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.

Teams forced to make bad trades due to salary cap/ self imposed cap

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-10-2010, 11:30 PM
  #26
Canucks5551
Registered User
 
Canucks5551's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Vancouver Island
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,181
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somethings Bruin View Post
so apparently nobody is on this list according to all the posters from each respective team....

anyways how did the chicago blackhawks miss this list its almost a garuntee they are going to lose a couple guys (sharp,byfuglien,versteeg,bolland are in that position) in bad trades due to their well documented cap struggle on the horizon
He said that the list was teams besides Chicago.

Canucks5551 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2010, 11:44 PM
  #27
Dr Danglefest
Vindication
 
Dr Danglefest's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Beantown
Country: United States
Posts: 2,275
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canucks5551 View Post
He said that the list was teams besides Chicago.
ahh well my mistake then, missed that part, boston might hafta as well if they plan on signing all their RFA's and boychuk

Dr Danglefest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2010, 11:47 PM
  #28
crazyforhockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 5,563
vCash: 500
Edm has a few overpriced salaries that they need to get rid of to shed cap.....pick compensation or a decent prospect trown in.

Sj may be in trouble due to RFA's(Pavelski,Setoguchi) and cap restraints....will need to still sign a #1 goalie too(Nabokov or a new goalie)plus losing Marelau,Malholtra,Nichol(although those latter two are bargin contracts) ...will be intresting to see how they navigate the cap

Phi has been tight to cap but they have RFA's in Coburn,Carcillo and Parent...so could be forced to make a bad trade

crazyforhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2010, 12:51 AM
  #29
Sandwiches1123
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 271
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziostilon View Post
With the exception of Chicago, which everyone knows they'll have salary cap problems next season.

2 summers ago, we watched as Tampa traded Dan Boyle to San Jose. even though it may have something to do with his previous injury shortened season. Finance was a big part of it.

This season there'll be teams that will be forced to trade some players which otherwise should not be traded due to NHL Salary Cap, or the team's own Self-imposed cap

For example:
Could Shea Weber be dumped in a trade that makes very little sense to Nashville, in order to get more value for him before he hits RFA. If the Preds. do not think they can afford giving Weber the big contract which he deserves.

My list:
Nashville Predators
Florida Panthers
Phoenix Coyotes
Atlanta Thrashers
Dallas Stars
Carolina Hurricanes
Columbus Blue Jackets
New York Islanders

the possibles:
St. Louis Blues
Buffalo Sabres


Each of the teams you have listed are not having cap problems but financing problems. Don't be surprised to see Nashville, Dallas, and Atlanta all up for sale within the next three years. Each will not be tied to an arena lease and will be given the option to move. NHL teams are going to be cheap as demand will be low and supply high.

The only exception to the teams above is Florida. They are owned by a sports ownership group that also owns the arena they play in. The Florida Panthers do not make money but the group as a whole does. They have a top 10 venue for concerts, shows, and outdoor recreation fairs in the country. Because of this, I don't know if Florida is going to make any "bad" trades.

The problem we are going to see is that player values start going down sooner than later. To Philadelphia Jeff Carter is more valuable than what they will get for him in a trade but its going to be their only option. Another thing we'll see is that GM's are making trades and taking on bad contracts to gain picks. Essentially you will see a trade like this happen:

To FLA: Campbell, 1st 2010, 1st 2011, Huet

To Chi: Vokoun, some bottom 6 forward making $700,000.

I understand Chicago is a huge exception so I'll throw this one out.

To FLA: Redden, 1st 2010, 1st 2011

To NYR: 7th D making $800,000, 2011 3rd

Teams are so tied by these bad contracts that we'll see something stupid like this...probably only one or two, but we'll see them.

Sandwiches1123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2010, 01:02 AM
  #30
orange is better
than other colors...
 
orange is better's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 8,090
vCash: 500
i know the cap is projected to go up about 2 million for the 10-11 season, but can someone tell me when they will officially announce what the cap will be for this coming season?

orange is better is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2010, 01:12 AM
  #31
worstfaceoffmanever
These Snacks Are Odd
 
worstfaceoffmanever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Winston-Salem, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 12,462
vCash: 500
Nashvillle can't trade anyone, not because of their performance necessarily, but because of their contract status.

