Trading Simmonds

[vis]

1 hour ago, ruxpin said:

 

I'd think long and hard.  From their end, they could perceive him as a replacement for Chara.

I think he might be a replacement for Gudas.  I don't know.

 

Are we talking Simmonds + Morin for Pastrnak + pick?   It would have to be a good pick, and then I'd still have to think about it.  I lean to "do it," though.

As mentioned above, I have a hard time dealing Morin because he has qualities the other prospects lack even though their upsides might be higher.  Depends on the pick coming back and the type of contract Pastrnak would sign.

[vis]

1 hour ago, King Knut said:

 

I don't know.  The Flyers didn't really care about paying Couturier and Schenn more than Simmonds and Wayne didn't seem to care much either.  

 

Marchand and Bergeron signed their deals before this.  Different times.  Different circumstances.  If they don't sign the kid because it'll ruffle the feathers of their older stars for the team to do what it takes to secure the team's future, then that organization is truly doomed.  No skin off my nose if they are... bully for us if we can take advantage of it.

 

I just don't see it was a factor.

The Bergeron/Marchand thing was speculated about on one of the Sirius NHL talk shows.  Maybe Boston is using that as an excuse for not wanting to pay up for Pastrnak.

[King Knut]

18 minutes ago, vis said:

Yes, it would be harder for me to part with Morin because he brings an element that the Flyers do not have.  I could be OK with parting with Ghost because he is somewhat redundant, but they would have to get more than Pastrnak back.

 

Right?  I mean I struggle with Ghost because he could be such a game changer and have the ability to completely revamp the makeup of a situation at any moment, but A) I don't know that the Flyers are interested in letting this happen anyway and B) I worry about how long he'll be such an asset for us.  

 

I want him doing it here... like simmonds... but like simmonds, long term...  I'd really have to think about it.  

[King Knut]

21 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

I know some of this is the well-ingrained Flyer fan "ooh Shiney" syndrome. 

 

 

Yeah, but we're also tempering that with well-ingrained Flyer fan "Oh god, don't lock up that much cap space into one guy for THAT LONG!  I don't care how much I love that player!" Syndrome. 

 

 

[aziz]

1 hour ago, King Knut said:

I just don't see it was a factor.  For whatever reason Boston just isn't sold on the kid to straight up give him what he's asking for at 21 years of age.

 

what's funny is this will be a primary driver of the salary problems that will dominate the next CBA negotiation.  players are now starting to expect massive payouts on their second deal, and that will shortly remove the advantage of kids on the roster.  if konecny AND morin AND patrick AND provorov AND sanheim all come along well under their first deal AND each want $6.5mil for 7 years for their second...what then?  and if that overall trend continues to develop league-wide...imagine the fun roster building will be then.

 

so, boston is doing what the "players'-side" people want, they aren't handing out the inflated contract for far too long to a player that hasn't shown the consistency to have earned it.  sweeney isn't being the dumb GM thinking short-term and making the overall salary situation in the league worse.  and he's being castigated for it.  if he ends up losing the player, that'll get worse.  and some other GM will be called a local hero for giving this kid this kind of cash for this length of time based on this small sample.

[ruxpin]

1 hour ago, King Knut said:

 

Yeah, but we're also tempering that with well-ingrained Flyer fan "Oh god, don't lock up that much cap space into one guy for THAT LONG!  I don't care how much I love that player!" Syndrome. 

 

 

 

Exactly.  I mean, if the phrase is "Once bitten, twice shy,"  what is the cliche for "Ten times bitten.."

[ruxpin]

1 hour ago, aziz said:

 

what's funny is this will be a primary driver of the salary problems that will dominate the next CBA negotiation.  players are now starting to expect massive payouts on their second deal, and that will shortly remove the advantage of kids on the roster.  if konecny AND morin AND patrick AND provorov AND sanheim all come along well under their first deal AND each want $6.5mil for 7 years for their second...what then?  and if that overall trend continues to develop league-wide...imagine the fun roster building will be then.

 

so, boston is doing what the "players'-side" people want, they aren't handing out the inflated contract for far too long to a player that hasn't shown the consistency to have earned it.  sweeney isn't being the dumb GM thinking short-term and making the overall salary situation in the league worse.  and he's being castigated for it.  if he ends up losing the player, that'll get worse.  and some other GM will be called a local hero for giving this kid this kind of cash for this length of time based on this small sample.

