Armchair GM: Offseason Roster Moves and Rumors

[koteka]

So not to start a fire but if/when the Rangers win the cup with the roster mostly constructed by Gorton/JD are we still going to say he doesn’t know how to build a winner? Or is he too far removed, even though it’s mostly his guys, so he still gets no credit.

Just trying to see how I’m supposed to feel

It is NYC itself that gets all the credit. Fox, Panarin, and Trouba forced their way there. Give Panarin’s girl friend her fair share of the credit. And those awesome garages that we don’t have in Columbus.

As for JD, 2 guys he got rid of (Wennberg, Roslovic) are now on the Rangers.

 

[CBJWerenski8]

It is NYC itself that gets all the credit. Fox, Panarin, and Trouba forced their way there. Give Panarin’s girl friend her fair share of the credit. And those awesome garages that we don’t have in Columbus.

As for JD, 2 guys he got rid of (Wennberg, Roslovic) are now on the Rangers.

JD was in New York when Wennberg was bought out.

 

[majormajor]

I'm a huge Mitch Marner regular season guy. But-as you asked-would he lead the CBJ to a Cup?

A President's Cup? Maybe. A Stanley Cup?

Ryder Cup.

 

[majormajor]

The issue with this is that Columbus are probably going to have significant cap flexibility during the two first seasons (with the cap rising), i.e. the ones when retaining yields more dead cap than a buyout does.

We're not buying him out because we're pressed for cap space. If we buy him out it's because we need to get his distraction out of the locker room. If that is the issue then just get it done.

So not to start a fire but if/when the Rangers win the cup with the roster mostly constructed by Gorton/JD are we still going to say he doesn’t know how to build a winner? Or is he too far removed, even though it’s mostly his guys, so he still gets no credit.

Just trying to see how I’m supposed to feel

Who did he bring to NYR who didn't force their way there? I'm sure there are several players, I just don't know who we're supposed to credit JD for bringing in.

Edit: the Rangers did add a lot of toughness through the draft while JD was at the helm - Cuylle and Rempe in 2020, ironically lack of toughness was why Gorton was canned the following year which brought JD down with him. But regardless JD is probably not heavily involved in amateur scouting (and probably not pro scouting either).

 

[cbjthrowaway]

We are not winning the Cup in the next three seasons. My goal is to win the Cup. I am fundamentally opposed to kicking current problems out 5 or 6 seasons when we possibly could be in the hunt. I’d rather loan Elvis to the Swiss league or send him to Cleveland and eat the cap than buy him out.

i agree that the ultimate goal is to win the cup. but elvis is a negative-value asset whose contract is up before the blue jackets are likely to be cup contenders anyway.

therefore, the only move vis a vis elvis merzlikins that helps the blue jackets win a cup is one that rids them of a negative asset without having to incur an asset loss.

the only two ways to do that are to 1) buy him out or 2) dangle him at 50% retained, hoping a team bites, which is unlikely.

but there's an opportunity cost to door #2, namely that it takes up a retention slot for three years and takes up more cap. no, they're not going to be a capped-out roster, but having retention slots + cap space frees them up to do two things:

1. add assets as a retention broker at the trade deadline
   1. even if it's a 3rd or 4th each time, three seasons' worth of that adds up!
2. add better assets by having room to take on another team's useful cap dump
   1. montreal did this with monahan – they got a 1st to take him, then got another 1st to trade him a little over a year later.
   2. philly got a way bigger haul for provorov because they could take on bad contracts (walker, petersen) and then flipped walker for another first by taking on another bad contract (johansen)
   3. st. louis did this with kevin hayes, too, getting him with 50% retention for literally nothing. suddenly he's an attractive potential asset on the market

obviously philly was on both sides of that, and traded a retained hayes rather than buying him out, but he had far more trade interest than elvis, and philly probably wishes it could've kept that extra retention slot.

sure, it would cost the jackets $1.7m for three years at the back end of this decade, but the cap will be in the 90-100m range by then, and the subsequent moves that the buyout would free up (as outlined above) could absolutely help them become contenders.

don't think of it as "kicking a problem out 5-6 seasons" – think of it as an investment that could net them a bundle of assets worth significantly more than the $1.7m in dead cap for those three years while also ridding themselves of a massive headache in the short-term.

 

[Cyclones Rock]

Ryder Cup.

Well Done.

 

[VT]

I wonder if Nashville would consider something around Laine for Saros

Laine has M-NTC. It is a question whether he would want to play in Nashville. Also if he can return only if he is health. And health Laine belongs among top NHL players.

