News Article: Delete

[Nac Mac Feegle]

Have to agree with Sensung on this one. Waiting another season to move Ryan, and thus reducing his remaining contract by a year, does change his value. Ryan is at his lowest value now....I can't see it being any worse next year.

 

[NorthCoast]

You can't reasonably sign Karlsson to an extension a year early with the idea that you'll figure the dead salary thing out a year from now without being willing to spend the equivalent current day cost of moving Ryan+Gaborik, because there's no guarantee that Ryan will become anymore trade-able in the next year.

So if we get to the 2019 off season, there's a reasonable chance you're just delaying giving up the A+ asset to dump Ryan with by one year. So if you marry yourself to Karlsson with an extension, you have to do it accounting for the possibility of that future cost being the same as it is today.

Why are you marrying yourself to Karlsson if you re-sign him? I don't see Karlsson's value dropping if he is locked into 7-8 more years. It just means that whoever is trading for him has certainty that he won't jump to free agency. Karlsson may be happy to sign to get max years and he can still have some control in the destination with the 10 team NMC in his current contract.

Meanwhile you buy time to see if you can't move other dead weight and maybe you get lucky.

The fact is that this teams player budget cap is tied to revenue, not the salary cap. Getting rid of Karlsson doesn't solve your dead weight issue because the drop in revenues from the revolt it will cause could wipe out the equivalent of his salary (or at least the difference in salary between him and his replacement) from revenues.

So you still have to deal with the dead weight in order to be profitable, except now you also don't have Karlsson.

 

[Upgrayedd]

At this point I would take a contract from him with a stipulation stating that the moment he wants out a mandatory trade must occur to the spot of his choosing, good times being a Sens fan!

 

[danielpalfredsson]

Why are you marrying yourself to Karlsson if you re-sign him? I don't see Karlsson's value dropping if he is locked into 7-8 more years. It just means that whoever is trading for him has certainty that he won't jump to free agency. Karlsson may be happy to sign to get max years and he can still have some control in the destination with the 10 team NMC in his current contract.

Meanwhile you buy time to see if you can't move other dead weight and maybe you get lucky.

The fact is that this teams player budget cap is tied to revenue, not the salary cap. Getting rid of Karlsson doesn't solve your dead weight issue because the drop in revenues from the revolt it will cause could wipe out the equivalent of his salary (or at least the difference in salary between him and his replacement) from revenues.

So you still have to deal with the dead weight in order to be profitable, except now you also don't have Karlsson.

Karlsson is not getting a 10 team NTC. He is getting a full NMC. Dorion even referenced this possibility sometime last year when discussing how Phaneuf's NTC differed from the rest of the team since they did not sign the contract, and how the Senators standard (outside of one possible player in the future...Erik Karlsson) is a 10 team no trade clause.

Even if Dorion had never referenced it, it's pretty easy to look at Karlsson's stature and assume he is getting a NMC.

Here is my initial question that started this discussion....

"Assuming the premise that we need to clear bad money to keep Karlsson is true.

Would you bundle the 2nd overall pick in a trade with Ryan+Gaborik to keep Karlsson? We would get back future considerations."

So assuming the premise is true....if we extend Karlsson, even if there is potential for Ryan to rebound and be able to be traded for less....if we extend Karl we have to extend him understanding that we are then married to him and thus have to be prepared to pay what might be the same as current day prices to dump those contracts because there is no guarantee that we will see Ryan make a comeback, Gaborik retire, Melnyk sell the team, etc.

Which is why I am asking @Sensung, you, whoever else is interested, what they'd be comfortable paying to dump these contracts in order to create a situation where we can keep Karlsson and remain competitive. So far, I haven't really gotten a clear answer from anybody.

 

[Sensung]

Karlsson is not getting a 10 team NTC. He is getting a full NMC. Dorion even referenced this possibility sometime last year when discussing how Phaneuf's NTC differed from the rest of the team since they did not sign the contract, and how the Senators standard (outside of one possible player in the future...Erik Karlsson) is a 10 team no trade clause.

Even if Dorion had never referenced it, it's pretty easy to look at Karlsson's stature and assume he is getting a NMC.

Here is my initial question that started this discussion....

"Assuming the premise that we need to clear bad money to keep Karlsson is true.

Would you bundle the 2nd overall pick in a trade with Ryan+Gaborik to keep Karlsson? We would get back future considerations."

So assuming the premise is true....if we extend Karlsson, even if there is potential for Ryan to rebound and be able to be traded for less....if we extend Karl we have to extend him understanding that we are then married to him and thus have to be prepared to pay what might be the same as current day prices to dump those contracts because there is no guarantee that we will see Ryan make a comeback, Gaborik retire, Melnyk sell the team, etc.

