I would think the idea is that in exchange for taking on bad contracts, the Wings would receive additional picks + prospects. For a rebuilding team, this could be beneficial. Like, I'm pretty sure everyone understands that trading for bad contracts just because doesn't really make sense.
Value of: Your Cap Dumps/Casualties to the Wings
- Thread starter RedMenace
- Start date
I would think the idea is that in exchange for taking on bad contracts, the Wings would receive additional picks + prospects. For a rebuilding team, this could be beneficial. Like, I'm pretty sure everyone understands that trading for bad contracts just because doesn't really make sense.
I think taking on a bad contract for a big buy is a *great* move, but that's not what was being discussed at the beginning or mid-point of the thread. Taking on Gardiner for a b-prospect is a terrible move with no benefit for the Wings. Essentially paying to take on a JJ-level player is even dumber.
Taking on a first or A-prospect for some team's desperate need to dump a Marleau? Totally different story.
Headshot77
We saw him heading straight for the mountains
Dr Quincy
Registered User
- Jun 19, 2005
- 29,373
- 11,698
I don't know about that. That would mean most clubs are spending well over the cap in real money. Not sure how many teams beyond maybe TOR and NYR are willing to do that with no gate revenue coming in.
Don't they get 80% (maybe it's more) back from the insurance companies for LTIR?
Dr Quincy
Registered User
- Jun 19, 2005
- 29,373
- 11,698
Not all contracts have insurance. Even if they do... let's say you have trade for a $5m player and put him on LTIR and it's insured up to 80% (no all are insured and the 80% is the upper limit, some are less, but for argument's sake....).
Ok, so now you are paying $1m more than the cap.... in a year with less revenue. AND now any bonus $$ your players achieve are going to be applied to next year's cap (or if you want you can split it in 1/2 and apply it to the next 2).
Again, in a world with less revenue, how many teams are going to want to spend MORE than the cap AND reduce their future caps? Possibly a couple, but I don't think you'll see a lot.
CaliforniaBlues310
Registered User
Ghost of Ethan Hunt
The Official Ghost of Space Ghosts Monkey
Honest answer? Nothing, we don't want/need Bozak & we can sign a cheap 1B Goalie in UFA for Free.
We're at the point of adding primarily Top6F/Top4D or nothing, unless cap dumps comes with sweetener(s). A Cap Casualty, ie, random example, Tyler Johnson (still useful & tradeable asset @Future TDLs)+sweetener is probably the preferred course. We're bereft of talent & depth, we don't wanna add to the crap pile when we've been clearing it out for a few seasons now, including the bad contracts to washed up vets, just a few more to go...
After we sign our RFAs, we should have about $21-22M of Cap Space Gold available to the highest bidders. We wanna set the precedent that losing isn't acceptable & the Cup is the ultimate & only prize, but baby steps til we get there. So that $20-22M will likely be a mix of casualties + dump(s).
I'm speculating Yzerman can turn $20-22M into 2 mid-late 1sts + 2 Good (but not blue chip) C/D NHL ready prospects/rookies. The 2 1sts can also be 2 2nds + 2 3rds, ~equivalent value. Keep in mind that is only cost for 1 yr of $22M cap space for Mostly Cap Dumps. Prices will vary depending on market value/team need/player caliber/length of contract/cap hit/fit with team, coach,system etc.
WingsMJN2965
Registered User
- Oct 13, 2017
- 18,106
- 17,700
I love how everybody saw the Marleau trade and now thinks that every single cap dump is going to cost a 1st....
The same team took a 5th to retain 1.1 million in dead space. Carolina was also (likely) the only team to take that cap dump, under the known circumstances. Marleau was known to be seeking a buy out, making it all dead space. Also, Toronto really thought they were a playoff team, not knowing the format was to change drastically due to Covid.
So yeah...it's almost like the value changes, depending on circumstances. Weird.
KasperTheGrittyGhost
Registered User
Seabrook (100%), Smith (100%), Kurashev and a 1st ('20, '21, or '22 is completely fine) for the rights to Hirose, Bowey and a pick from us?
Blackhawkswincup
RIP Fugu
Seabrook + 17th + one of Krys/Teply/Vlasic/Altybarmakyan/Barratt/Kayumov for some late picks/non viable prospects
Buying out Smith or trading him >>> Giving up asset to move him
Buying out Smith or trading him >>> Giving up asset to move him
WingsMJN2965
Registered User
- Oct 13, 2017
- 18,106
- 17,700
How about hell f***ing no. That trade is an abortion for Detroit.
Oddbob
Registered User
- Jan 21, 2016
- 16,674
- 11,225
You would be giving us something to take them, not us giving you something for either. Without you giving up assets, neither fits in a rebuild and neither has fantastic value aside from sweeteners.
Oddbob
Registered User
- Jan 21, 2016
- 16,674
- 11,225
Chicago wouldn't give up DeBrincat to move Seabrook, and I absolutely would want way more than Dylan Strome to take that horrible contract. Multiple 1sts would be a starting point and even then not super excited about it.
4 years of nearly 7m of useless seabrock
if you rent out that cap space for a 1 year cap dump, you can already cash in nicely and play the same game in the upcoming off-season, if you wish. the penalty for the seabrock contract would most likely be very severe. borderline suicide.
Dr Quincy
Registered User
- Jun 19, 2005
- 29,373
- 11,698
4 years of nearly 7m of useless seabrock
if you rent out that cap space for a 1 year cap dump, you can already cash in nicely and play the same game in the upcoming off-season, if you wish. the penalty for the seabrock contract would most likely be very severe. borderline suicide.
Missed the point......
i know, you weren't serious. it just made me think about the potential 'fair' plus to seabrock.
