Also there is a possibility a couple players the Blues signed to two-way contracts get claimed off waivers so nothing is guaranteed.
I see what you mean, but has a single Blues payer been claimed off waivers (while being assigned to AHL affiliate) in the last few seasons?
Peluso is the last I can remember.
Just out of curiosity, what are the waiver eligibility statuses of Leopold and Cole respectively? Of course, my original question begs two others...1) Is the window of being able to put Cole in the AHL safely, (i.e. without subjecting him to waivers), finished? 2) Could we send Leopold to the AHL and hope someone picks up him and his contract on the way down?
Thank you for the info, much appreciated! I'm surmising, based on what you have told me, Leo and Cole will be our #6 and 7 D, (switch them at will) and Butler will be sent to the AHL, and according to some, might be lost on waivers on the way down. Oh well. Still nice to have that depth.1. Cole would have to pass through waivers if he was assigned to the AHL. I don't see any reason why they'd do that though. Even if we're operating under the assumption that he's somehow the 7th Dman, he'd stay in St. Louis like he did last year.
2. Due to Leo's no trade clause, he has the ability to refuse an assignment to the AHL. Basically, he would have to consent to go to the AHL, which I doubt he would, but I guess anything's possible. I doubt the Blues would do that though because they're paying him 2.25M regardless and he's not SO bad that he can't be the team's 7th Dman. He's not nearly as bad as some people would lead you to believe. Certainly not worth the money he's making, but he's an NHL dman.
1. Cole would have to pass through waivers if he was assigned to the AHL. I don't see any reason why they'd do that though. Even if we're operating under the assumption that he's somehow the 7th Dman, he'd stay in St. Louis like he did last year.
2. Due to Leo's no trade clause, he has the ability to refuse an assignment to the AHL. Basically, he would have to consent to go to the AHL, which I doubt he would, but I guess anything's possible. I doubt the Blues would do that though because they're paying him 2.25M regardless and he's not SO bad that he can't be the team's 7th Dman. He's not nearly as bad as some people would lead you to believe. Certainly not worth the money he's making, but he's an NHL dman.
Do you think there is a chance Butler is genuinely ahead of Leopold on the depth chart, ignoring salary cap ramifications?
I could see a scenario where Leopold is still ahead but gets traded to open up some cap space.
1. Cole would have to pass through waivers if he was assigned to the AHL. I don't see any reason why they'd do that though. Even if we're operating under the assumption that he's somehow the 7th Dman, he'd stay in St. Louis like he did last year.
2. Due to Leo's no trade clause, he has the ability to refuse an assignment to the AHL. Basically, he would have to consent to go to the AHL, which I doubt he would, but I guess anything's possible. I doubt the Blues would do that though because they're paying him 2.25M regardless and he's not SO bad that he can't be the team's 7th Dman. He's not nearly as bad as some people would lead you to believe. Certainly not worth the money he's making, but he's an NHL dman.
MM, I think you may be thinking of a No Movement Clause. Players with a NMC can reject their movement anywhere (a trade, assignment to minors, etc). A NTC just means they have control over where they can be traded (and Leopold has a modified NTC, not a full one, so even though we don't know the full details of the "modifications", it probably means he can list 10-20 teams he can't be traded to so the blues very well may be able to trade him as long as its to a team not on his "no" list). Leopold doesn't have a NMC so the Blues could put him on waivers and assign him to the AHL if they wanted to. He would still be getting his $2.25M in the minors though. Maybe if the Blues are desperate to get rid of Leopold and can't get anyone to take him via trade, they will just put him on waivers and hope another team claims him.
MM, I think you may be thinking of a No Movement Clause. Players with a NMC can reject their movement anywhere (a trade, assignment to minors, etc). A NTC just means they have control over where they can be traded (and Leopold has a modified NTC, not a full one, so even though we don't know the full details of the "modifications", it probably means he can list 10-20 teams he can't be traded to so the blues very well may be able to trade him as long as its to a team not on his "no" list). Leopold doesn't have a NMC so the Blues could put him on waivers and assign him to the AHL if they wanted to. He would still be getting his $2.25M in the minors though. Maybe if the Blues are desperate to get rid of Leopold and can't get anyone to take him via trade, they will just put him on waivers and hope another team claims him.
Assuming there isn't much difference in the performance of the two, and Army's just needing to clear cap space, it'll pretty much depend on how desperate he is to clear space.
Sending Butler down clears his entire 650k. Sending Leopold down only clears 975k (the max that is cap-free, if I'm correct). That means 1.275M of Leo's contract would still count against cap. The difference between [Leo's cap hit if sent down 1.275M + Butler's hit of .650M] - [keeping Leo up 2.25M - send down or lose Butler to a waiver claim .650M] = .325M, or 325k. In other words, keeping Leo and cutting Butler saves 325k (literally 650k is saved, but the difference in moves is half that).
If that 325k is significant to Army, he'll keep Leopold if he can't trade him. I'm not sure if Leo's entire cap hit disappears if he's claimed on waivers, but that would obviously save more space if it is. Just hard to imagine a team taking his cap hit when there are cheaper options out there.
Butler may have taken less than he could have gotten elsewhere to get a shot at playing in St. Louis. If he gets claimed by another team, he'll make significantly less for some team like Calgary (or the likes) than he did his last three seasons. Of course, he'll make even less than that if he's assigned to Chicago. These are always hard calls for NHL bubble players with limited options, but he may have screwed himself by signing with the Blues.
Even though the Blues are now in the realm of a cap team (this season) I still think the actual salary costs are part of the equation. Burying a large chunk of Leopold's salary in the AHL would still hurt the team budget. I think they'd sweeten him up and trade him to someone that can afford him (by adding a pick/prospect in exchange for something less).
We aren't going to be trading Leopold. He's still much better than Butler or Prosser and we know our management emphasizes transition, which in the right role, Leopold still provides. We have plenty of money for Schwartz, 3.4 million and any additional cap space is just wasted money. You don't need room for injuries and call ups because the cap for the most part only takes into account the active roster. Any deadline acquisition would obviously have salary going the other way at the time of the deal or in a separate deal at the same time.
Since when are we the Rangers? We're the Blues, we're not usually a cap team, so I don't see how not spending to the cap = "wasted money". That's not really how this franchise operates.
Frankly, leaving zero breathing room for anything is never very smart IMO. The chances of the outgoing salaries matching up exactly to the incoming salaries at the deadline is fairly slim.
Well our owners are comfortable spending, so why should we care about saving them a few bucks. It would be different if we had long term contracts that we don't need.
Deals at the deadline ate always easy to fit in, almost every contending cap team ends up adding someone with decent salary with no real issues. With prorated cap hits, salary retention, and the players going out.
Only actual concern would be bonuses, but with Schwartz coming off his ELC, it should only be Tarasenko getting bonuses, correct?