Trade Rumors and Free Agent TalkTrade rumors, transactions, and free agent talk. Rumors must contain the word RUMOR in post title. Proposals must contain the word PROPOSAL in post title.
Just because Washington could use help on defense, and could they ever, that does not mean they need to take on one of the league's truly terrible contracts, simply to do Sather a large.
'Insane bad contract' trumps 'still a good player.'
Redden, until he's able to put up 50-60 points, has negative trade value. That contract is poison. The Caps are in a cap crunch temporarily. That opens up briefly in the summer, but is immediately erased by new contracts to Semin and Backstrom.
The reason Redden is so untradeable is that so many clubs are right at the cap, both presently and looking out to the future. Washington has no room for such an expensive player going forward.
Nylander stinks, but it's temporary. Redden's contract isn't going to go away. If Nylander were signed for five more years, then fine, but he isn't signed that long. So he's a more attractive anchor on a payroll than is Redden at the moment.
There is also potential for Nylander to disappear to the KHL this year, which would solve many of Washington's problems.
First, you are correct in realizing that next summer is the crunch time for Washington's cap. However, after that crunch time, the cap situation should get easier, because all your players should be signed long-term and the economy should rebound.
Second, you are incorrect in pretending Nylander's contract won't effect Washington's crunch. Nylander's contract is for another two years, which brings him past the point you need to dump him. Therefore, when viewing Redden vs. Nylander during the critical period - next summer - there is only a 1.675m dollar difference between the two, This difference is even less critical when you consider that Redden, a roster player, will take the spot of [a re-signed] Pothier or lesser Dman (which will be in the 1-2m range), where Nylander's replacement with be a 4th liner. In other words, when you consider the two rosters spots involved in 10/11 (1 center, 1 Dman) - [Nylander + re-signed Pothier/other Dman] ~ [Redden + 4th line center] ~ 7m irregardless of whether you do this trade or not.
Third, if Washington is going to win a Cup, it's going to have to be soon. Redden is definitely an upgrade to their Defense - which was the weakness part of their team last year and which cost them the Pens series.
Last edited by nickschultzfan: 09-03-2009 at 09:19 AM.
Next summer, Nylander's salary drops to $3 million for the final year, and the NMC disappears. The team can demote him to the minors, if he is still with the club, or hope that the very real threat to do so will force him to take the KHL more seriously if he has not already done so this season.
Either way, though, this is beside the point. Nylander at two more years, only one of them ironclad, is a lot better than Redden's very high cap hit for five more years. Redden to Washington is a total non-starter.
If they can get out from under Nylander, they will probably address their defense. They will probably not take on a crappy contract like that of Redden, however.
Redden would not be the difference maker on Washington's road to the Cup. We all have Center Ice, and we all know full well just how disappointing Redden has been as a Ranger. He's not useless by any means, but he's been a hell of a lot less valuable than a $6.5M player. The Caps will address defensive holes elsewhere, if and when the cap room to do so opens up.
They won't follow up the dumping of one albatross contract by taking on a worse one.
Reddens contract takes offense to this statement and challenges Pothiers contract to a duel to settle this issue. As a Ranger fan, I do this deal in a second. In fact I would do pretty much any deal that involved us moving Reddens contract.
Reddens contract takes offense to this statement and challenges Pothiers contract to a duel to settle this issue. As a Ranger fan, I do this deal in a second. In fact I would do pretty much any deal that involved us moving Reddens contract.
Agreed. That's about the size of it. The only difference between this Rangers fan and most others in this thread and beyond, is that this one is honest where Redden is concerned.
Rangers fans want Redden gone in the worst way, and it's easy to see why they would do so. The OP is no different.
I apologize is this has been posted before, not sure if I've seen this exact trade. Not personal stake in either of these two teams.
Redden (6.5m) for Nylander (4.875m) and Pothier (2.5m)(7.375m total).
And I understand about how the NMC clauses will have to be waived and how Pothier might not even come back.
Washington's view: Gain a top-4 Dman, who still has some offensive game. Beside Green, it seems they need an offensive Dman. Also, since Redden would take a spot away from another Dman, Washington will actually gain .875m + the salary of the other Dman that gets waived. That might be enough to sign Zherdev or Afinogenov.
Ranger's view: Dump a larger contract for a slightly smaller, shorter contract. Gain a center for Gaborik, who actual plays very well with older, vet players (Brunette, Demitra, Walz, etc.). Nylander could still put up 70 points with Gaborik.
Thoughts? (and, yes, I realize that neither team may not want to bother, but it could help both)
Redden is the best player in the deal. Pothier is the worst contract, considering how he's always damn hurt, but he could end up putting up as many points as Redden next year. The wildcard for me is Nylander, as I don't know quite how brutal he has been. I think Redden CAN bounce back to being a respectable, 4.5mil player, but it's a huge risk.
No, Pothier's contract is up after this year and the caps are not handcuffed by it whatsoever. They have Semin and Backstrom as RFA's next year who will get huge deals. Redden's contract would handcuff them.
First, you are correct in realizing that next summer is the crunch time for Washington's cap. However, after that crunch time, the cap situation should get easier, because all your players should be signed long-term and the economy should rebound.