 

There you go making sense again.  Knock it the hell off.

[ruxpin]

Refresh my memory, peeps.

 

Did Boston/Pasta opt against arbitration?    Pasta is an RFA.  At this point what options does he have if he doesn't sign something?   

[vis]

50 minutes ago, aziz said:

what's funny is this will be a primary driver of the salary problems that will dominate the next CBA negotiation.

Yep.  This is going to be a big battleground in the next CBA.  But what kind of constraints can you put around these types of deals?  Term limits?  Caps on salaries depending on the player's age?  

 

And both sides should be concerned.  

 

At some point, you end up with several players on each team making exorbitant salaries and the bulk of the third and fourth line players getting paid peanuts.  Is that good for the players?  If it's truly a union, shouldn't the NHLPA be concerned about improving salaries for all of its members and not just the top 20%?  Another issue is that players truly deserving of more money are somewhat diluted by lesser players making close to the same amount.  Does Pastrnak deserve Draisaitl $$$?  Not in my mind, but Pastrnak may be able to get it if Sweeney buckles to the pressure.  If he does, it would dilutes Draisatl's contract in a sense.

 

Another area that has drawn some recent attention is the college-to-free-agency strategy.  I think there is going to be some discussion about closing or curtailing that practice.

[King Knut]

5 minutes ago, aziz said:

 

what's funny is this will be a primary driver of the salary problems that will dominate the next CBA negotiation.  players are now starting to expect massive payouts on their second deal, and that will shortly remove the advantage of kids on the roster.  if konecny AND morin AND patrick AND provorov AND sanheim all come along well under their first deal AND each want $6.5mil for 7 years for their second...what then?  and if that overall trend continues to develop league-wide...imagine the fun roster building will be then.

 

so, boston is doing what the "players'-side" people want, they aren't handing out the inflated contract for far too long to a player that hasn't shown the consistency to have earned it.  sweeney isn't being the dumb GM thinking short-term and making the overall salary situation in the league worse.  and he's being castigated for it.  if he ends up losing the player, that'll get worse.  and some other GM will be called a local hero for giving this kid this kind of cash for this length of time based on this small sample.

 

The only inconsistency with Pastrnak is injuries which are a factor.  His scoring pace has been on a steady incline since entering the league three years ago.  He's an aberration. 

 

The problem in the league (and many other leagues) is that players don't make what they should when they're worth it.  When they're entering and in their primes, they're still on their bridge deals, so they cash in on their next deal which takes them well beyond their age of being worth the money and handcuffs their team from being able to pay the younger up and comers what they're worth, necessitating them to get payed lower rate bridge deals until they can cash in.  

 

Theoretically it could work, but there are guys out there like Pastrnak saying, well crap man... I'm doing better than your 7 million dollar guy now, why do I have to settle for 4?  What if I get hurt between now and my cash in deal?  

 

On top of all this is the fact that very few of these decisions can be based on what's best for building a team to win multiple cups.

Which is all part of the point I suppose.  

 

The best I can say about the Flyers scenario is that they're fairly well staggered and if Hextall is cagey and his accountants are smart, they'll keep their bridge deals staggered.  Morin and Hagg will get new deals after this season.  WIll they prove enough in this season to be worth more than 2.5 million each? It would be pretty cool if they did!

 

 Nolan, Myers and Lindblom aren't  for bridge deal for 3 more years at which point $30 million will have come off the books.

 

Sanheim and Konecny have two ($20 million off by then).  

 

I think it's totally workable.  Worse case scenario they all work out and the Flyers have to trade Couturier to pay for them all.  I know guys here that would be thrilled at the prospect.  

 

I'd rather see 5 and 6 million tied up on 21 year olds that score 34 goals and 70 points than in 34 year olds who can't skate.  

Let the former be our problem because I've had enough of the latter

[vis]

2 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

Refresh my memory, peeps.

 

Did Boston/Pasta opt against arbitration?    Pasta is an RFA.  At this point what options does he have if he doesn't sign something?   

Don't think he was arbitration-eligible.

 

I suppose he can sit out the year - and not get paid anything.

[aziz]

22 minutes ago, King Knut said:

The only inconsistency with Pastrnak is injuries which are a factor.  His scoring pace has been on a steady incline since entering the league three years ago.  He's an aberration. 

