[Discussion] Buying Draft Picks.

[TheGuardian_]

3 hours ago, Bure1010 said:

Umm is everyone missing the fact that he’s nyi property til a week after the draft. So how r the Canucks going to get the 1st from buffalo for a player on a different team til a week after the draft. Could u imagine Bettman announcing we have a trade the sabres trade the 1 st overall pick to the Canucks for future considerations. Then Tavares doesn’t sign with the Canucks this would be an absolute joke. Not to mention gms aren’t allowed to even talk to players agents about said player without the teams approval. 

If the deal is with NYI, then no problem otherwise a trade of a pick for permission to negotiate, this has been done many times and for decades. This would require Taveras and his agent agreeing to go to Buffalo. It would not be so different than July 1, minutes after midnight players are signed, no previous contact, right.....

2 hours ago, Kanukfanatic said:

Ridiculous lol.  Things like that don't actually happen in the real world....ever. 

Kessel. Pronger, Horton, Hossa, Sequin, Gagner, ...... You really have never heard of a sign and trade? Arizona did it, TO did it, Chicago did it, it is/was not a common deal but they aren't rare either anymore. The limits are the roster spots, the cap space available and the owner willing to spend to the cap. Hamhuis was traded twice just days before the draft for negotiation rights.

 

Hey everyone is hung up on an example, hell it could be Edmonton, LA, ANA, SJ, Chicago wanting to sign or trade for Karlsson, cap room is necessary so Vancouver is involved to use their cap space.

 

It is funny how so many find ways to say this is impossible or not being smart or just can't work or any reason they can think of to discredit something that other teams have already done in the past and Canucks have missed out on or just not done very often.

 

Why is this impossible? Why can't it work? There are no rules that say this isn't allowed.

 

These guys have nothing to do but figure out how to make their teams better so they put bums in the seats.

 

Technically a three way deal such as Burke pulled off to get the Sedins is really two trades with three teams involved, Detroit moved Datsyuk and created cap space, Arizona got draft picks/prospect or players I can't remember, but nothing states this has to be done within 24 hours. For a Buffalo deal it might look like Dahlin, Moulson and another bad contract for minor leaguers or depth wingers at anyrate very low cap hit or salary, ditto for Montreal, Chicago might be Seabrooke, whoever. Just saying if it was Taveras, it would be an agent, wink, wink nudge, nudge deal that apparently happens frequently, the wink, wink stuff I mean

2 hours ago, janisahockeynut said:

Well I don't honestly think Buffalo lets Dahlin go.even for that............but here is a crazier one

 

Vancouver signs Tavares  for 10 million per and then trades him back to NYI at 40% retain for 5 years

 

NYI trades 2018 1st (11 OA) + 2018 2nd (42nd OA) for Vancouver's 20 million

 

Is that enough for 20 million?

 

Nah, 3 firsts, the two this year and next year's, maybe Nillson/Markstrom needs to be added. And I would think that 30% for 3/4 years would be ample.

 

[J.I.A.H.N]

13 minutes ago, TheGuardian_ said:

If the deal is with NYI, then no problem otherwise a trade of a pick for permission to negotiate, this has been done many times and for decades. This would require Taveras and his agent agreeing to go to Buffalo. It would not be so different than July 1, minutes after midnight players are signed, no previous contact, right.....

Kessel. Pronger, Horton, Hossa, Sequin, Gagner, ...... You really have never heard of a sign and trade? Arizona did it, TO did it, Chicago did it, it is/was not a common deal but they aren't rare either anymore. The limits are the roster spots, the cap space available and the owner willing to spend to the cap. Hamhuis was traded twice just days before the draft for negotiation rights.

 

Hey everyone is hung up on an example, hell it could be Edmonton, LA, ANA, SJ, Chicago wanting to sign or trade for Karlsson, cap room is necessary so Vancouver is involved to use their cap space.

 

It is funny how so many find ways to say this is impossible or not being smart or just can't work or any reason they can think of to discredit something that other teams have already done in the past and Canucks have missed out on or just not done very often.

