Leddy on waivers

[bluetunehead]

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.

It was Saad’s call whether he preferred to play out the year in the minors and earn his full deal or terminate his contract. Plenty of guys have done just that and taken the minor league assignment. Saad didn’t want to. That’s literally why No Movement Clauses exist, and why Armstrong doesn’t offer them.

[SameOldBlues]

Buh bye.

[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.

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.

Again, Saad being demoted allows him to still earn his entire salary, which was $3.6M. He then can approach the Blues about mutually terminating the contract and signing elsewhere if he thinks that's a better decision for him. He lost about 2.5 months of salary at $3.6M in exchange for a $1.5M salary, that's just under 40% of the season which cost him about $800k. That's a decision that Saad and his agent, and his family can make.

I don't recall what the cap hit was if Saad was in the AHL, but it was pretty low, maybe better than retaining salary for him to go to Vegas (and this is assuming Saad already knew Vegas was interested and had a price in mind).

Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one, plus it's only tangentially related to the topic of the post.

[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.

It was Saad’s call whether he preferred to play out the year in the minors and earn his full deal or terminate his contract. Plenty of guys have done just that and taken the minor league assignment. Saad didn’t want to. That’s literally why No Movement Clauses exist, and why Armstrong doesn’t offer them.

And in doing so he lost 2.5 million this year ( the difference between what he signed for on a one year deal and the remainder of his contract). And in doing so he did the Blues and Armey a solid by not forcing a buyout and voluntarily relieving them of 4.5 in cap hit. And we are suppose to believe that Armey was doing him a solid? It's a little gaslighting to thinks so.

[the miracle]

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.

It was Saad’s call whether he preferred to play out the year in the minors and earn his full deal or terminate his contract. Plenty of guys have done just that and taken the minor league assignment. Saad didn’t want to. That’s literally why No Movement Clauses exist, and why Armstrong doesn’t offer them.

And in doing so he lost 2.5 million this year ( the difference between what he signed for on a one year deal and the remainder of his contract). And in doing so he did the Blues and Armey a solid by not forcing a buyout and voluntarily relieving them of 4.5 in cap hit. And we are suppose to believe that Armey was doing him a solid? It's a little gaslighting to thinks so.

Either way - this is the time to be making these kind of moves. Next year the Blues get to hang a "under new management" sign up and Steen can easily say "I didn't treat Saad and Leddy like that" if a potential free agent expresses concerns.

[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.

It was Saad’s call whether he preferred to play out the year in the minors and earn his full deal or terminate his contract. Plenty of guys have done just that and taken the minor league assignment. Saad didn’t want to. That’s literally why No Movement Clauses exist, and why Armstrong doesn’t offer them.

And in doing so he lost 2.5 million this year ( the difference between what he signed for on a one year deal and the remainder of his contract). And in doing so he did the Blues and Armey a solid by not forcing a buyout and voluntarily relieving them of 4.5 in cap hit. And we are suppose to believe that Armey was doing him a solid? It's a little gaslighting to thinks so.

Either way - this is the time to be making these kind of moves. Next year the Blues get to hang a "under new management" sign up and Steen can easily say "I didn't treat Saad and Leddy like that" if a potential free agent expresses concerns.

Noted.

[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?

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.

It was Saad’s call whether he preferred to play out the year in the minors and earn his full deal or terminate his contract. Plenty of guys have done just that and taken the minor league assignment. Saad didn’t want to. That’s literally why No Movement Clauses exist, and why Armstrong doesn’t offer them.

And in doing so he lost 2.5 million this year ( the difference between what he signed for on a one year deal and the remainder of his contract). And in doing so he did the Blues and Armey a solid by not forcing a buyout and voluntarily relieving them of 4.5 in cap hit. And we are suppose to believe that Armey was doing him a solid? It's a little gaslighting to thinks so.

Either way - this is the time to be making these kind of moves. Next year the Blues get to hang a "under new management" sign up and Steen can easily say "I didn't treat Saad and Leddy like that" if a potential free agent expresses concerns.

Army will still be in the same job he's in today for the next several years - President of Hockey Operations. Steen will have the GM title but will report to Army.

