[Trade] Kings trade Bishop to Dallas

[Tower102]

1 hour ago, VIC_CITY said:

1 good year? He had 49 points last year to follow up his 58 point season the year before and 40 points the year before that in his rookie season. That's damn good. I wonder if we coud work out a trade around Klingberg and Tanev? How much more would we have to add? Tanev is about 2.5 years older. Would Dallas even be interested? 

Sorry I should have been more clear in my meaning. He has had good years and is a good player. I am not sure of the majority of people's opinion on him on here, but I know a lot of people that view him in the upper echelon elite dman, which I believe is over rated. In my opinion his 58 pt season is his one season of being that caliber, but he is not a top dman on a contender for me. However, if they had a top 4 that included him and Tanev on the right side, with Honka filling out the right side, they are looking much better. I know that the 49 and 40 pt seasons are also excellent in terms of production, but from the limited time I have seen him, he seems to offer little beyond the offense. 

 

In terms of a trade around both, I don't see it for either. I think it only makes sense for Dallas to use their 1st rounder to get both a solid dman and offload a goalie, and for us, we need something big for our future like that 1st rounder.

 

[JM_]

4 hours ago, VIC_CITY said:

I think you're pretty close there S'all. It makes alot of sense for both teams. That would allow us to take our pick of whichever C is left at 3rd and likely have our pick of D at 5th. All of a sudden we're looking at an assembly of prospects that should surely rank amungst the top 10 teams. Plus it would also allow us to protect Sbisa. The only question is, how valuable is that cap space to Dallas? With Tanev and Bishop, that drastically changes the look of their team and with a little luck, they could be a real threat next year. Alternatively, they could use a buy out and keep their pick. I don't think they'll be able to afford any major upgrades on D though. Given where they're at with Benn & Seguin, I'm not sure that's nearly as attractive an option...

true but losing Niemi helps a lot 

[GB5]

7 hours ago, Art Vandelay said:

TB gave them a 5th along with Bishop. And the conditional pick's, condition, wasn't met. So it was Budaj, Cernak, 7th for, a 4th and 5th.

 

Not bad IMO. Not making the playoffs makes it seem worse. 

I see, didn't know that TB gave picks as well. I agree, LA actually came out of this in pretty good shape.

[Gaudette Celly]

1 hour ago, Crabcakes said:

Nill has painted himself into a corner.  He's got to sign Bishop who made 4.76M last year and he's got Lehtonen on the books at 5.9M and Niemi at 4.5 both for another year.

Anchor + 2nd for SJS 4th

 

If Ducks win tomorrow, Dallas also gets their 1st.

[TNucks1]

7 hours ago, Nancouver said:

Here's to hoping the flames are stuck with elliott next year!

suck if miller walks and then signs with the flames

[elvis15]

4 hours ago, VIC_CITY said:

1 good year? He had 49 points last year to follow up his 58 point season the year before and 40 points the year before that in his rookie season. That's damn good. I wonder if we coud work out a trade around Klingberg and Tanev? How much more would we have to add? Tanev is about 2.5 years older. Would Dallas even be interested? 

Nope. They don't have another D-man with over 20 points this year so they need to supplement Klingberg, not trade him away. Even with all their offence from the forwards, they need him on the back end.

 

2 hours ago, Crabcakes said:

Nill has painted himself into a corner.  He's got to sign Bishop who made 4.76M last year and he's got Lehtonen on the books at 5.9M and Niemi at 4.5 both for another year.

He doesn't have much to bargain with to get anything back, I agree. That's why I wouldn't give up a second back. But that doesn't answer my question if we can get something for Markstrom, what can we also get back if we take both? The 3rd overall for sure, maybe also Anaheim's 1st if they move on, plus a prospect depending on what piece we include back?

[Angry Goose]

51 minutes ago, TNucks1 said:

suck if miller walks and then signs with the flames

please no

[BO_Scorvat]

Would you trade Tanev for Niemi or Lehtonen and the 3 overall pick, I feel like that's a pretty fair trade 

[Ghostsof1915]

Folks seem to forget that there is deep hatred between both owners. I highly doubt helping out Dallas in a bind is going to happen unless we rob them blind in a trade. Congrats Nill. You've made Gillis look brilliant with his managing of goaltenders. 

[Warhippy]

10 hours ago, Crabcakes said:

Nill has painted himself into a corner.  He's got to sign Bishop who made 4.76M last year and he's got Lehtonen on the books at 5.9M and Niemi at 4.5 both for another year.

 

No Burrows MIller or Hansen...take both goalies for the 3rd overall

[mll]

11 hours ago, Crabcakes said:

Nill has painted himself into a corner.  He's got to sign Bishop who made 4.76M last year and he's got Lehtonen on the books at 5.9M and Niemi at 4.5 both for another year.

 

There was salary retained by Tampa.  Bishop got a total of close to 6M - he'll probably get the same.

 

Buying out Niemi is 1.5M for 2 years.  How much is that additional cap space worth to Dallas re moving him vs buying him out?

Lehtonen is 2.6M then 1.7M in case of a buyout.  

[KyoNami]

18 hours ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

John Shannon just tweeted, that Bishop wanted to go to Dallas, but Calgary was on a list of teams he didn't want to go to. 

 

 

 

No one in their right minds would want to go to Calgary...

[theminister]

29 minutes ago, mll said:

There was salary retained by Tampa.  Bishop got a total of close to 6M - he'll probably get the same.

 

Buying out Niemi is 1.5M for 2 years.  How much is that additional cap space worth to Dallas re moving him vs buying him out?

Lehtonen is 2.6M then 1.7M in case of a buyout.  

I believe that Lehtonen's buyout would be 1.97 for each of the next two years.

 

It's hard to say what it's worth to them. They've operated under an internal cap for years as they don't have the greatest revenue. They will have lots of cap space to spend but they likely won't want to do it, especially if it doesnt make them better.They've accumulated a solid farm system so spending from that to save money makes fiscal sense. 

 

It's true that leveraging Nichushkin, rather than the 3rd OA, would be their easiest way to accomplish both but his ED eligibility throws a large monkey wrench in the works. Thete won't be many teams willing to use a spot on him. However, the Canucks might if the Sedins allow themselves to be exposed.

 

However, if they could save money and make their roster appreciably better over the next few seasons... I think all options are on the table for them. They need to make the playoffs next year to bring fans back.

[aGENT]

46 minutes ago, theminister said:

I believe that Lehtonen's buyout would be 1.97 for each of the next two years.

 

It's hard to say what it's worth to them. They've operated under an internal cap for years as they don't have the greatest revenue. They will have lots of cap space to spend but they likely won't want to do it, especially if it doesnt make them better.They've accumulated a solid farm system so spending from that to save money makes fiscal sense. 

 

It's true that leveraging Nichushkin, rather than the 3rd OA, would be their easiest way to accomplish both but his ED eligibility throws a large monkey wrench in the works. Thete won't be many teams willing to use a spot on him. However, the Canucks might if the Sedins allow themselves to be exposed.

 

However, if they could save money and make their roster appreciably better over the next few seasons... I think all options are on the table for them. They need to make the playoffs next year to bring fans back.

According to cap friendly it's $2.6m and $1.7m over the next two years.

 

Given they only have a 4'ish year window IMO before they likely have to start looking at, at least a retool around their youth, I sure wouldn't want to be spending that cap on a goalie whose not even playing for me for half that window when I have holes at forward opening up I'll need to plug with UFA's, a need to improve D and cap I need to spend on upgrading my goalie (Bishop)...not to mention RFA's who will be requiring raises.

 

Especially if they end up with ANA's 1st and we could solve part of their goalie cap hell, send them a solid, cost controlled D in his prime in Tanev... If I'm DAL, I look long and hard at moving that 3rd OA pick in a not great top end draft to win now, clear cap and improve my D and goal tending addressing our two biggest weaknesses while taking a flyer on a risk/reward player in the late 1st.

[mll]

54 minutes ago, theminister said:

I believe that Lehtonen's buyout would be 1.97 for each of the next two years.

 

It's hard to say what it's worth to them. They've operated under an internal cap for years as they don't have the greatest revenue. They will have lots of cap space to spend but they likely won't want to do it, especially if it doesnt make them better.They've accumulated a solid farm system so spending from that to save money makes fiscal sense. 

