Toggle sidebar

Proposal: Free agency edition Trade Rumours/Proposals [MOD - Stay on Topic] 5

  • PLEASE check any bookmark on all devices. IF you see a link pointing to mandatory.com DELETE it Please use this URL https://forums.hfboards.com/

Hale The Villain

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Apr 2, 2008
26,543
14,904
I think people tend to be too quick to commit themselves to a path that can't be reversed.

We buyout Korpisalo and we're stuck with a 8 year cap penalty. Can't trade it or do anything to change that.

I'd rather keep him and hope he rebounds. A season ago he had a .913 SV% on a bad Columbus team while Markstrom had a .892 SV%, and Binnington had a .894 SV%. One season later Korpisalo is garbage and people have suggested dealing a 1st+ with Korpisalo to add Binnington. It's all very "what have you done for me lately".

If Korpisalo rebounds next season in the 1B/backup role, maybe we can retain some of his contract and deal him to some schmuck desperate for a goalie. That way we'd only half a 3 year cap penalty. Or hell we could always buy him out after next season and save a couple extra years of buyout cap penalty.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grungy Remnant, Relapsing, BradyTkachucky and 13 others
frightenedinmatenum2

frightenedinmatenum2

Registered User
Sep 30, 2023
2,497
2,674
Orange County Prison
Hale The Villain said:
I think people tend to be too quick to commit themselves to a path that can't be reversed.

We buyout Korpisalo and we're stuck with a 8 year cap penalty. Can't trade it or do anything to change that.

I'd rather keep him and hope he rebounds. A season ago he had a .913 SV% on a bad Columbus team while Markstrom had a .892 SV%, and Binnington had a .894 SV%. One season later Korpisalo is garbage and people have suggested dealing a 1st+ with Korpisalo to add Binnington. It's all very "what have you done for me lately".

If Korpisalo rebounds next season in the 1B/backup role, maybe we can retain some of his contract and deal him to some schmuck desperate for a goalie. That way we'd only half a 3 year cap penalty. Or hell we could always buy him out after next season and save a couple extra years of buyout cap penalty.
Click to expand...

Yes, this is exactly it.

The big problem with people who weigh the pros and cons of a buyout, is that they fail to realize what his cap hit actually is in theory. You shouldn't compare the buyout savings to his full 4M cap hit because:
  1. If he fails to make the team his cap hit is only 2.85M.
  2. If he makes the team, he takes up a roster spot that would cost at least 775k to fill, but in all likelihood more than that for a backup goalie.
  3. The buried cap relief combined over the next 4 seasons would total 4.6M.
  4. A buyout this off season saves 5.33M over 8 seasons.
  5. Ultimately, we're only looking at 733k in additional savings through buying him out compared to burying him.

The only benefit of a buyout would be a scenario where we prioritize short term cap as being much more important than long-term cap. We would have to badly need the short term cap space, because the short term cap space gained is minimal considering his buried cap hit is only 2.85M.

Here are the actual cap savings broken down season by season:
  • 2024-25: His buyout cap hit would be 333k , meaning we would only save about 2.5M.
  • 2025-26: His buyout cap hit would be 833k, meaning we would only save about 2.0M.
  • 2026-27: His buyout cap hit would be 1.83M, meaning we would only save about 1.0M.
  • 2027-28: His buyout cap hit would be 2.33M, meaning we would only save about 500k.
  • 2028-29: His buyout cap hit would be 1.33M.
  • 2029-30: His buyout cap hit would be 1.33M.
  • 2030-31: His buyout cap hit would be 1.33M.
  • 2031-32: His buyout cap hit would be 1.33M.
You can quickly see how a buyout doesn't make a lot of sense unless there is a season altering move that 2.5M would allow us to make. Or they simply want to wash their hands of the situation to avoid a distraction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: thinkwild, bicboi64 and Hale The Villain
Icelevel

Icelevel

During these difficult times...
Sep 9, 2009
25,546
5,608
Hale The Villain said:
I think people tend to be too quick to commit themselves to a path that can't be reversed.

