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.

Will a team trade for Thomas' contract to get to the cap floor?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-17-2012, 08:27 AM
  #1
jumptheshark
McDavid Headquarters
 
jumptheshark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: EVIL EMPIRE
Country: United Nations
Posts: 59,206
vCash: 2458
Will a team trade for Thomas' contract to get to the cap floor?

As we know Tim Thomas is taking the next season off--if their is a next season. I read a few articles on line suggesting that a few teams might try to trade for his rights to get his contract on their books to get them to the cap floor. Thomas is on a 35+ contract--even though the bruins will not be paying him this next season--they will have the 5mill on their cap hit.

here is the questions

1) What teams might trade to take the cap hit
2) What could the bruins get for it.

My understanding is Thomas has a NMC and NTC in affect till july 1st after that I have no idea what his contract clause is.
Could Thomas--if having a no trade clause, blocks a trade, could the bruins take him to court pointing out the fact he is not going to play and therefor it is only a clerical trade.

__________________
"If the Detroit Red Wings are defying gravity" by consistently contending without the benefit of high draft picks, "the Edmonton Oilers are defying lift.

Welcome to Edmonton Connor McDavid--the rest of you HA HA HA HA HA HA
jumptheshark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2012, 08:33 AM
  #2
JeffMangum
Man Girardi
 
JeffMangum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Listening to music
Country: United States
Posts: 59,734
vCash: 50
The idea of this is just so pathetic. Skirting around spending money to make the team better by adding what it literally a deadweight.

Really needs to be fixed in the new CBA.

__________________
Soon.
JeffMangum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2012, 08:35 AM
  #3
Rinzler
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Mississauga
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,002
vCash: 500
I would be surprised if the League allows it tbh.

Rinzler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2012, 08:36 AM
  #4
Buckets and Gloves
10 AVE FREEZE OUT
 
Buckets and Gloves's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 6,576
vCash: 500
After July 1st Boston can trade Thomas where ever they please... his NTC is expired than.

As for getting something for him... highly doubtful... Possibly for "future considerations" at most.

Buckets and Gloves is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2012, 08:38 AM
  #5
JVR21
G
 
JVR21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: United States
Posts: 7,970
vCash: 50
It would be cap circumvention, plain and simple. The league wouldn't allow it.

JVR21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2012, 08:41 AM
  #6
SolidSnakeUS
Registered User
 
SolidSnakeUS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Pipersville, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 32,995
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JVR21 View Post
It would be cap circumvention, plain and simple. The league wouldn't allow it.
I thought cap circumvention only came in when giving a player contracts? I mean, they have every right to trade for Thomas, and then literally letting the 5M stay on the cap, even though he's not sent down or on the IR. Think of trading for Redden, who let's say he had a NMC (that he waived to go somewhere), and then he's so bad, they can only scratch him.

SolidSnakeUS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2012, 08:41 AM
  #7
Kane One
HFB Partner
 
Kane One's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Brooklyn, New NY
Country: United States
Posts: 31,219
vCash: 2000
None, because it with either get vetoed or fought by the NHLPA.

__________________
Kane One is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2012, 08:42 AM
  #8
Holden Caulfield
Moderator
The Eternal Skeptic
 
Holden Caulfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,824
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rinzler View Post
I would be surprised if the League allows it tbh.
NJD traded retired D Vladimir Malakhov along with a 2007 1st Rounder (later traded to STL, ended up being LW David Perron) to San Jose in exchange for RFA RW Alexander Korolyuk (who as well known to be not coming back to NA) and borderline 7th defenseman D Jim Fahey just before the start of the 06-07 season. The first was basically given to SJ so that the Devils could get rid of Malakhov's cap hit for 06-07(which was a 35+ contract same as Thomas). I fail to see the difference between that and Thomas situation, it will be allowed.


Last edited by Holden Caulfield: 06-17-2012 at 08:56 AM.
Holden Caulfield is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2012, 08:46 AM
  #9
Peter
Registered User
 
Peter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alberta
Posts: 3,673
vCash: 500
Well Columbus is need of a #1 goalie and might need help getting to the floor once they move Nash

Peter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2012, 08:47 AM
  #10
JVR21
G
 
JVR21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: United States
Posts: 7,970
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolidSnakeUS View Post
I thought cap circumvention only came in when giving a player contracts? I mean, they have every right to trade for Thomas, and then literally letting the 5M stay on the cap, even though he's not sent down or on the IR. Think of trading for Redden, who let's say he had a NMC (that he waived to go somewhere), and then he's so bad, they can only scratch him.
Throw the nhl's credibility out the window if it doesn't allow the kovalchuk contract but allows a trade for a player that will not be playing. The redden example isn't a good one because he still is playing and the team would still have to pay him his full salary regardless of his NHL status.

