Yeah you can keep horn unless you pay so much in prospects and picks, wings want no part of that albatross contract

As a Preds fan I like that trade. The Fleury trade is bad though

"albatross" daddy chill its 3 more seasons at 5.3M and not like Detroit is making the playoffs in the foreseeable future

Don't really care, you don't get free cap space cause you need it or want it. You pay for us to take it or your stuck with it and that's the end of that story

Re building teams do not take older players on bigger contracts unless their is a sweetener. Why would Wings take Hornquist for nothing? He is not part of rebuild and will be gone when they emerge from rebuild. Makes absolutely no sense to do so, unless there is a pick or prospect coming along.

Your comment that we are not making the playoffs in the near future is correct, but taking on that contract will ensure we take even longer as it eats cap, take a roster spot from a prospect and he does not fit into the new upbeat and speed of the NHL or our incoming rookies.

Just because a team sucks doesn’t mean they’re a charity for the league.

I really don't understand where this narrative is coming from because the opposite happens all the time.

Bad teams CONSTANTLY help out good teams with clearing cap space while giving up basically nothing. Just in the last year Eric Gudbranson, who is bad and on a bad contract through next year, went to the Ducks for a seventh. Anaheim also took Backes with a tiny bit retained from Boston and while you can say they gave up Kase they also got a decent prospect and a first round pick in that deal for a player they had obviously been willing to part with for a long time. Subban had been underperforming for nearly two years and had an extremely high cap hit and yet Nashville had no problem getting a few picks back for him. The Coyotes knew Kessel had the Penguins by the balls and the Coyotes were the only taker and yet Pittsburgh didn't pay to shed his salary. And the Blues just cleared four million bucks of space without attaching a sweetner. All of these trades occurred between now and the last Stanley Cup.

Obviously these teams aren't getting much if anything back for these contracts but Hornqvists underlying numbers have been fine as he's been aging and he almost scored twenty again this year. Obviously things can change- and the flat cap certainly doesn't help things- but the idea that teams have to pay big sweetners to move contracts just doesn't hold water when you look at player movement throughout the league in the last few years. And the teams that have done it we all make fun of for being stupid for doing it- like Chicago trading Teravianen with Bickell

Flat cap for a rebuilding team means you pay for us to take a bad contract or you keep it and that's how the red wings are progressing. They aren't taking bad caps for free at this time.

Marleau for a first isn't one team helping another team out
Backes for a first same
Avs took on orpik to get grubauer


So many teams are in cap trouble this year and teams with cap space are going to use it as a weapon to gain assets for the future.

If you aren't giving us a first and either poj or poulin you can keep horn and his 5.3 over 3 years in a flat cap when you have cap issues

It's the same with other teams

Blues want to dump Steen and bozak
Canucks loui, benn baertschi
Isles boychuck, komarov, ladd
Jets perrault, little
Tb a bunch of players
Leafs, Johnsson and kerfoot
Oilers Russel
Pens, horn, murray, jj
Rangers, smith, staal, hank
Sabres, okposo, Johanson, skinner

For the wings to take any of these players they will require top picks and prospects or these teams can be stuck with these cap hits during a flat cap and we will be just fine with our rebuild

The Marleau trade is not the same thing and people really need to stop pretending it is. Anyone trading for Marleau wasn't actually trading for the player, they were trading for the exclusive rights to buy out a player that was never going to play for them. That costs something. Same thing with Orpik- he was never going to play for the Avs, they immediately bought him out. That's why you add the sweetner. And, as I already said Boston got a cheap, top six-ish, RFA winger back in exchange for Backes and the first and a prospect, so that does not support the "sweetner" theory.

I understand that Detroit specifically might not be in a position to take these contracts without a sweetner because Hornqvist is actively going to make them a better team and they don't want that right now but I'm saying that some team will, flat cap or no, if Hornqvist is willing to play ball. Because it happens all the time. So the idea that you have to pay to get rid of a big contract because it is big just isn't true. Some of the players that you are listing- Boychuck, Ladd, Baertschi, Loui, Staal, Okposo- they cannot stay in an NHL lineup. Their contracts help no one. Those might need a sweetner. While others you are listing, like Hornqvist (and Bozak, and Kerfoot, and Johnsson, and all the Tampa guys) do not have that issue. Hornqvist has been a perfectly productive player with good underlying analytics, and is presumably playing for the team that acquires him. That's valuable.

Just because a contract is "big" doesn't mean that the team is screwed if they want to get rid of it. Not all players on that list you mentioned are equally bad. Some of them are very good. You cannot equate all of them as needing a sweetner to move. Especially the Leafs and Tampa ones. Historically, teams with cap space never ever weaponize it. They should, but they don't, and I don't expect that to change now because as we saw, the Blues just got a third back for Jake Allen.

I never once said they’d have to pay a “bit sweetener” to offload Hornqvist but using your examples isn’t really helping your argument. Subban was one year removed from a 3rd place Norris finish on a heavy front loaded (thanks Philly), Bickell (one year - 3 or 4M IIRC for a first round prospect with .5PPG in the NHL), Allen just posted career numbers and returned a measly 4th, and Gudbranson whom majority of fans would say is a dump but not GMs (just like Jack Johnson). Cap space is a resource and is treated as such is my argument.

What I'm saying is, for the red wings to take these contracts you are going to pay, for a cup contender it might be different and you can work out a real trade. If anyone is going to the wings it's because we are getting assets with it. That's just how it's going to work with a rebuilding team like the wings and people just don't understand that and think they can dump big contracts to us for nothing. It's just not going to happen

Okay, but none of your points really help the idea that you don't need a sweetner either though. You literally just said Gudbranson was a dump but GMs didn't think that way...i mean, GMs are the ones that make these trades so what they think is what happens and that's exactly what I'm saying, those trades do happen all the time. Who cares what Subban's actual money due was, cap hit is what we're talking about here, most contracts are somewhat front loaded. Allen posted career numbers in very limited appearances, was a UFA next year, the goaltending market is absolutely flooded, and the Blues got assets back. That's a good deal for them. Again, I said, these teams weren't getting much if anything back but they weren't paying to move these contracts. If the Red Wings don't want to do that, whatever, my point wasn't specific to them. My point was that bad teams do act as charity for the league all the time. It's dumb, and they shouldn't do it, but very few teams treat the cap space as the resource it is.

That would be the smart thing to do. My point wasn't red wings specific, just that bad teams usually do help good teams. It's dumb, and they shouldn't do it, but they often do. I'm sure they want to project the image of trying to be a better team but it's an empty gesture, even for a good player.

I agree with you that the red wings shouldn't buy these contracts without assets coming with them and I think Yzerman is smart enough to know that. The average NHL GM, eh, not so much.

Here are some problems with your comments.

Boston did not retain little, they retained 25% or 1.25 million. Anaheim unloaded Kase who makes over 2 million and this year had 7 goals and 23 points in 53 games. And not sure what you mean by top 6ish, he is a bottom 6ish player. In return they got a 1st round pick and prospect. Would not call that a bad team helping out a good team. They got a pick, a prospect and rid themselves of Kase.

In regards to Kessel, if you remember JR had a deal with Minnesota that Kessel turned down, due to his NTC/NMC. Arizona did not have to pay to get him or get much because that is where Kessel wanted to go as much as Tocchet, their coach wanted him. That is much different than a team wanting to dump a player and the other team reluctantly accepts, there were two groups that wanted the same thing.

Washington gave up Grubauer, who at the time was the next big goalie prospect to rid them selves of Orpik. Yes they gave up a 2nd but to Grubauer but, they got the guy they wanted.

Yes Nashville traded Subban and got nothing, but New Jersey wanted him also, if not then why did they not deal him at eh deadline?

As much as Hornquist plays he is slowing down and Wings unlike Arizona or New Jersey, they do joy want him so it makes sense if you want to unload him it will.cost you.

Again you site two instances where they trade was not like the Marleau trade and they were special circumstances.

If you want to dump in this new era it is going to cost you, Wings are in rebuild mode and a guy over 30 who is slowing down and makes over 5 million for 3 more years is nm not want Yzerman is looking for at this time.

