Tim Connolly on waivers: Any interest? | Page 2 | HFBoards - NHL Message Board and Forum for National Hockey League
Toggle sidebar

Tim Connolly on waivers: Any interest?

Ahhhhh this is funny. Especially since on the main boards there were Leaf fans saying we have to pay a premium on top of Luongo to get Connolly. Guess that's not the case.
 
To answer the question: no I wouldn't pick up Connolly. Still would rather have Scott Gomez for a cheaper salary. I don't think we can really afford the $4.75M contract.
 
LickTheEnvelope said:
... So why put him on waivers?
Click to expand...

Hoping someone will claim him to take all of his cap hit.

If that doesn't work, like I said, they will try trading him. I'm sure there will be some teams interested at Connolly with a $2-2.5 mil cap hit. (and the Leafs will probably also get a draft pick)
 
Tiranis said:
Still LTIR only helps you until Booth and Kesler are back. When they're back you can't just send him down and lose his cap hit due to the new rules. So we would have to trade Luongo or Ballard before that happens. Unless I'm missing something.
Click to expand...

Well, they could always get someone to accidentally smack him in the head when Kesler is ready to go.

I'd take him in a retained salary deal. But at $4.75 million, he's just not worth the loss of flexibility. I'd rather the team take a stab with Gomez.
 
arsmaster said:
Saves them money as well as severs ties with the player.

They have tons of space yes, I know.

But why even waive him? He really couldn't help the NHL roster at all? Might as well end the misery, they get two buyouts...who else is a candidate? Komisarek.

Pay him a pro-rated $3 million and keep his lazy ass away from your prospects. I don't know.
Click to expand...

How does it save them money? They are paying him regardless.

They are clearing a spot for one of their younger players....if someone wants to pick him up they are welcome to it...otherwise they might opt to trade him and only pay a portion of his salary.
 
pitseleh said:
I'd take him in a retained salary deal. But at $4.75 million, he's just not worth the loss of flexibility. I'd rather the team take a stab with Gomez.
Click to expand...

This I would consider; send a prospect that won't even play in the NHL. The worry is Connolly getting hurt carrying his luggage,
 
Canucker said:
How does it save them money? They are paying him regardless.

They are clearing a spot for one of their younger players....if someone wants to pick him up they are welcome to it...otherwise they might opt to trade him and only pay a portion of his salary.
Click to expand...

It saves them money, because buying out a contract isn't the full value of the contract.
 
As far as I know, the IR rules have not changed, so put Kesler and Booth on the IR and the Canucks open up enough cap room.

Personally I'd see if Connolly clears and then work a deal where Toronto keeps some of his cap if he does.

Also Connolly has one year left on his contract so there is no point for them to buy him out, as they receive no cap relief from it.
 
Clearly Nonis learned from Burke, do the opposite when you want to rebuild and go from there. I'm actually quite impressed he's going this route.
 
Canucker said:
I believe they do have to pay out the full amount in amnesty buyouts, do they not?
Click to expand...

I guess you just weigh the value of paying him to be a putz in the AHL or pay him to never see him in your colours again.

I guess the buyout option in a shortened season is risky, considering there will likely be injuries.
 
crazycanuck said:
As far as I know, the IR rules have not changed, so put Kesler and Booth on the IR and the Canucks open up enough cap room.
Click to expand...
Problem, as mentioned is that Edler will have to be re-signed at a much higher salary (unless you want to deal Edler - not worth the price to add a player like Connolly); think there's going to be 'tagging' issues (at the very least, significantly reduced cap flexibility in planning out next season's roster).

Connolly isn't worth the "price".

LickTheEnvelope said:
Also Calgary put both backup goalies Karlsson and Irving on waivers. :laugh:
Click to expand...
I guess their thought is that in a shortened season, there's less chance of fatigue when they play Kipper like 85% of the time....
 
arsmaster said:
I guess you just weigh the value of paying him to be a putz in the AHL or pay him to never see him in your colours again.
Click to expand...

There is no value in handing him a lump of cash. Waiving him is a shot in the dark of getting rid of him for nothing. Then you either send him down or work on a trade and pay part of the salary.
 
Barney Gumble said:
Problem, as mentioned is that Edler will have to be re-signed at a much higher salary (unless you want to deal Edler - not worth the price to add a player like Connolly); think there's going to be 'tagging' issues (at the very least, significantly reduced cap flexibility in planning out next season's roster).

Connolly isn't worth the "price".
Click to expand...

Again, Connolly's contract is done after this season, there should be no "tagging" issues as Connolly's deal has no impact on the Canucks cap next season.
 
crazycanuck said:
Again, Connolly's contract is done after this season, there should be no "tagging" issues as Connolly's deal has no impact on the Canucks cap next season.
Click to expand...
He still is a high risk acquisition. I'd rather take a flyer on Gomez. Far less upside but low risk (provided we can sign him for less than a million). Think Gomez will be motivated on a cheap contract (to earn a bigger one next time).

Might feel different if Gillis is somehow able to deal Ballard without taking any salary back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)

Latest posts

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom