Lundquist contract question??

[The Pope*]

I was just talking with a friend of mine and he brought up something that didn't sound right to me so I thought I'd ask you people. He was saying that Hank can be traded I was contending that Hank isn't going anywhere that he signed a new contract with a no trade and no movement clause his contention was that it's an extension and that contract doesn't go into effect until the end of the season when his old contract expires. Is this true? because it doesn't sound right to me but in theory when you think about it I guess the only time he can be traded is under his old contract not under the new contract if anyone has any clarification on this please post.

Click to read more...

 

[Doctor King Schultz]

Nice try Sather.

 

[Brooklyn Ranger]

Yep, Sather signed Lundqvist to an extension in order to trade him before the deal kicks in. Masterful!

 

[Boruto]

I believe NMC in extensions can reach back into the current contract. This might be automatic or it might be an additional clause. I don't see why a player wouldn't opt for it in such a situation since there's no harm done in wrapping the NMC onto the current contract as it only gives the player more control.

 

[Hire Sather]

Didn't they change it so that it automatically kicks into a current contract.. after the Flyers boned Carter?

 

[MetalGodAOD*]

As per the new CBA, NTCs can start immediately. It's the Jeff Carter provision.

 

[The Pope*]

Thanks that's what I was thinking. And for the record I am not sather my name is the same here as it is on wbb.

 

[GAGLine]

NMC or not, he can still be traded. Not that I think he will or that he should be, but a couple years from now, who knows. Let him find his game again, let Talbot prove that he can be more than just a backup, and then see where we are.

 

[PlamsUnlimited]

Glen....

 

[Ail]

Thanks that's what I was thinking. And for the record I am not sather my name is the same here as it is on wbb.

Well Sather fancies himself smarter than the Pope, the Pope of hockey if you will.

So you are not being very convincing right now, Glen.

 

[bubba5]

I'm just curious who would be willing to take on that contract who actually needs a goalie, can financially afford it, and has the cap room? I bet no one. In fact I have to even wonder if someone would have paid that much for him if he became unresticted.

 

[pld459666]

I was just talking with a friend of mine and he brought up something that didn't sound right to me so I thought I'd ask you people. He was saying that Hank can be traded I was contending that Hank isn't going anywhere that he signed a new contract with a no trade and no movement clause his contention was that it's an extension and that contract doesn't go into effect until the end of the season when his old contract expires. Is this true? because it doesn't sound right to me but in theory when you think about it I guess the only time he can be traded is under his old contract not under the new contract if anyone has any clarification on this please post.

If we look no further than what happened with Jeff Carter in Philly, then yes, Hank CAN be traded as the extension and it's terms do not kick in until I believe the roll over date is the same date as UFA July 1st.

THAT said, trading Hank today, unless it gets you a top 15 goalie in return making 5 million per and a legit 2nd line sniper and a 1st makes no sense.

Flip side is that most teams are no going to give up anywhere near that even for Hank.

8.5 for a goalie is I think is an over payment of 750k per season. But that's just me.

 

[Giacomin]

I was just talking with a friend of mine and he brought up something that didn't sound right to me so I thought I'd ask you people. He was saying that Hank can be traded I was contending that Hank isn't going anywhere that he signed a new contract with a no trade and no movement clause his contention was that it's an extension and that contract doesn't go into effect until the end of the season when his old contract expires. Is this true? because it doesn't sound right to me but in theory when you think about it I guess the only time he can be traded is under his old contract not under the new contract if anyone has any clarification on this please post.

Rumor has it that the Islanders want a big time goalie . Tavares for Lundqvist?

 

[Thirty One]

As per the new CBA, NTCs can start immediately. It's the Jeff Carter provision.

It can't extend into the player's RFA years, so Carter wouldn't even have been eligible.

 

[NYRFAN218]

Thanks that's what I was thinking. And for the record I am not sather my name is the same here as it is on wbb.

Are you Mike Francesa?

 

[Hire Sather]

Are you Mike Francesa?

ROFL, beaten

yeah anyone here refering to Sather as Pope is highly disrespecting Francesa, and I don't like that.

 

[Paulie Walnutz]

Are you Mike Francesa?

It would explain who this "Lundquist" guy is

 

[SnowblindNYR]

ROFL, beaten

yeah anyone here refering to Sather as Pope is highly disrespecting Francesa, and I don't like that.

Comparing anyone to Francessa short of maybe Dahmer is not disrespecting Francessa, it's disrespecting the person compared to him. The guy is a ******* (since that will hilariously be filtered it rhymes dumb bag).

 

[SnowblindNYR]

I was just talking with a friend of mine and he brought up something that didn't sound right to me so I thought I'd ask you people. He was saying that Hank can be traded I was contending that Hank isn't going anywhere that he signed a new contract with a no trade and no movement clause his contention was that it's an extension and that contract doesn't go into effect until the end of the season when his old contract expires. Is this true? because it doesn't sound right to me but in theory when you think about it I guess the only time he can be traded is under his old contract not under the new contract if anyone has any clarification on this please post.

Oh and...