HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk Trade rumors, transactions, and free agent talk. Rumors must contain the word RUMOR in post title. Proposals must contain the word PROPOSAL in post title.

Tim Thomas

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-08-2012, 10:22 PM
  #1
DohBruins
Registered User
 
DohBruins's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 418
vCash: 500
Tim Thomas

I was wondering what a team would give up to get him. At first I assumed that the team getting him would give up "future considerations", basically nothing. But some low market teams, like the Coyotes, Avalanche, and Islanders, all under cap-floor, would give up a minor asset for the 5 mil. cap hit. Not only the cap hit the team is the team receiving, but also the rights to the player for nine months. We saw Wideman get dealt for a 5th round pick, just to receive rights to talk for two weeks. Could the Bruins possibly gather a 4th round pick or more for him?

Also, I read two weeks a go, the Bruins owner, Jeremy Jacobs, had a radio interview and he believes there is a market for Tim Thomas.

Here is the link: http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/bruin...ing-for-thomas

Thoughts/proposals?

EDIT: I realize the CBA and the uncertainty of the cap so this will probably be delayed until a new CBA is resolved.


Last edited by DohBruins: 09-08-2012 at 10:29 PM.
DohBruins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-08-2012, 10:27 PM
  #2
CREW99AW
Registered User
 
CREW99AW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 28,822
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryan02190 View Post
I was wondering what a team would give up to get him. At first I assumed that the team getting him would give up "future considerations", basically nothing. But some low market teams, like the Coyotes, Avalanche, and Islanders, all under cap-floor, would give up a minor asset for the 5 mil. cap hit. Not only the cap hit the team is the team receiving, but also the rights to the player for nine months. We saw Wideman get dealt for a 5th round pick, just to receive rights to talk for two weeks. Could the Bruins possibly gather a 4th round pick or more for him?

Also, I read two weeks a go, the Bruins owner, Jeremy Jacobs, had a radio interview and he believes there is a market for Tim Thomas.

Here is the link: http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/bruin...ing-for-thomas

Thoughts/proposals?
I think Boston will have to wait and see what the cap floor is.

Some gms, Snow among them, think the floor will drop in the next cba and they won't have to take on bad contracts or phantom cap hits to reach the floor.

CREW99AW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-08-2012, 10:28 PM
  #3
DohBruins
Registered User
 
DohBruins's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 418
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CREW99AW View Post
I think Boston will have to wait and see what the cap floor is.

Some gms, Snow among them, think the floor will drop in the next cba and they won't have to take on bad contracts or phantom cap hits to reach the floor.
I forgot to add something about the CBA in the post, ill do it now.

DohBruins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-08-2012, 10:37 PM
  #4
LatvianTwist
Global Moderator
 
LatvianTwist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Houston
Country: Tibet
Posts: 18,063
vCash: 157
Negative value if everyone's over the floor.

LatvianTwist is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-08-2012, 10:44 PM
  #5
JuniorNelson
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: E.Vancouver
Country: Australia-Aboriginal
Posts: 4,693
vCash: 50
Thomas is like a joker in the deck, a wild card. His antics suggest he is persona non grata in Boston nowadays. If true, I think he has serious market value. Remember, Burke is still a GM in this league! Toronto might actually be decent team again with an all-star goalie.

My guess, based on nothing, is that Thomas winds up in Philadelphia after Bryzgalov goes to Toronto. Why? No reason, other than Thomas can play in the playoffs and Philadelphia seems serious about contending.

JuniorNelson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-08-2012, 11:34 PM
  #6
WeridAl
YuckaFlux
 
WeridAl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: 10ft of Snow
Posts: 1,749
vCash: 500
Can you trade the rights to a retired player.

WeridAl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2012, 12:11 AM
  #7
boredmale
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 23,213
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WeridAl View Post
Can you trade the rights to a retired player.
He is not officially retired

All that being said I can see some team giving(as the OP stated) Future Considerations for Thomas in the hopes that he decides to come back mid season and then you can turn around and trade him for something

boredmale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2012, 12:42 AM
  #8
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 17,943
vCash: 50
Bribe some team to take him off Bruins hands. Thomas + 3rd for futures (aka rights to a used game puck from Thomas' first game for that team). Bruins "buy $5m in cap" for 3rd.

me2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2012, 03:49 AM
  #9
BonkTastic
"Small Sample Size!"
 
BonkTastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Jakarta, IDN
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,173
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2 View Post
Bribe some team to take him off Bruins hands. Thomas + 3rd for futures (aka rights to a used game puck from Thomas' first game for that team). Bruins "buy $5m in cap" for 3rd.
The Devils needed to include a 1st rounder for the Sharks to take Malakhov and his cap hit off their hands.

I doubt a 3rd rounder is enough for someone to take on the Thomas cap hit.

BonkTastic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2012, 04:07 AM
  #10
danaluvsthekings
Registered User
 
danaluvsthekings's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 4,138
vCash: 500
The other problem for the Bruins in trying to move Thomas to a team that can use his cap hit to get over the floor, is how far the cap might drop.

If the drop is minor then most teams will be ok in getting under the cap. If there's a major drop (to like $60 mil), then you're going to see more teams trying to rid themselves of contracts. So teams willing to take on players are going to have more options. They would be able to add players to their roster that could actually contribute, instead of just adding dead cap space.

General question, at what point does adding a dead cap space contract to your team's payroll become circumvention of the cap? I know more people are concerned with the upper end of the cap, but you can obviously circumvent the floor as well. I understand that you can have teams spending less than the floor due to the difference in cap hit vs actual salary (and that might change in a new CBA). Does the idea of a team willingly trading for a $5 mil cap hit when the player has no intention of playing bother anyone? To me that's a lot different than the Isles set to pay Visnovsky $3 mil with a cap hit at $5.6 mil. At least with the 2nd scenario, they're getting a player and some contributions for that cap hit.

danaluvsthekings is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2012, 04:27 AM
  #11
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 17,943
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by danaluvsthekings View Post
The other problem for the Bruins in trying to move Thomas to a team that can use his cap hit to get over the floor, is how far the cap might drop.

If the drop is minor then most teams will be ok in getting under the cap. If there's a major drop (to like $60 mil), then you're going to see more teams trying to rid themselves of contracts. So teams willing to take on players are going to have more options. They would be able to add players to their roster that could actually contribute, instead of just adding dead cap space.

General question, at what point does adding a dead cap space contract to your team's payroll become circumvention of the cap? I know more people are concerned with the upper end of the cap, but you can obviously circumvent the floor as well. I understand that you can have teams spending less than the floor due to the difference in cap hit vs actual salary (and that might change in a new CBA). Does the idea of a team willingly trading for a $5 mil cap hit when the player has no intention of playing bother anyone? To me that's a lot different than the Isles set to pay Visnovsky $3 mil with a cap hit at $5.6 mil. At least with the 2nd scenario, they're getting a player and some contributions for that cap hit.
I see your point but at the end of the day someone has to pay the cap hit, that's the CBA rule (until they change it if they ever do).

It'd be interesting if after being traded and part way through the season Thomas decided to return while everyone involved banked on him just staying out and being dead salary.

me2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2012, 04:28 AM
  #12
PierreMcGuire*
How dissapointing
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Delta, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,750
vCash: 500
I'd imagine the value of Tim Thomas is very little to negative at this point in time.

PierreMcGuire* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2012, 07:37 AM
  #13
nmbr_24
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 9,471
vCash: 500
I just have a feeling that in the new CBA, whenever it does get done, there will be something that is worked out so that Thomas' cap hit doesn't count.

I have nothing to back that up, it is just a hunch.

It makes sense to me that if the cap goes down, there will be a way for teams to rid themselves of contracts of players who don't play for your team. I also think that there will be a way for teams to get rid of the contracts of players such as Scott Gomez, Wade Redden, etc. maybe something in the way of one buyout per team that doesn't count against the cap.

It makes sense to me if the cap goes down, it doesn't if it stays the same.

nmbr_24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2012, 08:03 AM
  #14
DohBruins
Registered User
 
DohBruins's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 418
vCash: 500
If the Bruins and Jeremy Jacobs believe that 'there is a market' for Tim Thomas, then it wouldn't be negative value. They don't [I]need[I] to trade Thomas, so if there is no market for there would be no incentive for the Bruins to add on to a trade. But if the case is that Jacobs believes "there is a market", than I believe that they could actual value out of him. Also, you are getting Tim Thomas' rights to sign him until July 1st, 2013 when you trade for him.

DohBruins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2012, 08:23 AM
  #15
seanlinden
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 18,093
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by danaluvsthekings View Post
The other problem for the Bruins in trying to move Thomas to a team that can use his cap hit to get over the floor, is how far the cap might drop.

