SalarySwishSalarySwish
Forums/Armchair-GM

Winnipeg 3rd line signing Nelson

Created by: DripBayless
Team: 2019-20 Edmonton Oilers
Initial Creation Date: Apr. 18, 2019
Published: Apr. 18, 2019
Salary Cap Mode: Basic
Description
Stralman's 2 years has NMC for year 1 and gets paid 6M first year. 2nd year turns into 10 team NTC meaning he can get traded to 21 teams and actual salary is 2M.

Don't know if that's fair value for Copp. I'd trade Gambardella for him though in a straight swap or just a 3rd rounder.

Interested in Perreault as well, don't know his value as a 3C for this team.
Free Agent Signings
RFAYEARSCAP HIT
2$900,000
2$1,200,000
2$2,000,000
UFAYEARSCAP HIT
2$4,000,000
2$1,700,000
1$700,000
1$2,000,000
5$5,500,000
3$2,000,000
Trades
1.
EDM
  1. 2019 5th round pick (EDM)
2.
EDM
OTT
  1. Lucic, Milan ($3,000,000 retained)
  2. Manning, Brandon
  3. 2020 2nd round pick (EDM)
Additional Details:
Trade Lucic to Toronto or Montreal for a 5th rounder at 1.5M for 4 years
3.
EDM
  1. Copp, Andrew [RFA Rights]
WPG
  1. Gambardella, Joseph [RFA Rights]
  2. Norell, Robin [RFA Rights]
Additional Details:
or a 3rd rounder
Buyouts
Retained Salary Transactions
DraftRound 1Round 2Round 3Round 4Round 5Round 6Round 7
2019
Logo of the EDM
Logo of the EDM
Logo of the NYI
Logo of the EDM
Logo of the EDM
Logo of the EDM
Logo of the EDM
2020
Logo of the EDM
Logo of the EDM
Logo of the EDM
Logo of the EDM
Logo of the EDM
2021
Logo of the EDM
Logo of the EDM
Logo of the EDM
Logo of the EDM
Logo of the EDM
Logo of the EDM
Logo of the EDM
ROSTER SIZESALARY CAPCAP HITOVERAGES TooltipBONUSESCAP SPACE
23$83,000,000$78,676,999$0$500,000$4,323,001

Roster

Left WingCentreRight Wing
Logo of the Edmonton Oilers
$8,500,000$8,500,000
C, LW
UFA - 6
Logo of the Edmonton Oilers
$12,500,000$12,500,000
C
UFA - 7
Logo of the Edmonton Oilers
$1,200,000$1,200,000
RW
UFA
$5,500,000$5,500,000
C, LW
UFA - 6
Logo of the Edmonton Oilers
$6,000,000$6,000,000
LW, C
UFA - 2
Logo of the Edmonton Oilers
$1,700,000$1,700,000
RW
UFA - 2
$2,000,000$2,000,000
LW, RW
UFA - 6
$2,000,000$2,000,000
C, LW, RW
UFA - 2
Logo of the Edmonton Oilers
$1,950,000$1,950,000
RW
UFA - 1
Logo of the Edmonton Oilers
$675,000$675,000
C
RFA - 1
Logo of the Edmonton Oilers
$900,000$900,000
LW, C
UFA - 2
Logo of the Edmonton Oilers
$2,835,000$2,835,000
RW, C
UFA - 1
Left DefenseRight DefenseGoaltender
Logo of the Edmonton Oilers
$4,167,000$4,167,000
LD
UFA - 4
Logo of the Edmonton Oilers
$4,166,666$4,166,666
RD
UFA - 2
Logo of the Edmonton Oilers
$4,500,000$4,500,000
G
M-NTC
UFA - 3
Logo of the Edmonton Oilers
$3,200,000$3,200,000
LD
UFA - 1
$4,000,000$4,000,000
RD
UFA - 3
Logo of the Edmonton Oilers
$1,500,000$1,500,000 (Performance Bonus$500,000$500K)
LD/RD
UFA - 1
Logo of the Edmonton Oilers
$1,900,000$1,900,000
RD
UFA - 1
$2,000,000$2,000,000
G
UFA - 2
ScratchesInjured Reserve (IR)Long Term IR (LTIR)
Logo of the Edmonton Oilers
$1,150,000$1,150,000
C
UFA - 1
Logo of the Edmonton Oilers
$700,000$700,000
LD
UFA - 1
Logo of the Edmonton Oilers
$1,000,000$1,000,000
RD
UFA - 1

Embed Code

  • To display this team on another website or blog, add this iFrame to the appropriate page
  • Customize the height attribute in the iFrame code below to fit your website appropriately. Minimum recommended: 400px.

