2017 NHL Off Season

[Rich]

5 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Interesting.  Going about business without regard to the expansion draft or they have set up something knowing they can protect him?

Does a one year deal make him less likely to be chosen by Vegas (probably not as he's still an RFA next summer, I believe).

Low salary.  Definitely seems like a "show us what you got" contract.

My guess is the Jets didn't want to give him a big bump in salary and so the short term contract.  Also, the 1 year deal means when this contract is up, he has arbitration rights.  

Dano's camp isn't going to sign long term at that price, so the compromise I think is on the term.  If they don't think what is being offered is fair next year, they can go to arbitration.  They didn't have much leverage at all on this contract.

I don't think this affects expansion draft at all.  He is still an RFA at the end of this deal, I don't think the possibility of arbitration would "scare" Vegas from picking him if they were interested.

[The Unknown Poster]

I might be confused about the rules.  As an RFA can't the jets expose Dano without re-signing him?

 

[Rich]

1 minute ago, The Unknown Poster said:

I might be confused about the rules.  As an RFA can't the jets expose Dano without re-signing him?

 

https://www.nhl.com/news/nhl-expansion-draft-rules/c-281010592

Quote

* All Clubs must meet the following minimum requirements regarding players exposed for selection in the Expansion Draft:

i) One defenseman who is a) under contract in 2017-18 and played in 40 or more NHL games the prior season OR played in 70 or more NHL games in the prior two seasons.

ii) Two forwards who are a) under contract in 2017-18 and played in 40 or more NHL games the prior season OR played in 70 or more NHL games in the prior two seasons.

iii) One goaltender who is under contract in 2017-18 or will be a restricted free agent at the expiration of his current contract immediately prior to 2017-18. If the club elects to make a restricted free agent goaltender available in order to meet this requirement, that goaltender must have received his qualifying offer prior to the submission of the club's protected list.

 

[JCon]

We'll be lucky if Vegas takes Dano.

[The Unknown Poster]

I stand corrected.  Would this not indicate the Jets are going 7-3...and either Toby has waived or they have a deal to shortly consumate sending Myers or Toby somewhere?

[Rich]

2 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

I stand corrected.  Would this not indicate the Jets are going 7-3...and either Toby has waived or they have a deal to shortly consumate sending Myers or Toby somewhere?

Maybe, maybe not.  This just gives them options / flexibility depending what shakes out this week.   Either way they are covered now.

[Goalie]

I feel there is a very strong greater than 50 percent chance toby agreed to waive and jets are going 7 3. 1. Hutch. Stu. Dano. Matthias exposed

[The Unknown Poster]

27 minutes ago, Goalie said:

I feel there is a very strong greater than 50 percent chance toby agreed to waive and jets are going 7 3. 1. Hutch. Stu. Dano. Matthias exposed

I hope so.  And I wonder what the quid pro quo would be.  Unless Toby is simply fine with either staying or going.  But I suspect Jets would reach out to Vegas to protect Toby and then in return, offer Toby an extension.
 

Also, if I heard correctly, the Jets made it known they would not comment on whether they asked Toby to waive or if he agreed.  The Jets are always secretive but if he hadnt wouldnt a "we have not asked" or "he has not waived" make sense as opposed to a refusal of comment?  The list is going to be released publicly.

Our good friend Gary would get the scoop if he was here ;-)

Edited June 13, 2017 by The Unknown Poster

[Atomic]

2 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

I hope so.  And I wonder what the quid pro quo would be.  Unless Toby is simply fine with either staying or going.  But I suspect Jets would reach out to Vegas to protect Toby and then in return, offer Toby an extension.
 

Also, if I heard correctly, the Jets made it known they would not comment on whether they asked Toby to waive or if he agreed.  The Jets are always secretive but if he hadnt wouldnt a "we have not asked" or "he has not waived" make sense as opposed to a refusal of comment?  The list is going to be released publicly.

Our good friend Gary would get the scoop if he was here ;-)

I don't understand.  Why would the Jets ask Toby to waive if they were just going to ask Vegas not to take him?  What's the point?

[Rich]

2 minutes ago, Atomic said:

I don't understand.  Why would the Jets ask Toby to waive if they were just going to ask Vegas not to take him?  What's the point?

Because then you can protect extra forwards as well as Myers.

If you protect Trouba, Myers, Buff, and Enstrom ... you get to protect less players overall.   8 skaters and a 1 goaltender

If you protect Trouba, Myers, and Buff ... you get to do the 7 Forwards - 3 D-men -1 goaltender

[The Unknown Poster]

Yes as Rich said, you NEED to protect Toby because he has a NMC which either leaves Myers exposed who Vegas would surely select or you leave Perreault/Lowry exposed, both of whom Im sure the Jets would prefer to keep.

Going 7-3 allows the Jets to basically protect the bulk of their forwards.  The question is, do they dangle Toby thinking Vegas wont bite due to his age/contract status and take one of their lesser forwards or do they make sure by incentivizing Vegas not to take him?

I think Toby is still valuable enough that Vegas might take him.  But who knows.  Because Toby has a NMC, it sort of makes it tougher for Vegas to take him and then flip him to another team.  They'd need Toby's cooperation.

What's a reasonable price for the Jets to pay to "protect" Toby (ie. pay Vegas not to take him)?  For Vegas, the leverage is "pay us something good or we'll just take him", since 7-3 leaves them with lesser forwards to choose from. 

