Salary Cap: The Salary Cap Thread | Something Happened!

[Empoleon8771]

Until the other day, Vegas had Shipachev, Tuch, and Theodore in the minors because GMGM didn't want to lose any of the plethora of young defenseman he hoarded on waivers. Theodore is still there because he isn't waiver-eligible yet. GMGM is not going to do us a favor and put himself further in a bind by taking back one of our waiver-eligible bottom-six forwards in a deal.

Taking back Wilson in a Haula trade has absolutely no impact on McPhee's other roster issues. I don't see how those are related. In that trade, they'd just be replacing Haula with Wilson. They're still going to have their issues with too many waiver eligible D. How does that put him further behind the bind? At worst, he's in no different of a position before the trade than after the trade in terms of players on the roster. At best, it has no impact, because they have too many defenseman and that's a separate issue.

 

[Peat]

I doubt it. The cap issues/concerns do not start next season (18/19), but the following one (19/20) when Guentzel needs his raise. Or the season after that (20/21) when you have to deal with Murray and Sheary and Schultz). I could see at that time, the debate being between those two... but the smart move (value wise) will always be to move Hornqvist given how strict Kessels NTC is (assuming that Hornqvist doesn't get an equally restrictive one on his next deal).

The ideal move for Pittsburgh regarding Hornqvist would be to extend him like how Kunitz got his deals from Shero (2 yrs, then 3 years). If there was any way we could get him for 3 years, you jump all over that and deal with it down the road. Moving him at 33 with 1 yr left is a minor issue. Moving him at 33 with 2-3 years left (or more) is significantly harder. Especially if he's making 5.5m and his production takes a dip.

I find it pretty plausible, but only because the management seem relatively close to signing off on a Kessel trade anyway. Maybe I'm putting too much stock in the rumours there. I'm not sure they're right to either, frustrating as Kessel's regular season blips are.

You're right that the cap crunch doesn't come this year though. Not unless they try to resign Cole/sign an expensive 3C with the pro-rated space.

Taking back Wilson in a Haula trade has absolutely no impact on McPhee's other roster issues. I don't see how those are related. In that trade, they'd just be replacing Haula with Wilson. They're still going to have their issues with too many waiver eligible D. How does that put him further behind the bind? At worst, he's in no different of a position before the trade than after the trade in terms of players on the roster. At best, it has no impact, because they have too many defenseman and that's a separate issue.

Presumably because the poster believes the best way for McPhee to trade those dmen is by packaging them with actual attractive options on his roster, and therefore that he can't trade the attractive options on their own.

 

[Harvey Birdman]

Id rather move Hagelin to make room for Hornqvist. You have to figure, we clear the 4M Hagelin gets paid. Currently Hornqvist makes 4.75M. How much more is he going to want to stay here and how much would he actually think he would get paid at 30/31. I get it is really his last chance at a pay day, but reasonably how much could he ask for that would not be looked at as insane by a GM? Also, even if the player is not quite as fast as Hagelin, he is extremely replaceable inside the organization for overall what he brings. And even if you are forced to say, look at the ceiling rather that the floor of it, what % of the cap space freed by trading Hagelin would you have to use to retain Hornqvist, no way its over 50% meaning you've made AT LEAST 2M in cap space. And if 2 years into the deal the wheels completely fall off of Hornqvist you could find some where for him to be traded too. Some contender would take him. Even if all he could do is stand infront of the next and cause chaos, someone would trade for him. So provided he doesn't want some mental full or almost full NTC/NMC. I see more value in moving Hagelin and retaining Hornqvist than letting him walk.

 

[Empoleon8771]

Presumably because the poster believes the best way for McPhee to trade those dmen is by packaging them with actual attractive options on his roster, and therefore that he can't trade the attractive options on their own.

That's valid, but I don't think that's what the other person was getting at

I feel like they could trade players like Merrill and Reinhart for minimal returns, but teams are more interested in the good defensemen Vegas has.

 

[Riptide]

Id rather move Hagelin to make room for Hornqvist. You have to figure, we clear the 4M Hagelin gets paid. Currently Hornqvist makes 4.75M. How much more is he going to want to stay here and how much would he actually think he would get paid at 30/31. I get it is really his last chance at a pay day, but reasonably how much could he ask for that would not be looked at as insane by a GM? Also, even if the player is not quite as fast as Hagelin, he is extremely replaceable inside the organization for overall what he brings. And even if you are forced to say, look at the ceiling rather that the floor of it, what % of the cap space freed by trading Hagelin would you have to use to retain Hornqvist, no way its over 50% meaning you've made AT LEAST 2M in cap space. And if 2 years into the deal the wheels completely fall off of Hornqvist you could find some where for him to be traded too. Some contender would take him. Even if all he could do is stand infront of the next and cause chaos, someone would trade for him. So provided he doesn't want some mental full or almost full NTC/NMC. I see more value in moving Hagelin and retaining Hornqvist than letting him walk.

