Rumor: Vancouver actively looking to retain salary for draft picks on rentals as 3rd party

[Agalloch]

Yes, it allows the team to exceed by the same amount as the contract itself. Which means the contract no longer has an effect, removing it from Montreal would have no effect, and adding it to another team's cap would have no effect, either.
Adding an equivalent asset and debit to both sides of an accountant's ledger has no not effect.

For example, MTL Trade Dadonov retained with Byron.

 

[mouser]

Arpon Basu during the 2nd intermission mentioned this.

He also mentioned that the Habs might look to deal Byron's deal to help a cap team

Disappointing when even the media don’t understand how LTIR cap space works.

 

[Gaylord Q Tinkledink]

Disappointing when even the media don’t understand how LTIR cap space works.

This dude would tweet about what he was eating and not the game for the longest time.

Though, I should say that was in a tweet.

 

[MarkusNaslund19]

I’ll believe it when I see it

They could have taken a baby step that would have cost this owner $76k for a 4th round pick.

Literally chump change and a way to ease into it

And they didn’t do it.

I just don’t think Aquilini will ever do it

There are 3 retention spots.

Canucks are looking to move players who are decently desirable, but not necessarily at their cap hit. Horvat is already occupying a retention spot.

If they had hamstrung themselves out of moves (whether Garland type moves, or possibly higher picks as 3rd party retainer when teams get more desperate closer to the deadline), you would be pillorying them for their stupidity in jumping the gun.

How about we chill out and see what they do?

 

[Peter Griffin]

Would have to be after July 1st for it to apply to the next season.

When do retention spots end though? July 1st or end of the regular season?

 

[Cogburn]

Great news if true, but I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[Breakers]

There are 3 retention spots.

Canucks are looking to move players who are decently desirable, but not necessarily at their cap hit. Horvat is already occupying a retention spot.

If they had hamstrung themselves out of moves (whether Garland type moves, or possibly higher picks as 3rd party retainer when teams get more desperate closer to the deadline), you would be pillorying them for their stupidity in jumping the gun.

How about we chill out and see what they do?

Umm now I wouldnt
Picks are picks
And they have never done retention in the 8 years before this.
People are applauding such a non risk move for 3 months of Minnesota at literally no cost to the owner

 

[Djp]

Would have to be after July 1st for it to apply to the next season.

no. at the draft you can trade a player retained even if you have 3 retentions if one is expiring. At the draft you are done paying players For that year. Similarly if you buy a player out during that cup finals end- July 1. It doesn't take effect till July 1.

Arpon Basu during the 2nd intermission mentioned this.

He said the Habs were in to be the 3rd team to help with the RoR deal, but decided not to as they have a fair amount of players injured and weren't sure how this would impact them for future deals this deadline.

He states that the Habs will continue to look to help.

He also mentioned that the Habs might look to deal Byron's deal to help a cap team


LTIR contract ends at the end of the year.

All encompassing thread about teams willing to retain ?

You can have LTIR in the summer.

montreal needs their retentions to move msny of their own players if thry want better return.

you don’t do pass thru retentions against LTIR space

 

[DistantThunderRep]

When do retention spots end though? July 1st or end of the regular season?

July 1st is when contracts renew and expire. So I would assume then.

 

[pth2]

Disappointing when even the media don’t understand how LTIR cap space works.

I read somewhere that someone asked Habs brass about Byron getting moved for cap reasons, and apparently there was some unlikely, convoluted scenario where it might make sense, and I'd love to hear that rationale.

I take it from your reply that you can't see how this could work, either ?

 

[mouser]

Not only that, but almost more importantly it was only $75K in actual cash.

The historical value for $75k in cash would be a 6th round pick in the upcoming draft.

Valuing the Minnesota retention becomes more difficult when you factor in:

a) the 4th round pick is pushed out till 2025–a 4th pick in 2023 holds more value than a 4th in 2025. Typically trading up for a 6th this season costs a 5th next season for example.

b) Minnesota also traded Josh Pillar‘s rights to Toronto. What draft pick value does Toronto place on obtaining those signing rights?

 

[Peter Griffin]

July 1st is when contracts renew and expire. So I would assume then.

But if trading a player at the draft with retention it wouldn’t be for the season that was just completed, it would be for the upcoming season and subsequent seasons. It’s an interesting question, I’m sure it’s happened before I’m just too lazy to look it up.

