Leddy on waivers

[TruBlueFan_1970]

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...

Highly doubt it. Players have their fair share of advantages with NTC clauses. The team has very few options as evidenced by Krug reportedly nixing trades to Philly and ANA in separate years. Shatty did it as well years ago.

This levels the playing field by giving the teams a little leverage. By using waivers, they:
- can save a small amount of cap if player joins AHL
- keep the player for recall if needed
- allows for the player to be claimed and full cap hit relief
- does give away an asset with no return, although cap space is an asset

It was done to Saad, the Rangers did it with Goodrow (same team being the Sharks) and they knew he would get claimed. It’s fair for both sides and well within the rules. If the players don’t like it, get your agent to get you a NMC.

[smilinjoefission]

Two questions: 1) Did he make the Blues better? 2) Could he be replaced with someone better/cheaper? No he didn't make the Blues better and yes he can be replaced with someone better/cheaper. I'm not sorry he's gone, he never should have been here.

[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.

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.

I don’t think people believe Army did some favor for Saad, but he also didn’t force him out either. Go play in the minors and earn your entire contract as planned. That was an option that plenty of older guys have dealt with over the years. Saad just didn’t want to do that. He wanted to stay in the NHL. But since he was literally offered up league-wide and nobody took him at full salary, the next choice was to terminate his deal and start over. It’s just the reality of the situation.

Also re: eating part of his deal so Vegas could afford it, he still had another year on the contract as well, so the Blues would have had to retain for 2 seasons. No way they wanted to do that.

[dhsux]

You can't can't hang on to players you shouldn't hang on to for sake of what other potential free agents might think.

All players know about waivers and the potential pitfalls for their careers. Leddy knew it when he signed here.

If you have a player giving this consideration at signing to the point of not coming because if they under perform it could happen to them....chances are you don't want that player anyway.

[sdaltons]

That rumor and the discussion that followed only carry any weight if noon tomorrow comes and we learn he was claimed by SJ (or, at least, that they put in a claim).

[TruBlueFan_1970]

That rumor and the discussion that followed only carry any weight if noon tomorrow comes and we learn he was claimed by SJ (or, at least, that they put in a claim).

True story. The Sharks do have recency with this path though, as they claimed Goodrow from the Rags after he nixed a trade to them. Wouldn’t surprise me a bit if they claim him.

[sdaltons]

That rumor and the discussion that followed only carry any weight if noon tomorrow comes and we learn he was claimed by SJ (or, at least, that they put in a claim).

True story. The Sharks do have recency with this path though, as they claimed Goodrow from the Rags after he nixed a trade to them. Wouldn’t surprise me a bit if they claim him.

Agree and I remember the Goodrow thing. Kind of weird of the Sharks to keep taking on players who openly don't want to play there lol.

I'm just saying it caused a whole discussion on how Army treats players, just based on a radio rumor. But I'll admit those local guys probably have some connection so it may not be wrong.

[smilinjoefission]

That rumor and the discussion that followed only carry any weight if noon tomorrow comes and we learn he was claimed by SJ (or, at least, that they put in a claim).

True story. The Sharks do have recency with this path though, as they claimed Goodrow from the Rags after he nixed a trade to them. Wouldn’t surprise me a bit if they claim him.

Agree and I remember the Goodrow thing. Kind of weird of the Sharks to keep taking on players who openly don't want to play there lol.

I'm just saying it caused a whole discussion on how Army treats players, just based on a radio rumor. But I'll admit those local guys probably have some connection so it may not be wrong.

The question should be why a slug like Leddy was given not only $4mill per over 4 years but also trade protection?

[somni]

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.

Very well put.
And these are the rules determined by the owners and the NHLPA. It's a harsh business for sure but Leddy had made approx $62,600,000 in his career so far.

I get it...he's a competitor, but them the rules.

[FunSeeker]

Tucker was the best defenseman behind Fowler in the playoffs. If you want to throw Parayko in ahead of Tucker fine. Remember Monty loves Tucker and praised his offense. He was dominating out there, scared of nothing and built for playoff hockey. People here are forgetting what a loss it was when he blew out that knee in playoffs. Glad it wasn't as bad as it looked. He is a SOLID #5 defenseman for this season at his worst. Toughest guy on the team too.

[STL fan in MN]

Tucker was the best defenseman behind Fowler in the playoffs. If you want to throw Parayko in ahead of Tucker fine. Remember Monty loves Tucker and praised his offense. He was dominating out there, scared of nothing and built for playoff hockey. People here are forgetting what a loss it was when he blew out that knee in playoffs. Glad it wasn't as bad as it looked. He is a SOLID #5 defenseman for this season at his worst. Toughest guy on the team too.

I love Tucker for what he is but I found him to be an absolute train wreck defensively in the playoffs. He had a few good offensive moments but Winnipeg owned him as his feet just couldn’t keep up and he had trouble holding the blueline. That said, he was better than Suter. But whether it was Tucker or Suter, they both got caved in defensively against WPG in that series.

[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.

I don’t think people believe Army did some favor for Saad, but he also didn’t force him out either. Go play in the minors and earn your entire contract as planned. That was an option that plenty of older guys have dealt with over the years. Saad just didn’t want to do that. He wanted to stay in the NHL. But since he was literally offered up league-wide and nobody took him at full salary, the next choice was to terminate his deal and start over. It’s just the reality of the situation.

Also re: eating part of his deal so Vegas could afford it, he still had another year on the contract as well, so the Blues would have had to retain for 2 seasons. No way they wanted to do that.

