HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk Trade rumors, transactions, and free agent talk. Rumors must contain the word RUMOR in post title. Proposals must contain the word PROPOSAL in post title.

Blackhawks offersheet Eddie Lack

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-03-2012, 11:43 AM
  #26
Scottrockztheworld*
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,301
vCash: 500
Are the Hawks really that desperate for goalies?

Scottrockztheworld* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2012, 11:51 AM
  #27
Cogburn
Registered User
 
Cogburn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,814
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Imagine17 View Post
Are the Hawks really that desperate for goalies?
And yet all we're being offered is Hjalmarsson for Luongo.

This is easily the stupidest thing I've read on here. Dumber then Leaf fans offering their 4th liners for a star center. More incoherent then Oilers fan saying Gagner > favourite prospect. Offersheeting an unproven goalie...even if you look at him with our eyes, you'd know thats a bad idea. If the offer is low enough to match, we will. If it is outlandish...well he is all yours, but then you're stuck with a goalie that has never played an NHL game at what ever salary you have offered.

Cogburn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2012, 11:52 AM
  #28
digdug41982
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 26,474
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by OneMoreAstronaut View Post
I think the thing everyone seems to be forgetting with this hypothetical, is that Chicago would not only be forfeiting draft picks, but committing 2 million dollars to a goaltender who's never played in the NHL. Methinks someone just takes Chi/Van's little feud a little too seriously.
Has nothing to do with Vancouver, I just want Lack.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imagine17 View Post
Are the Hawks really that desperate for goalies?
They should be. Someone like Lack would be a major acquisition for us.

digdug41982 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2012, 11:57 AM
  #29
Scottrockztheworld*
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,301
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by coldsteelonice84 View Post
Has nothing to do with Vancouver, I just want Lack.



They should be. Someone like Lack would be a major acquisition for us.
But you do realize that because of the feud we will be matching anything that isn't outrageous overpayment.


I'm glad you think so highly of Lack, I think he is going to be a stud.... would really love for Luongo to mentor him.

Scottrockztheworld* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2012, 11:57 AM
  #30
jumptheshark
the burn out
 
jumptheshark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: hf retirement home
Country: United Nations
Posts: 54,240
vCash: 50
Think he flat out of lack with the nooks. Not worth a million bucks

jumptheshark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2012, 12:03 PM
  #31
Reign Nateo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,835
vCash: 500
Eddie Lack has a lot of potential. He's an agressive goalie and has NHL legs despite his size. I expect he'll be in the NHL as soon as this season. And by all accounts was far and away the best player on the Wolves last season. I could see a team pushing very hard for him soon, but doubt it's the offer sheet route as it would likely be matched at any reasonable cost by Vancouver. It's too good of an asset to let go for less than market value. And since they've been picking low in the draft for years now, the Canucks need to squeeze as much as they can out of the young assets they have.

On the right track though, Eddie Lack is just the type of goalie some teams should be targeting.

Reign Nateo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2012, 12:08 PM
  #32
The Red Line
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,541
vCash: 500
Hawks fans are becoming worse than Leafs fans with these proposals. There's like twelve separate Hawks proposals on this page, all of them equally horrendous.

The Red Line is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2012, 12:19 PM
  #33
CrazyJ
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 189
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TurdFerguson View Post
Chicago can throw a 2 year 1M offer sheet his way without any compensation required in case of signing. It could be a 1 way, but that doesn't mean Lack can't just start in the AHL and stay there all year. It puts Vancouver in a bind if they have an injury to a goaltender and want to bring Lack up; then they are forced to waive him if they want to send him back down during the year of play.

I don't believe you can give him a signing bonus each year because its only a contract of 1M. As far as I know you can't have any poison pill clauses as you'll see in football which make it harder for Vancouver to sign.

This deal would be a mean thing for Chicago to do, but Vancouver matches for sure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grant View Post
Don't think so, I think (but not sure) that the offersheet contracts are the most basic as can be, no perks or anything. After it is signed and done you can negotiate those things like that.
The waivers isn't actually related to the 1 or 2 way deal, it is related to age and games played. The 1 way contract only means that they get paid an NHL salary no matter where they play, so this would only cost money, no waiver risk.

The offer sheet contract is a fully negotiated contract with all the clauses and agreements that are in a normal contract; however, the team matching the contract only has to match term, dollars, and payment structure - they don't have to honour the NTC's and whatnot.


