Bern, no disrespect, but sometimes you have to take a step back and really think about the offers you're tossing out. Even you can't break this down and think it's the best deal for the Capitals to do. 2018 & 2019 is insane. It's not fair value. It's not the value they need to pay for a team to take Orpik. It's not a return any realistic thinking GM would ask for. Orpik is a UFA.
Worst case scenario, Orpik is traded for a late round pick, Orpik is bought out, or Orpik is put on waivers and I'm sure someone is going to claim him. You're looking at this as Washington is in cap hell, will be losing star players and are on the verge of becoming a bottom team if they don't turn around and bribe a team to take Orpik - that's not the case here. The cap continues to go up. If Washington really wants to pay Carlson's demands, they will find a way without giving up 2 first round picks.
If Rangers were still contenders and didn't buy out Girardi (Had the 2018-2019 been his UFA year), would you trade Girardi and 2 first round picks to get out of that 5.5 million contract?
1. No disrespect considered given, none taken, my friend.
2. Do I think this is the best 'deal' for Caps?
No, best move is to manufacture cap from elsewhere and keep him.
But if they must 'deal' him, it will be for the best trade offer possible. I said clearly that there would be competition of bids for the price paid to eat a cap dump.
That price may well be different for different clubs, and I see this as a trend in flux. Previously, cap space was not as much of a premium due to loopholes, easier buyouts, whatever; now they are important. The more $ and term, the more such a premium commands. That said, for whatever reason, an odd club may buck the trend and take less, especially since Orpik just barely hits the imaginary cut off of 5-5.5mil for 1 yr, compared to more for Lucic, Ryan, Seabs.
That said, Rangers should not jump out the window just because someone else does.
3. 2018 & 2019 is insane. It's not fair value.
We can choose a deal at, below or above fair value, and they can reject if they wish. Both sides have to meet in the middle. But there is a trap that what might value might be thought for Orpik is what should apply and not that of a cap dump.
4. It's not the value they need to pay for a team to take Orpik. It's not a return any realistic thinking GM would ask for. Orpik is a UFA.
What is overlooked is I said not all firsts are equal.
Obviously, he is not worth a top 5 pick.
Conversely, he is not worth a final 5 pick.
Theoretically there is a middle ground we can agree on.
However, WAS does not have anything else to offer at present.
No prospects or players have been proffered.
So it is either a last pick this year, with immediate prospect next year of a late pick as well. At some point the Caps will fall back to the rest of clubs, but that is not anytime soon and Rangers should not take compensation later than next year.
A 31st final pick is not enough for the cap room for NYR. Another club, maybe, maybe not. So there is a need to add.
5. You're looking at this as Washington is in cap hell, will be losing star players and are on the verge of becoming a bottom team if they don't turn around and bribe a team to take Orpik - that's not the case here. The cap continues to go up. If Washington really wants to pay Carlson's demands, they will find a way without giving up 2 first round picks.
The cap going up cushions vs their pressures.
It may not quite be that dire for WAS yet, but while we don't want to unfairly extort, we also are not doing anybody any favors, either. The solution here, if a trade is unavoidable, and if for some reason it is Rangers which is not a given conclusion, then it is to find alternate compensation.
But if it is 1sts only, and we are eating the whole of Orpik's contract, than given how late those picks are one is insufficient and some add is required.
-------
When it was unpopular with the win now crowd at our board, I mentioned that while we are not constantly turning out EVERY vet to stay young, that was the necessary trend to manage cap and address roster needs.
We now have a similar situation and I respectfully suggest I am ahead of the curve here as well. Unless someone is doing somebody a favor, no one is going to squander the precious resource of cap space. This is why Lucic, Ryan, and Seabrook have not been moved.
---------------
If Rangers were still contenders and didn't buy out Girardi (Had the 2018-2019 been his UFA year), would you trade Girardi and 2 first round picks to get out of that 5.5 million contract?
Your question by nature limits any creative options I may otherwise have.
1. I was for trading Girardi to ANA for 11OA
2. Once that was not done, I was against any long term deal, esp with that type of play. If you MUST deal, do so, and overpay 1 yr at a time, but don't get stuck with physical limitations.
3. Failing that, you will recall I had various trade suggestions for Girardi, now water under the bridge, but one of the main ones was to Bruins for Chara. G had 2 yrs same money, easier to buyout. Chara was not yet rejuvenated, which was not expected pushing 40, and he had 7m next to last year and 4ish last year of his deal. Since Chara was projected an albatross for us as well, the thought was we get him off LD and put him at 4LW. This is before Bruins hit backline gold and it was thought by most they wanted cap space and were considering options to move that 7m on Chara.
4. Going on what you said, I would look at where would Girardi be the most useful. If he is an anchor at 1RD, Again, look at 4W as a stopgap
5. Consider all other options to buy out, if any.
6. Value the length of the contract and the $ vs the strength of the draft and the likely suggestions.
I would not be inclined to surrender the picks.
Then again, that is a discussion of how much I need new talent vs. how much I need cap space for immediate needs.