 

Why is this impossible? Why can't it work? There are no rules that say this isn't allowed.

 

These guys have nothing to do but figure out how to make their teams better so they put bums in the seats.

 

Technically a three way deal such as Burke pulled off to get the Sedins is really two trades with three teams involved, Detroit moved Datsyuk and created cap space, Arizona got draft picks/prospect or players I can't remember, but nothing states this has to be done within 24 hours. For a Buffalo deal it might look like Dahlin, Moulson and another bad contract for minor leaguers or depth wingers at anyrate very low cap hit or salary, ditto for Montreal, Chicago might be Seabrooke, whoever. Just saying if it was Taveras, it would be an agent, wink, wink nudge, nudge deal that apparently happens frequently, the wink, wink stuff I mean

Nah, 3 firsts, the two this year and next year's, maybe Nillson/Markstrom needs to be added. And I would think that 30% for 3/4 years would be ample.

 

The point is it can happen, and the details can be worked out by Benning and Co.

Not that that trade/signing would ever happen

But the point is it could....as could a million other senario's

I just think every CDCer has a lot of history to refer to...

There has been some weird $hit happen over the years

 

We just have to refer to our own Sedin's to note what could happen.

[TheGuardian_]

I think a way that three teams could be involved all at once might be using "conditional future considerations" deals that require the other parts been done or registered to become valid.

Those are common enough, conditional picks or future considerations that usually end up being minor leaguers. Only for the purposes of the thread, the players would be the opposite end of the spectrum with higher valued assets involved.

Certainly would be a coup if Linden/Benning somehow got Dahlin before he is 40 yrs old.

Other additional picks should be available for the right price though. Next CBA maybe money can be moved or included in trade deals instead of moving "dead cap", bad contracts.

[IBatch]

On 2018-06-10 at 6:53 PM, TheGuardian_ said:

If the deal is with NYI, then no problem otherwise a trade of a pick for permission to negotiate, this has been done many times and for decades. This would require Taveras and his agent agreeing to go to Buffalo. It would not be so different than July 1, minutes after midnight players are signed, no previous contact, right.....

Kessel. Pronger, Horton, Hossa, Sequin, Gagner, ...... You really have never heard of a sign and trade? Arizona did it, TO did it, Chicago did it, it is/was not a common deal but they aren't rare either anymore. The limits are the roster spots, the cap space available and the owner willing to spend to the cap. Hamhuis was traded twice just days before the draft for negotiation rights.

 

Hey everyone is hung up on an example, hell it could be Edmonton, LA, ANA, SJ, Chicago wanting to sign or trade for Karlsson, cap room is necessary so Vancouver is involved to use their cap space.

 

It is funny how so many find ways to say this is impossible or not being smart or just can't work or any reason they can think of to discredit something that other teams have already done in the past and Canucks have missed out on or just not done very often.

 

Why is this impossible? Why can't it work? There are no rules that say this isn't allowed.

 

These guys have nothing to do but figure out how to make their teams better so they put bums in the seats.

 

Technically a three way deal such as Burke pulled off to get the Sedins is really two trades with three teams involved, Detroit moved Datsyuk and created cap space, Arizona got draft picks/prospect or players I can't remember, but nothing states this has to be done within 24 hours. For a Buffalo deal it might look like Dahlin, Moulson and another bad contract for minor leaguers or depth wingers at anyrate very low cap hit or salary, ditto for Montreal, Chicago might be Seabrooke, whoever. Just saying if it was Taveras, it would be an agent, wink, wink nudge, nudge deal that apparently happens frequently, the wink, wink stuff I mean

Nah, 3 firsts, the two this year and next year's, maybe Nillson/Markstrom needs to be added. And I would think that 30% for 3/4 years would be ample.

 

The part your missing in this logic is if Tavares wanted to go to Buffalo he'd sign there, not agree to monkey business that would remove Dahlin from the team, no way he doesn't get a NMC in his contract.  Interesting idea though. 

 

The team they they could target is WSH and get a pick for taking Oprik off there hands to free up CAP space for Carlson, Smith-Pelly, Beagle, Wilson etc.

