Value of: request for technical ruling on player contract

[bernmeister]

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.

Not nec a secret contract, just one that has to wait until hank becomes UFA.

 

[bernmeister]

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?

You've got a handle on it.
I never said NY sends prospects w/Lundqvist

 

[bernmeister]

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.

Another team other than the Islanders b'c Hank wants to stay in NYC.

 

[bernmeister]

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?

reread the OP.
I clearly said "OR" for either for 1 season.
I may have inferred if everyone went 2 years, then it would be those 2.

But if Isles don't want to pay for that level of goaltender, that's up to them. But Rangers and Hank don't put themselves out if LL doesn't cough up.

Obviously, w JT signing w/Leafs they are among faves to win it.
But Isles are much less likely w/out a top netminder.
It's one year, and it may not be worth it, but that's what it will cost.

 

[bernmeister]

have a great 4th everybody
be you US, our neighbors to the north, or elsewhere.

I appreciate responses to date, and ask this be kept open until someone can pull out the CBA or use other legalese to confirm there is/is not a loophole to proceed as I suggested.

 

[bernmeister]

have a great 4th everybody
be you US, our neighbors to the north, or elsewhere.

I appreciate responses to date, and ask this be kept open until someone can pull out the CBA or use other legalese to confirm there is/is not a loophole to proceed as I suggested.

 

[discobob]

have a great 4th everybody
be you US, our neighbors to the north, or elsewhere.

I appreciate responses to date, and ask this be kept open until someone can pull out the CBA or use other legalese to confirm there is/is not a loophole to proceed as I suggested.

Sec III.3.a of the CBA

If a fan runs onto the ice naked, during OT, and takes a dump in the opposing teams net, while yelling "Viva la revolution", then a guaranteed contact of her/her choice may be voided...

 

[Dustin]

Even if this was legal (it's not) what happens when Hank blows out a knee and is told he can't play anymore. Then he shows up a NYR's door looking for a new 2 year 20 million dollar contract. Seems like the risk is all on Hank. Why would he risk any of that?

 

[Ciao]

Sec III.3.a of the CBA

If a fan runs onto the ice naked, during OT, and takes a dump in the opposing teams net, while yelling "Viva la revolution", then a guaranteed contact of her/her choice may be voided...

Bernie, I think this guy found the answer you've been looking for.

Can we close this now?

 

[Riptide]

No.
He would be out of the existing deal, 3 x 8.5 = 25.5
He would get 1 new deal 1 yr @ 7
H would upon becoming UFA get new final 2 yr deal, $10m per
total is 27m he is not shortchanged.

He does have to take it on faith that we will not ef him, but I think if everything is upfront there would not be a problem.

A) His cap hit is 3x8.5m, but the actual cash is 20m. 7.5m, 7m, 5.5m. Actually it's slightly less than that, as he has already been paid the 1m signing bonus the other day. So 19m, 6.5m, 7m, 5.5m.
B) Why in the hell is someone going to give him 2x10m as a UFA (in your theory) in July 2019?? There's zero chance that even if by some magical reason he could become a UFA that someone would pay him 2x10m as a 37 yr old UFA.
C) And even if he could get 20m+ over the next 3 years (again assuming this was all possible), why would he give up the guaranteed money for something that could really really backfire on him? Ask Cleary how that worked out for him when he turned down a 3 yr 10m deal with Philly to sign in Detroit. Him taking Holland on his word that he would 'make it up to him', ended up costing him millions (roughly 5m+). So while Lundqvist is in a much better spot (already earned ~85m), why would he voluntarily give up 15m+ ?? There's a reason why players sign for the most guaranteed money possible.

D) Besides... most importantly, what you're asking isn't possible, even if Lundqvist was willing to go along with it (which is extremely unlikely).

Even if this was legal (it's not) what happens when Hank blows out a knee and is told he can't play anymore. Then he shows up a NYR's door looking for a new 2 year 20 million dollar contract. Seems like the risk is all on Hank. Why would he risk any of that?

Because in fantasy land, players love assuming all the risk in deals such as this to do their teams a solid.

 

[LordNeverLose]

Let's just all appreciate for a second that bernmeister thinks the Islanders, who are longshots to even make the playoffs, would trade Dobson or Wahlstrom to their rival for a rental goalie.

Let's also appreciate that bernmeister thinks the Rangers would want their face of the franchise for the past decade to chase a cup with their rival.

 

[bernmeister]

Sec III.3.a of the CBA

If a fan runs onto the ice naked, during OT, and takes a dump in the opposing teams net, while yelling "Viva la revolution", then a guaranteed contact of her/her choice may be voided...

lol!
good one.

 

[bernmeister]

Bernie, I think this guy found the answer you've been looking for.

Can we close this now?

