SalarySwishSalarySwish
Avatar

jr400

Member Since
Jul. 20, 2021
Forum Posts
1052
Posts per Day
1.0
Forum: NHL SigningsMar. 7 at 12:42 a.m.
Thread: Washington Capitals signed Rasmus Sandin (5 Years / $4,600,000 AAV)
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>palhal</b></div><div>Leafs were fortunate that they got such a good prospect in Cowan at pick 29

I just questioned the Leafs in trading a first and second for McCabe and then getting just a first for Sandin..</div></div>

And a later pick too, since it was Boston’s pick that they got for Orlov. I thought they should have insisted on Washington’s own pick, even if it meant letting them keep Gustafsson. I didn’t expect Washington to drop as low in the standings as they did after the trade, but they could have protected it.

Anyway, they also got Lafferty in that trade, who had value until they decided they could no longer afford him, and multiple years of retention on McCabe, which makes him worth more than his cap hit.

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>palhal</b></div><div>Apparently Sandin was so pissed at the Leafs for only paying 1.4m x 2 years in his RFA, he probably wanted to be traded or would never have signed long term with the Leafs.</div></div>

That’s possible. Some players don’t like to air their beefs publicly. Their other deadline deals gave them a surplus of defensemen going into the playoffs, so it would have been a good time to get value for him if they knew he wanted out.
Forum: NHL TradesMar. 6 at 5:17 p.m.
Thread: (COL/BUF) - Byram for Mittelstadt
This is pretty much the closest we’re going to get to an old-fashioned hockey trade these days. Colorado fills an obvious position of need from a position of surplus. It’s not as obvious to me for Buffalo, with two #1 overall picks already on defense, but I guess this makes their defense deeper, they get the younger player, and they’re still in good shape at center.

Cap-wise, Buffalo gets one more year of cost certainty with Byram than they had with Mittelstadt. Colorado is going to have to pay Mittelstadt more next season than they would have paid Byram, but they have a chance to lock him up long term after first finding out if he’s a good fit. The other thing I find interesting is that they cleared almost $3M in cap space with the two trades they made today. Makes me wonder if they have another move in the works.
Forum: NHL TradesMar. 2 at 9:08 p.m.
Forum: NHL TradesMar. 2 at 7:12 p.m.
Thread: (CGY/DAL/NJD) - Tanev for Grushnikov, 2024 2nd (DAL), 2026 4th (DAL), 2026 3rd (DAL) for Brady
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Trailblazer15</b></div><div>What does Brady add to the deal? Was the trade for Jersey initially just retain Tanev and get a fourth? Was the trade sent to the NHL and they were like 'Hey you can't do that since it is technically just New Jersey buying a fourth rounder for 1.125 million', so then the Devils said 'Fine we'll add the signing rights to a guy whose rights expire in a few months and we have no intention of signing' just so they could say they contributed to the deal in some way?</div></div>

I think you’ve got that exactly right. Teams can’t just trade salary retention for a draft pick. They have to give up something to get the player, then they can flip him for something they think is more valuable. I don’t know why they can’t trade future considerations to get him, but it’s usually a prospect they have no interest in signing.
Forum: NHL TradesFeb. 5 at 8:11 a.m.
Thread: (CGY/VAN) - Zadorov for 2024 5th (CHI), 2026 3rd (VAN)
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>CSStrowbridge</b></div><div>We may have found out last week why Toronto didn't make the trade. They wanted him and Tanev, but needed Calgary to retain salary and Calgary was unwilling to do that. Their Big 4 are being paid way too much to upgrade anywhere else. And next year it will be even worse.</div></div>

