Toggle sidebar

Rumor: 2024-2025 Trade Rumors and Free Agency Talk | Part Deux

  • Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
BaconNater said:
Where's the beef?...
Click to expand...

RoyIsALegend said:
Arby’s?
Click to expand...
I was thinking in the Oval Office earlier today.

Bill Peckerskull said:
I'm pretty sure they can because they didn't retain any of his salary. Chicago can't, because they did.
Click to expand...
I feel like I'm still confused on this. Dean MacAmmond was traded to us in the Drury deal and then we traded him back near the deadline I think and he wasn't allowed to play for the remainder of the season.

But I think that might have involved the timing of the Drury trade in conjunction with the a waiver draft? These damn details just don't stay straight in my head anymore.
 
CobraAcesS said:
Yeah, I don't always agree with TMV on everything, but I definitely respect him as a person and a reporter.
Click to expand...
Dude works, puts in effort and tries to get information from the most secretive organization both east or west of the Pentagon. Also... he's never asked me to fight him in a parking lot on social media. Although, I'd be cool with it if he did. :laugh:
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: CobraAcesS and BrickNHL
expatriatedtexan said:
I was thinking in the Oval Office earlier today.


I feel like I'm still confused on this. Dean MacAmmond was traded to us in the Drury deal and then we traded him back near the deadline I think and he wasn't allowed to play for the remainder of the season.

But I think that might have involved the timing of the Drury trade in conjunction with the a waiver draft? These damn details just don't stay straight in my head anymore.
Click to expand...
That was like a million years ago.
 
hockeyfish said:
That was like a million years ago.
Click to expand...
RIght??!! Certainly feels that way, which probably explains why I can't remember the exact details but I do remember this being an example of a guy getting traded back to his original team in the same year he was initially shipped out and then was not allowed to play. I do believe he got paid, he just wasn't allowed to play for the Flames the rest of the year.
 
expatriatedtexan said:
I feel like I'm still confused on this. Dean MacAmmond was traded to us in the Drury deal and then we traded him back near the deadline I think and he wasn't allowed to play for the remainder of the season.

But I think that might have involved the timing of the Drury trade in conjunction with the a waiver draft? These damn details just don't stay straight in my head anymore.
Click to expand...
Seravalli was asked about this on his podcast the other day, and point blank said Chicago couldn't trade for him because they're the ones that retained his salary, not Colorado.

It's not the same as the Orpik thing where the Avs traded for him, then bought him out, and then he went right back to the Caps at a lower salary.
 
Bill Peckerskull said:
Seravalli was asked about this on his podcast the other day, and point blank said Chicago couldn't trade for him because they're the ones that retained his salary, not Colorado.

It's not the same as the Orpik thing where the Avs traded for him, then bought him out, and then he went right back to the Caps at a lower salary.
Click to expand...
So was the MacAmmond thing a relic of the waiver draft?
 
expatriatedtexan said:
RIght??!! Certainly feels that way, which probably explains why I can't remember the exact details but I do remember this being an example of a guy getting traded back to his original team in the same year he was initially shipped out and then was not allowed to play. I do believe he got paid, he just wasn't allowed to play for the Flames the rest of the year.
Click to expand...
Was there even a cap back then? I have no idea when that happened.

Bill Peckerskull said:
Seravalli was asked about this on his podcast the other day, and point blank said Chicago couldn't trade for him because they're the ones that retained his salary, not Colorado.

It's not the same as the Orpik thing where the Avs traded for him, then bought him out, and then he went right back to the Caps at a lower salary.
Click to expand...
Thought he said it was Colorado who couldn’t trade for him. Either way, they’d still block the trade.
 
myperbixhurts said:
Mitts has 3 more games to show CMac that we don’t need a new 2C. That’s not a lot of games so Mitts needs to produce as a legit 2C in all 3 games. It’s either that or CMac’s mind is already made up and he’s already working on getting someone regardless of what Mitts does.

Actually scratch that. If Miller turning down a trade to Avs is true, then obviously CMac is looking for a new 2C
Click to expand...

Realistically, he could have 6 goals in those 3 games, and it shouldn't matter. You judge based on the larger sample size, and the larger sample says he's unreliable for a playoff run. You'd be rolling the dice on a bad bet.

That said, if they can't make a deal in this sellers market, then they should keep him, and revisit whether to move him or not in the off season.

But they have to make a deal for a top 4 RD if they don't move Mitts. That's a bigger priority anyway IMO.

Judging based on Chicago's asks of youngish players though, that screams Mittelsdadt, and perhaps Malsinski to me.

