Why wouldn't a team grab him on waivers and instead willfully give up assets for him?
Why wouldn't a team grab him on waivers and instead willfully give up assets for him?
b/c they wouldn't want to take on his full salary if picked up through waivers.Originally Posted by jsm7302
Rangers stated they will pick up a part of his salary, probably 50% if they trade him.
In addition to not paying full freight, I believe there are only 6 teams with the cap space to pick him up at full salary (although Taxi Squad shenanigans might make that number totally irrelevant).
This will be either a 50% retention or bad asset for bad asset... I'm hoping the former.. No need to clog the roster with someone else's mistake, take your medicine and move along.
A trade also allows them to move a contract out, if needed. Teams close to the 50 contract maximum wouldn't want to claim him either because it would put them over or too close for comfort to the ceiling.
"Everyone says you should be a good loser. If you're a good loser, you're a loser."
- John Tortorella
"Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity. Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake; the grave will supply plenty of time for silence."
- Christopher Hitchens
The only thing positive I can see from a trade, as opposed to a buy out, is that we could actually land a decent draft pick who would be beneficial long after his retained contract expires. Other than that I can't see why they wouldn't just buy him out at the end of the year.
Hey! Any way we could land MacKinnon??? Nah, they'd never do that!!!
Thats what I dont understand. The buyout has minor cap implications and we are free of all of this. 50% retention will cost us more. Better get a good grab in return for the extra $$ on the retention.The only thing positive I can see from a trade, as opposed to a buy out, is that we could actually land a decent draft pick who would be beneficial long after his retained contract expires. Other than that I can't see why they wouldn't just buy him out at the end of the year.
Hey! Any way we could land MacKinnon??? Nah, they'd never do that!!!
Vince Dunn for DeAngelo?
Yeah, and we're one of them.
It really boils down to asset value. Either way, Tony hits the cap this year and next. If there's no value in trading him, he's bought out and he's going to have an almost trivial hit next year (383k), and a slightly higher hit the year after (883k).
For the Rangers, the question becomes something like "is the asset you're sending back worth us taking a cap hit greater than 400K next year, or is the return value so low that we're better off just buying him out?"
This isn't a dead cap for dead cap thing; this is a reclamation project for reclamation project sort of thing for Gorton.
Hidden Content
Blueshirts Brotherhood. We do what we must because we can - for the good of all Rangerkind
Send him to Toronto for Spezza! Leadership and maybe a little left in the tank to plug a hole for this year.
Getting some center help would be dandy.
I have a hard time believing the return would consist of any real on-ice value. A pick maybe?
I guess it depends on who the team is. Part of me is really wondering if you can't work out a deal with Calgary for Bennett?
"Everyone says you should be a good loser. If you're a good loser, you're a loser."
- John Tortorella
"Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity. Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake; the grave will supply plenty of time for silence."
- Christopher Hitchens
My thinking as well. Though I suppose I could see a team wanting to dump a little salary in return, maybe instead of us absorbing any of DeAngelo's. Maybe it will be a "you take our 4.8M dollar headache with talent, for your $3M headache with lesser talent".
It will probably be a headache for headache kind of deal. The Rangers basically have no leverage.
Seems fair. Calgary looks up against the cap though, so Rangers would have to retain. I don't think I would do it unless they sweetened the pot some more. Bennett/3rd for DeAngelo w/ 50% retained this year, 0 retained next year.
They're doing that regardless, IMO. Friedman already reported their willingness. I don't see how any trade happens without it.
"Everyone says you should be a good loser. If you're a good loser, you're a loser."
- John Tortorella
"Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity. Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake; the grave will supply plenty of time for silence."
- Christopher Hitchens
Sure, but that depends on the salary coming back. Maybe a team has a $5M salary they've been looking to move on from. The Rangers wouldn't retain on DeAngelo on top of that.
I brought this very thing up the other day. It makes a lot of sense to me. They could offset the cap pretty easily.
We'll see though. I have to think Tony is still relatively radioactive even when the Rangers eat his cash.
Send him to the Blue Jackets. Him and Torts, now that's entertainment.
In 1994 I thought I could die in peace...now I'm hungry again.
You'd think it would be a team that's struggling on their power play. The bottom four are Vegas, Ducks, Wild and Nashville.
Spezza has repeatedly said he would leave the game before he would play anywhere other than Toronto at this stage of his career.
https://www.sportsnet.ca/nhl/article...rs-agent-says/
Posting Permissions
