[Rumour] Canucks trying to move Micheal Ferland's contract

[mll]

27 minutes ago, VegasCanuck said:

Why would we need to send anything significant? There are lots of teams out there who could use more LTIR space.

 

Teams typically give up assets to avoid LTIR.  For example:

• Florida gave up a 2nd round pick to move the final year of Marc Savard's LTIR contract.
• Tampa took back Mike Condon's 2.4M contract to move Callahan's 5.8M LTIR contract.  Tampa went on to bury Condon all season in the minors for a 1.3M residual cap hit.  IE better to have a cap dump on the books than to deal with LTIR.
• Florida gave up Lawson Crouse drafted 11th overall only a year earlier to move Bolland's LTIR contract.

Players on LTIR still count against the cap.  LTIR actually costs cap space because it's not always evident to get full LTIR relief + any unused cap space is forfeited instead of being banked.  When a team goes in LTIR, a new notional maximum cap is set for the regular roster (ACSL) - only LTIR contracts can exceed that notional cap.  The regular roster is below the ACSL which is below the maximum cap.  

 

Last season Vancouver wasn't able to get full relief for their LTIR players and ended up operating some 300K below the cap - ie 81.2M vs 81.5M if they had avoided LTIR.  The amounts above 81.2M were for the players on LTIR who by definition couldn't play.  They were also not able to bank cap space and ended up with a 1.25M bonus carry over.

 

Edited October 3, 2022 by mll

[Goal:thecup]

So, are Arizona and Vegas our best candidates to take Ferland?

What would each be interested in as sweeteners to get it done?

 

Arizona is completely weird but also have a defenseman we would like.

Can we get Chychrun and dump Poolman and or Dickenson and at what cost?

 

Does Vegas need goaltenders?  And do they need to dump cap? 

They must have a defenseman we want, don't they?  Zach Whitecloud?

 

[Goal:thecup]

14 minutes ago, mll said:

Teams typically give up assets to avoid LTIR.  For example:

• Florida gave up a 2nd round pick to move the final year of Marc Savard's LTIR contract.
• Tampa took back Mike Condon's 2.4M contract to move Callahan's 5.8M LTIR contract.  Tampa went on to bury Condon all season in the minors for a 1.3M residual cap hit.  IE better to have a cap dump on the books then to deal with LTIR.
• Florida gave up Lawson Crouse drafted 11th overall only a year earlier to move Bolland's LTIR contract.

Players on LTIR still count against the cap.  LTIR actually costs cap space because it's not always evident to get full LTIR relief + any unused cap space is forfeited instead of being banked.  When a team goes in LTIR, a new notional maximum cap is set for the regular roster (ACSL) - only LTIR contracts can exceed that notional cap.  The regular roster is below the ACSL which is below the maximum cap.  

 

Last season Vancouver wasn't able to get full relief for their LTIR players and ended up operating some 300K below the cap - ie 81.2M vs 81.5M if they had avoided LTIR.  The amounts above 81.2M were for the players on LTIR who by definition couldn't play.  They were also not able to bank cap space and ended up with a 1.25M bonus carry over.

 

Keeper is playing tonight in Edmonton, is he not?

[Fanuck]

2 hours ago, grumpyone said:

the main thing prevents a player from being on ltir all season only to magically get better for the playoffs. 

 

Seems as though neither the NHL, the NHLPA, nor the BOG has any real concern over this issue.  Really, it's just some vocal fans who are livid that TB seemingly got away with a 'loophole' and then won a cup.  To be honest, when it happened, I was dismayed as to why/how the league let TB get away with this and predicted this would become commonplace in the future, but then I had to ask, if they league, the players, and the owners don't care, why should I? 

 

https://www.sportsnet.ca/nhl/article/nhl-gms-not-eager-to-close-ltir-loophole-despite-perceived-abuses/

[BC_Hawk]

46 minutes ago, Goal:thecup said:

So, are Arizona and Vegas our best candidates to take Ferland?

What would each be interested in as sweeteners to get it done?

 

Arizona is completely weird but also have a defenseman we would like.

Can we get Chychrun and dump Poolman and or Dickenson and at what cost?

 

Does Vegas need goaltenders?  And do they need to dump cap? 

They must have a defenseman we want, don't they?  Zach Whitecloud?

 

And there is a great target; Chychrun. 3 years under club control at 4.6m (Actual salary higher, as why Ari wants to unload). Proposal:

 

1st, Dickenson, Hogs for Chychrun

 

 

[Goal:thecup]

4 minutes ago, BC_Hawk said:

And there is a great target; Chychrun. 3 years under club control at 4.6m (Actual salary higher, as why Ari wants to unload). Proposal:

 

1st, Dickenson, Hogs for Chychrun

 

 

2nd, NYR's 2023 3rd, Ferland, Dickenson, Poolman for Chychrun... not enough?

