Speculation: If Columbus Trades Hartnell's Remaining Cap

[Sawdalite]

The only rationalization needed for being okay with the Hartnell trade is the following:

We wouldn't have won the Cup with him, nor would we have ended up with the amazing prospects that we currently have, which may directly lead to us finally winning a Cup.

... Let me see if I have this straight... So we would not have had the "amazing prospects" we have if Hextall had gotten back a better player than the washed up damaged goods that he did for Hartnell?

... Hey... whatever gets you guys through the night, I suppose.

 

[deadhead]

I don't know about amazing prospects, but given our still tight cap room, if we kept Hartnell we'd have to let Raffl walk and not sign Weise.

Given that at even strength Hartnell and Raffl were pretty much a wash last year (who would Hartnell have replaced on the 1st PP, that's the marginal value of his PP points, the difference between the two). Raffl is far more "flexible" (can fill more roles) and is likely to be the better player the next three years, while Hartnell would have been more valuable in 2013-14, it would have weakened the team in the long-run.

So we'd have an aging one dimensional scorer who could fall off the cliff at any time (i.e. Umberger) on an expensive three year deal instead of two younger, faster and much better defensively forwards.

 

[Random Forest]

... Let me see if I have this straight... So we would not have had the "amazing prospects" we have if Hextall had gotten back a better player than the washed up damaged goods that he did for Hartnell?

... Hey... whatever gets you guys through the night, I suppose.

Everyone knows you shouldn't even consider making your team better until they're the odds on favorite to win the Cup. Why would we want to be good if we're NOT READY yet?

That kind of logic is so weak, but it's so pervasive around here. As if a hockey team is a food that you can't eat until it's fully cooked. Not being a Cup contender is a dirt poor rationale for not making your team better, and I'm not even referring to the Hartnell trade here. I see some variation of that simple-minded logic repeated all the time. It's the same specious reasoning that drove the Oilers into the ground. "Why should we improve our team before our 1st overall picks are ready?! If we only just wait for them to turn us into a Cup contenders before we start making improvements!"

 

[Sawdalite]

I don't know about amazing prospects, but given our still tight cap room, if we kept Hartnell we'd have to let Raffl walk and not sign Weise.

Given that at even strength Hartnell and Raffl were pretty much a wash last year (who would Hartnell have replaced on the 1st PP, that's the marginal value of his PP points, the difference between the two). Raffl is far more "flexible" (can fill more roles) and is likely to be the better player the next three years, while Hartnell would have been more valuable in 2013-14, it would have weakened the team in the long-run.

So we'd have an aging one dimensional scorer who could fall off the cliff at any time (i.e. Umberger) on an expensive three year deal instead of two younger, faster and much better defensively forwards.

Come on... it was not as if nobody saw Umberger spiral down... Columbus was about to Buy him Out before Hextall came in and took his Contract off their hands... surely we cannot compare Hartnell at this point to Umberger when he was traded here. Umberger just didn't fall off the cliff between his trade here and when he was benched.

We've been hearing of Hartnell's sudden demise and projected sudden worthlessness for what... three years now?... As a matter of fact, it was all but assured by the Trade supporters that Harnell would be worthless well before this date. We now have a still very useful winger with a shorter Contract... and a very good chance of his being useful for a while... and a BoughtOut player causing Dead Cap that was a shadow of himself before he re-donned the 'Flying P'.


I think the problem is that many here are equating Hartnell with Umberger... and vice-versa... just like Hextall did when he made the deal. Yes, there is now more Cap Space -- less the BO Dead Space -- but I still say that we could still have it with better player coming back in the deal... and maybe not having a BO Dead Space penalty... and maybe that player could have made a Raffl or obtaining a Weise unnecessary... The trouble is not really moving Harnell's Contract as much as it is what came back. People keep skirting around that point it seems.

 

[Striiker]

As far as this trade is concerned, I don't think it's that we didn't want to improve the team when we aren't contenders so much as it was that they knew that taking a short term hit wasn't the end of the world since they weren't contending.

Im certainly not against improving the team, contenders or not, but I think making the team worse short term can be acceptable at times when you're not contenders, so long as that trade is to help long term.

 

[LegionOfDoom91]

It's not revisionist history to say that Umberger was a dud even before he played a game with the Flyers. A lot of Columbus fans even said his numbers were smoke in mirrors given better usuage than he actually deserved (he scored 8 of his 18 goals on the PP). Then you factor in that he was reportedly on the chopping block as a potential buy-out prior to the trade.

 

[Random Forest]

As far as this trade is concerned, I don't think it's that we didn't want to improve the team when we aren't contenders so much as it was that they knew that taking a short term hit wasn't the end of the world since they weren't contending.

