Speculation: NYR Roster Building Thread Part XL

[Tawnos]

Yet here we are, discussing G and Staal waiving.

As one possible option to address cap issues.

 

[silverfish]

As one possible option to address cap issues.

How possible of an option is it really, though?

 

[Thirty One]

How many full NTCs are there that aren't NMCs?

No clue. I'm still not sure it's an important distinction. Players can waive a partial NTC just like they can a full one. Columbus was on Gaborik's no-trade list. The Rangers on Clowe's etc. etc.

 

[Thirty One]

True. NMC just prevents the player from being waived.

And I've never heard of a player waiving it to be placed on waivers.

 

[Tawnos]

How possible of an option is it really, though?

What does it matter?

 

[TheTakedown]

Is it necessary to point out again that drawing conclusions from one event whilst ignoring all the other ones that don't fit your narrative is dangerous?

I'm not saying that the Rangers can't get rid of Staal and Girardi this off-season. What I am saying is that it is unprecedented, and it is bad business. Bad business because of the initial point of this conversation, that it sends a poor message to potential FAs signing in NY.

If they are going to take two guys they've homegrown, who for all intents and purposes earned their contracts and the NMCs that were involved in them... if they are going to take those two guys and throw them away, what does that say to the guy on the UFA market when he asks the Rangers for an NMC to be part of his deal? Can he surely believe they'll honor that?

I understand that this is HFNYR. That the moves here people speculate on have one thought in mind, to benefit the Rangers to their liking. That isn't how this business works.

I completely understand where you're coming from. On the outside, it does look terrible in a vacuum. On this team though, they are terrible players, not living up to the contracts they signed. They are being outperformed by better talent which happens to be cheaper (in Staal's case, all of McDonagh, Yandle, and Skjei are better than he is this year).

The Rangers especially have a history of treating players very well. How is asking one guy to waive his NMC (clearly because he doesn't fit here, not because management hates him) indicative of how others will be treated?

 

[silverfish]

No clue. I'm still not sure it's an important distinction. Players can waive a partial NTC just like they can a full one. Columbus was on Gaborik's no-trade list. The Rangers on Clowe's etc. etc.

Of course, but the player has less leverage if there are in fact teams that they can be traded to. Obviously they have the final say in waiving if that team does not exist on their list, but the team can turn around and trade them to a team on the list. This can't be done if a player has a full NTC or NMC.

 

[Thirty One]

Of course, but the player has less leverage if there are in fact teams that they can be traded to. Obviously they have the final say in waiving if that team does not exist on their list, but the team can turn around and trade them to a team on the list. This can't be done if a player has a full NTC or NMC.

But the teams on the list are teams that he either (a) would rather be traded to, or (b) doesn't consider a realistic target.

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

No clue. I'm still not sure it's an important distinction. Players can waive a partial NTC just like they can a full one. Columbus was on Gaborik's no-trade list. The Rangers on Clowe's etc. etc.

I think it is important from a flexibility standpoint, but not much else. If a player dogs it, they can't be sent down or waived. For some teams, either the current team the player is on, or an acquiring team, that lack of flexibility must have some adverse effect.

Probably not enough for a team not to pull the trigger, but I'm sure it also isn't insignificant.

But from a trade POV, definitely not as prohibiting as SF repeatedly reminds. Not that what he is saying is incorrect as a principle. He just is on a complete extreme part of the spectrum.

The reality is that a full 30 team NTC is tough to bypass, as is a full 30 team NMC. Definitely isn't impossible to bypass, though. Will it damage relations? Will it be uncomfortable to broach? Is there a possibility the player declines? Absolutely.

 

[silverfish]

What does it matter?

Because it's the basis of 40 threads of discussion. It's tiring, and driving a lot of users away from HFNYR. I have taken it upon myself to be the Batman of this thread, and fight all injustices that I believer are... er... injustices.

I completely understand where you're coming from. On the outside, it does look terrible in a vacuum. On this team though, they are terrible players, not living up to the contracts they signed. They are being outperformed by better talent which happens to be cheaper (in Staal's case, all of McDonagh, Yandle, and Skjei are better than he is this year).

The Rangers especially have a history of treating players very well. How is asking one guy to waive his NMC (clearly because he doesn't fit here, not because management hates him) indicative of how others will be treated?

So if you're an FA, you're 30. You're thinking about signing a 7 year deal with the Rangers. They offer you NMC. You have seen that when players decline, even those that have dedicated years and their entire career to that point to the organization, they are shipped out without hesitation. Their NMCs rendered useless. Are you going to be comfortable picking up your family, the life you've built wherever you are, and moving to NY? Does that NMC truly mean anything?

But the teams on the list are teams that he either (a) would rather be traded to, or (b) doesn't consider a realistic target.

