SalarySwishSalarySwish
Forums/Armchair-GM

Is he a negative asset to move this offseason

Created by: MNCountryClub
Team: 2024-25 Minnesota Wild
Initial Creation Date: Jan. 3, 2024
Published: Jan. 3, 2024
Salary Cap Mode: Basic
Description
Spurgeon's NMC becomes a M-NTC on July 1st.

If MN were to move on from him, does he return value or does it cost to move?

He's 34 and has injury history, but his analytics are still quite strong, so he's not a typical "cap dump". However, I'm not sure how many teams are lining up to take him on, despite his underlying numbers.

BUF just a placeholder
Free Agent Signings
RESERVE LISTYEARSCAP HIT
2$975,000
Trades
MIN
    Prospect? Roster player? FC?
    BUF
    1. Spurgeon, Jared
    Additional Details:
    MN attaching a pick?
    Buyouts
    DraftRound 1Round 2Round 3Round 4Round 5Round 6Round 7
    2024
    Logo of the MIN
    Logo of the MIN
    Logo of the MIN
    Logo of the MIN
    Logo of the BUF
    Logo of the MIN
    2025
    Logo of the MIN
    Logo of the MIN
    Logo of the MIN
    Logo of the TOR
    Logo of the MIN
    2026
    Logo of the MIN
    Logo of the MIN
    Logo of the MIN
    Logo of the MIN
    Logo of the MIN
    Logo of the SJS
    Logo of the MIN
    Logo of the MIN
    ROSTER SIZESALARY CAPCAP HITOVERAGES TooltipBONUSESCAP SPACE
    18$87,500,000$71,335,254$425,000$1,582,500$16,164,746
    Left WingCentreRight Wing
    Logo of the Minnesota Wild
    $9,000,000$9,000,000
    LW
    NMC
    UFA - 2
    Logo of the Minnesota Wild
    $5,250,000$5,250,000
    C
    M-NTC, NMC
    UFA - 5
    Logo of the Minnesota Wild
    $7,000,000$7,000,000
    RW, LW
    UFA - 6
    Logo of the Minnesota Wild
    $2,000,000$2,000,000
    LW, RW
    NTC
    UFA - 1
    Logo of the Minnesota Wild
    $863,333$863,333 (Performance Bonus$850,000$850K)
    C
    RFA - 1
    Logo of the Minnesota Wild
    $4,125,000$4,125,000
    RW, LW
    NMC
    UFA - 2
    Logo of the Minnesota Wild
    $975,000$975,000
    C
    RFA - 1
    Logo of the Minnesota Wild
    $4,000,000$4,000,000
    C, RW
    NMC
    UFA - 3
    Logo of the Minnesota Wild
    $4,000,000$4,000,000
    RW, LW
    NMC
    UFA - 4
    Logo of the Minnesota Wild
    $2,100,000$2,100,000
    C, LW
    M-NTC
    UFA - 4
    Left DefenseRight DefenseGoaltender
    Logo of the Minnesota Wild
    $6,000,000$6,000,000
    LD
    NMC
    UFA - 4
    Logo of the Minnesota Wild
    $925,000$925,000 (Performance Bonus$250,000$250K)
    RD
    RFA - 1
    Logo of the Minnesota Wild
    $3,750,000$3,750,000
    G
    UFA - 2
    Logo of the Minnesota Wild
    $2,450,000$2,450,000
    LD
    UFA - 1
    Logo of the Minnesota Wild
    $925,000$925,000 (Performance Bonus$425,000$425K)
    G
    RFA - 1
    Logo of the Minnesota Wild
    $828,333$828,333 (Performance Bonus$57,500$58K)
    LD
    RFA - 1
    ScratchesInjured Reserve (IR)Long Term IR (LTIR)
    Logo of the Minnesota Wild
    $1,200,000$1,200,000
    LD
    UFA - 1
    Logo of the Minnesota Wild
    $775,000$775,000
    C, RW
    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
    Jan. 3 at 9:24 p.m.
    #1
    Avatar of the user
    Joined: May 2018
    Posts: 9,691
    Likes: 4,235
    I assume FC would be what he gets, at best. He can still play but those last 3 years of his contract are yikers based on his age.

