Confirmed Trade: [CAR/PHI] David Kase for Massimo Rizzo, 2025 5th round pick

[Kakko Schmakko]

Nice return for Flyers, Rangers got less for top prospect former top 10 pick.

 

[GKJ]

What is David Kase worth? I mean, a 5th is more than enough for a guy who probably isn't on anybody's radar. Then Philly really wanted Rizzo... who is actually a really good NCAA player... ? I don't know, Rizzo > Kase to me, and I don't understand the pick. Unless Carolina is just saying "very sorry" for the way the DeAngelo scenario panned out? Classy by Carolina if so.

Knowing how both operate, it’s probably more a wolf in sheep’s clothing, and there’s something about Kaše that the Flyers don’t know about.

 

[ToDavid]

That's just the thing, it isn't outlined in the CBA.

What the CBA says, is:


What Canes tried to acquire was a completely different SPC signed by Philly and Tony D. And what happened was that the league did get creative with their interpretation and apparently deemed that such a transaction with retained salary would be equated to the one in the quoted bit of the CBA.

I'm not arguing that the League was in the wrong with that. But it wasn't at all as clear cut case as you present it to have been.

No, there’s another rule that covers the Deangelo situation. You can’t acquire a player in a retained salary trade that was previously on your roster within the last calendar year.

 

[Flyerfan47]

he'll be a fan favorite on name alone with the south philly townies with pickup trucks they double park in the dumbest places section of the fanbase.

I look at this trade as the Flyers and Carlolina telling the league to suck it !

 

[TheReelChuckFletcher]

The Canes are legitimately a good organization to do something like this for Briere and Rizzo. It would've been the shitty thing to do to not complete the DeAngelo trade, so they effectively did this and completed the transaction. Because of how horrendous the Flyers are going to be for the next few seasons, Rizzo will have a genuine shot at becoming an NHL player in that organization. I wish him the best of luck in those endeavors.

 

[Lempo]

No, there’s another rule that covers the Deangelo situation. You can’t acquire a player in a retained salary trade that was previously on your roster within the last calendar year.

Good catch, apparently that would have been the next bit in the Article I quoted.

(4) Reacquire as part of a Retained Salary Transaction the SPC
of a Player who was on that Club's Reserve List within the
past calendar year;

Illustration: If Club A Trades the SPC of a Player to Club
B (the "Initial Trade"), Club B cannot subsequently Trade
an SPC of such Player back to Club A within one (1)
calendar year from the date of the Initial Trade and retain a
portion of the Averaged Amount of that SPC pursuant to a
Retained Salary Transaction. However, Club B may Trade
an SPC of the Player back to Club A within one (1)
calendar year from the date of the Initial Trade if Club B
does not retain any portion of such Player's SPC.

Yup, that does seem to apply to the intended PHI-CAR trade. Sorry @YP44, I seem to have been wr... less than perfectly correct.

 

[Parliament]

As others mentioned, Risso Rizzo (lol) is a pretty legit NCAA prospect. Statistically he seems to be more of a playmaker, but he has a pretty nice one timer and would probably fit in just fine on the PP (as a complimentary piece). I'm not really sure how good he is at faceoffs - over 600 draws last season and he won ~51.6% of them... but relatively speaking I'm not sure what percent would be considered bad/good/elite in the NCAA.

If I'm a philly fan I'd feel pretty good about adding him - especially given the context surrounding the trade itself. I'd argue he holds a fair bit of value on the right team where there's an opportunity for growth/playing time.

 

[DaveG]

doing a solid by Philly and for the prospect. With our AHL affiliate situation still completely up in the air nobody knows if he'd even be signed after the season, even though by all means he probably should have been signed after LAST season. Just, ya know, nowhere to put him.

We still got TDA under contract and made him whole with the number he was signed at, Flyers don't lose a retention slot, and get a 5th for having the extra 800K or whatever on the books compared to what would have been covered by Carolina with 50% retention.

I also just love how this is so much more circumvention-y than the trade the league nixed due to a technicality, even though this move is perfectly legal by the books. Schrödinger's cap circumvention.

 

[cptjeff]

Rizzo right now.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

Original trade was said to be Rizzo for TDA 50% retained. League nixed it and Carolina couldn't commit to the trade later due to other UFA moves (Orlov, Bunting, etc..). Flyers had no choice but to buy him out.

Now instead of it being: TDA ($2.5M retained) for Rizzo
It's: TDA ($3.3M buyout) for Rizzo and a 5th. The 5th is for the extra $$$ that Philly ended up with due to buying him out.

