Jagr vs Iginla

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chowdahkid-. Show Chowdahkid-'s posts

    Re: Jagr vs Iginla

    In response to JWensink's comment:

    Feaster was given an offer from Chiarelli that was easy to walk away from, and easy enough for Pitt to get themselves a shot at the table in the 1st place - that's the point.

    [/QUOTE]

    You have so many errors in your posts ........it's ridiculous.

    Feaster agreed to Chiarelli's offer .........he didn't walk away from it.

    This is a known fact........the reason for all the talk that went on back then.





     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from JWensink. Show JWensink's posts

    Re: Jagr vs Iginla

    In response to Chowdahkid-'s comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to JWensink's comment:

    He ended up in Pitt because he was offered a choice- which has absolutely nothing to do with a NMC.

     


    -------

     



    Totally false. 

    Players NTC's contain clauses that give the player ( or teams ) to choose a number of destinations in the event of a possible trade. 

    Iginla ( from what I remember ) had a full NTC which means he didn't have to go anywhere unless he said so.

    All one has to do is go to capgeek.com and it shows the stipulations of  different players. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Seriously...what is wrong with you ? I'm not disputing that.

    But that doesn't mean that the team he is under contract with has any obligation to trade him to where he'd rather go.

    Those are two separate issues.

    A NMC doesn't mean that a player gets to choose a destination that dictates to the team that holds his contract to make a deal on.

    It only means he gets to decline to go somewhere.

    Just because he declined Boston -  Does not mean his contract called for him to be moved anywhere - that does not in any way mean Calgary was contractually obligated by a NMC to trade him to Pitt or anybody else.

     

    What don't you get ?

     

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chowdahkid-. Show Chowdahkid-'s posts

    Re: Jagr vs Iginla

    In response to JWensink's comment:

    A NMC doesn't mean that a player gets to choose a destination that dictates to the team that holds his contract to make a deal on.

     

     -----------------


    Once again you are totally wrong.

    Go to capgeek.com ..............it shows the clauses ( number of teams the player { or team } gets to choose )......some get to choose 4 teams of their choice......some 8 .......others 12........ etc.

    And in Iginla's case he had a full NTC which means he gets to choose anywhere or stay in Calgary.

    You obviously don't know what you're talking about when you say this . It is 100% false. 




    A small example:  Francois Beauchemin ( his choice ) and there are many, many  more.



    CLAUSES: NMC/Modified NTC (submits 12-team trade list each June 15)


     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from JWensink. Show JWensink's posts

    Re: Jagr vs Iginla

    Yep - in your world a players choice means that the team he is under contract with has to trade him due to a NMC

    Ok got it - so movement, now means no movement

     

    did ya hear the one about the hockey player that was moved due to a no movement clause

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from bostonfan191646. Show bostonfan191646's posts

    Re: Jagr vs Iginla

    In response to JWensink's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Yep - in your world a players choice means that the team he is under contract with has to trade him due to a NMC

    Ok got it - so movement, now means no movement

     

    did ya hear the one about the hockey player that was moved due to a no movement clause

    [/QUOTE]

    question. if iginla had no form of a NMC what team do you think feaster would have picked to trade him to (between pittsburgh and boston)?

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chowdahkid-. Show Chowdahkid-'s posts

    Re: Jagr vs Iginla

    In response to JWensink's comment:

    Yep - in your world a players choice means that the team he is under contract with has to trade him due to a NMC

    Ok got it - so movement, now means no movement

     

    did ya hear the one about the hockey player that was moved due to a no movement clause

    And yes this can happen also if a player agrees to it......but not due to.



     Not my world ........the hockey world.

    There are modified NMC's which a ton of players have.

    When it says NMC it means....... no trade..... no minors with varying terms for some. They still can be moved abiding to those contracts with those terms in mind.

    Got it now ? I doubt it.

    P.S. When you get in to a conversation you need to know what you're talking about. NTC/NMC's are in the grade one classes of contracts. 


     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chowdahkid-. Show Chowdahkid-'s posts

    Re: Jagr vs Iginla

    In response to bostonfan191646's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to JWensink's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Yep - in your world a players choice means that the team he is under contract with has to trade him due to a NMC

    Ok got it - so movement, now means no movement

     

    did ya hear the one about the hockey player that was moved due to a no movement clause

    [/QUOTE]

    question. if iginla had no form of a NMC what team do you think feaster would have picked to trade him to (between pittsburgh and boston)?

