NMC only.Right, but we are forced to protect if they have any type of NMC/NTC, correct?
NMC only.Right, but we are forced to protect if they have any type of NMC/NTC, correct?
pretty sure it was that you have to protect NMC or full NTC. Didn't have to protect partial or modified NTC'sRight, but we are forced to protect if they have any type of NMC/NTC, correct?
Yeah, one of the reasons I'm ok with the clause after my initial yikes reaction.Nobody is signing a deal today without considerations for the expansion draft
Nobody is signing a deal today without considerations for the expansion draft
1yr too long is not a deal breaker for me, especially since he is moveable those last 2 years.Then you tell him best of luck on his contract search and move on. Or tell him he can have the protection or the extra year.
It's not against the law to negotiate and stick to some principles, and it was widely reported other teams looking at him we're balking at the 5th year.
It's another death by 1000 paper cuts of the Fenton era, that illustrates he's not cut out for the job.
If you're worried about Zuccarello not being good enough to protect for the expansion draft, then you shouldn't be talking to him in the first place.Then you tell him best of luck on his contract search and move on. Or tell him he can have the protection or the extra year.
It's not against the law to negotiate and stick to some principles, and it was widely reported other teams looking at him we're balking at the 5th year.
It's another death by 1000 paper cuts of the Fenton era, that illustrates he's not cut out for the job.
An extra year that can be bought out or traded away seems like a dumb hill to die on when you've got a chance to fill a clear roster hole with a very good player.Then you tell him best of luck on his contract search and move on. Or tell him he can have the protection or the extra year.
It's not against the law to negotiate and stick to some principles, and it was widely reported other teams looking at him we're balking at the 5th year.
It's another death by 1000 paper cuts of the Fenton era, that illustrates he's not cut out for the job.
Or Zucc is the replacement Koivu factor
I'd actually go with Dumba there. He is the clear franchise player currently. Word from those in the know last season talked about how he took a step into a leadership role too.Yes, that's the plan. Zucc is the captain when Koivu is gone
Not a great structure for a buyout or dumping him late in the deal.
That trade protection still doesn't make any sense the way he's phrasing it, but if there's a 10-team NTC in years 4 and 5 I'm going to assume that there's not somehow an NMC on top of it.
Just did the calculator on Cap Friendly. If he's bought out before the 5th year, they're showing $2M savings in the final year ($4M cap hit) with only a $1M hit the year after. Doesn't seem so bad.
That trade protection still doesn't make any sense the way he's phrasing it, but if there's a 10-team NTC in years 4 and 5 I'm going to assume that there's not somehow an NMC on top of it.
Which increases his tradability.Just did the calculator on Cap Friendly. If he's bought out before the 5th year, they're showing $2M savings in the final year ($4M cap hit) with only a $1M hit the year after. Doesn't seem so bad.
That's how I'm interpreting it as well, but as written it makes no sense. The way it's written could also be interpreted as zero trade protection for the first three years.Think he's just phrasing things weirdly. Might be a NMC meaning he can't be sent down throughout. Then the standard NMC yrs 1-3 and then the m-NTC in yrs 4-5. That's how I interpret it at least.
There has been worse contracts. but what is the direction behind this move? A few months ago the thing was "getting younger". Now we sign a guy older than anyone that was traded until he is 37. Either way, don't matter much since Wild won't be competitive during his contract anyway.
So Kaprizov and Boldy aren't going to help at all the next couple years?There has been worse contracts. but what is the direction behind this move? A few months ago the thing was "getting younger". Now we sign a guy older than anyone that was traded until he is 37. Either way, don't matter much since Wild won't be competitive during his contract anyway.
As i understand it, an NMC is exactly what it sounds like. A No Move Clause. Meaning you cannot trade the player, waive him, or send him down to the AHL. You have two options, play him, or bench him. Thats it.Think he's just phrasing things weirdly. Might be a NMC meaning he can't be sent down throughout. Then the standard NMC yrs 1-3 and then the m-NTC in yrs 4-5. That's how I interpret it at least.
Zucker (27) - Staal (34) - Fiala (22)There has been worse contracts. but what is the direction behind this move? A few months ago the thing was "getting younger". Now we sign a guy older than anyone that was traded until he is 37. Either way, don't matter much since Wild won't be competitive during his contract anyway.
Looking at the roster typed out like that, and knowing that Kaprizov and Boldy are on the way, I see two things that are obvious.Zucker (27) - Staal (34) - Fiala (22)
Parise (34) - Koivu (36) - Zuccarello (31)
Greenway (22) - Eriksson-Ek (22) - Kunin (21)
Foligno (27) - Sturm (24) - Hartman (24)
Donato (23)
Rask (26)
The 21/22/23 year olds balance out the 30+ guys fine, I think. I'm not sure how the average age compares to last year, but there's more real youth there. If Fenton can scrounge up some young replacements for Staal and Koivu over the next two seasons we're in pretty good shape.