Im certainly not against improving the team, contenders or not, but I think making the team worse short term can be acceptable at times when you're not contenders, so long as that trade is to help long term.

Absolutely. But every time someone merely suggests the thought of improving the team, it's often met with a chorus of simple folks who say "BUT WE"RE NOT READY YET!!!" as if that in itself is sufficient justification for not actively improving your team if given the opportunity.

When someone says "We wouldn't have won the Cup with him or without him", my eye begins to twitch because it's such an egregiously weak reason for not improving your team. Whether the Hartnell trade was good or bad, I just loathe this mentality. There are far better reasons in defense of the Hartnell trade.

I think people have over compensated for the win-at-all costs mentality that was employed under Holmgren's tenure. Some people seem to think that if you improve your team in the short run (ie, before everyone is "ready", whatever the hell it even means), then you are inherently decreasing your odds in the long run, and that's not much better than Holmgren's method of mortgaging the entire future for the present.

 

[Striiker]

Absolutely. But every time someone merely suggests the thought of improving the team, it's often met with a chorus of simple folks who say "BUT WE"RE NOT READY YET!!!" as if that in itself is sufficient justification for not actively improving your team if given the opportunity.

When someone says "We wouldn't have won the Cup with him or without him", my eye begins to twitch because it's such an egregiously weak reason for not improving your team. Whether the Hartnell trade was good or bad, I just loathe this mentality. There are far better reasons in defense of the Hartnell trade.

I think people have over compensated for the win-at-all costs mentality that was employed under Holmgren's tenure. Some people seem to think that if you improve your team in the short run (ie, before everyone is "ready", whatever the hell it even means), then you are inherently decreasing your odds in the long run, and that's not much better than Holmgren's method of mortgaging the entire future for the present.

Yeah, I see what you're saying and I agree.

I often think that people take things that Hextall says and then exaggerate his words until they no longer make sense.

"Won't sacrifice the future to make short term improvements" turns into "Won't make any short term improvements"

"Won't have the prospects in the NHL until they're ready" turns into "Won't allow any prospects in the NHL until they've spent an exact amount of time in each lesser league"

And so on and so on.

 

[Sawdalite]

Yeah, I see what you're saying and I agree.

I often think that people take things that Hextall says and then exaggerate his words until they no longer make sense.

"Won't sacrifice the future to make short term improvements" turns into "Won't make any short term improvements"

"Won't have the prospects in the NHL until they're ready" turns into "Won't allow any prospects in the NHL until they've spent an exact amount of time in each lesser league"

And so on and so on.

Yes... One thing that Hextall always says that I just love is that 'They will tell me when they are ready'... meaning of course that they will demonstrate when they have reached the point where they can play in the NHL for the long haul... (greatly paraphrased) ... which does get skewed as you said, when in fact Hexy is doing the prudent thing and not setting up a fixed barrier.

 

[Tripod]

Hextall took short term pain, over long term flexibility.

Remember, Hextall joined the team in mid July. He then would have seen Hartnell be awful to start the season and into December. He SAW with his own eyes what bad Hartnell would be like for months on end.

Then add in that Berube would have been talking to him about Hartnell's bad issues including fitness and taking penalties. Hextall saw it too.

What is forgotten, is maybe Schenn does not break out and become the player he is today with Hartnell still here. And he is part of our long term core.

It was a bad deal if you only look at Hartnell and the return. But there were many more layers to this trade. Imagine today if we still had Hartnell, Vinny and Pronger on the books. We might not have Schenn, Gudas, etc... Who knows.

Hartnell TODAY is still worth very little because of expansion and his NMC. CBus WANTED to move him, and no one offered enough to get a deal done. But his value will go up as his years become less....unless of course he declines. Then he once again has little value.

 

[Random Forest]

Hextall took short term pain, over long term flexibility.

Remember, Hextall joined the team in mid July. He then would have seen Hartnell be awful to start the season and into December. He SAW with his own eyes what bad Hartnell would be like for months on end.

Then add in that Berube would have been talking to him about Hartnell's bad issues including fitness and taking penalties. Hextall saw it too.

What is forgotten, is maybe Schenn does not break out and become the player he is today with Hartnell still here. And he is part of our long term core.

It was a bad deal if you only look at Hartnell and the return. But there were many more layers to this trade. Imagine today if we still had Hartnell, Vinny and Pronger on the books. We might not have Schenn, Gudas, etc... Who knows.