[aGENT]

2 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said:

CapFriendly shows 23 contracts excluding Ferland's with a total cap hit of $81,751,667, which gives us $748,333 in cap space.  The only players I see who could be swapped out are Dowling and Keeper, but the guys coming in, Joshua and either Rathbone or Dekeyser/Wolanin have virtually the same cap hit, so it won't make a difference.

 

Like I said, the only way to actually open up cap space is to put Poolman/Dickinson on waivers and send them to Abby.  That would open up $1.175 million per contract.

 

Dermott plus prospects/picks plus Ferland's contract isn't going to work for Chychrun...

It includes Ferland's.

 

Depends on the picks/prospects.

Edited October 3, 2022 by aGENT

[lmm]

11 minutes ago, BC_Hawk said:

And there is a great target; Chychrun. 3 years under club control at 4.6m (Actual salary higher, as why Ari wants to unload). Proposal:

 

1st, Dickenson, Hogs for Chychrun

 

 

 

5 minutes ago, Goal:thecup said:

2nd, NYR's 2023 3rd, Ferland, Dickenson, Poolman for Chychrun... not enough?

I always find these type of trades funny/hopeful

 

First deal

 a 1st has value

Dickie has negative value

Hogs has value

Chychrun has lots of value

 

So if Dickie's - value is = to Hog's + value

would you trade Chychrun for a 1st if you were the Az GM?

 

Second deal

2nd has value

3rd has value

Ferland has - value

Dickie still has - value

Poop has - value

and Chych still has lots of value

 

So, 2nd = Dickie

3rd= Poop

would you trade away Chychrun for Ferland?

... not enough? Not quite enough, if you plan on keeping your job

[aGENT]

2 hours ago, mll said:

 

It's not particularly useful to increase the LTIR charge.  Hughes in Montreal was actually concerned that they could lose millions in cap space if both Weber and Price were to land on LTIR.

Toronto trading for Clarkson when Marner was still unsigned was a unique situation.  They were at risk of losing millions in cap space if Marner remained unsigned by the start of the season because of how LTIR relief works - they wouldn't have been able to get much relief for Horton (which would have prevented them from signing Marner).  There are only 3 teams with unsigned RFAs - not relevant with Ottawa or Dallas.

 

Leaves Vegas with Hague unsigned and Weber/Lehner headed to LTIR.  Brossoit and Patrick don't have to start the season on LTIR and can remain on IR.  At 1st glance they can manoeuvre to get full relief for Lehner and Weber.  Adding Ferland would make it more challenging. 

 

Vancouver are also not in position to take back a cap dump - ie the Callahan/Condon trade scenario where an LTIR contract is moved in return for a cap dump.  Dadonov/Weber or Johnson/Seabrook idem.  There's no real incentive for any team to add Ferland without a sweetener.

 

Clearly Vegas was the team I was talking about... Hence the "(Vegas?).

 

We can take back cap, if they're a useful player.

[aGENT]

2 hours ago, wai_lai416 said:

it's still risky to shed 2.75mil waiving player running the minimum 12 forward 6 defense 2 goalie.. you would literally have to waive dowling poolman/dermott and assign hoglander and then bring them back up after we assign the players on LTIR. hoglander is probably a good bet to get assigned and then called back up right away. dermott will probably get claimed on waiver so you'll probably have to waive poolman. while poolman probably won't get claimed it's still a risk as bad as he is to run with no depth on defence.

We're cap compliant, with Ferland, with a 23 man roster.

[Goal:thecup]

6 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Clearly Vegas was the team I was talking about... Hence the "(Vegas?).

 

We can take back cap, if they're a useful player.

Ferland for Whitecloud? 

What would help make this work?

[aGENT]

3 minutes ago, Goal:thecup said:

Ferland for Whitecloud? 

What would help make this work?

Unsigned RFA Hague would be my target.

 

Yes, we'd need to add 

Edited October 3, 2022 by aGENT

[aGENT]

16 minutes ago, lmm said:

 

I always find these type of trades funny/hopeful

 

First deal

 a 1st has value

Dickie has negative value

Hogs has value

Chychrun has lots of value

 

So if Dickie's - value is = to Hog's + value

would you trade Chychrun for a 1st if you were the Az GM?

 

Second deal

2nd has value

3rd has value

Ferland has - value

Dickie still has - value

Poop has - value

and Chych still has lots of value

 

So, 2nd = Dickie

3rd= Poop

would you trade away Chychrun for Ferland?

... not enough? Not quite enough, if you plan on keeping your job

Yeah that trade is pretty laughable...

 

But if I'm dreaming here... We move our Garland for futures, then parlay those futures (plus some of our own pieces) in to acquiring Hague from Vegas, Chychrun from Arizona, Vegas moves some additional cap to ARZ, we give Vegas Ferland's LTIR.

 

Chychrun, Hughes

Hague, OEL

Rathbone, Myers

 

 

[Goal:thecup]

4 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Unsigned RFA Hague would be my target.

