It's way too early to judge Kuemper imo.
How do we give up Price, retain half his salary and give up the youngest player in the trade?
The problem is that he's not a UFA. To get to the $5.25m number, we're assuming it'd cost that team some pretty significant futures. And that's just to get Price, who again hasn't been that impressive in recent history.5.25 M x 4 years for an elite goalie that just led his team to the finals is ridiculously high?
There are plenty of example of goalies playing well past the age of 34. So age is not a big issue.
If he was UFA this summer, there are teams that would easily give him that contract.
He was playing on the same team that went to the finals! It's the exact same year!
Eh, to be honest I think I diverge with you a bit on this one. I'd take Price at 50% cap hit on the Avs in a heartbeat, to be honest. The end of that contract will probably suck, but it's probably worth it to go all-in for a cup for the next 2-3 years. The problem is Montreal will likely want something ridiculous for retaining 3-5.25 million for 5 seasons because from their perspective that's a big blow -- but from the acquiring team's perspective retaining 30-50% simply makes Price's contract go from absolutely horrendous to kinda palatable.
) get? I really don't think there's any chance it's more than what Luongo got.Solid post. Everything you're saying here is logical.Eh, to be honest I think I diverge with you a bit on this one. I'd take Price at 50% cap hit on the Avs in a heartbeat, to be honest. The end of that contract will probably suck, but it's probably worth it to go all-in for a cup for the next 2-3 years. The problem is Montreal will likely want something ridiculous for retaining 3-5.25 million for 5 seasons because from their perspective that's a big blow -- but from the acquiring team's perspective retaining 30-50% simply makes Price's contract go from absolutely horrendous to kinda palatable.
Even if Montreal retains 35%, for instance, the acquiring team is still getting a 34 year old with notable health concerns at 6.825 million for five years. I don't think any GM in the league is giving up top-end assets for that. In most cases when a team retains a lot of money on a contract that contract becomes a steal. In Price's case, his current contract is so bad Montreal retaining 3.675 million for 5 seasons still means Price has a pretty "meh" deal given how high his cap hit still is combined with the term on the contract along with the health concerns.
I really only see two scenarios. Either Montreal decides they're retooling but would rather keep Price at 10.5 and at least have a starting goaltender rather than no starting goaltender + between 3-5 million dead cap with an only decent return in a trade. OR they decide they want a clean break and want to start fresh for a retool and hopefully develop a young goalie to go with their emerging young core. In that case, Montreal accepts that they're going just going to have to take a hit on the Price trade. AKA that they're going to have to retain significant salary but, since Price's contract is currently so bad given his context (and indeed the context of the flat cap), they still won't get an elite return for it. Nobody is paying Montreal shiny assets just because Montreal is retaining -- teams only pay for what they are getting.
I'm guessing neither options really satisfies the Habs fans who think that retaining on Price should get them top young assets, but I just don't see it. Nor is there really any precedent, as far as I can tell, that indicates an aging goalie with health concerns with a big cap hit (somewhere between 6.5-7 million, lets says) gets top assets back. The closest I can think of is when the Canucks traded a 34 year old Robert Luongo who I think had 7? 8? years left at 5.3 million. The Canucks retained 15% to bring Luongo's salary to 4.5 million + accepted the pretty big risk of the recapture penalty should Luongo retire (which they ended up getting hit with, incidentally, since Luongo's contract was specifically structured to circumvent the cap by encouraging him to retire before it ended, since his final two seasons only paid him $1 million in real salary). Florida took on no risk of the recapture penalty in that acquisition and ended up with Luongo for 6 seasons -- and since Luongo's contract was structured for him to retire before the contract with no penalty to Florida, I think they kinda knew that going in.
So for Luongo at 4.5 million, which was 6.3% of the cap at that time I believe? Florida paid Shawn Matthias, a depth forward, and Jacob Markstrom, who a couple years prior to the trade had been considered a near-top goalie prospect but had really struggled in his first two sample sizes in the NHL. So what does Price, hypothetically at 6.825 (35% retained), which is still 8.3%? of the cap (someone please check my math on this
And I believe to get Price's cap hit to the same percentage of the cap as Luongo (6.3%) Montreal would have to retain the full 50% (that would bring Price down to 6.4% of the cap).
