Friedman: Toronto shopping Wayne Simmonds

[cyris]

or we can just terminate someone on a 2way contract that they arent that high on anymore but yeah the 50 contract slot is like not an area of concern. atleast not at the point where we would send out a 3rd or a 4th like some people here think is reasonable
chances are a guy will get moved for FC though ;like u said. teams dont wanna help each other out too much but minor things like this I dont think they mind


players dont really have a choice in the matter, most can be terminated without the player agreeing to it.
if they are at 50 right now I dont see what the issue is. unless there's someone they are suppose to sign but now cant. being at 50 means nothing

The CBA doesn’t allow terminating contracts without both sides agreeing to it. You can buy players out without them agreeing to it but that can only happen during buyout windows early in the off season and incurs a penalty.

If you are thinking of what happened with Evander Kane. The Sharks claimed that he violated the terms of his contract which allowed them to terminate the deal. And even that ended up being settled through lawyers as it was going to go to independent arbitration.

 

[Arthur Morgan]

The CBA doesn’t allow terminating contracts without both sides agreeing to it. You can buy players out without them agreeing to it but that can only happen during buyout windows early in the off season and incurs a penalty.

If you are thinking of what happened with Evander Kane. The Sharks claimed that he violated the terms of his contract which allowed them to terminate the deal. And even that ended up being settled through lawyers as it was going to go to independent arbitration.

I think that rules applies to NHL contracts. those on 2way contracts I dont think would leave any cap penalty.
that cant be true why would any one agree to terminate their contract you know when they send a player to unconditional waivers for purpose of contract termination

 

[cyris]

I think that rules applies to NHL contracts. those on 2way contracts I dont think would leave any cap penalty.
that cant be true why would any one agree to terminate their contract you know when they send a player to unconditional waivers for purpose of contract termination

Two way contracts are still NHL contracts. They just stipulate that guys will make less if they aren’t in the NHL.
Those are mutual terminations. The players agree to them often to find opportunities with other clubs or in other leagues.
If you are a player and you know the team that owns you rights doesn’t see a future in you and isn’t going to give you any opportunity you might feel the same way as them.

 

[Puckstuff]

Signing him for 2 years was always dumb but at least it doesn't cost us to burry him

 

[Arthur Morgan]

Two way contracts are still NHL contracts. They just stipulate that guys will make less if they aren’t in the NHL.
Those are mutual terminations. The players agree to them often to find opportunities with other clubs or in other leagues.
If you are a player and you know the team that owns you rights doesn’t see a future in you and isn’t going to give you any opportunity you might feel the same way as them.

well either way. moving a contract is simple and wont require a 3rd or 4th type of asset added in.
and whats the point of terminating or trading a contract if there's no one to sign. we have all seen enough trades for Future Considerations that this thing shouldnt matter at all
but you are right I looked it up. I thought 2way contracts could be terminated at anytime

 

[Holymakinaw]

Signing him for 2 years was always dumb but at least it doesn't cost us to burry him

It's not really "dumb" tho. It's often a show of respect for older players(see Giodano) to give them an extra year, knowing they very likely won't be able to play it out. It's a gold watch for retirement, is all.

 

[cyris]

well either way. moving a contract is simple and wont require a 3rd or 4th type of asset added in.
and whats the point of terminating or trading a contract if there's no one to sign. we have all seen enough trades for Future Considerations that this thing shouldnt matter at all
but you are right I looked it up. I thought 2way contracts could be terminated at anytime

Yeah the last thing I’m worried about is contract spots. Teams make minor trades all the time to open up spots. 1 team gets a long shot prospect or depth that can play in the AHL the other gets room to do something they want to.
Hell someone we waived yesterday could have even been claimed.

We will need a contract spot in the spring for Knies but I don’t think getting one will be a problem.

 

[Puckstuff]

It's not really "dumb" tho. It's often a show of respect for older players(see Giodano) to give them an extra year, knowing they very likely won't be able to play it out. It's a gold watch for retirement, is all.

I hope Dubas' superiors who pay the bills feel the same.

 

[Holymakinaw]

I hope Dubas' superiors who pay the bills feel the same.

LOL. MLSE can afford the 15 cents.

 

[Arthur Morgan]

Yeah the last thing I’m worried about is contract spots. Teams make minor trades all the time to open up spots. 1 team gets a long shot prospect or depth that can play in the AHL the other gets room to do something they want to.
Hell someone we waived yesterday could have even been claimed.

We will need a contract spot in the spring for Knies but I don’t think getting one will be a problem.

ooooh thats so far away. we should easily take care of that by then. some people just make minor things seem like a bigger issue then it really is. I find it pretty funny how so many people think we will have to pay to move him and how multiple people actually think Simmonds is making 1.8m

 

[Arthur Morgan]

I hope Dubas' superiors who pay the bills feel the same.