Text-Embed

Click to Highlight
Apr. 18, 2019 at 12:33 p.m.
#1
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jan. 2019
Posts: 110
Likes: 29
Don't think thats enough for Ottawa to take on Lucic (even just at 1.5 x 4) + Manning.
Apr. 18, 2019 at 12:40 p.m.
#2
Thread Starter
Avatar of the user
Joined: Apr. 2018
Posts: 1,587
Likes: 390
Quoting: YvanF
Don't think thats enough for Ottawa to take on Lucic (even just at 1.5 x 4) + Manning.


what would be enough? Manning has 1 year left, helps them reach cap floor and can be buried if they really don't like him on the NHL roster.

What is the cost of 1.5M for 4 years?
Apr. 18, 2019 at 1:03 p.m.
#3
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jun. 2016
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 639
Quoting: ConnorsCousin
what would be enough? Manning has 1 year left, helps them reach cap floor and can be buried if they really don't like him on the NHL roster.

What is the cost of 1.5M for 4 years?


I don't think you can do that. I am pretty sure only 50% of a players salary can be covered. I do not believe it's 50% per team.
Apr. 18, 2019 at 1:09 p.m.
#4
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jun. 2016
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 639
Quoting: Propeller09
I don't think you can do that. I am pretty sure only 50% of a players salary can be covered. I do not believe it's 50% per team.


What is a retained salary transaction/trade
When a team trades a player, they have the option to retain a part of their salary (and cap hit). The team who retains the salary then pays the retained percentage of the salary, and also retains the percentage of the cap hit until the contract expires. The following requirements must be met to retain salary:
The percentage retained cannot exceed 50 percent of the player’s salary (including all bonuses) and Salary Cap Hit.
The same percentage must be retained for both the player’s salary and Salary Cap Hit, and cannot be modified.
All teams are limited to a maximum of 3 retained salary contracts per season.
Teams cannot retain an aggregate amount of more than 15 percent of the Salary Cap Upper Limit.
Players’ contracts are limited to 2 retained salary transactions per contract.
Once a retained salary transcation has occured, there are various limitations, such as:
A team cannot reacquire a player whom they have retained salary from for a minimum of one year after the date of the transaction, or unless the player's contract expires or is terminated prior to the one-year date.
All teams involved in a retained salary transaction will have cap implications if the contract is bought out or terminated.
Teams who retain salary on a players contract, will have the full value of the cap hit act against the teams salary cap total, regardless of whether the player is reassigned to the minors by their current team.
Apr. 18, 2019 at 1:12 p.m.
#5
Thread Starter
Avatar of the user
Joined: Apr. 2018
Posts: 1,587
Likes: 390
Quoting: Propeller09
What is a retained salary transaction/trade
When a team trades a player, they have the option to retain a part of their salary (and cap hit). The team who retains the salary then pays the retained percentage of the salary, and also retains the percentage of the cap hit until the contract expires. The following requirements must be met to retain salary:
The percentage retained cannot exceed 50 percent of the player’s salary (including all bonuses) and Salary Cap Hit.
The same percentage must be retained for both the player’s salary and Salary Cap Hit, and cannot be modified.
All teams are limited to a maximum of 3 retained salary contracts per season.
Teams cannot retain an aggregate amount of more than 15 percent of the Salary Cap Upper Limit.
Players’ contracts are limited to 2 retained salary transactions per contract.
Once a retained salary transcation has occured, there are various limitations, such as:
A team cannot reacquire a player whom they have retained salary from for a minimum of one year after the date of the transaction, or unless the player's contract expires or is terminated prior to the one-year date.
All teams involved in a retained salary transaction will have cap implications if the contract is bought out or terminated.
Teams who retain salary on a players contract, will have the full value of the cap hit act against the teams salary cap total, regardless of whether the player is reassigned to the minors by their current team.


thanks for that note. In this case I think it'll be a bit tougher to trade him. But Lucic at 3M per for 4 years isn't too bad imo. Not great but not as bloated as it is now.
Apr. 18, 2019 at 1:33 p.m.
#6
Avatar of the user
Joined: Mar. 2017
Posts: 24,327
Likes: 7,846
Quoting: Propeller09
What is a retained salary transaction/trade
When a team trades a player, they have the option to retain a part of their salary (and cap hit). The team who retains the salary then pays the retained percentage of the salary, and also retains the percentage of the cap hit until the contract expires. The following requirements must be met to retain salary:
The percentage retained cannot exceed 50 percent of the player’s salary (including all bonuses) and Salary Cap Hit.
The same percentage must be retained for both the player’s salary and Salary Cap Hit, and cannot be modified.
All teams are limited to a maximum of 3 retained salary contracts per season.
Teams cannot retain an aggregate amount of more than 15 percent of the Salary Cap Upper Limit.
Players’ contracts are limited to 2 retained salary transactions per contract.
Once a retained salary transcation has occured, there are various limitations, such as:
A team cannot reacquire a player whom they have retained salary from for a minimum of one year after the date of the transaction, or unless the player's contract expires or is terminated prior to the one-year date.
All teams involved in a retained salary transaction will have cap implications if the contract is bought out or terminated.
Teams who retain salary on a players contract, will have the full value of the cap hit act against the teams salary cap total, regardless of whether the player is reassigned to the minors by their current team.


