No April Fooling here, just the latest on the Red Wings, Wild and Coyotes in your NHL rumor mill.
Red Wings could face offseason goalie question.
The Red Wings could face a difficult goaltending decision this summer.
THE DETROIT NEWS: Gregg Krupa reports the current struggles of Petr Mrazek and the recent improvement of Jimmy Howard raises questions over how the Red Wings could address their goaltending in the offseason. He believes the Wings will have to decide if they’ll keep two goalies next season that could cost a combined $10 million in salary or if they’ll move one of them “in a trade that might prove critical for the future.” Mrazek is a restricted free agent earning over $733K this season and due a significant raise, while Howard is earning $5.3 million annually on a long-term deal. Given the Wings disappointing performance this season, GM Ken Holland could face an active summer.
MLIVE.COM: In his weekly mailbag, Ansar Khan also addressed the Wings goaltending. He believes Mrazek’s struggles could throw a monkey wrench into their offseason plans, as it was assumed Howard would be shopped this summer. He also speculates Mrazek’s recent play hurts the goalie’s chances of landing a long-term extension, suggesting instead the Wings could offer up a two-year bridge deal while hanging onto Howard for next season as insurance. Khan doubts they’ll trade Mrazek because of his recent slump.
SPECTOR’S NOTE: Holland won’t trade Mrazek, but I think the young netminder’s inconsistency will lead to a bridge contract. He’ll likely look into Howard’s trade value this summer. If Holland moves Howard, however, he’ll have to find a suitable backup as a replacement. I think it makes sense to re-sign Mrazek and bring back Howard for next season. As they can only protect one goalie in the expansion draft, they can expose Howard in hopes an expansion club will take him and his cap hit.
Updates on the Wild and Coyotes.
STARTRIBUNE.COM: Michael Russo recently replied to questions from his readers regarding the Minnesota Wild. If players with no-movement clauses must be protected in the expansion draft, he speculates the Wild could be forced to expose Jonas Brodin, Marco Scandella and Jared Spurgeon to ensure the minimum 25 percent of cap payroll that must be left unprotected. He believes it would be difficult for the Wild to acquire center Leon Draisaitl from the Edmonton Oilers, but considers Connor McDavid their only untouchable. Russo also considers it more likely the Wild will buy out Thomas Vanek this summer than Jason Pominville, as the latter is more costly.
SPECTOR’S NOTE: As Russo points out, we’ll have to wait and see what the rules for players carrying NMCs will be for the expansion draft. That decision could prove costly to the Wild. I don’t believe the Oilers intend to move Draisaitl, who’s put up 50 points in 69 games this season and will only continue to improve. Vanek will be bought out this summer. Pominville won’t be, for obvious reasons.
USA TODAY: If the Arizona Coyotes are to trade up in this year’s draft, Kevin Allen believes their chances of moving up to the No. 4 pick to select left wing Matthew Tkachuk, son of former Coyotes stars Keith Tkachuk, are more realistic than attempting to acquire the first-overall selection and the rights to Arizona native Auston Matthews. “The Tkachuk scenario is far more sensible than all of the fan talk about the Coyotes offering Oliver Ekman-Larsson and a blend of prospects and first-round picks to land Matthews.”
SPECTOR’S NOTE: Of course Allen is spitballing here, but his scenario indeed makes a lot more sense than packaging up their top defenseman to acquire the rights to Matthews.
The media continues the strawman argument against swapping OEL + their 1st to acquire Matthews – that has always been ridiculous. Please stop.
As rare as any of these trades are, what is perhaps possible is a swap of Matthews for one of ARZ young studs plus the Matthews pick.
If the Leafs end up with that pick, which is unlikely, I think they’d be asking about this potential, looking for Strome + for Matthews.
Personally, I would take Strome over the less-proven Matthews without the +.
I agree totally!
Not sure you can argue Strome is any more or less proven than Matthews? Also the consensus of ALL scouts is that Matthews would have been a no doubt 3rd overall last year (ahead of Strome) if he was born 48 hours earlier
Scott, I have my doubts because the league he is playing in is somewhat unknown in terms of assessing top tier young talent whereas we know that Strome is a stud. Add to that the news that Matthews is claiming he would not play for a Canadian team and it makes me nervous that he might be some kind of prima dona. Like I said, I feel more comfortable with Strome and I’d take him straight across., but I think the ask would be Strome +.
