Proposal: Arizona-Montreal (Ladd and Weber)

[mouser]

To Montreal:
- Andrew Ladd ($3m signing bonus + $1m salary, 1 year)

To Arizona:
- Shea Weber ($6m salary over 4 years) $7.8m AAV
- 2023 2nd round pick
- B level prospect worth something like a 3rd to 4th round pick


Assumptions:
- Trade is made before Ladd's $3m 2022-23 signing bonus is paid, so Montreal pays $4m cash for Ladd in his final contract year
- Weber's contract is not insured, so Arizona is paying the full $6m in cash to Weber over four years.***
- Montreal has the cap room in 2022-23 to absorb Ladd's contract for the last season, so it's not an issue.


Why does Arizona make this trade?
- They convert $4m owed to Ladd into $6m owed to Weber over a longer period and receive other assets.
- Should be okay dealing with Weber's cap hit for at least the next 2-3 seasons.

Why does Montreal make this trade?
- They take one year of Ladd to be rid of four years of Weber and hopefully stay out of LTIR going forward if Price is healthy.
- Should be good timing for Montreal to take a short one year cap dump like Ladd while rebuilding.

Why does Arizona get a 2nd and something else?
- Ladd is still a roster player, albeit a mediocre 4th liner, so I value him at $1m in cash that AZ would have to replace on the roster with another warm body--that leaves Arizona picking up net $3m in actual dollars spent in this trade and four more years of bad cap hits in Weber vs only one for Ladd.
- The going rate for a 2nd round pick in recent years is ~$2m cash. Cost to take on the unusually long term with Weber is difficult to quantify, but requires some bump to AZ imo.


***If Weber is actually being paid by insurance at the normal 60% rate for an age 35+ player then remove the other Montreal addons and make this a straight 1 for 1 trade, Ladd for Weber. Arizona saves a few real dollars, Montreal saves three to four years of LTIR usage.

Click to read more...

 

[HabsWhiteKnightLOL]

Habs will not take any contract back for trading Weber.
Also The one who need helps in this scenario is Arizona not Montreal.

 

[CanadienShark]

I'm not really seeing the rationale for Montreal quite honestly.

 

[General Fanager]

Why are the Habs paying extra and taking a contract back for helping Ari with a LTIR contract?

 

[SML2]

Who's the jackwagon who signed Weber to a 47 year contract and didn't think to get it insured?

 

[Gaud]

from an owner's standpoint, wouldnt this deal mean paying 4M for Ladd in Mtl? Weber has a 7M cap hit, but it is a 1M for the last 3 years. Weber doesnt technically hurt the habs as he gives about 7M in cap pool for the cost of 1M. I think the habs can trade Weber's contract for a positive return for this reason

 

[Captain Mountain]

I'm not really seeing the rationale for Montreal quite honestly.

There isn't one. Weber's contract is also reportedly fully insured. It's also been rumoured that three teams are interested.

 

[Frenzy31]

from an owner's standpoint, wouldnt this deal mean paying 4M for Ladd in Mtl? Weber has a 7M cap hit, but it is a 1M for the last 3 years. Weber doesnt technically hurt the habs as he gives about 7M in cap pool for the cost of 1M. I think the habs can trade Weber's contract for a positive return for this reason

Based on what the poster states, it looks like Weber is owed 6 million and Ladd is owed 4. From the cost savings, I would rather pay 4 million then 6. At least with 4 million, I get a body that can play vs. a guy whose career is likely done.

Granted time value of money could be an argument as well in the other direction, but.....

I am not sure Montreal is hurting for money, so I don't see much reason for them to pay to move his contact. However, it does hurt with summer signings.

From Arizona, I see no reason to take the contact considering the payout is higher for a team hurting financially. Yes, one could argue that AZ is getting some 7 million in reprieve from the cap, but they have eaten other contacts already so I am not sure that is something they are looking to pay in picks and prospects for.

Maybe a 1 for 1 deal. Maybe Montreal retains 500 K per year - which would be an equal $$$ in and out. Montreal can be active in the UFA market this summer and has clean books next year. AZ has an easier time reaching the floor for the next couple of years. Not that I think that is an issue, but....

 

[Captain Mountain]

To Montreal:
- Andrew Ladd ($3m signing bonus + $1m salary, 1 year)

To Arizona:
- Shea Weber ($6m salary over 4 years) $7.8m AAV
- 2023 2nd round pick
- B level prospect worth something like a 3rd to 4th round pick


Assumptions:
- Trade is made before Ladd's $3m 2022-23 signing bonus is paid, so Montreal pays $4m cash for Ladd in his final contract year
- Weber's contract is not insured, so Arizona is paying the full $6m in cash to Weber over four years.
- Montreal has the cap room in 2022-23 to absorb Ladd's contract for the last season, so it's not an issue.


Why does Arizona make this trade?
- They convert $4m owed to Ladd into $6m owed to Weber over a longer period and receive other assets.
- Should be okay dealing with Weber's cap hit for at least the next 2-3 seasons.