Teams seem to be placing more value on avoiding retaining salary this year. Used to be pretty much taken for granted that teams selling pending UFAs would retain some salary, or you could get a third team to retain for a 4th or 5th round pick. I don’t think it’s the money that’s making them reluctant to do it. It’s the limited number of retention slots (3 per team). This is especially true for Calgary with the number of pending UFAs they have. Retaining on Zadorov would have reduced their flexibility to make other trades later. I think it factored into the Lindholm trade too. The Flames aren’t done dealing.
Forum: NHL TradesFeb. 4 at 8:23 a.m.
Thread: (CAR/PHI) - Rizzo, 2025 5th (CAR) for Kase
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>NHLfan10506</b></div><div>Who is the one guy that voted for CAR?</div></div>

I didn't vote for Carolina, but I figured it was ok for them if it was past considerations for DeAngelo. However, now that they're not using DeAngelo, I've changed my mind. He's played 20 games, but it seems like they didn't even give him a chance to do that he did for them before. He was successful there before when he was paired with Slavin 5-on-5, so I would have tried putting them back together and pairing Burns with Orlov. Chatfield deserves to play too though. It seems that they got DeAngelo only as insurance in case Burns gets injured, but Burns hasn't missed a game in 10 years.

I remember reading a story in June that they had a trade worked out for DeAngelo but the league nixed it because it involved Philadelphia retaining half his salary, which apparently you can't do if you're trading a player back to the team that traded him to you. Maybe these were the other pieces in that trade and they decided to complete it using a buyout to work around the retained salary rule. I don't think it's a coincidence that the amount DeAngelo signed for was equal to what he lost in the buyout.
Forum: NHL TradesFeb. 4 at 8:01 a.m.
Thread: (CGY/VAN) - Lindholm for Kuzmenko, Brzustewicz, Jurmo, 2024 1st (VAN), 2024 4th (VAN)
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>dgibb10</b></div><div>Yegor was a specific target that they wanted. The main piece of the deal.

Kuzmenko is "this is the cap we need to take back in order to get these other pieces"

I don't think it's particularly similar. Specifically because there's not much for kuzmenko to "bounce back" to. His season last year was carried by a ridiculously unsustainable shooting%. He's never going to get close to 27% again</div></div>

He doesn't have to bounce all the way back to 39 goals to be a useful player for Calgary, or even to be worth $5.5M. They're going to have to carry that cap hit all the way through next season, and they're not a rebuilding team (some people will argue that they should be, but that's not their strategy) so they're going to need cap space to replace the players they're losing or keep those they still have. I don't think they would have taken him if they didn't want him.

As far as the shooting percentage goes, they said the same thing about Brandon Hagel when he was traded from Chicago to Tampa Bay. It wasn't 27%, but it was over 20. He's done pretty well with Tampa Bay. He was a lot younger and hadn't already started to regress before the trade, so not a good player comparison, but this tells me not to read too much into shooting percentage. I'm not predicting Kuzmenko will be a consistent 30-goal scorer, but I'm not giving up on him yet either. I think it depends on where they're able to slot him into the lineup.
Forum: NHL TradesFeb. 2 at 10:56 p.m.
Thread: (CGY/VAN) - Lindholm for Kuzmenko, Brzustewicz, Jurmo, 2024 1st (VAN), 2024 4th (VAN)
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>dgibb10</b></div><div>I think a lot of people in here are looking at Kuzmenko as a significant positive value asset rather than the cap dump he realistically is which is skewing perception</div></div>

He could be both. A cap dump for Vancouver and positive value for Calgary. That's one of the reasons this trade works for both teams. Whether he actually turns out to be positive for Calgary remains to be seen, but I think that's the way they see him now.

Their scouts were right about Sharangovich having good bounceback potential. Kuzmenko seems like more of a gamble than Sharangovich, but I think they must see similar potential there. Not having to retain salary on Lindholm may have been important to them too if they plan to make more trades.
Forum: NHL TradesJan. 31 at 10:58 p.m.
Thread: (CGY/VAN) - Lindholm for Kuzmenko, Brzustewicz, Jurmo, 2024 1st (VAN), 2024 4th (VAN)
I think I like this trade for both teams. Lindholm’s 42-goal season looks like a one-off, but he still a solid 2-way center who should help Vancouver as they go for it this year. As a Hurricanes fan I’m glad he didn’t go to New York.