 

Yes, we'd need to add 

Wouldn't Vegas want to add someone who is taking up some cap?

Do they need a goalie (not Demmer of course, nor probably Spencer) maybe Silovs, but preferably Dipietro or Delia?

[BigTramFan]

14 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Yeah that trade is pretty laughable...

 

But if I'm dreaming here... We move our Garland for futures, then parlay those futures (plus some of our own pieces) in to acquiring Hague from Vegas, Chychrun from Arizona, Vegas moves some additional cap to ARZ, we give Vegas Ferland's LTIR.

 

Chychrun, Hughes

Hague, OEL

Rathbone, Myers

 

 

It could be possible but that is a lot of futures (I’d say several 1st round picks going to VGK and ARZ). Also just to be clear Ferland’s LTIR doesn’t have any value. The LTIR relief is only enough to cover Ferland’s cap hit so there is no benefit to another team like Vegas taking on Ferland. That is why just moving him on his own would cost us a sweetener. Trying to get a decent player in return for Ferland would require significantly more value to be added by VAN on top of the sweetener to take Ferland.

[HKSR]

2 hours ago, VegasCanuck said:

Why would we need to send anything significant? There are lots of teams out there who could use more LTIR space.

 

 

2 hours ago, mll said:

Teams typically give up assets to avoid LTIR.  For example:

• Florida gave up a 2nd round pick to move the final year of Marc Savard's LTIR contract.
• Tampa took back Mike Condon's 2.4M contract to move Callahan's 5.8M LTIR contract.  Tampa went on to bury Condon all season in the minors for a 1.3M residual cap hit.  IE better to have a cap dump on the books than to deal with LTIR.
• Florida gave up Lawson Crouse drafted 11th overall only a year earlier to move Bolland's LTIR contract.

Players on LTIR still count against the cap.  LTIR actually costs cap space because it's not always evident to get full LTIR relief + any unused cap space is forfeited instead of being banked.  When a team goes in LTIR, a new notional maximum cap is set for the regular roster (ACSL) - only LTIR contracts can exceed that notional cap.  The regular roster is below the ACSL which is below the maximum cap.  

 

Last season Vancouver wasn't able to get full relief for their LTIR players and ended up operating some 300K below the cap - ie 81.2M vs 81.5M if they had avoided LTIR.  The amounts above 81.2M were for the players on LTIR who by definition couldn't play.  They were also not able to bank cap space and ended up with a 1.25M bonus carry over.

 

Yup, Montreal paid a huge price in dumping nearly $8M in LTIR in Shea Weber to take on a 20 goal scoring top 6 forward in Dadonov. 

 

Oh, and I'm sure it was extremely painful of Vegas giving up a 4th round pick to unload Clarkson's LTIR to take on an AHL contract in Sparks.

 

 

Edited October 3, 2022 by HKSR

[lmm]

32 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Yeah that trade is pretty laughable...

 

But if I'm dreaming here... We move our Garland for futures, then parlay those futures (plus some of our own pieces) in to acquiring Hague from Vegas, Chychrun from Arizona, Vegas moves some additional cap to ARZ, we give Vegas Ferland's LTIR.

 

Chychrun, Hughes

Hague, OEL

Rathbone, Myers

 

 

I vote we claim Chychrun and Hague off the waiver wire

[HKSR]

1 hour ago, Goal:thecup said:

Ferland for Whitecloud? 

What would help make this work?

Vegas:  92.7 current cap hit - 2.7M for Whitecloud + 3.5M for Ferland = $93.5M with $16.4M in LTIR so a max cap of $98.9M to work with (about $5.4M of flexibility)

 

Vegas without doing the trade:  92.7 current cap hit with $12.9M in LTIR so a max cap of $95.4M to work with (about $2.7M of flexibility)

 

So if Vegas wanted to, it makes sense for them to trade Whitecloud for Ferland.   They could re-sign Hague.

 

Edited October 3, 2022 by HKSR

[Goal:thecup]

1 minute ago, HKSR said:

Vegas:  92.7 current cap hit - 2.7M for Whitecloud + 3.5M for Ferland = $93.5M with $16.4M in LTIR so a max cap of $98.9M to work with (about $5.4M of flexibility)

 

Vegas without doing the trade:  92.7 current cap hit with $12.9M in LTIR so a max cap of $95.4M to work with (about $2.7M of flexibility)

 

So if Vegas wanted to, it makes sense for them to trade Whitecloud for Ferland.   They could re-sign Hague.

 

Well thank you.

I am such an idiot at these proposals; it is nice to see it might have had some merit.

[HKSR]

2 minutes ago, Goal:thecup said:

Well thank you.

I am such an idiot at these proposals; it is nice to see it might have had some merit.

Yup, mll always makes LTIR out to be the worst thing in the world for every single team, but reality is if that was the case, LTIR would never be traded.  We've seen them moved several times, and there's always reasons for it.  Case and point above with the Vegas situation.