Value of: NYR - SJS cap space deal

[Wingsfan 4 life]

At least there should be alot of people more well prepared for a Bernmeister thread today.

 

[One Winged Angel]

At least there should be alot of people more well prepared for a Bernmeister thread today.

I don't think there's any amount of the sticky icky that could prepare you for his proposals.

I think they would just put you in a state of paranoia.

 

[Juxtaposer]

I’m sorry, we’re giving up two 1st round picks to save $2M off the cap? Absolutely no f***ing way in hell.

 

[Gecklund]

I’m sorry, we’re giving up two 1st round picks to save $2M off the cap? Absolutely no ****ing way in hell.

Could you imagine trading 2 firsts+Karlsson for a 2nd and 3rd? That’s the equivalent and DW would be fired immediately

 

[rent free]

wut?

 

[One Winged Angel]

Could you imagine trading 2 firsts+Karlsson for a 2nd and 3rd? That’s the equivalent and DW would be fired immediately

It's bernmeister.

It's not happening.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Sharks have about 15 million before the cap goes up and are likely going after Tavares. They don't need to trade two 1st round picks to save two million to re-sign Kane. If the team wants to keep Kane, they'll pay him the 6 million and if they need to save two million, they'll trade Melker Karlsson somewhere for a late round draft pick and/or buy out Paul Martin.

 

[bernmeister]

Sharks saving $2m for 4 years is not worth an additional 1st round pick.

Sounds like SJS giving up way too much to save a couple of million.

I’m sorry, we’re giving up two 1st round picks to save $2M off the cap? Absolutely no ****ing way in hell.

It is 2 mil for each of 4 yrs, = 8 mil total, 2 mil per.
It is NOT 2m for 2 picks
also, there are 2 2018 2nds which have been ignored

Sharks have about 15 million before the cap goes up and are likely going after Tavares. They don't need to trade two 1st round picks to save two million to re-sign Kane. If the team wants to keep Kane, they'll pay him the 6 million and if they need to save two million, they'll trade Melker Karlsson somewhere for a late round draft pick and/or buy out Paul Martin.

Not counting anyone else, if Tavares involved that is already cutting into what's needed to re-sign Kane.
The bold scenario may well apply, but is it enough?
This is a chance to reduce $ and more importantly cap hit at the cost of pick upgrades.

 

[bernmeister]

I love bernmeister trades. They are always ridiculous and have zero chance of every happening. Shame you stopped doing ones for ekblad.

Shame Ekblad got so badly injured, he's not worth including in trades anymore...

Also, they said Stepan would get more if he was dealt at all, and I was right about the Rangers be lucky to get what they did for him when he was definitely dealt. So I'd dial the bold down just a tad.

 

[bernmeister]

Sounds a lot easier to just sign Kane.

Of course. But you have to juggle your cap and you are a contending club.
You can sign him for less term but that usually means players get more per yr for not taking a volume discount.

If you think you are better off w/Kane walking, or alternate moves, or you have enough on the farm, drafting would be smarter.

If you are looking to stretch your window, Kane is a known commodity who was, surprise, surprise, a good fit. This is an opportunity that is here now that may not be available at a later date to better manage that cap, if you want to go that way and pay the price.

By the way, I thought a half a 1st per year for the 2 mil cap hit of each year, was fair right there, plus I threw in the 2 2nds.

We could do a shorter term deal, but I don't think Kane takes less than 6, ballpark, esp. since he was what, 5.25 last year? And is in his prime.

The Rangers can keep their picks and do the same thing but for only 2 years, 2m off per, and take only the 2018 1st. That would leave you very thin at this draft, and NY should not wait for that only 1st til 2019 without some other add from SJ.

 

[bernmeister]

San Jose is one of the oldest teams in the league so naturally it makes sense to help with the rangers rebuild by tossing them two out of their three next 1st round picks just to re-sign their own player.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Something has to give.
If you want to deal with age, you keep your picks.

If you need roster flexibility to optimize your chances, you trade the future, within reason.

This compromise allows SJ to afford a pricey 1W while having cap for other needs, actual and projected.

 

[bernmeister]

They allowed the Brassard trade to Pittsburgh via Vegas. Vegas retains 40% of Brassard's contract. This would essentially be the same thing.

Thank you.

 

[bernmeister]

This is awful value and pretty much the definition of cap circumvention

Not allowed per the CBA.

I am not so sure particularly what is given the immediate above post.

Mouser, you're an expert in this area.
Why would this be different from what was done with Vegas, which was allowed?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Kupo]

Also, they said Stepan would get more if he was dealt at all, and I was right about the Rangers be lucky to get what they did for him when he was definitely dealt. So I'd dial the bold down just a tad.

You throw enough darts on the board, you’re bound to get a bullseye, Bern.

Look at the last 50 trades that have happened in the NHL. Try and mirrow those trades with your proposals.