I know not everyone is enthralled with Zacha, but if it takes Mitts to get Jones, and Zacha is the best they can get at 2C, then they have to make that deal. Even in a sellers market, they should have the assets to get both, and they're at a bit of an advantage on Dallas cap wise going forward for retention on Jones.

Jones + Zacha >>> Mittelsdadt + Malinski
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: myperbixhurts, shadow1 and flyfysher
Foppa2118 said:
Realistically, he could have 6 goals in those 3 games, and it shouldn't matter. You judge based on the larger sample size, and the larger sample says he's unreliable for a playoff run. You'd be rolling the dice on a bad bet.

That said, if they can't make a deal in this sellers market, then they should keep him, and revisit whether to move him or not in the off season.

But they have to make a deal for a top 4 RD if they don't move Mitts. That's a bigger priority anyway IMO.

Judging based on Chicago's asks of youngish players though, that screams Mittelsdadt, and perhaps Malsinski to me.

I know not everyone is enthralled with Zacha, but if it takes Mitts to get Jones, and Zacha is the best they can get at 2C, then they have to make that deal. Even in a sellers market, they should have the assets to get both, and they're at a bit of an advantage on Dallas cap wise going forward for retention on Jones.

Jones + Zacha >>> Mittelsdadt + Malinski
Click to expand...

The idea behind Zacha is a direct swap with Mitts though.
 
CobraAcesS said:
The idea behind Zacha is a direct swap with Mitts though.
Click to expand...

Yeah but they could also do Ritchie or Ritchie + for Zacha +.

All of these assets are expendable for upgrades this Cup run IMO. Doesn't matter which deal they move them in, if they get Jones plus a 2C, I'm ok with that. Hopefully they can get a 3rd pair D man too.

  • Mittelsdadt
  • Ritchie
  • Gulyayev
  • Malinski
  • Behrens
  • 2026 1st
  • 2025 2nd (Rags)
  • 2025 2nd (Canes)
  • Foudy
  • Ivan
  • Innala
  • Olausson
 
  • Like
Reactions: CobraAcesS
Vaslof said:
Not allowed due to cap circumvention. We would end up with the same player with a smaller cap hit. That would cause a ton of problems if it was allowed.
Click to expand...
Why? This would be nothing more than just a straight forward mechanism to allow GMs to weaponize their cap space for assets. You like Manson but don't believe he's worth more than 2.5M? Well trade 2M of his cap hit to another team along with an agreed upon asset and they'll give you "future considerations" as well as 2M in cap space in return.

forsbergavs32 said:
Just get Crosby, Jones, Dumoulin and be done with it
Click to expand...
Man.. it's past 5pm MST. I know CMac likes Fridays, but this would be a tall order for tonight.
 
Foppa2118 said:
Yeah but they could also do Ritchie or Ritchie + for Zacha +.

All of these assets are expendable for upgrades this Cup run IMO. Doesn't matter which deal they move them in, if they get Jones plus a 2C, I'm ok with that. Hopefully they can get a 3rd pair D man too.

  • Mittelsdadt
  • Ritchie
  • Gulyayev
  • Malinski
  • Behrens
  • 2026 1st
  • 2025 2nd (Rags)
  • 2025 2nd (Canes)
  • Foudy
  • Ivan
  • Innala
  • Olausson
Click to expand...

I would think Chicago would want Ritchie, but I guess it's always possible they'd want Mitts.

I don't think Boston is about to pop the cork on a rebuild though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Foppa2118
expatriatedtexan said:
Why? This would be nothing more than just a straight forward mechanism to allow GMs to weaponize their cap space for assets. You like Manson but don't believe he's worth more than 2.5M? Well trade 2M of his cap hit to another team along with an agreed upon asset and they'll give you "future considerations" as well as 2M in cap space in return.


Man.. it's past 5pm MST. I know CMac likes Fridays, but this would be a tall order for tonight.
Click to expand...
You can’t trade away players in retained trades and trade back for them at a lower cap. It is what it is. The league also has the power to block anything and everything they deem to be circumvision.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pokecheque and expatriatedtexan
hockeyfish said:
You can’t trade away players in retained trades and trade back for them at a lower cap. It is what it is. The league also has the power to block anything and everything they deem to be circumvision.
Click to expand...
Like I said, I don't believe it should be an issue. It is much more straight-forward and honest in its intentions than say Vegas continuously LTIR'ing Stone?

Threre's a lot of "shady" stuff in the NHL. I just think it would be refreshing to allow a team to purchase cap hits. I do believe they would need to update the CBA to include a minimum daily payroll for active players... but again. It's honest, straightforward and something some GMs/owners might want to take advantage of at different stages of a their team's build. It would still cost a retention slot, right? And those are limited so it's not like it's going to get out of hand. There will just be a few whoppers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom