|
Post by Justin-Cincinnati on Jul 16, 2019 9:24:56 GMT -5
The trade was actually for future considerations, but under the GHL rules, we had to spell them out. No one has been signed yet, or traded. And Cleveland would have the same amount of cap space if he chose not to extend Coots and let him walk. And just because it doesnt happen often in the NHL doesnt mean that its not allowed.
|
|
|
Post by Dane-Hamilton on Jul 16, 2019 9:28:36 GMT -5
Issue 1: Future considerations trade, won't be signed/traded until anyone else can sign UFA Issue 2: See above Issue 3: Interesting and wonder how we will handle this in future. Won't be a problem for Cleveland with his cap but after resigning his RFA for 20 mil should technically have to sign Couturier for 10.2 mil before trading him. What if that puts him over the cap? Will league let us temporarily go over cap to sign and trade?
|
|
|
Post by Jon-Seattle on Jul 16, 2019 9:29:40 GMT -5
Scott- Cleveland is allowed to ( under OUR GHL Rules ) sign 1 Ufa. Not an issue. Issue1: the Ufa was signed ( technically ) prior to ufa process beginning. Issue 2: Traded the Ufa during the draft and received compensation for the Ufa. Issue 3: This allowed Cleveland extra cap space, before Ufa begins- yet it began for Cleveland and Cincy already. I don’t hv a problem with a team resigning their Ufa. But what are the guidelines? What Ufa resigns with his NHL for big money yet allows them to move him immediately? There must be a better process. This is not it! this is why it’s a futures consideration deal. Draft picks would be able to be traded, the player in question will have to wait until resigning of internal UFAs to be resigned, and then traded. It has not happened yet and Couturier is still in the possession of Cleveland. Since Cleveland has admitted he will resign him that keeps the player from the UFA pool, he has the cap space and Franchise points to make it work as does Cincinnati therefor there is no dilemma in resigning or the trade from a financial or franchise point standpoint. If I were to spend my money on Player X in the first stage of UFA and then trade him a day after signing I would recoup my cap space and be able to continue bidding on UFAs as if that player had never hit my books. It’s the same concept here only the UFA resigning period is reportedly occurring prior to the actual opening of UFA therefor the player never actually becomes an UFA.
|
|
|
Post by Dane-Hamilton on Jul 16, 2019 9:46:41 GMT -5
Actually we probably should hash that rule out. What happens in the following scenario
2021 I trade Malkin for a 2021 draft pick I then resign Boeser, Chabot, Debrincat,Georgiev, Guhle, Jost, Keller in RFA. I no longer have money to resign Malkin Does league forcibly drop my players? Does the trade get reversed even if I picked? Do we allow overage in a sign and trade? Do we put the 10.2 mil on the books at time of trade so they can't over spend?
That future considerations is kind of tricky just being that we can't be 100% sure a team will actually be able resign the player depending on how much they spend on draft picks and RFAs.
|
|
|
Post by Dane-Hamilton on Jul 16, 2019 9:53:19 GMT -5
Another solution to that problem is allow UFA resigning to happen before RFA begins, that might be easiest.
|
|
|
Post by Jedediah-Hartford on Jul 16, 2019 10:21:27 GMT -5
I was wondering why the debate died down, and then "Look up there, it's a bird, it's a plane. NO, it's a MADE SELECTION!" And we're back to regularly scheduled programming.
|
|
|
Post by Chris-Alaska on Jul 16, 2019 10:21:56 GMT -5
Or only allow these trades for the following years draft picks. Therefore all normal rules continue to apply and if the trading team doesnt have the cap to comply then future considerations cant be met and trade void.
That being said Clev and Cini could still have the same agreement for this years draft choices (with clev telling cinci who to pick) but if Clev messed up his cap to resign couts then cinci would be stuck with poehling and whoever clev tells him to pick with 69.
|
|
|
Post by Glenn-Philadelphia on Jul 16, 2019 10:56:46 GMT -5
This at its core is very similar to what the Flyers did with Hayes this off season.
Also, everyone needs to remember that Coots is one high maintenance (cap wise) MoFo. I think in the 31 page discussion thread you will note that the retaining team doesn't get a break on his asking price. In fact, I think we had even discussed making the price 110% of the players asking price although even as is, his 10M contract is steep.
|
|
|
Post by Phil-Cornwall on Jul 16, 2019 11:00:51 GMT -5
Welcome to Cornwall Mr. Marchand.
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New Jersey on Jul 16, 2019 11:02:49 GMT -5
This is stupid. If we followed the NHL and the ability to trade a players rights but no we need to have a player on a team for a hole year. Cincinnati should have to use his FP to sign the player. It would be a lot simpler to follow the NHL.
|
|
|
Post by Glenn-Philadelphia on Jul 16, 2019 11:09:58 GMT -5
My primary reason for opposing this for years was that I didn't want to see the rich get richer and the poor stay poor. I think we have a pretty good compromise in place and as it is the first year of a new process, we can refine it as needed moving forward.
Cleveland and Cincy both got the OK with me prior so this is how we will handle it this off season. Let's move on with the draft for now and we can open up another thread, or continue to use this one, to discuss ways to tweak the current system moving forward.
|
|
|
Post by Eric-Baltimore on Jul 16, 2019 11:42:58 GMT -5
So am I correct in saying this counts as Cleveland's one use of the UFA extension? Brian would not be able to extend any other UFA or any other sign and trades?
|
|
|
Post by Glenn-Philadelphia on Jul 16, 2019 11:49:43 GMT -5
That is correct. He can still use insurance on a player but unlike the Coots situation, retaining another player is not assured and even if he does retain a player, if insurance monies were needed to extend, he can only extend for 1 year.
|
|
|
Post by Scott-New York on Jul 16, 2019 11:51:13 GMT -5
Can't do UFA before RFA because unsigned RFA's become UFA's.
This does not dilute the UFA pool in any way. It's Cleveland's one UFA signing and every other team has the same option.
It is and always has been every owner's responsibility to control their cap. If Hamilton can sign all those RFA's and still have the money to sign Malkin in order to pull off a move like this, then so be it. By the way, we already have an amount we're allowed to go over the cap in the summer (which I don't believe has been added to our cap yet) but if you're looking for government handouts beyond that just so you can try to pull off a deal similar to this, I have a feeling that your going to be disappointed.
|
|
|
Post by Dane-Hamilton on Jul 16, 2019 12:40:37 GMT -5
So your solution to the proposed problem was what? I also said UFA resigning which will have to happen before actual UFA anyway.
|
|