Rumor: Trade Rumor/Speculation Thread XIX: The Olympic Freeze

[Thirty One]

But in terms of the assets we'll have to give up for him? Prospects, picks, young players... most likely.

I think if they want to get Miller, as rumored (would be stupid, IMO), Green would be the natural guy to send out. They'd then have just over $2 million to replace Green. I think Stralman would look awfully nice to them.

To Buffalo: Holtby, ______
To New York: Green
To Washinton: Miller, Stralman

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

I think if they want to get Miller, as rumored (would be stupid, IMO), Green would be the natural guy to send out. They'd then have just over $2 million to replace Green. I think Stralman would look awfully nice to them.

To Buffalo: Holtby, ______
To New York: Green
To Washinton: Miller, Stralman

I'd really hate to lose Miller, especially with the likelihood we lose Cally.

edit: I'm an idiot - Ryan Miller.

Erm. I don't know. Holtby seems like a good starting point. A 1st from us? That seems like fair value for Miller and fair value for Green.

 

[Thirty One]

I'd really hate to lose Miller, especially with the likelihood we lose Cally.

edit: I'm an idiot - Ryan Miller.

Erm. I don't know. Holtby seems like a good starting point. A 1st from us? That seems like fair value for Miller and fair value for Green.

Yeah, if that was J.T. Miller, I think that would be a steal for Buffalo.

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

Yeah, if that was J.T. Miller, I think that would be a steal for Buffalo.

I think if you can get Mike Green while giving up Stralman and a 1st... you gotta pull the trigger, no?

 

[Thirty One]

I think if you can get Mike Green while giving up Stralman and a 1st... you gotta pull the trigger, no?

I think so. I'm sure many will disagree, however.

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

I think so. I'm sure many will disagree, however.

In any event, I hope Sather is exhausting all his options.

Green makes too much sense. Fits AV's mold of defender.

I wonder if Wash would give him up, even if they could get Miller.

 

[Raspewtin]

Meh. I'd fork over Stralman + 1st for Green if he wasn't so concussion prone.

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

-31-,

Also, I think this works:

Buf: Holty + Hagelin
NYR: Green
Was: Stralman + Miller (extended)

Love Hags. Can't imagine he'll be part of the team in a few years. His style of play doesn't mesh with what AV wants.

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

Meh. I'd fork over Stralman + 1st for Green if he wasn't so concussion prone.

Concussions can happen to any player.

 

[Raspewtin]

Concussions can happen to any player.

Green's already had three of them I believe.

Huge risk.

 

[Guyute]

i want no part of green. too many brain farts defensively and too injury prone. i'd rather pay girardi $6 million a year. i definitely don't want green if it costs us futures (pick/prospects).

trading for mike green would be a classic sather late 90s/early 2000s move.

 

[Thirty One]

In any event, I hope Sather is exhausting all his options.

Green makes too much sense. Fits AV's mold of defender.

I wonder if Wash would give him up, even if they could get Miller.

One of their beat writers speculated that they might move on from Green.

I think it would be a dumb move on their part, but if they want Miller, and there's certainly enough to suggest that they do, they'd have to move out significant salary. I think Stralman would ease life after Green.

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

Green's already had three of them I believe.

Huge risk.

Sauer had 1 and was out of the league. Green's had 3. They affect different people, differently.

You never know what the future holds. You may be right. He may get another one, and another, and never play consistently for us.

But you may also be wrong, and he may never get one again, and play great for us.

Concussions aren't an injury that tend to be chronic. They can happen to anyone. Not a deterioration or constant problem.

 

[Fitzy]

While Washington's offense has fluctuated, it is hard to argue that Green's numbers would improve on our team. Here is a guy who peaked at age 22. He has one more season at 6 million dollars before UFA.

Yikes.

 

[Thirty One]

-31-,

Also, I think this works:

Buf: Holty + Hagelin
NYR: Green
Was: Stralman + Miller (extended)

Love Hags. Can't imagine he'll be part of the team in a few years. His style of play doesn't mesh with what AV wants.

