Armchair GM Thread 2022-2023
- Thread starter CarltonTheBear
- Start date
L K
Active member
Guilt Trip said:
I don't get the Georgiev appeal.
.918 > .914 > .910 (.905 - last Lundqvist year) > .905 (.916) > .898 (.935)
His Save percentage has gotten steadily worse year over year and aside from the first few years where he had better numbers than Lundqivst who was on his way out as a goaltender I'm just not seeing it. He had that series of games a few years ago where he stonewalled the Leafs and I think people have a skewed view of his abilities since then. Not a bad goaltender but not one I'd be hanging anything on.
herman
Well-known member
I think we can move Mrazek without sweetening the deal, similar to Nick Ritchie being packaged off for current roster help. Edmonton has Mike Smith for one season and Koskinen is heading for the Alps, and as Carlton already outlined: there is lots of fit there. Barring a trade there with an actual player coming back (Puljujarvi), I'm not against keeping Mrazek, unless the Leafs think that well is tainted with the late season waiving and relatively open trade talks.
bustaheims
Active member
I'm also not sure a sweetener for Mrazek has to be that substantial. The buyout cost on him isn't huge, so, any additional assets have to consider that. A buyout breaks down this way:
22/23: $1,033,333
23/24: $833,333
24/25: $1,433,333
25/26: $1,433,333
Those last couple years aren't great, but, they are manageable. We're not looking at anything near the Marleau situation here. There's only going to be a valuable pick/prospect attached if something of value is attached. At this point, any team trading for him either want him to play in their net or they're happy to take a mid-round pick to absorb the buyout/remainder of the contract. There just isn't enough incentive for the Leafs to tack on anything significant here (despite what some talking heads and other fanbases might say).
22/23: $1,033,333
23/24: $833,333
24/25: $1,433,333
25/26: $1,433,333
Those last couple years aren't great, but, they are manageable. We're not looking at anything near the Marleau situation here. There's only going to be a valuable pick/prospect attached if something of value is attached. At this point, any team trading for him either want him to play in their net or they're happy to take a mid-round pick to absorb the buyout/remainder of the contract. There just isn't enough incentive for the Leafs to tack on anything significant here (despite what some talking heads and other fanbases might say).
Frank E
Active member
I don't know guys...is there a GM that's looking to give the Leafs a break and help them out of a cap crunch without getting something pretty sweet to mitigate the risk of having to buy the guy out and look like a patsy?
The guy was a mess this year when he wasn't merciful-timingly injured.
Remember too, I'm rarely wrong.
The guy was a mess this year when he wasn't merciful-timingly injured.
Remember too, I'm rarely wrong.
Frank E said:
Nick Ritchie.
bustaheims
Active member
Iafrate said:
There?s no real benefit to the Leafs to do that unless they get an asset in return for covering the actual salary. There is no net cap benefit. It?s a zero sum move. It?s only helpful in very specific circumstances that the team isn?t likely to find themselves in, and it?s potentially a hindrance at the trade deadline and if the Leafs have contracts with performance bonuses.
OldTimeHockey
Active member
bustaheims said:
With that low of a buyout rate, and if no one is biting, why not just buy him out? I get that it costs 1 to 1.5 million a year, but that extra 2.5 - 3 million a year would certainly help in securing a goalie that could help the team.
Guilt Trip
Active member
In 24/25 both Matthews and Willy will need new contracts. I don't think having 1.4M in dead space would be desirable.OldTimeHockey said:
bustaheims
Active member
OldTimeHockey said:
That's my thinking - and, I imagine, is part of the thought process for the front office, as well. The years 3 and 4 hits are potentially an issue, depending on what happens with the cap and all (which, hopefully, will start to see real increases again in the next couple years).
bustaheims said:
Maybe I don?t get how it works. But I thought if you have a player on LTIR allows you to exceed the cap by the difference of the salary and the cap space available.
So if the player has a 5mil cap hit and you have 1 mil of cap space you can exceed the cap by 4 mil.
So why wouldn?t this be beneficial? Or am I completely wrong in how this works?
Bill_Berg
Active member
Iafrate said:
So cap used is 9 mill, cap is 10 mill, I add 5 mill of LITR, I now have used 14 and have a cap of 15. Both scenarios give me 1 mill cap space. But once LITR is invoked, I can't use that 1 mill of cap space for performance bonuses, they instead carry over to get used in next year's cap space.
Iafrate said:
In this scenario the team would have $4mil in cap space. But not acquiring the player/contract at all would mean they have $6mil in cap space.
The player/contract you're acquiring still counts against the cap. So we have a cap ceiling of $82.5mil next season. If we acquired a $5mil LTIR contract and we were right up against the cap before getting him then it'd mean our cap ceiling could be exceed to as much as $87.5mil... but that $5mil contract still counts against that so really we'd have $82.5mil in "useable" cap space.
It is a very common misconception (even among apparently smart media folk) that you can just add as many LTIR contracts as you want and that just keeps increasing your cap. But those guys don't just disappear off your books. The Leafs could acquire $50mil worth of LTIR contracts and their cap ceiling could be $132.5mil... but $50mil of that is still sitting on the injured/pseudo retired list.
bustaheims
Active member
Iafrate said:
As others have pointed out, it's not how it works - and, if it were, why would teams trade away that advantage? Why would they have to include assets to shed those contracts? It really boggles my mind how many media types, bloggers, etc., still get this wrong.
There are also some other wrinkles to LTIR that make it a disadvantage. For instance, LTIR space can't be used to absorb a pro-rated amount of a player's cap hit - you have to be able to fit the full season AAV regardless of what point in the season you acquire them. It also can't be used to account for performance bonuses, as it disappears when the season ends while performance bonuses aren't charged against the cap until after the season.
herman
Well-known member
lamajama said:
There is only the one year of overlap with new-Matthews/Nylander deals ($$$$/$$) and the final year of Tavares/Marner (22M) in 2024/25. I imagine Tavares will finish off that contract and transition to Spezza-ish deals.
Matthews should get paid whatever he wants, but if he wants the Cup he has to know he's gotta leave something on the table so he has more than just Mitch Marner to play with.
Nylander is probably going to cause yet another media firestorm through no direct action of his; we could point to the Chris Kreider contract (6.5M x 7 as a 28 year old) as an anchoring point (did you hit 50G yet?). I think he's an easy 8M x 8 to close out his prime earning window as he is a very durable and consistent pseudo-primary scoring threat.
I think it'll look a bit like
Matthews 14.34
Marner 12.16
Nylander 8
Rielly 7.5
42M and these guys are buying dinner every night.
L K
Active member
Others have already said so I just want to be a parrot.
You don't gain cap space when a player goes on LTIR, you just increase the total cap dollar.
So if the Leafs were 100% to the cap (82.5M) and John Tavares when on LTIR (11M) the Leafs would have 11M in salary cap space to replace him. They get that 11M because Tavares 11M cap hit can be filled in while he remains on LTIR. If the Leafs added 8M in players through callup/trades they would then have 90.5M in cap utilization against a total cap potential of 92.5M But that cap space is only as valid as the player remains on LTIR. Because the Leafs cap number is still over 82.5M any bonus overage immediately rolls over into next year so over 35 players and rookie contracts could hurt your cap next year.
If Tavares comes back off LTIR before the end of the season the Leafs potential cap maximum goes to 82.5M and they would have to unload the 8M in cap overage.
Where the LTIR really helps you is in the Kucherov scenario where the player doesn't come off LTIR until after the end of the season when the cap no longer matters. You have to be cap compliant before the start of the year so you can't take advantage of LTIR in the offseason unless you have handshake agreements to sign contracts the day after the calendar season goes into effect.
You don't gain cap space when a player goes on LTIR, you just increase the total cap dollar.
So if the Leafs were 100% to the cap (82.5M) and John Tavares when on LTIR (11M) the Leafs would have 11M in salary cap space to replace him. They get that 11M because Tavares 11M cap hit can be filled in while he remains on LTIR. If the Leafs added 8M in players through callup/trades they would then have 90.5M in cap utilization against a total cap potential of 92.5M But that cap space is only as valid as the player remains on LTIR. Because the Leafs cap number is still over 82.5M any bonus overage immediately rolls over into next year so over 35 players and rookie contracts could hurt your cap next year.
If Tavares comes back off LTIR before the end of the season the Leafs potential cap maximum goes to 82.5M and they would have to unload the 8M in cap overage.
Where the LTIR really helps you is in the Kucherov scenario where the player doesn't come off LTIR until after the end of the season when the cap no longer matters. You have to be cap compliant before the start of the year so you can't take advantage of LTIR in the offseason unless you have handshake agreements to sign contracts the day after the calendar season goes into effect.