|
Post by Judas In My Mind on Dec 5, 2014 16:34:03 GMT -4
They didn't want to piss off the player, Bathurst isn't a wanted destination for most players. Bottom line if Halifax wants to sell, I'm sure Ehlers would probably prefer to go to a contender regardless of NTC. How could they piss off a player if they gave out an illegal clause? I'm not sure if you're saying teams give out legal no trade clauses which are not enforced or are giving out illegal no trade clauses that are enforced through not wanting to upset the player. I've never seen a Q player contract, but in the OHL some players have NTC's specifically written into their SPC with clear rules in terms of how the NTC is to be enforced. I fail to understand how that may be illegal in a legal document. From how I understood it, no trade clauses are not allowed in the Q. Thus none of them are written into any player contracts. The no trade clauses we hear about are "handshake deals" or verbal agreements that team X will not trade player Y if he reports, for example. Using Brennan in Bathurst as the example as it was hinted at previously in the thread. Let's say the Titan had agreed to Brennan/family/agent/advisor they would not trade him away without approval. A verbal "off the record" agreement. Then let's say they broke it by trading him instead of McDonald last year. Technically they could do that as the league policy does not acknowledge no trade agreements and his player contract thus does not include one. However at the very least the Titan would run the risk of having a pissed off player running his mouth about what happened and how he was lied to, plus an agent that likely advises every client not to trust Bathurst.
|
|
|
Post by Gman on Dec 5, 2014 16:38:28 GMT -4
Yeah, Billy, a team giving a player a no trade clause is giving their word that the player will not be traded without their permission. Maybe they aren't officially recognized by the league, but they exist, and are certainly enforced by the parties involved. If a team were to back out on one, it would create a lot of bad blood with the players and agents.
|
|
|
Post by hfxfan09 on Dec 6, 2014 11:53:53 GMT -4
After the trades Moncton made with Quebec yesterday I don't think Ehlers or Fucale are going anywhere.
|
|
|
Post by SteveUL on Dec 6, 2014 16:12:35 GMT -4
How are no trades illegal exactly? We all know they exist, whether they're technically legal or not. This is a league that doesn't even enforce contracts for management of individual teams. They are not enforceable. Sure they are ... not by the league ... but by the player and his lawyer. If you agree to join a team and part of that agreement involves a no-trade agreement ... and you write the penalty right in the contract (say $500,000 if traded) ... a judge will inforce it. If the kid has enough clout (star power ... like Ehlers has) ... he doesn't even have to show up. If any team wants to screw over a player with an NTC ... good luck getting the agents to send you players.
|
|
|
Post by SteveUL on Dec 6, 2014 16:15:24 GMT -4
They didn't want to piss off the player, Bathurst isn't a wanted destination for most players. Bottom line if Halifax wants to sell, I'm sure Ehlers would probably prefer to go to a contender regardless of NTC. How could they piss off a player if they gave out an illegal clause? I'm not sure if you're saying teams give out legal no trade clauses which are not enforced or are giving out illegal no trade clauses that are enforced through not wanting to upset the player. I've never seen a Q player contract, but in the OHL some players have NTC's specifically written into their SPC with clear rules in terms of how the NTC is to be enforced. I fail to understand how that may be illegal in a legal document. Its not illegal ... just not recognized by the league ... so the league won't stop a trade because of the NTC. Good agents know how to make it work though.
|
|
|
Post by mooseinfo on Dec 6, 2014 22:48:38 GMT -4
So after quite a good run losing to SJ puts Hfx back down to 14th place with 3 teams not far behind. Fucale and Ehlers are now gone until at least the 31st. Depending on the playoffs hopefully a little longer for Fucale. Meier leaves after the game on the 18th so will not miss as much but swiss usually more competitive so who knows maybe a little longer.
That is about 7 games HFX is going to face a uphill battle. Bathurst is the one team that the Moose are playing over this time that could give a few wins anyway, depending more on Resop of course. with that in mind the Moose could be in 2nd last by the time Fucale gets back.
Dom was saying on Post game happy with players and progress but not his decision on trades. He also mentioned him, Smith, Russell to sit down in the next few days to go over the options. Looks like they may be late to the party if Moncton continues to dump along with volts who have goalie to go.
As Moore mentioned adding to contend seems like least likely option. Certainly Quebec did not have enough for a buy on say a Ehlers but talk now that Shawin is loading with perhaps Moncton doing more deals. Sags also have improved with new Coach/GM and he certainly knows how to deal with a team full of 19yr olds, not sure he has any choice at this point to sell. Gatineau may continue to buy as well if their GM is in last year.
|
|
|
Post by crash on Dec 9, 2014 11:41:22 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by paulmcswain on Dec 9, 2014 12:20:20 GMT -4
I'm not too worried about the buy option. Russell didn't buy last year with a much better and deeper squad then he has now. To see him buy with this group would be a shocking turn about from last year's stance.
The stand pat option is what worries me. The Moose have some A-list talent no doubt about it. However, there are intangibles with almost all of their trade bait that I worry will make Russell opt to hold onto them.
With Fucale, you can't get a ransom if no contender is seriously wanting to upgrade their goaltending. If there were 2-3 teams at the top who lacked a number one goalie, I have no doubt Russell would sell to the highest bidder. But he may be forced into a situation where he gets less than market value, or keeps him.
With Ehlers, again, obviously one the best, if not the best in the league. Howeer him being European dampens his value. No doubt somebody would pay. But what are they going to offer? From the Mooseheads stand point, they want to acquire assets worthy of a top of the league talent. But from other teams standpoints, they will want to pay the cost associated from upgrading from a solid player to a stud, not just adding the stud. With a trading partner having to give up another quality player (releasing a 2nd euro), that may impact what we get offered, and ultimately if we make a move.
Gadoury may have value, but honestly how much will a contender offer for a small upgrade on what they already have?
The most likely guy to move I believe is Murphy. He is playing better lately, and with a smaller market for defenseman and him not being 20, a team could add without having to subtract something significant. Of all the trade chips we have, he has the best shot at bringing in market to above market value.
I hope we can add a significant haul for our future with some of the above guys, but I fear reading quotes from Russell that the offers were not strong enough
|
|
|
Post by CrazyJoeDavola on Dec 9, 2014 12:25:55 GMT -4
Agree with Cochrane, as I think most do around here. Just because we have been playing better lately does not mean we should be tricked into standing pat or making a run by spending assets. The argument that 2 teams make it into the Memorial Cup tourney isn't that appealing to me if we don't have a team that could represent itself well at the tournament. I don't really want to win that tournament through the back door either. Even if the market is soft, trade a few guys and take what you can get. Even if you only got 3 first round picks in total (extreme low return for example) for Murphy, Ehlers and Fucale - it's 3 first round picks we have to build with when those guys are gone next year, as well as Hardie and Gadoury (Muprhy likely back but still). On defense we have 2 veterans, a serviceable 2nd year guy in Lussier - and then all rookies and not star prospects by any means. Up front we are basically a 1 line team. There are too many holes to make it to the league finals and even if we did, losing the league finals isn't fun, and neither is losing badly on a National stage.
|
|
|
Post by mooseinfo on Dec 9, 2014 12:27:26 GMT -4
I'm not too worried about the buy option. Russell didn't buy last year with a much better and deeper squad then he has now. To see him buy with this group would be a shocking turn about from last year's stance. The stand pat option is what worries me. The Moose have some A-list talent no doubt about it. However, there are intangibles with almost all of their trade bait that I worry will make Russell opt to hold onto them. With Fucale, you can't get a ransom if no contender is seriously wanting to upgrade their goaltending. If there were 2-3 teams at the top who lacked a number one goalie, I have no doubt Russell would sell to the highest bidder. But he may be forced into a situation where he gets less than market value, or keeps him. With Ehlers, again, obviously one the best, if not the best in the league. Howeer him being European dampens his value. No doubt somebody would pay. But what are they going to offer? From the Mooseheads stand point, they want to acquire assets worthy of a top of the league talent. But from other teams standpoints, they will want to pay the cost associated from upgrading from a solid player to a stud, not just adding the stud. With a trading partner having to give up another quality player (releasing a 2nd euro), that may impact what we get offered, and ultimately if we make a move. Gadoury may have value, but honestly how much will a contender offer for a small upgrade on what they already have? The most likely guy to move I believe is Murphy. He is playing better lately, and with a smaller market for defenseman and him not being 20, a team could add without having to subtract something significant. Of all the trade chips we have, he has the best shot at bringing in market to above market value. I hope we can add a significant haul for our future with some of the above guys, but I fear reading quotes from Russell that the offers were not strong enough A couple more teams will need to jump in big to get the prices up and it could be a long trade period for the Moose as it may turn into a last minute sell to get the right return.
