SalarySwishSalarySwish
Forums/Armchair-GM

Horvat and OEL

Créé par: ethanwinters
Équipe: 2022-23 Bruins de Boston
Date de création initiale: 25 oct. 2022
Publié: 25 oct. 2022
Mode - plafond salarial: Basique
Description
Not sure if I even like it from Boston, POV or Vancouver.
Transactions
Enfoui
Repêchage1e ronde2e ronde3e ronde4e ronde5e ronde6e ronde7e ronde
2023
Logo de BOS
Logo de BOS
Logo de BOS
Logo de BOS
Logo de BOS
Logo de BOS
Logo de LAK
2024
Logo de BOS
Logo de BOS
Logo de BOS
Logo de BOS
Logo de BOS
2025
Logo de BOS
Logo de BOS
Logo de BOS
Logo de BOS
Logo de BOS
Logo de BOS
Logo de BOS
TAILLE DE LA FORMATIONPLAFOND SALARIALCAP HITEXCÉDENTS Info-bulleBONISESPACE SOUS LE PLAFOND SALARIAL
2282 500 000 $80 490 834 $0 $4 732 500 $2 009 166 $
Ailier gaucheCentreAilier droit
Logo de Bruins de Boston
6 125 000 $6 125 000 $
AG
M-NTC
UFA - 3
Logo de Bruins de Boston
2 500 000 $2 500 000 $ (Bonis de performance2 500 000 $$2M)
C
NMC
UFA - 1
Logo de Bruins de Boston
4 000 000 $4 000 000 $
AD, AG
UFA - 2
Logo de Bruins de Boston
3 500 000 $3 500 000 $
C, AG
UFA - 1
Logo de Bruins de Boston
1 000 000 $1 000 000 $ (Bonis de performance2 000 000 $$2M)
C
NTC
UFA - 1
Logo de Bruins de Boston
6 666 667 $6 666 667 $
AD
M-NTC, NMC
UFA - 1
Logo de Bruins de Boston
6 000 000 $6 000 000 $
AG
M-NTC, NMC
UFA - 3
Logo de Canucks de Vancouver
4 125 000 $4 125 000 $
C
UFA - 1
Logo de Bruins de Boston
762 500 $762 500 $
AD, AG
UFA - 2
Logo de Bruins de Boston
3 800 000 $3 800 000 $
AG, C, AD
M-NTC
UFA - 1
Logo de Bruins de Boston
1 050 000 $1 050 000 $
AG, AD
UFA - 1
Logo de Bruins de Boston
764 167 $764 167 $ (Bonis de performance82 500 $$82K)
AG, AD
RFA - 1
Logo de Bruins de Boston
762 500 $762 500 $
AD, C
RFA - 2
Défenseur gaucherDéfenseur droitierGardien de but
Logo de Canucks de Vancouver
5 860 000 $5 860 000 $
DG
NMC
UFA - 5
Logo de Bruins de Boston
9 500 000 $9 500 000 $
DD
UFA - 8
Logo de Bruins de Boston
5 000 000 $5 000 000 $
G
NMC
UFA - 3
Logo de Bruins de Boston
6 500 000 $6 500 000 $
DG
NTC, NMC
UFA - 8
Logo de Bruins de Boston
3 687 500 $3 687 500 $
DG
UFA - 2
Logo de Bruins de Boston
925 000 $925 000 $ (Bonis de performance150 000 $$150K)
G
RFA - 1
Logo de Bruins de Boston
3 000 000 $3 000 000 $
DG
M-NTC
UFA - 2
Logo de Bruins de Boston
1 000 000 $1 000 000 $
DD
UFA - 1
Logo de Bruins de Boston
1 137 500 $1 137 500 $
DG/DD
UFA - 2

Code d'intégration

  • Pour afficher cette équipe sur un autre site Web ou blog, ajoutez ce iFrame à la page appropriée
  • Personnalisez les dimensions dans le code IFrame ci-dessous pour adapter votre site de manière appropriée. Minimum recommandé: 400px.