 

that....isn't true.  27 points in 46 games first season, 26 in 51 his second, then boom 70-in-74 his third.  that isn't consistent.  it certainly is a good trend line, at least from year 2 to 3, but 1 season with 70 points doesn't make someone a reliable 70 point player.  not to me, anyway.

 

25 minutes ago, King Knut said:

The problem in the league (and many other leagues) is that players don't make what they should when they're worth it.

 

personally, i think the problem in the league is that we don't just have a CBA fight every so many years.  we have two fights every so many years.  a loud and jarring quick fight followed by a long, quiet and corrosive fight, which is in turn followed by another loud and jarring one.  we have the actual "negotiating the CBA" fight where the league has almost all of the power, and takes the opportunity to get everything it can.  then, the moment the negotiating is done, the second fight starts, where the individual players have almost all of the power, and they take the opportunity to get everything they can.  

 

we are now to the point of 21 year old players with 123 NHL points to their name refusing $36mil contract offers.  boston can either suck it up and pay him whatever he wants, or let that talent watch from the stands next season.  boston, an aging team that is quickly rotting away, can't really afford the latter.  pastrnak knows that.  and he's putting the screws to them.  with a smile.  

keep this in mind during the next loud and jarring CBA fight where the NHLPA tries to tell us that the problem is entirely the owners not keeping control of escalating salaries/terms/sweeteners, and the players are just trying to scrape by.

[aziz]

53 minutes ago, King Knut said:

I'd rather see 5 and 6 million tied up on 21 year olds that score 34 goals and 70 points than in 34 year olds who can't skate.  

 

the problem is, 5 and 6 million tied up on 21 year olds turns into, for a team with a lot of kids around that age, $50-60mil tied up on 10 players for years.  

 

yes, better than having that tied up on 35 year olds, but it's still a fatal problem.

[King Knut]

16 minutes ago, aziz said:

 

that....isn't true.  27 points in 46 games first season, 26 in 51 his second, then boom 70-in-74 his third.  that isn't consistent.  it certainly is a good trend line, at least from year 2 to 3, but 1 season with 70 points doesn't make someone a reliable 70 point player.  not to me, anyway.

 

What I meant is that it's consistent with the upward trend of a player coming into his own as he becomes a full grown adult in this league.  And I think you knew that.  

 

16 minutes ago, aziz said:

personally, i think the problem in the league is that we don't just have a CBA fight every so many years.  we have two fights every so many years.  a loud and jarring quick fight followed by a long, quiet and corrosive fight, which is in turn followed by another loud and jarring one.  we have the actual "negotiating the CBA" fight where the league has almost all of the power, and takes the opportunity to get everything it can.  then, the moment the negotiating is done, the second fight starts, where the individual players have almost all of the power, and they take the opportunity to get everything they can.  

 

I really don't see the 2nd part as a fight.  It's just the market doing what markets do.  The problem is the first part of what you're saying IMHO.  The league dictates all the details of the new CBA and there is nothing about the CBA or the cap rules that help even teams rosters out.

 

This enables teams that are willing to pay a premium to talent (presumably because they think it will help them sell tickets) at the cost of their overall team to do just that.  This drives up prices for everyone else performing at a similar rate of return.  This is just capitalism.  

 

The problem is that the market is capitalism but the league is essentially soft communism limiting spending power and profits.  

 

The league would need to impose (possibly illegal) restrictions on the marketplace of professional hockey in order to better coincide with it's own rules.  

 

They could add an age related maximum salary per year and maximum duration of contract (and simultaneously add minimums to each as well to appease the players union) but the problem is where's the protection for a 25 year old who's scoring 80 points for his team, but blows out his knee at 25 and a half before his next contract?  

 

16 minutes ago, aziz said:

keep this in mind during the next loud and jarring CBA fight where the NHLPA tries to tell us that the problem is entirely the owners not keeping control of escalating salaries/terms/sweeteners, and the players are just trying to scrape by.

 

Why does Boston (or any other team) have the right to hold a kid like Pastrnak under their thumb and prohibit him from earning what his services are worth on the open market?  

 

In the real world, it doesn't.  Within the imposed rules of a semi-closed market like the NHL, it has to have that right or else it won't be able to stay under the salary cap and present a competitive team.  

 

The problem is that the league imposed a salary cap, but imposed no such cap on a single player's ability to earn money within that closed system... because that's decidedly unamerican and could make places like the KHL competitors in what is now a mostly closed market.  

