Leddy on waivers

[somni]

On 101 they make it sound like he refused a trade to SJ, so they waived him for them to claim.

Uh oh that's not going to go over well

Funny enough that was the my first thought, is that San Jose needed to get to the cap floor and could use some serviceable NHL defensemen.

Whoa, I didn't know San Jose was that far from the floor. It would be a good move as they can make a deadline trade. And Leddy would still get played and then play for a contender.

Unless Leddy really doesn't want to go to SJ.

[Frank Barone]

On 101 they make it sound like he refused a trade to SJ, so they waived him for them to claim.

Uh oh that's not going to go over well

Does he have ntc in his contract? If he does not and he is refusing a trade, isn't that sufficient to unilaterally terminate his contract?

It was a 16 team no-trade clause I believe.

Yes, prior to June 30 he had a full NTC. On June 30 it changed to a 16 team NTC. Apparently San Jose is on his no-trade list (if the rumor is correct).

I thought he would be a good mentor and partner for Mailloux on the third pair. Oh well. I'm not as high on Tucker as many others on this forum due to his lack of mobility.

Tucker showed he deserved a spot full time in the playoffs in my opinion. Leddy was always hot and cold here. He would be very good for stretches and god awful for others.

Tucker skates like a 35 year old Bob Plager, which is not good. If Leddy leaves, he will need to be replaced. Going into the season with Tucker and Mailloux as the third pair would be malpractice given their limited NHL experience.

[smilinjoefission]

On 101 they make it sound like he refused a trade to SJ, so they waived him for them to claim.

Uh oh that's not going to go over well

Does he have ntc in his contract? If he does not and he is refusing a trade, isn't that sufficient to unilaterally terminate his contract?

He has a (partial?) NTC like just about every vet on this team, but he does not have a NMC (no one does) so this is DA strong-arming him to move.

Between this and what happened to Saad, not a great advertisement for signing with the Blues for future free agents.

So they should have paid them for PR? Saad was a decent pickup and production for 3 years, he clearly didn't have anything to offer the Blues last season and it was a benefit for him going somewhere else so that's not a problem. Leddy was a bad signing, that's 100% on Army so it was up to Army to fix it because Leddy was never going to get better and no one wanted him at his contract price.

[MandatoryDenial]

Leddy needed to be gone because with the Mailloux trade the Blues have 6 better Dmen than Leddy...throw in Kessel and that's 7 better. Leddy was a mistake from Day 1, another Leopold.

Respectfully disagree, Leddy was never a mistake.

Agreed, I don’t get the hate for this guy some in stL have, he is a very steady serviceable defender with the ability to make passes and his cap hit has been very reasonable. Lets see what happens here.

[stlblue06]

Leddy needed to be gone because with the Mailloux trade the Blues have 6 better Dmen than Leddy...throw in Kessel and that's 7 better. Leddy was a mistake from Day 1, another Leopold.

Brutal signing. He’s been terrible his entire time as a Blue outside of a 3 month stretch after Berube got fired. To think we chose him over the most loyal Blue ever in DP57 makes it even worse.

[bixblues]

Leddy needed to be gone because with the Mailloux trade the Blues have 6 better Dmen than Leddy...throw in Kessel and that's 7 better. Leddy was a mistake from Day 1, another Leopold.

Respectfully disagree, Leddy was never a mistake.

Agreed, I don’t get the hate for this guy some in stL have, he is a very steady serviceable defender with the ability to make passes and his cap hit has been very reasonable. Lets see what happens here.

Agree. He's a good third pairing defenseman and was serviceable for the Blues when healthy. Teams short on D could do a lot worse than Leddy. Hope someone takes a flier on him.

[STL fan in MN]

I find this a little surprising. If he ends up in the minors, we’d only save $1.15M of his $4M cap hit. The rest would still count against our cap.

My first thought was that it wouldn’t make much sense as if they wanted to just give him away, why not a trade for “future considerations “ ie nothing? But the thought of Leddy nixing a trade makes sense. So the rumor of SJ (or any team really) wanting Leddy and planning to claim him makes sense. If Army knew for sure that none of the other 31 teams would claim him then there’d be no point in putting him on waivers. So my guess is Army knows a team wants him and is likely to claim him, clearing him entirely from the Blues’ books.

We’ll find out for sure in about 24 hours. It’s usually right after 1pm central when waiver claims/clears from the previous day are announced.

[MandatoryDenial]

Isn't waiving someone the first step in buying them out?

I believe the buyout window has passed.

[Cujo's Mask]

Leddy needed to be gone because with the Mailloux trade the Blues have 6 better Dmen than Leddy...throw in Kessel and that's 7 better. Leddy was a mistake from Day 1, another Leopold.

I’m not necessarily against waiving Leddy, but Kessel is definitely not a better player than Leddy currently. Maybe that changes at some point.

[STL fan in MN]

Leddy needed to be gone because with the Mailloux trade the Blues have 6 better Dmen than Leddy...throw in Kessel and that's 7 better. Leddy was a mistake from Day 1, another Leopold.