Yeah, Gudbranson like I said was viewed as a dump by most fans but not every GMs (keyword is every, just need to find one). GMs make mistakes just like ACGMs hence why every year FAs get signed to lucrative contracts they can never live up too or how scouts can’t accurately project 17 year olds.

Bickell had one year left at 4M which dropped Teravainen’s value down to a second round pick and was only trending up, therefore, cap space lowered his value. Carolina then used cap space again to get a 13OV in this draft which Marleau’s 6.25M cap and 4M cash.

Allen, posted career numbers and ironically as I mentioned in numerous ACGMs would return a 3rd/4th round pick. Some GMs would rather take a gamble on a known commodity to help solidify a weakness behind Price especially since its only one year.

Subban, like I mentioned was one season removed from a third place Norris and NJ wanted to make a push with Hall. So it was a buy low in the hopes of a rebound. If he rebounds and they don’t make the playoffs then he could be easily flipped for 2x seconds or more.

Phil Kessel, the past three or so years was a PPG player so not exactly sure why you would pay someone to take him off your hands. He also didn’t return much for having his resume so I think Arizona did use that as leverage against Pitt.

You provided one example (Gudbranson) where a team took a cap dump for nothing. So I wouldn’t say teams are lining up to be charities of other teams but rather some GMs are better at fleecing others/negotiation/etc.

It’s also easier to say actual cash doesn’t matter but try telling that to the owners like Melnyk especially when gate revenue is gone.

I think what your doing is either moving the goal posts on what I said or confusing me with another poster. I see your a STL fan so I’d wager you probably have seen me say I’d take Steen off your hands for a dump but not Allen/Bozak.

Simon for Hagelin straight up? That sounds almost fair. Youth for defense and skill. I'd love to nickel and dime it for a pick or a prospect, but it sounds like something the Caps might consider, just for the sake of making changes and staying young.

What kinds of roles does Simon do best in?

1.25 million for one year isn't a whole lot though, that's basically the equivalent of playing without one spare. And the other stuff, I think that's just a difference of opinion on Kase. His underlying numbers are really really good, he had been hurt a bit and he wasn't really working with much on Anaheim. I view him similarly to Fiala when he went from Nashville. Kase was playing in Boston's top six for most of the time he was there. And, they get to keep him after this. If it had been a pure rental then I could see that more, but he's going to be cost controlled and under team control for a bit.

With the Kessel stuff, you're saying the same thing I am. Kessel had value around the league but he had Pittsburgh by the balls with his clause. Everyone knew Arizona was the only place he would go to and Arizona could have really squeezed Pittsburgh for some assets to go along with him but they didn't really. For a seven million dollar player who is getting booted for locker room issues and with only one destination in mind, I would have really made Pittsburgh pay to get me to bite.

The Orpik thing, as I said before, is (and should be) viewed differently, just like the Marleau-to-Carolina thing. Colorado wasn't really trading for Brooks Orpik, they were trading for the exclusive right to spend however much money the buyout was. It's much more obvious that you need to get something along with that because you're literally throwing money away otherwise. And it's worth noting that the Capitals were going to trade Grubauer regardless, with Samsonov coming up and Copley ready as their backup for the bridge year, so a sweetener perhaps but it's not like they were losing something the hadn't already planned to lose.

I think if New Jersey could have traded Subban for something at the deadline they would have, but who was going to take him? When he was traded from Nashville, it was similar to the Kessel thing where there was a market for him but there was only one legitimate partner (in this case because Nashville wanted to clear his whole hit and NJ was the only bidder who could offer that). Does NJ still want Subban? I kinda doubt it, but I think his market has dried up a bit because he didn't bounce back this year. And they are certainly not going to pay to move him just like the red wings aren't going to move someone like Abdelkader, there's no point since they are rebuilding.

To be clear, bad teams SHOULD force good teams to pay them to help them with cap issues, but quite often they don't.

Here's the thing, you keep agreeing with me. "It only takes GM" and "teams will gamble on a known commodity to solidify a weakness" like those things apply to a hypothetical Hornqvist trade. And th actual trades of Gudbranson, and Backes, and Subban. These are players who are "known commodities" and teams acquire those players literally all the time and don't take extras for them, even though they knew the other team desperately needed the space. And that's my point. Even really good players, like JT Miller last offseason, Vancouver still gave up a first for him despite everyone knowing Tampa was up against the trying to re-sign Point. There's always that "one GM".

