NTCs and something I wasn't right about

OK, so I'm not right about everything. Fine. You should still listen to me, because I'm great.

So, I had a whole long State-of-the-Union-type post planned, but then things seemed to actually happen. Last night, before the game, it was announced that Ales Kotalik, scratched along with Brashear again, was part of some trade that had hit some complications, but was still "told he could go home and get his things in order." That sure was the first time I'd ever heard that. Somewhat unrelatedly, I was also at the time explaining to my girlfriend exactly what a no-trade clause is. Who knew this information, which seemed so non sequitur at the time, would become so relevant so soon?

As more information slowly surfaces, it seems like the trade on the table is with the Calgary Flames. The teams have, apparently, agreed to a deal of Kotalik and Christopher Higgins in exchange for Olli Jokinen and some Right Wing named Brandon Prust, whom ESPN awkwardly describes as "rugged." Before we get into the meat of that, however, apparently the deal, as we were so aptly told by the broadcasters, hit something of a snag.

Well, it looks like the snag may be Kotalik himself. Rumors have started to surface that Kotalik has a limited no-trade clause in his contract. You see, some NHL stars are so good they can afford to sign no-trade clause contracts. Basically, this means exactly what it sounds like: the player can't be a part of any trades (unless he specifically chooses to waive the clause for that trade). This effectively means the player has the right to approve or veto any trade his team suggests for him. Naturally, you only sign this contract to someone you're really sure you want.

If you want to give some guy similar incentive to sign your contract, but you don't want to give up the right to give him up, you can always sign him to a limited no-trade clause. In this case, the player can select some number of teams, at the time the contract is signed, that he cannot be traded to. In the case of a trade with one of these teams, the clause is treated exactly like a no-trade clause. With teams outside of that list, the clause is meaningless. The list of teams, of course, is kept confidential.

Lots of players are given these limited no-trade clauses; they're a good incentive to sign a contract, and the team theoretically doesn't lose a ton by agreeing to them. I'm pretty sure Redden and Drury have 8-team limited no-trade clauses for us right now. Anyway, as you have probably guessed, word on the street is that Kotalik signed our contract with a 3-team limited no-trade clause, and that Calgary was one of those teams.

So, the ball (puck?) is in Kotalik's court (rink?), whether to accept this trade and be a Flame, or to reject it, force the teams to restructure or cancel the deal, and then wait and see what happens next (as it's clear that he's not wanted as a Ranger). More news on this as it develops.

Now, what about this trade itself? There's an obvious knee-jerk reaction here: the Rangers have once again made a move for a 31-year-old, used-to-be-great, shitty-this-season, needs-a-jump-start-to-his-career, expensive, journeyman forward as if he's going to be the solution. Sounds like the same old shit, right?

But upon more careful inspection, I think we'd come out ahead in this deal. It's no secret that Kotalik was making no difference to us, and Higgins, while I like him a great deal, certainly isn't one of the top five forwards I'd be saddest to see go (Gaborik, Prospal, Callahan, Dubinsky, Avery). Jokinen, meanwhile, has the potential to be our 6'3" first line center that gives us a little more life every game. Regardless, we weren't really getting that life out of what we gave up, so maybe it's not such a bad thing. In fact, Higgins and Kotalik were the two players I was talking about upgrading not so long ago.

Also, let's talk salary cap. Higgins's contract is for $2.25 million, Kotalik's is for $3 million, and Jokinen's is for $5.25 million. So Higgins + Kotalik = Jokinen. More importantly, Higgins and Jokinen are each on contracts that end this season, whereas we signed Kotalik to a 3-year deal of which this is the first. So, we're giving ourselves options. Not only have we upgraded Higgins and Kotalik to Jokinen, for the same total salary, but we've also saved ourselves $3 million of commitment under next year's cap (and the year after's). Meanwhile, we're not committed to Jokinen in any way past April.

Yes, April. Who are you kidding?

On top of that, the Flames throw in a free, 25-year-old, minimum-NHL-salary, "rugged," winger. Worst case scenario, this guy is completely useless to us, and who cares. Scenarios get better from there up. Who knows? This is certainly to our benefit; it's basically a free resource.

So, all things considered, this isn't such a bad move. Jokinen probably makes us slightly better in the short term, moving Kotalik gives us more freedom next off-season, Higgins wasn't doing much anyway, and Prust can't possibly hurt. So I'm actually totally on board with this, despite the fact that it brings over a guy that seems like the usual Ranger bullshit.

The question remains: is Kotalik on board as well?