If the drop is minor then most teams will be ok in getting under the cap. If there's a major drop (to like $60 mil), then you're going to see more teams trying to rid themselves of contracts. So teams willing to take on players are going to have more options. They would be able to add players to their roster that could actually contribute, instead of just adding dead cap space.

General question, at what point does adding a dead cap space contract to your team's payroll become circumvention of the cap? I know more people are concerned with the upper end of the cap, but you can obviously circumvent the floor as well. I understand that you can have teams spending less than the floor due to the difference in cap hit vs actual salary (and that might change in a new CBA). Does the idea of a team willingly trading for a $5 mil cap hit when the player has no intention of playing bother anyone? To me that's a lot different than the Isles set to pay Visnovsky $3 mil with a cap hit at $5.6 mil. At least with the 2nd scenario, they're getting a player and some contributions for that cap hit.
QFT.

Thomas' value is almost entirely dependent on where the new CBA lands.

If it's as drastic as the $58m with no rollback, then there will be teams desperate to offload talent that will actually play this year. There also won't be any teams who can't afford to spend above the floor.

Thomas would have a bit of value in the current CBA.... but I just don't see that value continuing. Revenue sharing is going to increase and the cap is going to fall.

seanlinden is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2012, 08:27 AM
  #16
birddog*
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 5,988
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryan02190 View Post
I was wondering what a team would give up to get him. At first I assumed that the team getting him would give up "future considerations", basically nothing. But some low market teams, like the Coyotes, Avalanche, and Islanders, all under cap-floor, would give up a minor asset for the 5 mil. cap hit. Not only the cap hit the team is the team receiving, but also the rights to the player for nine months. We saw Wideman get dealt for a 5th round pick, just to receive rights to talk for two weeks. Could the Bruins possibly gather a 4th round pick or more for him?

Also, I read two weeks a go, the Bruins owner, Jeremy Jacobs, had a radio interview and he believes there is a market for Tim Thomas.

Here is the link: http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/bruin...ing-for-thomas

Thoughts/proposals?

EDIT: I realize the CBA and the uncertainty of the cap so this will probably be delayed until a new CBA is resolved.
Boston will likely be the one giving up and asset to get under the cap.

birddog* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2012, 08:29 AM
  #17
birddog*
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 5,988
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryan02190 View Post
If the Bruins and Jeremy Jacobs believe that 'there is a market' for Tim Thomas, then it wouldn't be negative value. They don't [I]need[I] to trade Thomas, so if there is no market for there would be no incentive for the Bruins to add on to a trade. But if the case is that Jacobs believes "there is a market", than I believe that they could actual value out of him. Also, you are getting Tim Thomas' rights to sign him until July 1st, 2013 when you trade for him.
"believe" -- I guess you would jump off a bridge if you believed it would be fun -- reality is very different. Bruins NEED to rid themselves of Thomas and his 5 million. Deals like this have been made in the past -- the pick will go to the team taking his contract.

The NHL might not even allow the deal. You are trading a retired player.

birddog* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2012, 08:57 AM
  #18
BonkTastic
"Small Sample Size!"
 
BonkTastic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Jakarta, IDN
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,173
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryan02190 View Post
If the Bruins and Jeremy Jacobs believe that 'there is a market' for Tim Thomas, then it wouldn't be negative value. They don't [I]need[I] to trade Thomas, so if there is no market for there would be no incentive for the Bruins to add on to a trade. But if the case is that Jacobs believes "there is a market", than I believe that they could actual value out of him. Also, you are getting Tim Thomas' rights to sign him until July 1st, 2013 when you trade for him.
Man, that's like saying:
If I believe that 'there is a market' for a carton of milk a week past it's expiry date, then there isn't negative value. I don't need to sell this milk, so if there is no market for there would be no incentive for me to add on to a sale. But if the case is that I believe "there is a market", than I believe that I could actual value out of that bad milk.

Like, just because I think my 1997 Saturn SL (that I can't get safetied) is worth $20k, it doesn't mean I'm ever going to get twenty grand for it. It just means my stubborn arse is going to see it rot in my driveway for the next ten years, watching it rust to oblivion.