    [/QUOTE]


    That question was already answered when Feaster chose the Bruins deal first.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from mxt. Show mxt's posts

    Re: Jagr vs Iginla

    Didn't we all discuss this to death last year? I'm happy we have Iggy now.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from bostonfan191646. Show bostonfan191646's posts

    Re: Jagr vs Iginla

    In response to Chowdahkid-'s comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to bostonfan191646's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to JWensink's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Yep - in your world a players choice means that the team he is under contract with has to trade him due to a NMC

    Ok got it - so movement, now means no movement

     

    did ya hear the one about the hockey player that was moved due to a no movement clause

    [/QUOTE]

    question. if iginla had no form of a NMC what team do you think feaster would have picked to trade him to (between pittsburgh and boston)?

    [/QUOTE]


    That question was already answered when Feaster chose the Bruins deal first.

    [/QUOTE]

    i'd like to hear his answer. I have a line of questioning that might get him to realize his craziness. 

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chowdahkid-. Show Chowdahkid-'s posts

    Re: Jagr vs Iginla

    In response to mxt's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Didn't we all discuss this to death last year? I'm happy we have Iggy now.

    [/QUOTE]

    Yes JWensink and all the rest of us did. 

    Hopefully, my explanation of the NTC/NMC has helped him. But if I was a betting man ..............

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chowdahkid-. Show Chowdahkid-'s posts

    Re: Jagr vs Iginla

    In response to bostonfan191646's comment:


    i'd like to hear his answer. I have a line of questioning that might get him to realize his craziness. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Sorry........hopefully your questioning works better then my explaining.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from bostonfan191646. Show bostonfan191646's posts

    Re: Jagr vs Iginla

    In response to Chowdahkid-'s comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to bostonfan191646's comment:


    i'd like to hear his answer. I have a line of questioning that might get him to realize his craziness. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Sorry........hopefully your questioning works better then my explaining.

    [/QUOTE]

    you're explaining should have worked. as should most explanations on this thread. i'm going to try to use a method used with 3rd graders where you try to let them get there on their own with some leading questions. 

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: Jagr vs Iginla

    In response to mxt's comment:[QUOTE]

    Didn't we all discuss this to death last year? I'm happy we have Iggy now. [/QUOTE]


    Shup hates him Laughing

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chowdahkid-. Show Chowdahkid-'s posts

    Re: Jagr vs Iginla

    In response to SanDogBrewin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to mxt's comment:[QUOTE]

    Didn't we all discuss this to death last year? I'm happy we have Iggy now. [/QUOTE]


    Shup hates him Laughing

    [/QUOTE]

    Seriously, why do you really hate him ? 

    There's more to it then meets the eye. It's obviously not his play. He has done the job for the Bruins ( except in your eyes )

    I can think of only these things.

    a) past snub of the Bruins

    or 

    b) primary assist on Crosby's golden goal which denied the USA the gold medal.

    or

    c) both

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from JWensink. Show JWensink's posts

    Re: Jagr vs Iginla

    In response to bostonfan191646's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Chowdahkid-'s comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to bostonfan191646's comment:


    i'd like to hear his answer. I have a line of questioning that might get him to realize his craziness. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Sorry........hopefully your questioning works better then my explaining.

    [/QUOTE]

    you're explaining should have worked. as should most explanations on this thread. i'm going to try to use a method used with 3rd graders where you try to let them get there on their own with some leading questions. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Hey Junior...here's a leading question

    Are you stating that Feaster had to trade Iginla because of a NO TRADE CLAUSE ?

     

    a) yes

    B) no

     

    I'll guarantee you won't answer

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Jagr vs Iginla

    Jwensink, I have nothing against you whatsoever as a poster here.  Like everyone else, I agree with some stuff, and disagree with others. 

    Seriously though, there's no room for interpretation in this Iginla deal last year.  It's all out in the open, there's agreement from all sides on how it went down.  You're insistence in screaming the Bruins screwed up in some way are totally off base.  There are few things in the hockey universe that are more clear.

