Salary Cap: Salary Cap & Roster Building: The Calm Before the Storm?

[Peat]

I checked the CBA yesterday. These situations aren't allowed:

• Team A retains money on Player Z and sends to Team B. Team A cannot take back Player Z for at least another year or until their contract expires. See Hagelin.
• Team A sends Player Z to Team B. Team B then retains money on Player Z and sends them back to Team A.

The situation in my post you quoted is technically allowed, because there's a Team C.

Does it still count as a retained salary transaction though if salary's been retained somewhere else? The document isn't clear on that.

 

[molon labe]

Isn't this usually when player's rights get traded? The days leading up to July 1..?

Wonder why everything sort of halted here to begin the week.

 

[Randy Butternubs]

Does it still count as a retained salary transaction though if salary's been retained somewhere else? The document isn't clear on that.

Since no salary was retained in the first trade (Johnson+pick to Team B for a conditional pick), I think it would be allowed.

 

[themethod7]

I checked the CBA yesterday. These situations aren't allowed:

• Team A retains money on Player Z and sends to Team B. Team A cannot take back Player Z for at least another year or until their contract expires. See Hagelin.
• Team A sends Player Z to Team B. Team B then retains money on Player Z and sends them back to Team A.

The situation in my post you quoted is technically allowed, because there's a Team C.

It doesn't matter how many teams there are, it's still not allowed. I went back to find where someone quoted the relevant part of the CBA and it was you lol...

"(C) Under no circumstances may a Club:

...

(4) Reacquire as part of a Retained Salary Transaction the SPC
of a Player who was on that Club's Reserve List within the
past calendar year;"

I know the illustration they used had 2 teams, but the actual rule doesn't make that distinction, it just says "as part of a retained salary transaction". That phrase is actually where things might get a little hairy, I think if you amended your proposal with team C to remove the 22% retention, so Team B retained in their trade to Team C and then Team C traded him back to us straight up for 6th round pick, you could argue that's not part of a "retained salary transaction" since Team C isn't retaining anything. But then you get into the situation where the league says "technically it's allowed but it goes against the spirit of the rule" and you get slapped later on for acting in bad faith. Then you still have to find 2 teams willing to do it just to help us out and risk getting stuck with him if the league at any point in that sequence says JJ can't be traded back to us...

Still, I applaud your creative efforts in cirsumvrenting the CBA.

 

[Peat]

Since no salary was retained in the first trade (Johnson+pick to Team B for a conditional pick), I think it would be allowed.

Hmm. Suspect you're technically right.

Also suspect the rulebook would be rewritten if you did this mind. But not until after you did it!

 

[deakka]

Isn't this usually when player's rights get traded? The days leading up to July 1..?

Wonder why everything sort of halted here to begin the week.

I don't think the trading of rights are that common the week before since teams can talk to FAs now. Only reason I could see is if for example a team tell Panarin that "we are prepared to give you 8 years instead of 7" and then he accepts and that team trade for his rights. All.contracts below 8 years can he signed on the 1st anyway so no need to trade for rights

 

[Randy Butternubs]

It doesn't matter how many teams there are, it's still not allowed. I went back to find where someone quoted the relevant part of the CBA and it was you lol...

"(C) Under no circumstances may a Club:

...

(4) Reacquire as part of a Retained Salary Transaction the SPC
of a Player who was on that Club's Reserve List within the
past calendar year;"

I know the illustration they used had 2 teams, but the actual rule doesn't make that distinction, it just says "as part of a retained salary transaction". That phrase is actually where things might get a little hairy, I think if you amended your proposal with team C to remove the 22% retention, so Team B retained in their trade to Team C and then Team C traded him back to us straight up for 6th round pick, you could argue that's not part of a "retained salary transaction" since Team C isn't retaining anything. But then you get into the situation where the league says "technically it's allowed but it goes against the spirit of the rule" and you get slapped later on for acting in bad faith. Then you still have to find 2 teams willing to do it just to help us out and risk getting stuck with him if the league at any point in that sequence says JJ can't be traded back to us...

Still, I applaud your creative efforts in cirsumvrenting the CBA.

I read this yesterday and interpreted it differently then. Now I'm reading it the way you are. Damn legal jargon!


Edit: who is that CBA expert that we can @ at?

