Rumor: 2024-2025 Trade Rumors and Free Agency - Offseason Edition

[Avsfan1921]

Why? Get lawyers involved.

Oh they are lol. Lawyers are the reason you the team can’t just punt him to the moon. God bless unions…

 

[henchman21]

Perhaps I'm just misinterpreting what others are saying, since it seems some think they can just make him go away penelty free. That really isn't a realistic possibility.

Lots of things are being said around this, so yeah probably lots of confusion. There is a off chance they can terminate without penalty. I personally don't think that is very likely. There are within their rights to terminate when Nuke's contract returns to active status. It would setup for battle though where I think the most likely is some sort of penalty is there.

There are also those that want to wait for stage 4 and holding onto the 'reinstatement not guaranteed' line. Which some take as an automatic. Which it isn't, but there is certainly more of a chance of it happening. There is a mutual termination possibility where the Avs and Nuke (in collaboration with the NHL and NHLPA) come to an agreement where this is settled early. This likely results in some sort of penalty. There is the buyout option which is pretty cut and dry. Trades that are probably unlikely, but would certainly return next to nothing if anything at all. There is also the group that is willing to just have him back (I find this the most unlikely).

IMO we will see one of two situations play out. A mutual termination and buyout in the summer. Nuke gets some cash to F off. Avs will absorb some cap penalty. Nuke gets to sign with a different NHL team to prove he can stay clean. Or the Avs wait until he is reinstated and that same day, terminate his contract (he doesn't go on waivers for a day because of his NMC)... then fight the NHLPA in court where it ends in some penalty.

The more ideal situation is knowing what the limitations are prior to the season for all parties. So I think that is the most likely. With that though, if it gets prickly, we should still have an idea of the Avs' plan by their spending. If they spend over the cap and are utilizing the space created by Nuke's contract being inactive, we will know they have a plan to rid themselves of it.

 

[chet1926]

This is just wrong, but okay.

The foundation has been laid for them to terminate for reasons that he violated his SPC. I know we differ on this, but I feel it's pretty clear based on what CMac said in the press conference last week ("It's a privilege to play in this league, and when you sign on the dotted line you're agreeing to adhere to certain things...") That's not just some statement he made.

Feel free to continue believing it, I have my belief that they're not going to just sit and accept this. They may not be able to do anything right now, but they're not going to just accept not being able to do anything at all.

CMac can say whatever he wants. It's a privilege whatever, that's just posturing and being disappointed in the player and the situation. Being disappointed in a players actions isn't grounds for contract termination. There has to be something in the contract he violated specifically. Maybe there is, maybe there isn't. What is clear that being in the PAP system, even multiple times, is not a breach of contract.

I guarantee the Avs have combed through the contract as have Nuke's agent and the NHLPA.

If there was grounds for outright termination, CMac wouldn't have beat around the bush at the press conference. Why put on this posturing show if they already know they are going to terminate? It's because they already know that outright contract termination is highly unlikely.

 

[hockeyfish]

Lots of things are being said around this, so yeah probably lots of confusion. There is a off chance they can terminate without penalty. I personally don't think that is very likely. There are within their rights to terminate when Nuke's contract returns to active status. It would setup for battle though where I think the most likely is some sort of penalty is there.

There are also those that want to wait for stage 4 and holding onto the 'reinstatement not guaranteed' line. Which some take as an automatic. Which it isn't, but there is certainly more of a chance of it happening. There is a mutual termination possibility where the Avs and Nuke (in collaboration with the NHL and NHLPA) come to an agreement where this is settled early. This likely results in some sort of penalty. There is the buyout option which is pretty cut and dry. Trades that are probably unlikely, but would certainly return next to nothing if anything at all. There is also the group that is willing to just have him back (I find this the most unlikely).

IMO we will see one of two situations play out. A mutual termination and buyout in the summer. Nuke gets some cash to F off. Avs will absorb some cap penalty. Nuke gets to sign with a different NHL team to prove he can stay clean. Or the Avs wait until he is reinstated and that same day, terminate his contract (he doesn't go on waivers for a day because of his NMC)... then fight the NHLPA in court where it ends in some penalty.

The more ideal situation is knowing what the limitations are prior to the season for all parties. So I think that is the most likely. With that though, if it gets prickly, we should still have an idea of the Avs' plan by their spending. If they spend over the cap and are utilizing the space created by Nuke's contract being inactive, we will know they have a plan to rid themselves of it.

