Value of: request for technical ruling on player contract

[CycloneSweep]

If it was possible, Luongo would of done it years ago in Vancouver.

 

[Pia8988]

No. Would never be allowed and players would get f***ed in the end,

 

[bernmeister]

Are you trying to say that you want Lundqvist to play for the Rangers, but for cheaper?

They would have to buy him out.
He signs with the Islanders for 1 year (because, as you say, he loves New York), but realistically, in this out-of-the-box proposal, he can sign for one year anywhere.
He then comes back after 1 calendar year (as per buyout rules) and resigns for cheaper on the Rangers?

Is that what you're saying?

No I am not saying we wind up paying him less overall for the whole thing, just replace the existing contract w/2 separate ones, but the later one would have to come with him as UFA after this season.

-----------

I am not looking for a buyout, which complicates the cap issue.

I def don't want him signing as UFA w/Isles or anyone else.
Then no one pays for him as a rental.

The premise is he is with varying degrees of attraction at 8.5 per but the 3 years is killer, esp given his age.

So the ? is if there is a loop hole to replace the existing contract w/ 2 others.

 

[Pia8988]

No. Just reread your last sentence and see how asinine that is.

 

[bernmeister]

Teams and players cannot simply agree to nullify a contract. So no, this is not possible.

My expectation is you are correct, but sometimes loopholes can be found.

Normally this would not fly, and a main reason is player is taking too much chance and does not want to risk surrender of control and getting shafted.

However, this is a unique set of circumstances.
Hank has made his millions, he does not need his contract $. {entitled to it, deserves it, yes, but does not need it}
Therefore, he can afford to take the risk that Rangers might ef him, which would not happen b'c NYR do not want to look bad -- w/fans, players, etc.
The Rangers are also taking a chance that Hank doesn't say we undid my deal, now at this moment I am UFA, etc.


This is basically an inquiry as to how can we --- assuming it can be done at all --- finagle a legal end to the current deal, so we can replace it w/a new 1st and subsequent deal.

 

[Tobias Kahun]

My expectation is you are correct, but sometimes loopholes can be found.

Normally this would not fly, and a main reason is player is taking too much chance and does not want to risk surrender of control and getting shafted.

However, this is a unique set of circumstances.
Hank has made his millions, he does not need his contract $. {entitled to it, deserves it, yes, but does not need it}
Therefore, he can afford to take the risk that Rangers might ef him, which would not happen b'c NYR do not want to look bad -- w/fans, players, etc.
The Rangers are also taking a chance that Hank doesn't say we undid my deal, now at this moment I am UFA, etc.


This is basically an inquiry as to how can we --- assuming it can be done at all --- finagle a legal end to the current deal, so we can replace it w/a new 1st and subsequent deal.

Unique set of circumstances? Did they write a separate CBA for Lundqvist?

 

[bernmeister]

ha ha
if you can't take an ef, joke em, and vice versa.

That said, no more Mr. Day w/o some Jennifer Anniston.

 

[Tall Morty]

I am 100% certain this will never ever happen

 

[DistantThunderRep]

My expectation is you are correct, but sometimes loopholes can be found.

Normally this would not fly, and a main reason is player is taking too much chance and does not want to risk surrender of control and getting shafted.

However, this is a unique set of circumstances.
Hank has made his millions, he does not need his contract $. {entitled to it, deserves it, yes, but does not need it}
Therefore, he can afford to take the risk that Rangers might ef him, which would not happen b'c NYR do not want to look bad -- w/fans, players, etc.
The Rangers are also taking a chance that Hank doesn't say we undid my deal, now at this moment I am UFA, etc.


This is basically an inquiry as to how can we --- assuming it can be done at all --- finagle a legal end to the current deal, so we can replace it w/a new 1st and subsequent deal.

I still don't get what the end game is for Lundqvist. Give up a guaranteed 25 million for a possible 27 million and a handshake? Seems like you are asking him to shoot himself in the foot to be nice to your team and asking NYI to do you a solid because reasons.

 

[deftones1986]

I literally still have no idea what you're trying to accomplish here. It may be that I'm over-tired, but I'm still extremely interested in figuring this out. Can anyone else explain this to me?

In the opening proposal you said to make a deal with the Islanders to sign him for one year. But you just now told me you don't want him going to another team.

