JusticeDjango Posted June 17, 2019 Share Posted June 17, 2019 To Van: Colin Miller & David Clarksons contract. To Vegas: 2020 5th round pick. Yay or Nay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Money Posted June 17, 2019 Share Posted June 17, 2019 (edited) Hell yeah. I don't know why Miller's name doesn't come up more often. Seems like a great fit for us. And Benning was part of the management who traded for him when with the Bruins. Edited June 17, 2019 by D-Money 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timberz21 Posted June 17, 2019 Share Posted June 17, 2019 Is it just me or Clarkson's contract is not hurting Vegas? He's on IR, doesn't affect the cap right? Therefore, no negative value on this deal except for the owner's bottom line. Even then, probably paid by the insurance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Money Posted June 17, 2019 Share Posted June 17, 2019 4 minutes ago, timberz21 said: Is it just me or Clarkson's contract is not hurting Vegas? He's on IR, doesn't affect the cap right? Therefore, no negative value on this deal except for the owner's bottom line. Even then, probably paid by the insurance. On day 1, you have to be under the cap, including the contract(s) you want to put on I/R. Then you actually apply for the I/R, and fill the space after the fact with a replacement. It's not a big deal if you have some really good young players who are waivers-ineligible. For instance, if the Canucks took on Clarkson's contract, they could on paper send Pettersson (and/or Hughes, for that matter) down on day 1, then apply for I/R for Clarkson, and immediately recall Pettersson as his "replacement". The problem with Vegas is, not one player currently on their roster is ineligible for waivers anymore. Last year Tuch and Theodore were, but that's done. 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ojibwa72 Posted June 17, 2019 Share Posted June 17, 2019 In theory for sure definitely works and I do like Miller's game. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mll Posted June 17, 2019 Share Posted June 17, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, D-Money said: On day 1, you have to be under the cap, including the contract(s) you want to put on I/R. Then you actually apply for the I/R, and fill the space after the fact with a replacement. It's not a big deal if you have some really good young players who are waivers-ineligible. For instance, if the Canucks took on Clarkson's contract, they could on paper send Pettersson (and/or Hughes, for that matter) down on day 1, then apply for I/R for Clarkson, and immediately recall Pettersson as his "replacement". The problem with Vegas is, not one player currently on their roster is ineligible for waivers anymore. Last year Tuch and Theodore were, but that's done. There's another option - you can go above the cap up to the Clarkson cap hit and assume that his replacements are already on the roster. Detroit has been using that approach in the past. The CBA even gives an example of the option of exceeding the cap instead of trying to get under. It's assumed that his replacement are already on the roster. Art. 50.10 (d) Illustration #4: The Upper Limit in a League Year is $70.0 million. A Player who has an SPC with an Averaged Amount of $2.0 million becomes unfit to play on the last day of Training Camp, and on the same day, his Club exercises the Bona-Fide Long-Term Injury/Illness Exception on such Player. On Opening Day, the Club has an Averaged Club Salary of $71.5 million (excluding Earnable Performance Bonuses up to the full amount of the Performance Bonus Cushion). The Club is deemed to have already fully replaced the unfit-to-play Player with any Player or Players on the Opening Day Roster. If these replacements are maintained through the conclusion of the season, the Club's Averaged Club Salary is $71.5 million, as the Club is permitted to exceed the Upper Limit by $1.5 million because of the Bona-Fide Long-Term Injury/Illness Exception. Edited June 17, 2019 by mll 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigTramFan Posted June 17, 2019 Share Posted June 17, 2019 49 minutes ago, mll said: There's another option - you can go above the cap up to the Clarkson cap hit and assume that his replacements are already on the roster. Detroit has been using that approach in the past. For example, William Karlsson signed to another $5.25m bridge deal for 1 year... I wonder what the Gusev contract details are? I can see Vegas moving on from Eakin, just to give them enough room to resign for example Bellemare, Engelland, Nosek and a backup goalie. Perhaps they trade Miller for someone like Stecher to bring that cap hit down a little but keep a similar aged/level Dman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JusticeDjango Posted June 17, 2019 Author Share Posted June 17, 2019 2 hours ago, timberz21 said: Is it just me or Clarkson's contract is not hurting Vegas? He's on IR, doesn't affect the cap right? Therefore, no negative value on this deal except for the owner's bottom line. Even then, probably paid by the insurance. If cap friendly is correct which I'm not sure then almost all his contract of 5.25 is going towards cap hit with only 125k used on LTIR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mll Posted