  
Old
07-23-2012, 10:06 PM
  #181
Zip15
Registered User
 
Zip15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 17,857
vCash: 396
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrigsAndGirgs View Post
I don't think they can do it quite like that, but Holmgren would basically ostracize himself from other GM's if he reneged, so he wouldn't.
Sure they can. They'll get in writing, and the league will know about it beforehand. Bettman's hand will be firm and swift if Philly says nevermind.

Philly would never renege. I don't know why we are even talking about it. These guys aren't trading baseball cards.

Zip15 is offline  
Old
07-23-2012, 10:15 PM
  #182
SackTastic
Embrace The Suck
 
SackTastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 5,114
vCash: 500
There can be no conditions placed on an offer sheet contract until after the original team makes a decision on their right of first refusal. Once that happens, the player is locked in with the team they're going to be with, and the only conditions can be those found in normal contracts.

Philly is under no obligation to listen to anything Nashville has to say.

SackTastic is offline  
Old
07-23-2012, 10:23 PM
  #183
New Sabres Captain
ForFriendshipDikembe
 
New Sabres Captain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 39,509
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beechsack View Post
There can be no conditions placed on an offer sheet contract until after the original team makes a decision on their right of first refusal. Once that happens, the player is locked in with the team they're going to be with, and the only conditions can be those found in normal contracts.

Philly is under no obligation to listen to anything Nashville has to say.
They're not...unless they really want Weber. In order for them to get Weber, Nashville has to decide not to match.

Nashville can make that decision (read: their decision on whether to match) CONTINGENT upon agreeing to a deal with Philly for the 1st rounders, with the threat they will match at the last minute if no deal is made.

Philly then has to play ball...or they don't get Weber because Nashville can match.

Now, the Flyers could then call the bluff, figure the Preds won't match anyways...but that's a big risk. It really depends on how badly they want Weber.

New Sabres Captain is offline  
Old
07-23-2012, 10:31 PM
  #184
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,520
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zip15 View Post
Sure they can. They'll get in writing, and the league will know about it beforehand. Bettman's hand will be firm and swift if Philly says nevermind.

Philly would never renege. I don't know why we are even talking about it. These guys aren't trading baseball cards.
And how does Bettman have that authority? Is he just the mini-king of the NHL that gets to decide rules whenever it seems prudent? "Oh, a team wants to invent a trade procedure whereby one team promises another to conduct some trade? This has never been done before and its not in any of the league's bylaws nor been signed off on by the Board of Governors? I'm not only going to recognize it, I'm going to invent a mode of enforcing this agreement in case of breach because it just seems right"???

haseoke39 is offline  
Old
07-23-2012, 10:33 PM
  #185
SackTastic
Embrace The Suck
 
SackTastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 5,114
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrigsAndGirgs View Post
They're not...unless they really want Weber. In order for them to get Weber, Nashville has to decide not to match.

Nashville can make that decision (read: their decision on whether to match) CONTINGENT upon agreeing to a deal with Philly for the 1st rounders, with the threat they will match at the last minute if no deal is made.

Philly then has to play ball...or they don't get Weber because Nashville can match.

Now, the Flyers could then call the bluff, figure the Preds won't match anyways...but that's a big risk. It really depends on how badly they want Weber.
It's going to be the money and money alone that decides this. Not any secondary trade agreement.

If Nashville can afford it, they'll match. If they can't, they won't, and I doubt Holmgren will care about losing the picks.

SackTastic is offline  
Old
07-23-2012, 10:36 PM
  #186
haseoke39
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
 
haseoke39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,520
vCash: 500
I'm not sure that a team wouldn't renege if the incentive was high enough. There's only 30 teams in the NHL. It's not easy to start blackballing teams, especially if they're offering you a deal that improves your club. I've never, in fact, heard of a team getting blackballed, so I don't know where this idea came from but the mind of the internet. So it's potentially more than an academic point, but even if it is just academic, I'm still curious. The teams would essentially be inventing a legalistic trading procedure that dodges the rules. I want to know if they're even allowed to do that, and inherent in that question is who would recognize such a promise and under what guise.

haseoke39 is offline  
Old
07-23-2012, 11:02 PM
  #187
New Sabres Captain
ForFriendshipDikembe
 
New Sabres Captain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 39,509
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beechsack View Post
It's going to be the money and money alone that decides this. Not any secondary trade agreement.

