brelic Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 If they buy him out they have to absorb a size able cap hit for twice as many years as he has left on his contract.http://www.capgeek.com/faq/how-do-buyouts-work $1.6M for 4 years is really not that bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brelic Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 He agreed to go to Columbus... I think the NMC would be a non-factor if a team making a playoff run wanted him. Right, maybe so. It still seems like Hextall took the opportunity now. Who knows what kind of garbage contract another team might have wanted us to take. There are worse ones than Umberger's. VLC comes to mind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polaris922 Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 $1.6 for four years for nobody when you're already stretched is bad. That's at least a third liner or two fourths... And you already have VLC... Can't really get much worse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 If they buy him out they have to absorb a size able cap hit for twice as many years as he has left on his contract.http://www.capgeek.com/faq/how-do-buyouts-work I am, of course, aware of how buyouts work. You know I am a Flyer fan, right? We pay coaches not to coach and players not to play (Bryzgalov gets something like $1.4M a year until 2027) . You know how we do. $1.6M for 4 years is really not that bad. $1.6M in 15-16 and 16-17 and then $1.5M in 17-18 and 18-19 Compared to $4.75M a year for Hartnell over the same period or $4.6M for Umburglar the next two seasons. That seems like a pretty good savings for a team that doesn't give the hind quarters of a rodent about spending money. If the cap increases, then the 17-18 and 18-19 would likely be eaten up by that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 $1.6 for four years for nobody when you're already stretched is bad. That's at least a third liner or two fourths... And you already have VLC... Can't really get much worse But that's "saving" money over both players actual contract. It gives them more flexibility, not less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brelic Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 $1.6 for four years for nobody when you're already stretched is bad. That's at least a third liner or two fourths... And you already have VLC... Can't really get much worse Hey, I never claimed this organization was smart at managing its hockey operations. VLC will either be gone by the deadline/offseason or he will be here for the next 3 years. I'm not sure there's much of a middle ground in his case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lindbergh31 Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 @radoran I don't disagree that Hextall could have waited to trade Hartnell but I think he wants to put his stamp on the team and build it the way he wants. As for Buttburger, there's a real possibility that the Flyers buy him out next summer because the cap will probably go up, so if it goes up by $2 million then Hexie will figure it's worth it to do that. Hell if he can't find any takers for Vinny then he might do the same thing with him. I believe Hextall has a plan for this team unlike Holmgren who flied by the seat of his pants every year. Time will tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polaris922 Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 @radoranHAhahaha! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 As for Buttburger, there's a real possibility that the Flyers buy him out next summer because the cap will probably go up, so if it goes up by $2 million then Hexie will figure it's worth it to do that. It's worth it to do it anyway, as the previous half dozen posts to this one would attest. Evaluating deals is always a tricky business, especially when we're still not sure how they will finally turn out (as is the case here). I believe Hextall has a plan for this team unlike Holmgren who flied by the seat of his pants every year. Time will tell. Exactamundo. With one caveat, I do think Homer had something of "a plan" when he started but when that plan didn't win the Cup in 2011 after going to the Final in 2010, he blew the whole damn thing up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brelic Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 he blew the whole damn thing up Yes, but was it a planned detonation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 Yes, but was it a planned detonation? So, you're thinking he may have made Richards the captain and given him a 12-year deal and Crater a nine-year pact with NMCs with the object of dealing them before the clauses came into effect? Could be. He's certainly done dumber things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanflyer Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 Don't forget that Hartnell had an NMC - that's what makes me believe that Hextall saw an opportunity and took it. No offense, but I think that is a crock of shite (re: NMC / NTC). The only thing either of those do is to allow the player to be apart of the decision making of where he lands. No player (other than VLC) wants to play where he is not wanted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 No offense, but I think that is a crock of shite (re: NMC / NTC). The only thing either of those do is to allow the player to be apart of the decision making of where he lands. No player (other than VLC) wants to play where he is not wanted. Absolutely true and correct, as far as it goes. The whole point is that if Hartnell didn't want to go to Columbus, he didn't have to. Of course, he was looking at a playoff contender with a Vezina winning goalie, so that was a pretty attractive place to land. I don't think VLC just willy nilly accepts trades because he's not wanted. I don't see him going to Buffalo, Edmonton, etc. for example. NMC/NTCs aren't "untradeable" by any stretch as we've seen. But they do add a level of difficulty and/or complexity to a deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brelic Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 So, you're thinking he may have made Richards the captain and given him a 12-year deal and Crater a nine-year pact with NMCs with the object of dealing them before the clauses came into effect? Could be. He's certainly done dumber things. I was actually just kidding - just wanted to use "planned detonation" in a sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanflyer Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 I don't see him going to Buffalo, Edmonton, etc. for example. You