I figure someone has done the math on what it would look like if Bryz decided to retire this year? Anyone have that math?

I figure that is also making people have an itchier finger for a buyout?

Why is this rule in place? To keep players from retiring early to help a club and keep contracts more reasonable?

Edit: Thanks BTW!
- coffee junkie

to create a large disincentive against backdiving contracts and to punish those that did prior to new CBA.

You can find better than that on the open market somewhere.

I hear you about Talbot at center, but I'd rather have him at wing.
- johndewar

Example?

Would be, my only concern would be that VAN realizes that Edler would be a franchise defenseman here and would try to pull an over payment. You're right though Hartnell by himself isn't far off.
- JAKEw1234

Edler is not a franchise defenseman anywhere.

Carle > Suter???
- Jimmygrazz

Carle has played much better in the 2013 Worlds than Suter has.

Edler is not a franchise defenseman anywhere.
- Feanor

True, but he is a very good puck moving defenseman with decent size that makes a very nice first pass out of the defensive zone and can play on the powerplay. Those guys are at a premium right now and are hard to acquire.

tumble weeds in here today man....

can't we get some people arguing about carle? draft picks? jvr? anything?
- hammarby31

Sure did you watch the OHL highlights from last night?

Edler is not a franchise defenseman anywhere.
- Feanor

I could strongly argue that.

True, but he is a very good puck moving defenseman with decent size that makes a very nice first pass out of the defensive zone and can play on the powerplay. Those guys are at a premium right now and are hard to acquire.
- BiggE

pretty much. all the more reason to draft and develop them themselves...if they can.

I would still rather try and make a deal for Edler. As much as I like Simmonds, he can be replaced in the free agent market (Clarkson, Clowe, Horton etc...). I'm not sure that Simmonds alone would get the deal done, but maybe Simmonds and next years 2nd?
I would be very happy going into next year with a D of
Edler
Schenn
Timonen
Coburn
Grossman
Gus/Mezaros

They could then perhaps move Mezaros in the fall to fill any other needs

Thoughts?
- BiggE

My thoughts are that Simmonds and a 2nd isn't enough to get Edler. If it was, I'd make that deal in a heartbeat.

I figure someone has done the math on what it would look like if Bryz decided to retire this year? Anyone have that math?

I figure that is also making people have an itchier finger for a buyout?

Why is this rule in place? To keep players from retiring early to help a club and keep contracts more reasonable?

Edit: Thanks BTW!
- coffee junkie

The rule is place to punish teams who signed players to back diving contracts. Most of the money in those deals is front loaded. So in the early part of the deal, the team receives Cap savings. The players actual salary is far more then the Cap hit. It's not until the end of the deal that the team has to pay those savings back, when the Cap hit is higher then the actual salary. Teams were extending deals, for longer then the player might play. So if the player retires early, the team never has to pay for those Cap savings at the end of the deal. And they have essentially circumvented the Cap. The League wants salary paid out, and cap hit paid, to be equal.

My thoughts are that Simmonds and a 2nd isn't enough to get Edler. If it was, I'd make that deal in a heartbeat.
- MJL

I agree. Edler would be a great addition to this team at a fair cap hit (5M). Why does everyone think he will be available? VAN is pissed and wants to get bigger and change things up. Not sure trading Edler is the way to do that.

That said, I would happily trade Hartnel and a 2nd for him and I am not a fan of trading Hartnel. But there are several replacements on the market this year for what he brings in terms of a big body power forward (not his leadership though).

I wonder if VAN would be interested in a Coburn & Hartnel for Edler + trade? Not sure I would but it would make them bigger.

I figure someone has done the math on what it would look like if Bryz decided to retire this year? Anyone have that math?

I figure that is also making people have an itchier finger for a buyout?

Why is this rule in place? To keep players from retiring early to help a club and keep contracts more reasonable?

Edit: Thanks BTW!
- coffee junkie

Flyers wouldn't incur much of a penalty if he retired today. About 700K on the Cap a year for the rest of the deal.

The rule is place to punish teams who signed players to back diving contracts. Most of the money in those deals is front loaded. So in the early part of the deal, the team receives Cap savings. The players actual salary is far more then the Cap hit. It's not until the end of the deal that the team has to pay those savings back, when the Cap hit is higher then the actual salary. Teams were extending deals, for longer then the player might play. So if the player retires early, the team never has to pay for those Cap savings at the end of the deal. And they have essentially circumvented the Cap. The League wants salary paid out, and cap hit paid, to be equal.
- MJL

I understand all that. I don't like punishing teams for working within the rules at the time. I don't like it.

How might this affect Bryz? Seems like a buyout is even more likely now to me.

Edit: just saw above post. and subsequent years?

Or we could just trade Scott Hartnell, Matt Read, and maybe one small asset for Alex Edler. A proven 40-goal scoring power forward is no small asset, and he's in the same age range as Edler so it's not an out of this world notion. I don't think it'd be able to fly 1 for 1, but at the same time I think it'd be possible to strike a deal and keep Read out of it, maybe in favor of some prospects or higher picks. Brandon Manning anyone?
- JAKEw1234

I'd be willing to trade Hartnell & a pick for Edler & a pick, or even Simmonds for Edler, with picks or something else going either way.