 

[mouser]

When do retention spots end though? July 1st or end of the regular season?

Midnight on June 30th. Same time when the League Year shifts from the current season to the next season and UFA period begins.

 

[mouser]

I read somewhere that someone asked Habs brass about Byron getting moved for cap reasons, and apparently there was some unlikely, convoluted scenario where it might make sense, and I'd love to hear that rationale.

I take it from your reply that you can't see how this could work, either ?

The convoluted scenario is essentially the same as Weber for Dadonov.

Both players had and still have negative value. Vegas didn’t want to pay assets to dump Dadonov, so instead worked out a deal with Montreal to take back negative value Weber. At the time Dadonov had potential upside Montreal could later move him for an asset.

In theory Montreal could do a similar trade with Byron right now, but why? Byron is an expiring contract. If Montreal adds him into a trade to take another team’s cap dump it will decrease the assets the other team pays Montreal to take that cap dump. The Habs would much rather be compensated for taking the bad contract without adding Byron in return.

 

[mouser]

no. at the draft you can trade a player retained even if you have 3 retentions if one is expiring. At the draft you are done paying players For that year. Similarly if you buy a player out during that cup finals end- July 1. It doesn't take effect till July 1.

You can have LTIR in the summer.

montreal needs their retentions to move msny of their own players if thry want better return.

you don’t do pass thru retentions against LTIR space

This is incorrect. All contracts, retentions and other contract related restrictions run from July 1st through June 30th—the CBA defined League Year.

 

[MarkusNaslund19]

Umm now I wouldnt
Picks are picks
And they have never done retention in the 8 years before this.
People are applauding such a non risk move for 3 months of Minnesota at literally no cost to the owner

"picks are picks".

Sure, but the cost of doing business might be different when there's time on your side and you can shop around your offer, compared to trade deadline day.

What if on trade deadline day Toronto wants to acquire a player and there's 15 minutes until the deadline and they don't have the cap space?

Now maybe something they would have given a 4th for 3 weeks ago, is worth a 2nd to them because expediency is key and they believe it's the difference btw them and a cup run.

What if Tampa offers a 2nd for Schenn (random example), but needs us to retain because they are close to the cap. Meanwhile, your next best offer is a late 3rd from a team without retention. But you rushed out and retained as a 3rd party for a low 4th rounder two weeks ago so you miss out.

Its funny to me how out of one side of their mouth, people on here talk about leaving yourself space to have options (e.g. not blowing their wad early netted Seattle Bjorkstrand for almost nothing because not many teams had cap space). And then out of the other side it's 'hurry up, make the move now!"

It's a bloody 4th round draft choice. I'm willing to take the risk of not getting the 4th, in order to leave space that can be occupied closer to the deadline by a better option.

 

[Breakers]

"picks are picks".

Sure, but the cost of doing business might be different when there's time on your side and you can shop around your offer, compared to trade deadline day.

What if on trade deadline day Toronto wants to acquire a player and there's 15 minutes until the deadline and they don't have the cap space?

Now maybe something they would have given a 4th for 3 weeks ago, is worth a 2nd to them because expediency is key and they believe it's the difference btw them and a cup run.

What if Tampa offers a 2nd for Schenn (random example), but needs us to retain because they are close to the cap. Meanwhile, your next best offer is a late 3rd from a team without retention. But you rushed out and retained as a 3rd party for a low 4th rounder two weeks ago so you miss out.

Its funny to me how out of one side of their mouth, people on here talk about leaving yourself space to have options (e.g. not blowing their wad early netted Seattle Bjorkstrand for almost nothing because not many teams had cap space). And then out of the other side it's 'hurry up, make the move now!"

It's a bloody 4th round draft choice. I'm willing to take the risk of not getting the 4th, in order to leave space that can be occupied closer to the deadline by a better option.

Yeah cause Vancouver has done so well at trade deadlines

Haha

 

[Goal Caufield50]

It cost the Canucks a 2nd to dump two years of effectively $1.3M in the Jason Dickinson trade so do the math here.

And you are paying three coaches approximately $8million. There are limits

 

[MarkusNaslund19]

Yeah cause Vancouver has done so well at trade deadlines

Haha

So you're not here for an earnest conversation?

I figured we're talking about what we're hoping they will do, right?

They, apparently, are willing to retain money for picks. That sounds like a good policy for a team in our position.