 

[WheresRamziAbid]

I don't think it makes sense to judge players on their points, but instead on how much the team can dominate the ice and score sheet with them on the ice in combination with various team mates. Hagelin made all of our stars better, bad hands or no. Pearson scored more points, but he didn't make players better. Maybe he would have if he'd had time to settle and rebuild his confidence - maybe not. But Hagelin was a hell of a lot more valuable than 28 points says.

And as an attempt to shake up the locker room's mentality, it backfired spectacularly.

At the time I thought it was probably a good trade, although a bit risky. With 20/20 hindsight, it was just bad. But at least it seems to have been the end of that straight run of disastrous trades he made *touches wood*.

I think they all matter in tandem, Hagelin is more impressive that his raw points but by that same measure so are Simon and ZAR and they can actually can score tangible points as well.

So if by that measure trading our 4th best LW for our next 4th line LW tarded for a Dman that played well works for me.

 

[OnMyOwn]

Just do whatever Washington did with orpik. I still think we can trade him and a pick for a 6th or 7th. I’m just guessing JR doesn’t want to do that.

He was still quoted yesterday saying he is still trying to change the team. So something will happen one way or another.

 

[molon labe]

I don't think the trading of rights are that common the week before since teams can talk to FAs now. Only reason I could see is if for example a team tell Panarin that "we are prepared to give you 8 years instead of 7" and then he accepts and that team trade for his rights. All.contracts below 8 years can he signed on the 1st anyway so no need to trade for rights

Right

- but I assume the likes of Panarin, Bob, and Duchene will all look for 8 year deals.

It also seems a little quiet lately for the numerous other FA's/movable assets.

 

[Peat]

I think they all matter in tandem, Hagelin is more impressive that his raw points but by that same measure so are Simon and ZAR and they can actually can score tangible points as well.

So if by that measure trading our 4th best LW for our next 4th line LW tarded for a Dman that played well works for me.

ZAR is nowhere near the same level in terms of making those around him better. Simon is but not as proven. And their personal scoring is better, but not drastically so.

 

[WheresRamziAbid]

It’s not all about points

Of course its Not ALL about points.

But 28 for a 2nd liner is unacceptable no matter how good they are away from the puck.

Simon is excellent at driving possession. He scored at a 32 point pace with a lot of bottom 6 time.

ZAR doesnt drive possession the same way but he made Malkin slightly better than the average and score 32 point pace with a lot of bottom 6 time.

 

[Mr Jiggyfly]

Rob Lowe is in his fifties now, not sure he fits where we are trying to go

Not to ruin anyone’s childhood memories, but I think you are looking for Randy Walker, Lowe could barely skate.

 

[WheresRamziAbid]

ZAR is nowhere near the same level in terms of making those around him better. Simon is but not as proven. And their personal scoring is better, but not drastically so.

ZAR isnt at the same level but he made Malkin better than he was without him. He also score more is a far less advantageous spot (32 point pace to Hagelins 15 point pace last year.)

Simon also score more (32 to 15 pace) and is crazy good driving possession up and down the lineup.

So why do we want the lowest producer (by half) that doesnt drive possession more than Simon.

The point im trying to make is why on Earth do we want Hagelin at 4 million on the second line, when the thought of Simon and ZAR there repulses us.

IMO Pearson was a shot worth taking, and also performed well enough on the 2nd line when healthy to be just as valuable as Hagelin was last year.

 

[JackFr]

I don't think the trading of rights are that common the week before since teams can talk to FAs now. Only reason I could see is if for example a team tell Panarin that "we are prepared to give you 8 years instead of 7" and then he accepts and that team trade for his rights. All.contracts below 8 years can he signed on the 1st anyway so no need to trade for rights

That's not how it works, to sign a player for 8 years they have to have been on your roster by the trade deadline.

 

[Randy Butternubs]

@themethod7

"Reacquire as part of a Retained Salary Transaction"

Yeah, I don't think Team C in my scenario would be allowed to retain on Johnson prior to sending him back to the Pens. However, Team B could perhaps eat 50% and then send him to Team C. But then, like you mentioned, I could see the league getting pissy about this and denying it.

 

[molon labe]

That's not how it works, to sign a player for 8 years they have to have been on your roster by the trade deadline.

I thought it was only before July 1

 

[Empoleon8771]

Beating a dead horse and all, but I still can't see where Rust fits on this team anymore, especially with the comments that JR has made about wanting to add at forward. You can legitimately argue they have 12 top-9 caliber players, yet it appears JR wants to even add more. Something has to give there, and outside of Rust (and Bjugstad), I really don't see anyone else who could be on the chopping block.

Rust is my 2nd choice for Crosby's RW (after Kahun) and about the 4th choice for Malkin's LW (after McCann, ZAR and maybe Simon) and the 3rd line LW (after McCann, Kahun and Simon). With Guenztel, Kessel and Hornqvist having their spots locked up, I just don't see it.

 

[Peat]

ZAR isnt at the same level but he made Malkin better than he was without him. He also score more is a far less advantageous spot (32 point pace to Hagelins 15 point pace last year.)

Simon also score more (32 to 15 pace) and is crazy good driving possession up and down the lineup.

So why do we want the lowest producer (by half) that doesnt drive possession more than Simon.

The point im trying to make is why on Earth do we want Hagelin at 4 million on the second line, when the thought of Simon and ZAR there repulses us.

IMO Pearson was a shot worth taking, and also performed well enough on the 2nd line when healthy to be just as valuable as Hagelin was last year.

You're not wrong that there's some incredible double standards out there when it comes to Hags, ZAR and Simon - but not me. Simon and Hagelin gives me twice as many guys that really drive the top 6 so I'd have liked both.

Ultimately I'd agree that it wasn't the worst ever gamble but will disagree on it paying off.

 

[Shady Machine]

I feel like this is an incredibly dumb way of evaluating trades.

It's far from perfect, but when you have an extremely active GM, you can't look at each trade in isolation. You have to consider what is the mid term implications of all of the trading. Certain trades were good value others bad value, but from the larger picture, you can see that JR's "plan", whatever that's been, hasn't really worked and he's given up a lot of futures for the team to be at best, flat, and likely worse than June 2017.

 

[deakka]

That's not how it works, to sign a player for 8 years they have to have been on your roster by the trade deadline.

Ah ok. Well, then I don't think anyone would trade for UFA rights the last week before FA since you can talk to that player anyway.

 

[Beauner]

Beating a dead horse and all, but I still can't see where Rust fits on this team anymore, especially with the comments that JR has made about wanting to add at forward. You can legitimately argue they have 12 top-9 caliber players, yet it appears JR wants to even add more. Something has to give there, and outside of Rust (and Bjugstad), I really don't see anyone else who could be on the chopping block.

Rust is arguably our 5th/6th best forward after Crosby, Malkin, Guentzel, Kessel and Hornqvist. He fits anywhere, and that's kind of the point of keeping him.

 

[Empoleon8771]

It's far from perfect, but when you have an extremely active GM, you can't look at each trade in isolation. You have to consider what is the mid term implications of all of the trading. Certain trades were good value others bad value, but from the larger picture, you can see that JR's "plan", whatever that's been, hasn't really worked and he's given up a lot of futures for the team to be at best, flat, and likely worse than June 2017.

The problem is that this is due for reasons outside of his control. If Brassard wouldn't have flopped here like he did, I don't think anyone would be making a list of that trade sequence.

 

[Empoleon8771]

Rust is arguably our 5th best forward after Crosby, Malkin, Guentzel, and Kessel. He fits anywhere, and that's kind of the point of keeping him.

"He fits anywhere"

Except for the fact that he doesn't have a spot here? For what positions (top line RW, 2nd line LW, ect) do you have Rust as your 1st choice?

 

[Beauner]

"He fits anywhere"

Except for the fact that he doesn't have a spot here? For what positions (top line RW, 2nd line LW, ect) do you have Rust as your 1st choice?

Lines are fluid throughout a season. Assuming no other roster changes are made, I'd start with

Guentzel-Crosby-McCann
Rust-Malkin-Kessel
Kahun-Bjugstad-Hornqvist
Simon-Blueger-ZAR

Then depending on injuries (which are bound to happen) and chemistry, you can throw Rust on the first line right wing, 3rd line left or right wing, or even do something like McCann-Malkin-Rust to get Malkin going. He's incredibly versatile and can play up and down the lineup. I don't see any reason to trade him unless you get a clear upgrade