A nucks fan tossed Kesler & Edler for Schenn, Simmonds and a 1st up, but Kesler's injury history scares me off.

I understand all that. I don't like punishing teams for working within the rules at the time. I don't like it.

How might this affect Bryz? Seems like a buyout is even more likely now to me.

Edit: just saw above post. and subsequent years?
- coffee junkie

I don't like it either. It should have been from this point on. Not for deals signed before the new CBA. I reedited my post. It would be 700K or so per year for the rest of the deal.

The rule is place to punish teams who signed players to back diving contracts. Most of the money in those deals is front loaded. So in the early part of the deal, the team receives Cap savings. The players actual salary is far more then the Cap hit. It's not until the end of the deal that the team has to pay those savings back, when the Cap hit is higher then the actual salary. Teams were extending deals, for longer then the player might play. So if the player retires early, the team never has to pay for those Cap savings at the end of the deal. And they have essentially circumvented the Cap. The League wants salary paid out, and cap hit paid, to be equal.
- MJL

The keyword being 'punish'. The way I understand it, Bettman took major exception to the frontloaded contracts, and carried that umbrage to CBA negotiations.

Sure did you watch the OHL highlights from last night?
- ob18

I've never seen a game won with .1 second left let alone a game 7. Stunning.

The keyword being 'punish'. The way I understand it, Bettman took major exception to the frontloaded contracts, and carried that umbrage to CBA negotiations.
- BulliesPhan87

That's true for sure. The thing is, would the Flyers or other teams sign the players to the deals they did, if that rule was in place? They didn't have the opportunity to make that decision. I guess the League feels if you don't like it now, here's your chance to get out of it. Use the Compliance buyout. But that's a big chunk of change.

I'd be willing to trade Hartnell & a pick for Edler & a pick, or even Simmonds for Edler, with picks or something else going either way.

A nucks fan tossed Kesler & Edler for Schenn, Simmonds and a 1st up, but Kesler's injury history scares me off.
- Jsaquella

And the age issue. That'd demolish our youth core. A 28 and 29 year old for a 21 and a 24 year old? No thanks. If we trade for a mid age player, I hope strongly that we are giving a mid age player or a veteran back in return, hence, Hartnell is a better trade option than Simmonds for me. I'd rather give Hartnell + a bit more small assets than Simmonds + a few less small assets. I think signing Clarkson would do an easy job at filling most gaps that Hartnell would leave. You make a trade for Evander Kane as well, and a month or two into the season you won't even remember Hartnell used to play for this team, at least in the physicality aspect.

Edler is not a franchise defenseman anywhere.
- Feanor

I agree not a franchise player. But he's in that All star caliber. And he's a better all around player then say a defenseman like Yandle is. Edler can play in all situations. QB the PP. He hits and blocks shots. If he's available, then the Flyers have to make a strong push. But I'll believe he's available when I see it.

That's true for sure. The thing is, would the Flyers or other teams sign the players to the deals they did, if that rule was in place? They didn't have the opportunity to make that decision. I guess the League feels if you don't like it now, here's your chance to get out of it. Use the Compliance buyout. But that's a big chunk of change.
- MJL

I guess he feels they knew (i.e. should have known) what they were getting into when they gamed the system.

And the age issue. That'd demolish our youth core. A 28 and 29 year old for a 21 and a 24 year old? No thanks. If we trade for a mid age player, I hope strongly that we are giving a mid age player or a veteran back in return, hence, Hartnell is a better trade option than Simmonds for me. I'd rather give Hartnell + a bit more small assets than Simmonds + a few less small assets. I think signing Clarkson would do an easy job at filling most gaps that Hartnell would leave. You make a trade for Evander Kane as well, and a month or two into the season you won't even remember Hartnell used to play for this team, at least in the physicality aspect.
- JAKEw1234

What are the small assets that you would have to add to Hartnell?

And this is the 2nd time you mentioned Kane. Why exactly is Winnipeg trading Evander Kane?

I agree not a franchise player. But he's in that All star caliber. And he's a better all around player then say a defenseman like Yandle is. Edler can play in all situations. QB the PP. He hits and blocks shots. If he's available, then the Flyers have to make a strong push. But I'll believe he's available when I see it.
- MJL

Was there a rumor that Vancouver was gonna blow it up last season? Cause this season even the few Vancouver fans I've talked to have agreed that they're gonna blow it up this year.

I guess he feels they knew what they were getting into when they gamed the system.
- BulliesPhan87

It's the kind of petty bullpoop that an bumhole like Bettman would pull. The Flyers and others found a loop hole and exploited it. Bettman not only wanted to fix the loophole, but give a kick in the ass to anyone smart enough to foil his hard salary cap.

Petty little bumhole with a Napoleon complex.

What are the small assets that you would have to add to Hartnell?

And this is the 2nd time you mentioned Kane. Why exactly is Winnipeg trading Evander Kane?
- MJL

Because the Flyers want him, dummy