Blaming the Bruins for a deal that didnt happen makes 0 sense. Their GM took the best deal, Id expect ours to do the same. Never assume something will be done until its written on paper.
2023 Trade Deadline (03/03/23 3PM EST)
- Thread starter DarkandStormy
- Start date
Frank Seravalli - Daily FaceOff
4. Vladislav Gavrikov
Left Defense, Columbus Blue Jackets
Age: 27
Stats: 52 GP, 3 G, 7 A, 10 Pts
Contract: Pending UFA, $2.8 million AAV
Scoop: Like Chychrun, Gavrikov has been pulled from the Blue Jackets’ lineup for asset protection as the Columbus zeroes in on a trade. Unlike Chychrun, Columbus seems to have something in the hopper for Gavrikov. It’s widely believed that the Bruins have a deal in place with Columbus for Gavrikov, but it is pending another transaction first to clear cap space. Not entirely sure why Columbus wouldn’t just take on the salary to process the deal and get it done, but that’s separate. We’ve known for months that Columbus is looking to match or exceed the package they received for David Savard in 2021: first and third-round picks. Do they get it? For a breakdown of Gavrikov’s game, read his Trade Deadline player profile.
i don't necessarily blame the bruins but at the same time i'd be PISSED if i was jarmo.
they had a deal, they held the player out to preserve that deal, the understanding was that boston would unload salary in a different deal. then boston goes and makes a deal that undoes the deal they'd already agreed to.
this screams ownership to me. same ownership that insisted on moving horton for clarkson because they'd rather spend $5m on a shitty player than on a guy who isn't playing.
Yet fans keep going and nothing will change as long as they are making money - gate driven revenue
Owners deciding to "save" money in a situation like this would raise a lot of questions.
Is there an internal cap, and if yes, then why? Will it be temporary or maintain through offseason and possibly next season?
In that case we shouldn't expect Elvis or Gud to be bought out anytime soon? (for the record I never promoted that idea with either player until 2024 at earliest) Or maybe even assume Larsen to be replaced until his contract expires in 2024.
What about Jarmo and JD, what does this tell about the relationship between owners and them? Is the leash getting shorter for both of them?
No big FA signings this summer? If also yes, playoffs can't be the expectation for next season?
Is there an internal cap, and if yes, then why? Will it be temporary or maintain through offseason and possibly next season?
In that case we shouldn't expect Elvis or Gud to be bought out anytime soon? (for the record I never promoted that idea with either player until 2024 at earliest) Or maybe even assume Larsen to be replaced until his contract expires in 2024.
What about Jarmo and JD, what does this tell about the relationship between owners and them? Is the leash getting shorter for both of them?
No big FA signings this summer? If also yes, playoffs can't be the expectation for next season?
MissADD
Registered User
I just did some number crunching based, based off the numbers on cap friendly, and I'm not sure the jackets could afford to retain 50% of Gavrikov's contract and taken on Smiths contract, if the ultimate goal was to use the picks gotten from the trade to aquire Chychrun. Another factor we have to take in is the unknown with diamond sports filing for bankruptcy could very well affect cap situations for next year and years to come. Who knows what will come with that, that may play into ownership's decision not to take on an expiring contract and retain salary from a player. There's a difference between paying money for a player you plan on/want to keep vs paying money for a player that you definitely aren't keeping or isn't here.
Fro
Cheatin on CBJ w TBL
I believe the leash is shortening...but I also believe if the lottery does somehow favor us, that can all change
CBJWerenski8
Rest in Peace Johnny
- Jun 13, 2009
- 43,625
- 26,648
Cowumbus
Registered User
The same ownership that is paying out the full salary cap amount to a team in last place, because of contracts such as Wennberg, Gudbranson that Jarmo signed.
The Horton example you used doesn’t make sense to me. Jarmo signed the contract without having it insured… so yeah if you’re a owner why would you pay out 8 million to a player who is never going to play versus less money to someone who is…? It really doesn’t matter how good they are as a player at that point.
I would assume we could move Jake to LTIR for cap relief correct?
I was always the guy crying about an internal cap in years past. I don't think that's a concern (ownership has shown they will spend), but not sure if the owners would be willing to go over the NHL CAP (via LTIR). I'm guessing it tells me maybe the contract wasn't insured (so yes LTIR works but ownership not reimbursed for it)? It would be short sighted to me to not retain salary (or take back) to increase the return, but who knows maybe there is other circumstances (Debt Agreements or not wanting to spend over the CAP, etc).
CBJWerenski8
Rest in Peace Johnny
- Jun 13, 2009
- 43,625
- 26,648
koteka
Registered User
This is not being talked about enough.
