Toggle sidebar

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

  • Xenforo Cloud has scheduled an upgrade to XenForo version 2.2.16. This will take place on or shortly after the following date and time: Jul 05, 2024 at 05:00 PM (PT) There shouldn't be any downtime, as it's just a maintenance release. More info here
Beech

Beech

What A Wonderful Day
Nov 25, 2020
3,111
1,087
Micklebot said:
The Kovalchuk contract followed all the rules at the time, league still saw it as cap circumventing.
Click to expand...
the league also has to operate within the realm of reasonable. And thus accept or reject based upon that.

Stamkos is 34. An 8 year, lands him at 42. Unusual, but not ridicules. Kovalchuk would have been 47 at retirement and a 17/18 year deal (I forgot the length). I can only think of Howe lasting that long!

Alfredson, retired at ~ 40/41
Lindstrom ~ 40/41
Chelois ~ 44/45
Chara ~ 41/42
Larry Robinson ~ 40/41
Mark Messier ~ 42/43

and so 42 is an easier pill to swallow and be accepted.

It would not surprise me if they pull it off. Give him his 24 M, but over a longer period. Make up the buyout difference by a front office job at 400-500K for 5 years.
 
Beech

Beech

What A Wonderful Day
Nov 25, 2020
3,111
1,087
frightenedinmatenum2 said:
-----

I posted an example of a 7 year 4M AAV contract for Tanev a few pages back. It's not like back in the day where the final few years are completely fake, but most of the money can still be paid in the first half of the contract with an expectation that the player probably ends up LTIRetired or bought out.

Stamkos isn't going to play until 42, so their selling point is probably play for the next 2-3 years and end up on LTIR, you will walk away with the same overall salary than it you signed somewhere else for 2-3 years and then retired.

They probably can't say "you will end up on LTIR lol don't tell anyone we said that ;)" but it's an implied and obvious conclusion of the pitch, especially given the age and injury history of Stamkos.
Click to expand...
why bother. He is 34, below the 35 threshold.

You pay him big dollars upfront. Buy him out after year 3. At 2/3 of what is left, he loses some 2-4 M.

He is a cherished member of the organization. You give him a job in the organization at 400-500 K a year. And 5 years later, he made all his money.
 
Golden_Jet

Golden_Jet

Registered User
Sep 21, 2005
23,835
11,781
frightenedinmatenum2 said:
I agree, but I also think we are in a scenario where we aren't going to be able to tick all the boxes with whoever we acquire. I'd love a big mean RHD who could stabilize Chabot in their own end, but I don't think that will be an option for us unless we draft them.



No, because there are now cap variance rules that prevent teams from front loading contracts too much.

I use the words circumvention, but it isn't really circumvention unless there is a preplanned deal for Stamkos to retire after a certain year.

I posted an example of a 7 year 4M AAV contract for Tanev a few pages back. It's not like back in the day where the final few years are completely fake, but most of the money can still be paid in the first half of the contract with an expectation that the player probably ends up LTIRetired or bought out.

Stamkos isn't going to play until 42, so their selling point is probably play for the next 2-3 years and end up on LTIR, you will walk away with the same overall salary than it you signed somewhere else for 2-3 years and then retired.

They probably can't say "you will end up on LTIR lol don't tell anyone we said that ;)" but it's an implied and obvious conclusion of the pitch, especially given the age and injury history of Stamkos.
Click to expand...
Ya but there has to be a team doctor, and 1 or 2 independent doctors sign off on the injury before a player can go on on LTIR for the year.
Then repeat for the second , then third year…
The independent doctors are likely going to be different each year.
 
aragorn

aragorn

Do The Right Thing
Aug 8, 2004
28,904
9,365
bert said:
Schultz is not the answer, I am really suprised you want him. He is soft and small.
Click to expand...
He's 6'2" 190 lbs, he won't be here forever & is cheap. We have to expect that Guennette, Bonk, Toure, Matinpalo or someone else will eventually be NHL ready. Schultz, Kleven & Hamonic on defence should be much harder to play against than what we had last yr. There may not be many RD left who will come here on July 1.
 

PlayOn

Registered User
Jun 22, 2010
1,728
2,117
LeProspector said:
Why when Ottawa just got UllMark?
Click to expand...
Ullmark is almost 31. You’ve got about 5 or so years where you want him as your starter, so it wouldn’t be a bad thing to develop Askarov in a tandem with him.

I wouldn’t trade our 7th for him though, that’s too much. Might as well just take our chances with Sogaard or Merilainen for that price.
 
BonHoonLayneCornell

BonHoonLayneCornell

Registered User
Oct 16, 2006
15,991
11,120
Yukon
Ullmark specifically said he wants to be a workhorse. Dude doesn't want a tandem and it may be enough to drive him out. He wants his old buddy Forsberg, a clear backup, so he can play his 55-60 games as he said is his dream (or something to that effect).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Alex1234
You must log in or register to reply here.

Ad

Latest posts

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom