Leafs recall Josh Leivo; JVR out 6-8 weeks with fracture in left foot

[Can8899]

Also, I figure it does give the team the excuse to cut any pretenses towards it not being a rebuilding year. Maybe the deadline selling starts now-ish.

This is my hope. It also showcases Leivo as additional trade bait.

I can't see a 23 year old career minor leaguer being too sought after.  He may bring in a late round pick or at best another minor leaguer (Similar to the Panik-Morin deal).

Should his play merit it, I think the Leafs would be best served in keeping him up for at least the rest of this season and see if he can cut it.  If he can, we have a 3rd or 4th liner for next season at a good price (likely similar to what his cap hit is now).

 

[Bullfrog]

If it's towards the end of that estimate does it mean we won't be able to trade JVR before the deadline? Or will teams not be so fussed about this sort of injury with him being able to play shortly after the deadline?

He's got another two years on his deal after this season, so I don't think teams will be too concerned.

I believe he has an NTC that kicks in this off season, which will limit our ability to move him.  I don't know when exactly it kicks in, so we might have time during the off season, but its worth noting.

Ah. I wasn't aware of that. Might just mean he gets moved in the off-season instead of the trade deadline (if he gets moved that is.) He's young enough to be a meaningful player going forward.

 

[L K]

If it's towards the end of that estimate does it mean we won't be able to trade JVR before the deadline? Or will teams not be so fussed about this sort of injury with him being able to play shortly after the deadline?

He's got another two years on his deal after this season, so I don't think teams will be too concerned.

I believe he has an NTC that kicks in this off season, which will limit our ability to move him.  I don't know when exactly it kicks in, so we might have time during the off season, but its worth noting.

Ah. I wasn't aware of that. Might just mean he gets moved in the off-season instead of the trade deadline (if he gets moved that is.) He's young enough to be a meaningful player going forward.

I'm pretty sure it's July 1st so the Leafs could still easily move him at the draft if a team isn't willing to risk a deal before he gets back in the lineup.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

I'm not actually sure that JVR has a no trade clause. There's something in the CBA that says that if a player is traded prior to his NTC/NMC kicking in, the acquiring team isn't bound to it. It says that the team can decide to keep it in the contract, but I don't know why any team would do that.

 

[herman]

I'm not actually sure that JVR has a no trade clause. There's something in the CBA that says that if a player is traded prior to his NTC/NMC kicking in, the acquiring team isn't bound to it. It says that the team can decide to keep it in the contract, but I don't know why any team would do that.

This is the relevant section of the CBA:

Excerpt (NHL CBA ARTICLE 11.8):
11.8 Individually Negotiated Limitations on Player Movement.

(a) The SPC of any Player who is a Group 3 Unrestricted Free Agent under Article 10.1(a) may contain a no-Trade or a no-move clause. SPCs containing a no-Trade or a no-move clause may be entered into prior to the time that the Player is a Group 3 Unrestricted Free Agent so long as the SPC containing the no-Trade or no-move clause extends through and does not become effective until the time that the Player qualifies for Group 3 Unrestricted Free Agency. If the Player is Traded or claimed on Waivers prior to the no-Trade or no-move clause taking effect, the clause does not bind the acquiring Club. An acquiring Club may agree to continue to be bound by the no-Trade or no-move clause, which agreement shall be evidenced in writing to the Player, Central Registry and the NHLPA, in accordance with Exhibit 3 hereof.

If we move him at the deadline or draft before July 1, his modified NTC can be nullified by the team receiving him. If the Leafs keep him past July 1, it would take effect. I think that when we acquired him, his original 6 year contract extension did not take effect yet, so we were bound to the NTC.

 

[Bullfrog]

I really don't know how the NHLPA agreed to that clause. I don't think that's fair at all.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

I think that when we acquired him, his original 6 year contract extension did not take effect yet, so we were bound to the NTC.

That's an interesting wrinkle that I didn't think about, he was traded on June 23rd and that contract wouldn't have technically kicked in until July 1st. But I'm not really sure that saves his NTC in this case. The CBA doesn't offer any specifications in that case. The Leafs still acquired a contract that contained a NTC which hadn't kicked in yet, they shouldn't be bound to it.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

I really don't know how the NHLPA agreed to that clause. I don't think that's fair at all.

It's a weird one. First came up a few years ago when Lubomir Visnovsky was traded from LA to EDM just a couple of days before his NTC would have kicked in. And it seemed like he didn't even know it was voided because he filed a grievance about it when Edmonton later traded him to the Islanders and didn't get his approval for it.

 

[bustaheims]

That's an interesting wrinkle that I didn't think about, he was traded on June 23rd and that contract wouldn't have technically kicked in until July 1st. But I'm not really sure that saves his NTC in this case. The CBA doesn't offer any specifications in that case. The Leafs still acquired a contract that contained a NTC which hadn't kicked in yet, they shouldn't be bound to it.

That's my interpretation, as well. The Leafs acquired JvR prior to the clause taking effect, so, they're only bound by it if they chose to be.

EDIT: That being said, with Burke being the GM at the time of the deal, I imagine the Leafs woudl have chosen to be bound by it, as Burke is very much an "honour the contract as it was negotiated" type of guy.

 

[Kin]

I really don't know how the NHLPA agreed to that clause.

Because they folded like a cheap suit?

 

[CarltonTheBear]

EDIT: That being said, with Burke being the GM at the time of the deal, I imagine the Leafs woudl have chosen to be bound by it, as Burke is very much an "honour the contract as it was negotiated" type of guy.

I honestly had the exact same thought but didn't want to share it because of how dumb it would have been.

 

[bustaheims]

EDIT: That being said, with Burke being the GM at the time of the deal, I imagine the Leafs woudl have chosen to be bound by it, as Burke is very much an "honour the contract as it was negotiated" type of guy.

I honestly had the exact same thought but didn't want to share it because of how dumb it would have been.

I know. It just kinda struck me as the only thing keeping the Leafs from doing the obvious. Probably safe to assume the NTC is being enforced because of it, though.

 

[Frank E]

Wasn't JVR traded before the new CBA?

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Wasn't JVR traded before the new CBA?

Yeah, but that language was in both.

 

[herman]

EDIT: That being said, with Burke being the GM at the time of the deal, I imagine the Leafs woudl have chosen to be bound by it, as Burke is very much an "honour the contract as it was negotiated" type of guy.

I honestly had the exact same thought but didn't want to share it because of how dumb it would have been.

I know. It just kinda struck me as the only thing keeping the Leafs from doing the obvious. Probably safe to assume the NTC is being enforced because of it, though.

I think we were all thinking the same thing: Burke Leaf'd it up.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

I know. It just kinda struck me as the only thing keeping the Leafs from doing the obvious. Probably safe to assume the NTC is being enforced because of it, though.

I'd still lean towards there being no NTC until someone confirms it, but even if he did have one I'm not really worried about it holding up any potential trade scenario.

 

[bustaheims]

I'd still lean towards there being no NTC until someone confirms it, but even if he did have one I'm not really worried about it holding up any potential trade scenario.

I'm the other way, but I agree that, regardless of the status, it's not likely to be an issue.

 

[Bullfrog]

I really don't know how the NHLPA agreed to that clause.

Because they folded like a cheap suit?

Well, there's that, ya.

 

[herman]

I know. It just kinda struck me as the only thing keeping the Leafs from doing the obvious. Probably safe to assume the NTC is being enforced because of it, though.

I'd still lean towards there being no NTC until someone confirms it, but even if he did have one I'm not really worried about it holding up any potential trade scenario.

Both Capfriendly and General Fanager report the m-NTC on JvR's contract.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Both Capfriendly and General Fanager report the m-NTC on JvR's contract.

But even GF makes note that it could be voided because of the trade. And NTC/NMC's have always been the one thing that these sites have been somewhat unreliable with. They can often only put up what's been reported in the media, and the media reported that the original deal had the clause in it. Nobody has reported that it's been voided because it's not really the type of thing to come up.