Matthews and his agent came out and said the rumor that he wont play in Canada is totally false
Scott the reason Mattews would have been picked 3rd last yr was that Arizonia was picking 3rd. If Strome was in the draft this yr they say flip a coin between them and Dan please don’t apply for the gm position in Toronto
I agree with both your points yogi lol
I heard an interview with MacKenzie on the NHL network months ago that it was a coin toss for teams between Matthews & Strome had Matthews been eligible.
Again how many people is Matthews going to put in the seats in Arizona? I’d say it’s negotiable. A great marketing story but even Matthew’s isn’t moving Arizona into the black. TB had the 7th highest regular season attendance & 13 to 14 sold out home gates in the playoffs last season & still lost 1.4 million.
The NHL has exclusive marketing rights to all merchandise revenue & it is shared equally by all teams except for any merchandise sold with in a 75 mile radius of an NHL teams home building.
I believe Arz said OEL was available last year near the draft, hence the rumors
Maloney totally laughed that off! that was just some reporter that made that up
I didn’t know the 25 percent of the team’s payroll must be exposed aspect of the expansion draft. I guess that’s to help expose some higher caliber players compared to just the bottom players in the league – a nice rule in my opinion.
I think Arizona will seriously try to get 1st overall but the price will ultimately be too high. I wouldn’t trade OEL (even straight up) for the pick, and I hear grumblings of Duclair or Domi plus their 1st which is an outrageous price in itself.
Domi +Arizona’s 1 is a very high price indeed, but one that could get Matthews from the right team (ie the Leafs who absolutely love Domi’s dad). However, Arizona still might want to consider it. Having hometown hero Matthews in the line-up puts fans in the stands now. Long before the team actually becomes competitive even. Plus it helps them with PR, and garner’s some goodwill that was lost with their recent legal battles with city hall.
And although the price is high, Arizona is so incredibly flush with forward prospect depth they probably wouldn’t notice much difference.
Don’t get me wrong I think Toronto should take any deal that would involve getting back Arizona’s 1st pick plus Domi, Strome, or Duclair – but I just don’t see it happening. Plus with the Leafs luck at the lottery spin, they aren’t getting the 1st overall anyway… Edmonton will :-S
Thirsty, I think MST makes an important point that ARZ truly is loaded with young, offensive talent and so they can afford to overpay.
Also, Matthews would be the immediate face of the team and define it for the next 10+ years in a positive way in that market – I don’t think you can overestimate the value of that, it’s almost priceless.
On value, it would be Matthews for Strome – I think straight across – but let’s say plus something less than that 1st or Domi/Duclair/Dvorak for arguments sake.
Even if this is the way both management groups see it, I would still expect the deal to be for more than that with ARZ paying a premium given the above.
My gut tells me something happens along these lines.
Maloney is a smart gm is not gonna overpay bigtime to get Matthews cause he might sell tickets its just not gonna happen! the only way he does it is if the ownership makes him do it. Maloney wont hurt his good young team
That’s right, Bigbear, but don’t you think the management might weigh in on it? I can’t imagine they’re happy losing money every year. Maybe when the oil price was high, they were okay with it for sometime, knowing the team was going to be very good given the prospect depth – now that group has to be hurting, though. These are Calgary oil guys from what I understand – the happy times are over for them.
*Ownership
@bigbear. “Not going to overpay just to sell tickets”? You realize that’s why teams exist don’t you? Sell tickets, make money, that’s kinda the point.
Imagine instead of being a fan, you actually had money riding on whether or not people buy your tickets. How would you feel then?
like I said it will be the ownership not Maloney! I don’t know how much oil relates to on the ice play but if they trust there gm they will follow the plan!
ThirstyDeer,
“I wouldn’t trade OEL (even straight up) for the pick, and I hear grumblings of Duclair or Domi plus their 1st which is an outrageous price in itself”
I agree with you completely that OEL for the 1st overall is outrageous, which is why all of us realistic fans and followers know that it’ll NEVER happen. I do, however, disagree about Duclair or Domi plus their 1st for the #1 overall as an outrageous notion… think about it, if the draft were today Arizona would be picking around 8th overall. It’s going to take a lot to make the move to pick Matthews. An ‘A’ level prospect or young roster player who’s up and coming plus their 1st, which would pick #8 (likely) for the 1st overall… seems like a fair move. Remember, last seasons draft Boston made all of those moves to acquire the 2 extra 1st round picks and couldn’t even move into the top 10, which would’ve seen them moving those picks. I think the price is high to move up in the draft, and I think as you get into the top 10 it becomes even higher to move even 1 or 2 spots higher. I could see Duclair and the 8th overall going for Matthews… Duclair has been traded before along with a 1st for Yandle, I just don’t see this as being as outrageous an idea as you think, thoughts?