Dubas retained 2.5m for a 5th, I dont think MLSE cares about expenses

edit* sorry looked at it wrong retained 1.1m for a 5th.

 

[GCK]

ooooh thats so far away. we should easily take care of that by then. some people just make minor things seem like a bigger issue then it really is. I find it pretty funny how so many people think we will have to pay to move him and how multiple people actually think Simmonds is making 1.8m

Unless someone else goes on LTIR between now and Liljegren’s return, Dubas will need to move a roster player of at least 1.4M. That move will free up a contract slot.

 

[Arthur Morgan]

Unless someone else goes on LTIR between now and Liljegren’s return, Dubas will need to move a roster player of at least 1.4M. That move will free up a contract slot.

Liljegren is out 2-3 weeks isnt he? should be enough time to figure something out

 

[GCK]

Liljegren is out 2-3 weeks isnt he? should be enough time to figure something out

I guarantee you there is a plan. I’m as far from a leaf fan as possible but they are very, very good at managing the top end of the cap.

 

[Golden_Jet]

I think that rules applies to NHL contracts. those on 2way contracts I dont think would leave any cap penalty.
that cant be true why would any one agree to terminate their contract you know when they send a player to unconditional waivers for purpose of contract termination

They can’t be terminated unless both agree,

 

[Arthur Morgan]

They can’t be terminated unless both agree,

yeah been over this without someone else but even so moving a minor contract is very easy to do. also doesnt matter until its needed

 

[conFABulator]

Signing him for 2 years was always dumb but at least it doesn't cost us to burry him

Not dumb, actually probably quite intelligent.

The AAV can be buried, so it doesn't hurt the cap at all. It only costs money.

Having the second year may have allowed the Leafs to have a lower AAV then they could have got on a one year deal. It also probably would allow him to pass through waivers last year as most teams wouldn't have wanted to pick him up with the second year attached.

Now that his one year is done:

(a) They trade him and the second year didn't even cost money
(b) They waive him and lose him and the second year didn't even cost money
(c) They waive him and send him down and the second year didn't impact the cap but we have a good vet on the Marlies and we can recall him if we need to.
(d) He retires and the second year didn't even cost money. He joins the organization in a community role and makes some of that money he walked away from by retiring

Hard to see why anyone would consider the two year deal structure for Simmonds to dumb

 

[Bring Back Bucky]

He signed for 2x years, $1.8 million total last summer. He doesn't have a $1.8 million AAV.

Ah, got ya. So only a couple hundred grand that they can’t bury. Or can you bury a full million ?

 

[McSuper]

No one's saying he's good, everyone knows he sucks. But besides that there is value to him that a specific set of teams may desire. Teams need good veterans while rebuilding

Everyone think the same about TML in the playoffs ( I thought they were the better team against Tampa last year). In other words fans don't know much. They see what they want to see. You cheer for the Leafs you see the good you hate the Leafs you throw up their playoffs. Point is Simmonds may find chemistry somewhere.

Simmonds + for Foegele the plus has to be decent but not anything crazy.

 

[Treb]

They want the player in the AHL only, with the option to call him up as needed.

They wouldn't get that by claiming him off waivers. He would have to join the NHL team or get waived again. It wouldn't work for them.

That's why they traded for him instead of making a waivers claim.

Which is what I said.

 

[Tarmore]

How would that help Toronto?

I'm not sure, but, if he retired would it open up the X roster X spot?

Edit: contract slot

 

[Ciao]

Which is what I said.

I must have misunderstood.

I thought you said it "makes no sense why they traded for him instead of claiming him otherwise."

Oops.

 

[Treb]

I must have misunderstood.

I thought you said it "makes no sense why they traded for him instead of claiming him otherwise."

Oops.

Was responding to a guy talking about him playing for Edmonton.

I responded that it wouldn't make sense to trade for him instead of claiming if it was the goal.

 

[Prairie Habs]

Not dumb, actually probably quite intelligent.

The AAV can be buried, so it doesn't hurt the cap at all. It only costs money.

Having the second year may have allowed the Leafs to have a lower AAV then they could have got on a one year deal. It also probably would allow him to pass through waivers last year as most teams wouldn't have wanted to pick him up with the second year attached.

Now that his one year is done:

(a) They trade him and the second year didn't even cost money
(b) They waive him and lose him and the second year didn't even cost money
(c) They waive him and send him down and the second year didn't impact the cap but we have a good vet on the Marlies and we can recall him if we need to.
(d) He retires and the second year didn't even cost money. He joins the organization in a community role and makes some of that money he walked away from by retiring

Hard to see why anyone would consider the two year deal structure for Simmonds to dumb

Is this just completely ignoring that signing Simmonds at all was a bad idea because he was clearly done?

 

[Fogelhund]

Was responding to a guy talking about him playing for Edmonton.

I responded that it wouldn't make sense to trade for him instead of claiming if it was the goal.

If it were player for player, it would keep the number of contracts static, if they wanted to make other future moves.