 

Frankly, I think the NHLPA should ditch the NHL and hire some economists and accountants to set up their own league without owners.  

But then I'd be watching the Purple and Green Philadelphia Cheesesteaks playing the Brown and Auburn Pittsburgh Grinders and frankly, I'd miss my Flyers. 

 

Long and short, if the Owners want a league in which they have controls in place to preserve and protect their own profits, I see no reason why the Players shouldn't be able to take full advantage.  As it is they're under restricted free agency until they're 25 or 26 in most cases.  Pastrnak doesn't have them over a barrell, they'll go to arbitration and the arbiter will decide and they'll all move on.  In the last year of that next contract, they can trade him for something above market value and move on and in the mean time they get a kid who's scoring more and more points each year by the time he's old enough to buy a beer in Boston.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[King Knut]

32 minutes ago, aziz said:

 

the problem is, 5 and 6 million tied up on 21 year olds turns into, for a team with a lot of kids around that age, $50-60mil tied up on 10 players for years.  

 

yes, better than having that tied up on 35 year olds, but it's still a fatal problem.

 

Yeah, I just don't think they're going to be able to do that any more and it's just an inherent problem in the cap system.  It means they'll have to trade those players to someone else to compete for them and take the picks and prospects they can.  It keeps the whole thing moving.  

 

It just requires teams to prioritize and do so more intelligently and yes... it requires a few gambles.  If I'm boston, I'm feeling safe gambling on Pastrnak.  

 

The other possible way around this is to remove the cap hit averaging system for players who are RFA.  So if Pastrnak wants an 8 year deal, Boston can offer him 4 million per until Backes and Krejci's contracts expire, and then his deal kicks in a 8 million  for the next 4 years when he is legitimately in his prime.  

 

This would probably require an opt out option for the team with a certain pay out that doesn't count against the cap in case he's a bust.

 

Ideally, everything would be merit based and every player would have a moderate base salary based on their projections and they earn potential dollars after that based on how close they come to expectations.  i.e. Giroux COULD have made 8.275 million last year IF he'd played a certain number of minutes a night, if he'd scored a certain number of points and if the team made the playoffs.  But instead he'd end up earning his base of 4 or 5 million.  Instead we give these incentives AFTER the cap hit.. but they still count against the cap... that's dumb.  

 

The obvious problem with this way is that some guys are incredibly valuable in ways that are difficult to quantify and it makes it difficult to comply with the cap.... unless you figure out formulas for these benchmarks to be quantified over time (essentially FRONT loading) the cap hits so you can plan for the remainder of his career based on how his cap hit decreases or increases over time (i.e. you'll pay him 8.275 million now, but when he has a crappy year, you know his cap hit will be smaller over the next 5 seasons and can plan accordingly).  

 

really there's no good way to do this.  

[aziz]

43 minutes ago, King Knut said:

What I meant is that it's consistent with the upward trend of a player coming into his own as he becomes a full grown adult in this league.  And I think you knew that.  

 

i really didn't mean any snark with that, when i read what you wrote, i assumed pastrnak's first 3 seasons had shown a steady upward trend all the way through.  being surprised, i went and checked, and instead of "a steady incline since entering the league three years ago", i found a player that basically sat still for seasons 1 and 2, and then exploded in season 3.  that's the opposite of a steady incline, isn't it?  or, not opposite exactly, but it's a spike, not an incline.  anyway, misunderstanding, sorry.

 

43 minutes ago, King Knut said:

This is just capitalism.

 

it isn't capitalism.  these are not truly competing organizations, in a financial sense.  it is one organization with 31 aligned franchises.  KHL versus NHL is capitalism.  even the AHL versus the NHL is capitalism.  the bruins versus the flyers is not.  

 

if the starbucks down the street starts handing out crazy salaries (i doubt they are allowed to set their salaries at all, that prolly comes from corporate, but whatever) to its baristas and makes it so all of the other starbucks in the region have a hard time attracting/retaining staff due to skewed pay scales, the central office is entirely justified AND well advised to find some way of controlling the problem.

 

ugh.  i could write pages on this, but won't here, isn't the place.  i may in the CBA forum.  suffice to say, i have a really hard time thinking well of a 21 year old demanding MORE than $6mil for a body of work that includes a single noteworthy season.  that he is comfortable doing this before he is even arbitration eligible does NOT bode well going forward.  the flyers have a lot of kids around that age, and if 1 good season means they each get $6+mil, the flyers are in trouble.  as is every team with potentially talented youth.