The way I read that is that "when a team trades a player, they can retain up to 50% of his salary" and "each contract is limited to 2 Retained Salary Transactions". This interpretation means that the above scenario is allowable within the CBA. Maybe @Banks can clarify?
Apr. 18, 2019 at 1:34 p.m.
#7
Avatar of the user
Joined: Mar. 2017
Posts: 24,327
Likes: 7,846
Quoting: YvanF
Don't think thats enough for Ottawa to take on Lucic (even just at 1.5 x 4) + Manning.


Don't forget the actual cash owed to Lucic is less than the cap hit, so the $1.5M cap hit represents $1M x 4 in cash - something that Melnyk might appreciate.
DripBayless liked this.
Apr. 18, 2019 at 1:39 p.m.
#8
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jun. 2016
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 639
Quoting: CD282
The way I read that is that "when a team trades a player, they can retain up to 50% of his salary" and "each contract is limited to 2 Retained Salary Transactions". This interpretation means that the above scenario is allowable within the CBA. Maybe @Banks can clarify?


I Read that a bunch of times. It is confusing --- I think its specifies it can be done twice but only for up to 50% of the player's salary. . I could be wrong, but I feel like it would have been worded 50% of the current Cap hit.

I think this allows for say Toronto to retain 2m (kessel) of Pitts $, and allow them to trade and retain 1m (Lets say his contract is 6m for easy math)

I feel like this would be done way more if it were allowed.
Apr. 18, 2019 at 2:12 p.m.
#9
Follow capfriendly
Avatar of the user
Joined: Dec. 1336
Posts: 2,669
Likes: 1,928
Quoting: CD282
The way I read that is that "when a team trades a player, they can retain up to 50% of his salary" and "each contract is limited to 2 Retained Salary Transactions". This interpretation means that the above scenario is allowable within the CBA. Maybe @Banks can clarify?


Player has a cap hit of $8M

Trade one at 50% retained: new cap hit is $4M

Trade two at 50% retained: new cap hit is $2M

Theoretically up to 75% of the players cap hit can be owned by the trading teams.
CD282 liked this.
Apr. 18, 2019 at 2:17 p.m.
#10
Thread Starter
Avatar of the user
Joined: Apr. 2018
Posts: 1,587
Likes: 390
Quoting: Propeller09
I Read that a bunch of times. It is confusing --- I think its specifies it can be done twice but only for up to 50% of the player's salary. . I could be wrong, but I feel like it would have been worded 50% of the current Cap hit.

I think this allows for say Toronto to retain 2m (kessel) of Pitts $, and allow them to trade and retain 1m (Lets say his contract is 6m for easy math)

I feel like this would be done way more if it were allowed.


Looks like what I proposed could actually work then
CD282 liked this.
Apr. 18, 2019 at 2:22 p.m.
#11
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jan. 2019
Posts: 110
Likes: 29
Quoting: Banks
Player has a cap hit of $8M

Trade one at 50% retained: new cap hit is $4M

Trade two at 50% retained: new cap hit is $2M

Theoretically up to 75% of the players cap hit can be owned by the trading teams.


Very interesting. Thanks for clarifying.
Apr. 18, 2019 at 2:27 p.m.
#12
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jun. 2016
Posts: 2,853
Likes: 639
Quoting: Banks
Player has a cap hit of $8M

Trade one at 50% retained: new cap hit is $4M

Trade two at 50% retained: new cap hit is $2M

Theoretically up to 75% of the players cap hit can be owned by the trading teams.


Why isn't this done more? Has it ever been done?
Apr. 18, 2019 at 2:39 p.m.
#13
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jan. 2019
Posts: 110
Likes: 29
Quoting: ConnorsCousin
what would be enough? Manning has 1 year left, helps them reach cap floor and can be buried if they really don't like him on the NHL roster.

What is the cost of 1.5M for 4 years?


There are other variables that come to mind when a team is entertaining a trade offer. The perceived value and gain of a certain trade (I get XYZ in return for ABC) is a big part of it yes. There are cap considerations as you mentioned and yes, this would help the Sens reach the cap floor. But there is also the implications on adding another D to an already cramped depth chart. It really depends on what the Sens think of their D depth chart, who they believe will occupy the top 6 D spots, which players have 2-way contracts and can be sent down to the ahl, which player(s) they think will occupy the 7th D (press box half the year) / which prospect needs nhl ice time to further their development (or else might as well trade him (thinking of Lajoie).