I know some will say "let Vegas have him".  But that really hurts our LHD next season.  Even as a declining asset, Toby is our top 2 LHD with no one behind him ready to step up to that role.  And Morrissey was a revelation at that position or the Jets were really in trouble.

[Atomic]

20 minutes ago, Rich said:

Because then you can protect extra forwards as well as Myers.

If you protect Trouba, Myers, Buff, and Enstrom ... you get to protect less players overall.   8 skaters and a 1 goaltender

If you protect Trouba, Myers, and Buff ... you get to do the 7 Forwards - 3 D-men -1 goaltender

I understand why you would want to expose Enstrom.  What I don't understand is why you would go through the trouble of getting him to waive his NMC then making a deal with Vegas not to select him.  Why wouldn't you just skip the Enstrom NMC business, protect 7-3-1 and make a deal with Vegas not to select Myers?

[JCon]

13 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

I think Toby is still valuable enough that Vegas might take him.  But who knows.  Because Toby has a NMC, it sort of makes it tougher for Vegas to take him and then flip him to another team.  They'd need Toby's cooperation.

Once Toby waives his NMC for the Jets, it's done. He no longer has the NMC as part of his contract. He can be moved by Vegas, if they choose to do it.

[JCon]

1 minute ago, Atomic said:

I understand why you would want to expose Enstrom.  What I don't understand is why you would go through the trouble of getting him to waive his NMC then making a deal with Vegas not to select him.  Why wouldn't you just skip the Enstrom NMC business, protect 7-3-1 and make a deal with Vegas not to select Myers?

Myers is worth far more than Toby. To protect Myers from Vegas would require a higher pick (or prospect). Vegas may not even want Enstrom.

[Atomic]

6 minutes ago, JCon said:

Once Toby waives his NMC for the Jets, it's done. He no longer has the NMC as part of his contract. He can be moved by Vegas, if they choose to do it.

Not necessarily.

Quote

 

The clause can travel with the player even if he consents to being traded or is claimed on waivers

This requires that the acquiring team sign an addendum to the contract ensuring that the clause does in fact travel with the player (written by the player's agent)

If the acquiring team refuses to sign the addendum, and the player waives his clause anyway, at that point the clause may be nullified.

 

http://www.pensionplanpuppets.com/nhl-expansion-draft/2017/6/12/15781154/2017-nhl-expansion-draft-waive-nmc-no-movement-clause-marc-andre-fleury-dion-phaneuf-rules

Edited June 13, 2017 by Atomic

[The Unknown Poster]

8 minutes ago, Atomic said:

I understand why you would want to expose Enstrom.  What I don't understand is why you would go through the trouble of getting him to waive his NMC then making a deal with Vegas not to select him.  Why wouldn't you just skip the Enstrom NMC business, protect 7-3-1 and make a deal with Vegas not to select Myers?

Because Myers is more valuable than Toby.  If Toby refuses you could do that but its going to cost you more.

The rumours of the Jets talking to the Stars in a deal that includes Myers could be indicative of Toby not waiving and the Jets still trying to get to 7-3.

[The Unknown Poster]

8 minutes ago, JCon said:

Once Toby waives his NMC for the Jets, it's done. He no longer has the NMC as part of his contract. He can be moved by Vegas, if they choose to do it.

Not correct.  Its part of his contract.  NMC players get traded all the time, because they waive it under specific circumstances (ie. choosing their team).  Its still in their contract though.

[The Unknown Poster]

 

[JCon]

32 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Not correct.  Its part of his contract.  NMC players get traded all the time, because they waive it under specific circumstances (ie. choosing their team).  Its still in their contract though.

Once it's waived, it's out of the contract. The new team can add it once again as an addendum but they do not have to.

 

[Rich]

6 minutes ago, JCon said:

Once it's waived, it's out of the contract. The new team can add it once again as an addendum but they do not have to.

 

I think you might be confusing the Myers situation and how his trade here removed his NMC, but that is a different case.

Myers had a NMC in his contract with Buffalo, but it did not kick in until the next calendar year when we acquired him (I believe because you can't have a NMC on your RFA years).  

In that situation, the Jets had the option of not accepting the NMC in his contract because it had not yet started.  This is not the case on contracts when the NMC is already active.

[Atomic]

25 minutes ago, JCon said:

Once it's waived, it's out of the contract. The new team can add it once again as an addendum but they do not have to.

The player/agent makes the call.  They can say "We will not waive the NMC if the acquiring team does not honour it after they have acquired the player."  Or they can waive it altogether.  If it was fully in the acquiring team's control, they would never honour it.

[JCon]

7 minutes ago, Atomic said:

The player/agent makes the call.  They can say "We will not waive the NMC if the acquiring team does not honour it after they have acquired the player."  Or they can waive it altogether.  If it was fully in the acquiring team's control, they would never honour it.

From your earlier post:

The clause can travel with the player even if he consents to being traded or is claimed on waivers

This requires that the acquiring team sign an addendum to the contract ensuring that the clause does in fact travel with the player (written by the player's agent)

If the acquiring team refuses to sign the addendum, and the player waives his clause anyway, at that point the clause may be nullified.

 

 

[iHeart]

has this been shared yet?

 

[The Unknown Poster]

Just now, iHeart said:

has this been shared yet?

 

No but I did speculate as much ;-) 

[iHeart]

so chances are we'll probably lose Hutch (but I'd rather dump Cormier on the Knights) but then again the last thing I need to do is another twitter fit like after the pens win the cup