Waived: [NYR] F Tyler Pitlick waived by the Rangers (cleared)

[MMC]

Click to read more...

 

[Treb]

Maybe the Habs claim him so they can send Roy and eventually Gignac down.

 

[AlaBlueShirt]

Welcome back Tarasenko

 

[Robtom18]

Welcome back Tarasenko

Were you guys happy with him last year.

 

[Megustaelhockey]

Back to licking pits, lol.

Edstrom came into the lineup and made this decision very easy for the Rangers.

 

[Rubi]

Waived again?

 

[Gospel of Prospal]

Were you guys happy with him last year.

Sure was

Back to licking pits, lol.

Edstrom came into the lineup and made this decision very easy for the Rangers.

If only we could give the boot to Goodrow and his salary...

 

[cwede]

Welcome back Tarasenko

NyR cannot bring him back w retention, per CBA
Couldn’t afford to bring him back without

“Tarasenko can't rejoin NYR w retention, having been NYR reecntly. CBA 50.5 (e) (iii) (C) (4) “

 

[bl02]

Sucks cause the guy works his ass off every shift and has since the preseason but I guess he's just not that good.

 

[FoxysExpensiveNYDigs]

Edstrom takes his spot. Nothing against Pitlick he played hard but Edstrom is huge and already a better player.

 

[ecemleafs]

rangers have been drafting huge dudes in the later rounds of the draft and it appears edstrom and rempe are ready to play a 4th line role. edstrom has looked good in that role in the couple games hes played with NY. rempe just got called up and sent down. both edstrom and rempe are 6'8".

 

[Vitto79]

Were you guys happy with him last year.

I think he was a good fit

 

[Hunter Gathers]

NyR cannot bring him back w retention, per CBA
Couldn’t afford to bring him back without

“Tarasenko can't rejoin NYR w retention, having been NYR reecntly. CBA 50.5 (e) (iii) (C) (4) “

This is wrong. The CBA pertains to reacquiring contracts - not players. As Tarasenko's contract expired and he became an unrestricted free agent, there is no ability to "reacquire" the contract. Thus he can be traded for with retention.

It's a moot point since I would be shocked if we went that route, anyway.

 

[AslanRH]

NyR cannot bring him back w retention, per CBA
Couldn’t afford to bring him back without

“Tarasenko can't rejoin NYR w retention, having been NYR reecntly. CBA 50.5 (e) (iii) (C) (4) “

Somebody smarter than me probably already broke that down (@mouser likely) , but I wonder if that would be arguable since it is a new SPC that is involved. It wasn't an SPC that the Rangers traded to Ottawa and are then trying to reacquire.

 

[Gaylord Q Tinkledink]

Somebody smarter than me probably already broke that down (@mouser likely) , but I wonder if that would be arguable since it is a new SPC that is involved. It wasn't an SPC that the Rangers traded to Ottawa and are then trying to reacquire.

It would be fine.

The Rangers acquired Tyler Motte on March 21st, 2022. They didn't re-sign him. He signed with the Senators and in February 2023 he was traded to the rangers again.

 

[The Nuge]

Waived again?

Has he ever even been waived a single time before?

 

[GKJ]

He's a limited depth player, but I hope someone claims him

 

[Rubi]

Has he ever even been waived a single time before?

You're right he hasn't which is amazing considering he's played for 8 different teams in the past 8 years and is now on his way to playing for the ninth.

 

[AslanRH]

It would be fine.

The Rangers acquired Tyler Motte on March 21st, 2022. They didn't re-sign him. He signed with the Senators and in February 2023 he was traded to the rangers again.

Sorry, I was unclear. I was referring to retention. not just getting him back in a trade.

 

[cwede]

This is wrong. The CBA pertains to reacquiring contracts - not players. As Tarasenko's contract expired and he became an unrestricted free agent, there is no ability to "reacquire" the contract. Thus he can be traded for with retention.

It's a moot point since I would be shocked if we went that route, anyway.

Somebody smarter than me probably already broke that down (@mouser likely) , but I wonder if that would be arguable since it is a new SPC that is involved. It wasn't an SPC that the Rangers traded to Ottawa and are then trying to reacquire.

Been discussing this for weeks, and i included the pointer to the precise CBA clause as there are always folks who think it cannot be true
CBA 50.5 (e) (iii) (C) (4) “
Agreed its a new contract
Thats not relevent here

Read the CBA paragraph. Obviously written by league office and lawyers explicitly as intended - a player may not be acquired with retention by a team he’d been part of during prior year.

It seems to be there to prevent collusion and Cap avoidance, ie NYR collude w OTT to sign Tara then send him back w retention.

I dont care much if readers believe it, or not, just sharing with the group for consideration relating to topic.

 

[mouser]

NyR cannot bring him back w retention, per CBA
Couldn’t afford to bring him back without

“Tarasenko can't rejoin NYR w retention, having been NYR reecntly. CBA 50.5 (e) (iii) (C) (4) “

This is wrong. The CBA pertains to reacquiring contracts - not players. As Tarasenko's contract expired and he became an unrestricted free agent, there is no ability to "reacquire" the contract. Thus he can be traded for with retention.

It's a moot point since I would be shocked if we went that route, anyway.

Somebody smarter than me probably already broke that down (@mouser likely) , but I wonder if that would be arguable since it is a new SPC that is involved. It wasn't an SPC that the Rangers traded to Ottawa and are then trying to reacquire.

The NHL has interpreted that "reacquire" in 50.5(e)(iii)(C)(4) means reacquiring the Player, not reacquiring the specific SPC which may have expired. The illustration in C(4) doesn't matter--it's only an illustration of one possible scenario, not an exhaustive list of all possible scenarios.

Teams cannot acquire a player in a retained salary transaction if the player was on that team's reserve list within the previous calendar year (i.e. 365 days).

 

[cwede]

The NHL has interpreted that "reacquire" in 50.5(e)(iii)(C)(4) means reacquiring the Player, not reacquiring the specific SPC which may have expired. The illustration in C(4) doesn't matter--it's only an illustration of one possible scenario, not an exhaustive list of all possible scenarios.

Teams cannot acquire a player in a retained salary transaction if the player was on that team's reserve list within the previous calendar year (i.e. 365 days).

Thanks
We saw this apply, IIRC, last summer, when DeAngelo was rumored be returning to Canes w retention against the new deal he’d signed w Flyers.
Because of this clause, League wouldn't allow it,
Canes wouldn’t assume Full Cap Hit, so Flyers didnt get an asset back,
Flyers released TonyD, and Canes signed him at near league minimum

 

[BLNY]

Maybe the Habs claim him so they can send Roy and eventually Gignac down.

Gignac deserves the chance to play.

 

[Treb]

Gignac deserves the chance to play.

He'll play... in Laval.

 

[BLNY]

He'll play... in Laval.

... in Montreal. Tyler Pitlick doesn't make them better. If they wanted him for organizational depth they could have signed him to a two-way deal in 2022.

As they're still in sell mode, spots in the roster deserve to go to players in the system. If there are a rash of injuries, then they can look at the waiver market.

Gignac would also have to pass through waivers, further reducing the point of the claim.