Rumor: Tony DeAngelo being traded back to Carolina next month but he also could not be.

[deadhead]

This doesn’t answer literally any issue brought up. ‘You don’t have to retain on every deal,’ no shit, you can only do 3 no matter what.

‘You shouldn’t have to on players X, Y, and Z,’ it doesn’t matter, I want to be able to on whoever I think I have to. Retaining half on Carter Hart makes him valuable asset. Reasonable contracts don’t matter at the deadline, cap flexibility does.

You can take a bad contract back on Hart, because his salary is reasonable, it doesn't create problems for the team trading for him.
Retention makes it easier to move bloated contracts b/c the receiving team doesn't have to find a perfect contract match.

Hayes, for example, if a team gives you back a 1 to 2 year deal, they still have to deal with $7M out years, retaining eliminates that problem.
Where with Hart, the "out years" will be negotiated by the new team, so you can't retain against them in any case.

 

[GKJ]

For who? Beyond Hayes and TDA who else do we NEED to retain on?

Anyone on the roster I think I have to to make the best deal possible.

Saving a RS slot for a different trade (i.e, brokering a player like what LA just did with Provorov) means that a RS slot could possibly be tied up for multiple years.

Using one on DeAngelo's short term contract right now gives us the benefit of saving money this year (And also next year if you'd favor the buyout method) without tying Briere's hands for multiple seasons by using one of his retention slots in a theoretical brokering trade. In the meantime this season, we can still use the saved cap space to take on a bad contract without us having to be the one retaining.

Who are the expiring contracts next year currently on the roster that a retention slot could be used for? Tippett? Allison?



That goes with my point. There is not a clear NEED for any retainments this season currently on our roster after those two. Perhaps an opportunity does come along where we could broker via retainment, but there also a chance where we can broker via cap space (Which is why saving cap space through retaining on TDA is a good thing)

This still doesn’t make sense. The cap number doesn’t matter from our perspective. You’re saying doing RS on TDA in lieu of someone else is to our benefit. It’s not. There’s nothing wrong with doing a RS deal on multiple players for multiple years so long as it’s a trade that is worth our while. There’s no benefit to RS TDA unless we extract value from it. The actual savings themselves is irrelevant, we don’t need that right now.

 

[GKJ]

You can take a bad contract back on Hart, because his salary is reasonable, it doesn't create problems for the team trading for him.
Retention makes it easier to move bloated contracts b/c the receiving team doesn't have to find a perfect contract match.

Hayes, for example, if a team gives you back a 1 to 2 year deal, they still have to deal with $7M out years, retaining eliminates that problem.
Where with Hart, the "out years" will be negotiated by the new team, so you can't retain against them in any case.

I’m keenly aware of how the process works. That’s why I’m trying to maximize the value of it. You can do a whole bunch of things, but not unlimited bunch of things, so having as many as possible is to our benefit so we can take advantage of teams who can’t.

 

[Lord Defect]

Anyone on the roster I think I have to to make the best deal possible.


This still doesn’t make sense. The cap number doesn’t matter from our perspective. You’re saying doing RS on TDA in lieu of someone else is to our benefit. It’s not. There’s nothing wrong with doing a RS deal on multiple players for multiple years so long as it’s a trade that is worth our while. There’s no benefit to RS TDA unless we extract value from it. The actual savings themselves is irrelevant, we don’t need that right now.

We’re not at the point of NEEDING to Dave cap. I’d rather play the mutt then retain for the sake of retaining.

 

[Redpath]

Anyone on the roster I think I have to to make the best deal possible.


This still doesn’t make sense. The cap number doesn’t matter from our perspective. You’re saying doing RS on TDA in lieu of someone else is to our benefit. It’s not. There’s nothing wrong with doing a RS deal on multiple players for multiple years so long as it’s a trade that is worth our while. There’s no benefit to RS TDA unless we extract value from it. The actual savings themselves is irrelevant, we don’t need that right now.

Of course the cap number matters from our perspective. The more cap space we have open, the more we can weaponize it next season.

If Boston is making a big deadline deal next year and needs to clear out space, Briere can call and offer to take on Derek Forbort or Mike Reilly's $3 million for a draft pick because we no longer have TDA's 50% on the books.

