News: Vadim Shipachyov retires (official 11/9/17)

[mouser]

Reason I ask is because he originally signed a contract that had a NTC however it got rejected cuz he wasn't eligible for one. Was wondering if it was same issue with a NMC

Oh. I didn't know that. The section in the CBA about NMCs and NTCs has the same conditions, so if he wasn't eligible for NTC he wasn't eligible for NMC either. I suppose I was trapped by the same poor wording as whoever submitted that original contract was. I guess having a previous NHL contract that expired is a prerequisite for being a NMC/NTC-clause-eligible UFA.

He was not eligible for a NTC/NMC because he was not a Group 3 UFA [10.1(a)]. He was a different type of UFA--Draft Related UFA [10.1(d)].

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

Ok. Substitute Linden Vey with Linus Omark. He proved as much on the international stage. I don't remember any outrage when he was sent down to AHL

Omark was young and not nearly as proven on the international stage as Shipachyov. He was sought after, but as a prospect, not as a an already-established star. That said, yes, there was outrage.

But that does seem to strike closer to the heart of the disagreement here. People who aren't familiar with Shipachyov think he falls into the same category as Omark, who to his credit overcame his outrage and stuck around and excelled in the AHL, getting his recall and NHL opportunity. Whereas others recognize the higher standards and veteran status that Shipachyov attained prior to coming over as a non-prospect player.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

George George George....still making friends wherever you go.

 

[inthe6ix]

Interesting interview from Ship on what how he saw things break down (literally) with VGK:

Vadim Shipachyov: "A negative experience helped me appreciate my time with SKA" - ХК СКА Санкт-Петербург.

 

[Greg Schuler]

Vegas is agreeing to mutually terminate the contract, which is within the league rules. A signing bonus is literally what the name states. It's a reward for signing with the team.

There are zero expectations that a team can demand repayment, which is why the NHLPA is involved right now.

Not to drag this out, but it would depend on the language of the signing bonus and the conditions attached. I know in other sports, there is very clear language about how much of a signing bonus is due over the life of the contract versus when the contract is signed. I assume the NHLPA wants to ensure that teams do not bully players with contracts, and it is the duty of the NHLPA to be involved.