IF your top six is:
Chabot - Demelo
Brannstrom - Ceci
Wolanin - Jaros

Borowieki is your 7th D (that the coach will likely inexplicably be giving more ice time than Wolanin). Harpur is also on a 1-way and for some reason, also heavily favoured by the Sens organization.

IF the Sens don't re-sign Goloubef, Falk, Elliott, Burgdoerfer (all UFA's), that leaves you with Lajoie and Englund who are ready/could benefit from some NHL games to keep them progressing (at some point in the next season).

This seems like a huge bottle neck at the D position. In other words, The Sens have ALOT of options for their D needs internally and it would take a sweetener for them to add to the bottleneck.

Sure, you could accept the trade and bury the contract, but he'd be stealing minutes from propsects who need them to develop who might be transitioning into the AHL from the NCAA or CHL.

Heck, the Condors in Bake were healthy scratching Manning. Meaning they didn't feel he was able to play at the ahl level.

So yes, it'll take a bit more to sweeten the pot. Probably not a huge asset but I don't see the incentive for Ottawa to accept it as is.
Apr. 18, 2019 at 3:26 p.m.
#14
Thread Starter
Avatar of the user
Joined: Apr. 2018
Posts: 1,587
Likes: 390
Quoting: YvanF
There are other variables that come to mind when a team is entertaining a trade offer. The perceived value and gain of a certain trade (I get XYZ in return for ABC) is a big part of it yes. There are cap considerations as you mentioned and yes, this would help the Sens reach the cap floor. But there is also the implications on adding another D to an already cramped depth chart. It really depends on what the Sens think of their D depth chart, who they believe will occupy the top 6 D spots, which players have 2-way contracts and can be sent down to the ahl, which player(s) they think will occupy the 7th D (press box half the year) / which prospect needs nhl ice time to further their development (or else might as well trade him (thinking of Lajoie).

IF your top six is:
Chabot - Demelo
Brannstrom - Ceci
Wolanin - Jaros

Borowieki is your 7th D (that the coach will likely inexplicably be giving more ice time than Wolanin). Harpur is also on a 1-way and for some reason, also heavily favoured by the Sens organization.

IF the Sens don't re-sign Goloubef, Falk, Elliott, Burgdoerfer (all UFA's), that leaves you with Lajoie and Englund who are ready/could benefit from some NHL games to keep them progressing (at some point in the next season).

This seems like a huge bottle neck at the D position. In other words, The Sens have ALOT of options for their D needs internally and it would take a sweetener for them to add to the bottleneck.

Sure, you could accept the trade and bury the contract, but he'd be stealing minutes from propsects who need them to develop who might be transitioning into the AHL from the NCAA or CHL.

Heck, the Condors in Bake were healthy scratching Manning. Meaning they didn't feel he was able to play at the ahl level.

So yes, it'll take a bit more to sweeten the pot. Probably not a huge asset but I don't see the incentive for Ottawa to accept it as is.


All your points are fair about Manning but lets say he's scratched in the AHL, he'd still count 1.25M against the cap. And if they're not looking for people to pay, they can do that while he doesn't get any minutes from their farm team. I could see Gagner going there too. If Melnyk's main goal is just to reach the minimum then deals like help them.
Apr. 18, 2019 at 6:01 p.m.
#15
Avatar of the user
Joined: Jan. 2019
Posts: 110
Likes: 29
Quoting: ConnorsCousin
All your points are fair about Manning but lets say he's scratched in the AHL, he'd still count 1.25M against the cap. And if they're not looking for people to pay, they can do that while he doesn't get any minutes from their farm team. I could see Gagner going there too. If Melnyk's main goal is just to reach the minimum then deals like help them.


LOL. Melnyk likes cap hits that don't cost real money. He ONLY seeks insured contracts.
Apr. 22, 2019 at 6:58 a.m.
#16
Avatar of the user
Joined: Mar. 2017
Posts: 24,327
Likes: 7,846
Quoting: YvanF
Heck, the Condors in Bake were healthy scratching Manning. Meaning they didn't feel he was able to play at the ahl level.


You make some very good points, I just wanted to touch on this one: I think the reason for Manning not playing in the AHL has more to do with the coach's mandate to develop his young players, and the fact that he has several very good young d-men who were already established prior to Manning's arrival and who needed the playing time.
DripBayless liked this.
 
Reply
To create a post please Login or Register
Question:
Options:
Add Option
Submit Poll