(I am pretty sure that is all correct, correct me if I am mistaken)

CrazyJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2012, 12:33 PM
  #34
hockeydoug
Registered User
 
hockeydoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 1,598
vCash: 500
I don't see the point in signing him to a 2yr offersheet. If he was floating around, I wouldn't mind signing him to bump Hutton, but I have no interest in an unproven rookie as a backup in a shaky goaltending situation right now. Bowman only has a couple contract slots left, no reason to waste one yet. If he was a worthwhile gamble, Vancouver would match anyway.

hockeydoug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2012, 12:33 PM
  #35
Bubba88
Toews = Savior
 
Bubba88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bavaria
Country: Germany
Posts: 24,452
vCash: 500
pointless and not worth it for an unproven goalie. Would limit the chances to get Luongo - A STARTER - even more than it already does

Bubba88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2012, 12:41 PM
  #36
Homegrown Kings
that other 70s line
 
Homegrown Kings's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: PNW
Country: United States
Posts: 2,299
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by coldsteelonice84 View Post
Can't they put something in the contract, must play 10 NHL games if healthy?
I don't think that would matter to the Canucks if they matched, because details like that don't carry over to the team if they match IIRC.

They'll get Luongo out of there one way or another, so they'd be crazy not to match an offer sheet for Lack.

Homegrown Kings is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2012, 12:41 PM
  #37
Luck 6
\\_______
 
Luck 6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 7,408
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TOGuy14 View Post
Just a question but if someone offersheeted him with a 1-way contract would those terms also be matched when Vancouver matched?
1 way would be matched yes, but he's still not waiver eligible. We'd need to pay him his full salary, but he wouldn't have to pass through waivers to get to the AHL. If sent there, it wouldn't count against the cap.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HossTheBoss View Post
I can't see Vancouver matching a 2-year, 2M contract to Eddie Lack. That's alot to invest in an unproven goaltender; ballsy.
Uhhh... 1mil is not a lot of money. ELCs are typically 900k +. Lack is our 3rd best prospect, do you really think we let him walk over 1 mil per season?

Quote:
Originally Posted by coldsteelonice84 View Post
Hmmm, hopefully an expert on the CBA can confirm. Another idea is 500K bonus for every 30 days spent in the minors.
You can't offer bonuses to young players, there are rules about that. There are bonuses built into a ELC, after that they only apply to older players on 1 year deals. To add to that, any NMC that was part of an offer sheet does not need to be given by the matching team, only the monetary compensation.

Overall, offersheeting Lack is an awful idea. Because he doesn't have to pass through waivers to be sent to the AHL, we could essentially match any reasonable offer and just keep him in the AHL so it doesn't effect our cap. If you want Lack, prepare to trade something of value for him.

Luck 6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2012, 01:05 PM
  #38
OneMoreAstronaut
Reduce chainsaw size
 
OneMoreAstronaut's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 4,612
vCash: 1360
Quote:
Originally Posted by coldsteelonice84 View Post
Has nothing to do with Vancouver, I just want Lack.
Fair enough. There's just so little business sense behind it that I figured there had to be a grudge fueling it instead.

OneMoreAstronaut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2012, 01:09 PM
  #39
Moore Money
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,234
vCash: 500
Lack is a talented young goalie. Canucks would match unless it's a ridiculous contract. 1 mil is nothing.

Moore Money is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2012, 01:12 PM
  #40
Hawkaholic
Registered User
 
Hawkaholic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: London, Ont.
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,180
vCash: 500
Why?????

Lack has proven nothing, nothing at all.

Hawkaholic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2012, 01:15 PM
  #41
Leafs For Life*
Nothing
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 6,636
vCash: 500
Quote:
Quote:
a skater (forward or defenseman) who signs his first NHL contract at age 18 is exempt from waivers for 5 years or 160 NHL games played (including playoffs), whichever comes first. If that skater plays 11 NHL games when he is either 18 or 19, the exemption changes to 3 years or 160 games


Last edited by Leafs For Life*: 08-03-2012 at 01:22 PM.
Leafs For Life* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2012, 01:22 PM
  #42
Reign Nateo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,835
vCash: 500
The "unproven" comment is very annoying around here...

That's why you have GM's to make desicisons, who utilize their pro scouts and staff to make choices and acquire players they see as fits for their organization. It's called foresight. It's much cheaper to acquire these players at this stage then wait for them to blow up and then try to get them.

Of course he's unproven at the NHL level, you don't need to say it every second post! It's obvious, the point is you scout a player and decide whether you think he fits your team/needs, GMs don't just sit there saying "no, he's unproven, we'll wait for something else." That's what the OP is touching on here. They trust the people within their organization to make informed decisons.

People around here called Lindback unproven, did that stop Yzerman and the Lightning? Halak had a lot to prove according to the masses, did that stop the Blues? Schneider is probably still considered unproven, but it didn't stop Gillis from giving him a sizeable 4 year contract.

Sorry, end rant, just see it all the time and it's annoying. Not neccisarily just in the Lack case, but overall. You have to think a little deeper instead of just saying "he's unproven" try to offer a little more to the discussion.

