Around the NHL - 2013-2014

[Hoss]

 

 

 

Maybe if they got caught but they wouldnt. There could easily be a gentleman agreement between Ryan and Pat

 

As soon as Miller's new team tries to engage negotiations and fails miserably, they'd ask for an investigation. Then the investigation would find the truth.

These things aren't easy to hide. Not today.

 

ESPECIALLY when there will likely be some more turn over in the franchise. When you have people leaving the organization then it won't be hard to get them to talk.

Everything gets out these days.

[FolignosJock]

As soon as Miller's new team tries to engage negotiations and fails miserably, they'd ask for an investigation. Then the investigation would find the truth.

These things aren't easy to hide. Not today.

 

ESPECIALLY when there will likely be some more turn over in the franchise. When you have people leaving the organization then it won't be hard to get them to talk.

Everything gets out these days.

 

No it wont. It has happened before and it will happen again. It is well within Millers rights to re-sign here. The players union wouldnt allow an investigation, just like they didnt allow an investigation when Tkachuk did it.

[Campy]

It is! I live right around the corner from CNU. I have exhausted my search and while there was talk of putting in a Weight/Recchi/Tkachuk rule it has never happened. The Players Union would never allow it and Unrestricted Free agency is just that.... UNRESTRICTED

 

Cool, thanks! :thumbsup:

[Assquatch]

As soon as Miller's new team tries to engage negotiations and fails miserably, they'd ask for an investigation. Then the investigation would find the truth.

These things aren't easy to hide. Not today.

 

ESPECIALLY when there will likely be some more turn over in the franchise. When you have people leaving the organization then it won't be hard to get them to talk.

Everything gets out these days.

 

The idea that there should be an investigation when a team is stonewalled negotiating with one of their rentals is pretty out-there.

[Hoss]

 

 

The idea that there should be an investigation when a team is stonewalled negotiating with one of their rentals is pretty out-there.

 

Except when it's obvious that there was never intention to sign and a previous agreement was already in place.

 

Reporters these days find out everything. It's not worth the risk.

[Weave]

Except when it's obvious that there was never intention to sign and a previous agreement was already in place.

 

Reporters these days find out everything. It's not worth the risk.

 

You folks are still talking about trading Mller and then resigning him in the offseason, right? Chz sez it's legal. She's insider enough that I'd believe what she says.

[Eleven]

You folks are still talking about trading Mller and then resigning him in the offseason, right? Chz sez it's legal. She's insider enough that I'd believe what she says.

 

Totally legal. I think the Blues did this with Tkatchuk at least seven or eight times.

[LTS]

Yep. There's nothing that prevents the Sabres from talking to their players who are currently under contract. They simply get the contract that the player wants and tell them that they are willing to pay. However, because they respect their position as an impending UFA and what they have done for the team they would be willing to trade them as a rental to a high-contending team for a shot at the Cup. There's always the risk but I'm certain the Sabres could pay Ott and Miller a premium based on their willingness to do it.

 

Of course Ott and Miller would have to know what the trade would bring back to Buffalo. I think it's more of a chance with Ott than MIller, but Miller has been here forever and by all appearances the teams he'd be most interested in joining are not seeking goaltending.

[Hoss]

 

 

You folks are still talking about trading Mller and then resigning him in the offseason, right? Chz sez it's legal. She's insider enough that I'd believe what she says.

 

Nobody is saying it's illegal. What's illegal is agreeing to a deal that will be signed after he is traded elsewhere without them knowing is illegal and would be penalized if caught.

[dEnnis the Menace]

Nobody is saying it's illegal. What's illegal is agreeing to a deal that will be signed after he is traded elsewhere without them knowing is illegal and would be penalized if caught.

 

:blink: Why is that illegal? he'd be a rental player...

[Hoss]

 

 

:blink: Why is that illegal? he'd be a rental player...

 

There's nothing wrong with them trading and then resigning him. There is something wrong with them agreeing to a contract that will be signed in the offseason after he is traded. That's collusion.

 

I'm at work right now. If I get the time later I'll try to find a specific example. I've heard it as collusion as it tricks teams into giving up assets with the hopes that they can resign a player that they cannot due to a prior secret agreement.

Edited January 3, 2014 by DStebb

[MattPie]

:blink: Why is that illegal? he'd be a rental player...

 

There's probably a matter of degree in there. If you had a deal all drawn up ahead of time then *maybe* the NHL would be upset. If PLF just says, "We're trading you, but please don't sign anything in UFA until you've seen our offer." would seem to be OK.

[dEnnis the Menace]

There's nothing wrong with them trading and then resigning him. There is something wrong with them agreeing to a contract that will be signed in the offseason after he is traded. That's collusion.

 

I now get what you are saying vs what others are saying. I was getting a little confused.

 

There's probably a matter of degree in there. If you had a deal all drawn up ahead of time then *maybe* the NHL would be upset. If PLF just says, "We're trading you, but please don't sign anything in UFA until you've seen our offer." would seem to be OK.

 

agreed

[TrueBlueGED]

There's probably a matter of degree in there. If you had a deal all drawn up ahead of time then *maybe* the NHL would be upset. If PLF just says, "We're trading you, but please don't sign anything in UFA until you've seen our offer." would seem to be OK.