Which is why I am asking @Sensung, you, whoever else is interested, what they'd be comfortable paying to dump these contracts in order to create a situation where we can keep Karlsson and remain competitive. So far, I haven't really gotten a clear answer from anybody.

Because the premise is faulty.

Sign Karlsson and deal with the ramifications when they are known.

Don't panic and sell low now.

 

[danielpalfredsson]

Because the premise is faulty.

Sign Karlsson and deal with the ramifications when they are known.

Don't panic and sell low now.

Yes, but if dumping Ryan costs X now, there is no guarantee he will cost less to dump a year from now. Which is why if the Senators extend Karlsson knowing they have to dump Ryan, they have to account for the possibility that if it costs a X to dump Ryan now, it may still cost that a year from now.

It's a very simple question....right now, a year from now, what would you be comfortable paying in a trade to dump our bad money to "keep Karlsson at all costs". What's your ceiling? That's the answer I am looking for.

 

[Engineer]

Yes, but if dumping Ryan costs X now, there is no guarantee he will cost less to dump a year from now. Which is why if the Senators extend Karlsson knowing they have to dump Ryan, they have to account for the possibility that if it costs a X to dump Ryan now, it may still cost that a year from now.

It's a very simple question....right now, a year from now, what would you be comfortable paying in a trade to dump our bad money to "keep Karlsson at all costs". What's your ceiling? That's the answer I am looking for.

Generally the cap goes up, so players current cap hits become relatively smaller, making it easier to move him later.

Look at Crosby's cap hit, what was insane and record breaking at the time, is now quite low.

The point being, in 1 years time, especially if the cap goes up by the rumoured ~5M, it will cost less to dump him, especially considering there is 1 year less term on his contract.

 

[danielpalfredsson]

Generally the cap goes up, so players current cap hits become relatively smaller, making it easier to move him later.

Look at Crosby's cap hit, what was insane and record breaking at the time, is now quite low.

The point being, in 1 years time, especially if the cap goes up by the rumoured ~5M, it will cost less to dump him, especially considering there is 1 year less term on his contract.

I am not disputing this possibility of the cost of a Ryan cap dump being fluid. But in spite of the cap going up, there's no guarantee the market will change positively a year from now. Less teams could be in on taking cap dumps raising the cost, Ryan's performance could drop further, our top prospects could perform poorly and we could lose the ammo needed to dump him on somebody. This is why I am saying if we marry ourselves to Karlsson, we can't do so with a guarantee that there'll be a cheap out on Ryan a year from now, we have to do so with the expectation that it might cost a similar amount to dump him.

Here's all I want, very simple, if the sentiment is that we keep Karlsson "at all costs", and we need to dump the dead salary to remain competitive with Karlsson at market value, what would people be comfortable paying to dump Ryan's contract in assets, this season, or a year from now?

 

[Sensung]

Yes, but if dumping Ryan costs X now, there is no guarantee he will cost less to dump a year from now. Which is why if the Senators extend Karlsson knowing they have to dump Ryan, they have to account for the possibility that if it costs a X to dump Ryan now, it may still cost that a year from now.

It's a very simple question....right now, a year from now, what would you be comfortable paying in a trade to dump our bad money to "keep Karlsson at all costs". What's your ceiling? That's the answer I am looking for.

The Ryan contract will cost less to move next year relatively speaking based on the fact that it will only have three years remaining. He's at an extremely low value right now due to injuries. If he has a healthy year, then it could completely change the dynamic.

I aslo believe that your current estimates of what it will take to move Ryan are far too costly, especially if the Sens retain a portion.

I also believe that there are other contracts on the Sens that can be moved.

I also believe that the cost to move Karlsson in terms of revenue loss is extremely high.

I also believe that the increase in the value of the Avs draft pick with no Karlsson means moving him is a terrible idea.

In short, there is no cost that I would think makes signing Karlsson a bad idea and expect that the situation to be much improved next year if they re-sign Erik.

If things go as poorly as they have this season in 2018-19, then I'm willing to look at the cost and will pay it gladly, knowing I took the chance at a better outcome than the current sell low panic move.

 

[Xspyrit]

There is many other contracts that should be moved before worrying about Ryan's (damn, Dorion has done a lot of damage in not even 2 years at the helm)

Burrows = $2,500,000
Gaborik = $4,575,000 + $3,175,000 + $3,075,000
Condon = $2,500,000 + $3,000,000
Anderson = $5,500,000 + $4,000,000
Smith = $3,250,000 + $3,250,000 + $3,250,000

You can afford to have Ryan for at least another Ryan and then he becomes easier to move with one less year on his contract. If he has a 50-60 pts season (he's on a 48 pts pace currently, and could finish with a PPG over 50 pts per 82 games this season), then you could actually get assets back with a bit of money retained. Or just keep him because that's first line numbers and you need all the scoring depth you can get.