I am certainly not saying what Armey did was in any way illegal. He is taking advantage of a an opportunity in the cba to play hardball. This narrative that he did a vet.a favor to further his career is simply stupid and counterfactual. He leveraged someone out of 2.5 million to his organization's advantage - someone who had a guaranteed contract for that money. Maybe the next guy is not as compliant as Saad or is Andrew Ladd and we are (bleep) about ot eating up cap. But it is naive to think that the nhlpa and future fas do not take notice which was my original point especially if this the team mo going forward.

[Frank Barone]

Tucker was the best defenseman behind Fowler in the playoffs. If you want to throw Parayko in ahead of Tucker fine. Remember Monty loves Tucker and praised his offense. He was dominating out there, scared of nothing and built for playoff hockey. People here are forgetting what a loss it was when he blew out that knee in playoffs. Glad it wasn't as bad as it looked. He is a SOLID #5 defenseman for this season at his worst. Toughest guy on the team too.

I love Tucker for what he is but I found him to be an absolute train wreck defensively in the playoffs. He had a few good offensive moments but Winnipeg owned him as his feet just couldn’t keep up and he had trouble holding the blueline. That said, he was better than Suter. But whether it was Tucker or Suter, they both got caved in defensively against WPG in that series.

This is reality talking here. If Leddy gets claimed, the Blues will need to find another starting LD.

People forget that Tucker went through waivers unclaimed at the start of last season. JMO he maxes out as a #7 short term fill-in guy, like a Bortuzzo.

[Sophisticated Shoes]

Tucker was the best defenseman behind Fowler in the playoffs. If you want to throw Parayko in ahead of Tucker fine. Remember Monty loves Tucker and praised his offense. He was dominating out there, scared of nothing and built for playoff hockey. People here are forgetting what a loss it was when he blew out that knee in playoffs. Glad it wasn't as bad as it looked. He is a SOLID #5 defenseman for this season at his worst. Toughest guy on the team too.

I love Tucker for what he is but I found him to be an absolute train wreck defensively in the playoffs. He had a few good offensive moments but Winnipeg owned him as his feet just couldn’t keep up and he had trouble holding the blueline. That said, he was better than Suter. But whether it was Tucker or Suter, they both got caved in defensively against WPG in that series.

This is reality talking here. If Leddy gets claimed, the Blues will need to find another starting LD.

People forget that Tucker went through waivers unclaimed at the start of last season. JMO he maxes out as a #7 short term fill-in guy, like a Bortuzzo.

Start looking, as I believe Leddy is done in STL. Waivers is just to see if someone will pick him up, and they could. If not, they'll end the contract, like Saad last year, and Leddy will sign for less elsewhere so he can play more than he anticipates in the new Blues D corps.

[STL fan in MN]

Tucker was the best defenseman behind Fowler in the playoffs. If you want to throw Parayko in ahead of Tucker fine. Remember Monty loves Tucker and praised his offense. He was dominating out there, scared of nothing and built for playoff hockey. People here are forgetting what a loss it was when he blew out that knee in playoffs. Glad it wasn't as bad as it looked. He is a SOLID #5 defenseman for this season at his worst. Toughest guy on the team too.

I love Tucker for what he is but I found him to be an absolute train wreck defensively in the playoffs. He had a few good offensive moments but Winnipeg owned him as his feet just couldn’t keep up and he had trouble holding the blueline. That said, he was better than Suter. But whether it was Tucker or Suter, they both got caved in defensively against WPG in that series.

This is reality talking here. If Leddy gets claimed, the Blues will need to find another starting LD.

People forget that Tucker went through waivers unclaimed at the start of last season. JMO he maxes out as a #7 short term fill-in guy, like a Bortuzzo.

Start looking, as I believe Leddy is done in STL. Waivers is just to see if someone will pick him up, and they could. If not, they'll end the contract, like Saad last year, and Leddy will sign for less elsewhere so he can play more than he anticipates in the new Blues D corps.

Aaand what if Leddy would rather just keep the $3M and doesn’t agree to terminate the contract? Then what?

[bluetunehead]

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.

I don’t think people believe Army did some favor for Saad, but he also didn’t force him out either. Go play in the minors and earn your entire contract as planned. That was an option that plenty of older guys have dealt with over the years. Saad just didn’t want to do that. He wanted to stay in the NHL. But since he was literally offered up league-wide and nobody took him at full salary, the next choice was to terminate his deal and start over. It’s just the reality of the situation.

Also re: eating part of his deal so Vegas could afford it, he still had another year on the contract as well, so the Blues would have had to retain for 2 seasons. No way they wanted to do that.

I am certainly not saying what Armey did was in any way illegal. He is taking advantage of a an opportunity in the cba to play hardball. This narrative that he did a vet.a favor to further his career is simply stupid and counterfactual. He leveraged someone out of 2.5 million to his organization's advantage - someone who had a guaranteed contract for that money. Maybe the next guy is not as compliant as Saad or is Andrew Ladd and we are (bleep) about ot eating up cap. But it is naive to think that the nhlpa and future fas do not take notice which was my original point especially if this the team mo going forward.

How exactly did he leverage Saad out of 2.5M? He put him on waivers and nobody claimed him. At that point, as part of his guaranteed contract that he signed, his job was to go play for Springfield if that’s what the Blues deemed appropriate. Saad didn’t want to do that, so he and the Blues decided to mutually part ways. But that’s his call. If he wanted the full contract he could have gone to the AHL and the Blues would have had no choice but to continue paying him in full.