Bill Meltzer: Meltzer's Musings: VandeVelde, Gustafsson, Quick Hits

Good Monday morning. Great insight on the situation. Thanks.

Bill Meltzer: Meltzer's Musings: VandeVelde, Gustafsson, Quick Hits
- bmeltzer

bill - if they dump meszaros (or another vet dman) what do you think they're look for in return other than some cap relief? i thought they didn't need to trade anyone to get under the cap - so if that's true - why would they do this if they indeed don't have a "cap problem" as some in here believe.

bill - if they dump meszaros (or another vet dman) what do you think they're look for in return other than some cap relief? i thought they didn't need to trade anyone to get under the cap - so if that's true - why would they do this if they indeed don't have a "cap problem" as some in here believe.
- hammarby31

There is no cap problem at all Hammar. There will be someone arriving in the thread soon to make sure everyone knows there are no cap issues.

Looks as if there is a fair amount of questions marks heading into the season. As always health. As always goaltending. Not to mention there is a big hole on the third line if the Flyers decide to go the Raffl, VandeVelde route. Hopefully at this point they just put Talbot on the third line, and Laughton makes the team.

I'm still in favor of keeping both Grossmann and Meszaros. If they're both healthy, they're of more value to the team by staying rather than to be thrown away. Having 7 healthy NHL-caliber defensemen is not a bad thing, especially given the rate at which this team's defense always seems to get injured.

Bill Meltzer: Meltzer's Musings: VandeVelde, Gustafsson, Quick Hits
- bmeltzer

I've been surprised that VandeVeld has lasted this long, myself. But that said, if he gives the Flyers another low cost option to fill a spot, I'm all for it.

Although, Brendan Morrow on a 1 year, $1.5mm deal would be more than acceptable, too.

bill - if they dump meszaros (or another vet dman) what do you think they're look for in return other than some cap relief? i thought they didn't need to trade anyone to get under the cap - so if that's true - why would they do this if they indeed don't have a "cap problem" as some in here believe.
- hammarby31

As it stands right now, they have a cap overage. However, there are a number of possible ways to get under the cap by game time opening night.

bill - if they dump meszaros (or another vet dman) what do you think they're look for in return other than some cap relief? i thought they didn't need to trade anyone to get under the cap - so if that's true - why would they do this if they indeed don't have a "cap problem" as some in here believe.
- hammarby31

They can send Schenn and Couts to the minors as a 'paper move' then LTIR Pronger. The problem is that it wouldn't give them much wiggle room at the TDL.

I still think the Flyers should keep all 7 dmen unless a great offer comes their way. Even as a 7th dman, I imagine Gus will get plenty of playing time on this injury riddled defense.

I feel like the Flyers would be looking to acquire a dman at the TDL anyway, so why not just keep them without having to give up 2nd round picks.

bill - if they dump meszaros (or another vet dman) what do you think they're look for in return other than some cap relief? i thought they didn't need to trade anyone to get under the cap - so if that's true - why would they do this if they indeed don't have a "cap problem" as some in here believe.
- hammarby31

They are tight to the cap, but they will be in that situation for as long as there is a cap and Snider willingly signs the checks. Being tight to the cap isn't a crime, and if folks want to complain about it, well, they will have years to do so.

The real issue is that by utilizing the LTIR exemption from Pronger, they open themselves up to having to defer bonuses to next year's cap. They're already carrying dead cap space this year from bonuses Schenn and Couturier achieved during last season.

But, no, they don't have to trade anyone to get under the cap...but they will to avoid exceeding the upper limit by a decent margin.

I've been surprised that VandeVeld has lasted this long, myself. But that said, if he gives the Flyers another low cost option to fill a spot, I'm all for it.

Although, Brendan Morrow on a 1 year, $1.5mm deal would be more than acceptable, too.
- Jsaquella

Homer loves those Minnesota kids.

Throwing it out there: Not necessarily condoning it, but what if Gustafsson is the one that ends up dealt? Would bring the most back in trade.

Also, I've been in talks with Michael Wuest at capgeek to confirm whether or not Laughton can have another 9-game tryout. For those who haven't followed, there seems to be a disagreement:
- In the town hall meeting, Holmgren said that Laughton's ELC will kick in as soon as he plays 1 game this season.
- Mark Scheifele on the Jets had a 7-game tryout in 11/12 before being returned to juniors, then had a second 4-game tryout before being returned last year. His ELC kicks in this year.

Per Michael, this is the line that (should) define whether he can or not:

"In the event that a Player signs his first SPC at age 18 and has had his SPC extended pursuant to Subsection (i), and such Player does not play at least ten (10) NHL Games in the second season under that SPC, then the term of his SPC and his number of years in the Entry Level System shall be extended for one (1) additional year."

I'll let someone else decipher this, as Michael refuses to give me a "yes" or "no" answer.

There is no cap problem at all Hammar. There will be someone arriving in the thread soon to make sure everyone knows there are no cap issues.

Looks as if there is a fair amount of questions marks heading into the season. As always health. As always goaltending. Not to mention there is a big hole on the third line if the Flyers decide to go the Raffl, VandeVelde route. Hopefully at this point they just put Talbot on the third line, and Laughton makes the team.
- PLindbergh31

Well if you think there is a cap problem, feel free to provide the information that shows the Flyers have a Cap problem. There are always question marks heading into the Season. I for one am going to let Raffle, or whoever gets the nod to play at least a few games before I declare that there is a big hole on the 3rd line.

Homer loves those Minnesota kids.

Throwing it out there: Not necessarily condoning it, but what if Gustafsson is the one that ends up dealt? Would bring the most back in trade.
- bradleyc4

While we're dealing with horrible ideas, dealing Giroux would also bring in a good haul.