Arnott - $4.5M, 19 goals, 49 points - NMC
Dumont - $4.5M, 17 goals, 45 points - NMC
Legwand - $4.5M, 11 goals, 38 points - NTC
Erat - $4.5M, 21 goals, 49 points - NMC
Sullivan - $3.75M, 17 goals, 51 points - NTC

As I said, Poile is not trading anyone, but he'll compensate for that by not throwing money into a massive pit on this remarkably old free agent class and signing our own players with that extra money below the midpoint.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobbyClarkeFan16 View Post
Karmanos has already said that he's looking at cutting the payroll significantly so that he can get some investors on board. The number that was being thrown around was 40. Not sure what the floor is, but 40 is an awfully low number for a team that seems to do real well with regards to attendance.....
$40M is a pretty healthy margin below the floor, which is looking to be around $43M this upcoming year.

The Boyle trade had little to do with finances, by the way. That was a trade forced on Feaster by Barrie and Koules because they wanted to play fantasy hockey with a real NHL team.


Last edited by worstfaceoffmanever: 06-11-2010 at 01:19 AM.
worstfaceoffmanever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2010, 01:15 AM
  #32
ronnyweed
Registered User
 
ronnyweed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,654
vCash: 500
The wings letting leino go is a result of lack of roster space, which is an interesting twist on this topic. Sometimes teams can literally have too many good players.

ronnyweed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2010, 01:18 AM
  #33
BLAME CANADA*
The Canucks did it
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 5,696
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziostilon View Post
With the exception of Chicago, which everyone knows they'll have salary cap problems next season.

2 summers ago, we watched as Tampa traded Dan Boyle to San Jose. even though it may have something to do with his previous injury shortened season. Finance was a big part of it.

This season there'll be teams that will be forced to trade some players which otherwise should not be traded due to NHL Salary Cap, or the team's own Self-imposed cap

For example:
Could Shea Weber be dumped in a trade that makes very little sense to Nashville, in order to get more value for him before he hits RFA. If the Preds. do not think they can afford giving Weber the big contract which he deserves.

My list:
Nashville Predators
Florida Panthers
Phoenix Coyotes
Atlanta Thrashers
Dallas Stars
Carolina Hurricanes
Columbus Blue Jackets
New York Islanders

the possibles:
St. Louis Blues
Buffalo Sabres
I would LOVE the Preds to trade Weber to the Nucks but I don't see them trading him. If Weber wants big time money 7 mil and Suter wants big money as well then they might move one but I wont hold my breath.

BLAME CANADA* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2010, 01:29 AM
  #34
Cogburn
Registered User
 
Cogburn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,814
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanadianHockey View Post
San Jose trading Ehrhoff would be a good example of a team making a bad trade for cap space. Not because of self-imposed cap though.
As beneficial as it was to the Canucks, Ehrhoff turned out GREAT for us, Ehrhoff had not completely earned his 3.1 million dollar salary while in San Jose. Wasn't his nickname "Errorhoff" because of his defensive play? The same sort of thing with, let's say Bieksa. If we trade him, we will not get a return that would be equal to what the other team would get.


Also, there are many teams with new management or new owners that have lost money, but that doesn't mean that there will be a firesale for that/those teams. I think Chicago is the only team that will be forced to make trades, as they are sitting at over 57 million with like 10 guys to re sign or replace. There is no other team that you, or I, or the rest of the internet can comment on that are in the same situation, internal cap or not, because we can only speculate as to which teams will only want to spend which amount.

Cogburn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2010, 01:41 AM
  #35
BobbyClarkeFan16
Registered User
 
BobbyClarkeFan16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: London Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,002
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazyforhockey View Post
Phi has been tight to cap but they have RFA's in Coburn,Carcillo and Parent...so could be forced to make a bad trade
They're not as tight to the cap as you think. The Flyers are going to have about 8 to 10 million in cap space available this year.

