Trade Rumors and Free Agent TalkTrade rumors, transactions, and free agent talk. Rumors must contain the word RUMOR in post title. Proposals must contain the word PROPOSAL in post title.
This really does not seem like a Bowman-kind of move.
To let him walk, probably, but forcing them to match and pay him a high NHL backup salary regardless (something 1.5-2m) would likely further weaken VAN's position in a Luongo trade. Not that that would likely benefit Chicago though.
Eh, we could simply leave him in the minors and it cost us nothing. $2m is not much to Vancouver. I admit though it would be a headache if Chicago felt like being a jerk.
the only reason CHI does this is if they truly believe they can get Lack.
Anything under 1.5mil I think Vancouver bites the bullet and matches - even though I'm sure they'd be frustrated it's not enough to loose a solid prospect like him
Chicago doesn't do this to screw over Vancouver, no chance.
Honestly don't see the point of this thread at all. Anything less that a really stupid overpayment and Vancouver matches. But why would any team be willing to give Eddie Lack a really stupid overpayment? He's up and coming, did his thing in the minors, but he hasn't even had a cup of coffee at the NHL level apart from a couple of preseason games.
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.
The Canucks signed David Backes to a offersheet a few years ago. At the time he had 54 points in 121 games and was not nearly as good physically and defensively as he is now. It was a big offer for an "unproven" player.
The Canucks signed David Backes to a offersheet a few years ago. At the time he had 54 points in 121 games and was not nearly as good physically and defensively as he is now. It was a big offer for an "unproven" player.
Backes at least had NHL experience under his belt. The OS to him reminds me a lot of the OS Kesler got from Philly; imho both Holmgren and Gillis saw something in those players, something that's become obvious to everyone as they developed into the players they became. Lack? Not so much. He's a good prospect certainly and I'm happy he's in our camp but that's all he is. A prospect. Although it is a laugh to have a Hawks fan (presumably) trying to pry our 3rd string goalie out of here, I can't see them being that desperate.
People keep using the word "unproven" to describe players with a fair amount of NHL experience in this thread. This is not the same kind of "unproven" that Lack is.
Better idea. Wait a year and sign Mike Smith. Boom, problem solved - and you don't have to open the flood gates of offer sheeting prospects who have never played an NHL game.
Eh, we could simply leave him in the minors and it cost us nothing. $2m is not much to Vancouver. I admit though it would be a headache if Chicago felt like being a jerk.
I do know that you can just put him in the AHL, I said so a couple times already. Your definition of being out 2m of real world money as "costs nothing" is still surprising. That is a contract you give him with the plan to have him as your backup, not with the plan to have him as the AHL goalie.
I do know that you can just put him in the AHL, I said so a couple times already. Your definition of being out 2m of real world money as "costs nothing" is still surprising. That is a contract you give him with the plan to have him as your backup, not with the plan to have him as the AHL goalie.
Normally, I would agree but in this unique scenario it would depend on the organization's view of Lack. If they felt he worth keeping, then they would bite the bullet. 2m may seem like a lot but be mindful Chicago has no qualms paying Olesz 3m and Vancouver is a richer team.
Backes at least had NHL experience under his belt. The OS to him reminds me a lot of the OS Kesler got from Philly; imho both Holmgren and Gillis saw something in those players, something that's become obvious to everyone as they developed into the players they became. Lack? Not so much. He's a good prospect certainly and I'm happy he's in our camp but that's all he is. A prospect. Although it is a laugh to have a Hawks fan (presumably) trying to pry our 3rd string goalie out of here, I can't see them being that desperate.
The Kesler offer sheet was actually during Bob Clarke's tenure. Although Holmgren was the assistant GM.
Offer sheet him 2 years, 1 Million each, NMC, one way.
Can he get a NMC?
But that would be as stupid on the Chicago GM for doing that, as it would be for Vancouver to match.....
Luongo is waiting for the CBA to be all cleared up. Teams needing to hit the floor or requiring a goalie arent going to trade for him when for all they know, after the CBA is worked out the floor may be adjusted etc.
This move would be pointless.
I believe only $ and length of the contract is matched, clauses I am not sure.
won't he become a UFA at the end of the year if he doesn't play xx number of games? Help me out please
Only if he signed for one year and doesn't get the necessary NHL games. I believe it's close to 30 games. Much like the situation Cory Schneider was in before he signed a 2 year deal worth 1.8 total.
I'm thinking much of the same solution will be found here with Lack.
We just may see a lower 1st year salary and higher 2nd year, but Lack is just seeking a 1way deal to make some actual money even if he has to play in Chicago this season. Something like 750k this season, 1.05 the next when it's all but assured he'll be on the big club.
Lack's agent said after he denied his qualifying offer the two parties werent far off, but Lack would not sign a 2way deal.
As a Canucks fan, I'd be okay with this only to see Lack finally get his shot as a starter somewhere. He may never get it in Vancouver and we have Cannata coming up the pipes as well. But, that's just my personal opinion
As a Canucks fan, I'd be okay with this only to see Lack finally get his shot as a starter somewhere. He may never get it in Vancouver and we have Cannata coming up the pipes as well. But, that's just my personal opinion
Finally? He's been NHL organization property for like 2 years. He'll do fine here.
I think a deal is on the table and they just wait until they traded Luongo to not lose leverage.
Having Schneider and Lack signed to one way deals would lower his value a bit
Why would we have no choice but to let him walk? We can easily afford to pay him $1m to play in the AHL if need be. Not to mention that if Luongo gets traded then we would use him as our backup.
If Luongo doesn't get dealt he would be lost on waivers. If Van doesn't want to lose Lack for nothing, then they accept the compensation or possibly cave a little on their trade demands regarding Lou. Very smart proposal IMO. Worst case scenario Chicago screws over a rival a little, best case they get a possible starter.