[IBatch]

On 2018-06-10 at 7:07 PM, janisahockeynut said:

The point is it can happen, and the details can be worked out by Benning and Co.

Not that that trade/signing would ever happen

But the point is it could....as could a million other senario's

I just think every CDCer has a lot of history to refer to...

There has been some weird $hit happen over the years

 

We just have to refer to our own Sedin's to note what could happen.

Or even Quin nearly causing a riot by drafting Bure who others considered off limits due to his commitments in Russia...

[kloubek]

Tavares, if moving to a new team, will get more than 10m.  11m might be too low.  12m sounds about right to me.

 

He will also get a long term contract, and that will include some element of a NTC.

[TheGuardian_]

8 hours ago, IBatch said:

The part your missing in this logic is if Tavares wanted to go to Buffalo he'd sign there, not agree to monkey business that would remove Dahlin from the team, no way he doesn't get a NMC in his contract.  Interesting idea though. 

 

The team they they could target is WSH and get a pick for taking Oprik off there hands to free up CAP space for Carlson, Smith-Pelly, Beagle, Wilson etc.

The part you are missing is Buffalo wants salary relief and cap relief. Vancouver's involvement is basically for Buffalo's benefit, don't see how you are missing this, going through Vancouver leaves room for a Karlsson deal as well, this a cap space/salary deal. The byproduct is Taveras gets a couple of mil more and goes to a team that can still have enough cap room to sign another very good player like Pittsburgh did with Kessel.

Any three team deal would be the same, essentially Vancouver trading their cap space for picks/prospects, not much different in the long run than signing an old FA.

[TheGuardian_]

2 hours ago, kloubek said:

Tavares, if moving to a new team, will get more than 10m.  11m might be too low.  12m sounds about right to me.

 

He will also get a long term contract, and that will include some element of a NTC.

Just because getting off the Taveras example is so hard he would be the break down EXAMPLE, this will be an exaggeration.

 

Canucks give 2nd round pick to NYI for Taveras negotiations rights, just and example.

Canucks sign Taveras to 6 years at 11 mil, with NTC effective July 1.

At the Draft Buffalo trades #1 and Prospect to Canucks for Taveras

Canucks retain 3 per season for 3 years

Buffalo gets Taveras at 8 mil a season for 3 years and increases their cap space by 3 mil.

Depending upon how the contract is structured, signing bonuses and salary would dictate how much actual cash changes hands in the form of paying Taveras.

 

THIS is just an example or being done quickly, the same deal could be done after July 1 only with the player instead of the pick. At that point there is much more time and the deal would be again, agent involved so all sides agree. Hell maybe even a deal where Taveras signs here with an agreement from Vancouver to trade him to the team of his choice with the Canucks retaining cap space/salary.

 

Now here is really wild, Canucks sign Taveras and trade for Karlsson, then trade both retaining salary/cap, that would open up for many more teams in the auction(s).

[kloubek]

13 minutes ago, TheGuardian_ said:

Just because getting off the Taveras example is so hard he would be the break down EXAMPLE, this will be an exaggeration.

 

Canucks give 2nd round pick to NYI for Taveras negotiations rights, just and example.

Canucks sign Taveras to 6 years at 11 mil, with NTC effective July 1.

At the Draft Buffalo trades #1 and Prospect to Canucks for Taveras

Canucks retain 3 per season for 3 years

Buffalo gets Taveras at 8 mil a season for 3 years and increases their cap space by 3 mil.

Depending upon how the contract is structured, signing bonuses and salary would dictate how much actual cash changes hands in the form of paying Taveras.

 

THIS is just an example or being done quickly, the same deal could be done after July 1 only with the player instead of the pick. At that point there is much more time and the deal would be again, agent involved so all sides agree. Hell maybe even a deal where Taveras signs here with an agreement from Vancouver to trade him to the team of his choice with the Canucks retaining cap space/salary.

 

Now here is really wild, Canucks sign Taveras and trade for Karlsson, then trade both retaining salary/cap, that would open up for many more teams in the auction(s).