Sure, there's nothing wrong with doing a RS deal for multiple years on multiple players. But by not doing a multi-year retainment now, instead of say July 2nd, 2024, we can get both the benefit of a adding an asset this upcoming deadline (Like in the Boston example) because we saved cap by using a retainment slot on TDA, while also getting the benefit of making a retainment trade once TDA's contract is expired soon. That's flexibility.

 

[GKJ]

We’re not at the point of NEEDING to Dave cap. I’d rather play the mutt then retain for the sake of retaining.

That’s why I’m saying just buy him out, unless we like the prospect. I don’t mind retaining if the return is worth while.

 

[freakydallas13]

Between retaining on TDA for basically nothing and throwing in players with Hayes to minimize return, the sheen is quickly starting to wear off any hope I had of Briere being different.

 

[GKJ]

Of course the cap number matters from our perspective. The more cap space we have open, the more we can weaponize it next season.

If Boston is making a big deadline deal next year and needs to clear out space, Briere can call and offer to take on Derek Forbort or Mike Reilly's $3 million for a draft pick because we no longer have TDA's 50% on the books.

Sure, there's nothing wrong with doing a RS deal for multiple years on multiple players. But by not doing a mult-year retainment now, instead of say July 2nd, 2024, we can get both the benefit of a adding an asset this upcoming deadline (Like in the Boston example) because we used a reatinment slot on TDA, while also getting the benefit of making a retainment trade once TDA's contract is expired soon. That's flexibility.

That’s only flexibility if you’re getting an actual return. 50% RS and a buyout penalty’s is a difference of less than a million dollars for 2023-24, and a $1.66+ penalty next year. That’s a negligible difference next year considering the position we’re in, unless we think we’re getting a prospect that’s worth it.

 

[TheReelChuckFletcher]

All that I will say is that Briere is finally doing the right thing for the Flyers, but the hard part of running a franchise is what happens AFTER the core is built up, not the teardown. That what separates the great front offices (like Carolina/Vegas/Tampa/Colorado) from the chaff. But the good news for you Flyers fans is that the first necessary steps are being taken.

Simultaneously, though, I can't wait to see another full season of TDA tearing it up on our #1 PP. He was great in that particular role here in Raleigh.

 

[Lord Defect]

That’s why I’m saying just buy him out, unless we like the prospect. I don’t mind retaining if the return is worth while.

We’re not winning shit while he’s on the books. There’s no pressure to prune him from the team. Let him rot

 

[Redpath]

That’s only flexibility if you’re getting an actual return. 50% RS and a buyout penalty’s is a difference of less than a million dollars for 2023-24, and a $1.66+ penalty next year. That’s a negligible difference next year considering the position we’re in, unless we think we’re getting a prospect that’s worth it.

Negligible? Possibly. But what is seemingly negligible still means more flexibility than less.

I'd rather have the extra money in 2024-25 (Instead of buying TDA out) AND the retainment slot open in 2024-25 (Instead of using TDA's RS on what could end up being a multi-year retainment that will surely exist in the future too) AND whatever asset we might acquire using the saved TDA cap space in 2023-24.

 

[volnoir]

If nothing is coming back, which it sounds like is the case- I don't see a reason why you wouldn't just let TDA play out this season and hope to get a better return at the TDL- unless he was a complete distraction in the dressing room or a terrible influence on your younger players. If you are really desperate you can always waive him and send him to the minors and save $1M in salary.

 

[The Madrigal]

Between retaining on TDA for basically nothing and throwing in players with Hayes to minimize return, the sheen is quickly starting to wear off any hope I had of Briere being different.

Last time I checked neither deal was official and all we have is rumor and speculation about what they will be, which has changed multiple times over the last few hours. I might be silly or something but I think I will reserve judgment until I see the actual completed deals.

 

[TheReelChuckFletcher]

If nothing is coming back, which it sounds like is the case- I don't see a reason why you wouldn't just let TDA play out this season and hope to get a better return at the TDL- unless he was a complete distraction in the dressing room or a terrible influence on your younger players. If you are really desperate you can always waive him and send him to the minors and save $1M in salary.

Briere likely is just clearing house. It's also possible that he is planning to take on cap dumps for draft picks, especially with Arizona stating that they plan to add actual players this time.

