What's the Next Shoe to Drop?

[radoran]

Bourdon is not waiver exempt, so he probably stays up unless the Flyers are worried about his injury history and willing to bet it continues to be an issue. And no, the ease is not predicated solely on trading one of those contracts.

It is not solely predicated upon it, no, but the Meltzer column referenced clearly states that in it. If you want to take it up with Meltzer, go ahead.

If the Flyers feel there is low risk in waiving say, Rosehill and Hall, they can clear space.

So they do have to make some sort of move. Just not necessarily a "trade." They can do some nibbling, yes. They can do a lot of things. Trading a defenseman like Meszaros is simply the most effective ($4M cap space) and obvious (pending UFA with no NMC/NTC).

They can also choose not to sign Wellwood until after the season starts if he rejects his QO to keep his hit off the books (obviously he counts if he accepts).

That's still just over $600K. Yes, an option to deal with a short term cap problem.

If they want to get rid of Meszaros and don't care if he's claimed, they just want his cap hit gone, they can waive him and clear 925k of his salary, or all of it if he's claimed. They don't have to trade him + a pick just to get rid of his salary. Then they can place Pronger on LTIR and recall enough salary to replace Pronger's on opening day, per the CBA. Until their first game, the roster layout as far as forwards and defensemen is irrelevant, they can do whatever they want postion-wise to make the cap work - by the time they play, they will have been able to make the adjustments. However, I do agree that it is in their best interest to trade a d-man to allow the youngsters to develop on the big club. However, it is not a cap imperative - though it is the most straightforward and possibly least risky move.

I've said exactly what you just said - and I have never included "trading a pick" to get it done. Here, from the post you quoted:

Whether they move Mesazaros (or "Defenseman X") to the A or another team, I do believe there is still a shoe to be dropped.

I've said trade him for futures. Hell, get a new skate sharpener. Get an old skate sharpener. Get a bag of pucks with a hole in it.

If no one takes him, waive him and put him in the A. I wouldn't give anything up to get rid of him.

The team is better off, IMO, if they free up this logjam - whether or not it is made imperative by the cap is of secondary import.

[AJgoal]

Rad, I apologize for making it seem like you are the one saying that needs to happen. My post that started this back and forth (#23) was a response to Bert's post worrying about an "Upshall situation," and I carried some of that into my second response. Many here believe that the Flyers must not just make a move(s), but they must make a TRADE. It's simply not true. That's all my point has been - that there are options other than making a trade.

[radoran]

Rad, I apologize for making it seem like you are the one saying that needs to happen. My post that started this back and forth (#23) was a response to Bert's post worrying about an "Upshall situation," and I carried some of that into my second response. Many here believe that the Flyers must not just make a move(s), but they must make a TRADE. It's simply not true. That's all my point has been - that there are options other than making a trade.

Thanks, AJ. It does get a bit confusing with "quoting" other posts, etc. No worries. No big deal.

Hopefully our exchange reinforces the information.

[aziz]

I don't think you risk the half cap hit anymore, those were the re-entry waiver rules, I haven't found any reference to that under the new CBA. I do think that if the Flyers waive him down, someone picks him up.

re-entry waivers no longer exist. the only waivers around anymore are regular waivers, and if someone is claimed off of them, the claiming team takes the whole cap hit.

[radoran]

re-entry waivers no longer exist. the only waivers around anymore are regular waivers, and if someone is claimed off of them, the claiming team takes the whole cap hit.

thanks for clearing that up

[jammer2]

@aziz Is it actually fun for you to sort through the CBA stuff, or is it just a craving knowledge kinda thing? Either way, thanks.....very nice to have somebody who can difinitively set things straight.

[aziz]

@jammer2

fun, like woo-hoo? no. but. with the cap, the CBA determines how this game works, so i like to know what the rules are...and i don't trust journalists to do their own research, they hear a thing and repeat it, so...someone has to go looking.

i don't always definitively set things straight, though. misinterpretations happen. i screwed up waiver eligibility pretty bad a few years ago, don't remember who set me straight. then polaris on the LTIR stuff a week ago. anyway, take what i say with some grain-of-salt.

the whole half-cap-hit thing, though, i'm sure of. that idea was introduced specifically as part of the re-entry waivers concept, and that was brand new as of the previous CBA. so, with re-entry waivers gone, all waivers are like they always were: full claims on contracts.

unrelated side note: who else misses the waiver draft? i miss the waiver draft. was great mid-offseason spice.

Edited July 27, 2013 by aziz

[jammer2]

@aziz I anticipate a lot more call ups this year. GM's won't have to worry about getting stuck with half the cap hit, allowing for some much needed cap savings. Gotta figure even sending a player down for the weekend can give you some cap relief...every little bit helps.

[radoran]

@jammer2

fun, like woo-hoo? no. but. with the cap, the CBA determines how this game works, so i like to know what the rules are...

Amen, brother.