“I don’t think Melnyk really expects to get his money back,” said a league executive. “I do think he wants to cause Heatley some hardship because he caused plenty of problems for the Senators in the summer.”
Quote:
Sources say Melnyk contends in the paperwork filed at the NHL’s New York headquarters, that Heatley’s camp — including agents J.P. Barry and Stacey McAlpine — gave the Senators permission to speak with the Oilers and the two-time, 50-goal scorer should have accepted the deal to Edmonton.
Quote:
“He doesn’t like to lose. He’s going to have to be patient here because this could take a while and there is some merit to his case,” said a league executive. “Something like this could take two years to be worked out. I’m not sure this will bother Heatley, though.”
Quote:
Once the Edmonton deal died, Senators GM Bryan Murray found it difficult to put another trade together. The Senators decided they had to make a deal when Heatley showed up for training camp defiant and unwilling to bend onhis demand. The league executive said there’s a chance the Sharks could be forced to pay the bonus back to Melnyk if he wins his grievance. San Jose made an offer for Heatley at the NHL draft in June, but only wanted to complete the deal on July 2 — after the bonus had been paid
Here is a novel concept for all you GM/owners out there. If you don't like the fact that a player used his rights in a contract to deny a trade, how about not signing said player to a contract that gives him that right, I.E. the no movement clause you agreed to?
There's nothing in this that I see going anywhere. In the end i see this costing Melnyk more money because Heatley's agent will probably make him pay for all the legal fees for wasting everyone's time.
Bill Daly indicated in the summer that Melynk has a good case.
Based on what? Heatly exercised a right that his contract gave him. Sucks that the Sens had to eat the cost (among other bad things about the situation, but that's the relevant one here), but they couldn't find a team that wanted him (at their price) before THEY were the ones on the hook for $4mil. I don't really understand where a case comes from.
To me, it does seem more like a power play to punish Heatley and distract him from playing hockey.
I think if you ask to be traded that should waive your no movement clause and a team can send you anywhere.
If you get a no movement clause in your contract that should protect you from the team moving you against your will, not against deciding where you get moved to
I think if you ask to be traded that should waive your no movement clause and a team can send you anywhere.
If you get a no movement clause in your contract that should protect you from the team moving you against your will, not against deciding where you get moved to
Well the way it works right now that is just not the case, besides a team does not have to offer a NTC, but if they do offer it, they had better be prepared to deal with any potential situations that arise.
I think if you ask to be traded that should waive your no movement clause and a team can send you anywhere.
So the org could just spite the player and dump them somewhere terrible that they don't want to go? We don't know why Heatley wanted out (there's speculation and the answer to the media, but that could be not the real reason).
But let's step back and look at someone who is very unhappy with a new coach (a situation out of their control) and asks to be traded while they have a NMC. We can reasonably assume they asked for the NMC because they liked the organization, now they don't. The NMC was to control the organization they played for, should they lose that ability because the organization changed? I think that the players intent on a NMC is reasonable, and that GMs shouldn't be seeing them as a 1 mil (or whatever) discount with no cost to the ownership. It means that the player has given up some salary to reclaim some control of their destiny.
The lesson from this situation should be that GM should be much more careful about handing out NTC/NMC. Not that the clauses should be neutered to be more owner friendly.
To me, it does seem more like a power play to punish Heatley and distract him from playing hockey.
Yes, everything is a giant conspiracy meant to hurt the Sharks... never mind that it's pretty clear Heatley gamed the NTC system to ensure he wound up in San Jose.
Mod: deleted.
Last edited by Fugu: 11-03-2009 at 11:50 PM.
Reason: OT
I think if you ask to be traded that should waive your no movement clause and a team can send you anywhere.
If you get a no movement clause in your contract that should protect you from the team moving you against your will, not against deciding where you get moved to
well I hate to break it to you, but the reason it is there is so the player can decide where he wants to play.
I think the important thing people are forgetting here is that Heatley allowed Ottawa to discuss a trade with the Oilers. In denying that trade, he was just screwing with the Sens, nothing to defend there.
In my opinion, THAT is what makes him a ******* here.