[BalotelliMassive]

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.

I'm wondering if the league reacts and makes a rule change...

[stlblues1979]

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.

Thanks to you & Wattage earlier for the explanation.

[stlblue06]

I’d say Army/Steen have a really good explanation for waiving Saad and Leddy…..they were both drafted and won cups with the Blackhawks

[Kilokaai]

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.

I'm wondering if the league reacts and makes a rule change...

Just curious how you think they would rule change this? The contract is always guaranteed unless you mutually agree to end it like in Saad's case.

Saad/Leddy would be paid no matter what so that money is not going anywhere which all the Blues are contractually obligated to do, having a one way contract isn't saying that you CAN'T be sent down to Springfield. The same protections that are in place for young players (waiver eligibility/two way contract pay) cut both ways, if you are an older pro you are subject to the same waiver requirements which makes total sense. It's not a trade by definition but you are protected if you are an asset that someone would want to trade for with the NTC. It's more likely teams are offering nothing which is forcing Armstrong's hand, Leddy is worth more to us than to offload to someone else. Honestly, if I was GM I wouldn't offer anything if I thought I could get them off waivers for free.

If the NHLPA starts taking a stab at making it more difficult to send down older players they are going to push them out of the league and that is a net negative. A lot of contracts for UFAs are signed for the first half with the expectation that the 2nd half will be rough but past the window planned. Blues never really hit a full rebuild and are coming out of it with better options and/or production dropped faster than anticipated but the Blues can't be on the hook to carry them on the NHL roster forever because of the contract (unless NMC was included but that makes sense).

[zamadoo]

I’d say Army/Steen have a really good explanation for waiving Saad and Leddy…..they were both drafted and won cups with the Blackhawks

Was just telling my wife how I have considered the Saad/Leddy acquisitions to be a curse on the team. We got worse each year with them. Only once we rid ourselves of their Blackhawk stench can we remove the curse and begin to win again.

[Bubble4427]

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.

Saad agreed to have his contract terminated. IT WAS MUTUAL. He didn’t want to go to the minors and Monty wasn’t playing him. He wanted to have a choice on where he could play so he could rebuild his value. Saad leaving was not a negative towards Army.

[STL fan in MN]

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.

Did they strong arm Saad though? Or just get lucky he preferred ending his contract entirely over being sent to the minors? Saad was placed on waivers mid-season. He was going to go to the minors. He didn’t want that and chose to terminate the contract and try to find another NHL team to sign with instead. The Blues were happy to obligate. Whether it was his idea or the Blues suggesting to to end his contract, I’m not entirely sure but I never read anywhere where the Blues strong armed him. I think they just got lucky.

Leddy is being placed on waivers in the off season. There’s really no minors assignment right now. If he clears, he’d still show up at camp and try to make the team. Perhaps terminating the contract was presented as an option to him and he chose to keep the $3M over whatever he could get as a UFA. IDK. But all the Blues are doing is using the levers of power they have at this point, which is waivers. If a team on Leddy’s NTC claims him, so be it. His NTC doesn’t cover waivers. Only a full NMC would. Don’t like it? Then don’t let your play regress to where you become a negative asset and your team would consider waiving you. Harsh but this is a business. The Blues aren’t doing anything wrong.

[skilles]

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.

Some people might prefer that in a team, We kind of do. When some people sign up for a team they want to win and would like to know they won't tolerate whatever it was Saad was doing this year.

[TheJackBurton]

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.

They attempted to trade him but no one could take on his cap hit which is one of the main reasons he only signed for what he did in Vegas.

There is still a salary cap in place and teams still have to abide by it.

We have several cases where guys who weren't getting playing time had their trade requests honored and Army took less in a few of those deals because he was doing right by the player.

Saad in an interview even stated there were no hard feelings at all and that the terminating of his contract was mutual so that he could get with a team where he would get playing time and potentially increase his production. He wasn't getting that in a trade.

I mean he signed with Vegas within something like 48 hours of having the contract terminated which tells you Vegas wanted him but couldn't afford the cap hit.