JVR21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2012, 08:52 AM
  #11
steveat
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,636
vCash: 500
You're better off trading for either Gomez or Dipietro if you want to hit the cap floor. At least those guys are still young enough to come back and not look as bad as if you were trading for a player that may not want to come back. I think Thomas is more family oriented and he knows he's ony going downhill FAST from here. He wants to go out on a high note.

steveat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2012, 08:54 AM
  #12
CREW99AW
Registered User
 
CREW99AW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 30,223
vCash: 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by DogEatDog View Post
As we know Tim Thomas is taking the next season off--if their is a next season. I read a few articles on line suggesting that a few teams might try to trade for his rights to get his contract on their books to get them to the cap floor. Thomas is on a 35+ contract--even though the bruins will not be paying him this next season--they will have the 5mill on their cap hit.

here is the questions

1) What teams might trade to take the cap hit
2) What could the bruins get for it.

My understanding is Thomas has a NMC and NTC in affect till july 1st after that I have no idea what his contract clause is.
Could Thomas--if having a no trade clause, blocks a trade, could the bruins take him to court pointing out the fact he is not going to play and therefor it is only a clerical trade.
Why go through that hassle,when a team could sign a player over 35,to a 1 yr deal,filled with unreachable bonuses?

CREW99AW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2012, 08:59 AM
  #13
nmbr_24
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 10,540
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveat View Post
You're better off trading for either Gomez or Dipietro if you want to hit the cap floor. At least those guys are still young enough to come back and not look as bad as if you were trading for a player that may not want to come back. I think Thomas is more family oriented and he knows he's ony going downhill FAST from here. He wants to go out on a high note.
You are way better off trading for Thomas. Not only do you get the cap hit, you don't have to pay any money and then his contract is over if you want or they could hold on to him for as long as they want until either they decide to toll the last year of the contract or Thomas comes back as long as they suspend him.

I don't think Thomas cares how he goes out, he is just going to do what he wants, it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks except for him. If you think anything other than that you haven't been paying attention to Tim Thomas.

nmbr_24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2012, 09:03 AM
  #14
nmbr_24
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 10,540
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CREW99AW View Post
Why go through that hassle,when a team could sign a player over 35,to a 1 yr deal,filled with unreachable bonuses?
Why bother doing that when you can get a guy that costs $5 million against the cap and costs you $0.

Of course it would be better for all of the fans if a team would spend money to get better players, unfortunately we have some teams who might be looking to just reach the cap floor.

nmbr_24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2012, 09:05 AM
  #15
coolstorybro
Registered User
 
coolstorybro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: NEW GUNSWICK NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 503
vCash: 500
i would hope they would use the 'spirit of the CBA' clause they ****ed the devils with to stop anything like this from happening.

coolstorybro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2012, 09:06 AM
  #16
SIDGENO8771
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,275
vCash: 500
No one will do that unless Boston adds a 1st or a solid prospect.

SIDGENO8771 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2012, 09:06 AM
  #17
Grant
LL Genius
 
Grant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: London
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,446
vCash: 95
I think teams will want to trade for him to reach the cap floor, but I don't think Boston will trade him unless they get somewhere close to his value if he were playing. They will probably want to keep him for the possibility of him coming back next season. The cap hit won't be a huge deal for Boston I don't think, they haven't put Savard on LTIR yet, that and Thomas could cancel each other out.

Grant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2012, 09:07 AM
  #18
coolstorybro
Registered User
 
coolstorybro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: NEW GUNSWICK NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 503
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holden Caulfield View Post
NJD traded retired D Vladimir Malakhov along with a 2007 1st Rounder (later traded to STL, ended up being LW David Perron) to San Jose in exchange for RFA RW Alexander Korolyuk (who as well known to be not coming back to NA) and borderline 7th defenseman D Jim Fahey just before the start of the 06-07 season. The first was basically given to SJ so that the Devils could get rid of Malakhov's cap hit for 06-07(which was a 35+ contract same as Thomas). I fail to see the difference between that and Thomas situation, it will be allowed.
if its including other pieces (like the 1st rounder in that deal), then yes they have to let it go thru.

didn't think of that trade when reading OP. good point.

coolstorybro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2012, 09:19 AM
  #19
Kaoz*
Ima Krejciist.
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,635
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holden Caulfield View Post
NJD traded retired D Vladimir Malakhov along with a 2007 1st Rounder (later traded to STL, ended up being LW David Perron) to San Jose in exchange for RFA RW Alexander Korolyuk (who as well known to be not coming back to NA) and borderline 7th defenseman D Jim Fahey just before the start of the 06-07 season. The first was basically given to SJ so that the Devils could get rid of Malakhov's cap hit for 06-07(which was a 35+ contract same as Thomas). I fail to see the difference between that and Thomas situation, it will be allowed.
In that case as well I believe there was actual money associated with Malakhov as he was just on LTIR no? Thomas is simply a cap hit, no money will be paid to him. May make him more attractive to a team trying to reach the floor.