If Nashville can afford it, they'll match. If they can't, they won't, and I doubt Holmgren will care about losing the picks.
I think you're simplifying Nashville's decision making process too much.

I do believe they have the money. But I also do believe that they would rather not spend 26M in the next 12 months. If they can get a good return that will improve their team without costing that much, they will explore that--it is the only reason why they wouldn't have said anything one way or the other by now. I do not believe it takes 7 days to make a decision on whether they can afford it. If that was the only consideration, we'd know by now which team Weber is suiting up for next year.

New Sabres Captain is offline  
Old
07-23-2012, 11:02 PM
  #188
Zip15
Registered User
 
Zip15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 17,857
vCash: 396
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
And how does Bettman have that authority? Is he just the mini-king of the NHL that gets to decide rules whenever it seems prudent? "Oh, a team wants to invent a trade procedure whereby one team promises another to conduct some trade? This has never been done before and its not in any of the league's bylaws nor been signed off on by the Board of Governors? I'm not only going to recognize it, I'm going to invent a mode of enforcing this agreement in case of breach because it just seems right"???
Except that it did with Shayne Corson. And how does Bettman have that authority? Because, yes, commissioners are mini-kings and can do pretty much whatever they damn well please if it's in the best interests of the game--a right that is always reserved to every commissioner.

Why are we even arguing over something this stupid and theoretical? Does anyone in their right mind think the parties would agree that Nashville doesn't match in consideration for a second trade involving a return of some/all of the picks for players, only to have Philly renege and say "na na nanana, you can't make me!!!" Give me a break.

Zip15 is offline  
Old
07-23-2012, 11:09 PM
  #189
Zip15
Registered User
 
Zip15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 17,857
vCash: 396
Regarding the Nash deal, it's small-minded to believe that every trade has to be a zero-sum game in which one team made themselves better and, thus, the other team made themselves worse in the same amount. It is possible to have win-win trades, and I think this is one of those.

Zip15 is offline  
Old
07-23-2012, 11:19 PM
  #190
Rob Paxon
⚔Z E M G U S⚔
 
Rob Paxon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: corfu, ny
Country: United States
Posts: 18,785
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Rob Paxon
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
Well, sure. But what do you get in writing and who enforces it? Does the NHL recognize promises to conduct a trade? And does that promise then become a part of the first trade? If so, doesn't that functionally break down the difference between the two trades? And if not, and if you make the promise separately, why make the promise after the first deal is made? Or, in reverse, why make the first deal after the promise is made? And if the NHL doesn't enforce these sorts of deals, would you have to take it to federal court? It just seems like such a tricky legalistic maneuver that I have to question who is going to enforce it and under what guise.
They could just, like, submit the actual trade to the NHL and this all becomes moot. The trade would have to take place before the match deadline anyhow because he can't be traded after it. It'd be like any other trade. And no team would ever do what you say, anyhow. It'd be like mugging someone in a world of 30 people.

Rob Paxon is online now  
Old
07-24-2012, 12:22 AM
  #191
Sabretip
Registered User
 
Sabretip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 7,927
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beerz View Post
I really can't see San Jose giving up Pavelski.
On paper, one would expect common sense for Wilson to deem Couture and Pavelski as part of the younger core to build around as the 1-2 center tandem.

In reality, Wilson has at the same center position two aging, expensive stars with no-trade clauses that he's stuck with: Thornton and Marleau. No one in their right mind would deal a future star like Couture.

Maybe Wilson keeps Pavelski and the Sharks continue to use him (and/or Marleau) as a winger to make up for their shortage of natural wingers - but, if one takes him at his word, Wilson has said he is looking to add wingers with some size and recognizes that he has more depth at the one position - center - that most teams are looking for this summer.

On paper and in reality, there's a lot of logic in a Sabres-Sharks package with Pavelski and Stafford as the two principals IMO. Their cap hits, ages and career stats are very comparable - it's just a case where the Sabres need centers and the Sharks need wings.