I hate the idea of giving up Hagelin, but looking at it, if it came down to it, I'd give up Hagelin and Stralman for Green.

I'd still rather not give up a roster piece, though. Maybe send something like Kristo + to Buffalo. Kristo can be a Group VI UFA if he doesn't play in 80 NHL games by the end of next season. Buffalo could give him those games because why not?

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

I hate the idea of giving up Hagelin, but looking at it, if it came down to it, I'd give up Hagelin and Stralman for Green.

I'd still rather not give up a roster piece, though. Maybe send something like Kristo + to Buffalo. Kristo can be a Group VI UFA if he doesn't play in 80 NHL games by the end of next season. Buffalo could give him those games because why not?

That's a great point.

 

[Savant]

Mike Green really. Because the Rangers haven't been burned enough getting players past their peak. Incredibly short sighted, and having seen a lot of Mike Green in the Rangers/Capitals playoff battles, I see a guy declining defensively that won't get the space he gets to shoot those bombs without guys like Ovechkin and Backstrom clearing things up. Have always been more impressed by John Carlson for example. Also he will be borderline impossible to resign next offseason.

 

[Thirty One]

While Washington's offense has fluctuated, it is hard to argue that Green's numbers would improve on our team.

Washington scores 0.20 more goals per game than the Rangers this season. I doubt it would plummet, either.

Here is a guy who peaked at age 22.

I keep forgetting that on HF if you're not as good as you once were, you are no longer useful.

 

[Ola]

How is the cap getting to 93-95 mill in 4 years? That seems to me like a massive increase. I haven't read up on the economics and process of how they decide what to raise the cap to, but that number seems massively high to me. For the last 5 years, I believe we've been in the range of 60-70 mill.

The rise in cap ceiling will surely mean rise in cap floor. How can the small market teams even hope to raise their cap by 20-25 million in the next 4 years?

I don't think you can expect anything more than 80 million.

Haha I can tell. I also said after the coming 4 years.

The cap is reported to be 71m next season by NHL's "official" prediction. The NHL has made its predictions every year since the cap was put in place, and if I remember correctly it has been low every year but one. This time there is speculation that the low CDN might lower it (up to 1 mil), but we will see, there is no confirmation whatsoever that the NHL didn't already take that into account.

Walsh has reported that he heard that the cap will be 80m in 15/16. The CDN TV-money comes into play that season. Not next year. I haven't done any numbers, but the NHL's avg. growth has been 7.5% yearly since the cap was put in place. From 39 to what we have now. That is during the midst of maybe the worst financial crash ever.

The NHLPA has a thing called a 5% "inflator". The players always get the exact amount of dollar they are due to get from their portion of the NHL's hockey related revenue, that has nothing -- and really nothing -- to do with the cap. But if the cap stands still one year, its unfair for the players that becomes FA's that year. Hence the NHLPA can, and always does, invoke the 5% inflator which bumps the cap with 5%. So even if there is zero growth one year, the cap will still be 5% higher the next year.

Even with just counting with annual 5% increase per year (which means that the NHL would do extremely bad in relation to what they having been doing lately or what they should be expected to do), this is the development of the cap:
14/15 Cap: 71.5m
15/16 Cap: 80m (per what Walsh heard)
16/17 Cap: 84m
17/18 Cap: 88.4m
18/19 Cap: 92.6m

The Walsh number might be doubtful, I haven't done the math on what the CDN tv-money will mean for the NHL. But it stills gives you an impression of where the cap will be. It most certainly won't be 80m. You are going out on a tremendous limb if you predict that the cap only will increase with 5% yearly. Its extremely hard to understand why the leagues financials will take an extreme nosedive like that after 30-40 straight years, with a year or two as exceptions, having growth that is higher than that.

 

[Savant]

Just because the cap is going up, is not a reason to waste money on Mike Green. Green means Staal demands at least 6.5 next offseason green will probably want a raise to resign and McDonagh will easily be looking at least 7.5 with at least 2 defensemen on the down turn making much more than him that he is superior too.

