In a the Toronto Star a long time Toronto sportswriter (won't be named by me) wrote an article on why the Leafs should be trading Marner if he isn't signed. But like so many of his ilk he fails to come to with any solutions. Sure the Leafs would be better to have NHL players on the roster if Marner isn't signed. But the writer fails to mention to that other teams want a signed Marner before they give valuable pieces to sign him. Does he name any teams that would sign Marner to contract much different that the Leafs? Of course he doesn't, that would take some analysis of other teams needs and their cap situation now and in the future.
So while as contributor to CapFriendly who gets frustrated by some CFers who don't offer alternatives, here is a paid veteran sports writer who pens a long article....which says nothing of consequence. A typical "one of five stars" written by the unknowing/uncaring newspaper wrlters. The demise of newspapers continues, partly because hire have fewer people who contribute any insight.
I didn't read the article, but i don't get that either. It's like when people talk about a bad contract and say "someone will give up a pick for this guy at his full cap hit" but don't name any teams. However, right now that's not too unrealistic on a short-term deal. If you're not taking back cap or retaining salary, it doesn't matter how good the player is, if it's before FA you're not going to get as much as you want (unless the cap hit is really small) ... the big cap hits take away value, even on "fair contracts". For example, Subban. That was before FA, so the Predators didn't get a huge return. The Rangers with Vladislav Namestnikov is an example ... at his full cap hit, someone could take him. I'll even name a few teams: New Jersey, Colorado, and Columbus (Colorado makes the most sense in my opinion). Before FA, though, the Rangers may have been paying to move his contract (not a big price, but they'd still most likely be paying). If Nashville had waited until after FA, they probably could have gotten more for Subban, but they wanted to sign Duchene, and they most likely didn't want to be stuck over the cap trying to make a move. They may have been over the cap by too much, anyway.
If a guy like Jonathan Ericsson was moved today, with a year left, there's a chance that maybe Detroit could get a pick for him (unlikely, though, in my opinion) ... more likely, though, would be that he wouldn't cost a lot to move, while before FA, he would have. That's something that people don't seem to understand. It's not about "whether the player is playing up to his contract" in trades, it's about if the team has the cap space and if taking the cap hit is worth it with the other pieces to the deal. It's easier if you send money both ways. Brent Seabrook is tradable, but they'd need to take a long-term contract back ... probably the full 5 years (or at least 4) ... and the cap hit would need to be similar ... if it's a player of his level then there wouldn't need to be many other pieces, if any at all. If it's a better player, they'd be sending more pieces back (more likely prospects and picks). I'm not saying this deal makes any sense for either team, but in value it could work for Seabrook to be traded for Adam Henrique if picks/prospects are going back to Anaheim. The cap hits are similar and long-term.