Hartnell TODAY is still worth very little because of expansion and his NMC. CBus WANTED to move him, and no one offered enough to get a deal done. But his value will go up as his years become less....unless of course he declines. Then he once again has little value.

The argument has always been that Hartnell could have returned more than negative value at the time though. Nothing that has been argued since the trade has convinced me otherwise. He simply wasn't a negative value players then, and he still isn't one now. But we got negative value in return. And that's because Hextall didn't consider Umberger a negative value player.

Which is fine. He made a mistake on that valuation... it happens. Admit it and move on. I've never seen why the debate had to be so contentious.

 

[LegionOfDoom91]

The argument has always been that Hartnell could have returned more than negative value at the time though. Nothing that has been argued since the trade has convinced me otherwise. He simply wasn't a negative value players then, and he still isn't one now. But we got negative value in return. And that's because Hextall didn't consider Umberger a negative value player.

Which is fine. He made a mistake on that valuation... it happens. Admit it and move on. I've never seen why the debate had to be so contentious.

Yeah I've been against the trade from day 1 & that hasn't change to this point but I've never argued whether we should have traded Hartnell or not.

My argument has always been that we shouldn't have taken back a negative player in Umberger which he kind of was in Columbus his last year. It was kind of like Vinny's first year here in that the usage propped him up to look better than he actually was. Honestly the fact we found out that Umberger had a NMC this past year made me think even less of the move than I already did.

 

[Damaged Goods]

The only rationalization needed for being okay with the Hartnell trade is the following:

We wouldn't have won the Cup with him, nor would we have ended up with the amazing prospects that we currently have, which may directly lead to us finally winning a Cup.

You could say the same thing about the JVR trade, or losing Jagr while they struck out on Parise and Suter.

And they would have even better prospects if they unloaded Raffl, Del Zotto, Streit, Neuvirth, and more last year.

 

[Sawdalite]

Hextall took short term pain, over long term flexibility.

Remember, Hextall joined the team in mid July. He then would have seen Hartnell be awful to start the season and into December. He SAW with his own eyes what bad Hartnell would be like for months on end.

Then add in that Berube would have been talking to him about Hartnell's bad issues including fitness and taking penalties. Hextall saw it too.

What is forgotten, is maybe Schenn does not break out and become the player he is today with Hartnell still here. And he is part of our long term core.

It was a bad deal if you only look at Hartnell and the return. But there were many more layers to this trade. Imagine today if we still had Hartnell, Vinny and Pronger on the books. We might not have Schenn, Gudas, etc... Who knows.

Hartnell TODAY is still worth very little because of expansion and his NMC. CBus WANTED to move him, and no one offered enough to get a deal done. But his value will go up as his years become less....unless of course he declines. Then he once again has little value.

Why would Vinny and Pronger still be on the books when they were dealt in a different time-period under different and completely unrelated circumstances? No one ever argued or complained about what Hexy did to move those contracts... I don't see how Hextall getting a fair return on Hartnell impacts in any way the Flyers benefit from his great deals with Pronger and Vinny.

... We can argue what the Team would be like had Hextall not made any of his deals... He has made marvelous ones... subsequent to the one in the Poll.

 

[Tripod]

Why would Vinny and Pronger still be on the books when they were dealt in a different time-period under different and completely unrelated circumstances? No one ever argued or complained about what Hexy did to move those contracts... I don't see how Hextall getting a fair return on Hartnell impacts in any way the Flyers benefit from his great deals with Pronger and Vinny.

... We can argue what the Team would be like had Hextall not made any of his deals... He has made marvelous ones... subsequent to the one in the Poll.

My point was that at the time of dealing Hartnell, Hextall faced the possibility of NOT being able to move Vinny or Pronger. He moved Hartnell while he could IN CASE he could not later on if his play deteriorated. Hextall was certainly wrong on that happening and Umberger's ability to be a 3rd line player.

Hell....maybe Hextall just underestimated HIMSELF and his ability to get out from under awful contracts. He certainly has gotten better. His worst 2 moves were his 1st 2...Hartnell trade and Rinaldo re-signing.

 

[Sawdalite]

My point was that at the time of dealing Hartnell, Hextall faced the possibility of NOT being able to move Vinny or Pronger. He moved Hartnell while he could IN CASE he could not later on if his play deteriorated. Hextall was certainly wrong on that happening and Umberger's ability to be a 3rd line player.

Hell....maybe Hextall just underestimated HIMSELF and his ability to get out from under awful contracts. He certainly has gotten better. His worst 2 moves were his 1st 2...Hartnell trade and Rinaldo re-signing.

Agreed... That was his initial splash into GM Dealing... It is certainly great that he has moved onward and definitely upward with some clever and shifty moves that I personally wouldn't have though possible beforehand.