I suppose there is a 3rd possibility in the Avs letting him back in November with intents to trade him next July when he drops down to a 12 team NTC. Would probably make for a very awkward few months though.

 

[henchman21]

I suppose there is a 3rd possibility in the Avs letting him back in November with intents to trade him next July when he drops down to a 12 team NTC. Would probably make for a very awkward few months though.

I don't see the leadership on the team willing to accept Nuke, nor do I see CMac putting his neck out there for that. Nuke is done as an Av... just the method remains to be seen.

 

[Pokecheque]

I suppose there is a 3rd possibility in the Avs letting him back in November with intents to trade him next July when he drops down to a 12 team NTC. Would probably make for a very awkward few months though.

I'd be pretty shocked if that happened. The awkwardness surrounding Duchene was palpable (but I'll again point out that Duchene did not pull a Dubois, he was quite good for the Avs right up until the moment he followed Blake Comeau down the tunnel), it'd be about as bad if not worse if they let Nuke back in the room.

 

[chet1926]

I don't see the leadership on the team willing to accept Nuke, nor do I see CMac putting his neck out there for that. Nuke is done as an Av... just the method remains to be seen.

Agreed. The method in which it happens is the only real question.

 

[RockLobster]

CMac can say whatever he wants. It's a privilege whatever, that's just posturing and being disappointed in the player and the situation. Being disappointed in a players actions isn't grounds for contract termination. There has to be something in the contract he violated specifically. Maybe there is, maybe there isn't. What is clear that being in the PAP system, even multiple times, is not a breach of contract.

I guarantee the Avs have combed through the contract as have Nuke's agent and the NHLPA.

If there was grounds for outright termination, CMac wouldn't have beat around the bush at the press conference. Why put on this posturing show if they already know they are going to terminate? It's because they already know that outright contract termination is highly unlikely.

Because you don't want to tip your hand and lose any sort of leverage you might have in this situation. It's not that hard.

But if this is how you'd handle it, then let's play poker sometime, because you might be pretty easy to read.

 

[Pierce Hawthorne]

The Avs can try whatever they want, but the league isn't going to let the Avs circumvent the cap on a fraudulent baseless termination attempt.

There is literally no grounds for outright contract termination. Just because you enter the PAP multiple times doesn't mean your contract can be terminated. Unless there is a clause that says that. And I'd venture to guess that there really isn't something like that or I feel like that would be out in the open at this point.

The only real options the Avs have are, let him play, try to trade him, or terminate via a buyout. It's a complete pipe dream to think that an outright termination due to breach of contract is an option at this time. Maybe if he f***s up again, but not currently.

Lmao, are you this straightforward in your own life? Because oh boy

 

[henchman21]

The Avs can try whatever they want, but the league isn't going to let the Avs circumvent the cap on a fraudulent baseless termination attempt.

There is literally no grounds for outright contract termination. Just because you enter the PAP multiple times doesn't mean your contract can be terminated. Unless there is a clause that says that. And I'd venture to guess that there really isn't something like that or I feel like that would be out in the open at this point.

The only real options the Avs have are, let him play, try to trade him, or terminate via a buyout. It's a complete pipe dream to think that an outright termination due to breach of contract is an option at this time. Maybe if he f***s up again, but not currently.

Coyotes to Waive Adam Ruzicka, Will Terminate Contract - The Hockey Writers Arizona Coyotes Latest News, Analysis & More

The Arizona Coyotes have placed Adam Ruzicka on unconditional waivers to terminate his contract after he posted a video on social media.

thehockeywriters.com

 

[chet1926]

Coyotes to Waive Adam Ruzicka, Will Terminate Contract - The Hockey Writers Arizona Coyotes Latest News, Analysis & More

The Arizona Coyotes have placed Adam Ruzicka on unconditional waivers to terminate his contract after he posted a video on social media.

thehockeywriters.com

We have no idea how his contract compares to Nuke's contract. Not one contract is identical to another. It's comparing an apple to an orange.

 

[henchman21]

We have no idea how his contract compares to Nuke's contract. Not one contract is identical to another. It's comparing an apple to an orange.

We most certainly do... the SPC is standard around the league and only have minor variances. There most certainly not a clause in Nuke's contract that he's allowed to hoover all the powder.

The only real difference here is Ruzicka sucks and would have just been buried in the minors until his contract ended. Not worth setting the precedent to lose a grievance. Nuke is owed a ton of money and has term where >30m is at stake.

 

[chet1926]

Because you don't want to tip your hand and lose any sort of leverage you might have in this situation. It's not that hard.