 

It's true that leveraging Nichushkin, rather than the 3rd OA, would be their easiest way to accomplish both but his ED eligibility throws a large monkey wrench in the works. Thete won't be many teams willing to use a spot on him. However, the Canucks might if the Sedins allow themselves to be exposed.

 

However, if they could save money and make their roster appreciably better over the next few seasons... I think all options are on the table for them. They need to make the playoffs next year to bring fans back.

Buyout cap hit is cap hit less salary savings - it's 2.6M next season and 1.7M the season after.

Nill said he is leaning towards protecting Nichushkin - he is still in their plans and they are expecting him to come back.  

 

 

[theminister]

11 minutes ago, J.R. said:

According to cap friendly it's $2.6m and $1.7m over the next two years.

 

Given they only have a 4'ish year window IMO before they likely have to start looking at, at least a retool around their youth, I sure wouldn't want to be spending that cap on a goalie whose not even playing for me for half that window when I have holes at forward opening up I'll need to plug with UFA's, a need to improve D and cap I need to spend on upgrading my goalie (Bishop)...not to mention RFA's who will be requiring raises.

 

Especially if they end up with ANA's 1st and we could solve part of their goalie cap hell, send them a solid, cost controlled D in his prime in Tanev... If I'm DAL, I look long and hard at moving that 3rd OA pick in a not great top end draft to win now, clear cap and improve my D and goal tending addressing our two biggest weaknesses while taking a flyer on a risk/reward player in the late 1st.

I've seen that on C.F. but I don't see how or why that would be the case. It is 2/3 of the remaining dollar amount spread over twice the length of the contract. Unless there is a clause I'm overlooking. 

 

I don't even think it's a question of them spending to the cap. They may not again. With the cap going to around 76 mil they will have approximately 25 mil to spend as is but I don't see them doing that with their current sales. They aren't really in a cap crunch per se but a budgetary one. They could surprise and dip into Free Agency heavily, I suppose, but it's more about adding quality to their roster. A fall back would be to retain Sharp but even then they need upgrades.

 

 

 

[theminister]

1 minute ago, mll said:

Buyout cap hit is cap hit less salary savings - it's 2.6M next season and 1.7M the season after.

Nill said he is leaning towards protecting Nichushkin - he is still in their plans and they are expecting him to come back.  

 

 

What do you mean by that formula?

[mll]

18 minutes ago, theminister said:

What do you mean by that formula?

Season         A. Salary   B. 2/3rds of A spread over 2 years    C. Salary savings (A-B)     D. Cap hit        E. Buyout cap hit (D-C)

2017/18            5M                       1.67M                                            3.33M                          5.9M                  2.57M     

2018/19             -                          1.67M                                          -1.67M                            -                       1.67M

 

The lower the remaining salary, the lower the salary savings and the higher the buyout cap hit because it's cap hit less salary savings and not salary savings spread over twice the remaining years.

They do it that way because they don't want teams handing out front loaded contracts and then simply buying the player out with a minimal buyout cap hit.   It would be another way to artificially reduce the cap hit with too little consequence.

[aGENT]

3 minutes ago, theminister said:

I've seen that on C.F. but I don't see how or why that would be the case. It is 2/3 of the remaining dollar amount spread over twice the length of the contract. Unless there is a clause in overlooking. 

 

I don't even think it's a question of them spending to the cap. They may not again. With the cap going to around 76 mil they will have approximately 25 mil to spend as is but I don't see them doing that with their current sales. They aren't really in a cap crunch per se but a budgetary one. They could surprise and dip into Free Agency heavily, I suppose, but it's more about adding quality to their roster. A fall back would be to retain Sharp but even then they need upgrades.

 

 

 

 

Internal or NHL cap doesn't really matter. In fact, having an internal cap would seem even more incentive to not pay a guy for 1/2 your window to not play for you and more wisely spend those dollars actually improving your roster. To me, that spells cap dump trade more than buyout by a fairly large margin.

[mll]

4 minutes ago, J.R. said:

 

Internal or NHL cap doesn't really matter. In fact, having an internal cap would seem even more incentive to not pay a guy for 1/2 your window to not play for you and more wisely spend those dollars actually improving your roster. To me, that spells cap dump trade more than buyout by a fairly large margin.

But why waste an asset if you don't need the cap space.