Waived: Goodrow waived (claimed by San Jose Sharks)

[haohmaru]

I really think a Kakko trade is forthcoming.

If that's true I hope it's part of a package for a similarly aged player and not some old fart.

 

[mxyxptlk]

The NHLPA would have a field day if there was some type of deal to pay San Jose for claiming him. NTCs are supposed to mean something.

NTCs are only immune from being traded without their permission.

 

[LOFIN]

NTCs are only immune from being traded without their permission.

Yes, so the Rangers giving something to San Jose now would be fishy, and people could connect the dots.

So nothing will happen.

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

Yes, so the Rangers giving something to San Jose now would be fishy, and people could connect the dots.

So nothing will happen.

Yeah sometimes teams work things out before the waiver claim and its just a straight trade (See: McDonagh to NSH)

This was a straight waiver claim and it ends there.

 

[mxyxptlk]

Does getting claimed on waivers rather than waiving the NTC make any difference in whether the NTC is still in effect after the claim?

I could be wrong, but I would think the NTC is still in effect since the claiming team is picking up the contract intact.

 

[JimmyG89]

Would have saved 15 pages of dreck.

I nominate this as the title for the next Roster Building Thread.

 

[mxyxptlk]

Yes, so the Rangers giving something to San Jose now would be fishy, and people could connect the dots.

So nothing will happen.

I suppose some kind of "considerations" deal could occur where Rangers agree to send player or draft pick at a later date.

 

[mike14]

I could be wrong, but I would think the NTC is still in effect since the claiming team is picking up the contract intact.

Thanks.
Might then explain the waivers vs future considerations question. Goodrow keeps some protection against being moved again in this case

 

[LOFIN]

Thanks.
Might then explain the waivers vs future considerations question. Goodrow keeps some protection against being moved again in this case

Huh?

 

[mxyxptlk]

Thanks.
Might then explain the waivers vs future considerations question. Goodrow keeps some protection against being moved again in this case

That's correct. If he had waived, SJ would have had the option to honor the NTC after the trade or get rid of it.

 

[bhamill]

why would they take him for nothing? I feel like they’d want a 2nd or something out of it.

They are far from the salary floor and they want a veteran influence for their young team. Why on earth would we ship out a 2nd when we could have bought him out? This isn’t dumpster fire Nemeth, Goodrow actually has worth and was an easy buy out. At worst prob a 5th or we take back some salary in another deal.

 

[LOFIN]

That's correct. If he had waived, SJ would have had the option to honor the NTC after the trade or get rid of it.

I don’t think that’s how it goes. They would just re-negotiate the list. Because If the list completely went away, teams would mislead players into waiving their list to a not an ideal but ok place, and then trade them to absolute no-no places for players.

 

[bhamill]

So what period is Goodrow scoring in when SJ comes to MSG next season?

ALL of them. Duh.

 

[Machinehead]

The Rangers can't give anything to San Jose. It would constitute a trade.

If there was a small "favor" it would be the next team the teams or GM's had a legitimate reason to interact.

Also, wouldn't it be going the other way? The Sharks got an asset and we didn't.

Like, ok, Goodrow is bad but SJ obviously wanted him. They claimed him. We're the team that literally didn't get anything.

They owe a favor to us if there is one.

Personally, I don't think there is. The Sharks got an asset and we got space. That's the deal.

 

[CTTribe73]

They are far from the salary floor and they want a veteran influence for their young team. Why on earth would we ship out a 2nd when we could have bought him out? This isn’t dumpster fire Nemeth, Goodrow actually has worth and was an easy buy out. At worst prob a 5th or we take back some salary in another deal.

Can we interest them in a shiny, moderately used Zibs?

 

[mike14]

Huh?

Not 100% sure, but
If Goodrow is waived his NTC remains intact (obviously less the claiming team) so he's assured some protection against being moved again
If he was traded (for futures or whatever) by waiving his NTC then the new team can chose not to honor it, meaning he has less future trade protection.

In that case how he gets to SJS becomes important to him

 

[Fitzy]

This is the apology for claiming Ty Emberson in my head-canon

 

[LOFIN]

Not 100% sure, but
If Goodrow is waived his NTC remains intact (obviously less the claiming team) so he's assured some protection against being moved again
If he was traded (for futures or whatever) by waiving his NTC then the new team can chose not to honor it, meaning he has less future trade protection.

I don’t think that’s how it goes. The list either stays the same, or they re-negotiate it (some M-NTCs are updated every year)

Otherwise teams would just trick players to get rid of their NTCs by using third party brokerers

 

[mike14]

I don’t think that’s how it goes. The list either stays the same, or they re-negotiate it (some M-NTCs are updated every year)

Otherwise teams would just trick players to get rid of their NTCs by using third party brokerers

Yeah that's why i asked the original question, I wasn't sure how the NTC was structured, if at all, after a trade vs being placed on waivers

 

[eco's bones]

It's not clear to me why we should owe San Jose anything. I mean maybe but it might just be as simple as Mike Grier wanting a veteran with past history with the Sharks team and a winning pedigree and is not that concerned about the cap hit right now or even for the foreseeable future of Goodrow's term. Goodrow is a good team guy and it's not like there aren't any intangibles. He's a good guy to have on your bottom lines and a good character player. Also someone he could possibly flip later on for a draft pick. The Sharks I believe got a 1st rounder for him when they moved him to Tampa a few years back. They might be doing us a favor but you could also look at they're getting something out of it too. For instance I'd rather Goodrow in my bottom 6 than Ryan Carpenter.

As well Sharks picked up Emberson on waivers from us last year. It's not like we've been getting players from them.....it's the other way around.

 

[mxyxptlk]

I don’t think that’s how it goes. The list either stays the same, or they re-negotiate it (some M-NTCs are updated every year)

Otherwise teams would just trick players to get rid of their NTCs by using third party brokerers

From Puckpedia:

If a player waives a clause for a trade, they generally agree to waive it only for the purposes of that specific trade, so the acquiring team agrees to put it back in place.

No Trade/Movement Clauses | Puckpedia

Players can have no trade or no movement protection in their contracts: No Trade Clause (NTC): A player cannot be traded without permission No Movement Clause (NMC): A player cannot be traded or placed on waivers without permission. Waivers are needed to send players to AHL. Modified No Trade or...

puckpedia.com

 

[Luger]

I nominate this as the title for the next Roster Building Thread.

Whoever creates the next Roster Building page, please call it "Fifteen Pages of Dreck." I mean it.

 

[CTTribe73]

It's not clear to me why we should owe San Jose anything. I mean maybe but it might just be as simple as Mike Grier wanting a veteran with past history with the Sharks team and a winning pedigree and is not that concerned about the cap hit right now or even for the foreseeable future of Goodrow's term. Goodrow is a good team guy and it's not like there aren't any intangibles. He's a good guy to have on your bottom lines and a good character player. Also someone he could possibly flip later on for a draft pick. The Sharks I believe got a 1st rounder for him when they moved him to Tampa a few years back.

As well Sharks picked up Emberson on waivers from us last year. It's not like we've been getting players from them.....it's the other way around.

I think it's the fact that this seems to good to be true.

 

[Fitzy]

I think it's the fact that this seems to good to be true.

They have to get to the cap floor somehow and this is a team not looking to win for a minute.

 

[mxyxptlk]

I don’t think that’s how it goes. The list either stays the same, or they re-negotiate it (some M-NTCs are updated every year)

Otherwise teams would just trick players to get rid of their NTCs by using third party brokerers

The list is not part of the contract.....and doesn't exist until the player is asked for it.