Proposal: (NYR/TOR/Utah) Marner Liljegren, Trouba Kakko

[Dr Johnny Fever]

Even if a team says "we're not going to take cap dumps for draft picks and prospects anymore", we're talking about a team with 40 million dollars in cap space taking on only 1 single year of a salary dump, having to pay less than 10% of that in actual dollars, and getting a 1st round draft pick for doing it. If there's every going to be a situation where you make an exception, this is as good as any. Almost any team in the league that had $40 million in cap space would consider taking on $5 million cap hit for one year while paying less than $400,000 in dollars in exchange for a 1st round pick. Lottery team, playoff team, contender, any of them. It's just really good asset management. The only reason this rarely ever happens is because teams never have 40 million dollars in cap space.

You make a valid point. However, I think the optics would create a bad look if the first move for a new owner is to make a move that looks exactly like what the old owner would have done. I think the best thing Utah can do is pass on a deal like this.

 

[Kaapo di tutti capi]

Why does NYR do this?

They don't - primarily because Trouba's wife can't practice medicine in Canada. Unless he's willing to make a round trip 3.5 - 4-hour commute from Lewiston NY to Toronto every day, I don't see this happening.

 

[seanlinden]

You make a valid point. However, I think the optics would create a bad look if the first move for a new owner is to make a move that looks exactly like what the old owner would have done. I think the best thing Utah can do is pass on a deal like this.

This.

Marner is prepared to go to Utah and negotiate an extension, I'd argue that there isn't a better potentially available player for them to pursue this summer; but from a simple optics standpoint, they should not be cap space brokers anymore. Another 2nd round pick does nothing for them.

 

[lanceuppercut75]

You make a valid point. However, I think the optics would create a bad look if the first move for a new owner is to make a move that looks exactly like what the old owner would have done. I think the best thing Utah can do is pass on a deal like this.

That's fair. I do want to be stubborn and just throw this out there though...

This deal would be July 1st due to Marner's signing bonus and Trouba's NMC. From a P.R. perspective, for Utah, the story wouldn't be "Utah takes cap dump", it would be more like "Utah makes a big splash on July 1st, signing Brett Pesce, Brenden Dillon, Sean Monahan, trading for Evan Rodrigues, and adding 1st round pick from Rangers". Something along those lines.

 

[Dr Johnny Fever]

That's fair. I do want to be stubborn and just throw this out there though...

This deal would be July 1st due to Marner's signing bonus and Trouba's NMC. From a P.R. perspective, for Utah, the story wouldn't be "Utah takes cap dump", it would be more like "Utah makes a big splash on July 1st, signing Brett Pesce, Brenden Dillon, Sean Monahan, trading for Evan Rodrigues, and adding 1st round pick from Rangers". Something along those lines.

I must have missed the bolded in your original post.

 

[lanceuppercut75]

I must have missed the bolded in your original post.

Lol.

I think most people assume that Utah is going to be adding at least 3 half decent players with cap hits. Myself included. Via UFA and trade (weaponize cap space by getting higher cap hit guys or guys teams can no longer afford for less value).They wanna put butts in seats and not be a bad team in their first season.

 

[Dr Johnny Fever]

Lol.

I think most people assume that Utah is going to be adding at least 3 half decent players with cap hits. Myself included. Via UFA and trade (weaponize cap space by getting higher cap hit guys or guys teams can no longer afford for less value).They wanna put butts in seats and not be a bad team in their first season.

Well, I'm sure they will look to improve the team more than the last owner. But it's never as easy as fans tend to think it is.

Realistically there's too many moving parts in your proposal to think it could work. But as a Ducks fan, I'd trade you Gibson even up for Marner on June 30, no retention on either side. You get a goalie upgrade and save $4.5M in cap immmediately. Ducks move an unhappy player and as far as I'm concerned can let Marner walk after next year unless he wants to move at the TDL (which he probably wouldn't). I'd have less interest in signing him than he would have in wanting to stay.

Don't know if either would waive but Gibson wants to play for a winner and Marner could spend the year hanging out at the beach planning where he wants to sign as a UFA. Win/Win for everybody.