Jets General Rumour, Trade, Free Agent and Waiver Speculation 15-16 Part X

[Aavco Cup]

Presumably then, you can expose pending UFA's Stafford and Pavalec and their $8.1m cap hit. So we'd get pretty close with Staff, Pav, Enstrom, Stu and Thor. Sorry Vegas.

That would be against the spirit of what was proposed. I doubt the expiring UFA's will be counted that way. I think that's why Friedman is suggesting we'll see strange 2 yr deals this offseason. Why not just do strange 1 yr deals if they count anyway?

I imagine they'll just use the 17/18 cap hits which would also account for players extended to new contracts.

 

[Whileee]

That would be against the spirit of what was proposed. I doubt the expiring UFA's will be counted that way. I think that's why Friedman is suggesting we'll see strange 2 yr deals this offseason. Why not just do strange 1 yr deals if they count anyway?

I imagine they'll just use the 17/18 cap hits which would also account for players extended to new contracts.

So, do the Jets extend Pavs and Stafford as expansion draft fodder? (ducks and runs for cover)...

 

[Aavco Cup]

So, do the Jets extend Pavs and Stafford as expansion draft fodder? (ducks and runs for cover)...

I'm sure Simmons has the calculator out already

 

[KingBogo]

So, do the Jets extend Pavs and Stafford as expansion draft fodder? (ducks and runs for cover)...

Stafford maybe. No way with Pavs. If Stafford doesn't get picked up he is still useful. With Teams only being able to protect 1 goalie there will be goalies a lot better than Pavs available so then we are stuck with him for the length of the contract. We should be fine in net. Protect Helly and Comrie is exempt.

 

[Gm0ney]

That would be against the spirit of what was proposed. I doubt the expiring UFA's will be counted that way. I think that's why Friedman is suggesting we'll see strange 2 yr deals this offseason. Why not just do strange 1 yr deals if they count anyway?

I imagine they'll just use the 17/18 cap hits which would also account for players extended to new contracts.

If pending UFAs being exposed to the expansion draft aren't counted towards the 25% requirement, then their cap hits shouldn't be counted toward the total cap that we're calculating the 25% of.

On the day of the expansion draft, those players are still under contract to the team and should therefore be eligible for exposure (or protection). But the NHL can make up whatever rules they want I suppose - logic and consistency are optional.

 

[Bob E]

Stafford maybe. No way with Pavs. If Stafford doesn't get picked up he is still useful. With Teams only being able to protect 1 goalie there will be goalies a lot better than Pavs available so then we are stuck with him for the length of the contract. We should be fine in net. Protect Helly and Comrie is exempt.

Is Comrie exempt? I thought players entering their 3 yr of their ELC were available if not protected. Or is it after their third year, and reaching RFA status?

 

[Aavco Cup]

If pending UFAs being exposed to the expansion draft aren't counted towards the 25% requirement, then their cap hits shouldn't be counted toward the total cap that we're calculating the 25% of.

Why exactly? The intent is for yhe new team(s) to be reasonably conpetitive and to be 100% cap compliant.

Drafting UFA's to be who are unlikely to sign there does nothing to accomplish that goal.

 

[Evil Little]

I fully understand how it works. The question is did the jets honor Myers' no movement clause. The only reputable source I can find is general fanager and they say yes.

Is that a reputable source? I recall that even the vaunted Capgeek had Richards's NMC listed after his trade to the Kings and there was speculation, even in the mainstream media, about what the status actually was. Lo, and behold, he was waived.

I think the real question is whether there is any reason at all that the Jets would go out of their way to bind themselves by Myers's clause?

I don't see it.

So, do the Jets extend Pavs and Stafford as expansion draft fodder? (ducks and runs for cover)...

They'll both be pending UFAs, which should hopefully count for full value. In that case, I'd gather they'll just stick around instead of being dangled at the trade deadline.

Which is too bad in the case of Pavelec, since I was hoping he'd be traded at the deadline and never seen in a Jets uniform again.

If he's a Jet on June 30th, I'm a little worried that someone will offer him $1m to haunt me some more.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

So, do the Jets extend Pavs and Stafford as expansion draft fodder? (ducks and runs for cover)...

Pav or no Pav we can only protect 1 goalie so there is no benefit to keeping him around for that purpose.

Stafford is similar except he is worth more. But by keeping him to expose we don't get to protect more than 7F.