    I am not sure if anyone would take his full cap hit on or not.
    MNCountryClub liked this.
    Jan. 3 at 9:31 p.m.
    #2
    Thread Starter
    Avatar of the user
    Joined: May 2021
    Posts: 2,698
    Likes: 1,934
    Quoting: TMLBRIAN
    I assume FC would be what he gets, at best. He can still play but those last 3 years of his contract are yikers based on his age.

    I am not sure if anyone would take his full cap hit on or not.


    Yeah that’s kinda what I figured, but helpful reply so thank you.
    TMLBRIAN liked this.
    Jan. 3 at 9:32 p.m.
    #3
    Avatar of the user
    Joined: May 2018
    Posts: 9,691
    Likes: 4,235
    Quoting: MNCountryClub
    Yeah that’s kinda what I figured, but helpful reply so thank you.


    My replies, was basically "good question... who knows! But I assume FC at best" - In situations like these, I am often wrong.
    MNCountryClub liked this.
    Jan. 3 at 9:34 p.m.
    #4
    Avatar of the user
    Joined: Feb. 2017
    Posts: 8,640
    Likes: 6,486
    I don't think any contenders are gonna have 7.5m in cap space, but that's probably your market. It won't be future considerations, for sure, you'll be taking back salary, one way or another. Whether it's retention, a short term dump or something useful would be up to the market.
    Jan. 3 at 9:38 p.m.
    #5
    Thread Starter
    Avatar of the user
    Joined: May 2021
    Posts: 2,698
    Likes: 1,934
    Quoting: TMLBRIAN
    My replies, was basically "good question... who knows! But I assume FC at best" - In situations like these, I am often wrong.


    Ya FC at best sounds about right. MN is icing like a 50M team these days between buyouts and injuries, and the lack of cap flexibility is getting old. Wouldn’t mind getting out of that contract before it gets real bad and/or too expensive to do so.
    gretzkyghosts liked this.
    Jan. 4 at 4:53 a.m.
    #6
    MNBassman
    Avatar of the user
    Joined: May 2015
    Posts: 8,407
    Likes: 3,647
    The main way I assess new contracts is on how tradeable the player is after signing it…I considered Spurgeon almost untradeable the second Guerin inked him to this ridiculous contract!
    MNCountryClub liked this.
    Jan. 4 at 11:42 a.m.
    #7
    Thread Starter
    Avatar of the user
    Joined: May 2021
    Posts: 2,698
    Likes: 1,934
    Quoting: MNBassman
    The main way I assess new contracts is on how tradeable the player is after signing it…I considered Spurgeon almost untradeable the second Guerin inked him to this ridiculous contract!


    so essentially immovable? I.e. not gonna deal him because the cost to move the contract would be too exorbitant?

    I fear we're stuck with it too, but the M-NTC gave me hope haha.
    MNBassman liked this.
    Jan. 10 at 2:45 p.m.
    #8
    LIVIN ON A PRAYER
    Avatar of the user
    Joined: Oct. 2017
    Posts: 6,496
    Likes: 6,467
    What would Minnesota want in return for Spurgeon if they took back Campbell to buy him out in the summer?

    I'd be shocked if JS didn't waive early to come play for his hometown team and despite the bumps I think he'd pair extremely well with Nurse.

    I fully understand that Minnesota is already up to its neck in dead cap but there's immediately like $6M freed up next summer in making that move.
    Jan. 10 at 3:17 p.m.
    #9
    Thread Starter
    Avatar of the user
    Joined: May 2021
    Posts: 2,698
    Likes: 1,934
    Quoting: BeterChiarelli
    What would Minnesota want in return for Spurgeon if they took back Campbell to buy him out in the summer?

    I'd be shocked if JS didn't waive early to come play for his hometown team and despite the bumps I think he'd pair extremely well with Nurse.

    I fully understand that Minnesota is already up to its neck in dead cap but there's immediately like $6M freed up next summer in making that move.


