Toggle sidebar

Rumor: 2023-2024 Trade Rumors and Free Agency: Offseason Edition

Status
Not open for further replies.
theathletic.com

LeBrun: Rumblings on Johansen, Krug, DeAngelo, Dubois and more as the NHL kicks off draft week

Predators GM Barry Trotz explains his thinking on Ryan Johansen, plus the latest on Torey Krug, Tony DeAngelo and Pierre-Luc Dubois.
theathletic.com theathletic.com
The Hurricanes and Flyers were in agreement in principle on Tony DeAngelo going to Carolina for a prospect and Philadelphia retaining 50 percent of his remaining $5 million salary and cap hit for next season. But my understanding is that the NHL took issue with DeAngelo going back to Carolina within a year of his trade from the Hurricanes. There’s language in the CBA about a player returning within 12 months, especially on a retained salary, as being possible circumvention.

I believe both the Flyers and Hurricanes have argued with the league about this, saying: 1) His contract wasn’t even signed with Carolina; it was Philadelphia that signed him last summer to a two-year, $10 million deal. And 2) Chuck Fletcher was the GM who traded for DeAngelo and signed him, and he’s no longer there — so how could any of this be a circumvention?

My understanding is that the league will talk to the teams this week in Nashville about it. Either the league will sign off on it or it will want the teams to wait until July 9 to complete the trade, following the 12 months rule. If that’s the case, who knows if the current proposed trade still works for both teams. So stay tuned on that one.
Click to expand...
 
Bill Peckerskull said:
the NHL took issue with DeAngelo going back to Carolina within a year of his trade from the Hurricanes. There’s language in the CBA about a player returning within 12 months, especially on a retained salary, as being possible circumvention
Click to expand...
Lol, like this is in any way similar to the Orpik deal we were part of.
 
The Moops said:
Is that somehow different than us and JMFJ?
Click to expand...
No, he signed as a free agent. The rule was introduced after we did our deal with Washington regarding Orpik and Grubauer. But this DeAngelo situation is not comparable to that either. There should be nothing wrong with trading him back to Carolina, because he was not under contract when they traded him to Philly.
 
The primary issue, as I understand it, is the TDA was a RFA and was traded from Carolina last year prior to an arbitration case that was filed. In a sense he was tied to the Carolina still upon the move. Now if there was a a 23 pick attached to the deal, it would be tricky and maybe Philly doesn't value a 24 pick the same.
 
henchman21 said:
The primary issue, as I understand it, is the TDA was a RFA and was traded from Carolina last year prior to an arbitration case that was filed. In a sense he was tied to the Carolina still upon the move. Now if there was a a 23 pick attached to the deal, it would be tricky and maybe Philly doesn't value a 24 pick the same.
Click to expand...
I don't really understand why it would be an issue, he was still not under contract. The rule is there to prevent salary cap circumvention by double-retention.

Now, if the NHL argues that we can't allow this trade to happen because we f***ed up writing the rule because it now prevents trades that should be legal? Well, looking forward for that to be amended in the next negotiation.
 
LOFIN said:
I don't really understand why it would be an issue, he was still not under contract. The rule is there to prevent salary cap circumvention by double-retention.

Now, if the NHL argues that we can't allow this trade to happen because we f***ed up writing the rule because it now prevents trades that should be legal? Well, looking forward for that to be amended in the next negotiation.
Click to expand...
Carolina would have been under the obligation to accept the arbitration agreement (provided it didn't reach the walkaway threshold), so the view is that they kinda were under contract. I think this is an incorrect interpretation, but I can see the legal argument and precedent it would set... so the league is being extra conservative.
 
They couldnt reach a deal with him and traded him. He signed with the new team for a price that Canes are willing to pay. I kinda understand the accusation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AvsWraith, LTCPain75 and Colorado Avalanche
AvalancheSpeedsters said:
That’s the irony . His salary will likely mean less depth for the Stanley cup contender he gets traded to, therefore reducing the odds of winning it all .
Click to expand...
The only way he gets traded to a contender is if Sharks retain 50%, and accept only futures and draft picks. And if the ask is 50% retained, I would probably want at least 2 firsts, probably 3 if I'm the Sharks GM. Who's going to pay that?
 
LOFIN said:
The only way he gets traded to a contender is if Sharks retain 50%, and accept only futures and draft picks. And if the ask is 50% retained, I would probably want at least 2 firsts, probably 3 if I'm the Sharks GM. Who's going to pay that?
Click to expand...
Nuge, Broberg, Yamamoto and a 1st.
 
LOFIN said:
The only way he gets traded to a contender is if Sharks retain 50%, and accept only futures and draft picks. And if the ask is 50% retained, I would probably want at least 2 firsts, probably 3 if I'm the Sharks GM. Who's going to pay that?
Click to expand...
Or you know what? Marner for Karlsson, straight up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bill Peckerskull
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom