Thread: Speculation: Schultz talk pt. 2
View Single Post
Old
06-22-2012, 09:59 AM
  #724
BeersHockey
Registered User
 
BeersHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Chicago, IL
Country: United States
Posts: 931
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vexxed14 View Post
1. I agree

2. Really the same point as number 1

3. I disagree with the term. Recent trend would suggest a team can expect quality for up to 7 years of this 10yr deal. After which he can retire by forcing him to be backup or burying him in the minors. If he retires the cap hit is gone.

4. Once he waives his NTC it is waived. Players do not retain these clauses after moving. That is what pissed J. Carter off the most when he got moved before his clause kicked in.

5. I agree



I think Luongo's market value is only slightly less than what it would be on a 5 year deal and that will be compensated by having to take back salary and conditional picks.
While this is technically true, no player with a NTC is going to waive unless his new team is going to honor that clause going forward, which they can do by novation. Essentially, Luongo can say "not waiving to go to team X, unless Team X agrees that I have this clause going forward." Carter lost his because he was traded before it became active, he never had that bargaining chip.

BeersHockey is offline   Reply With Quote