 

 

[King Knut]

1 hour ago, aziz said:

 

i really didn't mean any snark with that, when i read what you wrote, i assumed pastrnak's first 3 seasons had shown a steady upward trend all the way through.  being surprised, i went and checked, and instead of "a steady incline since entering the league three years ago", i found a player that basically sat still for seasons 1 and 2, and then exploded in season 3.  that's the opposite of a steady incline, isn't it?  or, not opposite exactly, but it's a spike, not an incline.  anyway, misunderstanding, sorry.

 

 

You were giving me a harder time on exact definitions than you needed to for the sake of the discussion at hand.  

When a guy enters the league at 19, the tendency is for a decrease in production the 2nd year as he's learning the ropes.  Considering it held steady and then got better and ancillary stats all improved, I think it's very safe to say he's improved. 

Essentially he was better than TK his first year.  If TK scores 70 with 34 goals his third year, he'll be a damn hero because it'll be Simmonds like and we all know it and we'll be happy paying 6 million for a 21 year old TK who can score 34 goals and finish with a +12.

 

1 hour ago, aziz said:

it isn't capitalism.  these are not truly competing organizations, in a financial sense.  it is one organization with 31 aligned franchises.  KHL versus NHL is capitalism.  even the AHL versus the NHL is capitalism.  the bruins versus the flyers is not. 

 

I agree and I stated as much.  That part isn't capitalism.  

 

1 hour ago, aziz said:

if the starbucks down the street starts handing out crazy salaries (i doubt they are allowed to set their salaries at all, that prolly comes from corporate, but whatever) to its baristas and makes it so all of the other starbucks in the region have a hard time attracting/retaining staff due to skewed pay scales, the central office is entirely justified AND well advised to find some way of controlling the problem.

 

Well, if the coffee started sucking and no one would go there, or if it simply became unprofitable, Corporate would just shut it down.

 

The problem is that in your dialectic, each Starbucks would have exactly the same amount to spend on their staff.  So if they paid 3 baristas radically more than the rest and the rest were terrible workers, the product would suffer and the same result would happen.

 

Starbucks is a central organization that makes or loses prifts on it's own.  These teams share in the profits when one of them underperforms.  

 

I'm saying if the Flyers are getting all those kids putting up these numbers... paying them or trading them will be an interesting discussion and a good problem to have.

 

1 hour ago, aziz said:

ugh.  i could write pages on this, but won't here, isn't the place.  i may in the CBA forum.  suffice to say, i have a really hard time thinking well of a 21 year old demanding MORE than $6mil for a body of work that includes a single noteworthy season.  that he is comfortable doing this before he is even arbitration eligible does NOT bode well going forward.  the flyers have a lot of kids around that age, and if 1 good season means they each get $6+mil, the flyers are in trouble.  as is every team with potentially talented youth.

[AlaskaFlyerFan]

4 hours ago, aziz said:

 

the problem is, 5 and 6 million tied up on 21 year olds turns into, for a team with a lot of kids around that age, $50-60mil tied up on 10 players for years.  

 

yes, better than having that tied up on 35 year olds, but it's still a fatal problem.

 

BEHOLD VandeVelde!

 

Yeah, I know.  I hijacked the BEHOLD RANDY line.  But this is IMHO why guys like VandeVelde can find jobs in the NHL.

[jammer2]

 

  Agree with a lot of stuff in this thread. I have been pondering the death of the bridge deal for a while now, and it seems to be a reality. Some teams with a boatload of young talent are going to be in some very awkward positions. 

 

 I believe the next CBA will introduce "non-guaranteed" NFL type contracts. The NHLPA will dig in, enraged... but the NHL, as per usual, will just starve them out. 

 

 Simmonds, Sanhiem and a 2nd might get the Boston deal done...a stiff price, but Pasta is indeed a star. The skill is unquestionable....but the real kicker is his vision and skating. He is in the top 5% of skaters in a speed driven league....elite speed that kills combined with his amazing skill are what makes Pasta special. No bust here, despite the 1 year of increased scoring. That is just the arc he is on. He might fall back a bit next year, but I believe he will evolve into an 80 pt and 40 goal a year guy, maybe a tad more depending on if he stays in Boston or goes to a better offensive team. 