I'm not sure I understand B. And (A) makes sense, but, he's going to be traded, and there's nothing he can do to stop it. He can change the destination, but he can't change the trade. Not as much leverage as a full NMC/NTC.

 

[Thirty One]

I'm not sure I understand B.

Sometimes when player can pick, say, 10 teams he will accept a trade to, he doesn't necessarily pick the 10 teams he would want to go to the most, he may pick 10 he thinks are unlikely to trade for him, or that his team is unlikely to trade him to.

 

[Tawnos]

Because it's the basis of 40 threads of discussion. It's tiring, and driving a lot of users away from HFNYR. I have taken it upon myself to be the Batman of this thread, and fight all injustices that I believer are... er... injustices.

Trust me when I tell you that, as someone who's barely been on here lately, the discussion of guys waiving NMCs is not the reason why people are being driven away from here.

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

Because it's the basis of 40 threads of discussion. It's tiring, and driving a lot of users away from HFNYR. I have taken it upon myself to be the Batman of this thread, and fight all injustices that I believer are... er... injustices.



So if you're an FA, you're 30. You're thinking about signing a 7 year deal with the Rangers. They offer you NMC. You have seen that when players decline, even those that have dedicated years and their entire career to that point to the organization, they are shipped out without hesitation. Their NMCs rendered useless. Are you going to be comfortable picking up your family, the life you've built wherever you are, and moving to NY? Does that NMC truly mean anything?



I'm not sure I understand B. And (A) makes sense, but, he's going to be traded, and there's nothing he can do to stop it. He can change the destination, but he can't change the trade. Not as much leverage as a full NMC/NTC.

Batmansilverfish.

 

[Thirty One]

Trust me when I tell you that, as someone who's barely been on here lately, the discussion of guys waiving NMCs is not the reason why people are being driven away from here.

Is it me?

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

Is it me?

I'm thinking its me. I haven't dealt well with RB putting me on his ignore list. Sad days indeed.

 

[DanielBrassard]

Is it me?

Yes. Lol.

 

[Tawnos]

Is it me?

You didn't post much here for a little while. You're return to active posting is why I've left.

 

[Thirty One]

I know Sundin and Kiprusoff didn't waive. Thornton reportedly won't consider it. Hamhuis allowed for only two teams. Iginla picked a couple of teams and then got really picky and picked his one team. Staal picked his one. In most cases it's more of a tool to pick your team than actually preventing a trade, but every player is unique. Like a snowflake.

The Rangers have a short history with no-trade clauses (but have made up for lost time). Gomez was traded to a team not on his list. Kotalik waived. Gaborik waived.

 

[Thirty One]

You didn't post much here for a little while. You're return to active posting is why I've left.

You're the 5th person to tell me this.

 

[Idlerlee]

http://nypost.com/2016/03/29/mats-zuccarello-goes-from-hospital-bed-to-award-nominee/

Zuccarello also signed a contract which loses any trade protection after the first season. His biggest fan in the organization is no longer the GM.

Out of curiosity, what would be the upside to the Rangers organization to explore a zucc trade, considering the deal he is on?

Or what would a reasonable return be, mid 1st round pick?

 

[silverfish]

Sometimes when player can pick, say, 10 teams he will accept a trade to, he doesn't necessarily pick the 10 teams he would want to go to the most, he may pick 10 he thinks are unlikely to trade for him, or that his team is unlikely to trade him to.

Seems like a really risky play, but something I've never considered.

Trust me when I tell you that, as someone who's barely been on here lately, the discussion of guys waiving NMCs is not the reason why people are being driven away from here.

I can't say it helps, but I know what you mean.

Batmansilverfish.

na na na na na na na na

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

Seems like a really risky play, but something I've never considered.



I can't say it helps, but I know what you mean.



na na na na na na na na

HFNYR's resident Val Kilmer.

 

[Thirty One]

Out of curiosity, what would be the upside to the Rangers organization to explore a zucc trade, considering the deal he is on?

Or what would a reasonable return be, mid 1st round pick?

Mid-first would be a ridiculously low offer, for me.

Seems like a really risky play, but something I've never considered.

Meh, if you're on the Rangers and you have to pick six teams they can trade you without your consent, I'd have to think there's little chance they move you to the Islanders or Devils. Then you can pick your 4 most desirable destinations.

Come to think of it, is that what happened to Phaneuf, or did he waive?

 

[silverfish]

Meh, if you're on the Rangers and you have to pick six teams they can trade you without your consent, I'd have to think there's little chance they move you to the Islanders or Devils. Then you can pick your 4 most desirable destinations.

Come to think of it, is that what happened to Phaneuf, or did he waive?

Prisoner's Dilemma, of sorts.

 

[DanielBrassard]

Not sure if Phaneuf waived but Michalek did.