I don't see the point.  If we actually WERE to be able to convince Tavares to sign here, the last thing he would want to do is then go to another team... especially one like Buffalo who has no hope of winning the cup in our lifetime. (I know, that was just an example)

 

Really, if we were to somehow snag Tavares we keep him.  He becomes our true #1 center we haven't had since Sedin in his hayday (and has a more balanced game to boot) and having that on our team would help us be competitive tremendously.  It also allows less pressure on Pettersson, as he can focus on the wing role.  It would be an all-around perfect fit for us, so if we ever got him we keep him.  And yes, your idea if it was even possible does solve our #1D issue, but we still have our #1C issue to deal with.  And if Pettersson CAN handle such pressure, we then have a #1LW issue.  IMO, your scenario gives up an issue for another issue, and complicates it in the process plus has us retaining money for longer than I would like.  (1 year is just fine.  2 years is doable.  3 years starts to have cap implications).

[mll]

51 minutes ago, TheGuardian_ said:

Just because getting off the Taveras example is so hard he would be the break down EXAMPLE, this will be an exaggeration.

 

Canucks give 2nd round pick to NYI for Taveras negotiations rights, just and example.

Canucks sign Taveras to 6 years at 11 mil, with NTC effective July 1.

At the Draft Buffalo trades #1 and Prospect to Canucks for Taveras

Canucks retain 3 per season for 3 years

Buffalo gets Taveras at 8 mil a season for 3 years and increases their cap space by 3 mil.

Depending upon how the contract is structured, signing bonuses and salary would dictate how much actual cash changes hands in the form of paying Taveras.

 

THIS is just an example or being done quickly, the same deal could be done after July 1 only with the player instead of the pick. At that point there is much more time and the deal would be again, agent involved so all sides agree. Hell maybe even a deal where Taveras signs here with an agreement from Vancouver to trade him to the team of his choice with the Canucks retaining cap space/salary.

 

Now here is really wild, Canucks sign Taveras and trade for Karlsson, then trade both retaining salary/cap, that would open up for many more teams in the auction(s).

 

It's technically not possible to retain only 3 years over a 7 year contract.  The CBA doesn't allow it.  Any retention is applied over the full length and at the same percentage for each year.  

 

 

[TheGuardian_]

55 minutes ago, mll said:

 

It's technically not possible to retain only 3 years over a 7 year contract.  The CBA doesn't allow it.  Any retention is applied over the full length and at the same percentage for each year.  

 

 

See Kessel.

1 hour ago, kloubek said:

I don't see the point.  If we actually WERE to be able to convince Tavares to sign here, the last thing he would want to do is then go to another team... especially one like Buffalo who has no hope of winning the cup in our lifetime. (I know, that was just an example)

 

Really, if we were to somehow snag Tavares we keep him.  He becomes our true #1 center we haven't had since Sedin in his hayday (and has a more balanced game to boot) and having that on our team would help us be competitive tremendously.  It also allows less pressure on Pettersson, as he can focus on the wing role.  It would be an all-around perfect fit for us, so if we ever got him we keep him.  And yes, your idea if it was even possible does solve our #1D issue, but we still have our #1C issue to deal with.  And if Pettersson CAN handle such pressure, we then have a #1LW issue.  IMO, your scenario gives up an issue for another issue, and complicates it in the process plus has us retaining money for longer than I would like.  (1 year is just fine.  2 years is doable.  3 years starts to have cap implications).

Vancouver is just a cash drop, Taveras is only signing here to be traded to the target team, whether done within minutes, days or weeks. Other players have been traded 2 or 3 times over a couple of days/hours.

 

You seem to be under the impression that Vancouver is a "destination", it would be purely a stop gap to retain cap/salary so the team he is going to can have him play and be under the cap maximum.

 

Forget the player Taveras and think a Karlsson or Carlson deal for lets say Chicago, Tampa, |St Louis, Edmonton, Pittsburgh, Boston, ….. the player wants to go cup contender, team wants the player but no cap space, player and team get together and make deals with the Canucks for them to use some of their available cap space in exchange for picks/prospects/players. Player signs with the Canucks, Canucks trade player retaining enough cap space. Team has player under the cap, player gets his salary he wants, the Canucks get more top level picks/prospects/player(s). For the Canucks the offer has to address the team's needs.

 

Vancouver can do this because they should not be near the cap ceiling for 7 to 8 years due to most players being younger in second contracts and the cap is likely to go up each year.

 

The length of salary retention, there is no language with regards to length of term with retention, BUT there is language with regards to buying out the player and cap implications, so it might be interpreted as the term is the same as the length of the contract.

 

BUT signing bonuses are counted in the cap but not in retention so a salary which has multiple signing bonuses can only retain that portion that is salary. Eriksson's contract is 7mil in signing bonus and 1 mil in salary equaling 8 mil, over the 6 years the cap hit averages out to 6 mil a year but even if the Canucks retained half his salary, 500,000, half a mil and 3 mil in cap space, the other team would still be hit with the signing bonuses. Lucic's contract is similar but not as bad, if the Canucks were used to reduce the cap hit for another team in exchanged for picks/prospects/players, between the Oil and Canucks they retain 50%, this makes it much easier for another team to trade for or take on his contract but still expensive in actual money being spent but would give that team up to 3 mil in additional cap space.

[qwijibo]

15 minutes ago, TheGuardian_ said:

See Kessel.

Vancouver is just a cash drop, Taveras is only signing here to be traded to the target team, whether done within minutes, days or weeks. Other players have been traded 2 or 3 times over a couple of days/hours.

 

You seem to be under the impression that Vancouver is a "destination", it would be purely a stop gap to retain cap/salary so the team he is going to can have him play and be under the cap maximum.

 

Forget the player Taveras and think a Karlsson or Carlson deal for lets say Chicago, Tampa, |St Louis, Edmonton, Pittsburgh, Boston, ….. the player wants to go cup contender, team wants the player but no cap space, player and team get together and make deals with the Canucks for them to use some of their available cap space in exchange for picks/prospects/players. Player signs with the Canucks, Canucks trade player retaining enough cap space. Team has player under the cap, player gets his salary he wants, the Canucks get more top level picks/prospects/player(s). For the Canucks the offer has to address the team's needs.

 

Vancouver can do this because they should not be near the cap ceiling for 7 to 8 years due to most players being younger in second contracts and the cap is likely to go up each year.

What about Kessel? Toronto retained $1.2m/season on his contract until it expires in 20-21

[mll]

17 minutes ago, TheGuardian_ said:

See Kessel.

Vancouver is just a cash drop, Taveras is only signing here to be traded to the target team, whether done within minutes, days or weeks. Other players have been traded 2 or 3 times over a couple of days/hours.

 

You seem to be under the impression that Vancouver is a "destination", it would be purely a stop gap to retain cap/salary so the team he is going to can have him play and be under the cap maximum.

 

Forget the player Taveras and think a Karlsson or Carlson deal for lets say Chicago, Tampa, |St Louis, Edmonton, Pittsburgh, Boston, ….. the player wants to go cup contender, team wants the player but no cap space, player and team get together and make deals with the Canucks for them to use some of their available cap space in exchange for picks/prospects/players. Player signs with the Canucks, Canucks trade player retaining enough cap space. Team has player under the cap, player gets his salary he wants, the Canucks get more top level picks/prospects/player(s). For the Canucks the offer has to address the team's needs.

 

Vancouver can do this because they should not be near the cap ceiling for 7 to 8 years due to most players being younger in second contracts and the cap is likely to go up each year.

Kessel is 15% over the full length of his contract.  

Toronto is retaining 1.2M until 2021/22 which is when his contract ends: https://www.capfriendly.com/teams/mapleleafs

 

[TheGuardian_]

50 minutes ago, qwijibo said:

What about Kessel? Toronto retained $1.2m/season on his contract until it expires in 20-21

Kessel's contract is for 8 mil a year but Pitts only has a 6 mil cap hit, it they moved him now and retained 35% of salary the team signing him needs only 4 mil in cap space.