His cap hit is 4.25m. As for what he may make... 5-5.5m is a pretty reasonable assumption. Probably over at least 5 years, maybe 6. The issue isn't that it's a 1m raise or so... it's that we are going to have a lot of players looking for their raises, and a couple of them will be significant. This summer, it will be Rust (2-2.5m+ over what he's currently making). Next summer it will be Guentzel (5-6m+ over his current deal). The one after that you have Sheary, Murray and Schultz. In that span you only have 3 players of any significance leaving who make anything (Cole, Hunwick, Hagelin).

 

[Peat]

His cap hit is 4.25m. As for what he may make... 5-5.5m is a pretty reasonable assumption. Probably over at least 5 years, maybe 6. The issue isn't that it's a 1m raise or so... it's that we are going to have a lot of players looking for their raises, and a couple of them will be significant. This summer, it will be Rust (2-2.5m+ over what he's currently making). Next summer it will be Guentzel (5-6m+ over his current deal). The one after that you have Sheary, Murray and Schultz. In that span you only have 3 players of any significance leaving who make anything (Cole, Hunwick, Hagelin).

Hopefully at least one of our current ELCs in line for a decent pay bump during this period too.

Still, as long as Hornqvist is tradeable every year of his contract, its good. I'd rather trade my way out of a cap crunch than just lose players, as long as I'm not having to give up assets to make the trade.

 

[Shady Machine]

His cap hit is 4.25m. As for what he may make... 5-5.5m is a pretty reasonable assumption. Probably over at least 5 years, maybe 6. The issue isn't that it's a 1m raise or so... it's that we are going to have a lot of players looking for their raises, and a couple of them will be significant. This summer, it will be Rust (2-2.5m+ over what he's currently making). Next summer it will be Guentzel (5-6m+ over his current deal). The one after that you have Sheary, Murray and Schultz. In that span you only have 3 players of any significance leaving who make anything (Cole, Hunwick, Hagelin).

Hornqvist is too important to winning in the next 3 years (our realistic Cup window) to let walk over 1 or 2 years of term.

Schultz' contract will be up in 3 years. Maybe we have an internal cheap replacement for him. Maybe Jarry takes over and we move Murray (unlikely but possible). Maybe we can move Kessel. Lots of options

For me, Hornqvist is more important than Sheary, Rust, Hagelin, possibly Kessel (if Sprong is who we think he is). You can make room for guys when we need to. As long as Horny doesn't have a real restrictive NTC, you can always move him if you need to.

 

[Dennis Reynolds]

Taking back Wilson in a Haula trade has absolutely no impact on McPhee's other roster issues. I don't see how those are related. In that trade, they'd just be replacing Haula with Wilson. They're still going to have their issues with too many waiver eligible D. How does that put him further behind the bind? At worst, he's in no different of a position before the trade than after the trade in terms of players on the roster. At best, it has no impact, because they have too many defenseman and that's a separate issue.

Of course it has an impact. GMGM is committed to his mediocre defensemen. He could waive Brad Hunt whenever to make room for players in their system who are better than Scott Wilson, and whether it's because he's obstinate, stupid, or both, he hasn't done it. At the same time, he's said repeatedly that he's looking for any way possible to recall Shipachev, Tuch, and Theodore, yet he couldn't recall Ship and Tuch until Marchessault and Haula were sent to IR, and Theodore is still in the minors. Say the Pens and GK swap Haula for Wilson and a pick. GMGM then has to send one of Ship or Tuch down. And when Marchessault is healthy, he has to send the other one down. Maybe "further in a bind" wasn't the best word choice, but it still leaves GMGM having to send down two players better than Wilson. So why is GMGM doing us a favor, and why is he choosing an inferior player in Wilson over Ship and Tuch?

If a deal is going to work with GMGM, it's going to have to be picks and players who aren't waiver eligible, or he's going to have to offload several defensemen in a prior deal (remember recalling Theodore is a stated priority of his, and he already has 10 on the roster) to make room for a Scott Wilson.