 

[The Madrigal]

If nothing is coming back, which it sounds like is the case- I don't see a reason why you wouldn't just let TDA play out this season and hope to get a better return at the TDL- unless he was a complete distraction in the dressing room or a terrible influence on your younger players. If you are really desperate you can always waive him and send him to the minors and save $1M in salary.

Maybe COC is full of shit and they are getting back a half way decent prospect that they like or even a draft pick. I mean, if the deal was as reported a few hours ago there was really no reason why it couldn't have already been announced.

 

[GKJ]

Negligible? Possibly. But what is seemingly negligible still means more flexibility than less.

I'd rather have the extra money in 2024-25 (Instead of buying TDA out) AND the retainment slot open in 2024-25 (Instead of using TDA's RS on what could end up being a multi-year retainment that will surely exist in the future too) AND whatever asset we might acquire using the saved TDA cap space in 2023-24.

I don’t get why you’re equating anything regarding TDA to 2025. That RS slot is always going to be open because his contract is up. The cap penalty only matters if you’re spending to the cap, which unless we’re taking on several massive, like $7m cap dumps, isn’t happening. The cap itself is taking a big jump, so there will be less incentive for teams to dump, or even do RS deals. TDA is not stopping you from doing RS deals next summer. The RS slot for this year is much more consequential in the last year of the Covid flat cap.

 

[wankstifier]

I’m not too broken up about jettisoning DeAngelo. He’s an undervalued asset and a toxic personality. Carolina might’ve been the only trade partner now and in the near future

 

[GapToothedWonder]

Saving a RS slot for a different trade (i.e, brokering a player like what LA just did with Provorov) means that a RS slot could possibly be tied up for multiple years.

Using one on DeAngelo's short term contract right now gives us the benefit of saving money this year (And also next year if you'd favor the buyout method) without tying Briere's hands for multiple seasons by using one of his retention slots in a theoretical brokering trade. In the meantime this season, we can still use the saved cap space to take on a bad contract without us having to be the one retaining.

Who are the expiring contracts next year currently on the roster that a retention slot could be used for? Tippett? Allison?



That goes with my point. There is not a clear NEED for any retainments this season currently on our roster after those two. Perhaps an opportunity does come along where we could broker via retainment, but there also a chance where we can broker via cap space (Which is why saving cap space through retaining on TDA is a good thing)

What you're arguing only makes sense if you think they are going to be competitive enough in the next w or 3 years that they will be spending to the cap.

Even if they are competitive in 3 years it will be with a team stocked with ELCs and RFAs. They just aren't going to have to worry about money/cap for a while, you can stop weighing it as part of your thought process.

 

[Redpath]

I don’t get why you’re equating anything regarding TDA to 2025. That RS slot is always going to be open because his contract is up. The cap penalty only matters if you’re spending to the cap, which unless we’re taking on several massive, like $7m cap dumps, isn’t happening. The cap itself is taking a big jump, so there will be less incentive for teams to dump, or even do RS deals. TDA is not stopping you from doing RS deals next summer. The RS slot for this year is much more consequential in the last year of the Covid flat cap.

I'm equating TDA past next season because if we were to use "his" retainment slot in another trade this season instead, it is quite possible it'd be a brokered, multi-year retainment that ties up the slot for multiple years. (Such as a Provorov type deal)

We're splitting hairs here over how much cap space is truly needed, but this rumored trade appears to offer the most flexibility in both creating cap space and saving a retainment slot versus the possible alternative.

What you're arguing only makes sense if you think they are going to be competitive enough in the next w or 3 years that they will be spending to the cap.

Even if they are competitive in 3 years it will be with a team stocked with ELCs and RFAs. They just aren't going to have to worry about money/cap for a while, you can stop weighing it as part of your thought process.

No, we don't need to be competetive to still be taking on cap dumps during the time frame.

 

[BrindamoursNose]

Between retaining on TDA for basically nothing and throwing in players with Hayes to minimize return, the sheen is quickly starting to wear off any hope I had of Briere being different.

Yup.

I mean, I'll wait until trades are official, but if this rumored return is is...Briere lost major points in my book already.