But this doesn't address my statement of term of retention, which I could not find any supporting wording in the CBA, so it does appear the team is stuck with the same as the contract length.

This does bring up though how much for each individual year, a declining cap retention possibly?

 

The idea trying to be presented is possible methods that Vancouver can use their financial ability to speed up a rebuild by using available means.

[mll]

1 hour ago, TheGuardian_ said:

Kessel's contract is for 8 mil a year but Pitts only has a 6 mil cap hit, it they moved him now and retained 35% of salary the team signing him needs only 4 mil in cap space.

But this doesn't address my statement of term of retention, which I could not find any supporting wording in the CBA, so it does appear the team is stuck with the same as the contract length.

This does bring up though how much for each individual year, a declining cap retention possibly?

 

The idea trying to be presented is possible methods that Vancouver can use their financial ability to speed up a rebuild by using available means.

It's not possible - it's the same rate for the full length of the contract. 

 

Here's the CBA wording -  Art 50.5 (e) (iii): 

(A) For the remaining term of Traded Player's SPC, the Club from which the Player is Traded may agree to retain no more than fifty (50) percent of the Averaged Amount of such SPC's remaining term ("Retained Salary Transaction" and the particular SPC, a "Retained Salary SPC"). In each Retained Salary Transaction, the percentage allocation of the retained Averaged Amount cannot be altered from year to year.

 

[TheGuardian_]

23 hours ago, mll said:

It's not possible - it's the same rate for the full length of the contract. 

 

Here's the CBA wording -  Art 50.5 (e) (iii): 

(A) For the remaining term of Traded Player's SPC, the Club from which the Player is Traded may agree to retain no more than fifty (50) percent of the Averaged Amount of such SPC's remaining term ("Retained Salary Transaction" and the particular SPC, a "Retained Salary SPC"). In each Retained Salary Transaction, the percentage allocation of the retained Averaged Amount cannot be altered from year to year.

 

TO keeps the 15% and Pitt keeps 35%,equals 50% for the remainder of the term.

[5Fivehole0]

On 6/10/2018 at 10:27 AM, c00kies said:

What? 

 

So you'd sign Tavares to a 3 year deal and have us pay $6 for those three years just to trade him to Buffalo? 

 

I'm pretty sure Tavares will get a NTC or NMC in any deal he signs.

 

Props for thinking outside the box, but I think you're a little too far away from it

 

XD !!

Tavares will sign for no less than 8 years, and will have a full NMC without a doubt. Tavares will also not likely sign with Vancouver. I just hope he stays out of California.

[TheGuardian_]

On ‎6‎/‎15‎/‎2018 at 1:18 PM, 5Fivehole0 said:

XD !!

Tavares will sign for no less than 8 years, and will have a full NMC without a doubt. Tavares will also not likely sign with Vancouver. I just hope he stays out of California.

Agreed Taveras will never play for the Canucks, ever.

Instead TO trades their #1 for two years and Marleau/Horton to Vancouver for ?, this is a cap dump that allows TO to sign Taveras, so they are not looking for top quality coming back, essentially for them the deal is 2 #1's for Taveras because that is what is cost them to free up cap space.

 

Canucks trade ? to Edmonton for Lucic and Pujujarvi or #1, again another cap dump so they can trade for Karlsson/Carlson/Doughy/Subban/? Once again a cap dump so quality going to Edmonton is marginal. Canucks then can retain cap/salary to trade Lucic to some team he wants to go to or wants him and his contract is not as much of deterrent.

 

 

[TheGuardian_]

Well SJ sure ended up the winner, 3 additional draft picks and cap dump to boot.

[mll]

On 6/15/2018 at 1:03 AM, TheGuardian_ said:

TO keeps the 15% and Pitt keeps 35%,equals 50% for the remainder of the term.

Each team is allowed to keep up to 50% on their share.  There can't be more than 2 teams retaining on the same contract. 

 

Example - Dubnyk got traded to Nashville from Edmonton at 50%. Nashville then traded him to Montreal with 50% retained on their share.  So Montreal only paid 25% of his original contract.