You do realize that the point has already been made that we do not have access to what GM are specifically offering, right?
Anyway, here is how my logic goes. There have been about a dozen or so trades this season, which is not a huge number. The reason why is actually not really disputed. When GMs are asked (as repeated by reporters), the most common thing they identify is that it is extremely difficult to make trades when everyone is nosing up to their budget and all you get is dollar in-dollar out deals. Are we still on the same page at this point?
Here is the thing. Our team actually has tons of budget room, which means the reason we were stuck with dollar in-dollar out trade scenarios is that our internal budget (not the cap) stops us from taking on any extra payroll.
Here is another thing. Teams that are stuck against the cap ceiling would be looking to free up some extra cap space that could provide flexibility in making other deals that address specific team needs.
Now here is a third thing. Teams who were out of contention early (like Florida) were looking to dump some salaries as far back as two months ago. They would want young players on cheap contracts in return, which is exactly what we are offering right now.
So as the team was moving along, and clearly needed an extra winger (and an extra D first, before Ceci came along), our team could not swing anything but a dollar in-dollar out trade due to our internal cap. We could not take advantage of a series of factors that should have made it easier than normal to pick up an impact player.
The only counterargument that makes sense is that it does not help the team in the long run to pick up overpriced contracts. Melnyk makes this argument all of the time, and there is merit to it. However, it is a stretch to say that every player available was overpriced. It is probably more accurate to say that players available did not fit into our salary structure, which then makes it an internal cap issue once again.
Uh, no. That's actually not true at all. That's just pure speculation on the part of a fanbase that seems to equate spending with winning as if the two are directly positively related. More spending = more winning.
Well that's actually not the case.
Trades have nothing to do with budgets. Trades have everything to do with managing assets. No one in the league is giving away players for free. Everyone is trying to win the trade they're making. Since the inception of the cap, how many trades have been made specifically for the purpose of alleviating cap constraint? You think teams are stupid. They have a million and one tricks about how they can maneuver their cap space.
The vast majority of trades teams want to make are getting rid of players that are any combination of aging, overpaid, underperforming or expiring. You rarely see trades like the Ryan and Seguin trades. Has absolutely nothing to do with budgets and everything to do with paying the cost of assets necessary to make the trade happen.
This isn't rocket science. Teams want to take advantage. Especially when the team calling hasn't been performing to expectations then sense weakness and try to take advantage.
Look at the Del Zotto thing. We heard the Sens connected to him and what was the asking price? Supposedly Methot. That has nothing to do with budget and everything to do with the fact that Methot is the kind of player we need on the team.
Some deals just don't make sense to make. The value being asked for the player doesn't make sense. Why hasn't Buffalo made any trades yet? They have tons of cap space. Why are Colorado not using up their cap space to improve their lineup even more? Again, absolutely nothing to do with budgets and everything to do with executing trades that deliver value.
This fanbase can jump up and down as much as they want yelling about budgets and internal caps and all that ****. But no one has proven yet that it exists. We definitely aren't a cap team at this time. But we have very very very good players signed to ridiculously good contracts. Just the trio of Karlsson, Turris and MacArthur could collectively be making $6+ million more than they currently are. This team is spending money the right way. They've proven that they are willing to pay to keep exceptional talent and their evaluation metrics are precise. We also have kept a ton of financial flexibility and spend a ton of money on player development and coaching staffs and personnel.
Murray continues to actively attempt to make trades. He tried to get Rick Nash. He inquired about Del Zotto. He thought he had made a deal this week (which some bloggers believe was for Parenteau or Tanguay) until the team backed out last minute. The man is trying. The money is there to spend on the right players. Not to just go and blow our brains out on every single free agent every year just as a way of showing our fanbase that we have money and can spend like other teams. Well we tried that approach before and it didn't work.
Holy ****. What a ****ing epiphany. I wish I'd understood that it was as simple as "having two more MacArthurs"...which begs the simple question of WHERE THE **** ARE YOU GETTING TWO MORE MACARTHURS FROM?????