This destroys the team's cap structure and I am not convinced it makes them better. By 2015 four defensement alone could easily suck up around $25 million. That is a ridiculous ratio for a team that needs to save that money for an elite offensive player.

 

[Fitzy]

Washington scores 0.20 more goals per game than the Rangers this season. I doubt it would plummet, either.


I keep forgetting that on HF if you're not as good as you once were, you are no longer useful.

Who said that? It's not a difficult concept. Green's contract is larger than it deserves to be because of past performances. He has an injury history. He coughs up the puck regularly to a tough forecheck.

Not every player that increases the Rangers overall skill level is a desirable target. Nor is it bold to assert that an offensive defenseman is not what he once was.

 

[Savant]

Another thing about this Green scenario.

Can someone tell me why the Rangers should help the Capitals get Ryan Miller?

 

[Thirty One]

Who said that? It's not a difficult concept. Green's contract is larger than it deserves to be because of past performances. He has an injury history. He coughs up the puck regularly to a tough forecheck.

Not every player that increases the Rangers overall skill level is a desirable target. Nor is it bold to assert that an offensive defenseman is not what he once was.

It's a widely held belief on HF.

You brought up his past performance, not me. I wasn't screaming for Green based on what he was. I would welcome him based on what he is though.

 

[Thirty One]

Another thing about this Green scenario.

Can someone tell me why the Rangers should help the Capitals get Ryan Miller?

Because any increase in the Rangers performance helps the Rangers 100% and any increase in the Caps performance hurts the Rangers, what, 5%?

And I don't think replacing Green and Holtby with Miller is an improvement anyways.

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

Haha I can tell. I also said after the coming 4 years.

The cap is reported to be 71m next season by NHL's "official" prediction. The NHL has made its predictions every year since the cap was put in place, and if I remember correctly it has been low every year but one. This time there is speculation that the low CDN might lower it (up to 1 mil), but we will see, there is no confirmation whatsoever that the NHL didn't already take that into account.

Walsh has reported that he heard that the cap will be 80m in 15/16. The CDN TV-money comes into play that season. Not next year. I haven't done any numbers, but the NHL's avg. growth has been 7.5% yearly since the cap was put in place. From 39 to what we have now. That is during the midst of maybe the worst financial crash ever.

The NHLPA has a thing called a 5% "inflator". The players always get the exact amount of dollar they are due to get from their portion of the NHL's hockey related revenue, that has nothing -- and really nothing -- to do with the cap. But if the cap stands still one year, its unfair for the players that becomes FA's that year. Hence the NHLPA can, and always does, invoke the 5% inflator which bumps the cap with 5%. So even if there is zero growth one year, the cap will still be 5% higher the next year.

Even with just counting with annual 5% increase per year (which means that the NHL would do extremely bad in relation to what they having been doing lately or what they should be expected to do), this is the development of the cap:
14/15 Cap: 71.5m
15/16 Cap: 80m (per what Walsh heard)
16/17 Cap: 84m
17/18 Cap: 88.4m
18/19 Cap: 92.6m

The Walsh number might be doubtful, I haven't done the math on what the CDN tv-money will mean for the NHL. But it stills gives you an impression of where the cap will be. It most certainly won't be 80m. You are going out on a tremendous limb if you predict that the cap only will increase with 5% yearly. Its extremely hard to understand why the leagues financials will take an extreme nosedive like that after 30-40 straight years, with a year or two as exceptions, having growth that is higher than that.

I hope you didn't think I was attacking you personally. And I definitely think it was important to note that I'm clueless on the process they go about determining the cap for each year because I was taking as a given that you had done that and any type of contradictory statement I made would be ignorant and egregious of me.

But, that being said, I find it very hard to believe that teams like the Panthers or Coyotes can sustain a cap floor increase. Some teams already operate at losses and being forced to spend more will be detrimental to them.

I, personally, find it hard to believe that the cap will raise by 25 million in 4-6 years.