MIN says no, also Backes has a NMC so hes staying

I literally said in my description that I can't see Backes waiving his NMC to leave, so nice job offering a useless comment.

Players can waive a NMC? That wouldn't be the reason he stays.

I think trying to sign a player with a cap-hit like Nino's while also signing JT is a mistake. Even with the 7.75 mil off the books with Chara and McQuaid leaving in 19-20 and potential cap increase that year, it's going to be tight to sign McAvoy, Donato, Carlo, Heinen, plus lower level FA's. Not to mention the need to have room for DeBrusk in 20-21.

I think the only way JT fits in the cap structure is to trade Krug, like you did, but also find a taker for Krejci's albatross. Moving Krejci would likely mean losing a high end prospect or younger high level roster player (Heinen, Donato, or DeBrusk) in the deal in exchange for Krejci's cap hit.


Moving Backes may prove difficult without retaining substantial salary, in which case they may wait to for 19-20 for a buy out.

He wasn't a signing, he was included in the trade from Minnesota. I included him in the trade because the value of doing this trade from Minnesota's perspective lies more in clearing money off the books for Zucker and Dumba instead of the assets they get back (although they are getting those too).



That's not really true. Bruins fans have been doing 2019-2020 roster builds for the last few days since the Tavares rumors picked up steam. And while the Bruins may need to buyout Krejci (or perhaps move him) in the 2019 offseason IF they sign Tavares, they certainly don't need to trade him AND Krug this year to make a JT signing work. Please see:

https://www.capfriendly.com/armchair-gm/team/754305

And

https://www.capfriendly.com/armchair-gm/team/757055

And

https://www.capfriendly.com/armchair-gm/team/742167

Moving Backes and Krejci in the 2019 offseason is a much simpler proposition since they will no longer be in possession of full NMCs. However...



They cannot buyout David Backes' contract. The cap hit for a buyout would be virtually identical to the cap hit for his contract, because almost all of the money he's paid comes in the form of a signing bonus. I suspect this was done intentionally to prevent the Bruins from being able to buyout Backes' contract, knowing that it was a very unlikely proposition that he would still be worth the money in year 4 or 5 of the contract (sadly, he wasn't worth the money starting in year 1).

Also, the trade scenario above has Boston retaining 1M and Carolina retaining 1M of Backes salary before he eventually ends up in Minnesota. I'm not sure how much more of his salary you want retained, but the CBA stipulates no more than 50% of a player's salary can be retained in a trade, and no more than 3 teams can retain a player's salary on their books. I think having 2M of Backes' 6M cap hit retained is more than fair for Minnesota to take him on.