How do No-Trade-Clauses work in practice?

[a smell of green grass]

How do No-Trade-Clauses work in practice?

I understand the concept of NTC, but I'm curious how they ultimately play out....

Let's use Kyrou as an example.

1. Option 1 - Army hatches a trade, and then asks Kyrou if he OKs the trade to wherever. If yes, the trade is completed.

2. Option 2 - Kyrou speaks with Montreal, and let's them know he would be happy to play there. Kyrou informs Army to get something done with Montreal. If Army is interested, he pursues.

3. Option 3 - Kyrou holds Montreal over Army's head forever. The only team that he will OK is Montreal.

Clearly Option 3 is a stranglehold that limits the return that Army could get for Kyrou. Montreal knows that they are the only possible trade-partner.

Anybody know how NTC's work in practice?

[Nublues69]

How do No-Trade-Clauses work in practice?

I understand the concept of NTC, but I'm curious how they ultimately play out....

Let's use Kyrou as an example.

1. Option 1 - Army hatches a trade, and then asks Kyrou if he OKs the trade to wherever. If yes, the trade is completed.
You are an idiot


2. Option 2 - Kyrou speaks with Montreal, and let's them know he would be happy to play there. Kyrou informs Army to get something done with Montreal. If Army is interested, he pursues.

Thats called player tampering

3. Option 3 - Kyrou holds Montreal over Army's head forever. The only team that he will OK is Montreal.

Then he plays here and the team will deal with his antics in the locker room and on ice.

Clearly Option 3 is a stranglehold that limits the return that Army could get for Kyrou. Montreal knows that they are the only possible trade-partner.



Anybody know how NTC's work in practice?

smelly has gone full

smelly.jpg (9.99 KiB) Viewed 448 times

[tfriede2]

How do No-Trade-Clauses work in practice?

I understand the concept of NTC, but I'm curious how they ultimately play out....

Let's use Kyrou as an example.

1. Option 1 - Army hatches a trade, and then asks Kyrou if he OKs the trade to wherever. If yes, the trade is completed.

2. Option 2 - Kyrou speaks with Montreal, and let's them know he would be happy to play there. Kyrou informs Army to get something done with Montreal. If Army is interested, he pursues.

3. Option 3 - Kyrou holds Montreal over Army's head forever. The only team that he will OK is Montreal.

Clearly Option 3 is a stranglehold that limits the return that Army could get for Kyrou. Montreal knows that they are the only possible trade-partner.

Anybody know how NTC's work in practice?

Option 2 is a big no-no. Players under contract cannot talk to other teams (and vice-versa). Option 1 is how it works, or Option 4 - Armstrong obtains a list of teams that Kyrou would waive for (this would need to be via a signed addendum to his NTC in order to be enforceable), or prior to even negotiating with a team, Armstrong asks Kyrou if he would waive (which wouldn’t be binding unless and until Kyrou actually waives in writing.) From what we can tell, Armstrong usually goes with Option 1 and won’t ask a player to waive unless Armstrong already has a deal lined up.

[a smell of green grass]

JMO

Nublues69, your post says a lot more about you, than it says about me.

[a smell of green grass]

How do No-Trade-Clauses work in practice?

I understand the concept of NTC, but I'm curious how they ultimately play out....

Let's use Kyrou as an example.

1. Option 1 - Army hatches a trade, and then asks Kyrou if he OKs the trade to wherever. If yes, the trade is completed.

2. Option 2 - Kyrou speaks with Montreal, and let's them know he would be happy to play there. Kyrou informs Army to get something done with Montreal. If Army is interested, he pursues.

3. Option 3 - Kyrou holds Montreal over Army's head forever. The only team that he will OK is Montreal.

Clearly Option 3 is a stranglehold that limits the return that Army could get for Kyrou. Montreal knows that they are the only possible trade-partner.

Anybody know how NTC's work in practice?

Option 2 is a big no-no. Players under contract cannot talk to other teams (and vice-versa). Option 1 is how it works, or Option 4 - Armstrong obtains a list of teams that Kyrou would waive for (this would need to be via a signed addendum to his NTC in order to be enforceable), or prior to even negotiating with a team, Armstrong asks Kyrou if he would waive (which wouldn’t be binding unless and until Kyrou actually waives in writing.) From what we can tell, Armstrong usually goes with Option 1 and won’t ask a player to waive unless Armstrong already has a deal lined up.