Texte intégré

Cliquer pour surligner
25 oct. 2022 à 7 h 56
#1
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: juin 2022
Messages: 1,273
Mentions "j'aime": 691
Absolutely no chance Canucks would retain salary on OEL for 5 years
25 oct. 2022 à 8 h 5
#2
RETIRED
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: avr. 2019
Messages: 4,846
Mentions "j'aime": 2,481
Please delete this.
VAN isn’t retaining on OEL for 5 years for this package lol. M Reilly was on waivers for free just weeks ago lol
25 oct. 2022 à 8 h 9
#3
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: août 2022
Messages: 5,519
Mentions "j'aime": 1,528
Two players the bruins have absolutely no interest in, for one player thats part of their core group. Really bad idea.
25 oct. 2022 à 8 h 22
#4
Josh Anderson Sucks
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: févr. 2022
Messages: 4,862
Mentions "j'aime": 2,037
Quoting: KDev
Absolutely no chance Canucks would retain salary on OEL for 5 years


Quoting: McRanteskog
Please delete this.
VAN isn’t retaining on OEL for 5 years for this package lol. M Reilly was on waivers for free just weeks ago lol


I disagree with the value on this 100000%. But, if the canucks want to get rid of OEL then they might have to. I do not know if they want to, but if they were to dump this deal then they might have to retain or just wait 2-3 years and then pay to dump.
25 oct. 2022 à 9 h 27
#5
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: août 2021
Messages: 1,159
Mentions "j'aime": 582
Quoting: DefenseFirst
Two players the bruins have absolutely no interest in, for one player thats part of their core group. Really bad idea.


Why would then not have interest in Horvat? Bergeron and Krejci are old and it’s not like they have any other Centers in the pipeline that would be in the top 6. Of any team needs a younger top 6 C it’s the Bruins
25 oct. 2022 à 9 h 28
#6
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: janv. 2017
Messages: 19,884
Mentions "j'aime": 8,876
Boston does not even consider this.
25 oct. 2022 à 9 h 41
#7
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: janv. 2017
Messages: 19,884
Mentions "j'aime": 8,876
Quoting: McRanteskog
Please delete this.
VAN isn’t retaining on OEL for 5 years for this package lol. M Reilly was on waivers for free just weeks ago lol


The only reason Reilly was on waivers was to get under the cap. Someone had to be. Had nothing to do with his value. It was purely a paper transaction. If someone took him oh well, solved the cap problem and they have to many d men anyway. Would have sucked to lose him for nothing but it would not have hurt them either.

Only 8 teams could have taken him. Only 2 that had a spot for him. 1 really should have claimed him. A couple of teams wanted to but did not have the cap.

OEL is not the player he once was. Still better than Reilly. But i’d much rather have Reilly when contracts are factored in.

This a bad deal for both teams. 🤷🏻‍♂️
DefenseFirst a aimé ceci.
25 oct. 2022 à 9 h 45
#8
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: août 2022
Messages: 5,519
Mentions "j'aime": 1,528
Quoting: NV94
Why would then not have interest in Horvat? Bergeron and Krejci are old and it’s not like they have any other Centers in the pipeline that would be in the top 6. Of any team needs a younger top 6 C it’s the Bruins


What do krejci, bergeron, and horvat all have in common? They’re centers who are UFAs at the end of the season. No need for the player now, no guarantee they would retain his services for the future. Thats why.
Gofnut999 a aimé ceci.
25 oct. 2022 à 9 h 58
#9
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: nov. 2017
Messages: 28,025
Mentions "j'aime": 14,649
Completely brutal for vancouver
25 oct. 2022 à 10 h 19
#10
RETIRED
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: avr. 2019
Messages: 4,846
Mentions "j'aime": 2,481
Quoting: Gofnut999
The only reason Reilly was on waivers was to get under the cap. Someone had to be. Had nothing to do with his value. It was purely a paper transaction. If someone took him oh well, solved the cap problem and they have to many d men anyway. Would have sucked to lose him for nothing but it would not have hurt them either.