    Accept them, and move on. 

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from JWensink. Show JWensink's posts

    Re: Jagr vs Iginla

    In response to stevegm's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Jwensink, I have nothing against you whatsoever as a poster here.  Like everyone else, I agree with some stuff, and disagree with others. 

    Seriously though, there's no room for interpretation in this Iginla deal last year.  It's all out in the open, there's agreement from all sides on how it went down.  You're insistence in screaming the Bruins screwed up in some way are totally off base.  There are few things in the hockey universe that are more clear.

    Accept them, and move on. 

    [/QUOTE]


    Hey steve

    Your thoughts on my status as a poster are irrelevant to me, as is your advice.

    As far as things in the hockey universe being clear or not ...

    My question was whether or not Calgary was obligated to trade Iginla due to his

    NO TRADE CLAUSE.

    Thats a simple yes or no

     

    I totally understand why you chose to ignore it

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Jagr vs Iginla

    First of all, I didn't ignore it.  If you remember, 'I' wasn't asked that question.

    I will answer it for you though.

    No, Calgary was not obligated to trade Iginla due to his NMC.  That has no relevance to anything within this thread.  They could have kept him, and gotten zilch in return a few weeks later, when he signed a new deal elsewhere.  It was a foregone conclusion he wasn't coming back to Calgary in 13/14, and it was also obvious the Flames weren't making last years playoffs.

    So...what does that have to do with Chiarelli and the Bruins.  Boston made the best offer, and Calgary agreed to the deal, without realizing Iginla had to "legally" sign off to a deal with Boston, as opposed to insinuating such earlier.  He decided he was only interested in going to Pittsburgh, so Calgary decided their offer was better than paying Iginla for another few weeks, and getting squat in return.  

     

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from bostonfan191646. Show bostonfan191646's posts

    Re: Jagr vs Iginla

    In response to JWensink's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to bostonfan191646's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Chowdahkid-'s comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to bostonfan191646's comment:


    i'd like to hear his answer. I have a line of questioning that might get him to realize his craziness. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Sorry........hopefully your questioning works better then my explaining.

    [/QUOTE]

    you're explaining should have worked. as should most explanations on this thread. i'm going to try to use a method used with 3rd graders where you try to let them get there on their own with some leading questions. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Hey Junior...here's a leading question

    Are you stating that Feaster had to trade Iginla because of a NO TRADE CLAUSE ?

     

    a) yes

    B) no

     

    I'll guarantee you won't answer

    [/QUOTE]

    you've acted high and mighty, but you won't answer a simple question. I'll ask again. If Iginla didn't have any NMC or NTC, which team would Feaster have picked? simple question.

     

    I will answer yours. Its an obvious no. He had to trade iginla because the team was horrible, and he was a pending UFA.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from JWensink. Show JWensink's posts

    Re: Jagr vs Iginla

    In response to stevegm's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    First of all, I didn't ignore it.  If you remember, 'I' wasn't asked that question.

    I will answer it for you though.

    No, Calgary was not obligated to trade Iginla due to his NMC.  That has no relevance to anything within this thread.  They could have kept him, and gotten zilch in return a few weeks later, when he signed a new deal elsewhere.  It was a foregone conclusion he wasn't coming back to Calgary in 13/14, and it was also obvious the Flames weren't making last years playoffs.

    So...what does that have to do with Chiarelli and the Bruins.  Boston made the best offer, and Calgary agreed to the deal, without realizing Iginla had to "legally" sign off to a deal with Boston, as opposed to insinuating such earlier.  He decided he was only interested in going to Pittsburgh, so Calgary decided their offer was better than paying Iginla for another few weeks, and getting squat in return.  

     

    [/QUOTE]

    YES STEVE 

    They are two separate issues.

    I was told many times by just about all on this board to go read what a NTC means. There are even some, who sadly, even went to tortured lengths to show it to me in writing from some website.

    All I've ever have been screaming about is that for all those who state that he was traded to Pitt due to a NTC is not an accurate statement.

    I completely understand how Iginla and Crosby blew up the boston deal by forcing Calgary's hand in employing his NTC.

    Feaster and Calgary were under no obligation to trade Iginla to Pitt due to a NTC !