[ruxpin]

1 hour ago, jammer2 said:

 

  Agree with a lot of stuff in this thread. I have been pondering the death of the bridge deal for a while now, and it seems to be a reality. Some teams with a boatload of young talent are going to be in some very awkward positions. 

 

 I believe the next CBA will introduce "non-guaranteed" NFL type contracts. The NHLPA will dig in, enraged... but the NHL, as per usual, will just starve them out. 

 

 Simmonds, Sanhiem and a 2nd might get the Boston deal done...a stiff price, but Pasta is indeed a star. The skill is unquestionable....but the real kicker is his vision and skating. He is in the top 5% of skaters in a speed driven league....elite speed that kills combined with his amazing skill are what makes Pasta special. No bust here, despite the 1 year of increased scoring. That is just the arc he is on. He might fall back a bit next year, but I believe he will evolve into an 80 pt and 40 goal a year guy, maybe a tad more depending on if he stays in Boston or goes to a better offensive team. 

So, put you down in the "get'er done" column? 

[jammer2]

30 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

So, put you down in the "get'er done" column? 

 

 The short answer is yes. Assuming Hexy is consistently working towards his "window opening" plan of attack, Wayne would be past his prime when the theoretical window does indeed open. This Pasta trade would maximize the return for Wayne. The real sticking point for me is Sanheim....we don't even know how good/great he can be....and dealing with young stud dmen, that is usually not a good thing. The positives are, Myers has the same type of skill set AND it might actually open a spot for Hagg, who might just be on the outside looking in unless a deal like this is done. Pasternak has jaw dropping, lift you out of the seat type of talent, he would be a 10 year fixture on the wing with Patrick and be a true cornerstone. The real kicker for me is Pasta's work ethic to go along with his speed and skill. 

 

 The big problem is his new contract would be a tough pill to swallow cap wise....ESPECIALLY if the bridge deal is a thing of the past as some posts from this thread astutely discuss. Another avenue on the plus side of this deal, a good chance the Flyers will not have a goalie of the future decided on before Wayne starts his decline.  

 

 A potential problem, the Bruins have NCAA star Lindgren on the way, Brandon Carlo is already established and getting better each and every game... and Charlie McAvoy, who might just be the Calder winner this year (he is THAT good) arrives this Oct. The Bruins may lean towards wanting goals, goals and more goals in return for Pasta. I do believe they are set on defense, but the offensive part of the equation is very unsettled. 

 

 EDIT....and first rounder for 16 Jakob Zobril is talented enough to be assured of an NHL spot once he is ready, that is 4 of 6 defense spots ready to be filled by talented kids under 20. They are much deeper on defense than most think. Thus my goals, goals, goals theory as a potential return for Pasta. 

[ruxpin]

5 hours ago, jammer2 said:

Thus my goals, goals, goals theory as a potential return for Pasta. 

 

Damn.  Too bad we don't still have Nodl to send them.

[elmatus]

27 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

 

Damn.  Too bad we don't still have Nodl to send them.

 

Nodl's making a comeback. We need our own version of rafters to retire players.

 

If we did though, McDud should definitely be our first inductee.

[OccamsRazor]

27 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

 

Damn.  Too bad we don't still have Nodl to send them.

 

 

Hell is there anyone left on the Flyers that we HAVEN'T traded this offseason???

 

Good lord we need some hockey to watch we all are getting antsy even if it's meaningless preseason hockey...i am for one ready to put last year behind us.

 

I am looking forward to watching some more youth injected into the lineup.

 

Something in my gut tells me the Flyers for ONCE have won the Partick/Nico pick. It will show by the time their entry level deals are up.

[elmatus]

5 hours ago, jammer2 said:

The big problem is his new contract would be a tough pill to swallow cap wise....ESPECIALLY if the bridge deal is a thing of the past as some posts from this thread astutely discuss. Another avenue on the plus side of this deal, a good chance the Flyers will not have a goalie of the future decided on before Wayne starts his decline.  

 

I have to wonder if we're going to see teams make foolish signings (salary and term), knowing they have a new CBA coming and will likely get some freebee buyout options. I expect that's exactly why we're seeing players taking contracts that involve the majority payout in the form of signing bonuses rather than standard salary. They're adjusting to what they know is likely to happen in the next short bit.