But if this is how you'd handle it, then let's play poker sometime, because you might be pretty easy to read.

You literally just proved my point. Why say anything if you already know what the outcome is going to be.

CMac could have easily avoided saying anything, which is what he should have done if he already knew what they were going to do. Stuff like we're not commenting on that situation at this point, would have been sufficient. Instead he used posturing language and was super vague since he knows there isn't a clear cut answer at this point.

 

[LEAFANFORLIFE23]

They're almost certainly still going to get hit with a cap penalty though, even if they do terminate. Just look at Richards termination and Perry last year.

If we go by Perry, he had a $4M cap hit and the penalty for termination I believe was $2M. If it ends up the same for the Avs and Nichushkin, is paying Nichushkin $3M on the cap for 6 more years, really a better solution then a buyout? A buyout would pay him $-180k next year, $500k in 2025-26, then $3M for 2 years after that. Given our cores age, I would argue the buyout gives this group the best chance of winning honestly.

Yeah exactly. There's so much uncertainty about whether they can even terminate(I'd bet they could), what penalty would come out of it when Nuke and the NHLPA file a grievance, etc.

A buyout would be simple and you get your clarity before the summer even begins.

I got an alert saying you quoted one of my posts in this thread, but other than this post to find out What's going on, I don't think I've ever posted here.

Did I leave a post you quoted that got deleted? or maybe a website glitch

 

[henchman21]

I got an alert saying you quoted one of my posts in this thread, but other than this post to find out What's going on, I don't think I've ever posted here.

Did I leave a post you quoted that got deleted? or maybe a website glitch

You will stay here and be AVSFANFORLIFE23 going forward. Don't worry, we aren't winning Cups here either for the foreseeable future... you can keep that existential dread present in your life.

 

[chet1926]

We most certainly do... the SPC is standard around the league and only have minor variances. There most certainly not a clause in Nuke's contract that he's allowed to hoover all the powder.

The only real difference here is Ruzicka sucks and would have just been buried in the minors until his contract ended. Not worth setting the precedent to lose a grievance. Nuke is owed a ton of money and has term where >30m is at stake.

If you really honestly believe that all the NHL contracts are the exact same other than "minor" details then I don't know what to tell you. That's like saying real estate contracts are all same. While on the surface yes they are pretty similar, there are always little things like refrigerator, washer, dryer are included with sale. Or mold in basement will be treated prior to X date or sale is void.

The "minor" details are huge. You're right there probably isn't a clause directly relating to being able to do nose candy at will or anything like it. But they could have negotiated something revolving around the PAP not being grounds for contract termination. Not likely, but maybe. Without seeing his actual contract we have no idea what's in it, or what "minor" details need to be considered.

This is going to be my last post on this topic. I'm sick of arguing about it. I think some posters, not just you, need to accept that straight up contact termination is the absolute least likely scenario. Not impossible but ike less 5% chance. The Avs more than likely are done with Nuke and will more than likely have some sort of cap implications revolving around it.

 

[dahrougem2]

I'd personally consider going from (at the time) the longest sellout streak to 15.5 a pretty dramatic drop off in a few seasons. Even when teams are bad, stars keep fans interested. You have it even right there with the Sakic drop off in 09-10 despite the team being better in 09-10. There isn't just one reason, but to think that losing star power isn't a part of it is misguided.

Also, a team with potentially Lehky, Drouin, Wood and Ritchie as their top 6 wingers has the makings of a team that could miss the playoffs.

I think it is dramatic, too. But I think circumatances differ just a tad bit with prime aged 29/8 vs exiting prime 19/4/23.

I believe that winning with 29 and 8 still here would sell tickets.

 

[RockLobster]

You literally just proved my point. Why say anything if you already know what the outcome is going to be.

CMac could have easily avoided saying anything, which is what he should have done if he already knew what they were going to do. Stuff like we're not commenting on that situation at this point, would have been sufficient. Instead he used posturing language and was super vague since he knows there isn't a clear cut answer at this point.

LOL, I most certainly did not prove your point. You're saying that what he said is proof that they can't or won't do anything; I am saying that the phrasing he used, very specifically, indicates (in my opinion) that they will most certainly be doing something.