    And amazingly enough almost a year later and they still don't get it

    If anyone wants to discuss why I feel IMO Chiarelli deserves some of the blame, I'm fine with that.

    But they are two separate conversations.

    How anyone with an IQ above room temp could disagree with that is beyond comprehension

     

     

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from bostonfan191646. Show bostonfan191646's posts

    Re: Jagr vs Iginla

    In response to JWensink's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to stevegm's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    First of all, I didn't ignore it.  If you remember, 'I' wasn't asked that question.

    I will answer it for you though.

    No, Calgary was not obligated to trade Iginla due to his NMC.  That has no relevance to anything within this thread.  They could have kept him, and gotten zilch in return a few weeks later, when he signed a new deal elsewhere.  It was a foregone conclusion he wasn't coming back to Calgary in 13/14, and it was also obvious the Flames weren't making last years playoffs.

    So...what does that have to do with Chiarelli and the Bruins.  Boston made the best offer, and Calgary agreed to the deal, without realizing Iginla had to "legally" sign off to a deal with Boston, as opposed to insinuating such earlier.  He decided he was only interested in going to Pittsburgh, so Calgary decided their offer was better than paying Iginla for another few weeks, and getting squat in return.  

     

    [/QUOTE]

    YES STEVE 

    They are two separate issues.

    I was told many times by just about all on this board to go read what a NTC means. There are even some, who sadly, even went to tortured lengths to show it to me in writing from some website.

    All I've ever have been screaming about is that for all those who state that he was traded to Pitt due to a NTC is not an accurate statement.

    I completely understand how Iginla and Crosby blew up the boston deal by forcing Calgary's hand in employing his NTC.

    Feaster and Calgary were under no obligation to trade Iginla to Pitt due to a NTC !

    And amazingly enough almost a year later and they still don't get it

    If anyone wants to discuss why I feel IMO Chiarelli deserves some of the blame, I'm fine with that.

    But they are two separate conversations.

    How anyone with an IQ above room temp could disagree with that is beyond comprehension

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    answer my question you coward: if iginla didn't have an NMC, which deal do you think feaster would have picked?

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from bostonfan191646. Show bostonfan191646's posts

    Re: Jagr vs Iginla

    actually, i'm changing my mind (but still, first answer my question you coward) Feaster was obligated to trade Iginla. If he didn't trade Iginla, it would have been out of spite, and would not have been the best thing for his team. As the general manager he has an obligation to make the best decisions for the team and therefore was obligated to trade iginla. Due to the FACT that Iginla employed his NMC to pick his destination, he was obligated to trade iginla to pittsburgh. coward. 

     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from 50belowzero. Show 50belowzero's posts

    Re: Jagr vs Iginla

    In response to marco0863's comment:

    I haven't really been interested in this thread but let me understand - What ure saying In a nutshell is feaster

    Traded ig to Boston then realized he had a nmc and ig said no which in turn ig was traded to pitt



    In a nutshell.......Feaster accepted a deal with Boston without knowing Iginla had narrowed his choices to one team, thus Feaster traded Iginla to Pitt because thats where he wanted to ultimately go.Knowing that Iginla had a NMC in his contract Feaster complied and took what he could get from Pitt rather than lose him for nothing come the summer and free agency.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from JWensink. Show JWensink's posts

    Re: Jagr vs Iginla

    In response to bostonfan191646's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    actually, i'm changing my mind (but still, first answer my question you coward) Feaster was obligated to trade Iginla. If he didn't trade Iginla, it would have been out of spite, and would not have been the best thing for his team. As the general manager he has an obligation to make the best decisions for the team and therefore was obligated to trade iginla. Due to the FACT that Iginla employed his NMC to pick his destination, he was obligated to trade iginla to pittsburgh. coward. 

    [/QUOTE]



    Feeling obligated is one thing - Being obligated contractually by something stated in writing via a clause is something else. There is no such clause...try to grasp what the word no means in a - no trade clause

    Your question is not valid- it's hypothetical at best, and desperate at worst.

    These are separate discussions. Start another thread if you'd like to discuss the other side of this. Otherwise look up "no" on your computer...you do realize you're unable to comprehend the meaning of a two letter word - something a dolphin can figure out ..right junior ?

    Now go to your room and play video games

     

     

     

     

Share