Nanu nanu

 

[bernmeister]

A) His cap hit is 3x8.5m, but the actual cash is 20m. 7.5m, 7m, 5.5m. Actually it's slightly less than that, as he has already been paid the 1m signing bonus the other day. So 19m, 6.5m, 7m, 5.5m.
B) Why in the hell is someone going to give him 2x10m as a UFA (in your theory) in July 2019?? There's zero chance that even if by some magical reason he could become a UFA that someone would pay him 2x10m as a 37 yr old UFA.
C) And even if he could get 20m+ over the next 3 years (again assuming this was all possible), why would he give up the guaranteed money for something that could really really backfire on him? Ask Cleary how that worked out for him when he turned down a 3 yr 10m deal with Philly to sign in Detroit. Him taking Holland on his word that he would 'make it up to him', ended up costing him millions (roughly 5m+). So while Lundqvist is in a much better spot (already earned ~85m), why would he voluntarily give up 15m+ ?? There's a reason why players sign for the most guaranteed money possible.

D) Besides... most importantly, what you're asking isn't possible, even if Lundqvist was willing to go along with it (which is extremely unlikely).

Because in fantasy land, players love assuming all the risk in deals such as this to do their teams a solid.

A: on the numbers, my main point was NYR would pay Hank mo $ if it created scenario where he could be effectively loaned as a rental, then returned. You quote existing numbers. Those would be voided if there is any legal out to the deal if the premise is adopted.
B The Rangers pay that $ if it can buy a high enough blue chip.
C Hank expects NYR will honor such representation.
D This is the ?, is it theoretically legal.

Can a player ask to tear up his contract, with his team accommodating, with no cap hit or other consequences, and afterward, can he be signed by same team to a different deal?

 

[bernmeister]

Let's just all appreciate for a second that bernmeister thinks the Islanders, who are longshots to even make the playoffs, would trade Dobson or Wahlstrom to their rival for a rental goalie.

Let's also appreciate that bernmeister thinks the Rangers would want their face of the franchise for the past decade to chase a cup with their rival.

This bold is less likely now that they effed up JT, and that would kill everything.
However I am interested in this as a hypothetical regardless.

I used Isles cause Brooklyn HQ means he does not have to move.

If he were willing to go elsewhere for a year, the same construct w/dif team and return would apply.

 

[bernmeister]

...Because in fantasy land, players love assuming all the risk in deals such as this to do their teams a solid.

As explained, there is risk on both sides and if Hank wants to hope for quick Ranger turnaround so he can have that Messier moment in NYC, a temporary sacrifice like this would expedite that timetable.

Another part of this equation is how badly does he want to win a Cup v. how badly does he want to win one here in NY as a Ranger.

 

[bernmeister]

That's it til Friday.
Would welcome any serious suggestions on applicable interpretation of CBA.

all are welcome to go to the Rangers board for my Happy July 4th thread, with special surprise....

 

[Howie Hodge]

Here's a more interesting hypothetical.

What would chairs look like if our knees bent the other way?


Have a great 4'th everyone!

 

[BoltSTH]

He could punch the GM in the face (WWE punch), and so they could void his contract, off season 'counseling' , could he then resign? I expect if technically legal, like some other suggestions, Bettman would not allow.

 

[FoxysExpensiveNYDigs]

A rare occasion in which the NHLPA and the NHL both negate this completely illegal idea.

 

[Stuzchuk]

I am honestly in tears from the first couple posts in this thread, thank you all so much

same here... but the l"lost part" is so accurate

 

[Gee Wally]

Ive been here 20 years.
This is one of the funniest threads Ive ever read.

 

[Djp]

No.
He would be out of the existing deal, 3 x 8.5 = 25.5
He would get 1 new deal 1 yr @ 7
H would upon becoming UFA get new final 2 yr deal, $10m per
total is 27m he is not shortchanged.

He does have to take it on faith that we will not ef him, but I think if everything is upfront there would not be a problem.

Bern bern bern.....

You can’t renegotiate contracts. Only buyout or retirement could end contracts.

Teams could in theory loan players to other teams ......for example isles sent rangers 2021 1st fir having him for 2 yrs then trading him back to rangers in 2920 for a 2921 2nd.

Ideally it would be nice if teams could negotiate split contracts like if because they have cap space the next 3 yrs sign a player for $10M per then gave a second 3 yr contract for $3M per. Doing a full 6 yr thus wouldn’t be allowed.

 

[CDN24]

That's it til Friday.
Would welcome any serious suggestions on applicable interpretation of CBA.

all are welcome to go to the Rangers board for my Happy July 4th thread, with special surprise....

The CBA precludes teams and players from terminating or otherwise modifying an existing contract. That is a non starter- there is no loophole. Asking someone to prove that there isn't is asking to prove a negative. Trust me its not there. the only possible way to make your scenario work is trade the existing contract to the 2nd team (isles) with a gentleman's agreement that after 1 year they trade it back for a nominal amount. That gentleman's agreement is neither legal or enforcable. Since Hank has a NMC clause he would have to approve the initial trade and the trade back after one year.

Now I will tell you what one of my university profs told me after my upteenth what if scenario. "Kid you have to get yourself some new drugs because whatever you are on ain't working for you" I took his advice.

Happy 4th to all my American friends

 

[The Alien]

NHLPA would raise hell. Sure, Lundqvist may trust the Rangers that much, but the player's union wouldn't. And they wouldn't like the idea of contract renegotiation at all. Also, what CDN24 said above.