Why does Montreal make this trade?
- They take one year of Ladd to be rid of four years of Weber and hopefully stay out of LTIR going forward if Price is healthy.
- Should be good timing for Montreal to take a short one year cap dump like Ladd while rebuilding.

Why does Arizona get a 2nd and something else?
- Ladd is still a roster player, albeit a mediocre 4th liner, so I value him at $1m in cash that AZ would have to replace on the roster with another warm body--that leaves Arizona picking up net $3m in actual dollars spent in this trade and four more years of bad cap hits in Weber vs only one for Ladd.
- The going rate for a 2nd round pick in recent years is ~$2m cash. Cost to take on the unusually long term with Weber is difficult to quantify, but requires some bump to AZ imo.

Weber's contract is fully insured. Using the logic here, Montreal should be the team receiving the 2nd and something else. Otherwise, there's zero reason for them to ever consider this.

 

[Mersss]

Based on what the poster states, it looks like Weber is owed 6 million and Ladd is owed 4. From the cost savings, I would rather pay 4 million then 6. At least with 4 million, I get a body that can play vs. a guy whose career is likely done.

Granted time value of money could be an argument as well in the other direction, but.....

I am not sure Montreal is hurting for money, so I don't see much reason for them to pay to move his contact. However, it does hurt with summer signings.

From Arizona, I see no reason to take the contact considering the payout is higher for a team hurting financially. Yes, one could argue that AZ is getting some 7 million in reprieve from the cap, but they have eaten other contacts already so I am not sure that is something they are looking to pay in picks and prospects for.

Maybe a 1 for 1 deal. Maybe Montreal retains 500 K per year - which would be an equal $$$ in and out. Montreal can be active in the UFA market this summer and has clean books next year. AZ has an easier time reaching the floor for the next couple of years. Not that I think that is an issue, but....

Ladd can't play at the NHL level tho...

Owner spends 0$ on Wber (insured) or 4M$ on a gy playing for Laval. Math is pretty easy here.

Oh and the funniest thing is the 2nd + B prospect... As for summer signing, why are the Habs in need of money? cause last time I checked, we're still aiming at Connor Bedard next year and havs a VERY good chance of getting him, based only on the fact that the Yotes WILL have to spend $$ on UFA this summer (therefore improving their team) while Habs woN,t need to

 

[Treb]

I don't see how paying assets and getting back a bad contract is something the Habs would consider.

 

[Djp]

Weber's contract is fully insured. Using the logic here, Montreal should be the team receiving the 2nd and something else. Otherwise, there's zero reason for them to ever consider this.

i dont see the need for Montreal needing to insert stuff to move Weber. he is a high cap hit , low actual salary and insured.

A team like Arizona who needs to get to the cap floor but could be losing money next year wants empty cap space where the pay is much below the cap hit.

 

[Coyotes19c]

Man all these Montreal fans are going to be disappointed when they trade Weber. I promise you, Montreal will not be receiving overall net positive assets for trading Weber. It just won’t happen.

 

[mouser]

Weber's contract is fully insured. Using the logic here, Montreal should be the team receiving the 2nd and something else. Otherwise, there's zero reason for them to ever consider this.

To the contrary, the most recent report I've been able to find is that there is a dispute between Montreal and the insurer. The insurer is not currently paying out on Weber's contract.

That's why trade talks between Arizona and Montreal fell apart around the deadline. Uninsured Weber should cost 2.5x (around two 2nd picks, maybe a little more) as much for Montreal to dump as insured Weber would (one 2nd pick, maybe a little more).

If Weber were insured I think Ladd straight up for Weber would be a reasonable swap without adds from either side.

 

[Mersss]

To the contrary, the most recent report I've been able to find is that there is a dispute between Montreal and the insurer. The insurer is not currently paying out on Weber's contract.

That's why trade talks between Arizona and Montreal fell apart around the deadline. Uninsured Weber should cost 2.5x (around two 2nd picks, maybe a little more) as much for Montreal to dump as insured Weber would (one 2nd pick, maybe a little more).

If Weber were insured I think Ladd straight up for Weber would be a reasonable swap without adds from either side.

Why wouls Habs pay to get rid of Weber? They don't need to shed salary anyways. They'd be doing the Yotes a favor. If it costs anything to offload Weber, just keep him. He's on LTIR anyways and it's not like Habs weren't aiming at Bedard anyways.

Last team the Habs should help reach the floor are the Yotes. They are their only true contender to the 1st OA pick next year. Let the Yotes sign some decent NHL players and decrease their chance at Bedard

 

[mouser]

Why wouls Habs pay to get rid of Weber? They don't need to shed salary anyways. They'd be doing the Yotes a favor. If it costs anything to offload Weber, just keep him. He's on LTIR anyways and it's not like Habs weren't aiming at Bedard anyways.

Last team the Habs should help reach the floor are the Yotes. They are their only true contender to the 1st OA pick next year. Let the Yotes sign some decent NHL players and decrease their chance at Bedard

For Montreal it's not about shedding salary. It's about not being locked into using LTIR for four seasons. LTIR is not without cost--there are negative downsides to using LTIR.

