So tell us what is the benefit to Vegas trading LTIR Clarkson to the Leafs? You expect Vegas to give Miller to the Leafs? Ducks aren't trading Rakell to take Nylander at twice the cap.

Vegas is in cap trouble and I’ve seen you trade nylander for far less. People in glass houses....

But yeah... that ducks deal is probably a no go.

Clarkson being an LTIR does not affect the cap at all for Vegas next year, just like Horton doesn't affect the cap for the Leafs next year. The Miller trade is really just a 2nd rounder the Leafs have to give up. NHL capable RHD on a cap hit of 3.8m aren't traded that cheaply. Now what is 7m Nylander worth.? I believe the minimum I had hi traded is 2 seconds rounder. Having some team to absorb all his cap is really the problem I see.

Vegas can't get LTIR, as not every team can afford the insurance. Therefore, Clarkson would affect the cap, and since Vegas is in a cap crunch, so they would likely throw Miller in a trade for someone to bite on Clarkson.

Oilers DECLINE, I would not even trade larsson for kadri.

Getting rid of Clarkson doesnt help them enough to give up one of their better players and you already know that. Sabres will give you Johansson Hickey and Stls 2nd for Nylander and Horton because Toronto has cap problems. You'd say no, same thing

What????

You're just making stuff up about Clarkson, his LTIR and the insurance. What insurance costs? What do you mean Vegas can't get LTIR....seems like you don't understand LTIR. LTIRs do not affect the cap. (Does Horton's, Hossa, Bolland and all the others?) Sorry it's a ridiculous underpayment for a Miller and the Clarkson LTIR is just a red herring in the trade.

Anaheim is not trading Rakell and Vegas is not trading Miller. Those are very cap-friendly contracts.

LITR is very misunderstood thing. Look at the LITR rules carefully. A team can throw a player on LITR for the full amount but not until Day 1 of the season but there are rules around how much over they can be until after Day 1. Point is, there is a reason teams try to move LITR players to give them more flexibility both in season and offseason.

Nope. Players can be on LTIR all year round. Teams are not cap punished for having injured players. Leafs had two or was it three with Rodidas on year round and it didn't affect their cap and signing ability during the summer. The real only disadvantage putting a player on LTIR might affect a teams ability WHEN they pay their performance bonuses.

That's not the only disadvantage. Why would the Hawks give up Hino for dumping Hossa then to AZ? There's more to it then you suggest.

I told you before why the Hawks traded Hossa, but you didn't like the answer. So as long folks don't want to be informed, saying how LTIR affects the cap in the summer etc...there is no use discussing it.
Take this post where it supposedly such as disadvantage for Vegas having LTIR Clarkson, but it's OK for cap strapped Leafs to take him. See it makes no difference to the cap for either team.

LMAO you told me? Okay, let's hear it because despite you telling me I don't remember which means, it probably didn't make much sense. So why did the Hawks trade Hossa?

Hawks could have kept Hossa on LTIR (as long as it was valid) possibly it would no effect on the cap. But by having Hossa on LTIR it may affect WHEN a team pays it's performance bonus. For instance the Leafs have Horton on IR this year (in effect on the roster) because they don't want to carry 4m in bonus money till next year when they have more expensive roster with their ELC players signing RFA contracts.
So that might have been the Hawks reason, to have more certainly WHEN they can pay their performances.

The other reason which I think is more relevant is the nature of Hossa's LTIR. There was the danger he is going to deemed "fit to play". Now the Hawks probably can't handle Hossa's 5.25m cap hit in the future but Arizona can. So if Hossa is deemed fit to play, his 5,25m cap hit would go to Arizona. Of course Hossa will stay retired due to the nature of his front loaded contract. Arizona on paper sends Hossa to minors, and now only has 4m cap hit, but don't pay any $$$$ out, because Hossa has remained retired.

Your first part is part of the reason is partially correct as to the reason but it also has to do with cap flexibility during the offseason. Your second part is totally incorrect.

Hossa doesn't have a 2 way contract and can't be sent to the minors regardless first and foremost. Second, Arizona is paying Hossa his $1M. Third, there was no risk Hossa was going to be deemed 'fit to play'. Hossa retired because the chemo drugs he was on were ruining him and not helping his skin disease. There is a great article in the Athletic on the situation. I also can personally validate this as I saw him at Northwestern hospital getting chemo treatment a year plus before he retired and also have a family member who works for one of the doctors treating him. I was on here 2 years ago saying what happened when nobody knew yet. If you knew Hossa, he didn't retire because he didn't want to play hockey anymore and if you knew the Hawks, they wanted him to play. The guy was in a painful situation both physically and mentally.

Point was, there is a possibility of him coming back. I don't doubt if he is "unfit" But he if deemed fit in the future, and doesn't want to play, he sure as hell can be sent to the minors, just for the paperwork and the Arizona get cap relief of 1.1m
Players on NMCs even Marleau can be "sent" to minors but don't have to report and still get their full NHL salary.

The contract can't be sent to the minors if it's not a 2 way contract regardless if they retire or not. Having a 2 way agreement and NMC are mutually exclusive of one another although most NMC's don't include a 2 way agreement.