It is not just a CBJ issue. It impacts 12 teams (1/3 of the NHL) — Anaheim Ducks, Arizona Coyotes, Carolina Hurricanes, Columbus Blue Jackets, Dallas Stars, Detroit Red Wings, Florida Panthers, Los Angeles Kings, Minnesota Wild, Nashville Predators, St. Louis Blues, and Tampa Bay Lightning.
Cowumbus
Registered User
Now what are we thinking he returns?
Cowumbus
Registered User
Pretty sure there is nothing NHL binding the agreement they had in place. This is on Jarmo.
You realize we are at the salary cap right?
Jarmo clearly got played here. There are really only two explanations, it looks like, depending on which reports you believe are accurate.
1) Ownership is cheap and wouldn't retain salary on Gavrikov (Seravalli reporting).
2) Jarmo believed the structure of the trade was in place and waited for Boston to shed salary because he didn't want to take on CRAIG ****ING SMITH for two months (there's plenty of cap space if they LTIR Voracek, if need be).
There are no good explanations here.
Plenty of guys they can LTIR - Voracek, Bean, Danforth. They could trade Nyquist for a conditional pick(s) to clear his cap hit off the books.
1) Ownership is cheap and wouldn't retain salary on Gavrikov (Seravalli reporting).
2) Jarmo believed the structure of the trade was in place and waited for Boston to shed salary because he didn't want to take on CRAIG ****ING SMITH for two months (there's plenty of cap space if they LTIR Voracek, if need be).
There are no good explanations here.
Plenty of guys they can LTIR - Voracek, Bean, Danforth. They could trade Nyquist for a conditional pick(s) to clear his cap hit off the books.
we could exceed the cap* by $25 million right now if we needed to with LTIR (werenski, voracek, nyquist, bean, danforth).
*this doesn't mean ownership would be paying $25m, since salaries are prorated and signing bonuses have already been paid
the extremely dumb part of all of this is that craig smith and vladislav gavrikov have nearly the exact same amount of salary this year ($4.3m for smith, $4.2m for gavrikov); swapping smith for gavrikov would cost them a measly $30,000 extra. that's right, 30k – not 300k, not 3m… 30 thousand dollars.
alternatively, retaining 50% on gavrikov (30% of the year remaining on $4.2m salary) would still cut about $1.3m.
Cowumbus
Registered User
Yes I understand. My point is that they already have been paying the maximum amount to a last place team.
Maybe if they weren’t paying so much to Elvis, Gudbranson and more they would do that. I don’t blame ownership at all.
For all we know, Jarmo could have wanted to have cap space available to broker other trades and pick up more assets. Only 3 retention slots, maybe he believed that Gavrikov didn’t require one and the other 3 could be used on Karlsson, Kane and Nyquist. He has always talked about weaponizing cap space..
- Jan 12, 2011
- 14,406
- 10,847
Sounds like “The Dentist” drilled to deep and struck a nerve so the patient got up and left when his back was turned.
CBJWerenski8
Rest in Peace Johnny
- Jun 13, 2009
- 43,625
- 26,648
A first still. Maybe not the additional pick afterwards. And it might go to the deadline
Cowumbus
Registered User
CBJWerenski8
Rest in Peace Johnny
- Jun 13, 2009
- 43,625
- 26,648
Of course there’s not but if you say “we have a deal we just need to move around this money. Hold on” and then play opossum for a week before saying “yeah we decided to do something else.” That’s pretty shitty of you. Nothing to stop you from doing it, but probably going to make it tough to do business with us again.
CBJWerenski8
Rest in Peace Johnny
- Jun 13, 2009
- 43,625
- 26,648
Me too. Growing less certain by the day. We had it in the bag, but now the partners are leaving and some of the ones remaining aren’t going to trade them for rentals (LA) or have already traded them (TOR). I think Edmonton or a surprise team (Carolina? Pittsburgh? Seattle?) is our best shot.
- Jan 12, 2011
- 14,406
- 10,847
Some are speculating ownership wouldn’t retain salary or take on the Smith contract, but that’s all it is - speculation. McConnell has traditionally been a passive owner and let the front office run the show. If we are going to play the speculation game, I’ll speculate it was Jarmo playing hardball, wanting to look like he “won” the deal.
Cowumbus
Registered User
Honestly though I don’t even think it’s that shitty. Not hard to move Smith at all. Could have even done Nyquist for Smith. Jarmo should have probably known after day 2.
Never Jarmo’s fault.
EspenK
Registered User
- Sep 25, 2011
- 15,838
- 4,443
I doubt $2mm (which is actually much less considering 3/4 of the season is over) would have shit canned the deal. If money is that tight send the kids down and use the pay difference to cover the xtra $. I think Jarmo just got played.
Last edited:
