shrader Posted June 4, 2012 Report Share Posted June 4, 2012 From Boston.com: If the Bruins can’t move Thomas, they will designate the goalie a suspended player next season. Thomas will not collect his salary, but the Bruins will be responsible for his $5 million cap hit. Thomas has the third-highest cap hit on the team, and it would be a considerable amount of cap space applied to a non-roster player. I wonder if they could waive him to Providence and avoid the cap hit? Bruins already have the 3 highest cap # for next season, and they'll have to sign 1 or 2 goalies and at least 1 more forward to put them at roster minimums. Then if they want to keep around an extra forward or defenseman... He signed the deal while over 35 years old. It counts against the cap. Short of trading him, there is no way to avoid that cap hit. That's where it could get interesting though. Assuming it is allowed to trade a guy who is on that type of suspension list (I don't know the likelihood of this one), they could move him to a team that is trying to get over the cap floor. That team wouldn't have to spend a dime to get that nice boost to their cap figure. The rich get richer and the cheap get cheaper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted June 4, 2012 Report Share Posted June 4, 2012 Tomas Voukoun traded to the Pens: http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2012/06/04/penguins-acquire-rights-to-tomas-vokoun-from-capitals-signs-two-year-4-million-deal/related/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobody Posted June 4, 2012 Report Share Posted June 4, 2012 Pens pick up Vokoun to keep MAF fresh during the season. http://spectorshockey.net/blog/penguins-acquire-vokoun/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted June 4, 2012 Report Share Posted June 4, 2012 Tomas Voukoun traded to the Pens: http://prohockeytalk...n-deal/related/ I still don't understand why they allow this sort of trade during the trade freeze. What if one of the teams still playing has a better goaltender that they would be willing to trade for that 7th round pick, or perhaps they know they are going to walk away from one of their own goaltenders and would be willing to pay more than the 7th round pick for Voukoun. They can't exactly go public when the goalie in question may have to lead them to the Cup, so they are forced to stay out of the bidding process. Doesn't make sense to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted June 4, 2012 Report Share Posted June 4, 2012 I still don't understand why they allow this sort of trade during the trade freeze. What if one of the teams still playing has a better goaltender that they would be willing to trade for that 7th round pick, or perhaps they know they are going to walk away from one of their own goaltenders and would be willing to pay more than the 7th round pick for Voukoun. They can't exactly go public when the goalie in question may have to lead them to the Cup, so they are forced to stay out of the bidding process. Doesn't make sense to me. I don't know, either LA or NJ could certainly have been in talks behind the scenes. The playoffs shouldn't really stop them from doing so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted June 4, 2012 Report Share Posted June 4, 2012 I still don't understand why they allow this sort of trade during the trade freeze. What if one of the teams still playing has a better goaltender that they would be willing to trade for that 7th round pick, or perhaps they know they are going to walk away from one of their own goaltenders and would be willing to pay more than the 7th round pick for Voukoun. They can't exactly go public when the goalie in question may have to lead them to the Cup, so they are forced to stay out of the bidding process. Doesn't make sense to me. Guess thats just one of the draw backs for playing deep into the playoffs/Stanley Cup Finals and one of the perks of being knocked out/not making the playoffs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted June 4, 2012 Report Share Posted June 4, 2012 I still don't understand why they allow this sort of trade during the trade freeze. What if one of the teams still playing has a better goaltender that they would be willing to trade for that 7th round pick, or perhaps they know they are going to walk away from one of their own goaltenders and would be willing to pay more than the 7th round pick for Voukoun. They can't exactly go public when the goalie in question may have to lead them to the Cup, so they are forced to stay out of the bidding process. Doesn't make sense to me. I'm more confused by the move itself. The writer (and I do trust him) suggests that it doesn't mean Fleury will be moved, but that makes for one expensive backup at $2 million. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted June 4, 2012 Report Share Posted June 4, 2012 I'm more confused by the move itself. The writer (and I do trust him) suggests that it doesn't mean Fleury will be moved, but that makes for one expensive backup at $2 million. I wonder if someone else wants Brent Johnson? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted June 4, 2012 Report Share Posted June 4, 2012 I don't know, either LA or NJ could certainly have been in talks behind the scenes. The playoffs shouldn't really stop them from doing so. Even if they do talk, they can't trade a player from their bench, even the backup. So, the non-playoff teams in the potential trade have to decide whether it is worth the risk of waiting until after the SCF to potentially get a deal that they like more. The teams playing do not have the same options as those who are out. Guess thats just one of the draw backs for playing deep into the playoffs/Stanley Cup Finals and one of the perks of being knocked out/not making the playoffs. Drafting higher isn't enough? No team can trade players under contract for next season, so why allow the exemption of allowing teams to trade the rights of roster players who are in the final year of their contracts and happen to be done sooner? Those players are under contract until July 1, so if there is a trade freeze then they should not be tradeable. Would having to wait an extra week or two to make this deal have been a problem for either team? A minor concern in the grand scheme of things, but it just bothers me on principle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted June 4, 2012 Report Share Posted June 4, 2012 I wonder if someone else wants Brent Johnson? His contract is up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted June 4, 2012 Report Share Posted June 4, 2012 His contract is up. Well that explains it. They must have decided Brent wasn't going to get it done next year. Must be some other pieces on the way out as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LastPommerFan Posted June 4, 2012 Report Share Posted June 4, 2012 18 days. It will all be clear(er) in 18 days. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IKnowPhysics Posted June 4, 2012 Report Share Posted June 4, 2012 I wonder if they could waive him ... That's how you end up being a New York Islander. True story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJFIVEOH Posted June 4, 2012 Report Share Posted June 4, 2012 It's not about sitting out one year to save the team cap space. That's not the angle I'm talking about here. What I'm suggesting is that a player who intends to retire could instead do something like what Thomas is doing. If that actually did take the money off the cap, you'd have an escape clause for every one of these players who signed a contract over the age of 35. The rule is in place for a very good reason. To let Boston off the hook on this one would eliminate that rule completely and open up a huge ugly loop hole. Boston knew the risks they were taking when they signed that contract and now they're going to be stung by it (something I'm sure they won't mind 5 or so years from know when they look back). 38, Kovalchuk's deal is different. They tweaked the rules a bit thanks to his deal, but his money will come off the books when he retires since he was younger than 35 when signing the deal. From Boston.com: If the Bruins can’t move Thomas, they will designate the goalie a suspended player next season. Thomas will not collect his salary, but the Bruins will be responsible for his $5 million cap hit. Thomas has the third-highest cap hit on the team, and it would be a considerable amount of cap space applied to a non-roster player. I wonder if they could waive him to Providence and avoid the cap hit? Bruins already have the 3 highest cap # for next season, and they'll have to sign 1 or 2 goalies and at least 1 more forward to put them at roster minimums. Then if they want to keep around an extra forward or defenseman... I guess what I'm saying is my main point isn't necessarily to let the Bruins off the hook as far as cap space. My main point is that if a player doesn't fulfill his obligations then he shouldn't get paid. We don't see it as often in hockey but it really pisses me off when NFL and MLB players hold out for a contract renegotiation because they had a breakout year. I'm sorry, you fulfill your contract and then talk about raises after it runs out. They shouldn't be allowed to hold out for more money if they already have a contract. If they can do that then teams should be able to sit a player until they renegotiate a lower contract if a player has a bad year. That just doesn't happen. The reason I mention the Bruins not having to be liable for the cap space is because if Thomas were to not get paid then it shouldn't be held against them. But in turn if the Bruins would be let off the hook as far as his cap hit then Thomas shouldn't be allowed to play that year. At least some kind of reduction on the cap hit. But I see the points about teams taking advantage of that if it were to happen. It would be a bad idea in the long run, I agree. My main point is athletes should be held accountable for their contracts. And based on LPF's post it looks like that may be the case. Good. If you're not going to play you shouldn't get paid. I'm more concerned about that than the Bruins cap hit. ;) I still don't understand why they allow this sort of trade during the trade freeze. What if one of the teams still playing has a better goaltender that they would be willing to trade for that 7th round pick, or perhaps they know they are going to walk away from one of their own goaltenders and would be willing to pay more than the 7th round pick for Voukoun. They can't exactly go public when the goalie in question may have to lead them to the Cup, so they are forced to stay out of the bidding process. Doesn't make sense to me. I'm more confused by the move itself. The writer (and I do trust him) suggests that it doesn't mean Fleury will be moved, but that makes for one expensive backup at $2 million. That never made any sense to me either. When are teams allowed to make trades? I mean the trade deadline wasn't that long ago, at what date is that lifted? I would seem to think moves wouldn't be allowed until after the playoffs. $2 million for Vokoun is a great deal. I've always liked him, he's a very consistent goaltender and usually in the top 5 in stats. I wouldn't have minded BFLO picking him up last offseason and split duties with Enroth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted June 4, 2012 Report Share Posted June 4, 2012 Vokoun was absolute garbage for Washington this year. No thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted June 4, 2012 Report Share Posted June 4, 2012 JJ, he won't get a penny if he sits out the whole year. It won't count as a year served either. Just like when Yashin sat out years back, or even Radulov this year, if he sits out the season, he still owes them that one year. He gets absolutely nothing out of this. If he is using this as leverage for the remainder of his hockey career, what he's probably hoping for is a buyout so that he is a free agent this upcoming offseason. I doubt that's the case though. If he does get a buyout and then signs with someone else this offseason, he looks like an even bigger tool than he has recently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobody Posted June 4, 2012 Report Share Posted June 4, 2012 Vokoun was absolute garbage for Washington this year. No thanks. Not sure if you're being sarcastic or not? Vokoun: 2.51 gaa, .917 sv%, 1.08 pts per gp, 1.21 pts per 60 minutes Miller: 2.55 gaa, .915 sv%, 1.13 pts per gp, 1.17 pts per 60 minutes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesportsbuff Posted June 4, 2012 Report Share Posted June 4, 2012 $2 million isn't