    I really don't know, it's a tough situation.

    MN will finally start seeing the light at the end of the tunnel of dead money only to have Spurgeon's contract age into the bad years. Getting out of that would seem prudent, but you still have to replace him with something.

    The cost-benefit gets a little complex because a Spurgeon buyout in 2025 doesn't look that much worse than a Campbell buyout in 2024, plus paying for a replacement D.

    I don't really have a strong opinion on your question though - I'd be interested to hear some arguments in either favor.
    Jan. 10 at 3:26 p.m.
    #10
    LIVIN ON A PRAYER
    Avatar of the user
    Joined: Oct. 2017
    Posts: 6,496
    Likes: 6,467
    Quoting: MNCountryClub
    I really don't know, it's a tough situation.

    MN will finally start seeing the light at the end of the tunnel of dead money only to have Spurgeon's contract age into the bad years. Getting out of that would seem prudent, but you still have to replace him with something.

    The cost-benefit gets a little complex because a Spurgeon buyout in 2025 doesn't look that much worse than a Campbell buyout in 2024, plus paying for a replacement D.

    I don't really have a strong opinion on your question though - I'd be interested to hear some arguments in either favor.


    I suspect the opportunity benefit comes from whatever assets you peel off the Oilers in return, and I think there's good business to be done between the two clubs, especially if the buyout between Campbell and Spurgeon are very similar.

    I'd likewise prefer to use the Wild as a one-stop-shop.

    My understanding is that Fleury at 50% retained costs a second round pick. Campbell costs assets to move no mater the return, although taking Spurgeon back on return possibly reduces how much Edmonton is asked to send in return. I'd like to move Ceci out too.

    What then, would you say is the damage on a Campbell + Ceci for Fleury (50%) + Spurgeon? Bourgault and a first? Two firsts? Boyrgault and two firsts? How unrealistic is it to ask for Spurgeon to have a small amount of retention? For Edmonton to ask for late picks returned for each first they ship to Minny?
    Jan. 10 at 3:47 p.m.
    #11
    Thread Starter
    Avatar of the user
    Joined: May 2021
    Posts: 2,698
    Likes: 1,934
    Quoting: BeterChiarelli
    I suspect the opportunity benefit comes from whatever assets you peel off the Oilers in return, and I think there's good business to be done between the two clubs, especially if the buyout between Campbell and Spurgeon are very similar.

    I'd likewise prefer to use the Wild as a one-stop-shop.

    My understanding is that Fleury at 50% retained costs a second round pick. Campbell costs assets to move no mater the return, although taking Spurgeon back on return possibly reduces how much Edmonton is asked to send in return. I'd like to move Ceci out too.

    What then, would you say is the damage on a Campbell + Ceci for Fleury (50%) + Spurgeon? Bourgault and a first? Two firsts? Boyrgault and two firsts? How unrealistic is it to ask for Spurgeon to have a small amount of retention? For Edmonton to ask for late picks returned for each first they ship to Minny?



    Yeah if the framework is essentially Campbell + Ceci for Fleury (50%) + Spurgeon, I'd think it would probably need to be something like 1st + Akey (or whichever prospect MNs FO likes here). I do think MN could make out ok here, if not pretty well. But it would be a complex deal and I doubt you're gonna get much traction with it on CF.

    Can't imagine MN would also retain on Spurgeon, but who knows. Late picks back to balance would be probably be in play, though.

    It's tricky to find an intersection that works for both teams, but it is an interesting idea.
    Jan. 10 at 3:54 p.m.
    #12
    LIVIN ON A PRAYER
    Avatar of the user
    Joined: Oct. 2017
    Posts: 6,496
    Likes: 6,467
    Quoting: MNCountryClub
    Yeah if the framework is essentially Campbell + Ceci for Fleury (50%) + Spurgeon, I'd think it would probably need to be something like 1st + Akey (or whichever prospect MNs FO likes here). I do think MN could make out ok here, if not pretty well. But it would be a complex deal and I doubt you're gonna get much traction with it on CF.

    Can't imagine MN would also retain on Spurgeon, but who knows. Late picks back to balance would be probably be in play, though.