Here is a novel concept for all you GM/owners out there. If you don't like the fact that a player used his rights in a contract to deny a trade, how about not signing said player to a contract that gives him that right, I.E. the no movement clause you agreed to?
There's nothing in this that I see going anywhere. In the end i see this costing Melnyk more money because Heatley's agent will probably make him pay for all the legal fees for wasting everyone's time.
You skipped the part where he demanded the trade. I think the NTC is there in spirit to protect a player from being blindsided. I don't think it was intended to give a player control over an organization. I don't have any personal interest whatsoever in either team, but I do think it's unfair that the Senators basically lose in every way: cash, and value for a player. If a player wants out he should have to eat some of the damage as well, like by waiving his NTC.
I think if you ask to be traded that should waive your no movement clause and a team can send you anywhere.
If you get a no movement clause in your contract that should protect you from the team moving you against your will, not against deciding where you get moved to
I agree. But won't happen till next CBA at earliest.
Yes, everything is a giant conspiracy meant to hurt the Sharks... never mind that it's pretty clear Heatley gamed the NTC system to ensure he wound up in San Jose.
Here I was thinking it was pretty clear that Heatley gamed the NTC system to ensure he'd end up somewhere he wanted. Which as I have said before is a very non-subtle thing about the NTC, it means very clearly that the player has this right.
And do you really believe that players are just banging down the doors to play in San Jose? If you read the main boards, about people invoking NTC's, you'll see a good number of players who invoked their NTC NOT to go to SJ.
I don't really think it's about Ottowa trying to mess with San Jose, as it is a spurned owner who had a dramatic summer, trying to get back at the player that was at the center of that situation. I think it'd be the same thing if Heatley had gone anywhere else.
Mod: deleted.
Last edited by Fugu: 11-03-2009 at 11:49 PM.
Reason: qep
The problem here is that Heatley refusing the trade cost the Sens 4 million that they should not have had to pay him. To me it's obvious that the Sens should not be on the hook for that after he asks for a trade then is traded but refuses the trade thus making the sens pay him his 4 million.
Its 4 million bucks. He wants his money back, and he will most likely get it.
So causing drama is cool when the sens do it, but not heatley.
Awesome.
Slash: I really am still very unconvinced that he will succeed in this suit. In very simple terms, Heatley had a NMC, Heatley invoked said NMC and nixed Edmonton.
There's been a discussion on what the NMC SHOULD mean, but the reason that is happening is because it doesn't currently have that meaning.
Heatley said they could talk to Edmonton, but did he say that he would waive the NMC to go there? Or was his intent to let the Sens gauge how much they could get for him in this drama? I don't know. But I think as long as you have a NMC/NTC, there is no "should" about agreeing to a deal. And that's where the real issue is.
It could be that Heatley had added edmonton to the list because he wanted to play with certain players, but they were to be in the package that was sent to the Sens. In that case, the reason that Edmonton was on the list is destroyed, and it's well within Heatley's right to nix that trade.
So causing drama is cool when the sens do it, but not heatley.
Awesome.
Slash: I really am still very unconvinced that he will succeed in this suit. In very simple terms, Heatley had a NMC, Heatley invoked said NMC and nixed Edmonton.
There's been a discussion on what the NMC SHOULD mean, but the reason that is happening is because it doesn't currently have that meaning.
Heatley said they could talk to Edmonton, but did he say that he would waive the NMC to go there? Or was his intent to let the Sens gauge how much they could get for him in this drama? I don't know. But I think as long as you have a NMC/NTC, there is no "should" about agreeing to a deal. And that's where the real issue is.
It could be that Heatley had added edmonton to the list because he wanted to play with certain players, but they were to be in the package that was sent to the Sens. In that case, the reason that Edmonton was on the list is destroyed, and it's well within Heatley's right to nix that trade.
Thanks for grasping at straws on the last part. hahah.
Heatley was toying with everyone. He knew what team he wanted and abused the "power" that came with a NMC. Was he "entitled" to, yes perhaps. But was it a classless move-absolutely.
The only reason you back him up on his charade is because he plays for your team. Imagine if Jumbo Joe did that....