BobbyClarkeFan16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2010, 01:48 AM
  #36
baydrake
gutless performance
 
baydrake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,353
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazyforhockey View Post
Sj may be in trouble due to RFA's(Pavelski,Setoguchi) and cap restraints
nah. a bit of turnover is expected (as with most clubs) but SJ won't be forced to trade someone. it would probably be wise to trade a forward for a defenseman if possible, as the Sharks have more passable top 6 forwards than top 4 Dmen...

but with less than 37M committed next year and the cap likely rising, SJ's concern is more which free agents to take a run at. they're actually 6th from the bottom in $s committed and middle of the pack in $/opening

baydrake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2010, 01:52 AM
  #37
mercury
Registered User
 
mercury's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: South Philly/SoCal
Country: United States
Posts: 11,105
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandwiches1123 View Post
The problem we are going to see is that player values start going down sooner than later. To Philadelphia Jeff Carter is more valuable than what they will get for him in a trade but its going to be their only option.
The Flyers are fine for the cap for next season. What are you talking about?

mercury is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2010, 02:04 AM
  #38
Rivet52
Sabres & Blackhawks
 
Rivet52's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Buffalo, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 5,832
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Rivet52
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanadianHockey View Post
San Jose trading Ehrhoff would be a good example of a team making a bad trade for cap space. Not because of self-imposed cap though.
This is what I was going to post. Ehrhoff and Lukowich were traded for White (not too great of a prospect) and Rahimi (an AHLer) in order to make room to fit Heatley's contract under the cap. The Canucks got Ehrhoff for practically nothing and took advantage of the Sharks' problem.


The Flyers sweetened the Upshall trade by including a draft pick going back to the Coyotes so they would take Upshall. The pick and Upshall went to Phoenix for Carcillo. The Flyers did this because they needed to shed Upshall's salary.

Rivet52 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2010, 02:17 AM
  #39
seanlinden
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 18,555
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobbyClarkeFan16 View Post
They're not as tight to the cap as you think. The Flyers are going to have about 8 to 10 million in cap space available this year.
It's not really taht much when you conisder that they have to add 6 players with that....but it won't be a problem either. To keep their existing team intact, the only guy looking at more than about $1.25 cap hit will be Coburn.

Assuming he ends up around $4.0, the Flyers could still spend a bit over $1m per player on the remaining 5. The guys that are up for contract are Carcillo, Asham, Powe, Parent, Krajicek, Emery, Leighton and Backlund....just about all of which are replacable.

They'll problably even be able to make a few upgrades, specifically related to improving their depth on the blueline, and a goaltender. Plus, they've gotta expect some natural growth from JvR & Giroux, as well as hopefully a bit of a rebound year for Hartnell. The flyers are set up very well for next year. The following depth chart with $4-6m to spend.

Gagne-Richards-Carter
Leino-Briere-Hartnell
Van Riemsdyk-Giroux-?
?-Betts-Laperriere
Cote

Pronger-Carle
Timmonen-Coburn
?-Bartulis
?

?
Boucher

seanlinden is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2010, 02:34 AM
  #40
tmurfin
500g1000pts
 
tmurfin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,492
vCash: 100
Flames are probably gonna end up giving sarich away for nothing. Unless someone takes staios or kotalik but from the sounds of it, they will be back next season

tmurfin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2010, 06:32 AM
  #41
slapshots1515
Registered User
 
slapshots1515's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: United States
Posts: 1,683
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ronnyweed View Post
The wings letting leino go is a result of lack of roster space, which is an interesting twist on this topic. Sometimes teams can literally have too many good players.
Certainly would be. It's something we've seen a fair amount in recent years, several of our castoffs going on to play critical roles on other teams (trust me, the name Kyle Quincey still smarts a little.) Luckily, the guys that get left behind don't do too shabby either.

slapshots1515 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2010, 07:18 AM
  #42
Boom Boom Anton
Registered User
 
Boom Boom Anton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,893
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somethings Bruin View Post
so apparently nobody is on this list according to all the posters from each respective team....
Well..that's probably because this doesn't happen too often in the first place. Teams don't often get rid of players they'd otherwise keep just because of salary / salary cap. They first go after players they don't want to keep anyhow.

I go back to the Canes...they want to get rid of Samsonov and Brind'Amour anyhow due to the fact that they are making 2.5-$3M and have basically been relegated to the 4th line..not just because of some internal cap. They already got rid of a ton of would be UFAs at the deadline (Corvo, Cullen, Walker, Ward, Wallin, Alberts) and 2 more are UFA's this offseason (Whitney and Pothier).

After that, there isn't much left other than guys they want to keep (Staal, Ward, Gleason, Pitkanen, Ruutu, Jokinen) and guys who are young and/or cheap (Sutter, McBain, Carson, Boychuk, Dwyer, Kostopolus).

The only guys left are LaRose and Cole. I would guess the Canes would want to keep LaRose but get rid of Cole due to his high salary (but both have only 1 year left).

