Quick Hits: Rask, Zidlicky, Luongo, Islanders and Coyotes

  • Elliotte Friedman: From what Friendman understands, Tuukka Rask has a no-movement clause for the first four-years, then it turns to a modified no-trade clause in which he submits a list of teams he would be willing to be dealt too.
  • CapGeek: Marek Zidlicky’s contract with the Devils is $3 million plus $1 million in performance bonuses if he plays in 25 games. He has a no-trade clause.
  • Bob McKenzie: The Canucks and Roberto Luongo could technically do the same as Ilya Kovalchuk from what McKenzie understands, as long as Luongo is prepared not to get paid, which won’t happen.
  • Chris Botta: The Islanders are saying that they have sold 2,200 new season tickets for next season. Renewal rate is 86 percent.
  • Craig Morgan: There is no lawsuit coming from the Goldwater Institute this time around.

One Comment

  1. LIslander

    July 12, 2013 at 10:08 am

    “The Islanders are saying that they have sold 2,200 new season tickets for next season. Renewal rate is 86 percent.”

    Yeah, so.
    While that is good to see, considering their improved play & post-season appearance, this is certainly not surprising, particularly considering that long-time Islander fans, many of whom are from the suburbs, understandably want to make it a point to see the (finally) improving on-ice product while still at the Coliseum this upcoming season (and then the 2014-2015 season, which would be the last in Nassau).
    When a good product is presented, then naturally people are more inclined to justifying choosing the expenditure in tough economic times.
    This is not rocket science and should not be perceived as a new revelation to Wang. Nor should that be erroneously chosen to be equated by anyone to somehow mean that fans, who in the past may not have spent their hard-earned dollars on a sub-par on-ice product, and are now happy and willing to spend their money on a product that is commensurate with the expense, were somehow considered as not supportive of the team, when in fact that is likely not the case at all.
    Somehow, without making it a point to clarify that, there are unfortunately a good deal of individuals that choose to not consider the particulars (and rationale) and hence may misinterpret what the real deal is.