 

[Empoleon8771]

Of course it has an impact. GMGM is committed to his mediocre defensemen. He could waive Brad Hunt whenever to make room for players in their system who are better than Scott Wilson, and whether it's because he's obstinate, stupid, or both, he hasn't done it. At the same time, he's said repeatedly that he's looking for any way possible to recall Shipachev, Tuch, and Theodore, yet he couldn't recall Ship and Tuch until Marchessault and Haula were sent to IR, and Theodore is still in the minors. Say the Pens and GK swap Haula for Wilson and a pick. GMGM then has to send one of Ship or Tuch down. And when Marchessault is healthy, he has to send the other one down. Maybe "further in a bind" wasn't the best word choice, but it still leaves GMGM having to send down two players better than Wilson. So why is GMGM doing us a favor, and why is he choosing an inferior player in Wilson over Ship and Tuch?

If a deal is going to work with GMGM, it's going to have to be picks and players who aren't waiver eligible, or he's going to have to offload several defensemen in a prior deal (remember recalling Theodore is a stated priority of his, and he already has 10 on the roster) to make room for a Scott Wilson.

The issue is that you're relating two unrelated things. The Knights are in a bind because McPhee is married to those mediocre defensemen. That's not something that changes by trading Haula for Wilson and a 1st. They'll still have like 11 defenseman on the roster. McPhee needs to ditch 2 guys like Merrill and Reinhart by trade and waiving Hunt. Haula or really any other forward isn't related to that problem, they're going to have that issue whether they bring back Wilson for Haula or not.

I'm also don't think Wilson to Vegas is a requirement in this deal, a 1st for Haula alone probably is pretty close. I just don't see how adding Wilson is an issue for Vegas, when their roster issues come from having too many defenseman, not forwards. It's more of an issue that McPhee is married to mediocre defenseman, not that Wilson would be going back for Haula.

 

[Harvey Birdman]

Hopefully at least one of our current ELCs in line for a decent pay bump during this period too.

Still, as long as Hornqvist is tradeable every year of his contract, its good. I'd rather trade my way out of a cap crunch than just lose players, as long as I'm not having to give up assets to make the trade.

This is my line of thinking with it. There are very few true power forward net presence guys around the league. Hornqvist will always be able to be traded to a contender due to this, even if his shot is gone and his skating slows. A contending team would trade for him. They would not be lining up for him but a contending team, or a bubble team would be able to be had in a trade. Guys like Hornqvist hold their trade value pretty well even after the wheels start to fall off.

 

[Riptide]

This is my line of thinking with it. There are very few true power forward net presence guys around the league. Hornqvist will always be able to be traded to a contender due to this, even if his shot is gone and his skating slows. A contending team would trade for him. They would not be lining up for him but a contending team, or a bubble team would be able to be had in a trade. Guys like Hornqvist hold their trade value pretty well even after the wheels start to fall off.

Only if his contract is reasonable. If he has 3 years left at 5.5m and isn't/or is barely a 40pt player, no contending team is trading for him. We would be retaining and/or paying to get some team to take him.

 

[Shady Machine]

Only if his contract is reasonable. If he has 3 years left at 5.5m and isn't/or is barely a 40pt player, no contending team is trading for him. We would be retaining and/or paying to get some team to take him.

That's pretty unlikely unless he has major injuries. For whatever reason, people are worrying about things with Hornqvist that we just don't see. The dude is built like a tank. Eventually his body will break down, but there are plenty of examples of net front guys being successful well into their mid 30's. Horny is 30. A 5 year deal is fine for him.

 

[Honour Over Glory]

I think if you lose Hagelin and keep Hornqvist, with a 1m raise, our cap is still fine.

I'm just happy we have Sully and he plays these kids. I heard an interview today with Babcock and he said the reason Marner is on the 4th line is because "a tie goes to the vet... how bout that?"

I'm pretty sure Kariya played when he shouldn't have in Anaheim because of Babcock too and we all know his stance on Concussion protocol, I hate Babcock so much, it bothers me even more that people think that clown is a top 3 coach in the league (He isn't).

 

[ColePens]

Agree w/ ^^^^. Hags isn't someone we want to lose, but we will inevitably lose him as that's just how the cap works. Horny is a guy we need to make sure we keep, in my opinion. I think we will be fine if he gets 5.5 x 5. I know it may kick us in the butt if his body doesn't hold up, but man i am willing to roll the dice on a guy like #72.

 

[Peat]

Depending on how 3C is solved and Ian Cole's probable departure and replacement is handled, I think there could be room to give Horny and Rust a raise while still keeping Hagelin until his contract runs out anyway.