These rules don't allow a lot of workarounds. They have set it up to give expansion teams some good players. Get used to the idea that we are going to lose a good player.

 

[Gm0ney]

Why exactly? The intent is for yhe new team(s) to be reasonably conpetitive and to be 100% cap compliant.

Drafting UFA's to be who are unlikely to sign there does nothing to accomplish that goal.

Yes but technically pending UFAs will be property of their respective teams at the time of the expansion draft. You're counting them for one purpose but not for the other. But as I said, the NHL can do whatever it wants.

 

[Gil Fisher]

Agree with Gm0ney.

But who knows what the NHL is thinking...this is probably the feedback period where all the GMs, bloggers, media raise potential problems with model.

 

[Aavco Cup]

Yes but technically pending UFAs will be property of their respective teams at the time of the expansion draft. You're counting them for one purpose but not for the other. But as I said, the NHL can do whatever it wants.

I know I'm counting them that way. And yes technically what you are saying is true, but it sounds against the spirit of what the NHL is trying to accomplish. The rules will be written down eventually.

 

[Board Bard]

Personally I don't care if an expansion team is competitive or almost competitive. Expansion teams are supposed to be crappy. I can live with it. If it's Las Vegas and they can't make it financially, no sweat off my ass. I don't care. If it's Quebec, they're going to roll in the dough no matter how crappy they are initially.

Now if the NHL ruled that each team had to give up one goalie, one forward and one defenceman whose jersey numbers added up to 58, I'd be all for that.

 

[Gm0ney]

I know I'm counting them that way. And yes technically what you are saying is true, but it sounds against the spirit of what the NHL is trying to accomplish. The rules will be written down eventually.

I think the NHL might count it that way too. Hopefully the Jets can expose enough salary...

 

[Whileee]

Pav or no Pav we can only protect 1 goalie so there is no benefit to keeping him around for that purpose.

Stafford is similar except he is worth more. But by keeping him to expose we don't get to protect more than 7F.

These rules don't allow a lot of workarounds. They have set it up to give expansion teams some good players. Get used to the idea that we are going to lose a good player.

It would be an issue if each team had to leave a certain amount of salary unprotected. A lot of the Jets players are on low salaries, and most of their vets with high salary would be more difficult to let go because they are all on good contracts... except Stuart.

If teams are forced to expose players with a certain value of contract, I could see a lot of teams signing players that they aren't that interested in just to preserve higher value players. For example, the Jets could re-sign Stafford for 2 years at $4+M, so they don't have to leave Myers or Little or Wheeler unprotected.

The question is whether you want to have a dead contract for a couple of years as a trade for being able to keep a core player.

 

[Aavco Cup]

I think the NHL might count it that way too. Hopefully the Jets can expose enough salary...

That's why they have a capologist. If they need to add salary someone will be signed this offseason who will be exposed

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

I know I'm counting them that way. And yes technically what you are saying is true, but it sounds against the spirit of what the NHL is trying to accomplish. The rules will be written down eventually.

True but with the other rules they have proposed it becomes difficult to do otherwise. The 25% salary requirement for instance. Even accepting that we will lose a good player it begins to become punitive to the existing teams. Did you hear the part last night were players drafted but unsigned for 2 years will also be vulnerable? That means NCAA sophomores, which Connor will be. So that too will have to use the July 1 cutoff or LV will enter the league, not only with a PO team but a cup contender within 2 years. Or less!

If pending UFAs are included the expansion team may choose to bypass them if they wish and take younger players. They may draft 1 or 2 with the intention of signing them before July 1. The thing is it would be their choice.

 

[Gil Fisher]

That's why they have a capologist. If they need to add salary someone will be signed this offseason who will be exposed

Andrew Ladd. 2 years $8m per year. Trade Stafford.

 

[Aavco Cup]

True but with the other rules they have proposed it becomes difficult to do otherwise. The 25% salary requirement for instance. Even accepting that we will lose a good player it begins to become punitive to the existing teams. Did you hear the part last night were players drafted but unsigned for 2 years will also be vulnerable? That means NCAA sophomores, which Connor will be. So that too will have to use the July 1 cutoff or LV will enter the league, not only with a PO team but a cup contender within 2 years. Or less!

If pending UFAs are included the expansion team may choose to bypass them if they wish and take younger players. They may draft 1 or 2 with the intention of signing them before July 1. The thing is it would be their choice.