forgot Winnipeg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brelic Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 No offense, but I think that is a crock of shite (re: NMC / NTC). The only thing either of those do is to allow the player to be apart of the decision making of where he lands. No player (other than VLC) wants to play where he is not wanted. Some are stronger than others. Some use 'lists' of teams a player will accept a trade - which limits the player's control on things because he can be traded without his consent. The airtight ones make it so that a player can absolutely block any trade. So that being said, Hartnell has an 'airtight' NMC. I don't know all the factors that went into it (poor conditioning, decreasing value over time, length of remaining contract, whatever), but like I said, Hextall saw an opportunity to get out of a very difficult contract - and maybe it was more along the lines that Hartnell just didn't fit with his vision. Why not get rid of it when you can rather than wait for an opportunity that might never come? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanflyer Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 Hextall saw an opportunity to get out of a very difficult contract - and maybe it was more along the lines that Hartnell just didn't fit with his vision. As others - as well as I have stated, he (hextall) saved 2 years of a cap hit. I personally think he should have bided his time and moved hartnell at the trade deadline. I just can't wrap my head around an equal contract for a player like Umberger (nice guy and all that, but so is Hartnell). I would venture that Hartnell could have got a 2nd and 4th at the trade-deadline. Umberger maybe a 4th or 3rd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brelic Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 As others - as well as I have stated, he (hextall) saved 2 years of a cap hit. I personally think he should have bided his time and moved hartnell at the trade deadline. I just can't wrap my head around an equal contract for a player like Umberger (nice guy and all that, but so is Hartnell). I would venture that Hartnell could have got a 2nd and 4th at the trade-deadline. Umberger maybe a 4th or 3rd. I'm sure he didn't anticipate Umberger being this bad. I certainly didn't. I thought he'd be in the 35 point range and would be decent defensively. Nope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanflyer Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 I'm sure he didn't anticipate Umberger being this bad. I certainly didn't. I thought he'd be in the 35 point range and would be decent defensively. Nope. Perhaps, but I despise saving two years of cap hit, I never saw the value proposition of essentially the same cap hit in the first few years. It also irritates me that Hartnell was / is a good leader in the "room". An intangible that does not translate in cap. I would have just as soon kept him and if a move had to be made, do it at the trade deadline in a sellers market. This years draft is one of the deepest in a decade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojo1917 Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 @Vanflyer i always thought Hartnell was a very good teammate and totally get that his loss is more than just stats and money. RJ, when he was here the first time, was a very good teammate too though , so its not like the team lost a great guy and got a problem in return, it just got a guy that isn't "as cool" as Hartsy. I tend to agree with the line of thought that is saying the NMC made / makes things more difficult to find a good trade scenario it adds an extra variable beyond a willing trade partner. If Hartnell "wasn't in the long term plans" and an "out " presented itself better to take it than not. i'm not thrilled with this trade, nor was I at the time, however , wudder under the bridge ® radoran. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brelic Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 RJ, when he was here the first time, was a very good teammate too though , so its not like the team lost a great guy and got a problem in return, it just got a guy that isn't "as cool" as Hartsy. Both RJ and Hartnell ended up being victims of bad contracts. Hartnell's is really not that bad at the moment. For a 50-55 point guy, $4.75M or whatever it is is pretty par for the course. I know it's just one move, but I"m seeing a very important difference between Homer and Hextall: Homer - This will probably create a problem later, so let's deal with it later. Hextall - This will probably create a problem later, so let's deal with it now. The Hartnell move and then trying to deal VLC in the offseason, and signing veteran help on the blueline on the cheap and on ONE year deals. It's all very different than Homer's approach of bad long contracts, and signing cheap old veterans to multiple years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanflyer Posted November 6, 2014 Share Posted November 6, 2014 The Hartnell move and then trying to deal VLC in the offseason Too bad he / they (Flyers) could not deal with the bigger problem first. I personally never considered Hartnell a problem (perhaps my opinion would change when he was in the last two years of his contract).VLC on the other hand....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brelic Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 Too bad he / they (Flyers) could not deal with the bigger problem first. I personally never considered Hartnell a problem (perhaps my opinion would change when he was in the last two years of his contract).VLC on the other hand....... It wasn't for lack of trying. He was openly talking about moving VLC, even notified his agent. He just couldn't make a deal that made sense for the Flyers at the end of the day, I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanflyer Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 He just couldn't make a deal that made sense for the Flyers at the end of the day, I guess. I would have traded him for a bag of pucks (addition by subtraction and all that). Not sure Laughton or Cousins are ready, but I would have given it a go with either of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murraycraven Posted November 7, 2014 Share Posted November 7, 2014 I still think Umberger could score 30 if he were on the first line. Plus he gets less penalties which will translate to wins... All is not bad bc Umberger provides flexibility too... Last Umberger was faster than Hartnell about 3 years ago.... SMH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.