So yeah. The best and perhaps only real comparable to a Price trade seems to be the Luongo trade -- same age, same calibre -- and to get Price down to Luongo's cap hit Montreal needs to retain a lot. And Luongo got a pretty mediocre return.
I wonder if a Lecavalier-type situation might come up: a team offers to trade for him but he has to commit himself to retiring by a certain date.
Brilliant and insightful post showing how it looks from both perspectives.Eh, to be honest I think I diverge with you a bit on this one. I'd take Price at 50% cap hit on the Avs in a heartbeat, to be honest. The end of that contract will probably suck, but it's probably worth it to go all-in for a cup for the next 2-3 years. The problem is Montreal will likely want something ridiculous for retaining 3-5.25 million for 5 seasons because from their perspective that's a big blow -- but from the acquiring team's perspective retaining 30-50% simply makes Price's contract go from absolutely horrendous to kinda palatable.
Even if Montreal retains 35%, for instance, the acquiring team is still getting a 34 year old with notable health concerns at 6.825 million for five years. I don't think any GM in the league is giving up top-end assets for that. In most cases when a team retains a lot of money on a contract that contract becomes a steal. In Price's case, his current contract is so bad Montreal retaining 3.675 million for 5 seasons still means Price has a pretty "meh" deal given how high his cap hit still is combined with the term on the contract along with the health concerns.
I really only see two scenarios. Either Montreal decides they're retooling but would rather keep Price at 10.5 and at least have a starting goaltender rather than no starting goaltender + between 3-5 million dead cap with an only decent return in a trade. OR they decide they want a clean break and want to start fresh for a retool and hopefully develop a young goalie to go with their emerging young core. In that case, Montreal accepts that they're going just going to have to take a hit on the Price trade. AKA that they're going to have to retain significant salary but, since Price's contract is currently so bad given his context (and indeed the context of the flat cap), they still won't get an elite return for it. Nobody is paying Montreal shiny assets just because Montreal is retaining -- teams only pay for what they are getting.
I'm guessing neither options really satisfies the Habs fans who think that retaining on Price should get them top young assets, but I just don't see it. Nor is there really any precedent, as far as I can tell, that indicates an aging goalie with health concerns with a big cap hit (somewhere between 6.5-7 million, lets says) gets top assets back. The closest I can think of is when the Canucks traded a 34 year old Robert Luongo who I think had 7? 8? years left at 5.3 million. The Canucks retained 15% to bring Luongo's salary to 4.5 million + accepted the pretty big risk of the recapture penalty should Luongo retire (which they ended up getting hit with, incidentally, since Luongo's contract was specifically structured to circumvent the cap by encouraging him to retire before it ended, since his final two seasons only paid him $1 million in real salary). Florida took on no risk of the recapture penalty in that acquisition and ended up with Luongo for 6 seasons -- and since Luongo's contract was structured for him to retire before the contract with no penalty to Florida, I think they kinda knew that going in.
So for Luongo at 4.5 million, which was 6.3% of the cap at that time I believe? Florida paid Shawn Matthias, a depth forward, and Jacob Markstrom, who a couple years prior to the trade had been considered a near-top goalie prospect but had really struggled in his first two sample sizes in the NHL. So what does Price, hypothetically at 6.825 (35% retained), which is still 8.3%? of the cap (someone please check my math on this
And I believe to get Price's cap hit to the same percentage of the cap as Luongo (6.3%) Montreal would have to retain the full 50% (that would bring Price down to 6.4% of the cap).
So yeah. The best and perhaps only real comparable to a Price trade seems to be the Luongo trade -- same age, same calibre -- and to get Price down to Luongo's cap hit Montreal needs to retain a lot. And Luongo got a pretty mediocre return.
But Tampa did draft Vasi and the rest is history, thats the fact, I prefer to deal with facts and not suppositions. Thank you very much!
I can guarantee you right now that Colorado would increase their chances of winning the cup substantively with Price compare to Kuemper! The Habs never come close to Final last year if not for Carey Price!
TBH, Colorado should’ve traded for Price a couple years ago, at least. Price beat Vegas in the playoffs last year, Colorado didn’t.
The guy is 34 and pretty beat up and just had to deal with addiction issues.
Given Fleury is still decent at 37. Even Mike Smith at 39 though out at the moment still decent in net. We are talking about a premier goalie in Price he will be solid for awhile to come.