so mst say the coyotes overpay bigtime and trade a strome domi or duclair plus, and Matthews doesn’t live up to the hype and they are no better on the ice sure maybe the first year fans come to see a hometown boy but after that if they aren’t making the playoffs the ownership still aren’t getting the money! they hire Maloney cause these oil guys no nothing about hockey
OEL for mathews AND a great prospect d-man would be a fair deal. He is a top 10 d man in the league. If they traded him in a year or two it would bring back more than yandle… far more. I suggested Nurse and 1st (if oil win) for OEL and firmly believe its fair for both teams.
I dont think the leafs have a good enough d prospect (reilly would be too much) to throw in with a first to get OEL.
They are not trading nurse.
If I’m Minnesota I’m not too worried about the 25% rule. Getting around the 25% rule will be pretty easy. Any team that’s not up against that constraint can simply trade a UFA with an expiring contract 48 hours after the cup is awarded, to a team that is up against that constraint. Minnesota might wind up having to trade for someone like Stephane Robidas but that wouldn’t cost them much in a trade and there wouldn’t even be any salary that would need to be paid out.
For that matter getting around the problem of being forced to protect a soon to be UFA with an NMC is also easy. For example if Tampa Bay wanted to protect Vaslievski in spite of the fact that Bishop has an NMC, all they would have to do is buyout Bishop 48 hours after the Cup is awarded. Since the season would be over the cost of the buyout would be zero and the cap penalty the following year would also be zero. Then Tampa could resign Bishop as a UFA if they so desired and still keep Vasilevski.
The cost of any buy out is amortised at twice the term in future years.
Striker. The cost is zero. 2 days after the cup the amount owed on the contract is zero. A buyout therefore would cost zero. Stretch that cost out all you want it’s still zero!
No it doesn’t
The CBA is readily available at the NHLPA site. Unless they players contract expires any remaining monies count against the cap. Players under 26 can be bought out at 1/3rd of their actual salary. See Cowen in Toronto, over 26 2/3rd’s their salary amortized over twice the remaining term.
Striker I understand the rules, I think you misunderstood my point. Let’s say its June 20th, 48 hours after the cup finals are over. A player on your roster is set to become a UFA July 1 but has an NMC that requires a protection slot in the expansion draft that happens tomorrow. The team doesn’t want to waste a slot on someone who won’t be on their roster in 2 weeks.
So they buyout the player. They don’t owe the player any money though because they’ve paid him his entire contract back in April when the regular season ends. The cost of the buyout is 0. 2/3 of zero is zero. The cap hit for the next two years is 1/3 of zero which is still zero.
Now the player is not on your roster so you can take the protection slot you would have had to use on that player to protect someone else on your roster.
mst I think you are forgetting that there is a buyout period! I don’t think you can buy a player out like that
Big Bear the buyout period starts 48 hours after the awarding of the cup
A more likely scenario-is a side deal trade that would protect Vaslievski. Or a deal to acquire him back.
Agreed.
A buy out is risky since being a UFA, Bishop could be talking numbers to anyone. There is a lot of potential with quality players that when the dust settles, IF you re-sign them according to plan, it’ll be at a higher cost/longer term. I know if I was the player and had no problems with the status quo, I would play teams off on each other. If you can be paid more, don’t have to move, learn new systems, etc. why wouldn’t I?
A deal to get him back would cost at least as much in picks/prospects/players as Vasilevski is worth.
Buying out Bishop when he has 2 weeks until he’s a UFA, and is owed zero dollars (because he was paid in full before the playoffs even started) costs nothing in terms of dollars, picks/prospects or players.
Sorry I see what your saying down here. You weren’t clear above. Yes if a UFA there is no need to buy the player out as his contract is expiring regardless.
You cant resign a player you bought out.
Good point! I guess then it would only work if Tampa really didn’t want to resign him. But if they don’t buy him out then there’s no other way to protect Vasilevski!