Only 8 teams could have taken him. Only 2 that had a spot for him. 1 really should have claimed him. A couple of teams wanted to but did not have the cap.

OEL is not the player he once was. Still better than Reilly. But i’d much rather have Reilly when contracts are factored in.

This a bad deal for both teams. 🤷🏻‍♂️


It doesn’t matter why he was put on waivers, the point is he was available to all 31 other teams, at no cost other than his cap hit, and there were no takers.
25 oct. 2022 à 10 h 55
#11
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: août 2019
Messages: 64
Mentions "j'aime": 16
Honestly, this is a trade I could realistically see both teams doing and causing a nuclear meltdown on both fanbases. I wouldn't blame them, i can see it screwing over both of them.
25 oct. 2022 à 11 h 4
#12
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: août 2022
Messages: 5,519
Mentions "j'aime": 1,528
Quoting: YukariIsBestGirl
Honestly, this is a trade I could realistically see both teams doing and causing a nuclear meltdown on both fanbases. I wouldn't blame them, i can see it screwing over both of them.


Honestly, this is a trade i couldn’t see either team even considering for a second.
25 oct. 2022 à 12 h 2
#13
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: janv. 2017
Messages: 19,884
Mentions "j'aime": 8,876
Modifié 25 oct. 2022 à 12 h 7
Quoting: McRanteskog
It doesn’t matter why he was put on waivers, the point is he was available to all 31 other teams, at no cost other than his cap hit, and there were no takers.



Again not true but not true. There were teams that wanted to, did not have the cap space. Montreal included.

23 teams did not have the ability to claim him due to cap. So saying 31 passed on him is not really accurate. 8 teams did pass on him. 6 of them did not have any need at all for him. So in essence 2 teams passed on him. 1 of them is tanking. The only team left was Detroit. It was barely in upgrade for them and they have better ways to use the extra cap space.

You rarely see a player claimed with a cap hit and term, it’s usually a roster filler, failed prospect, league minimum type.

The tanking team should have. They flip him at the deadline for a pick, free asset. 🤷🏻‍♂️
25 oct. 2022 à 12 h 13
#14
RETIRED
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: avr. 2019
Messages: 4,846
Mentions "j'aime": 2,481
Quoting: Gofnut999
Again not true but not true. There were teams that wanted to, did not have the cap space. Montreal included.

23 teams did not have the ability to claim him due to cap. So saying 31 passed on him is not really accurate. 8 teams did pass on him. 6 of them did not have any need at all for him. So in essence 2 teams passed on him. 1 of them is tanking. The only team left was Detroit. It was barely in upgrade for them and they have better ways to use the extra cap space.

You rarely see a player claimed with a cap hit and term, it’s usually a roster filler, failed prospect, league minimum type.

The tanking team should have. They flip him at the deadline for a pick, free asset. 🤷🏻‍♂️


The teams that wanted him but couldn’t claim them could’ve simply placed another player on waivers to make up the space no? Maybe throw someone on LTIR?

You can’t say 8 teams passed on him and another 6 didn’t want him then proceed to use him as a trade chip to net Horvat and retained OEL lol. It doesn’t add up
25 oct. 2022 à 12 h 14
#15
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: janv. 2017
Messages: 19,884
Mentions "j'aime": 8,876
Quoting: McRanteskog
The teams that wanted him but couldn’t claim them could’ve simply placed another player on waivers to make up the space no? Maybe throw someone on LTIR?


Depends on the team. It’s a stretch to save a bad take. 🤷🏻‍♂️
25 oct. 2022 à 15 h 45
#16
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: juin 2016
Messages: 12,591
Mentions "j'aime": 5,462
Quoting: NV94
Why would then not have interest in Horvat? Bergeron and Krejci are old and it’s not like they have any other Centers in the pipeline that would be in the top 6. Of any team needs a younger top 6 C it’s the Bruins


Horvat can be signed as UFA instead of trading a big return. Second, he'll be 28 at the end of the season and will not fit in the Bruins timeline as they will need to rebuild. Any top6 C under 25yo is not interesting as he will regress by the time Bruins are contenders again.