Why does it become difficult? They just print a list of rules and the teams conform. They are a private organization. They can do what they want. There's no need for lawyers to oarse language.

What they want is to make the new team competitive, not to give teams loopholes to escape the shared burden of stocking that team. They will try and craft rules that limit the ability for teams to circumvent the rules as much as possible.

Also Connor will not yet be 2 years after his draft date if the expansion is held in advance of the entry draft.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Personally I don't care if an expansion team is competitive or almost competitive. Expansion teams are supposed to be crappy. I can live with it. If it's Las Vegas and they can't make it financially, no sweat off my ass. I don't care. If it's Quebec, they're going to roll in the dough no matter how crappy they are initially.

Now if the NHL ruled that each team had to give up one goalie, one forward and one defenceman whose jersey numbers added up to 58, I'd be all for that.

A seriously weak sister team hurts the whole league. I don't want to overstock an expansion team but I don't want to see them with nothing but garbage either. They should have a shot to at least make the POs within 3-4 years. If they don't because of their own mismanagement then tough titty but give them a chance.

Which takes me way off topic. The Yotes have an interesting and entertaining team this year and their future is promising. If they can't sell tickets now it will be time to give up - finally and forever.

Back to LV. I can live with giving up 1 decent middle of the roster player, lets say a Myers, if every other team has to do likewise. In that case we all take the same competitive hit.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

It would be an issue if each team had to leave a certain amount of salary unprotected. A lot of the Jets players are on low salaries, and most of their vets with high salary would be more difficult to let go because they are all on good contracts... except Stuart.

If teams are forced to expose players with a certain value of contract, I could see a lot of teams signing players that they aren't that interested in just to preserve higher value players. For example, the Jets could re-sign Stafford for 2 years at $4+M, so they don't have to leave Myers or Little or Wheeler unprotected.

The question is whether you want to have a dead contract for a couple of years as a trade for being able to keep a core player.

If it was a flat $$$ amount yes but as a % of the previous year the advantage of doing that is less. I still have a hard time following the logic of those kinds of moves though. No matter how many players we sign in order to expose the number we can protect doesn't change and the number who are exempt doesn't change. The only way it hits home is with that exposed salary/cap provision.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Andrew Ladd. 2 years $8m per year. Trade Stafford.

That almost makes sense. I would have to think that through but I might do it, or similar. I would rather overpay Ladd than some others I could think of. I wonder if Ladd would settle for 2 years at that salary?

 

[Aavco Cup]

If it was a flat $$$ amount yes but as a % of the previous year the advantage of doing that is less. I still have a hard time following the logic of those kinds of moves though. No matter how many players we sign in order to expose the number we can protect doesn't change and the number who are exempt doesn't change. The only way it hits home is with that exposed salary/cap provision.

The only reason you do it is if you can't expose enough salary to meet the league's minimum requirement with the players you want to protect. Rather than expose one of those guys you sign someone else. It might not apply to the Jets.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Why does it become difficult? They just print a list of rules and the teams conform. They are a private organization. They can do what they want. There's no need for lawyers to oarse language.

What they want is to make the new team competitive, not to give teams loopholes to escape the shared burden of stocking that team. They will try and craft rules that limit the ability for teams to circumvent the rules as much as possible.

Also Connor will not yet be 2 years after his draft date if the expansion is held in advance of the entry draft.

Huh? We are going off in 2 entirely different directions here. Lawyers parsing language?

Difficult in the sense that no team wants to find themselves having to choose between exposing one of their best players or their top prospect. If it goes as you have been saying, that pending UFAs can't be counted and players still in but almost finished their 2nd pro seasons have to be protected or exposed and 25% of the current season's salary has to be exposed and players just completing their NCAA sophomore seasons have to be protected or exposed and NMCs have to be protected there is precious little that is not exposed. That kind of difficult.

I think it makes more sense if the draft is held in early to mid June to consider all contracts still valid until July 1. Otherwise the expansion team is going to have a stronger roster than half the existing teams. Nothing to do with lawyers and loopholes.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

The only reason you do it is if you can't expose enough salary to meet the league's minimum requirement with the players you want to protect. Rather than expose one of those guys you sign someone else. It might not apply to the Jets.

Right. That 25% is going to make it tricky for some teams. I think all the teams are accepting that they will have to give up a decent player to the expansion team(s).