It's Waddell and Briere being reasonable and basically making good on something they agreed upon.

 

[WreckingCrew]

Good catch, apparently that would have been the next bit in the Article I quoted.


Yup, that does seem to apply to the intended PHI-CAR trade. Sorry @YP44, I seem to have been wr... less than perfectly correct.

I don't think you're wrong though because of the wording...as you said, it was a separate SPC (see below bolded)

(4) Reacquire as part of a Retained Salary Transaction the SPC
of a Player who was on that Club's Reserve List within the
past calendar year;

Illustration: If Club A Trades the SPC of a Player to Club
B (the "Initial Trade"), Club B cannot subsequently Trade
an SPC of such Player back to Club A within one (1)
calendar year from the date of the Initial Trade and retain a
portion of the Averaged Amount of that SPC pursuant to a
Retained Salary Transaction. However, Club B may Trade
an SPC of the Player back to Club A within one (1)
calendar year from the date of the Initial Trade if Club B
does not retain any portion of such Player's SPC.

 

[BackToTheBrierePatch]

I thought the Carolina owner nixed the trade before the league did

 

[Maurice of Orange]

Frank Rizzo would be proud of this acquisition.

Frank Rizzo would be an awesome GM.

He’d be like, you make this f***ing trade or i break your f***ing head.

That’s Rizzo R-I-Z-Z-O.

 

[Lempo]

I thought the Carolina owner nixed the trade before the league did

No, the trade leaked and the next report was that the league is looking into it, and then there was a meeting in Nashville, and then it came out that it can happen on July 9th, year and a day from CAR trading Tony to PHi. We were expecting the trade to happen but July 9th came and went and then Rizzo was at the Canes development camp on his own dime, and then the 2nd buyout window opened for PHI and here we are.

 

[Lempo]

I don't think you're wrong though because of the wording...as you said, it was a separate SPC (see below bolded)

(4) Reacquire as part of a Retained Salary Transaction the SPC
of a Player who was on that Club's Reserve List within the
past calendar year;

Illustration: If Club A Trades the SPC of a Player to Club
B (the "Initial Trade"), Club B cannot subsequently Trade
an SPC of such Player back to Club A within one (1)
calendar year from the date of the Initial Trade and retain a
portion of the Averaged Amount of that SPC pursuant to a
Retained Salary Transaction. However, Club B may Trade
an SPC of the Player back to Club A within one (1)
calendar year from the date of the Initial Trade if Club B
does not retain any portion of such Player's SPC.

The illustration talks of trading an SPC in the bit which is centralmost in the matter. We go into the nuances of the American language and whether the grammatics demand there is a the in the sentence "Reacquire as part of a Retained Salary Transaction the SPC of a Player who was on that Club's Reserve List within the past calendar year" because that is the SPC which is getting traded even if it is a different SPC. Obviously you can't "reacquire" anything which you didn't possess before, so there is that.

 

[bossram]

Weird. This is way more "cap circumvent-y" to me than the original deal.

In isolation, CAR gives up a prospect AND a pick for the rights to a player in Europe who likely is coming back and only had 7 NHL games and middling AHL success when he was here.

There's very much an under-the-table, "sorry for the hassle/thanks for paying the buyout so we could get our guy" element to this trade.


Even if it was just Rizzo for f.c. that would be less obvious.

Obvious the original deal was supposed to be something like Rizzo for TDA at 50%.

The NHL nixed it. Carolina signed a bought-out TDA for even cheaper. Carolina ends up sending Philly Rizzo anyway, and a 5th as a thank-you for the buyout.

If the NHL didn't want this more circumvent-y series of transactions to go down....they should have just allowed the original trade.

 

[DaveG]

Original trade was said to be Rizzo for TDA 50% retained. League nixed it and Carolina couldn't commit to the trade later due to other UFA moves (Orlov, Bunting, etc..). Flyers had no choice but to buy him out.

Now instead of it being: TDA ($2.5M retained) for Rizzo
It's: TDA ($3.3M buyout) for Rizzo and a 5th. The 5th is for the extra $$$ that Philly ended up with due to buying him out.

It's Waddell and Briere being reasonable and basically making good on something they agreed upon.

I'm not even sure it was that as much as it was the Canes still (for whatever reason) being in on EK while the Flyers still had their buyout window open. With how much time that deal took to materialize with Pittsburgh as the destination and the risk of the Flyers not having a landing spot for TDA the only right move was to buy him out instead of keep waiting for a trade that might not happen.