I'm not saying "Tim Thomas = expired milk/ a worthless car" here, I'm simply pointing out the fact that just because the Bruins might think he has value, it doesn't mean the other 29 teams think so. To expect value out of an item that just doesn't have that value, and to hold a hard line on it... not very smart business.

BonkTastic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2012, 09:16 AM
  #19
4ORRBRUIN
Registered User
 
4ORRBRUIN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: boston
Country: United States
Posts: 2,851
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryan02190 View Post
If the Bruins and Jeremy Jacobs believe that 'there is a market' for Tim Thomas, then it wouldn't be negative value. They don't [I]need[I] to trade Thomas, so if there is no market for there would be no incentive for the Bruins to add on to a trade. But if the case is that Jacobs believes "there is a market", than I believe that they could actual value out of him. Also, you are getting Tim Thomas' rights to sign him until July 1st, 2013 when you trade for him.
Once a starter goes down in training camp (if there is one ) you will see TT get a nice return. The Bruins will not just give him away. People have a short memory, he's a GREAT goalie that is better than most on many of the teams in the league.

So they hold and wait.

4ORRBRUIN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2012, 09:23 AM
  #20
Rubber Biscuit
Noted Loui Apologist
 
Rubber Biscuit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 5,043
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by birddog View Post
"believe" -- I guess you would jump off a bridge if you believed it would be fun -- reality is very different. Bruins NEED to rid themselves of Thomas and his 5 million. Deals like this have been made in the past -- the pick will go to the team taking his contract.

The NHL might not even allow the deal. You are trading a retired player.
No, they don't need to trade him, at least not yet. And no, he's not retired.

Rubber Biscuit is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2012, 09:41 AM
  #21
ShootIt
Registered User
 
ShootIt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: 561
Country: United States
Posts: 6,279
vCash: 500
Wait, whys he not wanting to suit up for the bruins again?

He wants to get traded to play elsewhere?

ShootIt is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2012, 09:55 AM
  #22
Rubber Biscuit
Noted Loui Apologist
 
Rubber Biscuit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 5,043
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShootIt View Post
Wait, whys he not wanting to suit up for the bruins again?

He wants to get traded to play elsewhere?
No, he's taking time off to "focus on the three F's; Friends, Family, and Faith."

He's not trying to force a trade to a location of his choice, he's not trying to get a contract extension. He wants to take a year off, apparently.

Rubber Biscuit is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2012, 10:09 AM
  #23
JBernierFan
Drink up!
 
JBernierFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: San Diego
Country: United States
Posts: 3,788
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4ORRBRUIN View Post
Once a starter goes down in training camp (if there is one ) you will see TT get a nice return. The Bruins will not just give him away. People have a short memory, he's a GREAT goalie that is better than most on many of the teams in the league.

So they hold and wait.
TT said he doesn't want to play hockey this year, regardless of it being with the Bruins or someone else, correct? I was under the impression he was taking a year off from playing. Sure he doesn't want to be a Bruin but he's not holding out because of it. At least that was my impression. If that is the case, no team is going to pay a "nice price" for someone who doesn't want to play this year and who hasn't trained this summer. Also, how many years does he really have left, even if he does come back? Isn't he in his late 30's? He also only has the one year left on his contract. The odds are stacked on the Bruins side for sure. Remember, there's a pretty good goalie named Luongo out there who hasn't been traded yet and who wants to play hockey this year.

JBernierFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2012, 10:10 AM
  #24
BruinsNeedaRussian
Registered User
 
BruinsNeedaRussian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 6,810
vCash: 1340
Quote:
Originally Posted by BonkTastic View Post
The Devils needed to include a 1st rounder for the Sharks to take Malakhov and his cap hit off their hands.

I doubt a 3rd rounder is enough for someone to take on the Thomas cap hit.
Don't recall the Malakhov situation, but Thomas is only a caphit, no salary. So as long as a team isn't using the capspace, he doesn't really affect them at all. Has negative value for Boston or a team using/considering utilizing that space, but a team like the Isles isn't affected. Not that they would help the Bruins, but I can see a third being enough for some teams. Especially if a team needs to reach the capfloor, then he actually has very very minor value to the team. Also, only one year.

BruinsNeedaRussian is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2012, 10:11 AM
  #25
coldsteelonice84
Registered User
 
coldsteelonice84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 25,569
vCash: 10592
There would have to be a promise to return at some point. Maybe a lockout would be enough of a break. If so, a couple 3rds sounds right.

coldsteelonice84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:09 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.