• For users coming over from tmlfans.ca your username will remain the same but you will need to use the password reset feature (check your spam folder) on the login page in order to set your password. If you encounter issues, email Rick couchmanrick@gmail.com

Minor Transactions - 2018 Offseason

CarltonTheBear said:
Coco-puffs said:
What about it makes it a funny signing?
Click to expand...

The second part of my post.

Dumba's coming off a 50 point season. Prior to that his career high was 34 (albeit in only 2.75 seasons). Getting to that big 5-0 mark is huge for a defenceman, and that milestone itself probably bumped his salary up quite a bit.

Also the Wild could have bridged Dumba for 1-year after his ELC, but elected to go with a 2-year deal. If they went with a 1-year deal then I'd imagine his AAV would have probably been closer to $4.5-5mil on a long-term deal.

It wasn't necessarily a criticism of Dumba or the contract (although I'm probably not as high on him as others), just funny how some teams have to negotiate long-term deals after a player puts up one big season (like Dumba's), while other teams get to negotiate long-term deals after a player puts up one bad season (like say Kadri's). It's just a funny business when you think about it. I mean the Wild didn't achieve anything last season, so privately they probably wish Dumba had another 35-point year before breaking out.
Click to expand...

Ok, thanks for expanding on your thoughts.

For sure, 50 pts in a season seems to be a threshold where guys start to get talked about in a different manner.  And no doubt, it gave his camp more leverage in the salary discussion.  But, I don't think it made a huge difference when Trouba is getting 5.5M for one year and hasn't put up more than 33 points in a season.  Sure, his defense is far better, but I doubt if Dumba had only put up 40 pts this last season he'd be getting that much less per year. 

From Russo at the Athletic:
Since 2005-06, Dumba is one of 14 defensemen to record at least two 10-plus goal seasons through their 23-year-old season ? Green, Oliver Ekman-Larsson, Weber, Karlsson, Jones, Hamilton, Phaneuf, Klingberg, Doughty, Pietrangelo, Tyler Myers, Aaron Ekblad and Zach Werenski.

And, most impressively, Dumba is one of five defensemen since 2005-06 to score three consecutive 10-goal seasons through their 23-year-old season ? along with Doughty, Hamilton, Phaneuf, Aaron Ekblad and Oliver Ekman-Larsson (with Zach Werenski 2-for-2 and potentially a season from joining this elite list).
Click to expand...

https://theathletic.com/441711/2018/07/23/matt-dumba-heres-why-matt-dumba-6-million-contract-minnesota-wild-heres-why/

If you ask me, his floor even without the 50 pt season was probably Rielly's deal.
 
CarltonTheBear said:
Kronwall shoots left and is bad. Very bad.
Click to expand...

Fine fine...Capfriendly has him as a RD, so he generally plays the right side?

Anyways, I didn't know he was bad now...I probably should have looked into it before I posted that.
 
Frank E said:
Fine fine...Capfriendly has him as a RD, so he generally plays the right side?

Anyways, I didn't know he was bad now...I probably should have looked into it before I posted that.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Capfriendly routinely does that. I've made the same mistake before too. I don't know why they do it that way.

Looking through some numbers, Kronwall doesn't look quite as bad I would have thought, but it still sure doesn't look good. Especially considering at this age and the miles on his body things are only going to get worse.
 
Pretty creative cap management by the Caps though. It did lower Grubauer's trade value a smidge but opening up between $4-4.5mil in cap space seems worth it.
 
Coco-puffs said:
What makes you say that?  Its entirely within the rules.
Click to expand...

I guess the question is: should it be? Especially if it was the plan all along for the Caps to re-sign him to a more cap friendly AAV?

I guarantee if the Leafs did this exact same thing with Marleau next season (although his buyout would be trickier because of his signing bonus and because he's a +35 contract), other teams would be crying out.
 
CarltonTheBear said:
Coco-puffs said:
What makes you say that?  Its entirely within the rules.
Click to expand...

I guess the question is: should it be? Especially if it was the plan all along for the Caps to re-sign him to a more cap friendly AAV?

I guarantee if the Leafs did this exact same thing with Marleau next season (although his buyout would be trickier because of his signing bonus and because he's a +35 contract), other teams would be crying out.
Click to expand...

Weren't there things we did in the past that we thought were within the rules that ended up being not in the rules?
 
Bender said:
CarltonTheBear said:
Coco-puffs said:
What makes you say that?  Its entirely within the rules.
Click to expand...

I guess the question is: should it be? Especially if it was the plan all along for the Caps to re-sign him to a more cap friendly AAV?

I guarantee if the Leafs did this exact same thing with Marleau next season (although his buyout would be trickier because of his signing bonus and because he's a +35 contract), other teams would be crying out.
Click to expand...

Weren't there things we did in the past that we thought were within the rules that ended up being not in the rules?
Click to expand...

Jonas Frogren?

https://toronto.citynews.ca/2009/04/02/how-jonas-frogren-cost-the-leafs-500000-and-a-draft-pick/

Sometimes it?s just incompetence.
 
CarltonTheBear said:
Coco-puffs said:
What makes you say that?  Its entirely within the rules.
Click to expand...

I guess the question is: should it be? Especially if it was the plan all along for the Caps to re-sign him to a more cap friendly AAV?

