hoorible trade for knights

Yes, it is. I know. It's a better deal for them than the original Canes FO request at the draft, though (50% retained and a 1st!), and it's a situation of their own creation. Not our fault. Again, this is a bitter pill to swallow, but it does give them enough cap relief this year to get under the cap and it really frees up space next year, without losing any talent right now.

i would of done reimer for fluery and retain for fluery

I'm sure you would, and we all would in an ideal world. Vegas has to pay a penalty to get under the cap. Either sell low on Patches (an even more terrible idea), or just finally accept that a late first in 2021 is much less likely to be an impact contributor to Vegas than Patches will be for the 3 years left on his contract. A late 1st is the lesser of two evils.

true

And as a bonus for the Canes, it gives Waddell, Yorke, Tulsky, and Co. (just hired Jokke Nevalainen, too!) another pick to play around with. LOL

Except Reimer was better than Fleury last year and it puts Canes over the cap. So.....no. They are already at the cap threshold with 22 man roster.

Maybe Buffalo and Hutton.

Marc Andre Fleury Had Been On The Vegas Knights Trade Block On And Off Also Agree With This Trade

I penned the deal in a way that wouldn't get Carolina over the cap with a 21-man roster. I think that us being a little bit tight for a quarter of a year, just like last year with the Marleau deal, is worth a late first. Because the cap accumulates daily starting the day of the season, you can conserve space early on and add guys in as the space expands. At the deadline, you can include one of our numerous expiring contracts (McGinn, Martinook, Dzingel, Mrazek) with prospects and picks in a deadline deal.

But again is it really an upgrade for them at this point in his career. Or a term they are willing to take? Doubt it. Buffalo and Hutton I think is a better fit. Regardless they are going to have a hard time moving him.

The point of this deal is not to improve goaltending, but rather to add cap (the real value play in this trade market) and generate draft assets for both short and long-term competitive juice. Without the Marleau deal, the Skjei and Trocheck deals wouldn't have happened. The deadline, IMO, is the time to improve the club with your farm and draft war-chest. Imagine what an extra 1st can do for the potential Kuemper package by the time March hits, and if this year is truly THE year, maybe they deal both firsts and use the other one to get someone like Rakell or Forsberg.

Also, the Canes were willing to acquire a retained Fleury at the draft if Vegas traded a 1st to them. Vegas obviously declined because they thought that they didn't have to. Because Carolina only signed Jesper Fast in UFA (to an, IMHO, bargain deal), the Canes still have room to do the deal with Vegas, albeit with the same kind of 20-to-21-man roster gymnastics that the FO (successfully) pulled off when they took on Marleau's poisonous 35+ buyout this past season.

Oh, i think they do it with the 1st and retention. My original comment was directed at the poster that said take the 1st out.

Ah, I see. I just think that it's a nice little perk for Yorke and Tulsky to have near-Ottawa-esque draft hauls while still being competitive. A little bit of cap gymnastics is IMO worth it.

gotta be a troll post trade right? send a first to save 5.6m cap space? i could see if they were shipping off maf without taking cap back. but theyre taking 3.4 back this year AND eating 2.5 for 2 years. no chance a first goes back the other way.

No, it's no troll post. The cost for cap space is insanely high right now for teams in cap purgatory.

The time to hold them ransom was when they were signing petro and had to deal schmidt away. they have actual pieces they could move like smith, marchessault etc without having to pay to get cap space. nobody really has leverage over vegas at this point anymore. so while cap space is a premium... i dont think its as big of a deal to vegas to keep MAF for the year. No reason to give up a first and retain at the same time.

I would rather deal a late 1st away than give any good players like Smith, Marchessault, or Pacioretty away for (essentially) nothing. First round picks in the 20-31 range aren't likely to be as valuable as any one of those three in overall win shares for the duration of their NHL careers. I'd rather deal a 1st away and keep the team as Cup contending-caliber as I can.

who said you were getting essentially nothing? teams still value top 6 talent....

I know that teams value top-6 talent. What I'm saying is that selling low on good talent, at least in my personal opinion, is a last resort. They already did it once with Schmidt, and right now, the trade market is depressed for anyone that's looking to shed cap. I get that contending clubs sometimes need to sell low on players because of the cap, but usually they want to keep it at an absolute minimum. As much as teams like to keep their picks, dumping good players at discounted asset prices are almost always the worse decision IMO than sacrificing a late 1st for an inefficient contract.