Second, you are incorrect in pretending Nylander's contract won't effect Washington's crunch. Nylander's contract is for another two years, which brings him past the point you need to dump him. Therefore, when viewing Redden vs. Nylander during the critical period - next summer - there is only a 1.675m dollar difference between the two, This difference is even less critical when you consider that Redden, a roster player, will take the spot of [a re-signed] Pothier or lesser Dman (which will be in the 1-2m range), where Nylander's replacement with be a 4th liner. In other words, when you consider the two rosters spots involved in 10/11 (1 center, 1 Dman) - [Nylander + re-signed Pothier/other Dman] ~ [Redden + 4th line center] ~ 7m irregardless of whether you do this trade or not.
Third, if Washington is going to win a Cup, it's going to have to be soon. Redden is definitely an upgrade to their Defense - which was the weakness part of their team last year and which cost them the Pens series.
Couple of comments from a relatively impartial POV:
1) Why does WASH have to win a Cup soon? Isn't AO under contract for 11 more years? Green for 4? Backstrom for at least 5? What's the rush?
2) While I think Redden's struggles last year are overblown on this board, you HAVE to see the difference between $32.5M guaranteed for Redden compared to about $10.5 for Nylander/Pothier (of which $3M is likely avoidable with Nylander after his NMC expires).
3) It's incredibly foolish to bank on the economy rebounding as the reason why Redden's contract is going to suck less.
4) If the Cap's are making noise next summer (aka - coming off a strong year & P/O's) - don't you think they would 10x rather bury Nylander in the minors to incent him to play in the KHL and promote a guy like Alzner/Carlson rather than tie up a big chunk of their cap space with Redden? You're basically saying that (worst case) they'd rather pay Redden $27M over the next 4 years than pay Nylander $3M to go away?
First, you are correct in realizing that next summer is the crunch time for Washington's cap. However, after that crunch time, the cap situation should get easier, because all your players should be signed long-term and the economy should rebound.
Second, you are incorrect in pretending Nylander's contract won't effect Washington's crunch. Nylander's contract is for another two years, which brings him past the point you need to dump him. Therefore, when viewing Redden vs. Nylander during the critical period - next summer - there is only a 1.675m dollar difference between the two, This difference is even less critical when you consider that Redden, a roster player, will take the spot of [a re-signed] Pothier or lesser Dman (which will be in the 1-2m range), where Nylander's replacement with be a 4th liner. In other words, when you consider the two rosters spots involved in 10/11 (1 center, 1 Dman) - [Nylander + re-signed Pothier/other Dman] ~ [Redden + 4th line center] ~ 7m irregardless of whether you do this trade or not.
Third, if Washington is going to win a Cup, it's going to have to be soon. Redden is definitely an upgrade to their Defense - which was the weakness part of their team last year and which cost them the Pens series.
You don't get it. Nylander's replacement is nobody, as he's not being counted on as a roster player. Nylander sitting in the minors = no cap hit. If Pothier stays on it's for less than he's making now, or not at all.
If the Caps don't do this trade, in '10/'11 the worst case scenario is they have to pay Nylander 3 million to play in the AHL (or somewhere in Europe if there's a loan involved), with no impact on the cap whatsoever. Pothier can walk and be replaced by Carlson (800K IINM) if they don't want to spend the money.
If the Caps do this trade, in '10/'11 the worst case scenario is they lose Semin and can't get a good return for him because they've got Redden sitting on their cap for the forseeable future.
This is a total non-starter. It probably doesn't make the Caps any better now (if so only by a small amount), and it makes them worse by a gigantic margin from next season on.
You don't get it. Nylander's replacement is nobody, as he's not being counted on as a roster player. Nylander sitting in the minors = no cap hit. If Pothier stays on it's for less than he's making now, or not at all.
If the Caps don't do this trade, in '10/'11 the worst case scenario is they have to pay Nylander 3 million to play in the AHL (or somewhere in Europe if there's a loan involved), with no impact on the cap whatsoever. Pothier can walk and be replaced by Carlson (800K IINM) if they don't want to spend the money.
If the Caps do this trade, in '10/'11 the worst case scenario is they lose Semin and can't get a good return for him because they've got Redden sitting on their cap for the forseeable future.
This is a total non-starter. It probably doesn't make the Caps any better now (if so only by a small amount), and it makes them worse by a gigantic margin from next season on.
Posters on this board love to claim "you can just bury a bad contract in the minors."
My question to you is, if this were so easy, with zero negatives, why haven't more teams done it?
The answer is because teams don't want to get a reputation for being the team that signs guys to contracts and then throws them in the AHL, even though they are an NHL player.
The hockey world is small. If Washington put Nylander in the minors to force him to go to Europe, don't think there wouldn't be a major negative backlash. Kind of hard to negotiate re-signings when every guy is asking for a NMC or hard to build a team when UFAs don't want to sign with that team anymore.
This is beside the point. Whether the Caps are dealing with Nylander for one season or two... Redden still has five seasons under contract. It's a mismatch regardless of how the Capitals deal with Nylander, because even under the worst case scenario, Nylander is not a Cap from July 2011.
Posters on this board love to claim "you can just bury a bad contract in the minors."
My question to you is, if this were so easy, with zero negatives, why haven't more teams done it?
The answer is because teams don't want to get a reputation for being the team that signs guys to contracts and then throws them in the AHL, even though they are an NHL player.
The hockey world is small. If Washington put Nylander in the minors to force him to go to Europe, don't think there wouldn't be a major negative backlash. Kind of hard to negotiate re-signings when every guy is asking for a NMC or hard to build a team when UFAs don't want to sign with that team anymore.
I don't see how it could have that effect, since that's already the situation. He already wants out, it's already become pretty clear he's done as a Capital.