Ok. Thank you so much for this information.

In the news, we just heard that "Kyrou has said that he would ok a trade to Montreal.".

Does this tell us with certainty that OPTION 1 was definitely in-progress?

[Backesdraft]

How do No-Trade-Clauses work in practice?

I understand the concept of NTC, but I'm curious how they ultimately play out....

Let's use Kyrou as an example.

1. Option 1 - Army hatches a trade, and then asks Kyrou if he OKs the trade to wherever. If yes, the trade is completed.

2. Option 2 - Kyrou speaks with Montreal, and let's them know he would be happy to play there. Kyrou informs Army to get something done with Montreal. If Army is interested, he pursues.

3. Option 3 - Kyrou holds Montreal over Army's head forever. The only team that he will OK is Montreal.

Clearly Option 3 is a stranglehold that limits the return that Army could get for Kyrou. Montreal knows that they are the only possible trade-partner.

Anybody know how NTC's work in practice?

Option 2 is a big no-no. Players under contract cannot talk to other teams (and vice-versa). Option 1 is how it works, or Option 4 - Armstrong obtains a list of teams that Kyrou would waive for (this would need to be via a signed addendum to his NTC in order to be enforceable), or prior to even negotiating with a team, Armstrong asks Kyrou if he would waive (which wouldn’t be binding unless and until Kyrou actually waives in writing.) From what we can tell, Armstrong usually goes with Option 1 and won’t ask a player to waive unless Armstrong already has a deal lined up.

Please don’t even bother engaging. The entire purpose of the thread is for ASOGG to further play out his weird Army-hating agenda. Read between the lines. ASOGG has zero interest in actually discussing NTCs.

[STL fan in MN]

How do No-Trade-Clauses work in practice?

I understand the concept of NTC, but I'm curious how they ultimately play out....

Let's use Kyrou as an example.

1. Option 1 - Army hatches a trade, and then asks Kyrou if he OKs the trade to wherever. If yes, the trade is completed.

2. Option 2 - Kyrou speaks with Montreal, and let's them know he would be happy to play there. Kyrou informs Army to get something done with Montreal. If Army is interested, he pursues.

3. Option 3 - Kyrou holds Montreal over Army's head forever. The only team that he will OK is Montreal.

Clearly Option 3 is a stranglehold that limits the return that Army could get for Kyrou. Montreal knows that they are the only possible trade-partner.

Anybody know how NTC's work in practice?

Option 2 is a big no-no. Players under contract cannot talk to other teams (and vice-versa). Option 1 is how it works, or Option 4 - Armstrong obtains a list of teams that Kyrou would waive for (this would need to be via a signed addendum to his NTC in order to be enforceable), or prior to even negotiating with a team, Armstrong asks Kyrou if he would waive (which wouldn’t be binding unless and until Kyrou actually waives in writing.) From what we can tell, Armstrong usually goes with Option 1 and won’t ask a player to waive unless Armstrong already has a deal lined up.

Ok. Thank you so much for this information.

In the news, we just heard that "Kyrou has said that he would ok a trade to Montreal.".

Does this tell us with certainty that OPTION 1 was definitely in-progress?

Well, first you’d have to accept the “Kyrou would accept a trade to Montreal” rumor as true. I for one, do not.

As others have already said, option 2 or anything close to it would be tampering and way way against the rules. You’re simply not allowed to talk to players that are under contract with a different team. The only exception is if the team that owns the rights to the player gives other team(s) permission to talk to that player. A team would only allow that if an extension with the new team was a part of the deal. For example, I suspect TB gave Edmonton permission to talk to Isaac Howard before that trade yesterday. The trade was agreed upon but contingent upon Edmonton and Howard agreeing to a contract.

How a trade involving a NTC almost always works is Option 1.

