LeBrun: Nash, Grabner Trade Deals happening; both pulled from lineup tonight (Mod post #353)
- Thread starter Gardner McKay
- Start date
- Status
Guys what am I missing here? Nash has like 1.7 mill remaining for this season and Cap Friendly says that the Bruins have 2.2+ mill deadline cap space available. Please correct me where I am wrong. Is it that the Bruins want to clear extra space (Belresky) and want the Rangers and another team to pick some of that up to?
Avs44
Registered User
- May 16, 2011
- 21,687
- 10,180
That’s double-dipping the pro-rating. Nash’s pro-rated cap is 1.7 million; Bruins’ pro-rated cap is 2.2. Can’t do both. There are two ways to look at it: Bruins have 2.2 million in pro-rated cap and Nash has a 7.8 million cap, OR Nash has a pro-rated 1.7 million cap and the Bruins only have a few 100k in cap.
East Coast Icestyle
Registered User
For someone who doesn't know much about how the cap works around trade deadline, can you explain that? I really don't understand why it's one or the other.
Thanks for the help on that. Why the f do they have to make everything so complicated? I can't imagine some of the old time GMs balancing trades with cap numbers. I guess it keeps some numbers crunchers employed.
Avs you seem to know your shyt. Can the Rangers retain 50% of the 1.7 mil, making it 850000 and then another 100000 off for the cap space the Bruins have. That leaves 750000 the Bruins have to unload somehow. Am I close, lol?
Avs44
Registered User
- May 16, 2011
- 21,687
- 10,180
Imagine pro-rating like this: just as players get paid during the season, cap hit gets 'paid off' too. For example, if we are loosely 78% of the way through the season, for example, then 78% of a 7.8 million dollar cap hit has been 'eaten.' 78% of 7.8 million (7.8 x 0.22) = 1.716 million (essentially Nash's pro-rated cap hit right now). Now you could also calculate pro-rating by looking at it from the perspective of how much pro-rated cap teams have. So again, if we're 78% of the way through the season, and a team has around 500k in actual space, then you determine the pro-rated cap space by, in this case, dividing 500k by 0.22, which would equal 2.2 million, which is also where the B's are around right now for pro-rated cap space. Basically, pro-rated cap hit and pro-rated salaries are two different ways of measuring / displaying the same thing - which is how much teams can take on at a certain point in the year. If you're using pro-rated cap hit for a player then you have to look at the actual cap space, and if you're looking at pro-rated cap space then you have to look at actual cap hit. Can't use both, which is really all that's important. Cap friendly does the math updated to each day.
BB88
Registered User
- Jan 19, 2015
- 40,862
- 20,465
Emperoreddy
Show Me What You Got!
Especially when that rental is Rick Nash and is playoff cloak of invisibility.
If you can’t get him for what Grabner got, I would move on.
Dijock94
Registered User
- Apr 1, 2016
- 1,433
- 992
Really not, taking back Beleskey is a negative asset. The first very well could be the last pick in the round as well. Plus 50% retention.
BB88
Registered User
- Jan 19, 2015
- 40,862
- 20,465
I don't care about the retention cause I don't want to pay this much.
The top of the Atlantic/East is really, really good. Cup favourites. When you spent a 1st+ for pure rental you need to do some damage in the playoffs.
Dropping on the 1st round would be a nightmare.
Would have easily prefered Grabner for Nash at this price.
Dijock94
Registered User
- Apr 1, 2016
- 1,433
- 992
If you would prefer Grabner over Nash I don’t know how much you have watched. Assuming you didn’t watch the Rangers a ton, Nash is our most dominant forward night in and out in all three zones. Where as Grabner is good at one thing which is getting breakaways. Now you may have watched a lot I guess and prefer Grabner, but Nash is by far the better player in most Ranger fan opinions.
burstnbloom
Registered User
- Mar 10, 2006
- 4,544
- 3,948
Liferleafer
TSN Scrum Lurker
- Feb 9, 2011
- 39,848
- 13,005
Cap friendly is listing the Bruins cap at the start of the year....and Nash's 1.7 is pro-rated to cap remaining for the year. The Bruins pro-rated cap remaining for the year is around 536k.
If you want to use the 2.2 number, then you need to use Nash's full 7.8 number.
BB88
Registered User
- Jan 19, 2015
- 40,862
- 20,465
Paying that price to Nash again adds the pressure to succeed in the playoffs. It's a pure rental and you can't be spending high end assets every deadline.
I would have prefered Grabner to bottom6 to add quality depth.
Crash Bandicoot
Sobriety isn't for wimps.
- Feb 25, 2016
- 437
- 259
If the Bruins give up more than a second round pick and possibly Carlo then I would send Sweeney a bag of manure.
Liferleafer
TSN Scrum Lurker
- Feb 9, 2011
- 39,848
- 13,005
BruinsFanSince94
The Perfect Fan ™
No. The guy your responding to is a bruins board troll. No sane fan would suggest dealing Carlo for a rental.
Not all of us. It would take more that a rental to get Carlo if I was in charge. I believe that playing with Krug has not been a good thing for Carlo. Carlo has had to overcompensate for Krug's at times crappy defensive play and now even when he plays with someone else he is still playing like Krug is his partner. He's trying to do too much and he puts himself out of position trying to cover more space than he should. He needs to simplify his game and get back to trusting his partner and I believe he will be fine.
Liferleafer
TSN Scrum Lurker
- Feb 9, 2011
- 39,848
- 13,005
I wouldn't mind Nash but I don't want to see them pay some of the prices people are mentioning here.
Irishguy42
Mr. Preachy
WhalerTurnedBruin55
Fading out, thanks for the times.
- Oct 31, 2008
- 11,346
- 6,708
Nash solves the Krejci line's biggest issue, their defensive game, but especially their ability to clear the puck by winning puck battles along the boards and making good outlet passes. DeBrusk/Krejci/Spooner got OWNED by the Leafs last night. Adding Nash to the line gives it the same thing adding Heinen to that line does, a smart two way winger who can get the puck out of the zone. Heinen/Krejci/Backes has been the most effective grouping of that line. Unfortunately, DeBrusk/Riley Nash(defensive specialist/Spooner(offensive specialist) is not a line that makes sense.
Spooner has been an offensive force on Krejci's wing, but he sucks winning the board battles needed to clear the zone. DeBrusk is a rookie and makes rookie mistakes. Nothing to be concerned about longterm with DeBrusk, just being a rookie. You can get away with one of them on that line, but both is hard. Now, you are giving up some offense here. Spooner to Nash, at this point in their careers, is an offensive downgrade. Nash isn't the totally ideal rental, but better than the rest for Boston's need on that second line.
The return is the question here. The Bruins have to lose some cap in the deal. If they can be moving out Beleksey, that has some real long term pros and they should be willing to pay for that. I'd probably do 1st + one of the good prospects + Beleksey for Nash. Rangers fans will ask for another asset, and I would say "I would never give 1st + one of the good prospects for Nash...you already got the extra asset, come back crawling on Monday". I suspect Sweeney would say the same as the market for Nash is very small. You could also move out McQuaid and/or Spooner for futures to try to get back some of what you gave up for Nash in a different deal if you can't include Beleksey, but that is less compelling. LOTS of moving parts to make it a deal that is a good one for the Bruins.
- Status