Also, I've been in talks with Michael Wuest at capgeek to confirm whether or not Laughton can have another 9-game tryout. For those who haven't followed, there seems to be a disagreement:
- In the town hall meeting, Holmgren said that Laughton's ELC will kick in as soon as he plays 1 game this season.
- Mark Scheifele on the Jets had a 7-game tryout in 11/12 before being returned to juniors, then had a second 4-game tryout before being returned last year. His ELC kicks in this year.

Per Michael, this is the line that (should) define whether he can or not:

"In the event that a Player signs his first SPC at age 18 and has had his SPC extended pursuant to Subsection (i), and such Player does not play at least ten (10) NHL Games in the second season under that SPC, then the term of his SPC and his number of years in the Entry Level System shall be extended for one (1) additional year."

I'll let someone else decipher this, as Michael refuses to give me a "yes" or "no" answer.
- jmatchett383

Laughton's eligible for another 9-10 games this season.

While we're dealing with horrible ideas, dealing Giroux would also bring in a good haul.
- jmatchett383

Right, because Gustafsson is on par with Giroux. Good call.

Homer loves those Minnesota kids.

Throwing it out there: Not necessarily condoning it, but what if Gustafsson is the one that ends up dealt? Would bring the most back in trade.
- bradleyc4

He wouldn't bring back as much as you'd think. He's still unproven. Removing his salary would still have the Flyers over the cap limit anyway.

Homer loves those Minnesota kids.

Throwing it out there: Not necessarily condoning it, but what if Gustafsson is the one that ends up dealt? Would bring the most back in trade.
- bradleyc4

If we're looking strictly at cap savings, Gustafsson brings the smallest amount in that regard.

From a hockey sense, he also brings mobility and puck skills that the rest of the defense lacks.

He wouldn't bring back as much as you'd think. He's still unproven. Removing his salary would still have the Flyers over the cap limit anyway.
- PhillySportsGuy

He'd bring back more than Meszaros or Grossmann.

And the Flyers don't need to unload salary.

They can send Schenn and Couts to the minors as a 'paper move' then LTIR Pronger. The problem is that it wouldn't give them much wiggle room at the TDL.

I still think the Flyers should keep all 7 dmen unless a great offer comes their way. Even as a 7th dman, I imagine Gus will get plenty of playing time on this injury riddled defense.

I feel like the Flyers would be looking to acquire a dman at the TDL anyway, so why not just keep them without having to give up 2nd round picks.
- PhillySportsGuy

I figured this would be the course of action as well. I really don't feel comfortable dumping one of these guys for a 2015 7th rounder because we want to have cap flexibility. Knowing our cap situation, we aren't getting anything back other than prospects. What we've seen before is that the D will start dropping like flies, and Homer will then have to overpay to get D help that he dealt away. If there's a way to do it, keep em all IMO.

My point is, Meszaros and Grossmann may not be tradeable.

It's probably better to rotate the seven guys until an injury occurs. But they could clear the logjam and bring back a prospect by trading Gustafsson.

Also, I've been in talks with Michael Wuest at capgeek to confirm whether or not Laughton can have another 9-game tryout. For those who haven't followed, there seems to be a disagreement:
- In the town hall meeting, Holmgren said that Laughton's ELC will kick in as soon as he plays 1 game this season.
- Mark Scheifele on the Jets had a 7-game tryout in 11/12 before being returned to juniors, then had a second 4-game tryout before being returned last year. His ELC kicks in this year.

Per Michael, this is the line that (should) define whether he can or not:

"In the event that a Player signs his first SPC at age 18 and has had his SPC extended pursuant to Subsection (i), and such Player does not play at least ten (10) NHL Games in the second season under that SPC, then the term of his SPC and his number of years in the Entry Level System shall be extended for one (1) additional year."

I'll let someone else decipher this, as Michael refuses to give me a "yes" or "no" answer.
- jmatchett383

To me, that language does not refer to being able to give a player the 9 game tryout for lack of better term, two Seasons in a row. However I looked over the CBA and haven't found any language that I interpret as saying that you can't. So maybe we'll find out if they keep Laughton.

Right, because Gustafsson is on par with Giroux. Good call.
- bradleyc4

Never said they were on par. But dealing Gustafsson for anything other than a ridiculous overpayment is a horrible idea.

Gustafsson may bring the best return, but there's no reason to deal him.

He'd bring back more than Meszaros or Grossmann.

And the Flyers don't need to unload salary.
- bradleyc4

I think Gus may fetch a 2nd rounder, but I feel he's more important in the grand scheme of things than a 2nd rounder. Plus, the point of dealing a dman would be for the team to get under the cap without using Pronger's LTIR.

All I'm saying is it would have to be quite a lopsided deal for me to trade Gus.

I figured this would be the course of action as well. I really don't feel comfortable dumping one of these guys for a 2015 7th rounder because we want to have cap flexibility. Knowing our cap situation, we aren't getting anything back other than prospects. What we've seen before is that the D will start dropping like flies, and Homer will then have to overpay to get D help that he dealt away. If there's a way to do it, keep em all IMO.
- Hextall271

My biggest concern is that both Meszaros and Grossmann have injury concerns. Meszaros' issues have largely come over the past two years, and it's hard for me to consider his previous durability.

In Grossmann's case, he has two bad knees and is coming off a concussion. There's really no way to be sure either guy will stay healthy.

My point is, Meszaros and Grossmann may not be tradeable.

It's probably better to rotate the seven guys until an injury occurs. But they could clear the logjam and bring back a prospect by trading Gustafsson.
- bradleyc4

Grossmann is tradeable. Still not sure about Mez though