It'd be funny if it happened and the acquiring team chose to toll his contract so they could do the same thing again next year.

Kaoz* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2012, 09:21 AM
  #20
internetdotcom
11 + 15 + 19 = 666
 
internetdotcom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Capital O
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,242
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to internetdotcom Send a message via Yahoo to internetdotcom
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter View Post
Well Columbus is need of a #1 goalie and might need help getting to the floor once they move Nash
Any team trading for Nash will most assuredly need to be sending salary back, so this won't be a problem for them.

Also, why would any team needing to get to the cap floor waste $5 mill on a player that is a sideshow and won't even play, when they could spend that money on player(s) that will actually help the team?

And I highly doubt that the 'not having to pay Thomas' factor comes into it much considering how rich these owners are. Any extra $$$ they are paying to players that are actually on the ice vs. not paying Thomas will be at least mostly made up for by the extra revenue of a team that, you know, wins.

B's are stuck with that contract. Even if they manage to get rid of it, they are not getting more than a salary dump and/or a 7th rounder back.

internetdotcom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2012, 09:25 AM
  #21
wej20
Registered User
 
wej20's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Swansea,UK
Country: Wales
Posts: 23,562
vCash: 500
Sounds like Charles Wang would be all over this.

wej20 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2012, 09:27 AM
  #22
Guest
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,330
vCash: 500
The NHLPA would want a trade like this to happen because Thomas would be going to someone who had the salary cap room to absorb the contract much more likely than they would use the contract to get to the floor. The team taking on the contract would essentially be selling cap space for an asset. The part the NHLPA would like is that it would free up cap space for the Bruins to use.

For example, say the Avs trade a 7th rounder for Thomas & a small asset. The Avs don't have to pay that salary, so it's not preventing them from spending money as they are already below the cap. They add the small asset. The Bruins suddenly have $5M extra to spend and give that money to the players in some form. That extra money would not be left unspent. From the NHLPA's perspective that is like $5M additional going into the pot for the players.

I think the NHL has already set a record on this type of transaction when the Devils traded Malakhov to the Sharks the first year of the cap. If they allowed it then, it's hard not to suddenly allow it today.

Guest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2012, 09:27 AM
  #23
Fire Julien
Registered User
 
Fire Julien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Bergen
Country: Norway
Posts: 20,250
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holden Caulfield View Post
NJD traded retired D Vladimir Malakhov along with a 2007 1st Rounder (later traded to STL, ended up being LW David Perron) to San Jose in exchange for RFA RW Alexander Korolyuk (who as well known to be not coming back to NA) and borderline 7th defenseman D Jim Fahey just before the start of the 06-07 season. The first was basically given to SJ so that the Devils could get rid of Malakhov's cap hit for 06-07(which was a 35+ contract same as Thomas). I fail to see the difference between that and Thomas situation, it will be allowed.
Malakhov wasn't officially retired, but was suspended by the Devils after he threatened to retire if he was going to be dumped in the minors.

Thomas has already announced he won't be playing next year. A move would be pure cap circumvention and it won't happen.

Fire Julien is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2012, 09:28 AM
  #24
BLONG7
Registered User
 
BLONG7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 13,571
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JVR21 View Post
It would be cap circumvention, plain and simple. The league wouldn't allow it.
This...he has already told the world he is not playing...the B's have to deal with it...

BLONG7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-17-2012, 09:31 AM
  #25
CREW99AW
Registered User
 
CREW99AW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 30,223
vCash: 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by wej20 View Post
Sounds like Charles Wang would be all over this.
No need.Each offseason,opposing fans worry about Wang getting to the cap floor

Bob McKenzie says the cap floor will be about $54m.
With 15 players under contract,the isles 2012-2013 cap stand as $39m+.

Snow has indicated there will be more prospects on the roster.
According to the local press, Snow's looking to add a top 4 defenseman,considering bringing back Staios and going with 3 goalies.
Below are the impending ufas,a key rfa and the prospects with strongest chances to stick.

$4m-$4.5m for Parenteau or another top 6 forward
$4m for a top 4 defenseman
$2.9m Brock Nelson
$1.4m De haan or $850,000 Donovan
???? rfa Martin
???? Poulin or Nilson
???? Staios

CREW99AW 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 02:17 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.