My brain is overloading.

 

[Goptor]

Going through the hypothetical:

1: NYR and Lundqvist discuss him playing for another team for a year and then coming back to NYR. Lundqvist agrees to a specific team.
2: NYR and other team agree to a deal where they do some paper transation (7th rounder for top prospect)
3: NYR and Lundqvist decide to mutually terminate their contract and Lundqvist become a UFA
4: Lundqvist signs a 1 year deal with other team for $8.5 mil
5: Year plays out, Lundqvist again becomes UFA and signs 2-year deal with NYR for $10mil

Is this what you are trying to say?

 

[bernmeister]

To think if a GM could change a players contract in term or value midway through, there would literally be no HF boards or at least a trade forum.

this is NOT a gm unilaterally busting an existing deal.

this is player and mgmt saying can we restructure what we want to do here; however, we might have to jointly tear this deal up and replace it twice to make the end objectives be realized.

 

[Fabs]

Easy enough to do.

Isles trade Wahstrom or Dobson to Rangers for 7th rounder.
Rangers and Henrik terminate the contract.
Henrik signs with Isles.
Isles win cup.
Henrik signs with Rangers.

 

[xNogaitx]

Everybody is missing out on the big point here...

He's assuming that the Isles will willingly trade BOTH Dobson AND Walshtrom to the rangers for a single season of Lundqvist!!!

Now, I don't want to pop your bubble there but.... even 30 years old Carey Price retained on that 8 years deal would not fetch such a return. Even less so for a 36 years old goalie..for again....one season only.

Do you think that somehow Lundqvist playing for the Isles makes them win the cup this year and then somehow they'll be happy and don't mind having lost players they might potentially have in their roster for the next 2 decades?

 

[xNogaitx]

That's just another one of those delusional rangers fan trade of Zuccarello for a top 5 pick (even though he's 30 and UFA at the end of the year) type deal.

 

[Evergreen]

My expectation is you are correct, but sometimes loopholes can be found.

Normally this would not fly, and a main reason is player is taking too much chance and does not want to risk surrender of control and getting shafted.

However, this is a unique set of circumstances.
Hank has made his millions, he does not need his contract $. {entitled to it, deserves it, yes, but does not need it}
Therefore, he can afford to take the risk that Rangers might ef him, which would not happen b'c NYR do not want to look bad -- w/fans, players, etc.
The Rangers are also taking a chance that Hank doesn't say we undid my deal, now at this moment I am UFA, etc.


This is basically an inquiry as to how can we --- assuming it can be done at all --- finagle a legal end to the current deal, so we can replace it w/a new 1st and subsequent deal.

It can’t be done at all because the CBA prohibits it. End of story.

 

[bernmeister]

Lol is it after? or before? Or in reality "after before" because I may use that one in the future.

Good catch, my bad.
What I meant to say is
if retirement is used as a basis for this by Hank, then he changes his mind, as part of the basis to get that first replacement deal from Rangers, I believe there is some limit before he can return. And I am not sure as to that being only w/NYR or across the board moratorium before he can return.

my quote was:
If a player wants to help a team by getting out of his contract, and not nec. "retiring" which may have restrictions after before he comes back, can both sides agree to voluntarily tear up the existing deal, w/no repercussions?

this was poorly stated.
apologies for the brain fart
what I meant to say [as explained above] is

... not nec "retiring" [formally, officially] because immediately AFTER retiring there are restrictions BEFORE the player would be allowed to effectively 'unretire'.

 

[Morguee]

This is just an example of what this board will be like once marijuana becomes legal in Canada.

 

[bernmeister]

Unique set of circumstances? Did they write a separate CBA for Lundqvist?

It's the same CBA, I am just looking to politely inquire if a loophole can be manufactured which doesn't violate CBA, technically, and allows the above theory to be executed.

I am not saying such loop hole exists.
I put forth a scenario that MIGHT allow that.
Interested particularly in legal eagles on the board weighing in w/why or why not, exactly?

 

[deftones1986]

Honestly, you use too many technical terms for me to understand, I'm just not that smart to follow this big picture that you're looking at.

I seem to almost know what you're looking for, but maybe not.

Would this work:

Rangers send Hank and a draft pick or prospects to another team.
That team buys him out.
He re-signs in New York.

