Rumor: Clarkson, 1st going to Vegas?

[Samkow]

Click to read more...

 

[Hello Johnny]

ouch

 

[Viqsi]

Please don't let this be true as is. I was just starting to gain respect for Kekalainen.

 

[Samkow]

I think the plus matters a lot here. If it's not much and there's a condition that gets Vegas to take some minor leaguer instead of Karlsson/Johnson, I can live with that.

 

[JacketsFanWest]

I can't see this happening. It's giving up far too much to get rid of Clarkson's contract and hurting the team in the process.

Vegas is using the Expansion Draft essentially as a large auction. Other teams need to offer up trades to get Vegas to select a player. Vegas gets 30 picks. They already have signed free agents. They need players to fill their prospect pool who can be sent to the AHL.

So, I could see some sort of deal where the CBJ trade to get an exposed player off another team's roster and Clarkson, a prospect and 1st are involved. And maybe that also includes an agreement to take player X rather than player Y.

But giving up all of that and losing a player in the expansion draft just to be rid of a contract?

 

[Jackets16]

What would you trade to get them to take Clarkson's contract?

What would you trade to get them to pick the player you want them to pick in the expansion draft?

 

[Crede777]

What would you trade to get them to take Clarkson's contract?

What would you trade to get them to pick the player you want them to pick in the expansion draft?

I would keep Clarkson and do some paper moves at the end of the offseason again to remain cap compliant.

 

[Jackets16]

Not what I asked.

 

[Crede777]

Not what I asked.

Ok then, nothing. I would give up nothing.

 

[Jackets16]

Ok then, nothing. I would give up nothing. If they want Clarkson, they can have him for free.

So, you think our team is better losing Anderson than it is losing Milano or a late first round pick?

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

I think the plus matters a lot here. If it's not much and there's a condition that gets Vegas to take some minor leaguer instead of Karlsson/Johnson, I can live with that.

Pretty much this. This, is true, is a big, messy trade with lots of moving parts and implications.

* Clarkson (cash saved for CBJ and cap compliance maybe for LV?)
* expansion and the fact that the CBJ have a bunch of potentially eligible players we'd like to keep
* potentially not having to go to Hartnell about waiving, which I know we think is not a big deal but maybe it is
* the current prospect pool and whether, for one year, a draft that doesn't begin until round 3, doesn't impact it too terribly much
*possibly ensuring JJ doesn't go in expansion, impacting a poential Murray trade

I'm not sure this rumor is the approach I would take/prefer, and for sure some of the moving parts are impacted by decisions/actions taken by the FO that can be called into question (hell, NMCs for Dubi and Foligno are at work in all of this), but I'm willing to let the process play itself out and see how the team looks coming out the other side versus how it might have come out the other side.

 

[Crede777]

So, you think our team is better losing Anderson than it is losing Milano or a late first round pick?

Ever since the expansion draft format was announced, I was resigned to the fact that we'd lose a pretty good player whether it be Johnson, Korpisalo, Anderson, or Karlsson.

Need to take the hit and just move on. Build through the draft. Maybe swing a trade including Murray for forward help.

 

[Samkow]

I can't see this happening. It's giving up far too much to get rid of Clarkson's contract and hurting the team in the process.

Vegas is using the Expansion Draft essentially as a large auction. Other teams need to offer up trades to get Vegas to select a player. Vegas gets 30 picks. They already have signed free agents. They need players to fill their prospect pool who can be sent to the AHL.

So, I could see some sort of deal where the CBJ trade to get an exposed player off another team's roster and Clarkson, a prospect and 1st are involved. And maybe that also includes an agreement to take player X rather than player Y.

But giving up all of that and losing a player in the expansion draft just to be rid of a contract?

I was thinking that too but given that the protected lists haven't even been submitted yet, it seems unlikely that they could have worked all this out yet.

 

[Jackets16]

Ever since the expansion draft format was announced, I was resigned to the fact that we'd lose a pretty good player whether it be Johnson, Korpisalo, Anderson, or Karlsson.

Need to take the hit and just move on. Build through the draft. Maybe swing a trade including Murray for forward help.

Agree to disagree. We are a better team now, and in the future, keeping Anderson, Johnson, etc.... than we are keeping Milano or a late first round pick.

 

[JacketsFanWest]

So, you think our team is better losing Anderson than it is losing Milano or a late first round pick?