I don't really know why you're bringing up the return for Allen a bunch, I know what he got and I have also said a bunch that that's what he was going to get if the Blues traded him. But look at it from Montreal's perspective. You have a ton of goaltenders on the free market- Markstrom, Holtby, Smith, Khudobin, Greiss. You've got a ton available on the trade market, including Allen, but also Anderson (who has historically been better and is barely more expensive), probably one of Carolina's goaltenders, one of Pittsburgh's goaltenders, one of Columbus' goaltenders. And you have a trading partner who is desperate to shed cap space. Their player (Allen) had been bad for two straight seasons before rebounding in a lesser role with very few games played relative to what he had been playing in previous years, while being payed like a starting goaltender. Are you going to give up anything at all to get that player? If I was Bergevin, I would have told Armstrong "YOU are giving ME the third round pick, not the other way around". But that's my point- bad teams (or at least, the worse team in the trade) don't make good teams pay to take their cap dumps. They just don't. It doesn't happen.

And, you say this stuff about Subban, but he's still on their roster and NJ sold at the deadline. He hasn't been good. Who is taking him at 9 million? They can't flip him. And, when NJ acquired him, they were the only team that could. Nashville wanted the whole cap hit cleared and NJ was the only team that could do that. The should have made Nashville pay them to take Subban, but they didn't. Sure they wanted Subban, but if he sucked it would have been nice to have some additional assets right? But teams don't do that.

The reason you make Pittsburgh pay to take Kessel off your hands is Arizona was the only team he would go to. Pittsburgh had other deals in place that Kessel nixed. Kessel is a PPG player and that's valuable, but the coyotes still should have made Pittsburgh pay them to take him, because Pittsburgh probably would have done it. Otherwise they were stuck with Kessel.

I don't think I'm moving the goalposts at all. You said bad teams aren't charities for good teams to send their players that they want to get rid of. In all of the examples I gave, teams wanted to get rid of those guys. Gudbranson, Kessel, Subban. Allen. And in all of those deals, the team that received the player did not receive an additional asset for taking the contract, despite there being few or no other options for the team trying to get rid of the contract. Is Rutherford a good GM? I don't think so, but at the same time he was the "good team" that traded Gudbranson and Kessel without adding a sweetener.

The money thing is going to matter to some teams but I don't think it matters to all. The common thread with these trades is that the bad teams thought they were good. Arizona, NJ, Anaheim. And then they weren't, some worse than others. Melnyk and the red wings aren't going to be trading for these deals because they're bad and they know it, and they know having Hornqvist doesn't change that. But teams like San Jose, who still thinks they are good, might give a contract like Hornqvists a shot, because they gotta win now. And I think we will (stupidly) have some gate revenue next season.

I don't mean this as an insult, but I do not know who you are or what you've said in the past, I just replied-all to the posts that were saying stuff about bad teams not taking contracts good teams want to move without sweeteners, because I truly believe that's not the case. And fwiw, I don't think STL wants to trade Steen. It would be help STLs space for sure and I would like that, but I kinda don't think Armstrong would do that to him at the end of his career. Who knows though. Apologies for the novel.

There is a lot here so I’ll just keep with your order in answering these.

I’m not agreeing with you. I think you take it to the extreme in making GMs pay for contracts. I went through your examples and provided how the teams were compensated minus Gudbranson. JT Miller could’ve been traded anywhere and is a solid contract at that AAV and in his prime. I think your mixing the term in a cap flexibility and cap dump. A cap dump can vary based on the usefulness of a player. Most of the players you mentioned are still valuable players, however, compensated at a higher rate than what they provide. Cap flexibility would be the team is up tight against the ceiling and needs to possibly move players that have decent contract value (JT Miller/Kessel) to sign RFAs or core UFAs.