We buyout Korpisalo and we're stuck with a 8 year cap penalty. Can't trade it or do anything to change that.

I'd rather keep him and hope he rebounds. A season ago he had a .913 SV% on a bad Columbus team while Markstrom had a .892 SV%, and Binnington had a .894 SV%. One season later Korpisalo is garbage and people have suggested dealing a 1st+ with Korpisalo to add Binnington. It's all very "what have you done for me lately".

If Korpisalo rebounds next season in the 1B/backup role, maybe we can retain some of his contract and deal him to some schmuck desperate for a goalie. That way we'd only half a 3 year cap penalty. Or hell we could always buy him out after next season and save a couple extra years of buyout cap penalty.
Click to expand...
To me the obvious thing is to work with him this off season, make sure he’s as good as he can be and give him a fresh start this season.
If he doesn’t perform well then you know you have to do something. Deal with it then. BUT there’s a chance he rebounds and wins us games and turns into a real asset.
I wouldn’t give up on him so quick. There was a lot going on with the organization last year. It’s no secret things were a bit of a mess.
And he DID look VERY good in a couple stretches.
 
  • Like
Reactions: thinkwild, LiseL and Dionysus
frightenedinmatenum2

frightenedinmatenum2

Registered User
Sep 30, 2023
2,497
2,674
Orange County Prison
Icelevel said:
To me the obvious thing is to work with him this off season, make sure he’s as good as he can be and give him a fresh start this season.
If he doesn’t perform well then you know you have to do something. Deal with it then. BUT there’s a chance he rebounds and wins us games and turns into a real asset.
I wouldn’t give up on him so quick. There was a lot going on with the organization last year. It’s no secret things were a bit of a mess.
And he DID look VERY good in a couple stretches.
Click to expand...

The only possible downside I can see to burying him is that it can be a distraction, and there is an opportunity cost by taking up one spot in Belleville. With that said, Merilainen is still on his ELC so he can be assigned to the ECHL.

That is mostly me playing devil's advocate. If we can't trade him, I would likely give him a shot at the backup job with the intention of playing him in Belleville if he doesn't win it.

I think they are going to work hard to try and get him out of the organization, even if it isn't the best move they can make because at the end of the day this team has had too much negativity and distractions. The "less chaos" theory.

Retaining half would be better than a buyout IMO, because the cap relief is similar enough (see my post above), the total dead cap is less than both a buyout and burying him - also, there is a chance that the team that acquires him would buy him out next season if he doesn't bounce back. That is either a pro or con depending on how you look at it, but it means that the dead cap on our books would only be half as much as it would be if we buy him out.

Obviously, retaining half is like a doomsday last resort type of thing. You'd want to push to maybe only retain 1M and take back an overpaid but useful forward or something.
 
Golden_Jet

Golden_Jet

Registered User
Sep 21, 2005
25,343
12,924
frightenedinmatenum2 said:
I'd rather buy him out than give up a 1st+ to dump him.

They may think that they can get him into a trade with a bunch of moving parts and get what works out to be a discount dumping him.

Unless the team genuinely loves Tij Iginla, the path of least resistance for a goalie is probably something around 7 for 9+Markstrom, and then figuring out how to square everything up from there, like buying out Korpisalo.

One thing with Calgary and Iginla is that it may not even be up to their management. Drafting Iginla and the potential for him to be an NHL player on their team is massive.

If the situation is "we can get a late 1st for Markstrom and the player at 9 is comparable to Iginla in terms of potential as a prospect", I doubt that would cut it with an ownership group that allegedly already meddled in the Markstrom trade. Imagine if we turned down trading up for Alfredsson's kid (if he was a top 10 talent) over an opportunity cost of a late 1st.