But with so much smoke surrounding Kyrou and MTL, is it possible Kyrou and his agent talked about it and then the agent talked to Army and said his client would be open to waiving his NTC to go to MTL? Sure. But I’ll note that anything involving Kyrou and MTL the last week or so has come from fan blogs and/or super unreliable sources.

Here’s my take on the Kyrou to MTL rumors:

My guess is the Blues absolutely discussed trading Kyrou to the Habs. But they couldn’t come to an agreement. So they pivoted to a smaller deal that became Mailloux for Bolduc. That to me, effectively closed the door on Kyrou to MTL. The odds of the Blues trading away both Bolduc AND Kyrou to MTL AND MTL actually having the assets we’d want AND be willing to part with them is just super, super unlikely IMO. MTL may still want Kyrou but I think the deal is dead and all these fan blogs are just regurgitating a rumor that WAS legit but isn’t anymore. Not after the Mailloux/Bolduc trade and after his NTC went into effect.

[Nublues69]

JMO

Nublues69, your post says a lot more about you, than it says about me.

Not really bro. You pretty much go full RTded on every single post you make. I just enjoy pointing out your ideocracy

[wiscrev]

JMO

Nublues69, your post says a lot more about you, than it says about me.

JMO, and it's right because it is mine. Therefore, I'm now calling you Glow Stick.
Stupid people are like Glow Sticks! I want to snap them and shake the s&%t out of them until the light comes on.

[bluetunehead]

Here’s my take on the Kyrou to MTL rumors:

My guess is the Blues absolutely discussed trading Kyrou to the Habs. But they couldn’t come to an agreement. So they pivoted to a smaller deal that became Mailloux for Bolduc. That to me, effectively closed the door on Kyrou to MTL. The odds of the Blues trading away both Bolduc AND Kyrou to MTL AND MTL actually having the assets we’d want AND be willing to part with them is just super, super unlikely IMO. MTL may still want Kyrou but I think the deal is dead and all these fan blogs are just regurgitating a rumor that WAS legit but isn’t anymore. Not after the Mailloux/Bolduc trade and after his NTC went into effect.

I think this is exactly what has happened. Nobody reputable has implied that the Habs thing is still ongoing, nor have they said anything about Kyrou waiving for Montreal or wanting to go there. All of that has been from random blogs and writers you’ve never heard about. Much like Toronto, Montreal fans are rabid online and can spin up all sorts of tales about what is happening. That doesn’t make it true.

What’s real is there were talks with Montreal about Kyrou that one or both teams backed away from, and those talks probably concluded with the Bolduc trade.

[a smell of green grass]

How do No-Trade-Clauses work in practice?

I understand the concept of NTC, but I'm curious how they ultimately play out....

Let's use Kyrou as an example.

1. Option 1 - Army hatches a trade, and then asks Kyrou if he OKs the trade to wherever. If yes, the trade is completed.

2. Option 2 - Kyrou speaks with Montreal, and let's them know he would be happy to play there. Kyrou informs Army to get something done with Montreal. If Army is interested, he pursues.

3. Option 3 - Kyrou holds Montreal over Army's head forever. The only team that he will OK is Montreal.

Clearly Option 3 is a stranglehold that limits the return that Army could get for Kyrou. Montreal knows that they are the only possible trade-partner.

Anybody know how NTC's work in practice?

Option 2 is a big no-no. Players under contract cannot talk to other teams (and vice-versa). Option 1 is how it works, or Option 4 - Armstrong obtains a list of teams that Kyrou would waive for (this would need to be via a signed addendum to his NTC in order to be enforceable), or prior to even negotiating with a team, Armstrong asks Kyrou if he would waive (which wouldn’t be binding unless and until Kyrou actually waives in writing.) From what we can tell, Armstrong usually goes with Option 1 and won’t ask a player to waive unless Armstrong already has a deal lined up.

Ok. Thank you so much for this information.

In the news, we just heard that "Kyrou has said that he would ok a trade to Montreal.".

Does this tell us with certainty that OPTION 1 was definitely in-progress?

Well, first you’d have to accept the “Kyrou would accept a trade to Montreal” rumor as true. I for one, do not.

