Avatar

futurehofer

Minnesota Wild
Member Since
Oct. 13, 2016
Favourite Team
Minnesota Wild
Forum Posts
870
Posts per Day
0.4
Forum: Armchair-GMMay 18 at 3:50 a.m.
Thread: Bold
There's a debate on trading Zucc. Basically, a lot of fans think we should move him and free up the cap space, but the belief is that the team wouldn't want to move him in fear of pissing off Kaprizov. Losing his cap hit won't fix fix all our cap issues, but it will sure make things a lot easier.

His last half of the season was also pretty concerning. From the start of our road trip on January 17th until the end of the year (final 40 regular season games), his production and overall play went downhill pretty significantly. There's some worry that this may be a sign of things to come and that his age is catching up with him. Guerin did say he had a groin issue at the end of the year, but it's not clear how long that had been going on. Since it was never brought up that he was banged up or at risk of not playing until the very end of the season, I'd assume it hadn't been very long.
Forum: Armchair-GMMay 17 at 10:30 p.m.
Thread: Getting rid of the beta males
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Legendsofthenorth</b></div><div>What? Minnesota better do that deal in a heartbeat if offered

What? Minnesota better do that deal in a heartbeat if ever offered</div></div>

Why? We'd be trading 7 years of Boldy for 2 years of Marner. Considering Boldy and Marner scored basically he same number of goals this year (31 vs 30 in favor of Boldy) despite Boldy clearly having a lesser pairing of linemates, I don't see the major upside here. We also don't have the cap space for this to make sense. Not only does Marner cost more than Boldy and Foligno combined, we'd also have to pay to fill in an additional roster spot. We're already in major cap hell and will likely have to make a trade to make enough room to fill out the roster so doing this trade will just make the pain worse. I'd rather have a player who is improving under contract for a long time vs a player who is probably about what he is for just 2 years that we can't really afford him.
Forum: Armchair-GMMay 12 at 5:13 a.m.
Forum: Armchair-GMMay 4 at 6:04 a.m.
Thread: Next year maybe
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Born2BeWild</b></div><div>Not allowed to buyout Goligoski...NHL only only allows two players per team, per season to be bought out....we cant buy anyone out until after the 26-27 season i believe, as we are still attached to Suter &amp; Parise until then..... Gustavsson's contract has been projected to be in the 3.3-3.8mil AAV range...so probably close to Fleury's contract on a 2 year deal would be close.</div></div>

I'm pretty sure teams are allowed up to 3 buyouts on the books at a time (much like they can retain salary on up to 3 players at a time). The only references I can find online to a limit of 2 are when talking about compliance buyouts, of which teams were allowed 2 buyouts to use that did not count against the cap. Without breaking out the CBA and reading through the buyout section (which I'm not entirely up for right now), I can't find anything else limiting a team to having just 2 standard buyouts on the books at once. If you could find me a source, I'd appreciate it.
Forum: Armchair-GMMay 4 at 5:02 a.m.
Thread: Cap trouble check
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>OldNYIfan</b></div><div>Goligoski and Fleury both have absolute NMCs, and have expressly opposed the idea of moving.

The problem isn't Addison, because his Qualifying Offer is only $787,500 and he doesn't have arbitration rights yet; the problem is Gustavsson, who does. I think that he and his agent are going to figure out that he's worth at least $3.5 million, and because of the unfortunate accident of his birthday, as a practical matter he can only be given a one-year deal. That makes filling the hole left by Matt Dumba and filling out the roster a very difficult task once you realize that Fleury isn't going anywhere and can't be bought out. <strong>That</strong>'s why the likeliest path for Minnesota is to get rid of Marcus Foligno's $3.1 million cap hit.</div></div>

I don't know where you heard that Goligoski has "expressly opposed the idea of moving" because it's been repeatedly reported that he would be open to a trade if it means consistent playing time. Russo has talked about it numerous times this season even as recently as today. Guerin also made a comment at his end of season presser about how he was going to need to have a longer conversation with Goligoski about the future.
Forum: Armchair-GMFeb. 26 at 1:13 p.m.
Thread: Whats with these guys and being 3rd party salary retainers
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>oilfire</b></div><div>I think they still have like 10 million in available space for this year. Next year they have no space. Just taking advantage of what they have to buy some picks retaining on expiring contracts. Can't buy anyone with term, have enough space to bring on any rentals if they buy, makes sense to me.

Please don't ask me to explain where the space actually comes from, because I have no idea. Cap voodoo.</div></div>

Cap space is calculated daily. Today, we are projected to finish the year with $2,605,980 in actual cap space. If we added a player with a $10,257,581 cap hit today, we wouldn't have to pay them that full cap hit, just a prorated amount for the remainder of the season. Their prorated cap hit would amount to $2,605,980 in real money for the rest of the year. Every day we spent under the cap earlier in the year helped build that cap space. Hopefully that makes sense.