Kuzmenko didn’t seem to fit with their plans, so no big loss there. In fact, they probably needed to get rid of his cap hit next season, so getting something for him is a win. Yes, they gave up a late 1st and a prospect, but that’s not an unreasonable price to pay even if Lindholm only turns out to be a rental.

For Calgary, it’s a decent return for a pending UFA. Because they don’t want to go into a rebuild, I think it was important for them to get a useful roster player back as part of the package, like they did in the Toffoli trade. Kuzmenko is older than Sharangovich, but I suspect their scouts identified him as a potential bounce back candidate like Sharangovich was, so even if he had negative value for Vancouver, I think Calgary sees him as having positive value for them. Because he has an extra year left on his contract, they can see what he can do with a change of scenery, and if he does well they can flip him for another pick next year if they don’t extend him.
Forum: NHL SigningsJan. 24 at 6:51 p.m.
Thread: Chicago Blackhawks signed Petr Mrázek (2 Years / $4,250,000 AAV)
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Bflo_Soldier</b></div><div>Careful what type of culture you're building. A losing one can be very tough to break.

Signed,
A Sabres Fan</div></div>

Agreed, but Mrazek was a winner in Carolina. Not that he deserves all the credit, but his first year there they went from a Buffalonian playoff drought to the conference final, and established a winning culture that has lasted more than five years so far. He suffered through injuries for a couple of years after that, but it’s good to see him healthy again and playing well enough to earn this contract. I’m happy for him.

I do think it’s an overpay, but it’s only a 2-year contract, so it’s not going to hurt the team’s rebuild even if he crashes again. Good on them for turning a negative asset into a guy who looks like he could turn out to be their #1 goalie for four years.
Forum: NHL SigningsJan. 22 at 11:15 p.m.
Thread: Edmonton Oilers signed Corey Perry (1 Year / $1,100,000 AAV)
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>PurpleHippo</b></div><div>Bonus has been paid but its tied to the cap hit, which is moved when you trade a contract.
The actual dollars have been given to Brown but we can move his contract and his cap hit goes with it.</div></div>

That’s certainly true for signing bonuses but I thought performance bonuses were different. However, the only information I could find about performance bonuses being treated differently is the ability to defer all or part of their cap hit to the following season, so you may be right that the Oilers can get rid of the performance bonus cap hit even after the bonus has been earned and paid. I’m sure there’ll be a price for that, like any other cap dump, but at least it appears they can do it, and it won’t cost the team acquiring him any real money (other than his base salary) since the bonus has already been paid, so such a trade could appeal to a budget team that is well below the cap. In fact, such a team could take the cap hit this season, allowing both teams to go into next season without that liability.
Forum: NHL SigningsJan. 22 at 11:09 p.m.
Thread: Ottawa Senators signed Shane Pinto (1 Year / $775,000 AAV)
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>drizzt</b></div><div>Ottawa is the biggest joke in the league... They have massive deals witht their Core that has shown that they are not a core that can lead a team... Theres always the next year and new low</div></div>

I think one of the main reasons they did this was that the team was for sale. Having key players signed long term provides more certainty for the buyer, which makes the team worth more.

Apologies for the gambling analogy, but I think it’s usually a better bet to sign a player in his early 20s to a long-term contract hoping he’ll get better than hoping a player in his late 20s can go 8 more years without a significant decline, as certain other teams have done. With these long-term contracts you’re going to win some and lose some, but another thing that makes the young players less risky is you can buy them out before their 26th birthday for only 1/3 of the remaining contract value (assuming no signing bonuses), half the cost of buying out an older player with the same contract. I’ll be surprised if Ottawa does that with any of their core though.