Reign Nateo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2012, 01:29 PM
  #43
OneMoreAstronaut
Reduce chainsaw size
 
OneMoreAstronaut's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 4,612
vCash: 1360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reign Nateo View Post
People around here called Lindback unproven, did that stop Yzerman and the Lightning? Halak had a lot to prove according to the masses, did that stop the Blues? Schneider is probably still considered unproven, but it didn't stop Gillis from giving him a sizeable 4 year contract.
All of these goaltenders have at least seen the NHL.

OneMoreAstronaut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2012, 01:44 PM
  #44
Reign Nateo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,835
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OneMoreAstronaut View Post
All of these goaltenders have at least seen the NHL.
That adds nothing to the discussion, what's your point? The point is they were/are considered unproven around here, yet were signed/traded for anyway. So it's not in reality a hinderance of any kind and doesn't need to be stated over and over in these kinds of threads. Whether they had played 0 NHL games or 30 really isn't the point. The point is these teams saw past the "unproven" tag, that's what they're paid to do. Fans just don't seem to get it sometimes...

Reign Nateo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2012, 01:49 PM
  #45
Yog S'loth
Registered User
 
Yog S'loth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Southern California
Posts: 1,391
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reign Nateo View Post
Whether they had played 0 NHL games or 30 really isn't the point. The point is these teams saw past the "unproven" tag, that's what they're paid to do. Fans just don't seem to get it sometimes...
Gee, I don't think that's reality at all.

You're trying to compare guys that have spend time in the NHL and played dozens of games to a 24-year-old minor-leaguer who has never seen a single minute of NHL ice. That is a pretty big point, actually.

Yog S'loth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2012, 02:11 PM
  #46
Allen Degenerate
Rookie User
 
Allen Degenerate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Denver
Country: Albania
Posts: 4,402
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yog S'loth View Post
Gee, I don't think that's reality at all.

You're trying to compare guys that have spend time in the NHL and played dozens of games to a 24-year-old minor-leaguer who has never seen a single minute of NHL ice. That is a pretty big point, actually.
It's really not. Teams take the information they have and use that to project the player they could become. That's why a player like Jarnkrok or Silfverberg has value, despite not playing in the NHL yet.

The whole point is that Lack being unproven means he'd cost significantly less than an established goalie, while still having that potential.

Allen Degenerate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2012, 02:11 PM
  #47
mstad101
Registered User
 
mstad101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 3,208
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luck 6 View Post
1 way would be matched yes, but he's still not waiver eligible. We'd need to pay him his full salary, but he wouldn't have to pass through waivers to get to the AHL. If sent there, it wouldn't count against the cap.



Uhhh... 1mil is not a lot of money. ELCs are typically 900k +. Lack is our 3rd best prospect, do you really think we let him walk over 1 mil per season?



You can't offer bonuses to young players, there are rules about that. There are bonuses built into a ELC, after that they only apply to older players on 1 year deals. To add to that, any NMC that was part of an offer sheet does not need to be given by the matching team, only the monetary compensation.

Overall, offersheeting Lack is an awful idea. Because he doesn't have to pass through waivers to be sent to the AHL, we could essentially match any reasonable offer and just keep him in the AHL so it doesn't effect our cap. If you want Lack, prepare to trade something of value for him.
Just to touch in your post here, the bonuses are only available to ELC rookies and players over 35. There is a special rule for players who missed a certain amount of games over an amount of time.

An example of this is Latendresse in Ottawa, since he's played like 40 games or something the past two years he was eligible for a bonus laden contract.

An example of the 35+ would be any guy the Isles sign whose that age to circumvent the cap and pay less salary than the floor dictates, but since the cap hits are above they get a pass.


Since the Hawks don't own their 2nd or 3rd they don't have a chance to obtain Lack via offer sheet. Canucks would immediately match since we would not allow to lose such a prospect to a rival for no compensation.
Also believe this would severely hurt any chance of the Hawks acquiring Luongo, which should be their target since they also require a proven starter ala the Leafs.

mstad101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2012, 02:14 PM
  #48
DJOpus
Registered User
 
DJOpus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,797
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HANDZ 57 View Post
From the Weber offersheet thread, I believe that if there were a NMC/NTC in the offersheet, that particular aspect would not have to be provided by the matching team.
Yep, I'm not even sure they have to match as a one-way deal or just match the NHL money.

DJOpus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2012, 02:17 PM
  #49
TorstenFrings
Co-Trainer
 
TorstenFrings's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Kiel
Country: Germany
Posts: 4,249
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leaffan16 View Post
Quote:
Not sure what you are trying to tell us here. Your quote even says "skater (defenseman or forward)." Lack is a goalie and waiver exempt for two more years IIRC.

TorstenFrings is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-03-2012, 02:28 PM
  #50
Siludin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 677
vCash: 500
The Canucks match unless the offer is astronomical. The Aquilinis are bigger fans than owners. They'd rather pay Lack 2 million in the minors than see him in a Chicago uniform. Money is absolutely no issue for the Canucks.

Siludin is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:25 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.