But, if I'm following correctly.......you're saying instead of the Rangers sending assets to another team for helping them out.......you want the other team to send the Rangers prospects for the honor of being able to rent Lundqvist for a year?

Am I anywhere close to figuring this out at all or should I just give up?

 

[Pia8988]

Honestly, you use too many technical terms for me to understand, I'm just not that smart to follow this big picture that you're looking at.

I seem to almost know what you're looking for, but maybe not.

Would this work:

Rangers send Hank and a draft pick to another team.
That team buys him out.
He re-signs in New York.

But, if I'm following correctly.......you're saying you want another team to send the Rangers prospects for being able to rent Lundqvist for a year?

Am I anywhere close to figuring this out at all or should I just give up?

Give up.

He wants to completely negate Lundqvist current deal. Turn him into a rental and get prospects, and have a secret handshake contract for more money for the 2 years after. Asinine.

 

[bernmeister]

I am 100% certain this will never ever happen

I give it 1 in a hundred at best.
Too many variables have to break a certain way, and again, there is ? about legality at sq. 1.

However, it is an interesting theoretical question.

 

[Ciao]

this is HYPOTHETICAL

Hank has 3 more years at 8.5m per.
He'd like to compete for a cup but loves NYC and NYR

If it were possible by some loophole, if Rangers could reduce term on his contract, I think a deal could be had with Isles to rent him for 1 yr, this upcoming season. Maybe 2 years, but let's be definite and say 1.

Cost from Isles would be expensive, and this would have made more sense had they retained Tavares, but let's say they bite the bullet and go there.

Now, what procedure agreeable to all parties would be legal and work?
If a loophole does not exist, can one be created?

Obviously, the idea here is not to have salary retained, b'c it creates restrictions if Hank comes back after, which is part of the whole concept so it is palatable.

Is it legal for the Rangers to ask him to request out of his contract in exchange for specific considerations to his benefit?
Can they say to him, we will honor what is in place if you insist,
but
if you ask out of this contract.
we will replace it with 1 yr, 7m, NMC
then
"afterwards" = "once you return if we trade you and as UFA you elect to return here"
then and in that event,
we will then give you 2 more years at 10m.

Lundqvist does standup best for Isles who surrender Wahlstrom or Dobson for the 1 yr rental at half [3.5].

Regardless of outcome, 2019-2020 Hank returns, and Rangers honor verbal commitment they will give him 2 yrs 10m per.
He takes one for the team, but next season Ranger rebuild is further along, so it is to his advantage as well, as he gets both mo $ and faster shot at more competitive Ranger team his last 2 yrs.

Can a player and team voluntarily agree to such arrangement/rearrangement if the player, intangibles aside, winds up w/mo $ in the end?

Curious as to rules/loopholes perspective.

thanks in advance

Are you high or just confused?

It's impossible to follow your question, let alone answer it -- but I think the answer is no.

 

[deftones1986]

Give up.

He wants to completely negate Lundqvist current deal. Turn him into a rental and get prospects, and have a secret handshake contract for more money for the 2 years after. Asinine.

Thank you from the bottom of my heart for bringing me my sanity back.

 

[bernmeister]

Going through the hypothetical:

1: NYR and Lundqvist discuss him playing for another team for a year and then coming back to NYR. Lundqvist agrees to a specific team.
2: NYR and other team agree to a deal where they do some paper transation (7th rounder for top prospect)
3: NYR and Lundqvist decide to mutually terminate their contract and Lundqvist become a UFA
4: Lundqvist signs a 1 year deal with other team for $8.5 mil
5: Year plays out, Lundqvist again becomes UFA and signs 2-year deal with NYR for $10mil

Is this what you are trying to say?

No this is an alternate parallel scenario which might be legal/work, but mine is slightly different.
Note the above is more clandestine as such has more SUGGESTION of an appearance of collusion.

You have the thrust of it.
I am simply saying Hank and Rangers agree to void his current deal, 3 yrs 8.5 per
replace w/ 1 yr at 7.
NMC, but Hank waives to go NYI.
Rangers also eat 1 yr on Hank, so he is 3.5.
Isles give up either or Dobson or Wahlstrom for the 1 yr.

Then Hank is a UFA. Returns, rewarded with larger contract.