As others have already said, option 2 or anything close to it would be tampering and way way against the rules. You’re simply not allowed to talk to players that are under contract with a different team. The only exception is if the team that owns the rights to the player gives other team(s) permission to talk to that player. A team would only allow that if an extension with the new team was a part of the deal. For example, I suspect TB gave Edmonton permission to talk to Isaac Howard before that trade yesterday. The trade was agreed upon but contingent upon Edmonton and Howard agreeing to a contract.

How a trade involving a NTC almost always works is Option 1.

But with so much smoke surrounding Kyrou and MTL, is it possible Kyrou and his agent talked about it and then the agent talked to Army and said his client would be open to waiving his NTC to go to MTL? Sure. But I’ll note that anything involving Kyrou and MTL the last week or so has come from fan blogs and/or super unreliable sources.

Here’s my take on the Kyrou to MTL rumors:

My guess is the Blues absolutely discussed trading Kyrou to the Habs. But they couldn’t come to an agreement. So they pivoted to a smaller deal that became Mailloux for Bolduc. That to me, effectively closed the door on Kyrou to MTL. The odds of the Blues trading away both Bolduc AND Kyrou to MTL AND MTL actually having the assets we’d want AND be willing to part with them is just super, super unlikely IMO. MTL may still want Kyrou but I think the deal is dead and all these fan blogs are just regurgitating a rumor that WAS legit but isn’t anymore. Not after the Mailloux/Bolduc trade and after his NTC went into effect.

Thank you so much for the information. Very helpful to know.

My thoughts on this is that any sort of a deal between STL and MON would be complicated (and maybe include a 3rd team) so Army got "pre-approval" from Kyrou to proceed with negotiations. So Kryou did likely "OK" a trade at some point. After that OK, the negotiations fell apart, and, as you say, the smaller deal was completed instead.

However, now we are in a situation where Kyrou did actually "OK a move to Montreal", and a fair number of people found out about it, and capping the "loose lips" is impossible.

So now where do we stand....
1. The NHL and the world knows that Kryou would be happy to go to Montreal (Whether true or not)
2. Kyrou appears to want to force a trade to Montreal because he is saying nothing about wanting to stay in St Louis.
3. The no-trade-clause is working more like a "force-trade-clause". Once fans and/or management sniff disloyalty by a player, it's often over.
4. The spirit of the no-trade-clause has definitely been broken (by somebody), and there is not a single policeman coming to arrest the criminal.
5. The trade value for Kyrou has been impacted negatively by this. What team wants to flirt with Kyrou in the future after seeing how the blues backroom business was made public and drew a circus.
6. If I were a GM, I would never grant a NTC again. It's nothing but a cluster for the team. Kyrou won't be hurt by this, but the St Louis Blues have been given a black eye.

Any further thoughts about my comments?

[sdaltons]

Oh my

[somni]

How do No-Trade-Clauses work in practice?

I understand the concept of NTC, but I'm curious how they ultimately play out....

Let's use Kyrou as an example.

1. Option 1 - Army hatches a trade, and then asks Kyrou if he OKs the trade to wherever. If yes, the trade is completed.

2. Option 2 - Kyrou speaks with Montreal, and let's them know he would be happy to play there. Kyrou informs Army to get something done with Montreal. If Army is interested, he pursues.

3. Option 3 - Kyrou holds Montreal over Army's head forever. The only team that he will OK is Montreal.

Clearly Option 3 is a stranglehold that limits the return that Army could get for Kyrou. Montreal knows that they are the only possible trade-partner.

Anybody know how NTC's work in practice?

Option 2 is a big no-no. Players under contract cannot talk to other teams (and vice-versa). Option 1 is how it works, or Option 4 - Armstrong obtains a list of teams that Kyrou would waive for (this would need to be via a signed addendum to his NTC in order to be enforceable), or prior to even negotiating with a team, Armstrong asks Kyrou if he would waive (which wouldn’t be binding unless and until Kyrou actually waives in writing.) From what we can tell, Armstrong usually goes with Option 1 and won’t ask a player to waive unless Armstrong already has a deal lined up.

Ok. Thank you so much for this information.

In the news, we just heard that "Kyrou has said that he would ok a trade to Montreal.".

Does this tell us with certainty that OPTION 1 was definitely in-progress?