The cap is going on 80 M$ and will continue to rise. If you can't afford to follow, you should not have a NHL club, leave it to markets that can afford it. Oh and let's not forget about the cap floor. Sens will have to respect it, no choice.

===============================

If you could make those 5 contracts "disappear", you'd have for ~55 M$ :

Hoffman-Duchene-Ryan
Dzingel-Pageau-Stone
Paul-White-Chlapik
McCormick-O'Brien-Pyatt

Chabot-Karlsson
Harpur-Ceci
Borowiecki-Wideman
Claesson

Hogberg
Gustavsson

Now of course, you can't go with those 2 goalies and you'd have to improve some roster spots but if the team budget is around 70 M$, you have 15 M$ to play with (of course you keep some of it for Duchene, Dzingel and EK extensions)

But let's not forget about Brown, Batherson, Formenton Jaros, Wolanin, that top-5 pick, etc who will be challenging for spots soon.

Generally the cap goes up, so players current cap hits become relatively smaller, making it easier to move him later.

Look at Crosby's cap hit, what was insane and record breaking at the time, is now quite low.

The point being, in 1 years time, especially if the cap goes up by the rumoured ~5M, it will cost less to dump him, especially considering there is 1 year less term on his contract.

Exactly. 7.25 M$ on a 80.0 M$ salary cap is ~9%, so it gets less impactful every year.

Like seriously, in 2005-06 that would be a 3.5 M$ cap hit. Havlat signed 3 years x 6.0 in 2006-07 and he was injured more 0ften than Ryan (Havlat's career PPG was 0.75 in 790 games, Ryan has a 0.70 career PPG in 725 games). It was 13.64 % of the cap in 2006-07

That's why big markets and "richer" teams are not afraid to sign players to big contracts, there's a lot of money to play with today. Of course, you need good young players on ECLs and RFA years to be competitive but you can afford a few vets, even if overpaid. When you have to move them, you buy them out, retain salary on a trade or even bury them. That's for teams who are financially healthy.

 

[JD1]

Ryan has 17 goals, 48 points in his last 76 games including this regular season and last year's playoff.

hopefully the longer offseason his hands heal.

 

[Tuna99]

The fact the GM has to start a conference with an assurance that management will offer the best player in franchise history a contract says everything about how horrible our team has become.

It’s no longer a joke, it’s sad now.

 

[Larionov]

In case there was ever any doubt, circumstances have now made offering 65 a max term, 11m per deal pretty much a necessity. Fans have made in clear that they'll burn the CTC to the ground if 65 is moved, and we've seen lately just how lost this team is without him, on and off the ice. Retaining franchise value means retaining the franchise's top asset. I'm more confident than ever thst he will be given a market rate offer, and he will sign it.

 

[Xspyrit]

The fact the GM has to start a conference with an assurance that management will offer the best player in franchise history a contract says everything about how horrible our team has become.

It’s no longer a joke, it’s sad now.

Is this a serious post?

 

[Tuna99]

In case there was ever any doubt, circumstances have now made offering 65 a max term, 11m per deal pretty much a necessity. Fans have made in clear that they'll burn the CTC to the ground if 65 is moved, and we've seen lately just how lost this team is without him, on and off the ice. Retaining franchise value means retaining the franchise's top asset. I'm more confident than ever thst he will be given a market rate offer, and he will sign it.

So where does this leave Dorion and Melnyck after EK was put on the block. It was such a stupid thing to have EKs name floated into the trade talk.

Trade or no trade, Dorion has hurt his repuatation as a GM. Melnyck may have told him EK has to go, but Dorion played his hand horribly.

I was a Dorion supporter, after his t are EK talk, I don't think he's mature enough for th job. Dorion has a lot of great qualities and will be a great GM one day, but he doesn't have the support in Ottawa he needs to be a success. That's not on him, he's doing his best with a crazy owner, but Dorion is to emotional and almost vengeful and aggressive on subjects and it's not a good look for him. He needs to work on how he balances things and not get so caught up emotionally, and a good way to protect himself would be to stop the permanent media leaks that have Phaneuf, EK, Turris, Methots names in the rumour mill.

 

[Tnuoc Alucard]

The fact the GM has to start a conference with an assurance that management will offer the best player in franchise history a contract says everything about how horrible our team has become.

It’s no longer a joke, it’s sad now.

Or it's to counterbalance all the rumours that people are taking for the truth, instead of what He's being saying since October and November.

 

[Tnuoc Alucard]

So where does this leave Dorion and Melnyck after EK was put on the block. .

Put on the block infers that PD was offering EK65 around the league.

This is not true, as PD explained that he gets calls from all GMs on all players, including EK65.

PD was being honest when he said he listens to GMs who ask about EK65, and that is not the same thing as PD calling up another GM and asking what they would offer for EK65.