First and foremost, we need to move Elvis. Only then can think about Saros.

 

[TaketheCannoli]

i agree that the ultimate goal is to win the cup. but elvis is a negative-value asset whose contract is up before the blue jackets are likely to be cup contenders anyway.

therefore, the only move vis a vis elvis merzlikins that helps the blue jackets win a cup is one that rids them of a negative asset without having to incur an asset loss.

the only two ways to do that are to 1) buy him out or 2) dangle him at 50% retained, hoping a team bites, which is unlikely.

but there's an opportunity cost to door #2, namely that it takes up a retention slot for three years and takes up more cap. no, they're not going to be a capped-out roster, but having retention slots + cap space frees them up to do two things:

Jarmo and the Jackets gave him the contract that affects his asset value. Considering the rebuilding stage the team is in, I'm not that concerned with his "value" as an asset. IO am very concerned that he is a locker room problem that can affect the team's development whether it's because he seems to create distractions or if he is a negative influence in the locker room. At times he reminds me a bit of Steve Mason. Mason was a talented goalie who would not accept any accountability and regularly blamed team mates for losses both as a Jacket and as a Flyer.

Maybe sending Elvis away is addition by subtraction?

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

Ryder Cup.

This comment is worthy of a laugh-react but I can’t laugh-react a comment that laugh-emojis itself. Nonetheless, I laughed.

 

[NotWendell]

Yes, I laughed at a laugh about a laugh-react. Laughable!

 

[Aaaarrgghh]

We're not buying him out because we're pressed for cap space. If we buy him out it's because we need to get his distraction out of the locker room. If that is the issue then just get it done.

Not my point. The years when Columbus will more likely need to concern themselves with the cap, that's when the buyout's cap penalty is worse than a trade with retention. So my point was if they can trade him with retention, even up to 50 %, then that's better in the long-term. Obviously, if no one wants to trade for him, they should just buy him out.

 

[majormajor]

Not my point. The years when Columbus will more likely need to concern themselves with the cap, that's when the buyout's cap penalty is worse than a trade with retention. So my point was if they can trade him with retention, even up to 50 %, then that's better in the long-term. Obviously, if no one wants to trade for him, they should just buy him out.

True. The Leafs plan to bring in a new goalie duo. Elvis at $2.7m would be a good bet to make.

 

[cbjthrowaway]

Maybe sending Elvis away is addition by subtraction?

right, so just buy him out.

why attach an asset to trade him at 50% retention when you could literally save more money and keep the asset by just buying him out?

 

[VT]

True. The Leafs plan to bring in a new goalie duo. Elvis at $2.7m would be a good bet to make.

Elvis has M-NTC and Toronto can be on his no trade list.

 

[Iron Balls McGinty]

right, so just buy him out.

why attach an asset to trade him at 50% retention when you could literally save more money and keep the asset by just buying him out?

easily said when you don’t manage the salary cap and pay the bills. That 6 years hit on the cap is a bit brutal. We can all say that but it’s not our money being spent.

 

[cbjthrowaway]

easily said when you don’t manage the salary cap and pay the bills. That 6 years hit on the cap is a bit brutal. We can all say that but it’s not our money being spent.

just because i'm not the one physically writing the check doesn't mean i can't look at the situation and assert that there is a clear better course of action.

trading him with 50% retained

• $8.1m dead cap over next three years ($2.7/year)
  • 24-25 cap: $87.7m (dead cap = 3% of that)
  • 25-26 proj. cap: $92m (dead cap = 2.9%)
  • 26-27 estimate: $95m (dead cap = 2.8%)
• $8.1m cap savings (vs keeping him) over that three-year span
  • percentages of cap savings are the same as the dead cap percentages above
• potential need to take money back (-cap)
• likely need to attach assets as sweetener (-assets)
• takes up 1/3 retention slots for next three years (-retention slot)
• opportunity cost of not having one of those retention slots

versus buying him out

• $10.5m dead cap over next six years ($1.75m/year)
  • 24-25 cap: $87.7m (dead cap = 2%)
  • 25-26 proj: $92m (1.9%)
  • 26-27 est: $95m (1.8%)
  • 27-28 est: $98m (1.78%)
  • 28-29 est: $101m (1.7%)
  • 29-30 est: $104m ($1.68%)
• $10.5m cap savings across the next three years
  • $4.25m cap savings next year, then $3.775m, then $2.475m
  • frees up 4.8% of the cap next year, 4.1% in 25-26, 2.6% in 26-27
  • additional cap savings in next two years allows them to take on a salary dump from a cap-strapped team (+assets)
• no trade necessary
  • keeps asset(s) they'd need to use as sweetener, can be used for something else (+opportunity)
  • no need to take money back in trade (+cap)
• keeps an open retention slot for three years, can be used to:
  • increase return on other trades (+assets)
  • act as retention broker for next three deadlines (+assets)

the difference in total cash out is $2.4m. a couple years ago, the wild got a fourth rounder to retain about $2m of cap in the o'reilly trade. so let's split the difference and say that, in a vacuum, trading elvis at 50% for future considerations will save them the cash equivalent of a fourth round pick.

but that's on the assumption that someone would take him for free at 50%. it's likely that the jackets would need to attach an asset worth more than a 4th rounder. so that washes out the advantage of the trade vs buyout right there.

then there's the opportunity cost – having the open retention slot + extra cap the next three years can easily net them far more than a fourth-round pick (teams give up 1sts to dump contracts, and they'd have three deadlines to act as a retention broker on top of that).

that flexibility (and potential impact of the moves it enables) is worth far more than a fourth round pick. advantage buyout.

they have more years with dead cap, but the percentage of dead cap in those years is insignificant. not exactly 'brutal' – should be quite easy to manage.

unless they can find someone to take him without any retention or need to attach significant (2nd round equivalent or higher) assets, the buyout is clearly the correct course of action.

edit: also, the extra cap savings in years 1 and 2 further insulates them from bonus overages on ELCs. another small but noteworthy benefit.

 

[Aaaarrgghh]

just because i'm not the one physically writing the check doesn't mean i can't look at the situation and assert that there is a clear better course of action.

trading him with 50% retained

• $8.1m dead cap over next three years ($2.7/year)
  • 24-25 cap: $87.7m (dead cap = 3% of that)
  • 25-26 proj. cap: $92m (dead cap = 2.9%)
  • 26-27 estimate: $95m (dead cap = 2.8%)
• $8.1m cap savings (vs keeping him) over that three-year span
  • percentages of cap savings are the same as the dead cap percentages above
• potential need to take money back (-cap)
• likely need to attach assets as sweetener (-assets)
• takes up 1/3 retention slots for next three years (-retention slot)
• opportunity cost of not having one of those retention slots

versus buying him out

• $10.5m dead cap over next six years ($1.75m/year)
  • 24-25 cap: $87.7m (dead cap = 2%)
  • 25-26 proj: $92m (1.9%)
  • 26-27 est: $95m (1.8%)
  • 27-28 est: $98m (1.78%)
  • 28-29 est: $101m (1.7%)
  • 29-30 est: $104m ($1.68%)
• $10.5m cap savings across the next three years
  • frees up 4.8% of the cap next year, 4.1% in 25-26, 2.6% in 26-27
  • additional cap savings in next two years allows them to take on a salary dump from a cap-strapped team (+assets)
• no trade necessary
  • keeps asset(s) they'd need to use as sweetener, can be used for something else (+opportunity)
  • no need to take money back in trade (+cap)
• keeps an open retention slot for three years, can be used to:
  • increase return on other trades (+assets)
  • act as retention broker for next three deadlines (+assets)

the difference in total cash out is $2.4m. a couple years ago, the wild got a fourth rounder to retain about $2m of cap in the o'reilly trade. so let's split the difference and say that, in a vacuum, trading elvis at 50% for future considerations will save them the cash equivalent of a fourth round pick.

but that's on the assumption that someone would take him for free at 50%. it's likely that the jackets would need to attach an asset worth more than a 4th rounder. so that washes out the advantage of the trade vs buyout right there.

then there's the opportunity cost – having the open retention slot + extra cap the next three years can easily net them far more than a fourth-round pick (teams give up 1sts to dump contracts, and they'd have three deadlines to act as a retention broker on top of that).

that flexibility (and potential impact of the moves it enables) is worth far more than a fourth round pick. advantage buyout.

they have more years with dead cap, but the percentage of dead cap in those years is insignificant. not exactly 'brutal' – should be quite easy to manage.

unless they can find someone to take him without any retention or need to attach significant (2nd round equivalent or higher) assets, the buyout is clearly the correct course of action.

A buyout will not have a $1,750,000 per year cap hit. The dead cap of a buyout will only be lower than the dead cap of a retention during the first two seasons, when Columbus in all probability won't give much thought to the cap.

 

[Ice9]

Elvis in Toronto...gasoline meet match.