 

Another wrinkle to put into this discussion: it's not what you know, it's what you can prove. Proving the Sabres and Miller had an agreement in place before he was traded would not be an easy thing to do.

[Hoss]

 

 

Another wrinkle to put into this discussion: it's not what you know, it's what you can prove. Proving the Sabres and Miller had an agreement in place before he was traded would not be an easy thing to do.

 

It wouldn't be, but they would certainly look hard into it. The way reporters get ahold of information these days I wouldn't expect a real investigator to miss it. I just don't think it's worth the REMOTE risk of forfeiture of draft picks in 2015.

[Weave]

Another wrinkle to put into this discussion: it's not what you know, it's what you can prove. Proving the Sabres and Miller had an agreement in place before he was traded would not be an easy thing to do.

 

The NHL doesn't require the level of proof the courts do. I think the NHL simply believing it may be true would be "proof" enough.

 

And the only way I think what Dstebb is talking about is against the rules is if there is an intent to deceive. You would be trading a player that is totally unrestricted at the end of the year. I'm not sure how it would be deceiving to get another team to believe there is a likely chance that the player is gone somewhere (anywhere) at the end of the season.

[TrueBlueGED]

The NHL doesn't require the level of proof the courts do. I think the NHL simply believing it may be true would be "proof" enough.

 

And the only way I think what Dstebb is talking about is against the rules is if there is an intent to deceive. You would be trading a player that is totally unrestricted at the end of the year. I'm not sure how it would be deceiving to get another team to believe there is a likely chance that the player is gone somewhere (anywhere) at the end of the season.

 

This is true. However, UFAs routinely sign contracts 3.17567 seconds (approximately :P ) after free agency opens, and I don't recall the NHL batting an eyelash. I think it'd be even less likely the NHL investigates now that there's a "conversation" window before free agency begins.

[Weave]

This is true. However, UFAs routinely sign contracts 3.17567 seconds (approximately :P ) after free agency opens, and I don't recall the NHL batting an eyelash. I think it'd be even less likely the NHL investigates now that there's a "conversation" window before free agency begins.

 

Oh, I agree completely. I don't think there is any incentive for the league to investigate a traded UFA resigning with the team that traded him. and there are plenty of examples in the past to back that up.

[biodork]

Shane Doan given the all-clear to return; likely to play Saturday

 

Good news for the Coyotes. That'll be a great morale-booster for the team to have him back in the lineup, even if his conditioning isn't quite full-strength.

[Hoss]

 

 

Oh, I agree completely. I don't think there is any incentive for the league to investigate a traded UFA resigning with the team that traded him. and there are plenty of examples in the past to back that up.

 

Are there a lot of examples where a rental was traded and then quickly resigned with his former team that offseason without at least talking to other teams first? Doubt it.

 

With the way the league has been sensitive about cap circumventing and trades and other collusion lately, I don't think there's one fair example in modern years.

 

I just don't think it's worth any remote risk anywhere. I don't think we have any players worth that kind of hassle either.

Edited January 4, 2014 by DStebb

[Weave]

Are there a lot of examples where a rental was traded and then quickly resigned with his former team that offseason without at least talking to other teams first? Doubt it.

 

Keith Tkatchuk was already mentioned in this thread as a guy who was traded going into UFA and signed by the team that traded him. Signed early on day 1. It was pretty obvious what St. Louis did. That's one off the top of my head and Tkatchuk was still a top, in demand player at the time.

[Hoss]

 

 

Keith Tkatchuk was already mentioned in this thread as a guy who was traded going into UFA and signed by the team that traded him. Signed early on day 1. It was pretty obvious what St. Louis did. That's one off the top of my head and Tkatchuk was still a top, in demand player at the time.

 

Yea, that's one example from 06-07. Six years later the league is certainly different. An entirely new CBA has been signed.

[Weave]

Yea, that's one example from 06-07. Six years later the league is certainly different. An entirely new CBA has been signed.

 

You said you wanted one example from the modern years. No fair moving the goal posts while the ball is in the air. Besides, where is it in the CBA that it can't be done anyway?

 

I'm sure that players wanting to go back to the team that traded them is rare enough as it is, let alone wanting to enough to not entertain other offers. Frankly, the idea that we trade Miller then convince him to negotiate first with us is a pipe dream anyway.

Edited January 4, 2014 by weave

[dudacek]

An unrestricted free agent is an unrestricted free agent, free to sign wherever he wants.

Any team acquiring one knows they are taking that risk.

 

If there was a binding agreement in place before the trade, sure that should cause problems.

So therefore, there wouldn't be a binding agreement. Either Miller, or the Sabres could go in another direction come July 1.

 

It's happened before and It's not that complicated.

[Darryl Shannon's +/-]

An unrestricted free agent is an unrestricted free agent, free to sign wherever he wants.

Any team acquiring one knows they are taking that risk.

 

If there was a binding agreement in place before the trade, sure that should cause problems.

So therefore, there wouldn't be a binding agreement. Either Miller, or the Sabres could go in another direction come July 1.

 

It's happened before and It's not that complicated.

 

A binding agreement if you trade someone at the deadline makes no sense for both sides. A player could outperform and make themselves more marketable, or they could get hurt or perform horribly. There is risk on both sides.

 

I don't know if informal discussions about the possibility of returning after being traded to a team of their choosing is technically wrong?