Speculation: Trade & Free Agency Talk XXXVI

[Spurgeon]

You want to go into next season with Dubnyk and Stalock again?

It's not about the cash. It's about getting better goaltending.

Unless we're paying a goalie >$8M AAV, we should have more than enough cap space to accomplish that.

 

[ThatGuy22]

Unless we're paying a goalie >$8M AAV, we should have more than enough cap space to accomplish that.

Carrying three goalies was terrible last time.

I'd rather buyout Dubnyk than have a grumpy vet in the AHL. carrying 800k an additional year is the much better option.

 

[Spurgeon]

Carrying three goalies was terrible last time.

I'd rather buyout Dubnyk than have a grumpy vet in the AHL. carrying 800k an additional year is the much better option.

We don't need to carry 3 goalies. He can refuse to report if he'd like. We save $1M by sending him down too.

There's just no way we're going to need the cap savings this year even if we make a move for a FA goalie. $800K isn't a lot, but it's an unnecessary expense to push into an offseason where we're going to need to spend a lot of money.

 

[DANOZ28]

sorry im not sure what the cap hits are please split Dubnyk's from rask's thx. i'd buyout Dubnyk then pickup a one year goalie , hate to not have a spot for kahkonen when hes ready. the cap space from Zucker plus koivu plus maybe rask could take a shot at Hoffman or hall. galchenyuk either wont be back or very low cost.

 

[Wild11MN]

sorry im not sure what the cap hits are please split Dubnyk's from rask's thx. i'd buyout Dubnyk then pickup a one year goalie , hate to not have a spot for kahkonen when hes ready. the cap space from Zucker plus koivu plus maybe rask could take a shot at Hoffman or hall. galchenyuk either wont be back or very low cost.

Dubnyk: Devan Dubnyk Contract Buyout Details - CapFriendly - NHL Salary Caps
Rask: Victor Rask Contract Buyout Details - CapFriendly - NHL Salary Caps

 

[Spurgeon]

Dubnyk: Devan Dubnyk Contract Buyout Details - CapFriendly - NHL Salary Caps
Rask: Victor Rask Contract Buyout Details - CapFriendly - NHL Salary Caps

Rask buyout makes the most sense next year IMO.

Saves $2.66 M for 21-22
Adds $1.33 M for 22-23 (no ones contract is currently set to expire that year other than Stalock)

Off-season before 2021-2022 season is critical. Currently only have Parise, Suter, Spurgeon, Dumba, Zuccarello, and Stalock locked up for that season. They take up $35.4M of the cap.

 

[16thOverallSaveUs]

I didn’t realize that Pitt wasn’t way further up in the standings. They’re winky 2 points ahead of NYI for WC2. If everything goes right, we could have two top 20 picks.

 

[Digitalbooya]

I’d send Dubnyk or Stalock to the AHL and call up the Kahk. There’s no additional $800k dead cap in two years.

 

[MuckOG]

I’d send Dubnyk or Stalock to the AHL and call up the Kahk. There’s no additional $800k dead cap in two years.

Better to buy out Dubnyk than to send him down, $800k be damned.

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

I’d send Dubnyk or Stalock to the AHL and call up the Kahk. There’s no additional $800k dead cap in two years.

Meh. Do the guy a solid and let him try and go get an NHL job somewhere.

 

[TaLoN]

if we take Ladd back I’m pretty sure we’d have to protect him tho cuz NMC. I could be wrong

I think NMC's that get waived for a trade don't have to be honored by the team bringing them in.

The clause can travel with the player even if he consents to being traded or is claimed on waivers

This requires that the acquiring team sign an addendum to the contract ensuring that the clause does in fact travel with the player (written by the player's agent)
If the acquiring team refuses to sign the addendum, and the player waives his clause anyway, at that point the clause may be nullified

If the player is traded before the clause takes effect, the acquiring team can opt to void the clause

When PK Subban waived for the trade to Nashville, they chose not to honor his NMC.

https://thehockeywriters.com/predators-wont-honour-p-k-subbans-no-movement-clause/

 

[Wild11MN]

I think NMC's that get waived for a trade don't have to be honored by the team bringing them in.





When PK Subban waived for the trade to Nashville, they chose not to honor his NMC.

https://thehockeywriters.com/predators-wont-honour-p-k-subbans-no-movement-clause/

His NMC hadn't kicked in yet. I actually thought the same thing and looked into this earlier this week, and now I'm quite certain that you would still have to honor it, as long as the NMC had already kicked in.

 

[TaLoN]

His NMC hadn't kicked in yet. I actually thought the same thing and looked into this earlier this week, and now I'm quite certain that you would still have to honor it, as long as the NMC had already kicked in.

The act of waiving it does the same though.

No-Trade/No-Move Clauses — The Fourth Period

some players who previously had a NTC/NMC may no longer as a result of it being waived by previously being traded

A waived clause is not an active clause and leaves the team open to honor by their own discretion.

 

[Wild11MN]

The act of waiving it does the same though.

No-Trade/No-Move Clauses — The Fourth Period

A waived clause is not an active clause and leaves the team open to honor by their own discretion.

From what I've read, that's not the case. The language in the CBA is pretty vague. Sounds like one of those things to ask Russo to clarify with the league.

 

[TaLoN]

From what I've read, that's not the case. The language in the CBA is pretty vague. Sounds like one of those things to ask Russo to clarify with the league.

When the player waives, he needs to preserve the clause in writing with the new team to have it honored.

That's what Louie Eriksson did in his waived clause trade to the Bruins.

If it's a limited no trade and a player is traded without having to waive, the clause stays intact as is.

If the player doesn't get a guarantee in writing and still chooses to waive, the clause is lost.

 

[Digitalbooya]

Better to buy out Dubnyk than to send him down, $800k be damned.

Meh. Do the guy a solid and let him try and go get an NHL job somewhere.

Understand where you guys are coming from. I just don't like the idea of having dead money in a year where key guys (Fiala!!) will be due big raises, even if it's just $800k. But, that's the financial officer in me. I strongly dislike dead money and I'd be willing to bet Dubnyk has just as good a chance of bouncing back as Dumba. If not, Stalock seems alright and we can call up Kahkonen and send a goalie down if they are not working.

 

[TaLoN]

@Wild11MN
NHL CBA FAQ - CapFriendly - NHL Salary Caps

• The clause can travel with the player even if he consents to being traded or is claimed on waivers
  • This requires that the acquiring team sign an addendum to the contract ensuring that the clause does in fact travel with the player (written by the player's agent)
  • If the acquiring team refuses to sign the addendum, and the player waives his clause anyway, at that point the clause may be nullified

That same notation is made for both NMC's and NTC's and thus applies to them being waived in order to be traded. No way would we accept a NMC for Ladd.

 

[Wild11MN]

@Wild11MN
NHL CBA FAQ - CapFriendly - NHL Salary Caps


That same notation is made for both NMC's and NTC's and thus applies to them being waived in order to be traded. No way would we accept a NMC for Ladd.

Hmm, maybe you're right. Every other source I found when I looked this up like literally two days ago seemed to mention that it was only if the clause hadn't kicked in yet.

 

[TaLoN]

Hmm, maybe you're right. Every other source I found when I looked this up like literally two days ago seemed to mention that it was only if the clause hadn't kicked in yet.
@Bazeek - I guess I was wrong again.

If the clause never kicked in, the player has no control over the situation. If the clause has kicked in and the player in question is still wanting it to move with him, and the team he's being traded to refuses to agree to the addendum, then he can simply choose not to waive the clause in the first place to keep it. The player still has a level of control...

A player in Ladd's situation though isn't likely going to get a team to cooperate so much on signing such an addendum. Parise on the other hand would likely get the Isles to sign one no problem.

 

[Digitalbooya]

I didn’t realize that Pitt wasn’t way further up in the standings. They’re winky 2 points ahead of NYI for WC2. If everything goes right, we could have two top 20 picks.

They are also 4 points from 1st in the division with a game in hand. However, they've lost 5 in a row and are currently down 3-0 to the Sharks. That's crazy.

Edit: 4-0 now.

 

[SupremeNachos]

@Wild11MN
NHL CBA FAQ - CapFriendly - NHL Salary Caps


That same notation is made for both NMC's and NTC's and thus applies to them being waived in order to be traded. No way would we accept a NMC for Ladd.

Would Ladd nix a deal if his new team wouldn't honor it?

 

[grN1g]

Would Ladd nix a deal if his new team wouldn't honor it?

Pretty sure we were not going to honor it and he still waived.

 

[TaLoN]

Would Ladd nix a deal if his new team wouldn't honor it?

Doubt it. I think he's well aware of his situation at this point and would just welcome a change of scenery.

No way in hell does a team take him as a cap dump while honoring the NMC. It would be a terrible deal having to protect someone like him in expansion.

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

Doubt it. I think he's well aware of his situation at this point and would just welcome a change of scenery.

No way in hell does a team take him as a cap dump while honoring the NMC. It would be a terrible deal having to protect someone like him in expansion.

His NMC expired in 2018. His full NTC expires this summer.

 

[ThatGuy22]

Im not sure how any reading or 11.8 (a) would lead to capfriendly's explanation that a team has an option to extend it if it's already in effect. The last sentence is clearly referencing the previous sentence related to a trade before it kicks in. I think capfriendly's FAQ is incorrect.

Whenever this topic comes up, I always ask the same thing. Show me a single instance of a player being traded with an active NTC or NMC where it didn't travel with them. I've yet to see a single instance of it.

11.8 Individually Negotiated Limitations on Player Movement. (a) The SPC of any Player who is a Group 3 Unrestricted Free Agent under Article 10.1(a) may contain a no-Trade or a no-move clause. SPCs containing a no-Trade or a no-move clause may be entered into prior to the time that the Player is a Group 3 Unrestricted Free Agent so long as the SPC containing the no-Trade or no-move clause extends through and does not become effective until the time that the Player qualifies for Group 3 Unrestricted Free Agency. If the Player is Traded or claimed on Waivers prior to the no-Trade or no-move clause taking effect, the clause does not bind the acquiring Club. An acquiring Club may agree to continue to be bound by the no-Trade or no-move clause, which agreement shall be evidenced in writing to the Player, Central Registry and the NHLPA, in accordance with Exhibit 3 hereof

.