 

[cbjthrowaway]

A buyout will not have a $1,750,000 per year cap hit.

right, the buyout has a $1.75m cap cost across all six years. the buyout cap savings in the first three years greatly exceed that $1.75m. the cap hit is the net of those totals.

The dead cap of a buyout will only be lower than the dead cap of a retention during the first two seasons, when Columbus in all probability won't give much thought to the cap.

sure, but "no dead cap in years 4-6" is a relative advantage for trading elvis, but those pale in comparison to the advantages that come with the buyout, namely:

1. no need to attach a 'sweetener' in a trade (+assets)
2. keeping the retention slot open for three years (+assets)
3. improved ability to add assets by taking another team's cap dump (+assets)

again, there is a set market on how much a specific amount of cap space is worth in terms of asset capital. the asset value of what they'd have to attach to elvis in a trade (even with retention) is greater than the cash value of what they'd pay in years 4-6, and the open retention slot would facilitate influx of more surplus asset value on top of that.

smart utilization of the retention slot essentially helps the buyout pay for itself on the back-end, and then some.

 

[Aaaarrgghh]

right, the buyout has a $1.75m cap cost across all six years. the buyout cap savings in the first three years greatly exceed that $1.75m. the cap hit is the net of those totals.

sure, but "no dead cap in years 4-6" is a relative advantage for trading elvis, but those pale in comparison to the advantages that come with the buyout, namely:

1. no need to attach a 'sweetener' in a trade (+assets)
2. keeping the retention slot open for three years (+assets)
3. improved ability to add assets by taking another team's cap dump (+assets)

again, there is a set market on how much a specific amount of cap space is worth in terms of asset capital. the asset value of what they'd have to attach to elvis in a trade (even with retention) is greater than the cash value of what they'd pay in years 4-6, and the open retention slot would facilitate influx of more surplus asset value on top of that.

smart utilization of the retention slot essentially helps the buyout pay for itself on the back-end, and then some.

We don't know that much of a sweetener would be necessary for a Merzlikins retained at 50 %. A cap hit of 2.7M doesn't seem too bad for the other team to me. I'd agree that if Columbus have to give up too much, they should just buy him out. It depends on what the potential trades would look like, obviously.

Regarding locking up one of the retention slots fir three years, sure, you have to weigh that in. But you can't be too afraid to use it either.

In no way would I argue that a buyout is obviously better than a trade with retention, though.

 

[Cheddarcheese]

Elvis to toronto is at 50% would be great for both side Elvis is a beast he needs the spot light

 

[CBJWerenski8]

Elvis to toronto is at 50% would be great for both side Elvis is a beast he needs the spot light

He couldn’t handle the heat from the Columbus. Toronto would eat him alive before he played a game with his stats.

 

[cbjthrowaway]

We don't know that much of a sweetener would be necessary for a Merzlikins retained at 50 %. A cap hit of 2.7M doesn't seem too bad for the other team to me.

he's been one of the worst goalies in the league for the last three years, is constantly missing (and pulling himself from) games, is a constant media distraction and reportedly is not well-liked by his teammates.

even if a team saw him as being worth $2.7m (i'd be surprised if any did) the blue jackets have absolutely zero leverage. their motivation isn't to improve at the position or to free up cap, it's to get rid of him. they absolutely will need to add a nice sweetener, or take back a similarly bad contract.

Regarding locking up one of the retention slots fir three years, sure, you have to weigh that in. But you can't be too afraid to use it either.

it doesn't all have to be deadline brokering – although that's an effective way to get draft capital for dirt cheap – it can be to increase the return on their own guys.

to wit, why use one of those slots for three years on elvis (and give up an asset on top of that) when they can buy him out (+keep the asset) for a marginally higher cost spread over a longer time, and use those slots to maximize the returns on their other tradable assets?

the list of potential retain-and-trade guys in-house over the next 1-3 years is lengthy (laine, provorov, jenner, gudbranson, kuraly, boqvist) and they could also go the philly/montreal route of getting an asset to take a useful cap dump, re-establishing their value, then trading with retention to double-dip.

all of that becomes harder to do if they burn a retention slot for three years solely to get rid of a guy who they can just buy out for a comparable cost.

In no way would I argue that a buyout is obviously better than a trade with retention, though.

it depends on a trade, but i cannot fathom 50% retained elvis 1) not requiring a sweetener and 2) returning an asset that is worth more than the value of a retention slot for three years. that's the only way that a trade is preferable to me.

i get that it's three more years with dead cap but it's so minor (<2% of the cap in those years) and there are plenty of ways to get around it if they come close to the ceiling. it's a non-issue.