Eric Sachs
Registered User
- Jan 31, 2007
- 18,643
- 1
So essentially a 3rd and a 4th for a 2nd and a $5M contract (Bennett was acquired for a 3rd, so give or take you are exposing a player worth a 3rd at least). And then of course a budget team is gaining $5M in salary forcing them to lose it elsewhere and/or not spend it next year. Yikes, it is all yours if you want it that bad.
Well they are saying that now, initially everyone was saying he didn't need protecting.
Why couldn't say Anaheim and Tampa work out a deal involving Filppula for Bieksa and don't honor each players NMC when traded? Obviously they'd need to waive for the trade to happen but maybe they rather waive for a competitive team than an expansion one.
Yeah I don't remember anyone saying they didn't need protecting. Also that's not how NMCs work. They still have to be honoured even after traded. If you are thinking of the Subban deal that was a clause in the CBA that allows teams to nullify traded players BEFORE NMCs or NTCs ever kicked in.
Feel free to provide a link to the CBA proving me wrong but I haven't found it.
- Apr 27, 2005
- 35,402
- 34,158
Firstly, $5M is not bad value for Filppula.
Secondly, you act like like just by exposing a player, they will get taken. There is absolutely no guarantee to that. But even if we do lose one of those guys, it's hardly a big deal, and a high second round pick is extremely good value. We aren't likely winning a cup in the next 2 years, but that pick could be a solid roster player for years.
Eric Sachs
Registered User
- Jan 31, 2007
- 18,643
- 1
Because that's not how it works and both players would still have intact NMCs after being traded.
This doesn't make sense to me. Just because Bennett was traded for a 3rd round pick doesn't make exposing him make it like a 3rd round pick was traded in that deal. We will most likely expose Braydon Coburn who we trade a 1st, 3rd and top 4 D (Gudas) for it doesn't mean we are exposing a 1st and a 3rd in the draft, just 1 of 20 to 30 players who we'll expose.
I also never heard the Devils were a budget team?
The only reason that forward doesn't get claimed is if a BETTER defenseman or goaltender gets taken. If that happens then NJ really screwed up their asset management.
A second round pick is crappy value considering the body leaving and that the cap hit could be used for something else to show up in FA next year.
It does make it like a 3rd was traded considering you traded that pick LAST MONTH. You spent an asset for this player and you want to pick up a bad cap hit to let this player or a better one be exposed.
So what if Bennett remains constantly injured or doesn't produce, would you be upset if he's exposed then? I think it's more likely Bennett is on waivers before he's on a protection list.
How so? The team acquiring the player has to decide if they want to honor a NTC or NMC if the player they acquire has one. It can easily work that way.
Hey I can make up rules too! Did you know if you trade for a player before the 2nd buyout window you can then buy him out at full salary for no cap hit?
Just because you say it can work that way doesn't mean it does. But don't take everyone's word on it. Read the CBA and prove us wrong like I told you to do before.
Eric Sachs
Registered User
- Jan 31, 2007
- 18,643
- 1
It can, but it doesn't. The CBA is pretty clear on this topic.
If a NMC/NTC is part of a contract that hasn't started yet (ex. Subban's extension that started this past July 1st), it can be invalidated by a trade. Once a NMC/NTC is active, it cannot be invalidated by anything.. even a player waiving it once.
Ok, so it wouldn't be like trading a 3 and 4th for Filppula + 2nd it would still be a 4th for those two pieces like it was suggested.
zar
Bleed Blue
I can't see the Devil's making that trade... make it Filppula + TB 1st for a NJ 4th.
Even though there will likely be only a few picks (my guess would be < 10) between TB 1st and ARI 2nd, a first sound much more sexy and TB should be taking a bigger hit to get rid of that contract. Also, not sure if Filppula waives to go to a team with next to no chance of competing for the Cup before his contract expires.
As a Lightning fan I'd do that. My goal if I'm Yzerman is to clear Filppula without it costing me a roster player (outside of the ones we'll have to move anyway) or one of my top prospects. If I can't package him with Bishop or whatever top six forward I end up having to move I'd gladly give up a first to be rid of his cap hit. The one thing I wouldn't do is give up somebody like Namestnikov/Koekkoek/Point/etc. as I'll be depending on those guys to replace the more expensive non-core players I'll be losing.
The problem is he won't be available: if we can't move Filppula we'll buy him out next summer and Namestnikov will replace him at 3C. We might even have to move Johnson as well in which case we'll be depending on Vladdy to be our 2C. And if we need cap space this summer I see us moving Garrison before Namestnikov for that same reason. Like I've said in other threads, Namestnikov isn't the guy we let go to save cap space - he's the guy who replaces the guy we let go.
- Apr 27, 2005
- 35,402
- 34,158
If the Devils valued Bennett so highly they probably would have locked him up long term instead of signing him to a 1 year 750k deal.
Alexander Edler
Registered User
Maukkis
EZ4ENCE
- Mar 16, 2016
- 10,721
- 7,597
Volodya Krutov
Lost Cosmonaut
- Jan 18, 2012
- 8,135
- 1,036
Stop hating on me, I'm just speaking the truth without wearing homer glasses. :-P
I'm just taking the piss but the truth must be told, it will be tough NOT to buy out Flip at the end of next season, mainly because it's a draft expansion year.
I still love you, Hose !
Ad
Latest posts
-
-
Player Discussion Elias Pettersson - A Forward Who Scores- Latest: Another Empty Netter