If they weren't entertaining termination, that simply would've been squashed, and with vigor. "We will not be terminating his contract, period." or "Contract termination is not on the table" or "Termination is not an option"...and I think you're going to say, "Ah! But he said 'Termination is not an option at this time..." and you would be correct...only he added the "at this time" to that statement. Because it's true--they can't terminate the contract right now, they have to wait until reinstatement if they want to do that. So he's not lying, but he's also not saying they're not going to go down that road. In fact, the mere mention of "when you sign you agree to adhere to things" is as clear a signal as he can give while maintaining plausible deniability that the organization will most certainly be fighting to either terminate or buy out with a smaller cap hit than a standard one.


But hey, you keep on keepin' on

 

[hockeyfish]

If you really honestly believe that all the NHL contracts are the exact same other than "minor" details then I don't know what to tell you. That's like saying real estate contracts are all same. While on the surface yes they are pretty similar, there are always little things like refrigerator, washer, dryer are included with sale. Or mold in basement will be treated prior to X date or sale is void.

The "minor" details are huge. You're right there probably isn't a clause directly relating to being able to do nose candy at will or anything like it. But they could have negotiated something revolving around the PAP not being grounds for contract termination. Not likely, but maybe. Without seeing his actual contract we have no idea what's in it, or what "minor" details need to be considered.

This is going to be my last post on this topic. I'm sick of arguing about it. I think some posters, not just you, need to accept that straight up contact termination is the absolute least likely scenario. Not impossible but ike less 5% chance. The Avs more than likely are done with Nuke and will more than likely have some sort of cap implications revolving around it.

If you'd like, you can read what his contract says right here, page 310.

Collective Bargaining Agreement

The CBA between the NHLPA and the NHL sets out the terms and conditions of employment for all professional hockey players playing in the NHL, as well as the res

www.nhlpa.com

 

[SirLoinOfCloth]

To be fair to be fair to be fair, no one here knows exactly what will happen. To postulate there is certainty either way I feel is disingenuous.

 

[Pierce Hawthorne]

I got an alert saying you quoted one of my posts in this thread, but other than this post to find out What's going on, I don't think I've ever posted here.

Did I leave a post you quoted that got deleted? or maybe a website glitch

Website glitch lmao. I saw the quote after I posted and deleted but I honestly have no idea what it was from. Something about Alex Kerfoot



Also, today I found out people get notifications when they're quoted? I don't and didn't know it was even a thing l.

 

[the_fan]

Have we traded Mikko yet?

 

[The Mars Volchenkov]

I didn't know he was TMV, so I'm sorry for that.

I'm fine with his opinion, what I'm saying is (without knowing he's from HF) is simply wishing we had a reporter that it doesn't feel like just caters to the Denverpost readers (if there are any) or the more Facebook level fan I guess.

Man Evan is holding his ground on not seeing the benefit to moving Rants. I kinda hoped he'd see some of the larger issues with holding on to him. Can't wait til we can get a real hockey reporter in CO who can see beyond typing what the fans like.

Ouch.

I'm not catering to anyone, just giving my opinion. Plenty of people want to trade Mikko, so it's hardly the prevailing opinion to keep him around.

Most of all, all these trade proposals I'm seeing are absurdly unrealistic. Anaheim giving up a 1st and Cutter Gauthier for Mikko? That team is still a ways away from even coming close to competing. Why would they ever skip steps by getting rid of ELC contracts? Why would Rantanen want to sign there? Also, the salary cap exists. The Ducks (or any other team) aren't going to just add a big contract like that without making the Avs take on something to even out the money a little bit. There is a very finite amount of teams looking to trade for a guy who will make $11-12 million a year, and they're likely all contenders. Carolina gave up next to nothing to get Jake Guentzel. Something tells me the return would be underwhelming.

Someone said to sign Drouin to a $6 million deal. What?!? That's not a smart way to spend money.

The idea of "spreading the wealth" sounds great but it's a heck of a lot easier said than done. It's more likely to end up being MacKinnon and Mittelstadt surrounding by blah wingers, which probably won't translate all that well on the ice.

 

[Avs9296]

To be fair to be fair to be fair, no one here knows exactly what will happen. To postulate there is certainty either way I feel is disingenuous.

Katie Cat thooooo

 

[EdAVSfan]

This is going to be my last post on this topic. I'm sick of arguing about it. I think some posters, not just you, need to accept that straight up contact termination is the absolute least likely scenario. Not impossible but ike less 5% chance. The Avs more than likely are done with Nuke and will more than likely have some sort of cap implications revolving around it.

Seems like there may be some confusion here.
I think other than a handful of people, everyone in the « his contract will get terminated » camp agree that there will be a cap penalty when the contract is mutually terminated.
Very few people think his contract will be terminated with no consequence to the Avs.