I'm missing something. The Sharks are in the same cap situation as we are +/-$2M. So why do they need help with retaining on Karlsson? Are they planning on spending another $18M in cap? On whom?
Part of the problem might be that it's 4 years? But the main thing is probably just the GM already made a declaration publicly that he wouldn't do that level of retention, so he's probably just stubbornly sticking to his guns.
Thanks, Porter.Part of the problem might be that it's 4 years? But the main thing is probably just the GM already made a declaration publicly that he wouldn't do that level of retention, so he's probably just stubbornly sticking to his guns.
I guess I wouldn't necessarily cap what Trotz might do... he has surprised at most turns, and I do feel like he is sincerely interested in Pesce. He pretty clearly has a picture in his head of what constitutes a successful NHL defense corps, and players like McDonagh, Schenn, and Pesce would be very attractive to him in that sense.
Well and the owners may have turned over a new leaf but you are already having them pay 10+ million per season for guys that won't be playing for the team. Are they going to be real happy about having another 4 million slapped on that pile?I guess I wouldn't necessarily cap what Trotz might do... he has surprised at most turns, and I do feel like he is sincerely interested in Pesce. He pretty clearly has a picture in his head of what constitutes a successful NHL defense corps, and players like McDonagh, Schenn, and Pesce would be very attractive to him in that sense.
Just, yikes, if we retained $3M on Karlsson for 4 years and then had to pay Pesce like $7M to extend him, that is a very very steep payout to achieve that fantasy defense corps. To me, I'd really have to get a sweet sweet trade scenario to go down that path.
Still, I wouldn't put it past Trotz. He is making "hard decisions" already with Johansen/Duchene (and the TDL stuff) to attain his dream lineup.
I wouldn't be happy about it if I was an owner, but we're already kind of getting the sense that our reticence in the past was probably more about Poile's own philosophies than about what the owners thought? The current ownership group anyway seems more and more like they'd just be willing to fully delegate all responsibility on that front to the GM?
Even so as a GM I'd probably have my own line in the sand. Not to mention that's already a big chunk of dead cap space for several years.I wouldn't be happy about it if I was an owner, but we're already kind of getting the sense that our reticence in the past was probably more about Poile's own philosophies than about what the owners thought? The current ownership group anyway seems more and more like they'd just be willing to fully delegate all responsibility on that front to the GM?
What if the trade basically came down to carrier + retention?I guess I wouldn't necessarily cap what Trotz might do... he has surprised at most turns, and I do feel like he is sincerely interested in Pesce. He pretty clearly has a picture in his head of what constitutes a successful NHL defense corps, and players like McDonagh, Schenn, and Pesce would be very attractive to him in that sense.
Just, yikes, if we retained $3M on Karlsson for 4 years and then had to pay Pesce like $7M to extend him, that is a very very steep payout to achieve that fantasy defense corps. To me, I'd really have to get a sweet sweet trade scenario to go down that path.
Still, I wouldn't put it past Trotz. He is making "hard decisions" already with Johansen/Duchene (and the TDL stuff) to attain his dream lineup.
There is a tipping point when it comes to dead cap. Right now the team is tying up at least 44% of the floor to cap range with dead money for the next three seasons. Taking on another $2mil in dead cap ties up about 69% of that range next season. That means the team becomes a close to floor team when it comes to spending on its own talent ... the Preds are a $66mil roster right now with another $8.8 going to buy outs and retentions.
Probably right. Odds are we wanted to keep some flexibility going forward for retaining cap on expiring contracts like barrie
Well, in the BFC scenario where we ALSO got a 1st round pick from Carolina, I would probably be sufficiently mollified to accept it. I mean, we've lamented not "weaponizing" Cap space in the past here before. Pesce is a really tough case to go down this path over, because he's a lot like McDonagh, and that's not an "exciting" kind of player where the payoff stands out quite as much from a pure entertainment perspective.
I think the issue is the retention part, not Carrier.
There's our dead Cap. It would be bad in Year 2 like that, assuming you added in $3M more. Then tapering off somewhat after. But it's really that PLUS the amount Pesce reportedly wants on his next deal, in combination, which is what scares me the most.
Currently per cap friendly
I just don't know enough about him or their cap situation to really know, but I agree its concerning when a contender is looking to move one of the their top D rather than pay him.
Yeah and that's not counting the 7+ million a season you are going to be paying him too.
I guess you can argue if we extended Pesce for 8 years, then he's around still long after all the Dead Cap has expired. But still. That's a pretty huge commitment to something you have no way of knowing what it will look like in Years 5/6/7/8?
and you hit the one negative about my idea, all the RHD 'cept for Livingstone are UFAs. My counter-argument is Trotz was shopping both Fabbro and Carrier.
Well part of it is I don't know enough about him, but basically yeah, those late years by the time the kids really get going. I guess you could argue that he basically slides in at McDonagh's role at that point, but I don't really consider his contract all that great for us either soI guess you can argue if we extended Pesce for 8 years, then he's around still long after all the Dead Cap has expired. But still. That's a pretty huge commitment to something you have no way of knowing what it will look like in Years 5/6/7/8?
EDIT: It gives me kind of a Vlasic vibe. Vlasic was the cats pajamas for a while there. And now he's not. I don't think you want to be stuck with that.
Fabbro will still be a RFA and Schenn would still have 2 years left.
Exactly. Pesce will want a big contract. If you throw away serious hard cap on Turris, Duchene, Johansen, and Karlsson, AND add a huge contract for Pesce, you're really painting yourself into a cap corner. Maybe it goes up next year, but the NHL hasn't been hitting their revenue targets lately. If it goes up, it is anyone's guess how much. It seems unlikely it's going up 25% or more.
Well and my thought is you already aren't going to be playing the kids on the defense side of things, so does that only apply to the forwards? I mean if anything we should be moving out some Dmen to at least let a guy like Livingstone play. If we get Pesce then I agree, why aren't we just going all in and trying to win cause that is what this move seems to dictate.
I think Carolina has a very rigid salary structure that they stick to. They'll spend money, but they keep their spending very objective. It keeps them from throwing $11M/yr at a 30 year old guy for 8 years, but it costs them some turnover in that guys may move on to greener pastures...
Well and I gotta wonder if that is kind of what Trotz is looking at more or less doing here, considering his statement about long term and retirement contracts. If something like that is the case I can't see us paying him either.
I tend to think it is the smarter play overall. You don't massively overpay for guys and arrive at a Toronto sort of salary structure. You can spend your cap more judiciously and buy a better top to bottom roster to fit your system.
