Éditer l'avatar
  • png, jpeg
  • La grandeur minimale recommandée se veut de 800px par 800px
  • Grandeur maximale: 1MB
Glisser l'image pour repositionner
Sauvegarder
Annuler

nuxfan

Membre depuis
24 jun 2016
Équipe préférée
Canucks de Vancouver
Messages dans les forums
926
Messages par jour
0,55
Sujets de discussion
255
Forum: Armchair-GM30 sep 2020 à 20 h 13
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>villenash</b></div><div>Is Benn really that bad? He had a bad season last year, but looking at his stats over the past couple of years, he seems like a totally serviceable 3rd pairing defender. Is it just a bad fit in VAN? Also, I don't understand the pick swap in this trade, but considering how Benn would be a cap dump, I don't see NSH adding a pick to the deal - more likely VAN would have to though.

edit: also, if Schneider is just put on LTIR then why would NJD consider that trade?</div></div>

I don't think Benn is that bad; he is a serviceable 3rd pairing defender and is likely just a bad fit in VAN. He plays better on his off side however, he primarily played on the left side in VAN which gave rise to a bad year. When Myers went down during the playoffs Benn played on the right side and was much better. I wanted to be prudent so I treated Benn as somewhat of a cap dump in the trade.

Benn is older and has a 2M cap hit while Santini is younger and has a 1.4M cap hit. Benn is owed 50K less than Santini in actual $$$ and likely carries more value than Santini since he has cleared waivers in the past and is not as established as Benn; thus there is a minor draft pick swap where VAN moves up 9 slots in the 6th round.

I put Schneider on LTIR because when I bought him out VAN received the full 2M cap hit for the buyout despite NJD retaining 25%. If I'm not mistaken NJD would assume 25% of the buyout so 500K. I created the buyout as a player so it shows up correctly against the cap for VAN at 1.5M x 4 years.
Forum: Armchair-GM30 jui 2020 à 13 h 03
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>OldNYIfan</b></div><div>The fallacy in your thinking is the idea that Eriksson is "a serviceable forward" for Anaheim. The Ducks have young forwards that they are integrating into the future core that are all more valuable than Eriksson and deserve more ice time: Heinen, Milano, Jones, Comtois and even Des Lauriers are the LWs on the squad now who merit playing time, and that's not counting Rakell and someone being promoted this year (like Braden Tracey). Moreover, your financial premise is wrong: Anaheim's insurer pays 80% of Kesler's compensation, so the Ducks won't show a monetary profit on this exchange until Eriksson's cost comes down below $1,335,000 per year (or $2,670,000 in the aggregate).

<a href="/users/Seider53" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><a href="/users/Seider53" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">@Seider53</a></a> has it right: you'd have to give up quite a bit to get anyone to take Eriksson, and you'd probably have to retain about $1.5 or $2 million while doing it. Look at the David Backes trade. By that standard, Eriksson with $2 million retained plus *Jett Woo for someone like Max Jones is about the right price.

Late edit: as <a href="/users/Seider53" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><a href="/users/Seider53" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">@Seider53</a></a> points out, I left out the first-round draft pick to make this comparable to the Backes exchange</div></div>

I understand Anaheim has players who need more ice time, so Eriksson would end up being a healthy scratch who could step in for an injured player or perhaps sent to the minors and called up if need be. My financial premise was based on Anaheim's insurer "pay[ing] less than 62.5% of Kesler's salary"; I too had understood an insurer covers 80% of an LTIR player's salary until I stumbled upon this article <a href="https://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/how-the-nhls-salary-cap-has-created-a-secondary-market-of-injured-players-and-costlycontracts/article36220762/" rel="nofollow noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">https://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/how-the-nhls-salary-cap-has-created-a-secondary-market-of-injured-players-and-costlycontracts/article36220762/</a> which states "Insurance sometimes covers up to 80 per cent of the salary of a player on long-term injury reserve."; however, in the event that Anaheim's insurer covers 80% of Kesler's compensation, you would be correct in stating Anaheim would not show a monetary profit in this deal.
Forum: Armchair-GM30 jui 2020 à 13 h 03
Forum: Armchair-GM17 jui 2020 à 19 h 02
Forum: Armchair-GM17 jui 2020 à 18 h 58