DaGreatGazoo

July 1st is our July 4th....Canadas birthday. And yes it is.

Kinda figured that, but wasn't sure if it was a celebration of moose or something....

Wasnt last night the first night of his new contract?

 

Your Attention please, Claude will like to buy all of Canada a round, make it Rain!

It was also Canada Day.  Not to be disrespectful, but I have no idea what that is. Maybe it's a big drinking day for our friends up north?

Alcohol is believed to have been involved.

No sh**?????!!!!

What an embarrassing report..good grief.  

Anyone know what Hextall could have been thinking? It almost feels like it would be a B. Schenn replacement - get rid of Vinny (freeing up 4 years), get Richards for 1-2 years as a 2nd/3rd line center, deal Schenn+ for an impact defenseman or top line winger. Would that make any sense?

This scenario makes sense to me.  Whether they could have pulled all that off, is a good question, but I can at least see that happening....Richards at 1 year and 2 million isn't a bad deal.  I was just surprised Chicago signed him, given their cap issues.

I've been saying for weeks, sign Richards, give him #18, and I'm back in business with my Richards jersey.

Now, regarding the impact to the team.  No.  NO. NO!

"The Fine Art of Over-paying AND Over-Committing on Contract Offers"    by Paul Holmgren

That's just too easy....

Don't have an opinion on this subject, to be honest.  But I thought this was a pretty interesting take, given the range of our opinions.

Bob McKenzie @TSNBobMcKenzie · Jun 29

If thats the case, then in reading the verbiage from capgeek that you listed, it would seem that he had to have waived his NTC which was in effect 2013-2014 in order to move the Flyers. If that is so, then wouldn't that nullify the modified NTC for the 2014-2015 year? 

I would seem to think so, Van.  Which means, they could trade him again.  Not likely, but it's another forward without a trade clause now.  All about cap space, getting flexibility right now.  

As I learned today, the modified means he can list the teams he is willing to be traded to. Cap geek is still showing him with the lock sign meaning he can not be traded without a say. 

Yeah, but the quote I listed is also from Capgeek....the part about the subsequent trade voiding the clause.  That's what I'm not sure of.  Based on the rules on Capgeek, if he waived his NTC, it's voided..unless the Flyers picked it up. The part I highlighted in red seems to apply to the Umberger situation.  

An NTC does not travel with a player if a) the player waives a full NTC or b) the player is traded within the terms of a limited or modified NTC. In addition, if the player is traded before his NTC takes effect, it vaporizes unless — in rare circumstances — the acquiring club agrees in writing to be bound by it.

According to CapGeek, RJ's trade clause may have been voided when he was traded.  I can't get anything definite other than that.  

"NTC (2012-13 and 2013-14); modified NTC (2014-15 through 2016-17); subsequent trade may have voided clause"

take back a 3rd round pick in 2015

I'm not even sure they get a 3rd for him!  That being said, I trade him for a worn out VHS recording of Kate Smith at this point.  Again, not the player, THE CONTRACT!!!

Lindros Stats are borderline Hall worthy

If Neely is in, Lindros should be in/get in.  Lindros dominated his era, unlike Neely.  No one says the "Neely era"...you still hear people call a window of time the "Lindros era".  

Their numbers are quite similar, and Neely didn't have to play in the trap era.  Lindros played against a team that defined the trap era-for most of his career. 

They are both great players, they both deserve to be in the HHOF.  

Homercoaster

This.  Is.  Priceless.  

If you don't think that forcing players to waive no trade clauses on their contracts and abandoning long term commitments to players has an effect on what other players think about "playing in Philadelphia" then I think we can just respectfully agree to differ.

 

It was a hockey move, it was a hockey trade. I understand why it happened.

 

It's just that other players do, too.

Valid point....

The counter point to this could also be Hextall simply saying, "I wasn't here, I can't control what/how the previous GM did-nor how he handled contracts/players, or no trade clauses."  As Hartnell said, different GM--different vision.  I think it could have a significantly WORSE impact if it was Homer doing it again.

Granted Hextall saying that might mean NOTHING to players he is recruiting, however, it's at least a plausible explanation.  

I really like San Jose. We will take Marleau of you hands. Seriously, as much a I like San Jose, they have to be the biggest chockers in the world when it comes to the playoffs. I can not think of another team that has chocked more than them. 

I hate chockers almost as much as I hate chokers...almost...    

Not to pile on Buffalo, but this is one of the worst UFA signings in years.  Career 30 goals when the contract was signed, 10 goals over 3 years, and NONE last year.  

HOLY COW!!!!

That sounds about right. He's just not an important part of this team - yet. And the fact that we still have Vinny plus Laughton who will be fighting for a spot kinda makes Schenn a bit more 'expendable'.

To me, this is where they are really hosed.  If they trade VLC first, Schenn gets a lot more leverage, IMO.  If they sign Schenn first, they lose whatever leverage for trading VLC that they may have, which granted, can't be much at this point.  

I'm just not sure which hammer should fall first.  

As I understood "bridge" deals, they are designed to expire with a year left in RFA. 

 

It works for the club because they don't commit long term to an uncertain prospect, but retain their rights.

 

It works for the player because they will typically get a little more (like $2.5 vs. $2.25 for example) and be in a position where they can demand arbitration if they have emerged as a serious player and the club is still reticent to commit long term.

Good explanation.   Thanks, bud! 

two year bridge deal

I posted a question about this in another thread, and OC confirmed...a 2 year bridge deal doesn't get him to UFA status, he has to be 27. So, I'm not sure a 2 year deal is going to work for the Schenn camp, as he will still be a RFA.

Unless I'm missing something......

Am I incorrect, but I thought players had to be 27 years old to become a UFA?  If so, a 2 year deal doesn't get him there.  Or does he auto-qualify since it would be his 2nd NHL contract, even though he's younger than 27?  

Not sure about any of this stuff anymore, given the new CBA.

Not enough....

So....since he signed to an NHL deal he would have to clear waivers to be sent down, correct?

when you put it like that...

i can see what you're saying.

 

i still think Rutherford is an okay hire, he doesn't suck.

I agree..it's not a terrible hire, he doesn't suck.  I think someone said it's a safe hire.  I agree with that.  Just not sure it's what the Pens need right now.  They are painfully close, IMO.  I don't know if him, or Brindy, if hired, get them over the top.

So, the Penguins total and complete "change in direction" is:

1).  A  65 year old GM, who spent 20 years with one team..and....

B).  Possibly a head coach with NO head coaching experience at any level...

At the risk of getting slapped, if the Flyers did that, most people--including the very educated Pens fans on this board--would have a frigging field day with it.

It could work out, they could get a great head coach, and the underlings to Rutherford could do very well...but man, this team probably has 2-4 years left to make some noise(given the 7 year window theory).  I'm just not seeing/feeling it with these moves.