DL44
Status quo
Sorry... dead cap. $3mil of dead cap.. $1.5mil of dead money..1.5 million of dead money. The roster bonus is a freebee and doesn't count as retention.
Sorry... dead cap. $3mil of dead cap.. $1.5mil of dead money..1.5 million of dead money. The roster bonus is a freebee and doesn't count as retention.
It's not 3m of dead cap -- the team receiving Eriksson's contract takes on the cap hit, minus retention. The timing of the bonus and who pays it doesn't come into play here at all except to create a lower real-money salary.Sorry... dead cap. $3mil of dead cap.. $1.5mil of dead money..
It was never valid, sound or calculated to be in the market for Eriksson in the first place. The team should have been rebuilding. The only positive about this deal is that at least Eriksson is not as hated as Lucic would have been, who was Benning's first target. As large of an error Eriksson was, Lucic prevented Benning from making an even worse error. Both were errors before the signings would take place. To sign either would not be valid, sound, or calculated. Regardless, Lucic or Eriksson, Benning was destined to be in this place of trying to fix a mistake. Benning was bound to realize one day (or year) that Eriksson was an error. As a GM, Benning is best at making mistakes.
IMO they were just spitballing, however, if Eriksson is benched for all the remaining games then i would say the idea definitely has merit.
if i had to guess this is dorion trying to inexpensively add some veteran presence. i'll guess gaunce for the prospect. or which of our prospects is from the ottawa area?
Sounds reasonable, but they have a glut of wingers, no real need to put Eriksson in the lineup if it means it could jeopardize a potential deal. The risk / reward is just not there. It would make sense if they were competing for the playoffs but not when they are out of it.even if that was the plan yesterday the roussel injury might override it.
It's not 3m of dead cap -- the team receiving Eriksson's contract takes on the cap hit, minus retention. The timing of the bonus and who pays it doesn't come into play here at all except to create a lower real-money salary.
It’s what happens when you gamble on a free agent. You NEVER know 100% if a guy will stop caring after his big payday or you will get the player as advertised. Whether you’re signing a $10 million free agent or a $700k free agent it carries that risk.
Guys like y2k who hate every signing will feel vindicated when the worst case scenario happens but that doesn’t mean it was a bad decision and it doesn’t mean you shouldn’t chase free agents because the next time you could sign a major steal. Like Antoine Roussell.
So we'll be retaining part of that $6M cap hit for the next 3 years, as well as giving away a prospect just to undo Benning's biggest free agency blunder. Wow, thanks Jim. And to anyone who thinks Benning is a good GM who's rebuilding...giving away prospects because you ****ed up a major UFA signing is not something a good rebuilding GM has to do.
If the salary and real cap hit are different, how would it be possible to retain the same percentage of both? I think that line refers to percentages from year to year:
From the article you linked:
"The same percentage must be retained for both salary and cap hit. "
If we are retaining 50% of the real salary, it has to translate to the the same % of the cap hit..
So a $1.5 mil retention of real salary = $3mil cap hit...
If:
1. The Sedins found chemistry with Eriksson (which was likely because they already had chemistry from international tournaments)
and
2. The Sedins looked even close to the level of the previous year when they carried the offense of the team into the playoffs (which was also significantly probable - if anyone says they knew with certainty that the Sedins would fall off exactly when they did and by how much, they’re lying)
then
3. Loui Eriksson would’ve scored 30-40+ goals (for $6 million these days is a bloody steal)
and
4. Loui’s contract would’ve been at worst justified and, at best, a steal.
The logic is plain for everyone to see but NOBODY here can refute the PROCESS or the LOGIC of Benning’s decisions because they’re always logically virtuous. The ONLY thing critics ever do is criticize the result. Which is the worst way of finding out someone’s ability at anything. Ask ANY scout. They look at the method and almost never put more weight in the results.
I'll be damned, you're right:
How Do Retained Salary Trades Work?
However, since he'd likely be traded after receiving his July 1 roster bonus, the Canucks would retain at maximum 4.5 million on the remainder of the contract, leaving a true salary of 1.5m a year. I could actually see a team going for Loui at that price.
If:
1. The Sedins found chemistry with Eriksson (which was likely because they already had chemistry from international tournaments)
and
2. The Sedins looked even close to the level of the previous year when they carried the offense of the team into the playoffs (which was also significantly probable - if anyone says they knew with certainty that the Sedins would fall off exactly when they did and by how much, they’re lying)
then
3. Loui Eriksson would’ve scored 30-40+ goals (for $6 million these days is a bloody steal)
and
4. Loui’s contract would’ve been at worst justified and, at best, a steal.
The logic is plain for everyone to see but NOBODY here can refute the PROCESS or the LOGIC of Benning’s decisions because they’re always logically virtuous. The ONLY thing critics ever do is criticize the result. Which is the worst way of finding out someone’s ability at anything. Ask ANY scout. They look at the method and almost never put more weight in the results.
Not sure what you're getting at here. There are tons of teams that could absorb that cap hit easily and for whom the only important consideration is real salary.After max salary retention, the erstwhile other team still would be taking on a $4M cap hit for 2020-21 and again in 2021-22. Not happening. Maybe to Ottawa as a cap dump, and there's a market for cap space so the Sens would be looking for some asset value in return.
This is your argument: "If everything goes exactly perfectly and ends up the best case scenario, then the signing will be good".
Tell me how that is sound logic? It's hoping for a result without considering the range of possibilities.
This is explicitly a couple of guys on a podcast imagining a hypothetical scenario.
It's honestly kind of interesting to actually be present at the start of what later will become a "rumour," and eventually a "fact" certain posters take for granted. I've seen the result, but I've never actually see this happen from the beginning.