Well, first you’d have to accept the “Kyrou would accept a trade to Montreal” rumor as true. I for one, do not.

As others have already said, option 2 or anything close to it would be tampering and way way against the rules. You’re simply not allowed to talk to players that are under contract with a different team. The only exception is if the team that owns the rights to the player gives other team(s) permission to talk to that player. A team would only allow that if an extension with the new team was a part of the deal. For example, I suspect TB gave Edmonton permission to talk to Isaac Howard before that trade yesterday. The trade was agreed upon but contingent upon Edmonton and Howard agreeing to a contract.

How a trade involving a NTC almost always works is Option 1.

But with so much smoke surrounding Kyrou and MTL, is it possible Kyrou and his agent talked about it and then the agent talked to Army and said his client would be open to waiving his NTC to go to MTL? Sure. But I’ll note that anything involving Kyrou and MTL the last week or so has come from fan blogs and/or super unreliable sources.

Here’s my take on the Kyrou to MTL rumors:

My guess is the Blues absolutely discussed trading Kyrou to the Habs. But they couldn’t come to an agreement. So they pivoted to a smaller deal that became Mailloux for Bolduc. That to me, effectively closed the door on Kyrou to MTL. The odds of the Blues trading away both Bolduc AND Kyrou to MTL AND MTL actually having the assets we’d want AND be willing to part with them is just super, super unlikely IMO. MTL may still want Kyrou but I think the deal is dead and all these fan blogs are just regurgitating a rumor that WAS legit but isn’t anymore. Not after the Mailloux/Bolduc trade and after his NTC went into effect.

Thank you so much for the information. Very helpful to know.

My thoughts on this is that any sort of a deal between STL and MON would be complicated (and maybe include a 3rd team) so Army got "pre-approval" from Kyrou to proceed with negotiations. So Kryou did likely "OK" a trade at some point. After that OK, the negotiations fell apart, and, as you say, the smaller deal was completed instead.

However, now we are in a situation where Kyrou did actually "OK a move to Montreal", and a fair number of people found out about it, and capping the "loose lips" is impossible.

So now where do we stand....
1. The NHL and the world knows that Kryou would be happy to go to Montreal (Whether true or not)
2. Kyrou appears to want to force a trade to Montreal because he is saying nothing about wanting to stay in St Louis.
3. The no-trade-clause is working more like a "force-trade-clause". Once fans and/or management sniff disloyalty by a player, it's often over.
4. The spirit of the no-trade-clause has definitely been broken (by somebody), and there is not a single policeman coming to arrest the criminal.
5. The trade value for Kyrou has been impacted negatively by this. What team wants to flirt with Kyrou in the future after seeing how the blues backroom business was made public and drew a circus.
6. If I were a GM, I would never grant a NTC again. It's nothing but a cluster for the team. Kyrou won't be hurt by this, but the St Louis Blues have been given a black eye.

Any further thoughts about my comments?

Dude, seriously. Points 1 thru 6 are completely made up without any knowledge or source.

[a smell of green grass]

How do No-Trade-Clauses work in practice?

I understand the concept of NTC, but I'm curious how they ultimately play out....

Let's use Kyrou as an example.

1. Option 1 - Army hatches a trade, and then asks Kyrou if he OKs the trade to wherever. If yes, the trade is completed.

2. Option 2 - Kyrou speaks with Montreal, and let's them know he would be happy to play there. Kyrou informs Army to get something done with Montreal. If Army is interested, he pursues.

3. Option 3 - Kyrou holds Montreal over Army's head forever. The only team that he will OK is Montreal.

Clearly Option 3 is a stranglehold that limits the return that Army could get for Kyrou. Montreal knows that they are the only possible trade-partner.

Anybody know how NTC's work in practice?

Option 2 is a big no-no. Players under contract cannot talk to other teams (and vice-versa). Option 1 is how it works, or Option 4 - Armstrong obtains a list of teams that Kyrou would waive for (this would need to be via a signed addendum to his NTC in order to be enforceable), or prior to even negotiating with a team, Armstrong asks Kyrou if he would waive (which wouldn’t be binding unless and until Kyrou actually waives in writing.) From what we can tell, Armstrong usually goes with Option 1 and won’t ask a player to waive unless Armstrong already has a deal lined up.