    It's tricky to find an intersection that works for both teams, but it is an interesting idea.


    The only prospect I'd like Edmonton to hang onto is Broberg, so I don't particularly hate the idea of including Akey (I mocked up an Andersson trade earlier this year which was positively received by both sides).

    Assuming Akey is the guy and if I were to mock up an AGM for this, and if there is no retention on Spurgeon, does the 2024 1st and Akey get this done if the latter of the two 5th round picks is returned to Edmonton?

    Quite honestly I'm disinterested in feedback from the rubes that think Campbell requires a lottery pick to ship out.
    Jan. 10 at 4:03 p.m.
    #13
    Thread Starter
    Avatar of the user
    Joined: May 2021
    Posts: 2,698
    Likes: 1,934
    Quoting: BeterChiarelli
    The only prospect I'd like Edmonton to hang onto is Broberg, so I don't particularly hate the idea of including Akey (I mocked up an Andersson trade earlier this year which was positively received by both sides).

    Assuming Akey is the guy and if I were to mock up an AGM for this, and if there is no retention on Spurgeon, does the 2024 1st and Akey get this done if the latter of the two 5th round picks is returned to Edmonton?

    Quite honestly I'm disinterested in feedback from the rubes that think Campbell requires a lottery pick to ship out.


    For me personally, I would probably lean towards accepting. At the very least, I'd want to hear some counter arguments against it from MNs standpoint.

    From my view, even if Campbell stays on next year, MN has Wallstedt on an ELC, so it's really not that expensive of a goalie tandem/trio with Gustavsson. Ceci can play, so he fills the roster gap. And the year following, the 14.7M in dead money finally drops off.

    MN still kinda limps along next year, but ultimately you lessen the pain of the Spurgeon later years and pickup some nice assets in the process.
    Jan. 10 at 4:06 p.m.
    #14
    LIVIN ON A PRAYER
    Avatar of the user
    Joined: Oct. 2017
    Posts: 6,496
    Likes: 6,467
    Quoting: MNCountryClub
    For me personally, I would probably lean towards accepting. At the very least, I'd want to hear some counter arguments against it from MNs standpoint.

    From my view, even if Campbell stays on next year, MN has Wallstedt on an ELC, so it's really not that expensive of a goalie tandem/trio with Gustavsson. Ceci can play, so he fills the roster gap. And the year following, the 14.7M in dead money finally drops off.

    MN still kinda limps along next year, but ultimately you lessen the pain of the Spurgeon later years and pickup some nice assets in the process.


    All while Edmonton gets the short-term pieces that they want and need to contend for the next 2 or 3 seasons. I've been sitting on this idea for a while because i honestly think it lines up well for both clubs.

    Spurgeon is by no means a long-term solution, and I'm currently uncertain if Wanner ever becomes anything more than a decent #3RD, but he's definitely a stopgap and improvement on Ceci while also being a sensible way out of Campbell.
    Jan. 10 at 4:20 p.m.
    #15
    Thread Starter
    Avatar of the user
    Joined: May 2021
    Posts: 2,698
    Likes: 1,934
    Quoting: BeterChiarelli
    All while Edmonton gets the short-term pieces that they want and need to contend for the next 2 or 3 seasons. I've been sitting on this idea for a while because i honestly think it lines up well for both clubs.

    Spurgeon is by no means a long-term solution, and I'm currently uncertain if Wanner ever becomes anything more than a decent #3RD, but he's definitely a stopgap and improvement on Ceci while also being a sensible way out of Campbell.


    Yeah it's a compelling idea. Spurgeon has been on the shelf though, so you'd obviously need to know that he's legitimately healthy. Assuming he is prior to TDL, but def something to monitor.

    I do think he'd be a good fit with Nurse. Not a long-term solution for sure, but for the time being, he is still a very good defensive player and if you get a cup, who really cares about the last 1-2 years of the deal.
    BeterChiarelli liked this.
     
    Reply
    To create a post please Login or Register
    Question:
    Options:
    Add Option
    Submit Poll