 

[Jumptheshark]

Will Rizzo even make the NHL? But the flyers are in need of warm bodies who can play

 

[Czechboy]

I'm probably the biggest David Kase fan on HF... Was all excited he may get a crack at NHL. Nope.lol

 

[Negan4Coach]

Frank Rizzo would be proud of this acquisition.

Which Frank Rizzo? Frank "When the Looting Starts the Shooting Starts" Rizzo or Frank "I'll see you tomorrow with my tools, f***face" Rizzo?

Perplexed about the draft pick, but pleased to see Dundon drag his dingus across the face of the league for making us wait so long to get TDA back.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

Which Frank Rizzo? Frank "When the Looting Starts the Shooting Starts" Rizzo or Frank "I'll see you tomorrow with my tools, f***face" Rizzo?

Perplexed about the draft pick, but pleased to see Dundon drag his dingus across the face of the league for making us wait so long to get TDA back.

I lived just outside of Philly when Goode bombed "Move" back in 85. Before the bombing occurred, a lot of guys I knew kept commenting how they wished Rizzo was Mayor because he would take them out. Goode did that, and then some.

 

[wetcoast]

View attachment 734818

Can't wait to see Rizzo with

 

[mouser]

I don't think you're wrong though because of the wording...as you said, it was a separate SPC (see below bolded)

(4) Reacquire as part of a Retained Salary Transaction the SPC
of a Player who was on that Club's Reserve List within the
past calendar year;

Illustration: If Club A Trades the SPC of a Player to Club
B (the "Initial Trade"), Club B cannot subsequently Trade
an SPC of such Player back to Club A within one (1)
calendar year from the date of the Initial Trade and retain a
portion of the Averaged Amount of that SPC pursuant to a
Retained Salary Transaction. However, Club B may Trade
an SPC of the Player back to Club A within one (1)
calendar year from the date of the Initial Trade if Club B
does not retain any portion of such Player's SPC.

The illustration is irrelevant. Illustrations are a example of how the rule would be applied in one specific scenario defined in the illustration. The illustration doesn’t define how the rule would be applied in different situations. Carolina didn’t trade DeAngleo‘s SPC to Philly—Carolina traded TDA’s RFA rights—so the illustration doesn’t apply to DeAngelo.


The legal language to look at is the rule itself:

(4) Reacquire as part of a Retained Salary Transaction the SPC of a Player who was on that Club's Reserve List within the past calendar year;

There are four key terms used here which are not clearly defined in relation to each other:
a) Reacquire
b) SPC
c) Player
d) Clubs reserve list within the past calendar year

Do “Reacquire” and “Reserve List…Calendar Year” primarily refer to one or both of “SPC“ or the “Player”?

The NHL’s interpretation, which has not been challenged by the PA, is the rule applies to the team Reacquiring the Player under any SPC. Not Reacquiring the Player with the same SPC.

 

[Lempo]

Carolina didn’t trade DeAngleo‘s SPC to Philly—Carolina traded TDA’s RFA rights—so the illustration doesn’t apply to DeAngelo.

I think Tony was under an SPC when he was traded from CAR to PHI though. The trade happened on Jul 8, 2022 on the league year 2021-22 which exceptionally ended on Jul 12, 2022. The league year 2022-23 begun on Jul 13, 2022. I understand when the league amended the dates for league years 2021-22 and 2022-23 all the SPCs were amended to correspond to the reality of these new dates.

The exceptional dates of the off-season 2022 brought an element of wonkyness to the TDA trade issue because he was traded to PHI five days prior the Free Agency day of 2022 and the leak of intended trade back to CAR came out on June 26th, 2023 I think, so four days prior the Free Agency day of 2023. Not particularly good weaseling to claim that there's a year gone right there, but legit weaseling any way.

The league seem to have gone with "calendar year means calendar year no matter wha", and I'm not gonna argue against that, but I think there was room for the league to interpret otherwise too, and I guess to sort out things like this were why the league brass, CAR brass and PHI brass met in Nashville after the league started looking into it.

NHLPA maybe should also have been part of those talks from the get-go, because the issue partially tied to the expectional league year dates agreed between NHL and NHLPA.

A notable fact is that Philly extended TDA on the same day July 8th, 2022 when they traded for him, so with the high price PHI paid it's safe to assume that CAR knew that PHI was going to re-sign him to the $10M SPC they did and that optics obviously weight against Canes if and when they later try to reacquire TDA with a retention on that SPC.

 

[wunderpanda]

What possible reason could the league have for nixing that deal? What am I missing?

comcast owns the flyers
comcast owns nbc
nbc didn't renew nhl tv deal
gary is spiteful