Ok. Thank you so much for this information.

In the news, we just heard that "Kyrou has said that he would ok a trade to Montreal.".

Does this tell us with certainty that OPTION 1 was definitely in-progress?

Well, first you’d have to accept the “Kyrou would accept a trade to Montreal” rumor as true. I for one, do not.

As others have already said, option 2 or anything close to it would be tampering and way way against the rules. You’re simply not allowed to talk to players that are under contract with a different team. The only exception is if the team that owns the rights to the player gives other team(s) permission to talk to that player. A team would only allow that if an extension with the new team was a part of the deal. For example, I suspect TB gave Edmonton permission to talk to Isaac Howard before that trade yesterday. The trade was agreed upon but contingent upon Edmonton and Howard agreeing to a contract.

How a trade involving a NTC almost always works is Option 1.

But with so much smoke surrounding Kyrou and MTL, is it possible Kyrou and his agent talked about it and then the agent talked to Army and said his client would be open to waiving his NTC to go to MTL? Sure. But I’ll note that anything involving Kyrou and MTL the last week or so has come from fan blogs and/or super unreliable sources.

Here’s my take on the Kyrou to MTL rumors:

My guess is the Blues absolutely discussed trading Kyrou to the Habs. But they couldn’t come to an agreement. So they pivoted to a smaller deal that became Mailloux for Bolduc. That to me, effectively closed the door on Kyrou to MTL. The odds of the Blues trading away both Bolduc AND Kyrou to MTL AND MTL actually having the assets we’d want AND be willing to part with them is just super, super unlikely IMO. MTL may still want Kyrou but I think the deal is dead and all these fan blogs are just regurgitating a rumor that WAS legit but isn’t anymore. Not after the Mailloux/Bolduc trade and after his NTC went into effect.

Thank you so much for the information. Very helpful to know.

My thoughts on this is that any sort of a deal between STL and MON would be complicated (and maybe include a 3rd team) so Army got "pre-approval" from Kyrou to proceed with negotiations. So Kryou did likely "OK" a trade at some point. After that OK, the negotiations fell apart, and, as you say, the smaller deal was completed instead.

However, now we are in a situation where Kyrou did actually "OK a move to Montreal", and a fair number of people found out about it, and capping the "loose lips" is impossible.

So now where do we stand....
1. The NHL and the world knows that Kryou would be happy to go to Montreal (Whether true or not)
2. Kyrou appears to want to force a trade to Montreal because he is saying nothing about wanting to stay in St Louis.
3. The no-trade-clause is working more like a "force-trade-clause". Once fans and/or management sniff disloyalty by a player, it's often over.
4. The spirit of the no-trade-clause has definitely been broken (by somebody), and there is not a single policeman coming to arrest the criminal.
5. The trade value for Kyrou has been impacted negatively by this. What team wants to flirt with Kyrou in the future after seeing how the blues backroom business was made public and drew a circus.
6. If I were a GM, I would never grant a NTC again. It's nothing but a cluster for the team. Kyrou won't be hurt by this, but the St Louis Blues have been given a black eye.

Any further thoughts about my comments?

Dude, seriously. Points 1 thru 6 are completely made up without any knowledge or source.

You know why we got Broberg and Holloway? It wasn't the offer sheets. It was the disloyalty "behind" the offer sheets. The fans and management in Edmonton came to the conclusion that if the 2 players didn't want to be here, they didn't want them.

Everyone is acting like the news/rumor that "Kyrou would OK a trade to Montreal" is trivial, but it is not. I would classify it as an absolute time bomb. In the minds of the fans and the owners, it reeks of disloyalty, and that is a powder keg (as we saw with Broberg and Holloway).

[somni]

Oh my

Not sure why I even tried to answer.

[Nublues69]

How do No-Trade-Clauses work in practice?

I understand the concept of NTC, but I'm curious how they ultimately play out....

Let's use Kyrou as an example.

