NYR94
Registered User
Evander Kane incoming. Or a big name that Doug Wilson decides to trade off the perennial playoff loser Sharks team he has built. Sather's gotta solidify that 2015 second round playoff loss!
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
- Status
Evander Kane incoming. Or a big name that Doug Wilson decides to trade off the perennial playoff loser Sharks team he has built. Sather's gotta solidify that 2015 second round playoff loss!
94now
Registered User
I am happy with this season. New coach got someone's team and made to second round. Not bad. PIT was a well established team with questionable goalie. Once MAF proved that assessment about himself wrong, it's time to schedule some golf time. Rangers as they are cannot play any better. They cannot beat PIT PK which is well coached. Nash isn't Malkin, Richards is no Neal, let alone Crosby. Lundqvist played one game lights out and was admirable otherwise. Thank you very much. They have to try to force game 6 being relaxed and appreciated. STOP ALL CRITISISM!!! They did well.
Blueshirt Special
Shady Brey
NYR94
Registered User
Shortly after the Rangers are eliminated we'll hear about the injury he's been playing with. Surgery to follow. Pierre said it during the game last night that all signs point to him being injured. I just hope he's ready for the start of next season.
pld459666
Registered User
Yeah, its just as easy as typing it. Keep all the facts and reality out of the argument like his NMC and NTC.
Like that has ever really stopped a team from trading a player.
If the Rangers want to trade him, they WILL be able to trade him.
It will limit the market, but he IS TRADABLE.
Now, I don't think I have seen the answer to this, but did the Rangers agree to continue the NTC after Nash waived it to come here?
Typically, once a player waives a NTC, it's gone from the contract.
Can you confirm that the Rangers picked up the NTC portion of the contract?
For example, Gaborik had a NTC and waived it to go to Columbus, I do not recall them neededing his consent to be traded again this year but he was.
RICK NASH - CLAUSES: NMC (2010-11 through 2014-15); NTC (2015-16 through 2017-18).
@AGrossRecord: No movement clause through 2015, no trade through 2018
NoQuitInNewMexico
it's okay cause it's all just the way it should be
Probably around the same: a worse contract, but on a better player.
Unless his concussion issues are a serious problem and it's a known secret around the league, I think we can bring in a similarish return; he's not going to carry a team on his back and he has baggage, but I still think he's a great secondary option. That's why I was high on the construction of this team, and while Nash is underperforming he's still giving us more than MSL and (an almost definitely injured) McDonagh.
I don't think Rick Nash is the kind of personality who would move heaven and earth to stay somewhere he isn't really wanted. I also think any interest in him would come from playoff teams who want to put him with a superstar and not, like, the Flames.
pld459666
Registered User
Did the Rangers agree to carry it forward?
reason I ask is you notice he got moved in the middle if his NMC period.
Which means he waived it.
The acquiring team has no obligation to pick it up and remain bound by it's terms.
pld459666
Registered User
regardless, you think he's going to hold firm on that NTC or NMC if the Rangers approached him and said we want to go in another direction.
We know and understand that you have this Clause, but we want a list of teams we can trade you to.
You think him and his agent are going to say No? Really?
Why stay in a situation where you are not wanted?
Of course he would provide a list of teams. Don't be silly.
We know and understand that you have this Clause, but we want a list of teams we can trade you to.
You think him and his agent are going to say No? Really?
Why stay in a situation where you are not wanted?
Of course he would provide a list of teams. Don't be silly.
No one is questioning whether or not he COULD be dealt, that possibility always exists.
It comes down to whether or not he would be willing to do that. We don't know that for certain.
haohmaru
boomshakalaka
haohmaru
boomshakalaka
Rangers have no say in "agreeing to carry it forward". The contract is what it is and Rick Nash is the only one that can choose - not the Rangers. The fact that he chose to in order to come here doesn't mean that the contract is different moving forward. It isn't.
Not so sure. Has not missed a practice or skate and has not been in the trainer's room at all as far as we can tell. The media usually notices that kind of thing. With that being said he's definitely not 100 percent. And if he is that is scary.
Almost certain thats what it is.
Also, the drugs he's taking for pain, etc are a huge factor in his poor play. He's also in fear of injuring it further.
It's all part of the illusion. It's protocol not to speak of any injuries during the playoffs. This is still a business above anything else. McD not being available for the playoffs would be a huge hit to the team and fan moral, affecting ticket prices, etc.
He doesn't have to miss any practice, and any treatment he is getting is all done behind closed doors. Media doesn't have access everywhere at MSG training center, or MSG.
Plus, he CAN play with it, just not anywhere near 100%.
pld459666
Registered User
you haven't been clear.
All you have done is post what Gross mentioned about the original contract structure.
The structure changes when you waive a specific clause moreso when the acquiring team doesn't have to be bound to that specific clause negotiated with the previous team.
pld459666
Registered User
That's not true.
Rick Nash waived his no trade clause to come to the Rangers.
The Rangers are no longer bound by that clause UNLESS they agree to carry it forward.
pld459666
Registered User
Section No. 11.8 of the CBA:
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.
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.
Hire Sather
He Is Our Star
I'm sure no player will agree to move it without making the new team agree to keep it in place.
Pretty absurd for a player to do that when he was the one demanding a trade in the first place, but we all know the players have too much power.
Pretty absurd for a player to do that when he was the one demanding a trade in the first place, but we all know the players have too much power.
Andrew Gross was referring to Rick Nash's contract with the Rangers. I assumed you would have realized that. Why would he refer to his contract from years ago with the CBJ, when a fan is asking him whether the Rangers can trade Nash.
"If a player waives a clause to accept a trade to a new team, it is rare he will do so without a promise that the acquiring team will continue to honour the clause."
This is why he still has a NMC and NTC.
- Status
Latest posts
-
-
How aggressive should the Leafs be at the deadline? Whimper or All In?
- Latest: LEAFANFORLIFE23