I brought Allen’s return up twice so not sure how that’s a bunch but okay. Just because there are going to be a decent amount of UFA goalies doesn’t mean they are going to sign with your team or for the term/dollar amounts your FO access for that specific player. Maybe Bergevin sees a guy in Allen that can take 40 games off Price to keep him fresh for the playoffs. STL also didn’t necessarily have to move him. They could’ve moved Bozak at reduced cost to free up cap for AP if they wanted too.

I remember so many posts about how NSH fleeced Montreal in the Weber-Subban exchange and then NJ taking advantage of NSH for that return. Funny how hindsight can make certain trades look bad but my point still remains that he was one year removed a third place Norris finish. They made that trade in the hopes that Hughes would provide more offense like he was touted in his draft year as a Patrick Kane clone. Yeah, the trade didn’t work out for them but we have that advantage of hindsight.

I agree some teams are flushed with cash but for every Toronto/NYR you are going to have a Senator/Panther owner.

It’s all good, I like having civil conversations with differing views/fan bases. I think you mistook my original comment out of context to the OP which spurned this. My fan base is probably just a little more aggressive than most because everyday we are bombarded with ACGMs where we pay for massive cap dumps with the rationale we aren’t going to be good for 5+ years so who cares.

I think that's just good business. If you are the only team that can take a certain contract, for whatever reason (a NTC, you have the cap space, whatever) even if you think the player is valuable, like NJ thought Subban was or Arizona thought Kessel was, you have all the power in the negotiations here. You can ask for whatever you want. I bet if Arizona asked for McCann to take Kessel, Pittsburgh probably trades them McCann and Kessel. What choice would they have had? It was that or keep Kessel on the books. These were perfect opportunities to ask for sweeteners and the "bad" teams didn't do it. You say "most of the players you (meaning me) mention are still valuable players, however, compensated at a higher rate than what they provide". That's Patric Hornqvist right now. He's a tad too expensive but he's not a bum. Gudbranson is a bum, and they didn't pay to shed him. So why would they pay to take Gudbranson.

Well you've only replied twice , now three times. I agree that that probably is why Bergevin traded for Allen, because Montreal historically (in the last few years at least) has trouble attracting FAs (though I don't think Montreal has any shortage of dollars or years they're willing to go with some guys). But that doesn't change the fact that STL was over a barrel. They need to shed Allen's salary AND either Bozak or Steen's salary to re-sign Pietrangelo IMO, the numbers just don't work otherwise. How many teams realistically were in the market for Jake Allen? Other than Montreal, maybe 2? Montreal could have really put the screws to the Blues and they didn't. They got a useful player back who will help them, but they should have put the screws to us and done even better than that. That would have been good business for them, just like making us pay a second round and a fourth round pick for Marco Scandella at the trade deadline after acquiring him for a fourth two weeks earlier was good business.

The Subban-for-Weber trade has weirdly aged well for Montreal for sure, but some in the analytics community had been knocking on Subban as being in decline even during that third place Norris season. He had steadily been dropping in goals above replacement since his last season in Montreal. Nashville picked a good time to cut (and then immediately ruined that for themselves by signing Matt Duchene) but yeah of course that's why New Jersey traded for him, they thought he still had something and honestly I did too, I was not expecting him to be as bad as he has been. But again, I don't think that changes that NJ had Nashville over a barrel. They were the only team that could absorb Subban's entire cap hit which was critical for Nashville to be able to sign Duchene and they weren't going to move him otherwise. NJ should have had to pay less, and I know they didn't pay much, or Nashville should have sent more in return. Is that extreme? Maybe. But I think it's good business. Now NJ traded those picks for nothing, and those are going to be very high picks for Nashville.

I realize that you probably weren't taking issue with the concept of trades without sweeteners and mostly with the fact that it doesn't make sense for the red wings- which, I agree, it absolutely doesn't. The red wings should not acquire a contract without a sweetener coming back. But I don't think that means that no one will go for a guy like Hornqvist, and that was the purpose of my reply. Bad teams sometimes are a charity to good teams if they think those players can help their team. Sometimes they have to be a little detached from reality to do it- either thinking they are good, thinking the player is good, or both- but I don't think Detroit has those issues (they know they are bad and Yzerman is a smart guy). I understand the annoyance from people trying to dump crap on you- you should see how many Parayko to Leafs ACGMs I have to eye roll at all the time.