Brutal signing. He’s been terrible his entire time as a Blue outside of a 3 month stretch after Berube got fired. To think we chose him over the most loyal Blue ever in DP57 makes it even worse.

I disagree. Leddy was good up until last season when he was injured for most of it. Two seasons ago, Leddy-Parayko was our top pairing and actually had some of the best defensive metrics in the entire league.

Also, regarding Perron, we needed a d-man much much more than we needed a LW at the time. And what exactly has Perron done since then to indicate it was a big mistake to not keep him? I’d say Father Time has taken out Perron’s game even more than Leddy’s in that time. They made the tough but correct call to not re-sign him. But if they wanted to re-sign Perron, that still didn’t change that they needed a d-man. They would’ve had to move a different forward to keep Perron. I wished at the time that they would have but in hindsight, the wheels fell off Perron so it now looks like a good call to let him go. Perron is one of my favorite Blues ever but age catches up to all of us eventually.

[STL fan in MN]

Someone remind me again. I know if another team claims him, that team pays his salary. If unclaimed, what happens salary wise for the Blues? Is the last year of his contract voided or does he get sent to the AHL, paid the same, but it doesn't count against the cap?

Definitely not voided. He’d still be owed 100% of his contract (his actual salary this season is $3M). The max amount of cap you can bury in the minors is $1.15M. So if Leddy spent the entirely of this season in the minors for us, he’d still count $2.85M against our cap ( his AAV is $4M so 4 minus 1.15 = 2.85). That’d be bad.

But if he’s claimed, then the claiming team picks up the tab on his entire $4M contract. That’s what the Blues are hoping for here.

[Tabasco Flowers]

Doesn't necessarily mean something else is Brewing IMO.

I think with acquiring Mailloux Leddy has probably been told we are going with youth and he likely won't be a starter

Fowler/Parayko
Broberg/Faulk
Tucker/Mailloux

However you would think we would certainly be looking to use the cap space if he is gone.

I agree. It's Tuckers''s time now.

[Harry S Deals]

Leddy needed to be gone because with the Mailloux trade the Blues have 6 better Dmen than Leddy...throw in Kessel and that's 7 better. Leddy was a mistake from Day 1, another Leopold.

Brutal signing. He’s been terrible his entire time as a Blue outside of a 3 month stretch after Berube got fired. To think we chose him over the most loyal Blue ever in DP57 makes it even worse.

I disagree. Leddy was good up until last season when he was injured for most of it. Two seasons ago, Leddy-Parayko was our top pairing and actually had some of the best defensive metrics in the entire league.

Also, regarding Perron, we needed a d-man much much more than we needed a LW at the time. And what exactly has Perron done since then to indicate it was a big mistake to not keep him? I’d say Father Time has taken out Perron’s game even more than Leddy’s in that time. They made the tough but correct call to not re-sign him. But if they wanted to re-sign Perron, that still didn’t change that they needed a d-man. They would’ve had to move a different forward to keep Perron. I wished at the time that they would have but in hindsight, the wheels fell off Perron so it now looks like a good call to let him go. Perron is one of my favorite Blues ever but age catches up to all of us eventually.

Was it '21-'22? Leddy was really good in the playoffs for the Blues. The Blues had a hole at #1LHD at Leddy filled it well. He got some kind of neck injury issue and it looked like he hasnt recovered, look OK at times since then but it happens. Sucks but the Blues need to move on with new kids coming tough news for Nick Leddy

[IsDurbanodoingtime]

On 101 they make it sound like he refused a trade to SJ, so they waived him for them to claim.

Uh oh that's not going to go over well

Does he have ntc in his contract? If he does not and he is refusing a trade, isn't that sufficient to unilaterally terminate his contract?

He has a (partial?) NTC like just about every vet on this team, but he does not have a NMC (no one does) so this is DA strong-arming him to move.

Between this and what happened to Saad, not a great advertisement for signing with the Blues for future free agents.

Not sure how - Saad and Leddy both signed when the Blues were in a contention window. They likely had different expectations on what they were signing on for, and now that the Blues have changed directions, the Blues are giving these aging players a chance to go try and win one more somewhere else.

If the Blues were forcing them to play in Springfield, then I'd agree a bit more. But they're giving them a chance to play at the highest level, albeit elsewhere.

In Saad's case they in effect strong armed him into terminating his contract and he signed a new (cheaper) deal with Vegas. He lost money contractually agreed to. Not totally sure of the intent in Leddy's case, either they are hoping for the same playbook as Saad or that he gets picked up on waivers (potentially by a team on his modified NTC list). All these actions technically ok under the CBA but the spirit of the actions (happening twice in 6 months) and the message to future potential fas is if we aren't happy with your production we aren't going to honor your contract and buy you out we are going to waive you and force you to unilaterally terminate your agreement. Not the best or smartest look given that there are not inherent advantages to signing a contract in Missouri based on taxes or climate for e.g. that other markets may have.

[rbirules]

On 101 they make it sound like he refused a trade to SJ, so they waived him for them to claim.