You can most definitely put the creative spin on them, just as long as the proposal makes sense for both clubs and, most importantly, is realistic.

 

[bernmeister]

You throw enough darts on the board, you’re bound to get a bullseye, Bern.

Look at the last 50 trades that have happened in the NHL. Try and mirrow those trades with your proposals.

You can most definitely put the creative spin on them, just as long as the proposal makes sense for both clubs and, most importantly, is realistic.

Fair enough.
But remember, like the Paul Simon song goes
one man's ceiling is another man's floor

Realism is based on the information available at the time, and limited perception of only doing within the confines of the status quo.

Creativity forces realism to consider its temporary boundaries, and inevitably with progress from fresh thinking, move them accordingly.

 

[Gecklund]

I am not so sure particularly what is given the immediate above post.

Mouser, you're an expert in this area.
Why would this be different from what was done with Vegas, which was allowed?

Thanks in advance.

It’s very different because SJ is trading and getting him immediately back. Also since the condition is on him resigning in SJ this would be circumvention from the first too. The NHL wouldn’t allow that. It’s VERY different from the Brassard trade.

 

[bernmeister]

It’s very different because SJ is trading and getting him immediately back. Also since the condition is on him resigning in SJ this would be circumvention from the first too. The NHL wouldn’t allow that. It’s VERY different from the Brassard trade.

I don't get you.
Season ends.

Ranger sign Kane, 4 yrs
Trade him to SJ at discount which retained salary must be applied over the entire term, which it is.

What are you talking about, SJ has to re-sign him?

 

[Juxtaposer]

It is 2 mil for each of 4 yrs, = 8 mil total, 2 mil per.
It is NOT 2m for 2 picks
also, there are 2 2018 2nds which have been ignored

Yeah, which is why I said “$2M off the cap”. And I’m ignoring two 2nd round picks because they are worth EXPONENTIALLY LESS than two 1st round picks.

Every single Sharks fan hates this. Even if it were legal and the league overlooked this clear cap circumvention, it wouldn’t happen because it’s terrible for the Sharks value-wise. Please stop insisting otherwise. The idea that a team would pay not one, but TWO 1st round picks to save $2M off the cap for a few years is absolutely ludicrous.

 

[DJN21]

Is this trade even possible given the criteria of the kane trade involving buffalo?

 

[Machinehead]

The Rangers sign Kane and then send him back to San Jose? Is that what I just read?

 

[mouser]

I am not so sure particularly what is given the immediate above post.

Mouser, you're an expert in this area.
Why would this be different from what was done with Vegas, which was allowed?

Thanks in advance.

Teams cannot acquire a player in a retained salary transaction who was on that team's roster/reserve list within the past year.

Brassard had not been on Pitt's roster within the prior year when they acquired him. Kane would have been on SJ's roster within the prior year in your hypothetical scenario.

 

[bernmeister]

Yeah, which is why I said “$2M off the cap”. And I’m ignoring two 2nd round picks because they are worth EXPONENTIALLY LESS than two 1st round picks.

Every single Sharks fan hates this. Even if it were legal and the league overlooked this clear cap circumvention, it wouldn’t happen because it’s terrible for the Sharks value-wise. Please stop insisting otherwise. The idea that a team would pay not one, but TWO 1st round picks to save $2M off the cap for a few years is absolutely ludicrous.

Til tom
interested in what you think is fair payment of picks for $ cap.

Flexibility is not worth anything until you need it, and don't have it.

Like I said in post 1, not interested in Ryan, Seabs, etc.

But there is a number of how much cap vs how much bribe to do it.
Not saying I agree with you in advance, but would be interested in what you think is a fair ratio.

Mull it over and let me know tom.

 

[Gecklund]

I don't get you.
Season ends.

Ranger sign Kane, 4 yrs
Trade him to SJ at discount which retained salary must be applied over the entire term, which it is.

What are you talking about, SJ has to re-sign him?

The trade that brought Kane here. If San Jose doesn’t sign him, no way he’s allowed back before the deadline.

 

[bernmeister]

Teams cannot acquire a player in a retained salary transaction who was on that team's roster/reserve list within the past year.

Brassard had not been on Pitt's roster within the prior year when they acquired him. Kane would have been on SJ's roster within the prior year in your hypothetical scenario.

Okay, unless somebody comes up with something that was overlooked, or some other loophole, then I would NOW agree that it is illegal. However, it was not for the overall premise. It was specifically for the reason you stated about being on the roster the prior year.

Theoretically, NY could do my deal if it first held Kane and used him, then traded him the following season. I have no interest in going THERE, but it's good to understand what these boundaries actually are.

Again, thanks for the expertise.

 

[Beezeral]

Shame Ekblad got so badly injured, he's not worth including in trades anymore...

Also, they said Stepan would get more if he was dealt at all, and I was right about the Rangers be lucky to get what they did for him when he was definitely dealt. So I'd dial the bold down just a tad.

82 games this season. Lmao.