Speculation: Should the Knights buy out Fleury?

[Headshot77]

Now that Lehner is signed to 5 years, 5 million, they have 12 million in committed cap hit to goaltending, 7 million of which is to their backup goaltender. It's been reported that they do not want to retain salary in a trade, and it's arguable that even MAF @ 50% retention (3.5 million dollar cap x 2 years, salary of 3.25 and then 3.0) is still a negative value asset. Instead of paying 6.25 million dollars and possibly having to take back another contract, LV can spend 8.333 million instead. That might make financial sense for them if nobody wants MAF @ 50%.

His buyout would be 2.083 for 4 years, and the cap hit would be 2.583, 3.083, 2.583, and 2.583 respectively. So, Lehner's 5 mil and Fleury's buyout is anywhere from .083 to 1.083 more against the cap than Fleury by himself as it stands.

Click to read more...

 

[GoldiFox]

A buyout followed by Fleury picking whatever team he wants to play for would be the easiest option for the player and team. Trying to construct a deal may be possible but Vegas would have to take back 1-2 bad contracts and potentially give up assets on top of that if they aren't retaining.

In a straight trade with the Canes I'd want:
Fleury + #29 for Reimer + (Niederreiter or Gardiner) + #52

 

[Nuckler]

I'd try and get him to vancouver %50 retained for a pick. What would it take? Would be an idea backup to demko and would probably get more starts than a traditional backup here

Maybe something like fluery %50 retained for roussel or sutter. Cap is almost even 2 years on roussels contract or 1 at a higher hit on sutters

 

[Pia8988]

A buyout followed by Fleury picking whatever team he wants to play for would be the easiest option for the player and team. Trying to construct a deal may be possible but Vegas would have to take back 1-2 bad contracts and potentially give up assets on top of that if they aren't retaining.

In a straight trade with the Canes I'd want:
Fleury + #29 for Reimer + (Niederreiter or Gardiner) + #52

so they add, take back more money and a worse goalie and cap dump

 

[Headshot77]

A buyout followed by Fleury picking whatever team he wants to play for would be the easiest option for the player and team. Trying to construct a deal may be possible but Vegas would have to take back 1-2 bad contracts and potentially give up assets on top of that if they aren't retaining.

In a straight trade with the Canes I'd want:
Fleury + #29 for Reimer + (Niederreiter or Gardiner) + #52

This kind of trade is exactly why Vegas should probably buy him out instead. Taking back a bunch of crap at the expense of devaluing their 1st round pick to a low 2nd would be less attractive than just buying him out, most likely.

 

[SotasicA]

I'd consider taking that contract to Chicago (50% retained), if the sweetener is good.

There is potential for a win-win trade here.

 

[GoldiFox]

This kind of trade is exactly why Vegas should probably buy him out instead. Taking back a bunch of crap at the expense of devaluing their 1st round pick to a low 2nd would be less attractive than just buying him out, most likely.

Which is exactly what I said. And then demonstrated why that was true with the type of trade it would take to get rid of Fleury. A buyout would be the easiest option for both the player and the team. No team in the league is taking $7 million goalie who is $2-3 million overpaid without sending back Cap dumps and making Vegas pay for it.

At $3 million retained Vegas could stave off losing any assets and just take back a Cap dump.

 

[Headshot77]

Delete

 

[Headshot77]

Which is exactly what I said. And then demonstrated why that was true with the type of trade it would take to get rid of Fleury. A buyout would be the easiest option for both the player and the team. No team in the league is taking $7 million goalie who is $2-3 million overpaid without sending back Cap dumps and making Vegas pay for it.

At $3 million retained Vegas could stave off losing any assets and just take back a Cap dump.

Said cap dump would have to be smaller than 2.083 million dollars to be more beneficial to Vegas than a buyout.

 

[Mickey Marner]

You have to replace him, so you need to assume at least 3.283, 3.833, 2.833, 2.858 if his replacement is at league minimum each year. Probably better off biting the bullet and retaining 50% for two seasons.

 

[CupInSIX]

No. They need that cap space to make a bid for Pietrangelo. 1st buyout period ends before UFA day.

/thread

 

[GoldiFox]

so they add, take back more money and a worse goalie and cap dump

Reimer is the better backup goalie than Fleury. Reimer was 14-6-2 last year with a better GAA and SV% than Fleury. Reimer + Gardiner = $7.4 million and MA Fleury = $7 million so the Canes could retain to make the Cap the same. The difference is Vegas turns one backup into a backup plus a decent #4 or #5 LD.

