Dunn’s next contract

Discussion in 'St. Louis Blues' started by Spektre, May 9, 2020.

  1. Blueston HFBoards Sponsor Sponsor

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2016
    Messages:
    5,177
    Likes Received:
    4,334
    Trophy Points:
    111
    SB Cash:
    $ 100,000
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    Pass for me. Bozak I'd think has about neutral value, maybe slight negative at that contract but not much since he could be dealt at TDL for a pick. Allen I would expect has positive value given how good he played last year and that teams would think he can at least bea good 1b.
     
  2. Mike Liut Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    13,907
    Likes Received:
    3,555
    Trophy Points:
    187
    SB Cash:
    $ 100,000


    I just don’t see it. If I was a GM, I’m not taking either without incentive.
     
  3. MissouriMook Still just a Mook among men Sponsor

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2014
    Messages:
    5,140
    Likes Received:
    3,409
    Trophy Points:
    126
    SB Cash:
    $ 100,000
    I don't know about anyone else, but I'm having a hard time dealing with the cognitive dissonance over the ideas that we won't get anything for Bozak or Allen because no one has cap space, and that we're going to lose Pietrangelo this offseason because a bunch of teams will clear cap space if they need to in order to sign him.

    Bozak and Allen absolutely both have positive value. Both could improve the roster of many, many teams in the league. Both are slightly overpaid for their appropriate role. We will not have to pay anything to get rid of either of them, let alone sacrifice Dunn to make a deal happen. While either may have returned a 2nd-3rd or a good prospect, we'll probably only be able to get a 3rd-4th or a decent prospect unless we take back money in an NHL contract or modest retention, but that's what happens when the cap goes flat. If Army moves Dunn, it will be because he believes that Perunovich is ready to step into the same role and he can get a premium for Dunn, not as a throw in to dump salary.
     
    The Note, JoshFromMO, Brockon and 6 others like this.
  4. Robb_K Registered User

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2007
    Messages:
    16,390
    Likes Received:
    5,111
    Trophy Points:
    186
    SB Cash:
    $ 100,000
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    cartoonist
    Location:
    NordHolandNethrlands
    Well said. THIS is exactly the situation.
     
    MissouriMook likes this.
  5. Mike Liut Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    13,907
    Likes Received:
    3,555
    Trophy Points:
    187
    SB Cash:
    $ 100,000


    I hope you’re right, but I don’t think so.
     
    bluesXwinXtheXcup likes this.
  6. Celtic Note Living the dream

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2006
    Messages:
    14,463
    Likes Received:
    2,558
    Trophy Points:
    202
    SB Cash:
    $ 100,000
    You can always trade away a player with longer term that you don’t want to keep. That’s one type of incentive.
     
  7. DoubleK81 Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2010
    Messages:
    1,122
    Likes Received:
    805
    Trophy Points:
    109
    SB Cash:
    $ 100,000
    Nobody has mentioned this that I saw, but the likelihood that there will be a no-penalty compliance buyout given to teams in the offseason is VERY high.
     
  8. Mike Liut Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    13,907
    Likes Received:
    3,555
    Trophy Points:
    187
    SB Cash:
    $ 100,000

    I’d like to keep everybody else. Not interested in moving somebody like Schwartz. I’d rather lock up Schwartz and Parayko than move them
     
  9. bleedblue1223 Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2011
    Messages:
    43,617
    Likes Received:
    6,277
    Trophy Points:
    157
    SB Cash:
    $ 100,000
    Last I saw, the owners were very against it. The Blues have also never bought anyone out, so I'm not completely sure our ownership would be up for essentially spending over the cap.
     
    BrokenFace and Stupendous Yappi like this.
  10. Stupendous Yappi Drop the puck! Sponsor

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2018
    Messages:
    4,936
    Likes Received:
    6,912
    Trophy Points:
    117
    SB Cash:
    $ 100,000
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Benito, Texas
    Statements from the owners seemed to absolutely nix that option, last I'd heard. Has there been something new?
     
  11. DoubleK81 Registered User

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2010
    Messages:
    1,122
    Likes Received:
    805
    Trophy Points:
    109
    SB Cash:
    $ 100,000
    I had not seen anything about the owners being against it, but I would bet that behind closed doors they are 100% for it.
     
  12. Stupendous Yappi Drop the puck! Sponsor

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2018
    Messages:
    4,936
    Likes Received:
    6,912
    Trophy Points:
    117
    SB Cash:
    $ 100,000
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Benito, Texas
    Why would the owners be for it? It would mean they are spending more money. The statements from owner representatives have been adamant that there is no appetite to do that.

    The purpose of compliance buyouts are to allow teams to adapt to a new or lower salary cap than before. Otherwise they’d be at a competitive disadvantage with contracts which were made prior to the cap. If the cap stays flat, it’s really not as big a deal as people are making it. Some teams budgeted for a bit higher, but that’s true every year. But there are no albatross contracts that date from a higher cap time or a pre-cap time. Every team can field a team with the same cap number as the year prior.

    It was only some media and fan speculation that there would be compliance buyouts. I don’t think there is any substance to the idea.
     
    Brian39 and Blueston like this.
  13. Brian39 Registered User Sponsor

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2014
    Messages:
    3,577
    Likes Received:
    3,658
    Trophy Points:
    126
    SB Cash:
    $ 100,000
    It was discussed on 31 Thoughts a while back as well as in some Athletic articles. Brian Burke has talked about it a ton on Hockey Central.

    The owners are 100% opposed to any compliance buyout where the money paid exists outside the 50/50 HRR split between the players and the owners, which is how compliance buyouts have always worked in the past. There is absolutely zero support from owners for increasing the total amount of money paid out to players over the next year. On the flip side of the equation, the players don't have much incentive to agree to compliance buyouts where the money does count against HRR.

    With a flat cap, there isn't much incentive for a compliance buyout. The only way they make sense is with a significant reduction from the existing salary cap, which both sides seem determined to prevent. Some form of compliance buyout makes sense if a reduced cap necessitates them. Otherwise, they don't make much sense. Every comment and piece of news put out there suggests that both the league and PA support an agreement centered around a flat cap with some type of escrow/give-back agreement instead of a reduction to the cap with compliance buyouts.
     
    Klank Loves You and Blueston like this.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice
monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"