Can Clarkson even be selected in the expansion draft?

I'm seeing conflicting information. This article says players on LTIR can't be selected. Others have posted that players on LTIR can't be used by teams to meet the qualifications for having eligible players exposed.

If Clarkson cannot be selected, then we could lose Anderson, a prospect and a 1st to Vegas all to get rid of Clarkson's contract.

 

[Jackets16]

Can Clarkson even be selected in the expansion draft?

I'm seeing conflicting information. This article says players on LTIR can't be selected. Others have posted that players on LTIR can't be used by teams to meet the qualifications for having eligible players exposed.

If Clarkson cannot be selected, then we could lose Anderson, a prospect and a 1st to Vegas all to get rid of Clarkson's contract.

Part of the trade would be working out who they would select. I.E. They wouldn't select Anderson, Johnson, etc....

 

[EspenK]

As a confirmed draftnik, I say give up the 24th pick if it means getting rid of Clarkson and a relatively minor player. This is a weak draft and the odds of #24 being a stud are minimal. It also assures that both JJ and Murray will be around as trade bait if the Jackets so desire.

 

[The Jones Zone]

If Clarkson's salary is not counting against the cap on LTIR, and insurance is paying 80% of his salary.....why do we need to get rid of him?



20% of his salary is peanuts to Worthington Industry

 

[EspenK]

If Clarkson's salary is not counting against his cap on LTIR, and insurance is paying 80% of his salary.....why do we need to get rid of him?

'

20% is still spendable plus it eliminates those paper games at season beginning to get cap compliant. Plus getting rid of him may not be the primary focus here. LV may want the cap hit and we get to protect who we don't want to lose.

 

[Viqsi]

Pretty much this. This, is true, is a big, messy trade with lots of moving parts and implications.

* Clarkson (cash saved for CBJ and cap compliance maybe for LV?)
* expansion and the fact that the CBJ have a bunch of potentially eligible players we'd like to keep
* potentially not having to go to Hartnell about waiving, which I know we think is not a big deal but maybe it is
* the current prospect pool and whether, for one year, a draft that doesn't begin until round 3, doesn't impact it too terribly much

I'm not sure this rumor is the approach I would take/prefer, and for sure some of the moving parts are impacted by decisions/actions taken by the FO that can be called into question (hell, NMCs for Dubi and Foligno are at work in all of this), but I'm willing to let the process play itself out and see how the team looks coming out the other side versus how it might have come out the other side.

That requires more calm than I presently have, but given last night's events this should hardly be shocking.

Should I just hand over my Positivity Police badge to you for the next week or so?

* * *​

'

20% is still spendable plus it eliminates those paper games at season beginning to get cap compliant. Plus getting rid of him may not be the primary focus here. LV may want the cap hit and we get to protect who we don't want to lose.

I'm basically in the position of "that had damn well better be the real objective" at this point.

 

[blahblah]

To get rid of Clarkson's contract, a price would need to be paid. I'm assuming that wouldn't be one of our top prospects, so this is a no-brainer really. We would finally put that disaster behind us.

 

[theD86]

Whispers Hartnell could go to Vegas in a trade. That would mean he either has or agreed to wave his NMC.

That would be huge for your team

 

[CBJx614]

Whispers Hartnell could go to Vegas in a trade. That would mean he either has or agreed to wave his NMC.

That would be huge for your team

Hartnell has said he wants to retire here, something tells me the FO is gonna make that happen.

It's worth the price to get rid of Clarkson and to have the choice of who gets selected. Get it done Jarmo

 

[CBJSlash]

Eh if we don't like the draft.

Do we value Karlsson or JJ more than the 24th overall? Probably so.

Having already given up our 2nd though, I'm surprised by this.

If I'm Hartnell, I wouldn't be opposed to getting ice time and traded to a contender at the deadline. He won't get ice time here.

 

[Viqsi]

Eh if we don't like the draft.

Do we value Karlsson or JJ more than the 24th overall? Probably so.

Having already given up our 2nd though, I'm surprised by this.

If I'm Hartnell, I wouldn't be opposed to getting ice time and traded to a contender at the deadline. He won't get ice time here.

Consider this possibility: Clarkson + 1st + Milano for Vegas 2nd and agreement to select Harrington in the Expansion Draft. Very similar to the deal you were suggesting in another thread.