I guarantee if the Leafs did this exact same thing with Marleau next season (although his buyout would be trickier because of his signing bonus and because he's a +35 contract), other teams would be crying out.
Click to expand...


Should it be?  I can see an argument that it shouldn't.  Right now the rule is you can't re-sign the same player you've just bought out (I believe it is within one year).  So they'd have to change the rule to say any team that had said player in the past year can't re-sign a bought out player. 

I'm not particularly sold on that argument though.

35+ Contracts do not get any cap savings from a buyout so that isn't an option.  Realistically, the only way we are getting out from under that is Marleau decides to retire, but before he does he allows the Leafs to trade him to anyone.  Trade is completed and Marleau then retires.  Obviously would have to go to a team that doesn't spend to the cap and Leafs would have to add a sweetener.  If Marleau isn't retiring, there is no way I'd see him waive his no-trade clause to be traded away from one of the top teams in the league.
 
Coco-puffs said:
Should it be?  I can see an argument that it shouldn't.  Right now the rule is you can't re-sign the same player you've just bought out (I believe it is within one year).  So they'd have to change the rule to say any team that had said player in the past year can't re-sign a bought out player. 

I'm not particularly sold on that argument though.
Click to expand...

But the Caps essentially found a way around the rule that says you can't re-sign the same player you've just bought out, by getting another team to perform the buyout. That's circumvention. If this happens a couple more times I almost guarantee you this rule will be re-written next chance the league gets.

Coco-puffs said:
35+ Contracts do not get any cap savings from a buyout so that isn't an option.  Realistically, the only way we are getting out from under that is Marleau decides to retire, but before he does he allows the Leafs to trade him to anyone.  Trade is completed and Marleau then retires.  Obviously would have to go to a team that doesn't spend to the cap and Leafs would have to add a sweetener.  If Marleau isn't retiring, there is no way I'd see him waive his no-trade clause to be traded away from one of the top teams in the league.
Click to expand...

35+ contracts don't get cap savings, but it doesn't mean it's not an option for a team that has tons of cap space or even needs to reach the salary cap floor.
 
https://twitter.com/AdamVingan/status/1022134563554963456

Hamhuis is getting older but he can still absolutely have a positive impact on the 3rd pairing, which is obviously where he'll be on the Preds. I'm also a sucker for players re-joining former teams so I like this.
 
CarltonTheBear said:
Coco-puffs said:
Should it be?  I can see an argument that it shouldn't.  Right now the rule is you can't re-sign the same player you've just bought out (I believe it is within one year).  So they'd have to change the rule to say any team that had said player in the past year can't re-sign a bought out player. 

I'm not particularly sold on that argument though.
Click to expand...

But the Caps essentially found a way around the rule that says you can't re-sign the same player you've just bought out, by getting another team to perform the buyout. That's circumvention. If this happens a couple more times I almost guarantee you this rule will be re-written next chance the league gets.

Coco-puffs said:
35+ Contracts do not get any cap savings from a buyout so that isn't an option.  Realistically, the only way we are getting out from under that is Marleau decides to retire, but before he does he allows the Leafs to trade him to anyone.  Trade is completed and Marleau then retires.  Obviously would have to go to a team that doesn't spend to the cap and Leafs would have to add a sweetener.  If Marleau isn't retiring, there is no way I'd see him waive his no-trade clause to be traded away from one of the top teams in the league.
Click to expand...

35+ contracts don't get cap savings, but it doesn't mean it's not an option for a team that has tons of cap space or even needs to reach the salary cap floor.
Click to expand...

By your standard- ie "getting around the rule"- then other transactions like trading Datsyuk/Hossa to Arizona are also cap circumvention.  Despite numerous trades like that, it seems like the league is willing to accept that teams should be able to get out of bad contracts/bad cap space issues.

As for the Marleau situation, I realize now that I missed your point.  If the Leafs were to trade him to a team that was going to buy him out, and then the Leafs re-signed him for a cheap contract other teams would most likely cry foul.  Unless they change the rule though, still legal.

 
 
Coco-puffs said:
By your standard- ie "getting around the rule"- then other transactions like trading Datsyuk/Hossa to Arizona are also cap circumvention.
Click to expand...

Well, of course they are haha. But point taken the fact that the league doesn't care about those means they aren't really that concerned about when teams circumvent the CBA.
 
CarltonTheBear said:
Coco-puffs said:
By your standard- ie "getting around the rule"- then other transactions like trading Datsyuk/Hossa to Arizona are also cap circumvention.
Click to expand...

Well, of course they are haha. But point taken the fact that the league doesn't care about those means they aren't really that concerned about when teams circumvent the CBA.
Click to expand...

I don't think I'll agree that this is circumvention. Some team is absorbing the cap hit here, so really there shouldn't be an issue.  If it was because of a lesser trade value received for that goalie, then really Washington paid a price for it, in terms of assets.

Colorado got their goalie on the cheap, paid the player out, and now Orpik was free to sign with any team he wanted.  He chose Washington again, so be it.  There was no obligation to sign with Washington, he was a free agent. 

If there was an implied obligation to re-sign in Washington, then I could see this as being a problem. 
 
Salary caps are stupid and bad. Aside from not caring if it circumvents it on principle the Leafs should want there to be as much wiggle room in the cap as possible.
 
Tom Wilson, coming off a career high 35 points, just signed a 6 year/5.17m aav deal.

But yeah, we should be able to sign Nylander for 6 or so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top