So in the Canes case, while they may not be signing UFAs (personally..I wish they'd sign Pothier) that they might otherwise want to due to the internal cap...I really don't see them getting rid of players they want to keep (other than maybe LaRose..but I don't think so).

Boom Boom Anton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2010, 08:20 AM
  #43
cdndragoon
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 78
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mercury View Post
The Flyers are fine for the cap for next season. What are you talking about?
I'm afraid they're not - only 16 players signed, no starting goalie, only four defencemen, no Coburn or Carcillo or Parent... The Flyers have to drop some salary unless the Zamboni driver is willing to play for popcorn.

cdndragoon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2010, 08:55 AM
  #44
SkullSplitter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 4,845
vCash: 500
Weber would be the last player the Preds would deal for cap/budget relief.

SkullSplitter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2010, 09:38 AM
  #45
BigFatCat999
I love GoOoOlD
 
BigFatCat999's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Campbell, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 10,154
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by worstfaceoffmanever View Post
Nashvillle can't trade anyone, not because of their performance necessarily, but because of their contract status.

Arnott - $4.5M, 19 goals, 49 points - NMC
Dumont - $4.5M, 17 goals, 45 points - NMC
Legwand - $4.5M, 11 goals, 38 points - NTC
Erat - $4.5M, 21 goals, 49 points - NMC
Sullivan - $3.75M, 17 goals, 51 points - NTC

As I said, Poile is not trading anyone, but he'll compensate for that by not throwing money into a massive pit on this remarkably old free agent class and signing our own players with that extra money below the midpoint.
Fully agree. Unless the ownership of the Preds agrees to send more or one of the NTC's agrees to waive their deal Nashville's only move might be to sign Bouillon and trade Alex Sulzer.

As for trading Weber, Nashville has the cash coming up to sign him and Suter. Arnott and Sully are coming off the books and with Wilson's rookie deal and the potential of Radulov coming back to finish his contract, (If Radulov wants to play on team Russia) the reds have replacements on the cheap. Suter will be taken care of with the left overs from the Arnott and Sully cash.

BigFatCat999 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2010, 09:49 AM
  #46
seanlinden
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 18,555
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdndragoon View Post
I'm afraid they're not - only 16 players signed, no starting goalie, only four defencemen, no Coburn or Carcillo or Parent... The Flyers have to drop some salary unless the Zamboni driver is willing to play for popcorn.
You do realize that they have $8-10 million to sign those players, may not want Carcillo and likely don't want to bring back Parent. The rest of the guys tehy need to resign a 3rd/4th liners who are easily replacable.

seanlinden is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2010, 10:19 AM
  #47
cdndragoon
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 78
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfried View Post
You do realize that they have $8-10 million to sign those players, may not want Carcillo and likely don't want to bring back Parent. The rest of the guys tehy need to resign a 3rd/4th liners who are easily replacable.
Right now they have $8.8M in cap space available. A starting goaltender will likely cost you $3M, plus Leighton at $2M, but let's say for the sake or argument that they get both for $4M, a very reasonable price for a goaltending tandem.

This leave $4.8M. Resigning Coburn will cost at least $3M. If, as you say, they don't want Carcillo back, then they'll have to find someone to replace him, likely not for less than $1M.

This leaves them with 800K to sign at least two more defensemen and a player or two to provide some depth at forward.

cdndragoon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2010, 10:29 AM
  #48
Devs4life
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Tampa, FL
Country: United States
Posts: 94
vCash: 500
I just remember back to when New Jersey was playing salary cap shananagins with the M & M boys, and had to give San Jose a 1st round pick to dump off Malakhovs contract

Devs4life is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2010, 10:31 AM
  #49
Skraut
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Enter city here
Posts: 10,344
vCash: 500
The only reason Columbus would NEED to trade somebody, is in sending a bad contract back if they actually traded for a high profile Center or Defenseman.

But that'll never happen, so there's no need to worry about it.

Skraut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2010, 10:38 AM
  #50
montreal
Go Habs Go
 
montreal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Country: Sark
Posts: 23,581
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FanHabtic View Post
Hammer has a NTC. There is no way he would have Columbus on his list of teams he would agree to join.
Hammer has a partial NTC, there are 6 teams he has agreed to waive in advance, and after 2-1-11 his partial NTC ends and he can be traded to any team.

montreal 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 03:50 AM.

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.