To Hextall's credit. Trading and FA signing in the Cap Era is very difficult in that not only do you have to find the right dance partners and ageeible players, but you then have to fit them in under the wee Cap Space... and the growing Contracts for existing Roster and new quality FAs. Hexy has done that well... after his initial overestimation of what Umby had remaining in his tank. TBH, I think he may have been out GM'd by a more seasoned GM... and a player who did not think that full disclosure was called for, or just convinced himself that he was in a better place than he actually was. Had Umberger been serviveble, the trade wouldn't look nearly as bad to me.

 

[deadhead]

I've never seen any evidence that anyone was willing to offer anything of value for Hartnell, and two years later, with only 3 years left on his contract, no one is offering Columbus anything of value. That contract killed his trade value.

Hartnell would have been a plus in 2014-15, more of a wash in 2015-16 with Simmonds and Schenn replacing him on the PP and Raffl a better all around ES player. The next three years, the odds are he'd be a liability as his scoring declined and his skating and defense got even worse.

Now had they kept Hartnell, maybe he gets them into the playoffs in 2014-15 and they keep Berube as HC! So even better reason to applaud the trade.

In other words, this trade wasn't a big deal, and a positive over the last two, and depending how he plays this year, possiblity the last three years of his contract.

Put it this way, for the next three seasons, would you want Hartnell or Raffl and Weise?

 

[Rebels57]

... Let me see if I have this straight... So we would not have had the "amazing prospects" we have if Hextall had gotten back a better player than the washed up damaged goods that he did for Hartnell?

... Hey... whatever gets you guys through the night, I suppose.

Yes..because had the return been better, it could have effected our position in the standings, thus potentially losing out on a guys like Sanheim and Provorov..

Yes..this helps me cope with the trade.

 

[deadhead]

but I still say that we could still have it with better player coming back in the deal... and maybe not having a BO Dead Space penalty... and maybe that player could have made a Raffl or obtaining a Weise unnecessary... The trouble is not really moving Harnell's Contract as much as it is what came back. People keep skirting around that point it seems.

Umberger was about absorbing some of Hextall's salary to get rid of him, no different than say eating a few million out of MacDonald's salary so they can trade him, had they eaten $6M of Hextall's salary and just got a 4th rd pick would you have been happier?

The fact is there has never been any rumor or other evidence that another team was willing to give up anything of value for Hartnell, not five years ago and not this offseason, because you're not just obtaining the player, you're obtaining his contract. To talk about Hartnell's value as if it existed independently of the risk of his contract is silly, the two are intertwined.

 

[Sawdalite]

Yes..because had the return been better, it could have effected our position in the standings, thus potentially losing out on a guys like Sanheim and Provorov..

Yes..this helps me cope with the trade.

I see... a Tank-lite kind of thing. In that sense I suppose so... But I also thing that in that case any deal during the Flyers non-Serious-Contender Period could be considered to be hindering Prospect gathering... Getting a lesser return on both Richards and Carter could have gotten us a bonanza had they been so bad that the Flyers would have fallen in the standings and netted higher picks.

... I'm not too keen on that manner of managing and developing a better roster... I'd rather gather best Players possible and best drafting of available prospects with the Draft Position earned... But that's just me.

 

[Rebels57]

I see... a Tank-lite kind of thing. In that sense I suppose so... But I also thing that in that case any deal during the Flyers non-Serious-Contender Period could be considered to be hindering Prospect gathering... Getting a lesser return on both Richards and Carter could have gotten us a bonanza had they been so bad that the Flyers would have fallen in the standings and netted higher picks.

... I'm not too keen on that manner of managing and developing a better roster... I'd rather gather best Players possible and best drafting of available prospects with the Draft Position earned... But that's just me.

Trust me I dont want to ever intentionally lose a trade or not get max value..

Its just a coping mechanism in hindsight lol

 

[Sawdalite]

Umberger was about absorbing some of Hextall's salary to get rid of him, no different than say eating a few million out of MacDonald's salary so they can trade him, had they eaten $6M of Hextall's salary and just got a 4th rd pick would you have been happier?

The fact is there has never been any rumor or other evidence that another team was willing to give up anything of value for Hartnell, not five years ago and not this offseason, because you're not just obtaining the player, you're obtaining his contract. To talk about Hartnell's value as if it existed independently of the risk of his contract is silly, the two are intertwined.

I'm not following you very well as stated in that bolded part... not enough to respond, anyway.