|
|
|
Post by crash on Dec 9, 2014 12:39:49 GMT -4
Agree with Cochrane, as I think most do around here. Just because we have been playing better lately does not mean we should be tricked into standing pat or making a run by spending assets. The argument that 2 teams make it into the Memorial Cup tourney isn't that appealing to me if we don't have a team that could represent itself well at the tournament. I don't really want to win that tournament through the back door either. Even if the market is soft, trade a few guys and take what you can get. Even if you only got 3 first round picks in total (extreme low return for example) for Murphy, Ehlers and Fucale - it's 3 first round picks we have to build with when those guys are gone next year, as well as Hardie and Gadoury (Muprhy likely back but still). On defense we have 2 veterans, a serviceable 2nd year guy in Lussier - and then all rookies and not star prospects by any means. Up front we are basically a 1 line team. There are too many holes to make it to the league finals and even if we did, losing the league finals isn't fun, and neither is losing badly on a National stage. Even Johnny Moore doesn't think the Moose should be buyers and he is always a rah-rah guy re the Moose. On his post-game show in answer to a caller who thought they just needed to add a few pieces to challenge for the top, Moore suggested the team was playing over its head. I hope both he and Willy have been talking with Cam, and they are both reflecting Cam's views.
|
|
|
Post by mooseinfo on Dec 9, 2014 12:54:41 GMT -4
Agree with Cochrane, as I think most do around here. Just because we have been playing better lately does not mean we should be tricked into standing pat or making a run by spending assets. The argument that 2 teams make it into the Memorial Cup tourney isn't that appealing to me if we don't have a team that could represent itself well at the tournament. I don't really want to win that tournament through the back door either. Even if the market is soft, trade a few guys and take what you can get. Even if you only got 3 first round picks in total (extreme low return for example) for Murphy, Ehlers and Fucale - it's 3 first round picks we have to build with when those guys are gone next year, as well as Hardie and Gadoury (Muprhy likely back but still). On defense we have 2 veterans, a serviceable 2nd year guy in Lussier - and then all rookies and not star prospects by any means. Up front we are basically a 1 line team. There are too many holes to make it to the league finals and even if we did, losing the league finals isn't fun, and neither is losing badly on a National stage. Even Johnny Moore doesn't think the Moose should be buyers and he is always a rah-rah guy re the Moose. On his post-game show in answer to a caller who thought they just needed to add a few pieces to challenge for the top, Moore suggested the team was playing over its head. I hope both he and Willy have been talking with Cam, and they are both reflecting Cam's views. Just looking what it took last time to be on top it is almost a have to sell. Sure they had less assets to sell starting the rebuild last time but they finished low enough to get good picks. If they don't use those extra assets they are going backward to year one of the last rebuild. Selling to stay at or drop in the standings is part of the importance of cashing in. I am hopeful that the Sags go in big, they set up as a perfect trading partner for the Moose. That's unless someone else beats them to it. Edit: Just looked at the trade site and sags picked up 20 yr old D from Shawin.
|
|
|
Post by Jacques Strap on Dec 9, 2014 13:01:48 GMT -4
So if there are not buyers for Fucale early on and you get an offer on Jan 6/15 for say a 2nd rounder and another lower pick for Fucale, do u go for it? I think I would.
|
|
|
Post by Murph on Dec 9, 2014 13:47:02 GMT -4
I think you're going to see Fucale in Quebec. Booth being the asset coming back the other way. What (if any) other assets are involved in the deal will tell the tale. I doubt Russell will miss on that. The issue will be Ehlers. I think they absolutely need to deal him. Even if he returns to the Q next year, you'd be passing on a very good import pick, and having both he and Meier in their final year. To me, whether or not he's in Winnipeg or not is an irrelevant argument. There are enough pros to dealing him even if he does return. Rimouski could certainly drop Nasybullin to make room, and Halifax could add Murphy into the deal to offset and upgrade their defence. Rimouski have the assets to pull off a large deal like that.
|
|
|
Post by Citris on Dec 9, 2014 15:28:25 GMT -4
I would hope the recent hot streak will only serve to remind other GMs across the league that a hot Fucale/Ehlers can take a 15th place team and make it have one of the best records in the league over the last month and a bit.
As painful as it would be to lose those guys, it's time for the winds of change to blow through. We have nothing for the future if we don't make some deals.
|
|