PD has explained this a number of times, publicly, and you can choose to believe the opposite for the purpose of your narrative, if you you like.

​

 

[JD1]

it's simply prudent to examine options on players, moreso in my mind if you are staring at signing a player to a 75 - 100M deal and he is coming off a major injury and not performing at historical levels. The team is either going to sign karlsson or get a significant return on trading him. One of the things i find interesting is the posting of lineups presuming Karlsson is traded - they never seem to accommodate that there is some kind of return from trading him. Why? PD is allegedly talking 5 to 7 pieces in return. He is looking at a couple of current upper end NHL players, a couple of current upper end prospects and some draft picks. Any statement with regards to what next year looks like without Karlsson is premature without knowing what comes back in a return.

Personally, I cannot see any trade involving karlsson happening until after July 1. At that point, an acquiring team has the opportunity to speak to him and negotiate a contract so you are trading / acquiring a player that you will have long term and of course that impacts the return Ottawa gets. I don't think he'll be traded at the draft because the timeline is shy of maximizing the return. Who knows, maybe they get their doors blown away by an offer.

I find the billboard stuff interesting. I personally don't think there is any correlation between what happens with EK and those billboards. It's going to come down to dollars and cents and term and trade offers. Personally, i could entertain an argument either way on signing him and some of it depends on how the lottery balls fall.

Here's something that has not been mentioned on this board, at least not that I've read....I think there's a possibility that some players look at those billboards and say "f*** this place, why do i want to be here if the fans are like that"

I get that Melnyk is a bit of a buffoon. More investment would be great and all of that. But if you pay attention and read without bias, just simply read what gets said, you see / read / hear things like what Boro said this week, what Phaneuf said on his way out of town, what Duchene is saying about wanting to be here, what Stone is saying about wanting to be here, what Karlsson himself has said about wanting to be here, what Methot said about not wanting to leave. There are many many quotes from players talking about how well they've been treated here, few negative comments on ownership. Other than the Turris situation making a bad guy of Melnyk, commentary from the players seems quite positive about the environment here and i cannot think about Turris and not recognize that he is a player that has a history of difficult contract negotiations.

 

[Comely]

The July 1st date doesnt mean as much as people think. Teams will know what Karlsson is looking for and whether or not hes willing to sign an extension with them at the draft. If nothing else the teams that are really interested will just have another player ask Karlsson.

The draft, which we should all be excited for, is just going to be filled with stress for this reason instead.

 

[Tnuoc Alucard]

The July 1st date doesnt mean as much as people think. Teams will know what Karlsson is looking for and whether or not hes willing to sign an extension with them at the draft. If nothing else the teams that are really interested will just have another player ask Karlsson.

The draft, which we should all be excited for, is just going to be filled with stress for this reason instead.

And that would also be classified as Tampering, and would not happen.

No team is going to trade 5 or 7 players/prospects/picks just on hearsay that he might be interested in remaining long term with any particular team.

 

[FolignoQuantumLeap]

And that would also be classified as Tampering, and would not happen.

No team is going to trade 5 or 7 players/prospects/picks just on hearsay that he might be interested in remaining long term with any particular team.

That is incredibly naive. You think teams and players just came to multi year deals worth tens of million by 12:01 every July 1st without having previous conversations?

 

[JD1]

That is incredibly naive. You think teams and players just came to multi year deals worth tens of million by 12:01 every July 1st without having previous conversations?

historically yes they did and it's part of why there were so many stupid UFA deals. The negotiating window in advance of July 1 has limited the extent of UFA stupidity .

 

[Tuna99]

Or it's to counterbalance all the rumours that people are taking for the truth, instead of what He's being saying since October and November.

Bobby Ryan's agent told Ryan he and EK had been traded to a West Coast team - is that a rumour or the truth?

Someone isn't telling the truth. Why are management and the players giving different stories? Why are players giving news conferences saying they thought they and EK had been traded and Dorion is saying there were no trade offers?

Some isn't telling the truth. Who's the liar - Dorion or Ryan?

 

[FolignoQuantumLeap]

historically yes they did and it's part of why there were so many stupid UFA deals. The negotiating window in advance of July 1 has limited the extent of UFA stupidity .

I don't think we've had enough data from the new pre free agency window to conclude that imo. I the newer rules on term limits have had a way bigger impact than the tampering window on the fewer silly contracts we regularly see.

 

[bert]

Bobby Ryan's agent told Ryan he and EK had been traded to a West Coast team - is that a rumour or the truth?

Someone isn't telling the truth. Why are management and the players giving different stories? Why are players giving news conferences saying they thought they and EK had been traded and Dorion is saying there were no trade offers?

Some isn't telling the truth. Who's the liar - Dorion or Ryan?

I know who my money is on. I'll just base it on factual history.