Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

[Proposal] VAN - CBJ


Recommended Posts

To CBJ 

Sedin (50% Retained)

Sedin (50% Retained)

 

To VAN 

Dubious

1st (2017)

Hartnell (Cap Dump)

 

 

Why CBJ does it

Get 2 legitimate first liners, make a run for the cup this season

 

Why VAN does it 

Dubious could be our future replacement for Henrik and the 1st could be very beneficial 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Prodigy x 9 said:

To CBJ 

Sedin (50% Retained)

Sedin (50% Retained)

 

To VAN 

Dubious

1st (2017)

Hartnell (Cap Dump)

 

 

Why CBJ does it

Get 2 legitimate first liners, make a run for the cup this season

 

Why VAN does it 

Dubious could be our future replacement for Henrik and the 1st could be very beneficial 

 

no, no, no, no, no.

 

The sedins will not be traded and Dubois and a 1st is too much in return. The sedins have more value on Vancouver than they do on any other team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering that the Flames only got Ben Hanowski, Kenneth Agostino, and a late 1st (morgan klimchuk), for Jarome Iginla when he was 36, gotta think the return for the twins around the same value. Which isn't a whole lot for aging players.

 

The twins have more value to our organization than what a trade will give us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Torts and the Sedin's apparently are still buddies. So that's not a deal breaker.

 

There's a Hockey News article out this morning claiming there are 2 teams that want the Sedins... its probably all crap but maybe CBJ is one of them if true. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, CRAZY_4_NAZZY said:

Considering that the Flames only got Ben Hanowski, Kenneth Agostino, and a late 1st (morgan klimchuk), for Jarome Iginla when he was 36, gotta think the return for the twins around the same value. Which isn't a whole lot for aging players.

 

The twins have more value to our organization than what a trade will give us.

Keeping in mind that would be value on par with just 1 of the.  now double it.  Or make it a lot better of a return.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ReggieBush said:

no, no, no, no, no.

 

The sedins will not be traded and Dubois and a 1st is too much in return. The sedins have more value on Vancouver than they do on any other team.

Not only this, but if you read the CBA you can only have 2 retained salaries at any time. Being that Luongo is still retained we can only retain one more salary

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

The issue with this is expansion draft.  You just took one NMC and made it two, CBJ would be forced to lose to young NHL players. 

 

I doubt CBJ moves Dubois, Jenner  could be a potential target. 

 

+1 People don't seem to understand that the expansion draft makes contracts for the 2017 season to be more difficult to add as they have to be longer term pieces.

 

That and I don't think Aquillini or the Canucks wants to pay 7m in contract retention while needing to replace 2 top 6 forward positions... would truly hinder any push for next season which is debatable a good thing or bad thing lol

 

Third thing is that we can only retain 2 additional contracts as Luongo counts towards the league limit of 3. So personally it makes sense to save that retention capabilities for Miller and Burrows to make them highly appealing for contending teams

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Sedinery33 said:

Not only this, but if you read the CBA you can only have 2 retained salaries at any time. Being that Luongo is still retained we can only retain one more salary

pretty sure it was three contracts

but i could be wrong.. I'll look it up :P

 

investigation complete:

Looks like it is 3 contracts
source: http://www.lighthousehockey.com/2014/1/19/5321360/nhl-cba-rule-retained-salary-trades-ryan-miller

 

Quote

 

I won't paste the full limitations on Retained Salary Transactions (you can check them in the CBA in 50.5 (e) (iii) (C) if you want to read legalese), but they boil down to:

  • You can keep up to 50% of the cap and salary commitment to a player you trade.
  • You can only have such commitments to three players at any given time. (e.g. Toronto currently has that with Ben Scrivens, Matthew Lombardi, and Matt Frattin. They can't add another until one of those contracts runs out.)
  • The total of your "retained salary" commitments cannot exceed 15% of the cap's upper limit. (So under the current $64.3 million cap, a team can retain up to $9.6 million.)
  • You cannot reacquire such a player for one year after the trade -- unless his contract has expired in the meantime (i.e., he became a free agent, signed a new deal, and you traded for him).
  • Any single player contract cannot be used in a "retained salary transaction" (trade) like this more than twice. (So if L.A. had agreed to retain some of Scrivens' salary when dealing him to Edmonton, the Oilers could not do the same if they traded him on this contract.)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Sedinery33 said:

Not only this, but if you read the CBA you can only have 2 retained salaries at any time. Being that Luongo is still retained we can only retain one more salary

Actually you can retain salary on up to 3 contracts worth a maximum of 15% of the upper limit of the salary cap. So in theory Vancouver could still retain 50% on each of the Sedins and still be within the guidelines. Even with Luongo's hit on the books. That said. Columbus laughs at this proposal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

The issue with this is expansion draft.  You just took one NMC and made it two, CBJ would be forced to lose to young NHL players. 