Not that it matters as the point of the trade was to show why a buyout makes more sense. Most teams will say as other poster have above "Retain 50% and add a good sweetener and there could be a fit". No way Vegas gets out of Fleury's deal clean without either 1) heavy retention, 2) adding good assets to sweeten the deal, or 3) taking on unwanted contract. Most likely it would be a combination of those.

 

[The Duck Knight]

I think the Knights would be willing to A. Give up a 1st if a team takes the full hit. B. Retain 2m and give up a 3rd/4th or C. Buy out.

Taking any cap back is simply counterproductive with the goal of clearing cap for Petro.

A team like Detroit or Ottawa could take Fleury with no retention plus a 1st and then flip him with 50% retention for another 2nd I think.

 

[Headshot77]

You have to replace him, so you need to assume at least 3.283, 3.833, 2.833, 2.858 if his replacement is at league minimum each year. Probably better off biting the bullet and retaining 50% for two seasons.

But they would also need a replacement if they traded him @ 50%

 

[Djp]

No. They need that cap space to make a bid for Pietrangelo. 1st buyout period ends before UFA day.

/thread

The second buyout is only if a team has 2 arbitration cases.

 

[The Duck Knight]

The second buyout is only if a team has 2 arbitration cases.

Cousins and Stephenson are both arbitration eligible.

 

[DudeWhereIsMakar]

I wonder if they might be able to send him back to Pittsburgh.

Other than that I am aware he has a NTMC, I think they could trade him to Edmonton for James Neal. Don't know where else he could be moved to.

 

[Big Daddy Cane]

Gardiner straight up is fair, if Vegas is looking at the buyout option. Asking for a sweetener is greedy. Yes, his cap hit is lower. However, his contract runs a year longer.

Carolina reallocates cap from the defenseman that it wants to trade to goalie. Assuming they're able to get out of one of Reimer/Mrazek clean elsewhere, a 3rd pairing replacement for Gardiner should add minimal cap to the books.

Vegas gets a friendlier buyout.

 

[CupInSIX]

The second buyout is only if a team has 2 arbitration cases.

Well Vegas has 2 RFAs with arbitration rights but I doubt it would come to that.

 

[Forge]

With that buyout structure, I just don't see any way in hell that VGK is retaining 50% and giving up a sweetener to dump him. If you acquire him at 50% retained, you're not getting something extra for taking it on. Best case scenario is you're giving up a 7th or getting him for "future considerations"

 

[Djp]

Which is exactly what I said. And then demonstrated why that was true with the type of trade it would take to get rid of Fleury. A buyout would be the easiest option for both the player and the team. No team in the league is taking $7 million goalie who is $2-3 million overpaid without sending back Cap dumps and making Vegas pay for it.

At $3 million retained Vegas could stave off losing any assets and just take back a Cap dump.

Ottawa and Detroit are the only team that can take him whole without retention. Anyone else needs him at $5M or less.

If you retain it’s only 2 yrs of dead space vs 4.

 

[jaric1862]

If you're tight to the cap and a contender (like Vegas), it's better to spend an asset to get something completely off your cap than it is to have dead money on your cap.

 

[CupInSIX]

Gardiner straight up is fair, if Vegas is looking at the buyout option. Asking for a sweetener is greedy. Yes, his cap hit is lower. However, his contract runs a year longer.

Carolina reallocates cap from the defenseman that it wants to trade to goalie. Assuming they're able to get out of one of Reimer/Mrazek clean elsewhere, a 3rd pairing replacement for Gardiner should add minimal cap to the books.

Vegas gets a friendlier buyout.

If they took back Gardiner 1 for 1 they wouldn't buy him out, they would flip him with a sweetener at a later date IMO.

A warm body with less AAV to flip is still better cap management than dead unmovable cap any way you look at it.

 

[Mickey Marner]

But they would also need a replacement if they traded him @ 50%

Yes, so relative cap saving would be +0.917, +0.417, -2.083, -2.083. -2.832 overall.

 

[GoldiFox]

Gardiner straight up is fair, if Vegas is looking at the buyout option. Asking for a sweetener is greedy. Yes, his cap hit is lower. However, his contract runs a year longer.

Carolina reallocates cap from the defenseman that it wants to trade to goalie. Assuming they're able to get out of one of Reimer/Mrazek clean elsewhere, a 3rd pairing replacement for Gardiner should add minimal cap to the books.

Vegas gets a friendlier buyout.

If Vegas is looking at buyout options and the Canes want to get rid of Gardiner they would be much better off buying out Gardiner and then signing MA Fleury as a Free Agent.

Gardiner buyout = $1.4 million per year
Fleury FA deal = $3-4 million

The Canes would end up with ~$4.5-5.5 million in Cap allocated to Fleury with the buyout than the $7 million he is making now. I don't see the Canes taking on that huge of a Cap hit without sweeteners or retention.