I wouldn't put it past some GMs to make a move this braindead

Trade value is awful for Winnipeg in this scenario. I'd throw in at least another pick in the 2nd or 3rd.

Retention for the length of the contract? Has that ever been done before on a sign and trade? That would be the worst thing a Gm could ever do and would probably be fired immediately.

That's of no interest to Winnipeg. The expectation of retention on the life of the contract is ludicrous. Definitely not backed up by any comparablas.

Jets can only retain 50% on his current deal and no team is retaining on a sign and trade deal.

No point in the jets being the one to sign him anyways if the contract length is less than 8. So I’m sure retention is possible for the current contract and then the devils make the actual signing if it’s been worked out

I think what they are trying to get at, wouldn't necessarily be a sign and trade, even though that's what they are saying. I think it would be more along the lines the acquiring team and the player having an agreed upon extension in place, then the trade can happen with retention. I just think most people don't understand the difference.

It hasn’t been done. That is why I brought it up. Important to decouple the two. Can sweeten the deal by offering retention…or by offering extension pre-signed…would not be both.

It is no one’s expectation. I am simply pointing out the rule.



Exactly, it’s one or the other…would not be both.

Since we abolished the conditional picks tied to extensions, the norm will become some sort of pre-arranged deal like that. Acquiring teams have often been given permission to talk to agents, but that has been mostly an off-season thing (for mostly RFAs before their window opens). During the season, it gets more complicated, especially in a trade with salary retained.

The challenge is that Hellebuyck wants big deal (ie, Vasilevskiy’s contract $9.5m x 8 years). That will limit the market to only handful of teams that can (a) pay that salary and (b) have the assets to acquire him. So something has to give…either Jets take less for trade or Helly takes less for extension.

The trade doesn't work for NJ unless the goalie is Vanacek, NJ Likes daws but the main issue is the cap space coming off the books to make room for Helle

In this scenario, Hellebuyck’s cap hit:
2023-24: $3,083,333
2024-25: $4,750,000
2025-26: $4,750,000
2026-27: $4,750,000
2027-28: $4,750,000
2028-29: $4,750,000
2029-30: $4,750,000

It wasn’t really a real trade…just example used to highlight a specific rule. But if it were, those would be very good cap hits.

even though it’s not a real trade, I still have to point out the return would have to be much higher for jets to eat that much money. Nemec maybe

They would never eat that much, for that long. That is the point.

Read above

I did read, and acknowledge, that it wasn’t a real trade. My point is that your return isn’t realistic to this unrealistic scenario

Its not "my return". Other users have been offering Hellebuyck trades that include both (a) extensions and (b) retention. I am just showing others what that looks like...since not everyone knows they rules when these two features are used.

In other words, the trade was intended to provoke a response of, "well that doesn't make sense"