Quoting: McRanteskog
It doesn’t matter why he was put on waivers, the point is he was available to all 31 other teams, at no cost other than his cap hit, and there were no takers.


With this argument, Oliver Kylington is useless because he was waived and nobody claimed him, right? Also, Horvat is a pending UFA and OEL still has negative value at a $5.86M cap hit.
25 oct. 2022 à 16 h 0
#17
RETIRED
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: avr. 2019
Messages: 4,846
Mentions "j'aime": 2,481
Quoting: bhavikp27
Horvat can be signed as UFA instead of trading a big return. Second, he'll be 28 at the end of the season and will not fit in the Bruins timeline as they will need to rebuild. Any top6 C under 25yo is not interesting as he will regress by the time Bruins are contenders again.



With this argument, Oliver Kylington is useless because he was waived and nobody claimed him, right? Also, Horvat is a pending UFA and OEL still has negative value at a $5.86M cap hit.


Are you referencing Kylington being placed on waivers back in Jan 2021 as the comparison here?
25 oct. 2022 à 16 h 8
#18
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: juin 2016
Messages: 12,591
Mentions "j'aime": 5,462
Quoting: McRanteskog
Are you referencing Kylington being placed on waivers back in Jan 2021 as the comparison here?


Yes, he was on waivers and 30 teams passed on him, it must mean something.
25 oct. 2022 à 16 h 19
#19
RETIRED
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: avr. 2019
Messages: 4,846
Mentions "j'aime": 2,481
Quoting: bhavikp27
Yes, he was on waivers and 30 teams passed on him, it must mean something.


It’s a completely different scenario being placed on waivers before season start vs in January. By January your roster is already dialed in and you’re counting pennys of cap space. Much harder to accommodate a waiver claim
25 oct. 2022 à 16 h 51
#20
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: juin 2016
Messages: 12,591
Mentions "j'aime": 5,462
Quoting: McRanteskog
It’s a completely different scenario being placed on waivers before season start vs in January. By January your roster is already dialed in and you’re counting pennys of cap space. Much harder to accommodate a waiver claim


He was placed on waivers on January 11, 2021. The season began on January 13, 2021. Mike Reilly was placed on waivers on October 10 and season started on October 12 (excluding NSH/SJS games). Both were placed on waivers two days before the season. Kylington had a $787,5K cap hit which is near league minimum and had potential to grow (which he did).

The main point is using waivers claims as an argument of a player's value is flawed as Reilly was not unclaimed because of his level of play but all contending teams were close to the cap or used LTIR. Teams will accrue more cap space as the season goes or place more players on LTIR and Bruins should be able to find a taker for Reilly in the event they want to trade him.
McRanteskog a aimé ceci.
25 oct. 2022 à 17 h 5
#21
RETIRED
Avatar de l'utilisateur
Rejoint: avr. 2019
Messages: 4,846
Mentions "j'aime": 2,481
Quoting: bhavikp27
He was placed on waivers on January 11, 2021. The season began on January 13, 2021. Mike Reilly was placed on waivers on October 10 and season started on October 12 (excluding NSH/SJS games). Both were placed on waivers two days before the season. Kylington had a $787,5K cap hit which is near league minimum and had potential to grow (which he did).

The main point is using waivers claims as an argument of a player's value is flawed as Reilly was not unclaimed because of his level of play but all contending teams were close to the cap or used LTIR. Teams will accrue more cap space as the season goes or place more players on LTIR and Bruins should be able to find a taker for Reilly in the event they want to trade him.


Right, shortened season, got it.
 
Répondre
To create a post please Login or S'inscrire
Question:
Options:
Ajouter une option
Soumettre le sondage