June 17, 2019 Share Posted June 17, 2019 31 minutes ago, JusticeDjango said: If cap friendly is correct which I'm not sure then almost all his contract of 5.25 is going towards cap hit with only 125k used on LTIR. He's on IR because they didn't need the cap space but next year they will put him on LTIR which will allow them to get up to 5.25M in extra cap space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JusticeDjango Posted June 17, 2019 Author Share Posted June 17, 2019 28 minutes ago, mll said: He's on IR because they didn't need the cap space but next year they will put him on LTIR which will allow them to get up to 5.25M in extra cap space. Thanks but pretty sure it doesn't work like that from what Ive read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mll Posted June 17, 2019 Share Posted June 17, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, JusticeDjango said: Thanks but pretty sure it doesn't work like that from what Ive read. See the illustration from the CBA I posted a bit earlier on the so-called training-camp approach. And here are examples from CapFriendly for both approaches: https://www.capfriendly.com/ltir-faq Basic Equation Example The league upper limit is $69M. A team has an averaged club salary of $68M and a player with a 35+ contract with an AAV of $5M ($3M cap hit and $2M in performance bonuses) becomes injured and the team places him on LTIR. The LTIR relief pools are calculated as follows: AAV of LTIR player is $5M Cap space = $69M - $68M = $1M ACSL = $69M - $1M = $68M LTIR relief: Base salary relief pool: $3M Performance bonus pool: $2M Once the team operates above $68M, they have $3M in salary relief, and $2M in performance bonus relief pools. To add to this example, if the team were to recall a player from the AHL with a cap hit of $950k, the ACSL would be maximized, allowing the team to further exceed the league upper limit: AAV of LTIR player is $5M Cap space = $69M - $68.95M = $0.05M ACSL = $69M - $0.05M = $68.95M LTIR relief: $3M Base salary relief pool: $3M Performance bonus pool: $2M For this reason, when a player is activated onto LTIR, one day recalls are relatively common as they can be used to maximize the ACSL. Training-Camp Equation Example The league upper limit is $69M. A team has an averaged club salary of $71M and a player with a cap hit of $5M ($5M cap hit, $0 in performance bonuses) becomes injured and the team places him on LTIR. The LTIR relief pools are calculated as follows: Team cap hit = $71M ACSL = $71M - $5M = $66M LTIR relief: Base salary relief pool: $5M Performance bonus pool: $0 Once the team operates above $66M, they have $5M in salary relief, and $0 in performance bonus relief pools. When using the training camp formula, 100% of the relief pools are used when the player is initially placed on LTIR. Edited June 17, 2019 by mll 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flickyoursedin Posted June 17, 2019 Share Posted June 17, 2019 The knights are right up on the cap with good players left to sign. Nikita Gusev is looking for a new deal also and I see him asking for more than expected. I don’t think they have the funds to roll the dice but I’d give up a bit more value to take him back in the deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigTramFan Posted June 18, 2019 Share Posted June 18, 2019 Here’s what I think VGK might do: Put Clarkson onto LTIR, waive McKenzie, and trade: Miller for Stecher Eakin for picks Reaves for picks Salary OUT = $16.51m Resign: Karlsson, 1yr @ $5.25m Gusev, 2yr @ $4.0m Bellemare, 1yr @ $1.0m Engelland, 1yr @ $1.0m Nosek, 1yr @ $1.0m Subban (or other backup goalie), 2yr @ $1.6m Adding Stecher’s $2.325m Salary IN = $16.175m This still gives them a formidable roster: Patches Stastny Stone Marchessault Karlsson Smith Gusev Haula Tuch Carrier Bellemare Nosek Schmidt Theodore McNabb Stecher Merrill Engelland Holden Fleury Subban 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peaches5 Posted June 18, 2019 Share Posted June 18, 2019 They need to target Theodore. He is signed long term at a great cap hit, from Langley and an absolute beast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kloubek Posted June 19, 2019 Share Posted June 19, 2019 7 hours ago, peaches5 said: They need to target Theodore. He is signed long term at a great cap hit, from Langley and an absolute beast. That great cap hit is exactly why Theodore is virtually untouchable for a cap-strapped team like the Knights. Though I do love the target... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peaches5 Posted June 19, 2019 Share Posted June 19, 2019 23 minutes ago, kloubek said: That great cap hit is exactly why Theodore is virtually untouchable for a cap-strapped team like the Knights. Though I do love the target... Not if you take a back contract back with him and give them replaceable young assets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mll Posted June 19, 2019 Share Posted June 19, 2019 2 hours ago, peaches5 said: Not if you take a back contract back with him and give them replaceable young assets. They only have to move contracts because they have no cap space. The guys they are willing to move have trade value. There's no reason for them to give up their better players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now