Sabretip is offline  
Old
07-24-2012, 12:32 AM
  #192
Rob Paxon
⚔Z E M G U S⚔
 
Rob Paxon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: corfu, ny
Country: United States
Posts: 18,785
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Rob Paxon
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabretip View Post
On paper, one would expect common sense for Wilson to deem Couture and Pavelski as part of the younger core to build around as the 1-2 center tandem.

In reality, Wilson has at the same center position two aging, expensive stars with no-trade clauses that he's stuck with: Thornton and Marleau. No one in their right mind would deal a future star like Couture.

Maybe Wilson keeps Pavelski and the Sharks continue to use him (and/or Marleau) as a winger to make up for their shortage of natural wingers - but, if one takes him at his word, Wilson has said he is looking to add wingers with some size and recognizes that he has more depth at the one position - center - that most teams are looking for this summer.

On paper and in reality, there's a lot of logic in a Sabres-Sharks package with Pavelski and Stafford as the two principals IMO. Their cap hits, ages and career stats are very comparable - it's just a case where the Sabres need centers and the Sharks need wings.
I agree. They certainly shouldn't be looking to shop Pavelski and Couture is untouchable. But for the right move, they could 'win now' without killing their future by moving Pavelski, and a Vanek-centered offer is a reasonable approximation of this concept.

Rob Paxon is online now  
Old
07-24-2012, 12:50 AM
  #193
littletonhockeycoach
Registered User
 
littletonhockeycoach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Littleton, Co
Country: United States
Posts: 2,259
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabretip View Post
On paper, one would expect common sense for Wilson to deem Couture and Pavelski as part of the younger core to build around as the 1-2 center tandem.

In reality, Wilson has at the same center position two aging, expensive stars with no-trade clauses that he's stuck with: Thornton and Marleau. No one in their right mind would deal a future star like Couture.

Maybe Wilson keeps Pavelski and the Sharks continue to use him (and/or Marleau) as a winger to make up for their shortage of natural wingers - but, if one takes him at his word, Wilson has said he is looking to add wingers with some size and recognizes that he has more depth at the one position - center - that most teams are looking for this summer.

On paper and in reality, there's a lot of logic in a Sabres-Sharks package with Pavelski and Stafford as the two principals IMO. Their cap hits, ages and career stats are very comparable - it's just a case where the Sabres need centers and the Sharks need wings.
I think you make a compelling argument for a trade. Because of living in the MT time zone I catch the Sharks quite a bit on Center Ice and also make a few trips a year to the Bay Area and catch some of the local sports drift. It was my impression that in this year's playoffs, Pavelski's heroics did not live up to past year's exploits. And given Wilson's statement, Pavleski might be available if a team has what the Sharks are looking for.

I.e.; as you pointed out....Wingers are a priority. And looking at their roster, they have some holes to fill on D. (Murray is long in the tooth and slower than molasses.)

So the Sabres have players at both positions that would interest the Sharks.

Just speculation, no inside knowledge here.

littletonhockeycoach is offline  
Old
07-24-2012, 01:02 AM
  #194
Sabretip
Registered User
 
Sabretip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 7,927
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Paxon View Post
I agree. They certainly shouldn't be looking to shop Pavelski and Couture is untouchable. But for the right move, they could 'win now' without killing their future by moving Pavelski, and a Vanek-centered offer is a reasonable approximation of this concept.
Quote:
Originally Posted by littletonhockeycoach View Post
I think you make a compelling argument for a trade. Because of living in the MT time zone I catch the Sharks quite a bit on Center Ice and also make a few trips a year to the Bay Area and catch some of the local sports drift. It was my impression that in this year's playoffs, Pavelski's heroics did not live up to past year's exploits. And given Wilson's statement, Pavleski might be available if a team has what the Sharks are looking for.

I.e.; as you pointed out....Wingers are a priority. And looking at their roster, they have some holes to fill on D. (Murray is long in the tooth and slower than molasses.)

So the Sabres have players at both positions that would interest the Sharks.

Just speculation, no inside knowledge here.
We should probably debate this further under the Sabres' offseason thread rather than this generalized NHL thread.....

Sabretip is offline  
Old
07-24-2012, 02:33 AM
  #195
Luceni
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Austria
Country: Austria
Posts: 3,663
vCash: 500
I'm a bit suprised that no-one of the rumored big named has been traded or to the Red Wings. I'm also suprised that they weren't able to sign one of the big UFA names.