1. Option 1 - Army hatches a trade, and then asks Kyrou if he OKs the trade to wherever. If yes, the trade is completed.

2. Option 2 - Kyrou speaks with Montreal, and let's them know he would be happy to play there. Kyrou informs Army to get something done with Montreal. If Army is interested, he pursues.

3. Option 3 - Kyrou holds Montreal over Army's head forever. The only team that he will OK is Montreal.

Clearly Option 3 is a stranglehold that limits the return that Army could get for Kyrou. Montreal knows that they are the only possible trade-partner.

Anybody know how NTC's work in practice?

Option 2 is a big no-no. Players under contract cannot talk to other teams (and vice-versa). Option 1 is how it works, or Option 4 - Armstrong obtains a list of teams that Kyrou would waive for (this would need to be via a signed addendum to his NTC in order to be enforceable), or prior to even negotiating with a team, Armstrong asks Kyrou if he would waive (which wouldn’t be binding unless and until Kyrou actually waives in writing.) From what we can tell, Armstrong usually goes with Option 1 and won’t ask a player to waive unless Armstrong already has a deal lined up.

Ok. Thank you so much for this information.

In the news, we just heard that "Kyrou has said that he would ok a trade to Montreal.".

Does this tell us with certainty that OPTION 1 was definitely in-progress?

Well, first you’d have to accept the “Kyrou would accept a trade to Montreal” rumor as true. I for one, do not.

As others have already said, option 2 or anything close to it would be tampering and way way against the rules. You’re simply not allowed to talk to players that are under contract with a different team. The only exception is if the team that owns the rights to the player gives other team(s) permission to talk to that player. A team would only allow that if an extension with the new team was a part of the deal. For example, I suspect TB gave Edmonton permission to talk to Isaac Howard before that trade yesterday. The trade was agreed upon but contingent upon Edmonton and Howard agreeing to a contract.

How a trade involving a NTC almost always works is Option 1.

But with so much smoke surrounding Kyrou and MTL, is it possible Kyrou and his agent talked about it and then the agent talked to Army and said his client would be open to waiving his NTC to go to MTL? Sure. But I’ll note that anything involving Kyrou and MTL the last week or so has come from fan blogs and/or super unreliable sources.

Here’s my take on the Kyrou to MTL rumors:

My guess is the Blues absolutely discussed trading Kyrou to the Habs. But they couldn’t come to an agreement. So they pivoted to a smaller deal that became Mailloux for Bolduc. That to me, effectively closed the door on Kyrou to MTL. The odds of the Blues trading away both Bolduc AND Kyrou to MTL AND MTL actually having the assets we’d want AND be willing to part with them is just super, super unlikely IMO. MTL may still want Kyrou but I think the deal is dead and all these fan blogs are just regurgitating a rumor that WAS legit but isn’t anymore. Not after the Mailloux/Bolduc trade and after his NTC went into effect.

Thank you so much for the information. Very helpful to know.

My thoughts on this is that any sort of a deal between STL and MON would be complicated (and maybe include a 3rd team) so Army got "pre-approval" from Kyrou to proceed with negotiations. So Kryou did likely "OK" a trade at some point. After that OK, the negotiations fell apart, and, as you say, the smaller deal was completed instead.

However, now we are in a situation where Kyrou did actually "OK a move to Montreal", and a fair number of people found out about it, and capping the "loose lips" is impossible.

So now where do we stand....
1. The NHL and the world knows that Kryou would be happy to go to Montreal (Whether true or not)
2. Kyrou appears to want to force a trade to Montreal because he is saying nothing about wanting to stay in St Louis.
3. The no-trade-clause is working more like a "force-trade-clause". Once fans and/or management sniff disloyalty by a player, it's often over.
4. The spirit of the no-trade-clause has definitely been broken (by somebody), and there is not a single policeman coming to arrest the criminal.
5. The trade value for Kyrou has been impacted negatively by this. What team wants to flirt with Kyrou in the future after seeing how the blues backroom business was made public and drew a circus.
6. If I were a GM, I would never grant a NTC again. It's nothing but a cluster for the team. Kyrou won't be hurt by this, but the St Louis Blues have been given a black eye.

Any further thoughts about my comments?

images (5).jpeg (17.9 KiB) Viewed 220 times