that expensive for a back-up goaltender (several teams have a back-up making between 1.25-1.75, so it's only slightly more expensive), and Vokoun wants a chance to win a cup more than he wants a starting job, especially considering the way things played out last season. Washington got a free draft pick out of it. Not sure if you're being sarcastic or not? Vokoun: 2.51 gaa, .917 sv%, 1.08 pts per gp, 1.21 pts per 60 minutes Miller: 2.55 gaa, .915 sv%, 1.13 pts per gp, 1.17 pts per 60 minutes Yeah, but everyone here can agree that Miller had a pretty horrible year himself, so comparing those two really says nothing. Vokoun had a bad year. He wound up with a pretty good W/L record because the team in front of him bailed him out, but he certainly didn't play well enough to earn a starting job -- otherwise Washington would probably have kept him and instead traded Neuvirth, who actually has some value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJFIVEOH Posted June 4, 2012 Report Share Posted June 4, 2012 JJ, he won't get a penny if he sits out the whole year. It won't count as a year served either. Just like when Yashin sat out years back, or even Radulov this year, if he sits out the season, he still owes them that one year. He gets absolutely nothing out of this. If he is using this as leverage for the remainder of his hockey career, what he's probably hoping for is a buyout so that he is a free agent this upcoming offseason. I doubt that's the case though. If he does get a buyout and then signs with someone else this offseason, he looks like an even bigger tool than he has recently. I get that now. ;) $2 million isn't that expensive for a back-up goaltender (several teams have a back-up making between 1.25-1.75, so it's only slightly more expensive), and Vokoun wants a chance to win a cup more than he wants a starting job, especially considering the way things played out last season. Washington got a free draft pick out of it. Yeah, but everyone here can agree that Miller had a pretty horrible year himself, so comparing those two really says nothing. Vokoun had a bad year. He wound up with a pretty good W/L record because the team in front of him bailed him out, but he certainly didn't play well enough to earn a starting job -- otherwise Washington would probably have kept him and instead traded Neuvirth, who actually has some value. I'm pretty sure the Caps were thinking Vokoun might have been the starter because Neuvirth hasn't been panning out quite like they hoped. I'm pretty sure the play of Holtby had something to do with this trade. Vokoun had a bad year by his standards but still had marginally better numbers than Miller. Vokoun has been a solid goaltender for quite some time, some might say it has something to do with the style of play by the Panthers but he was just as good with Nashville. Miller did have a poor year but he also balanced that out by going on a tear down the stretch which ended up giving him numbers that puts him on par with his previous seasons. Vokoun was not as consistent as he usually is this year most of the games the Caps lost with him in net were blowouts. But the games he won he wasn't rewarded with much goal support. Personally, I think if we're going to get 15th place numbers out of a goaltender I'd rather do it with a $2 mil contract rather than a $6 mil+ contract. But I digress because I'm not trying to start another bash Miller discussion, lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted June 4, 2012 Report Share Posted June 4, 2012 Not sure if you're being sarcastic or not? Vokoun: 2.51 gaa, .917 sv%, 1.08 pts per gp, 1.21 pts per 60 minutes Miller: 2.55 gaa, .915 sv%, 1.13 pts per gp, 1.17 pts per 60 minutes Neither of those sets of numbers are very good. And he only played about half the season before relinquishing his duties to Holtby. I just recall watching games where he needed to keep the Caps in it and didn't. He left a very sour taste in my mouth this year by his play. I think a number of us expected him to thrive out of Florida and he actually looked worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJFIVEOH Posted June 4, 2012 Report Share Posted June 4, 2012 Neither of those sets of numbers are very good. And he only played about half the season before relinquishing his duties to Holtby. I just recall watching games where he needed to keep the Caps in it and didn't. He left a very sour taste in my mouth this year by his play. I think a number of us expected him to thrive out of Florida and he actually looked worse. Vokoun started off the season pretty hot. But didn't he come down with a nagging injury mid-season? Kinda tough to top his 5 years with FL, he was routinely in the top 5 in GAA and save %. One could say it was FL's style of play, but one could also argue that he didn't have a quality team in front of him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted June 4, 2012 Report Share Posted June 4, 2012 Vokoun started off the season pretty hot. But didn't he come down with a nagging injury mid-season? Kinda tough to top his 5 years with FL, he was routinely in the top 5 in GAA and save %. One could say it was FL's style of play, but one could also argue that he didn't have a quality team in front of him. All I know is that he didn't impress anyone in Washington, which this trade reinforces. I truly think Florida's system did help his numbers and he couldn't come in and be the man in Washington's loose offensive system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobody Posted June 4, 2012 Report Share Posted June 4, 2012 It is interesting that Washington thinks it can make a go of it with two young goalies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted June 4, 2012 Report Share Posted June 4, 2012 It is interesting that Washington thinks it can make a go of it with two young goalies. They better hope Holtby is the real deal. He sure looked good at the end of this season but who knows. He could be the next Steve Mason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobody Posted June 4, 2012 Report Share Posted June 4, 2012 They better hope Holtby is the real deal. He sure looked good at the end of this season but who knows. He could be the next Steve Mason. I guess they are hoping for at least the next Cam Ward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.