Uh oh that's not going to go over well

Does he have ntc in his contract? If he does not and he is refusing a trade, isn't that sufficient to unilaterally terminate his contract?

He has a (partial?) NTC like just about every vet on this team, but he does not have a NMC (no one does) so this is DA strong-arming him to move.

Between this and what happened to Saad, not a great advertisement for signing with the Blues for future free agents.

Not sure how - Saad and Leddy both signed when the Blues were in a contention window. They likely had different expectations on what they were signing on for, and now that the Blues have changed directions, the Blues are giving these aging players a chance to go try and win one more somewhere else.

If the Blues were forcing them to play in Springfield, then I'd agree a bit more. But they're giving them a chance to play at the highest level, albeit elsewhere.

In Saad's case they in effect strong armed him into terminating his contract and he signed a new (cheaper) deal with Vegas. He lost money contractually agreed to. Not totally sure of the intent in Leddy's case, either they are hoping for the same playbook as Saad or that he gets picked up on waivers (potentially by a team on his modified NTC list). All these actions technically ok under the CBA but the spirit of the actions (happening twice in 6 months) and the message to future potential fas is if we aren't happy with your production we aren't going to honor your contract and buy you out we are going to waive you and force you to unilaterally terminate your agreement. Not the best or smartest look given that there are not inherent advantages to signing a contract in Missouri based on taxes or climate for e.g. that other markets may have.

How did they do wrong by Saad? They weren't going to play him as he wasn't performing. I'm sure they looked for a trade but couldn't find one without giving away additional assets. They put him on waivers and nobody wanted him for free. His options at that point as a veteran are go to the AHL and collect your full paycheck or agree to terminate the contract, sign with whatever team you want, stay in the NHL and show your value for next year. He quickly signed with a contender (Vegas) to earn back most of his salary, and he has since signed an extension with them I believe.

If anything that seems to be a selling point for a veteran. If you lose effectiveness and don't fit into what we're trying to do with our roster (exit a re-whatever) we'll try to do right by you and send you to a contender or give you the chance to find a team of your choosing, OR you can go to the AHL and collect your full paycheck.

[IsDurbanodoingtime]

On 101 they make it sound like he refused a trade to SJ, so they waived him for them to claim.

Uh oh that's not going to go over well

Does he have ntc in his contract? If he does not and he is refusing a trade, isn't that sufficient to unilaterally terminate his contract?

He has a (partial?) NTC like just about every vet on this team, but he does not have a NMC (no one does) so this is DA strong-arming him to move.

Between this and what happened to Saad, not a great advertisement for signing with the Blues for future free agents.

Not sure how - Saad and Leddy both signed when the Blues were in a contention window. They likely had different expectations on what they were signing on for, and now that the Blues have changed directions, the Blues are giving these aging players a chance to go try and win one more somewhere else.

If the Blues were forcing them to play in Springfield, then I'd agree a bit more. But they're giving them a chance to play at the highest level, albeit elsewhere.

In Saad's case they in effect strong armed him into terminating his contract and he signed a new (cheaper) deal with Vegas. He lost money contractually agreed to. Not totally sure of the intent in Leddy's case, either they are hoping for the same playbook as Saad or that he gets picked up on waivers (potentially by a team on his modified NTC list). All these actions technically ok under the CBA but the spirit of the actions (happening twice in 6 months) and the message to future potential fas is if we aren't happy with your production we aren't going to honor your contract and buy you out we are going to waive you and force you to unilaterally terminate your agreement. Not the best or smartest look given that there are not inherent advantages to signing a contract in Missouri based on taxes or climate for e.g. that other markets may have.

How did they do wrong by Saad? They weren't going to play him as he wasn't performing. I'm sure they looked for a trade but couldn't find one without giving away additional assets. They put him on waivers and nobody wanted him for free. His options at that point as a veteran are go to the AHL and collect your full paycheck or agree to terminate the contract, sign with whatever team you want, stay in the NHL and show your value for next year. He quickly signed with a contender (Vegas) to earn back most of his salary, and he has since signed an extension with them I believe.

If anything that seems to be a selling point for a veteran. If you lose effectiveness and don't fit into what we're trying to do with our roster (exit a re-whatever) we'll try to do right by you and send you to a contender or give you the chance to find a team of your choosing, OR you can go to the AHL and collect your full paycheck.

From my point of view it is a matter of the sanctity of a contract. If Army or Bannister are not performing, they get terminated but their contract is honored and in theory that should apply to players as well. They did wrong by Saad by jonesing him out of the full value of his contract. If they truly wanted to help him out -- they could have traded him to Vegas and eaten the difference of the lesser of his original contract vs. what Vegas signed him for. But they didn't. In fact, you can make the argument that this practice is a way of circumventing a buyout by coercing the same end effect of a buyout without also incurring the cap hit. If i was a rival gm I would be screaming for a rule that in any instance where a player unilateraly terminates an agreement with one club and then turns around and signs a new agreement, the old club is hit with the same cap penalties as a buyout.