 

I doubt CBJ moves Dubois, Jenner  could be a potential target. 

everyone keeps doing this and saying this about the nmc (and other trade restrictions)

they are voided when a trade happens, they are not traded with the contract

all movement restrictions, once waived to allow the trade of a nmc player, are extinguished

so if this trade happens sedins could be exposed for expansion purposes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, coastal.view said:

everyone keeps doing this and saying this about the nmc (and other trade restrictions)

they are voided when a trade happens, they are not traded with the contract

all movement restrictions, once waived to allow the trade of a nmc player, are extinguished

so if this trade happens sedins could be exposed for expansion purposes

That's not true only if its written within the contract which very few contracts actually have. 

 

Here is an example.  When eriksson got traded to boston he still retained his NTC with him.

 

"Eriksson waived his no-trade clause to come to the Bruins from Dallas two years ago, but his no-trade was preserved in writing at the time, which means he still has his no-trade rights."

 

 

http://bigbadblog.weei.com/sports/boston/hockey/bruins/2015/06/25/don-sweeney-has-lists-from-all-bruins-with-partial-no-trade-clauses/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, coastal.view said:

everyone keeps doing this and saying this about the nmc (and other trade restrictions)

they are voided when a trade happens, they are not traded with the contract

all movement restrictions, once waived to allow the trade of a nmc player, are extinguished

so if this trade happens sedins could be exposed for expansion purposes

That's not quite right. The player with the NMC can request that the team acquiring them honour the NMC moving forward as a condition of them accepting the trade. I can't imagine the Sedins would accept a trade without assuring their NMC's would stay intact. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, coastal.view said:

everyone keeps doing this and saying this about the nmc (and other trade restrictions)

they are voided when a trade happens, they are not traded with the contract

all movement restrictions, once waived to allow the trade of a nmc player, are extinguished

so if this trade happens sedins could be exposed for expansion purposes

 

1 minute ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

That's not true only if its written within the contract which very few contracts actually have. 

 

Honestly I don't know lol, I hear once that you waive a NMC // NTC clause it becomes void for the future as well.. but maybe there's a way around that. Things are complicated and you can't really assume either way.

 

2 minutes ago, qwijibo said:

That's not quite right. The player with the NMC can request that the team acquiring them honour the NMC moving forward as a condition of them accepting the trade. I can't imagine the Sedins would accept a trade without assuring their NMC's would stay intact. 

 

^ this does make sense, i'm gonna go with that

 

That said CBJ adding 2 contracts in the Sedin's you'd think they would want to protect them especially if they are making 7m between the 2 of them for being 50-60 pt players.. So yeah my overall opinion is adding contracts is a serious complication because of the upcoming expansion draft

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sedinery33 said:

Not only this, but if you read the CBA you can only have 2 retained salaries at any time. Being that Luongo is still retained we can only retain one more salary

 

Great. More legacy from Gillis. He's the gift that keeps on giving, but more in the fruit cake you don't want kind of way.

 

So the most the Canucks can retain next season in 50% of one twin? So some team has to have 10.5 mil in cap space? That pretty much negates getting anything for them next year then. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, S'all Good Man said:

 

Great. More legacy from Gillis. He's the gift that keeps on giving, but more in the fruit cake you don't want kind of way.

 

So the most the Canucks can retain next season in 50% of one twin? So some team has to have 10.5 mil in cap space? That pretty much negates getting anything for them next year then. 

You can retain 50% salary on up to 3 contracts providing that it doesn't account for more than 15% of the upper limit of the salary cap. So Vancouver actually CAN retain max on both Sedins and be within the rules. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, qwijibo said:

You can retain 50% salary on up to 3 contracts providing that it doesn't account for more than 15% of the upper limit of the salary cap. So Vancouver actually CAN retain max on both Sedins and be within the rules. 

 

Oh thats better! Sorry Mike.

 

So roughly 10 mil, so with Lu at 0.8 it is possible then. 

 

  1. (C)  Under no circumstances may a Club:

    1. (1)  Have in its Averaged Club Salary in any single League Year amounts attributable to more than three (3) Retained Salary SPCs for Players that the Club has Traded to other Club(s); or

    2. (2)  Retain more than an amount equal to fifteen (15) percent of the Upper Limit for that League Year in allocated Averaged Amounts (as measured based on the full-season Averaged Amount of a Retained Salary SPC and calculated based on the maximum potential Averaged Amount of a Retained Salary SPC) (e.g., 15 percent of $70.2 million or $10.53 million in the 2012-13 League Year; 15 percent of $64.3 million or $9.645 million in the 2013-14 League Year; or $12 million if the Upper Limit equals $80 million) in the aggregate (i.e., for all such Retained Salary SPCs) in any one League Year; or 

http://www.nhl.com/nhl/en/v3/ext/CBA2012/NHL_NHLPA_2013_CBA.pdf

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...