Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Heatly to the Oilers. (Not so fast)

TSN is reporting this deal if Heatley will waive his no-trade clause. If this is true the Edmonton Oilers will have gotten a lot better or at least added some fire power they didn't have last year. The Senators give up an unhappy star in Heatley for three decent role players.
Sources say Dany Heatley has been asked to waive his no-trade clause to go to Edmonton in exchange for Andrew Cogliano, Dustin Penner and Ladislav Smid.

If Heatley agrees to waive, it would appear the Sens and Oilers will have a deal, pending the official trade call with NHL central registry, but that is generally a formality.

Heatley informed the Senators in early June that despite having five-years remaining on a six-year contract extension that he recently signed that he wished to be moved. The contract calls for Heatley to make $7.5 million per season against the cap. [TSN]

UPDATE: Here is the latest from [Puck Daddy] .
Dany Heatley(notes) was this close to becoming a member of the Edmonton Oilers. As was reported last night on TSN and Sportsnet, the Oilers and Ottawa Senators had a deal in place that would have sent Andrew Cogliano(notes), Dustin Penner(notes) and Ladislav Smid(notes) to Ottawa in exchange for Heatley, as long as he approved the deal. Just after midnight Eastern time, TSN's Bob McKenzie put the kibosh on the trade reporting that Heatley had rejected the deal saying, "For now, and quite possibly forever, the deal is dead."

BallHype: hype it up!

3 comments:

  1. Looks like Heatley is refusing to waive his no trade clause.

    TSN says the the Sens can avoid the July 1st $4MM payout if they trade him by the end of July 1, ie 12AM July 2. So he still could be traded tomorrow, assuming the Sens work out a deal with someone for which he'll waive the no-trade clause.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This would be the second-worst trade in Oilers history...

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well, now they've changed it again,saying that he didn't oblige when asked to waive the clause, which is different than an outright refusal. So potentially he still could oblige, but I don't know, if he were going to waive it, why wouldn't he just go ahead and do so when asked?

    ReplyDelete