Having Calgary take Korpisalo in that situation is a pipe dream, but it's fun to fantasize. Things like that do happen at sports drafts sometimes. Look at the famous NFL documentary Draft Day as an example..



Maybe there would be a deal to be made with San Jose where we send them Joseph and a pick and they take Korpisalo at half retained and buy him out. That way, the dead cap is half for each team.

They are going to need players with term so that Celebrini has people to play with, and nobody is going to want to sign there for anything but an overpayment. Look at Chicago last year and how they had to massively overpay to attract veterans for Bedard (which as a good strategy but the point is a rebuilding team like that is not an attractive destination).

I only say Joseph because it has already been telegraphed that he is gone..
Click to expand...
How was it telegraphed that Joesph is gone?
Maybe I just don’t recall it.
 
BonHoonLayneCornell

BonHoonLayneCornell

Registered User
Oct 16, 2006
16,428
11,546
Yukon
Hale The Villain said:
I think people tend to be too quick to commit themselves to a path that can't be reversed.

We buyout Korpisalo and we're stuck with a 8 year cap penalty. Can't trade it or do anything to change that.

I'd rather keep him and hope he rebounds. A season ago he had a .913 SV% on a bad Columbus team while Markstrom had a .892 SV%, and Binnington had a .894 SV%. One season later Korpisalo is garbage and people have suggested dealing a 1st+ with Korpisalo to add Binnington. It's all very "what have you done for me lately".

If Korpisalo rebounds next season in the 1B/backup role, maybe we can retain some of his contract and deal him to some schmuck desperate for a goalie. That way we'd only half a 3 year cap penalty. Or hell we could always buy him out after next season and save a couple extra years of buyout cap penalty.
Click to expand...
He needs to buck career trends, not "rebound".

He was objectively bad in the 2 seasons prior, so it's basically 3 out of the last 4 seasons he's struggled significantly. A good one prior to those 4, then 3 more where he was drastically outperformed by Bob behind the same team to the tune of .016 and .024 and .026 save % points.

I would argue it's just as bad to have this guy roll in to camp for ~40 games and the team seeing him standing there.

We'd basically be hoping he has one of his outlier seasons right away and that there's a GM dumb enough to ignore history and take on the additional years. Chances are you're still retaining ~50% even then.
 
Last edited:

ottawagm

Registered User
May 6, 2023
668
641
If we deal with Calgary, instead of trading them Korpi at a massive loss, why not give them Forsberg - or dump him elsewhere - and pay them to retain 50% on Markstrom.

I'm sure the price of retaining 3M for 2 years would be a lot less than paying them to take Korpi for 4. Not to mention, the retention could be held by any other team, whether they need a goalie or not.

We'd be paying 7M for our 2 goalies for 2 years and can decide what to do later.

If Korpi is terrible then put him in the minors and call up Sogaard to backup at the same cap hit.
 
Last edited:
Dionysus

Dionysus

Registered User
Oct 7, 2007
5,595
3,012
Around the bend
I get that people are want to move on from Korpi. The costs seem way too high to me though. Buyout is too long at 8 years, plus needing a replacement. Trading a 1st to dump him and hope a replacement works out is high risk as well.

Trading Forberg and bringing in an upgrade seems more likely. Korpi will be overpaid at 4m, but the cap is going up for the foreseeable future, and teams need goalies. Cap hits will be going up. Maybe he bounces back and can be moved next offseason.
 
  • Like
Reactions: xVolchenkov, NB613, Senator Stanley and 2 others
Senscore

Senscore

Let's keep it cold
Nov 19, 2012
20,870
16,060
Crosside said:
disq.us

Sportskeeda NHL

New team for Jacob Markstrom? Chris Johnston says the trade is VERY CLOSE 😳🔁 Read more👇👇
disq.us disq.us


I hope this is the Sens
Click to expand...


1718151883061.gif
 
  • Haha
Reactions: StoicSensFan
You must log in or register to reply here.

Ad

Latest posts

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom
X