It will be a though season for them if they don't do anything this offseason.

Doan and Semin are still out there, but I guess they will sign elsewhere too. And they need some help at defense.

I think they may move one of their centers (Filps, Helm?) for some upgrade at defense?
If yes, we should be interested ;-)

Luceni is offline  
Old
07-24-2012, 02:42 AM
  #196
Sabretip
Registered User
 
Sabretip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Country: United States
Posts: 7,927
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luceni View Post
I'm a bit suprised that no-one of the rumored big named has been traded or to the Red Wings. I'm also suprised that they weren't able to sign one of the big UFA names.

It will be a though season for them if they don't do anything this offseason.

Doan and Semin are still out there, but I guess they will sign elsewhere too. And they need some help at defense.

I think they may move one of their centers (Filps, Helm?) for some upgrade at defense?
If yes, we should be interested ;-)
There have been ample stories since Lidstrom retired that the Red Wings appear on the verge of a major transition to youth soon - and in the process, drop from the dominant perch they were on for so long. Holmstrom will probably retire and Datsyuk, Zetterberg and Franzen are all over 30 as their best players. If it's an older veteran at the tail end of his career like Doan, I could see the Wings appealing for the chance of winning again in the next 2 years - but for younger guys like Parise or Suter, they probably realized that Detroit is more likely to decline than contend after that.

Sabretip is offline  
Old
07-24-2012, 03:20 AM
  #197
Luceni
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Austria
Country: Austria
Posts: 3,663
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabretip View Post
There have been ample stories since Lidstrom retired that the Red Wings appear on the verge of a major transition to youth soon - and in the process, drop from the dominant perch they were on for so long. Holmstrom will probably retire and Datsyuk, Zetterberg and Franzen are all over 30 as their best players. If it's an older veteran at the tail end of his career like Doan, I could see the Wings appealing for the chance of winning again in the next 2 years - but for younger guys like Parise or Suter, they probably realized that Detroit is more likely to decline than contend after that.
I wouldn't write off the Red Wings. Suddenly, two of their late picks develope into their next Lidstrom/Zetterberg. Besides they've got a good goaltender. Thats something they've never had since Hasek.

They haven't missed the playoffs for how many straight years?

Sure, the future of the franchise doesn't look bright. But they also have never had a top 10 draft pick or something like that the last 20 years.

I just renember a game last season, when we played them and they dominated us. the only player of our team who was on the same level like them skill wise was Vanek.

But again, they have to do something the next two years. If they want to continue being a playoff team they for sure have to add some quality to their roster the next 2 years.

Luceni is offline  
Old
07-24-2012, 04:22 AM
  #198
Imlach a cup
Registered User
 
Imlach a cup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 4,123
vCash: 500
Wasn't that Game during the west coast 0-12 streak? I don't think we can take that game at face value. I have never seen this team skid like that. It was after that I reconciled myself to the fact that Ruff wasnt going anywhere. Sad day indeed.

Imlach a cup is offline  
Old
07-24-2012, 06:46 AM
  #199
Woodhouse
Registered User
 
Woodhouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 8,383
vCash: 50
Kane ponders six-year, $29-M deal from Jets.

Woodhouse is offline  
Old
07-24-2012, 07:48 AM
  #200
Digable5
Registered User
 
Digable5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: B-Lo
Country: United States
Posts: 3,799
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodhouse View Post
I know a lot of teams are concerned about the ill will an RFA offer sheet will cause, but if this is the terms Kane is pondering from the Jets, GMs ought to be sending him a contract. I know Winnipeg is likely to match, but that's a steal for Kane. At least drive up the price a bit. Enough of this unwritten rule nonsense. Its part of the rules, and if we don't do it someone will as we've seen with Weber. If we want to improve the team we need to take some risk in the free agent market. Make a run at Kane and if Winnipeg matches you're taking cap dollars away from a competitor. People think if we offer sheet Kane we should expect the same for Ennis. But what if we don't offer sheet Kane and someone still offer sheets Ennis? I don't think we should make moves(or not make moves in this case) out of fear.

Digable5 is offline  
Closed Thread

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 03:02 AM.

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.