Armchair GM Thread | Page 73 | HFBoards - NHL Message Board and Forum for National Hockey League

Armchair GM Thread

I just don't know enough about Zegras to really comment on him. I know its telling that you have several teams out there looking for a 2C and if they were unwilling to beat that it tells me something. Now the rest of the league may eventually look stupid, but we won't know that for a bit.
 
Hertl apparently going to Carolina. Probably also seals the deal with Marner heading to Vegas come July 1st.

Which would leave Vegas with virtually no cap space and Nic Hague still unsigned. Could be a nice move to buy low on him!
 
Hertl apparently going to Carolina. Probably also seals the deal with Marner heading to Vegas come July 1st.

Which would leave Vegas with virtually no cap space and Nic Hague still unsigned. Could be a nice move to buy low on him!
Hertl at $6.75M given his retention wouldn't have been an awful acquisition? Although given he controls his destination, I guess we can't automatically consider ourselves a candidate for much of anybody anymore. He's slowing down and about to turn 32, would have fit in nicely here. :naughty:

I'm a little surprised Vegas even had to do that much, if they are LTIRing Pietrangelo. But I guess Pietrangelo is only $8.8M and Marner might get upwards of $12M, even while giving Vegas a little discount. Crazy world.

Vegas keeps things interesting, anyway. :dunno:
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Kat Predator
Where did you see that? I think tax free state is true at least
I am pulling what I’m seeing online on media. This was about three or four weeks ago, stating he would wave for Montreal. The tax free state Comes from Elliot Friedman on 32 thoughts.

Which leads me to the question say you have a guy who wants to make money that you wanna trade if Nashville retains that means it gets taxed at Nashville rate versus a high tax rate, I assume. Imagine you wanna trade someone to Montreal, which has the highest tax rate but you eat 50% which means that 50% is taxed at Nashville‘s rate versus Montreal’s rate. Would you do that and am I correct?
 
Last edited:
I am pulling what I’m seeing online on media. This was about three or four weeks ago, stating he would wave for Montreal. The tax free state Comes from Elliot Friedman on 32 thoughts.

Which leads me to the question say you have a guy who wants to make money that you wanna trade if Nashville retains that means it gets taxed at Nashville rate versus a high tax rate, I assume. Imagine you wanna trade someone to Montreal, which has the highest tax rate but you eat 50% which means that 50% is taxed at Nashville‘s rate versus Montreal’s rate. Would you do that and am I correct?
I think all the various hand-wringers about tax rates always say you get taxed at the rate of where you work. So I don't think retention matters. If he's playing for Montreal, he gets taxed at 50% of his games at their rate, and then the other 50% same way he does now in 31 other NHL cities. :dunno:

Anyway, I don't see us doing retention for 4 years on him. His salary is fair for the player he is, we shouldn't be so desperate to move him that we do retention, and other teams shouldn't be so desperate to get him that they need to pay a premium to get retention either.
 
Trotz saying he doesn't want to move Marchy is... something. That is not what I've heard.
He doesn't WANT to... however it is with a heavy heart he is sad to announce that Marcessault simply didn't have the stamina to endure the ongoing process in Nashville, and has been traded to Contender X for a 3rd round draft pick in 2029. We truly wish Marchy all the best, we never wanted to move him nor ever imagined that he would request to leave Nashville like he did. 😭
 
One thing I wish the NHL would do is remove the stipulation that RFA compensation has to be drawn from a team's own picks!

What a massive constraint that is! Especially when it's the bottom-dwelling teams who typically have the most Cap space and perhaps the most need to pursue RFAs. Except they can't, because their own pick might be Gavin McKenna.

So, we're effectively frozen out of making any big-name RFA offersheets. Whereas a contender picking 30th is far less constrained.

I think we should be able to offer ANY pick in the prescribed round, even if it's not our own, in the compensation. Granted, we don't have an extra 1st in 2026. So it's a little moot for us specifically this year (although hypothetically we could go out and try to acquire one). Anyway, just thinking it would serve the interests of league parity better if the bottom teams weren't effectively blocked from the top tier offersheets this way.

:soap:
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Ad

Ad