 

[Captain Mountain]

To the contrary, the most recent report I've been able to find is that there is a dispute between Montreal and the insurer. The insurer is not currently paying out on Weber's contract.

That's why trade talks between Arizona and Montreal fell apart around the deadline. Uninsured Weber should cost 2.5x (around two 2nd picks, maybe a little more) as much for Montreal to dump as insured Weber would (one 2nd pick, maybe a little more).

If Weber were insured I think Ladd straight up for Weber would be a reasonable swap without adds from either side.

Which report? A Habs beat writer wrote in a Q & A article a week ago saying the contract is fully insured. Friedman said (can't remember if it was a 32 Thoughts episode or a Fan590 spot) that there was an issue with the insurance that could not be resolved by the 3:00 p.m. deadline, but that its been resolved.

Regardless, Montreal isn't moving Weber for Ladd straight up. There are reportedly other teams interested in his contract. They don't need Ladd, have no urgency to move it and can use the cap space better.

 

[mouser]

Which report? A Habs beat writer wrote in a Q & A article a week ago saying the contract is fully insured. Friedman said (can't remember if it was a 32 Thoughts episode or a Fan590 spot) that there was an issue with the insurance that could not be resolved by the 3:00 p.m. deadline, but that its been resolved.

Regardless, Montreal isn't moving Weber for Ladd straight up. There are reportedly other teams interested in his contract. They don't need Ladd, have no urgency to move it and can use the cap space better.

I'm going off a Marco D'Amico chat thread from two weeks ago. He's very careful in his wording, but the takeaway is there is/was an issue with insurance Montreal is trying to resolve. The team didn't want Weber to speak at the end of season presser for "insurance purposes". Will not confirm the contract is insured, but rather it could be insured--presumably if Montreal succeeds in whatever the dispute is.

 

[Captain Mountain]

I'm going off a Marco D'Amico chat thread from two weeks ago. He's very careful in his wording, but the takeaway is there is/was an issue with insurance Montreal is trying to resolve. The team didn't want Weber to speak at the end of season presser for "insurance purposes". Will not confirm the contract is insured, but rather it could be insured--presumably if Montreal succeeds in whatever the dispute is.

Right. There was an issue. He is insured:

Canadiens mailbag: On Shane Wright, Carey Price, and Edmundson for captain

www.sportsnet.ca

I’ve heard and seen people say, “There’s only a total $6 million left in actual dollars to pay Weber over his remaining four years under contract, so a budget team can live with that,” but that’s actually wrong. No team acquiring Weber will be paying that $6 million, because his contract is insured.


Budget teams prefer paying zero. This is free cap space for any team that needs it, and the Canadiens might actually get a reasonable asset for it.

 

[mouser]

Right. There was an issue. He is insured:

Canadiens mailbag: On Shane Wright, Carey Price, and Edmundson for captain

www.sportsnet.ca

I'm gonna trust D'Amico on this more then Engals. Especially when Engels has a clear factual error--even if Weber is insured that doesn't mean the team holding his contract would be paying him zero.

There's also a frequent language thing that pops up here. I have no doubt that Weber's contract is insured. The issue appears to be that the insurance company is disputing the claim and either not currently paying out benefits or has not approved benefits for future seasons.

 

[Captain Mountain]

I'm gonna trust D'Amico on this more then Engals. Especially when Engels has a clear factual error--even if Weber is insured that doesn't mean the team holding his contract would be paying him zero.

There's also a frequent language thing that pops up here. I have no doubt that Weber's contract is insured. The issue appears to be that the insurance company is disputing the claim and either not currently paying out benefits or has not approved benefits for future seasons.

Weber's contract is fully insured. You can contort a non-answer from a less connected source if you want, but it doesn't really change whats being reported. Engel's isn't the only one saying it, he's just the only one that's written it out.

 

[mouser]

Weber's contract is fully insured. You can contort a non-answer from a less connected source if you want, but it doesn't really change whats being reported. Engel's isn't the only one saying it, he's just the only one that's written it out.

Well, what he's reporting is not how the insurance coverage works. Teams pay 40% for age 35+ players covered by insurance, not zero.

So you'll have to forgive me if I'm skeptical he has all the Weber facts straight here.

 

[Captain Mountain]

Well, what he's reporting is not how the insurance coverage works. Teams pay 40% for age 35+ players covered by insurance, not zero.

So you'll have to forgive me if I'm skeptical he has all the Weber facts straight here.

He is far more likely to have facts more than you or I, especially when D'Amico doesn't actually provide anything that hasn't been mentioned by other insiders. You already started this thread under the premise that Weber's contract is not insured, don't pretend you know the particulars of how his contract is insured.

 

[mouser]

He is far more likely to have facts more than you or I, especially when D'Amico doesn't actually provide anything that hasn't been mentioned by other insiders. You already started this thread under the premise that Weber's contract is not insured, don't pretend you know the particulars of how his contract is insured.

I am very familiar with how the NHL's group contract insurance policy works.

 

[Captain Mountain]

I am very familiar with how the NHL's group contract insurance policy works.

Care to elaborate then? If you've got better sources or information then I'm all ears.