Prospect Info: "All Things AHL" Part II...

[BlueDream]

Also there is a possibility a couple players the Blues signed to two-way contracts get claimed off waivers so nothing is guaranteed.

 

[ChicagoBlues]

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?

 

[542365]

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.

 

[ChicagoBlues]

Peluso is the last I can remember.

And I would have to think that Butler or Mueller, if exposed, would have a much higher chance of being claimed than Porter or someone like Cracknell. Blue Dream's point is well-taken, though, in light of the recent high-quality signings.

 

[BlueDream]

Yeah I think Chris Porter has shown that he's pretty safe. I could maybe see Peter Mueller being claimed. His concussion history is a bit scary but I mean I'd still think teams would love to take a chance on his skill for that cheap of a contract.

Butler and Prosser for sure could be as depth on the blueline is always welcome and they are NHL-caliber players.

 

[Majorityof1]

I believe that both Butler and Muller had interest from other teams before they signed with the Blues. I don't think there is any way either of them clear waivers. They are on cheap contracts and good enough to improve multiple teams in the league. In fact, we are probably one of the few teams in the league they wouldn't be a lock to make.

 

[simon IC]

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?

 

[542365]

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?

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.

 

[simon IC]

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.

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.

 

[2 Minute Minor]

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.

 

[542365]

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.

I haven't seen Butler enough to know if he's better than Leo. It seems the Flames fans weren't too fond of Butler in the same way many Blues fans thought of Leo. I believe there is a user that posts on HFCalgary named "IHateChrisButler"

I agree that if they are close, salary is the clear tie breaker and Leo should be moved if at all possible(and as IA pointed out elsewhere, we don't know all of the details in his NMC, so we don't really know how difficult that will be).

 

[STL fan in MN]

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.

 

[542365]

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.

Yep, you're right, I was thinking of a NMC. I wish Capgeek made the distinction more apparent(they use a lock to represent both NMC and NTC, and you can only distinguish between the two by holding the cursor on it.) Thank you for clarifying.

 

[thigpen]

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.

 

[2 Minute Minor]

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).

 

[thigpen]

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).

That's certainly a possibility but I wouldn't want to give up much to sweeten that deal. Very low end prospect or 5th round pick at most. If Army can swing that, more power to him; he'd have to be very motivated to dump Leopold's salary for that to happen. And I really can't imagine Leo accepting a trade to a non-contending team. I know teams like the Blackhawks do it all the time, so if something like that goes down I guess the Blues will have entered hitherto un-tread ground.

 

[BlueDream]

Well Leopold may very well accept a trade if the Blues tell him he won't be playing much.

Having Butler as our 7th guy makes more sense to me, so hopefully we can move Leo.

 

[bleedblue1223]

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.

 

[2 Minute Minor]

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.

I agree that Leopold is probably better, but I'm not certain that's still true. He's diminishing fast, but my guess is he's still the best option (ignoring salary) of the three.

It would be unwise for the team to be tight against the Cap. The team will want to have an extended roster for the playoffs. Those additional players will need to fit under the Cap. Also, they really don't need to be incurring overage penalties again (like the 700K this season) from player bonuses. Being tight against the cap ceiling also increases the likelihood that happens.

 

[BlueDream]

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.

 

[bleedblue1223]

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?

 

[2 Minute Minor]

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?

We should care because if the Blues are losing money every year, they are not a viable business, and most people aren't looking to own something like that. Public comments from this group, and their early actions (like selling the Rivermen) indicate they care about not losing money.

Despite that, there is a balance with wanting a winning team. Its been a pleasant surprise at how much they are opening the coffers. But I think using those resources wisely is always going to be the best course.

My impression is that they are willing to lose money now if it means a winning club, and they expect that to translate into more support (including financially from the STL business community and fans) as a result. But I don't see them going on indefinitely with a red bottom line.

 

[bleedblue1223]

As a business professional, the bottom line is definitely important, but if the owners weren't comfortable with their spending last season and the similar projected spending this season, then we wouldn't be spending what we are. We don't know the specifics and what we do know is they have cut as many costs as possible and brought in a new guy to create new revenue. Based off logical assumptions, they are at least closing the gap to breaking even, if they haven't already gotten there. In Checketts last year, it was reported that they were only a deep playoff run from being in the black, so they aren't too far off. Since then, they have cut some more costs, raised ticket prices, and this season and in the near future, they should see new revenue streams. Some will be corporate, and some will likely be from the new jerseys and a little bit more of a bump with Stastny jerseys. Combine that with the annual ticket increases that can progressively get bigger if the teams continues to be successful and the overall stability of the business side should be sustained.

It's not like we have an ownership group that is just going to all of a sudden throw in the towel and move or sell the team. The vision on the hockey side has been long-term with this group and with the hiring of Zimmerman, the business side now has a long-term view instead of the short-term cost-cutting methods, they are transitioning to more of a growth mentality.

If we had an ownership group that sole purpose was to be profitable like Checketts, then yes, the concern should be there. When Checketts bought the team, I'm sure his plan was to buy low, invest a little bit and get interest back to be able to flip the team for a decent profit and it didn't work out the way he ultimately wanted. With Stillman and his backing, he won't have the pressure because it is a group of loaded local individuals instead of an institution that needs to see a return to be satisfied. They can wait through these years until Zimmerman is able to do what he does and get the business side on par with the hockey side.

 

[EastonBlues22]

Approaching 1000 posts.

Part III is up.

Closed.