... Rumors are to be taken as such... and we must accept that we have little knowledge of the internal goings on between the GMs of the NHL -- especially with the Hextall tight lipped regime -- There has been varying degrees of thought on Columbus' desire and intention to trade or keep Hartnell... His contract becomes less of an issue as time progresses... and surely Hartnell with his remaining Contract is a better Player today than Umberger and his Contract was when we obtained him... I understand that a Player's Contract comes part and parcel with the Player's services, but no matter how I look at it I have to believe that Dead Weight and Dead Cap Space with a larger Contract on a washed up 'damaged' Player is not a plus in any manner... other than for Contract eating down the line... and that using an asset and moving it later when that Player is still better than that of a damaged Player, has to be better than obtaining the Damaged Goods only to have to eventually eat some of it down the line... This is not the best that Hextall could done, in my mind. I'm sorry if I stated that in too much of a convoluted manner. haha

FWIW... I'm not a proponent of Dead Cap whether it be in BuyOuts or Retaining Salary... especially in BuyOuts... but in this restrictive corner the NHL has painted itself into, Dead Cap Space is at time unavoidable. I just don't see this as being one of the cases.

 

[Sawdalite]

Trust me I dont want to ever intentionally lose a trade or not get max value..

Its just a coping mechanism in hindsight lol

Gotcha. haha

 

[deadhead]

It's not rocket science, taking on Umberger allowed Columbus to avoid buying him out with 3 years left on his contract, that's like taking on $6M of Hartnell's contract to trade him. From Hextall's point of view, if Umberger could give him two years as a 3rd line winger, that's was a bonus, his contract was the cost of making the deal.

The assumption that someone was willing to give good value for Hartnell (and that he'd waive his NTC) is simply unsubstantiated by any evidence, both five years ago and this summer. The reason is simple, two years ago with 5 years on his deal teams weren't willing to gamble he could give you enough on the ice to justify the risk, this summer, with 3 years left on his contract, teams aren't willing to take that risk once again.

If you're going to claim that Hextall could have gotten value for Hartnell, at least point to something that suggests that there was any team that was even willing to absorb his whole salary for nothing in return.

 

[Sawdalite]

It's not rocket science, taking on Umberger allowed Columbus to avoid buying him out with 3 years left on his contract, that's like taking on $6M of Hartnell's contract to trade him. From Hextall's point of view, if Umberger could give him two years as a 3rd line winger, that's was a bonus, his contract was the cost of making the deal.

The assumption that someone was willing to give good value for Hartnell (and that he'd waive his NTC) is simply unsubstantiated by any evidence, both five years ago and this summer. The reason is simple, two years ago with 5 years on his deal teams weren't willing to gamble he could give you enough on the ice to justify the risk, this summer, with 3 years left on his contract, teams aren't willing to take that risk once again.

If you're going to claim that Hextall could have gotten value for Hartnell, at least point to something that suggests that there was any team that was even willing to absorb his whole salary for nothing in return.

I can no more do that... not being privy to the the inside goings of the GMs behind closed doors... as you can... Your assumptions are just as unsubstantiated.

We do not know what Hexy could have gotten but chose not to... maybe because he fell in love what the old Umberger and thought he still was existing below the surface awaiting to resurface... We do now know that Hartnell would have waived the Clause rather than stay were not wanted... Did Hextall get the best deal available? Were there other Teams willing to give up undamaged goods?... My assumptions that there were and your assumptions that there were not are on equal footing as I see it.

There is much behind the scenes that we do not know... there are things that we do know: Umberger was BuyOut fodder in Columbus... Umberger was never physically in a good position in the first year back -- he stated such himself -- Umberger never fit well in Philly's two Systems and was often a scratch, never in their plans and only low depth... Hartnell has been a functional part of a under performing BJ Team... Umby has been BoughOut and is Dead Cap for thsi Season and Next, not even available for depth use... Hartnell has been arguably the best Columbus winger (per BJ Fan posting here) and has not fallen off he face of the Earth, still able to be utilized and still an asset as opposed to a negative value on his Team... There are options Columbus has; using him on Team, moving him without retention or with retention they deem worthy, trading him for some lesser asset, etc. ... The Flyers have zero options with Umberger and must py him his BO cash the next two years as well as lose Cap Space; there are no returns available coming in but his full Cap Hit is no longer on the books... Columbus has lost a damaged Player and his Cap but gained a useful Winger who has a Cap Hit for the next few Seasons but can trade him and is a positive asset as opposed to a negative such as the Flyers have.

... All that said... I would completely understood the Flyers moving an unwanted asset and receiving Cap Relief down the road in the process... had the return been more equitable. It is not the trade... it is the return and the possibility of a better return being lost.