A NMC is a contractual obligation and therefore it can not be circumvented via expansion draft or anything without consent or shaddy lawyerism
No one is suggesting otherwise. That’s the conundrum teams have vis a vie players with NMCs and the expansion draft. If a player has an NMC you have to use a protection slot on him, even if you don’t want to. Even if his contract is set to expire in 2 weeks.
But if you bought out such a contract then you can use your protection slot on someone else as you see fit. And if the player in question is a pending UFA in 2 weeks, the cost of that buyout would be zero since you’ve already paid all the money owing.
That’s not true. The language of the no movement clauses applies to trades and demotions. It doesn’t apply to the expansion draft. That’s why the two sides need to sit down and work it out – because the expectation of the players is that they can’t be taken but the actual language doesn’t coincide with that thought process.
At the end of the day Arizona is one of 30 businesses in the league. Forget the hockey aspect. Does the teams business minds think acquiring a home town product like Austin Matthews allow the team to break even for the next 5 years?
If the deal to get him is not too harmful to the teams competitive product get him.
As for my opinion I think OEL straight up for Matthews would be fair. I don’t know why an additional pick or prospect would be included. OEL is a proven franchise #1 dman, and Matthews is prospect with #1 centre upside. Personally I would keep OEL everyday of the week.
if they are trading oel they are getting something else with the pick he is a proven top 10 dman in the league!
I agree trading OEL doesn’t make sense from either a hockey or business standpoint since OEL is already a fan favourite.
However there MIGHT be a business case for trading players/picks/prospects who aren’t already household names in order to add another fan favorite in Matthews. It depends on how worse off the team will be.
Arizona is one of the few teams with more top end forward prospect talent then they can actually use. So they could make an attractive enough offer to land Matthews without sacrificing their on ice product.
I agree with mostly everything you said, and add that it meets EDM positional needs & Ari homeboy/tickets aspect. Feasible, if both teams felt that way, although a long shot.
If it was going to happen, I would think ARZ would need to sweeten the pot a little because there would be other bidders as well as probably future team salary cap issues with new OEL contract. I think it would cause another EDM move, which would be another variable to consider… but as I said..it makes sense to investigate/pursue.
Tough but tempting call really
oilers would need ot sweeten pot. proven top 10 d-man for a prospect that my top out as a solid number 2 center on a contender. nurse or another asset would have to be thrown in
… on a side note today – Matt Grzelcyk has signed with the Boston Bruins
The Bishop buyout thing is silly. You can’t buyout someone who has no years left on the contract because the buy out is based on the money and years left on the contract. In order to get Mathews Coyotes are going to pay something like what it would cost for an offer sheet. Kessells was two firsts and a second. So this years first, Strome, and a second round pick or prospect. You could argue the OEL is worth the same? I think oilers will win the lottery even though I really want my Leafs to win it. For TO you would be looking at Strome, a first round pick or Domi and a second pick or a good prospect. TO needs size with skill now so Domi might not fit the Leafs requirements?
Proposal of a 3 way trade at draft:
TO MTL
RNH & Yakupov
TO EDMONTON
Eller & Shattenkirk
TO STL
1st pick 2017 ,2nd 2016,N Juulsen,S Andrighetto + 2nd 2016 ( Edm)
Thoughts?
Not sure why the blues would want picks and prospects seeing that their window is now to win. Also, why would the habs want RNH when they have galchenyuk?. RNH is a nice player but not what the habs need and I like galchenyuks game better. Id stay away from yakupov too lol. So i wouldn’t be too high on this deal lol
Comment
CMac RNH would be a good 2nd C
Habs would be able to get rid of pleckanec and yakupov could be a good add on the line of galchenyuk-pacioretty
Why would blues get rid of shattenkirk? Simple , they need to free up space ,and whats better in return than prospects and picks?
In that position nothing
Thanks have a nice one
On the issue of NMC/NTC contracts. NMC will prevent the team from from either trading them or moving/sending them down to the minors. NTC prevents the teams from trading them. However, a player may wish to waive the no trade portion of either clause if they wish to do so. In the event of an expansion and exposing players a team should still be allowed to expose either player as the team is not actively trading them for anything. It would be the league shifting the contract, not the team.
The team can not move them as the contract is with the team and not with the league.
Yzerfan the NHLpa would never allow NMCs to be violated by an expansion draft. That’s pretty much the NHLpa’s only issue with expansion. And no one is going to give extra protection slots to teams just because they gave out lots of NMC.
Teams with players with NMCs are going to have to get creative to save their assessment.
Ass not assessment. Stupid Samsung!