I am defending a position on how I think they could best do this, and defending how it's correct, IMO, for them to not jump on the first possible opportunity when the reward is a 4th round pick.

All I see you doing is throwing spaghetti at the wall. You posted an opinion, and I challenged you in good faith and shared my own.

"Yeah cause Vancouver sux at trade deadlines' isn't even a part of the conversation we were having. It's a diversion.

If the scenarios I expressed have perhaps made you reconsider your position it's a sign of strength and confidence to be able to admit when new info changes your mind. "I hadn't considered that, maybe you're right" isn't a sign of defeat.

Alternatively, if you disagree with my position, then defend your previous assertion. "I see your point but I disagree, here's why...".

Both would be great ways of continuing the conversation.

The response that I quoted in this post just comes off as an insecure diversionary tactic.

I'm not calling you insecure as a person, but to me that's how the post came off.

 

[Goal Caufield50]

First it was holding players out for trade purposes, now it’s retaining to get free picks…. What a weird season it is

I struggle with the risk reward on retention. A fourth pick has about 16% chance of playing 100 games and you wait 5 to 7 years for that And pay $1 million in real cash. 84% of the time you get less than 100 games. It costs very little to sign a free agent or or waiver pick who can exceed this return.

 

[Peter Griffin]

I struggle with the risk reward on retention. A fourth pick has about 16% chance of playing 100 games and you wait 5 to 7 years for that And pay $1 million in real cash. 84% of the time you get less than 100 games. It costs very little to sign a free agent or or waiver pick who can exceed this return.

Minnesota will pay about $75K in real cash for the 4th they’re getting from Toronto.

 

[Goal Caufield50]

Minnesota will pay about $75K in real cash for the 4th they’re getting from Toronto.

I will repeat, if you are paying waiver like costs it is reasonable. My post states $1 million. People talk in forums like a million is lunch money which it is not.

take the case of Monahan. If 25%of the cap is $1.6 million and remaining salary is $400k is that worth a 4th? No f Monahan had a 4.8 million signing bonus and the retention salary is $100k the risk reward is more favourable

 

[Peter Griffin]

I will repeat, if you are paying waiver like costs it is reasonable. My post states $1 million. People talk in forums like a million is lunch money which it is not.

Who’s paid $1M for a 4th round pick though?

 

[Goal Caufield50]

Who’s paid $1M for a 4th round pick though?

I said people talk without considering the cost. I would not pay $400k for Monahan and get a fourth. An example is people offering retention for Karralson. The economics don’t work and never wil. I am offering my opinion. Cap retention and salary associated with retention are two different issues. Risk and reward and it is not free as some posters state.

 

[Breakers]

I figured we're talking about what we're hoping they will do, right?

They, apparently, are willing to retain money for picks. That sounds like a good policy for a team in our position.

I am defending a position on how I think they could best do this, and defending how it's correct, IMO, for them to not jump on the first possible opportunity when the reward is a 4th round pick.

All I see you doing is throwing spaghetti at the wall. You posted an opinion, and I challenged you in good faith and shared my own.

"Yeah cause Vancouver sux at trade deadlines' isn't even a part of the conversation we were having. It's a diversion.

If the scenarios I expressed have perhaps made you reconsider your position it's a sign of strength and confidence to be able to admit when new info changes your mind. "I hadn't considered that, maybe you're right" isn't a sign of defeat.

Alternatively, if you disagree with my position, then defend your previous assertion. "I see your point but I disagree, here's why...".

Both would be great ways of continuing the conversation.

The response that I quoted in this post just comes off as an insecure diversionary tactic.

I'm not calling you insecure as a person, but to me that's how the post came off.

LOL spare me
You still haven’t grasped that this is notoriously cheap owner who spent a 2nd round pick to save save $1.2 million to start the season.

Pretty simple to see for some why if you wanted to “lightly” go into retention and not break the bank that it was can be had at a cheap cost to the owner.

It’s not that difficult to grasp

Florida retained hundreds of thousands of dollars on domi for a 6th round pick last deadline

Hell even Friedman was complimenting how this is one of the lower cost retentions he has seen in terms of picks for real money owed.

Start considering things from a real money perspective and not like a video game.

Simply suggesting a single year retention that is insanely cheap to the owner to dip his toe into the idea, is a good way to work him up to other retentions further down the line.