Confirmed with Link: Necas re-signed $3M x 2

htdoc

Registered User
Oct 30, 2018
619
1,848
For 2 years at 3m should be ok and if we get lucky and he develops and progresses hopefully it is really good value…. with the moves we made and the pool of right side guys, he may be on the equivalent of the 4th line for a lot of time if he isn’t going so he is going to have to prove himself and fight for his ice time…..

but at the same time, with a 2 year bridge, given rumors and comments about how his struggles last year about confidence and being in his head and pushing too hard due to it being a contract year, this bridge should mean less pressure on him this season as it won’t be a contract year…. Hopefully it’s a bounce back…. If he doesn’t progress then it’s meh and we aren’t locked in on a long term deal…. If he only did a 1 year then it’s just a repeat of last year and him underperforming due to the pressure of a contract year…. And the dollar amount would be less for 1 year given what he did last season…. For 2 years and paying for potential averaging out the money higher for that extra year, it’s an acceptable number for both player and team….

so this now confirms we are going to be a 20 man roster until we figure out what is going to happen with Gardiner and we have to figure out how to sneak some players down through waivers at the start of the year to avoid losing them….
 

Boom Boom Apathy

I am the Professor. Deal with it!
Sep 6, 2006
48,388
98,063
A 20 man roster isn’t a big deal IMO. Chicago Wolves will run the same system as the Canes. And being located in the Center of the US with a major airport, they can get a player to anywhere in half a day should they need a call up.

Edit: an injury with no cap space for a call up can be a potential issue.
 

spockBokk

Registered User
Sep 8, 2013
7,129
17,880
A 20 man roster isn’t a big deal IMO. Chicago Wolves will run the same system as the Canes. And being located in the Center of the US with a major airport, they can get a player to anywhere in half a day should they need a call up.

Edit: an injury with no cap space for a call up can be a potential issue.

If the same emergency call up rules carry over from last year, as I understand it, they’d only have to play short-handed for 1 game due to not having cap space for a callup. Then, they’d be able to call up players on an emergency basis to fill out the roster.
 

Nikishin Go Boom

Russian Bulldozer Consultent
Jul 31, 2017
22,060
51,634
A 20 man roster isn’t a big deal IMO. Chicago Wolves will run the same system as the Canes. And being located in the Center of the US with a major airport, they can get a player to anywhere in half a day should they need a call up.

Edit: an injury with no cap space for a call up can be a potential issue.
Outside of Gardiner, I am not confident that any of the other defenders make it through waivers.
 

Nikishin Go Boom

Russian Bulldozer Consultent
Jul 31, 2017
22,060
51,634
I could see a team taking a chance on Coghlan, but you think a team would take a flyer on LaJoie or Chatfield with another year guaranteed (1-way)?
I guess im not considering Lajoie a NHL defender. I think someone grabs Cog or Chatfield if waived
 

spockBokk

Registered User
Sep 8, 2013
7,129
17,880
I guess im not considering Lajoie a NHL defender. I think someone grabs Cog or Chatfield if waived

Fair. I’d think Coghlan would be the one they don’t want to waive unless they could help it. I think Chatfield’s extra yr would scare off most teams as they’d be taking on extra risk of being stuck with him the following season if he wasn’t a fit.
 

Boom Boom Apathy

I am the Professor. Deal with it!
Sep 6, 2006
48,388
98,063
Outside of Gardiner, I am not confident that any of the other defenders make it through waivers.

We're likely going to have to waive 1 or 2 of Lajoie, Coghlan and Chatfield anyhow. Every year people think all the players will get claimed and only a few do, but it could happen.

But doesn't burying Gardiner save the team $1M, which puts the team at $2.88M cap space including Coghlan and Chatfield (but not LaJoie)? Or do I have that wrong?

Then waive 1 of those 2 and it cover's Necas's reported $3M, right?
 

Nikishin Go Boom

Russian Bulldozer Consultent
Jul 31, 2017
22,060
51,634
We're likely going to have to waive 1 or 2 of Lajoie, Coghlan and Chatfield anyhow. Every year people think all the players will get claimed and only a few do, but it could happen.

But doesn't burying Gardiner save the team $1M, which puts the team at $2.88M cap space including Coghlan and Chatfield (but not LaJoie)? Or do I have that wrong?

Then waive 1 of those 2 and it cover's Necas's reported $3M, right?
Burying Gardiner saves 1.1 million. Your numbers are right. We probably start with 11 and 7 on the 11th to maximize cap, sending Pederson down. Then call up Drury for game day
 

mikeyfan

Registered User
Dec 27, 2018
2,764
3,090
According to Jim Parsons of the Hockey Writers the buyout Window open for the Canes upon the signing of Necas. If we buy out Gardiner it will save the Canes $2,966,666. Which will leave the canes around 1 million in cap space. It also means the Canes will not be burdened by the LTIR restrictions come trade deadline time
 

Lempo

Recovering Future Considerations Truther
Sponsor
Feb 23, 2014
26,896
83,870
According to Jim Parsons of the Hockey Writers the buyout Window open for the Canes upon the signing of Necas. If we buy out Gardiner it will save the Canes $2,966,666. Which will leave the canes around 1 million in cap space. It also means the Canes will not be burdened by the LTIR restrictions come trade deadline time
No.

This is what SPC Paragraph 13 says about the period of effectivity of the notice of termination for buyout purposes:

"(ii) For Clubs who have Club or Player elected Salary Arbitration filings pursuant to Article 12, within the forty-eight (48) hour period beginning on the third day following the later of: (i) the Club's receipt of its last salary arbitration award; or (ii) settlement of its last case (provided such award was received or such settlement occurred prior to 7:00 p.m. New York time; awards or settlements that occurred or were received at or after 7:00 p.m. New York time will be deemed to have occurred or received the following business day for purposes of this provision)." [=2nd window]


Necas' signing or non-signing does not factor into it in any way.

The window opens now, upon the signing of Lajoie, who was the last pending arbitration case.
 
Last edited:

mikeyfan

Registered User
Dec 27, 2018
2,764
3,090
No.

This is what SPC Paragraph 13 says about the period of effectivity of the notice of termination for buyout purposes:

"(ii) For Clubs who have Club or Player elected Salary Arbitration filings pursuant to Article 12, within the forty-eight (48) hour period beginning on the third day following the later of: (i) the Club's receipt of its last salary arbitration award; or (ii) settlement of its last case (provided such award was received or such settlement occurred prior to 7:00 p.m. New York time; awards or settlements that occurred or were received at or after 7:00 p.m. New York time will be deemed to have occurred or received the following business day for purposes of this provision)." [=2nd window]


Necas' signing or non-signing does not factor into it in any way.

The window opens now, upon the signing of Lajoie, who was the last pending arbitration case.
Thanks for the information
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lempo and Tryamw

Svechhammer

THIS is hockey?
Jun 8, 2017
23,945
88,133

raw
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad