[brooks] "I expect Lundqvist to be bought out,"

There is a precedent here.

They used the compliance buyout to helps teams due to lost revenues from work stoppage after the 12-13 season.

I believe each team got 2 buyouts of this type over 2 seasons with no dead cap attached.

And what if he wants to play here past this contract?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

They say no.

Again, honoring an existing contract for a franchise icon, I can understand. Further I believe that on a level they owe him more than just paying him.

But if they do let him play out his deal, they’ve satisfied all of that and owe him no more.

Presumably whenever his career does end he will want to be in NY and likely winds up working for the organization anyway.

And what if he wants to play here past this contract?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

The issue is not if he wants to play here, as the team is under no circumstances obligated to keep him under contract indefinitely once the current one expires; but rather can they afford to keep him? I have no issue with keeping him as a back-up(with a back-up salary of 1-2 million) on a series of 1 year contracts as long as his play doesn't deteriorate further.

I think that his ego would never let that happen though; it's completely up to Lundquist if he wants to continue playing, he just may have to do it somewhere else.

The issue is not if he wants to play here, as the team is under no circumstances obligated to keep him under contract indefinitely once the current one expires; but rather can they afford to keep him? I have no issue with keeping him as a back-up(with a back-up salary of 1-2 million) on a series of 1 year contracts as long as his play doesn't deteriorate further.

 

I think that his ego would never let that happen though; it's completely up to Lundquist if he wants to continue playing, he just may have to do it somewhere else.

Agreed

If they let him play it out, once this current contract expires, they owe him nothing and it’s about whether or not the Rangers want him, not the other way around.

If he wants to start he will undoubtedly have to do so elsewhere.

Not sure they’d want to re-up on a 39 year old goalie with diminished skills, even as a backup on a 1 year deal.

IF...this season ends now I pray that it counts as a full year towards his contract so that only 1 year remains and not some kind of goofy tacked on time for ‘months missed.’

Has anything like that ever happened before? That's something I never thought about. Wierd.

Has anything like that ever happened before? That's something I never thought about. Wierd.

No

There is no precedent for that.

Hard to imagine a scenario or agreement they would come to wherein this season, if cancelled, is not counted as a full season as far as service time or for contractual purposes.

I believe there is only one paycheck for the players after the trade deadline, and they have already got it. Full season contractually.

I wonder if they will do things to compensate teams that traded value for UFAs at the deadline and now, if the season is lost, will effectively get nothing.

Link:

Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

?Nothing lasts forever...?

We really would have rather had him going off into the sunset holding a NYR Cup. I?m thinking he plays out next season at MSG. (After posting this I realized those sentences are unrelated and just two random thoughts.)