 

[ColePens]

***Note - My personal opinion is that Rust is very valuable to this team. So don't jump down my throat for the rest of this post. ***

Bryan Rust is one of the most interesting players the Pens have. How important is he to the Pens? Is he replaceable? More important than Sheary/Hags? Is it someone we can't lose? Is he a top 6 player? Is he a 3rd line winger? Tweener? Is he Mr Clutch in the playoffs? Is he the Tyler Kennedy of this team? Remember when losing him felt like a terrible move?

You could debate what Rust is to this team and have great arguments all over. He's a guy I'm willing to give term to at a reasonable rate and let it all play out. But short term and higher price is not something I want to dabble with. I would love one of those long term/smaller cap hit contracts.

 

[billybudd]

Hornqvist is too important to winning in the next 3 years (our realistic Cup window) to let walk over 1 or 2 years of term.

Schultz' contract will be up in 3 years. Maybe we have an internal cheap replacement for him. Maybe Jarry takes over and we move Murray (unlikely but possible). Maybe we can move Kessel. Lots of options

For me, Hornqvist is more important than Sheary, Rust, Hagelin, possibly Kessel (if Sprong is who we think he is). You can make room for guys when we need to. As long as Horny doesn't have a real restrictive NTC, you can always move him if you need to.

Guys who play the game this way are in-demand years and years after their sell-by date.

Just look at Brendan Morrow and Chris Kunitz.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Agree w/ ^^^^. Hags isn't someone we want to lose, but we will inevitably lose him as that's just how the cap works. Horny is a guy we need to make sure we keep, in my opinion. I think we will be fine if he gets 5.5 x 5. I know it may kick us in the butt if his body doesn't hold up, but man i am willing to roll the dice on a guy like #72.

I think Hornqvist could have a Holmstrom-like longevity. Even if it gets to the point where he's not quite the 20+ goal, 40+ point guy anymore, his hustle and net front presence on the PP will make him a valuable component to this team for years to come.

I also think he's the type of player other teams will be after, even if the Pens decide he no longer fits, and won't have any issues dealing him for something value. So I don't think there should be much concern if the Pens re-sign him to a 4 or 5 year deal or something.

 

[Honour Over Glory]

***Note - My personal opinion is that Rust is very valuable to this team. So don't jump down my throat for the rest of this post. ***

Bryan Rust is one of the most interesting players the Pens have. How important is he to the Pens? Is he replaceable? More important than Sheary/Hags? Is it someone we can't lose? Is he a top 6 player? Is he a 3rd line winger? Tweener? Is he Mr Clutch in the playoffs? Is he the Tyler Kennedy of this team? Remember when losing him felt like a terrible move?

You could debate what Rust is to this team and have great arguments all over. He's a guy I'm willing to give term to at a reasonable rate and let it all play out. But short term and higher price is not something I want to dabble with. I would love one of those long term/smaller cap hit contracts.

As Rust's #1 fan, I agree wholeheartedly.

 

[KIRK]

***Note - My personal opinion is that Rust is very valuable to this team. So don't jump down my throat for the rest of this post. ***

Bryan Rust is one of the most interesting players the Pens have. How important is he to the Pens? Is he replaceable? More important than Sheary/Hags? Is it someone we can't lose? Is he a top 6 player? Is he a 3rd line winger? Tweener? Is he Mr Clutch in the playoffs? Is he the Tyler Kennedy of this team? Remember when losing him felt like a terrible move?

You could debate what Rust is to this team and have great arguments all over. He's a guy I'm willing to give term to at a reasonable rate and let it all play out. But short term and higher price is not something I want to dabble with. I would love one of those long term/smaller cap hit contracts.

I think Rust is more important than Sheary or Hags.

 

[Nakawick]

Haula strikes me as more of a 4c than a 3c.

 

[Empoleon8771]

Haula strikes me as more of a 4c than a 3c.

You have some very unrealistic expectations for a 3C if you think Haula is a 4C.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

If we ever acquired Haula, I'd spend all game yelling "Holla!" whenever he's on the ice.

 

[Ogrezilla]

If we ever acquired Haula, I'd spend all game yelling "Holla!" whenever he's on the ice.

Errey would probably have a stroke

 

[madinsomniac]

Hornqvist at 5.5 x 5 would be like the Kunitz extention, there would be a real chance the final two years get brutal but it's probably worth the short-term risk... there is the real chance he gets woefully overpaid elsewhere though...