 

[GapToothedWonder]

I don’t get why you’re equating anything regarding TDA to 2025. That RS slot is always going to be open because his contract is up. The cap penalty only matters if you’re spending to the cap, which unless we’re taking on several massive, like $7m cap dumps, isn’t happening. The cap itself is taking a big jump, so there will be less incentive for teams to dump, or even do RS deals. TDA is not stopping you from doing RS deals next summer. The RS slot for this year is much more consequential in the last year of the Covid flat cap.

He isn't talking about RS on TDA in 2025, he means that RS slot could have potentially been used on another player with a longer contract. Which for some reason he thinks is bad?

Like he is saying it's better to use it on TDA this year because it would prevent them from using it on another player like Hayes.

As if using it on any player with a contract over 1 year is inherently a bad thing.

I'm pretty sure he is in the camp that hasn't realized the Flyers are likely going to be bad for 5+ years and thinks the salary cap situation will matter in 3 years.

 

[GapToothedWonder]

No, we don't need to be competetive to still be taking on cap dumps during the time frame.

Fine. What you are saying is using RS on a longer term player would tie up cap and thus stop them from weaponiInf their cap space.

But that only makes sense if you think they didn't weaponize the use of RS which is effectively weaponizing capspace.

If they extract more value out of an asset by RS to increase the return for that asset that is doing the same sort of thing as gaining an asset by taking on a cap dump.

Basically what your saying is we shouldn't weaponize RS (I.e. capspace) because it could prevent them from weaponizing capspace.

 

[GKJ]

He isn't talking about RS on TDA in 2025, he means that RS slot could have potentially been used on another player with a longer contract. Which for some reason he thinks is bad?

Like he is saying it's better to use it on TDA this year because it would prevent them from using it on another player like Hayes.

As if using it on any player with a contract over 1 year is inherently a bad thing.

I'm pretty sure he is in the camp that hasn't realized the Flyers are likely going to be bad for 5+ years and thinks the salary cap situation will matter in 3 years.

That’s what doesn’t make sense. It’s like using it on TDA is saving them from themselves from doing it with too many players we have on the books with term, but you can also just make those trades next year too. The most value you get from using them is right now through the trade deadline. He’s trying to fix a problem that doesn’t exist.

 

[Redpath]

He isn't talking about RS on TDA in 2025, he means that RS slot could have potentially been used on another player with a longer contract. Which for some reason he thinks is bad?

Like he is saying it's better to use it on TDA this year because it would prevent them from using it on another player like Hayes.

As if using it on any player with a contract over 1 year is inherently a bad thing.

I'm pretty sure he is in the camp that hasn't realized the Flyers are likely going to be bad for 5+ years and thinks the salary cap situation will matter in 3 years.

No, I don't think it is bad.

I think 1) using a RS on TDA in the relative short term (Which saves cap space to acquire an asset), and 2) then using a RS on a long-term deal once DeAngelo is expired, is better than simply 1) tying up a RS immediately on a long term deal. We can make two deals with effectively the same retention slot in the next 400 days instead of just 1, which is what the question of flexibility is all about.

Fine. What you are saying is using RS on a longer term player would tie up cap and thus stop them from weaponiInf their cap space.

But that only makes sense if you think they didn't weaponize the use of RS which is effectively weaponizing capspace.

If they extract more value out of an asset by RS to increase the return for that asset that is doing the same sort of thing as gaining an asset by taking on a cap dump.

Basically what your saying is we shouldn't weaponize RS (I.e. capspace) because it could prevent them from weaponizing capspace.

No, I am not saying using a RS on a longer term player ties up cap. I'm saying using a RS on a longer term player ties up a RS.

 

[GapToothedWonder]

That’s what doesn’t make sense. It’s like using it on TDA is saving them from themselves from doing it with too many players we have on the books with term, but you can also just make those trades next year too. The most value you get from using them is right now through the trade deadline. He’s trying to fix a problem that doesn’t exist.

I think he just doesn't understand that using RS is another formula of weaponizing capspace. He is viewing one as blocking the other when in reality they are different flavors of the same thing.

If retaining on Hayes gets an extra 3rd rounder added to a trade then it's no different then taking a 3.5 mill cap dump for a 3rd rounder.