Q: Viktor Kozlov signed in Russia earlier this week. There is also talk in Russia that Avangard Omsk is trying to get Michael Nylander over to the KHL. This brings the following question: in the absence of the transfer agreement between the NHL and the Russians, how can a player, like Nylander, with an NHL contract go and play it Russia?
KELLY: Technically, he can't. Unless the Capitals take certain steps to end his contract by buying him out or something like that. And this is one of the issues we have had with the KHL. We should be respecting each other's contracts. The NHL shouldn't be signing any players under contract in Russia, and vice versa, they shouldn't be signing guys who have NHL obligations. We will watch that very carefully, but they should not permit players, who have contractual obligations elsewhere, to sign.
Q: Even if the Capitals, for example, don't mind him signing in the KHL?
KELLY: Again, if it gets cleared by the club and the league approves then it is a different story. I am not aware that that's happened with respect to Michael Nylander.
4 months ago
Stephen Pepper
83 comments
1 recs |
Email
PrintComments
This isn’t more smoke – it’s asking a new person about the ramifications of the same smoke.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
by J.P. on Jun 11, 2009 3:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
In our case, maybe more like a half-smoke.
by Stephen Pepper on Jun 11, 2009 3:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah but it raises a great point about said smoke…
The way I read it, Nylanders contract would probably have to be bought out, which, as G.O.D pointed out awhile back, does not, fiscally speaking, make sense for the team.
Realistically, what’re the chances the NHL is willing to void the contract?
by Yoshietree on Jun 11, 2009 3:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just hypothetically, no idea if this would work, but assume that the Caps, Omsk, and Nylander all want this to happen. Could Nylander waive his NMC to be sent to Hershey, where his contract no longer hits the caps, and then be bought out? Would that keep the transaction off the Caps salary?
by HateOffSeason on Jun 11, 2009 3:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don’t think so.
Terms for a buyout are included in every SPC, and are exclusive, pursuant to the CBA. See 50.9(i) (iii) which reads:
Clubs and Players shall not be permitted to negotiate either a different amount or different length of time over which buyout obligations may be paid.
By the way, if you want to research further the tortured calculations of a salary cap hit as a result of a Nylander buyout, see 50.5(d)(iii).
by Stephen Pepper on Jun 11, 2009 3:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, because his contract is still with the Capitals.
by David M. Getz on Jun 11, 2009 4:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Zippy – the League (and the PA) would see it as a slippery slope that could lead to either teams or players forcing similar situations as outs on bad contracts. Are the Caps ready to do battle with the League over Michael Nylander? I wouldn’t think so.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
by J.P. on Jun 11, 2009 3:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Taking what what you said one step further….your scenario kinda eliminates the possibility of a true transfer agreement between the KHL and NHL (European football style).
by Yoshietree on Jun 11, 2009 3:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m not too familiar with Euro football leagues, but someone tell me why the NHL and NHLPA would be OK with a team essentially forcing a veteran player to waive a bargained-for clause in his contract (or, alternatively, a player forcing the team to release him) so that he can be allowed to go play in a rival league, and I’ll start believing there’s something to these rumors. It would be a bad precedent for the NHL.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
by J.P. on Jun 11, 2009 3:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m pretty sure in the Euro football leagues a team can flat out buy a player from another team…see what’s happened over the last couple of days with Ronaldo.
As for the half-smoke we’re seeing with Nyls…legally speaking, I can’t see it being anything more than smoke.
by Yoshietree on Jun 11, 2009 3:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You don’t buy the player, you compensate a team for signing away a player of theirs under mutual agreement.
Footballers have contracts, just like any other pro athlete. They don’t have to go if a transfer bid is accepted for them, they can negotiate a new contract with their new team, and they can become free agents.
by David M. Getz on Jun 11, 2009 4:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Since there’s no transfer agreement with Russia, can a KHL team “buy” Nylander’s contract from the Caps for a negotiated price? Assuming Nylander agrees to it, as well.
by gfcaps fan on Jun 11, 2009 3:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That’s kind of what I was talking about when comparing it to the European football leagues. And there would still be the issue of cost against the cap for the Caps.
by Yoshietree on Jun 11, 2009 3:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’d think that Gary and the PA would literally (literally!) shit a brick if the Caps tried to do that.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
by J.P. on Jun 11, 2009 3:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Unless ofcourse the KHL/Avangard Omsk come to an agreement with the NHL on a “settlement” figure….
I’m sure both Gary and the PA would be more open to letting players go to the KHL if some sort of financial payment were arranged. Though I think that is the heart of the problem regarding a transfer agreement between the NHL and KHL. I seem to remember the Russians wanting/demanding some sort of financial compensation for losing all of the elite young Russians.
/will never happen
by Yoshietree on Jun 11, 2009 3:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right – that’s what they couldn’t agree on in the first place. But there’s no way that the NHL is going to let a member franchise negotiate independently with another League.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
by J.P. on Jun 11, 2009 3:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Throwing this out there with the caveat that it will never happen.
But what if Omsk puts an offer on the table that makes sense to Nyls…either financially speaking or simply because he doesn’t fit in with BB’s system. Both Nyls and GMGM realize it is best for both parties and they get the NHL and the NHLPA involved to negotiate compensation for his services. Omsk offers $10 million or whatever…eveyrone decides that’s fair. Caps get to void the contract, Omsk gets their player, Nyls gets to play and the NHL and NHLPA have a bit more cash in their coffers.
I’m pretty sure that’s how it works in European football and it seems to work out relatively nicely. Granted they don’t have hard salary caps (if at all) like the NHL…
It would NEVER work, but I’d still be intrigued to see the figure that the parties come up with for Nyls’ worth.
by Yoshietree on Jun 11, 2009 4:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
but even in that scenario, if the caps were freed of nylander’s actual salary, they wouldn’t be freed from his cap hit (or they shouldn’t be, since they signed him and would be complicit with his move)…which was the problem with buying him out to begin with.
by Natty Bumppo on Jun 11, 2009 4:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Caps wouldn’t need to void the contract, they wouldn’t even need to consent. Nyls could go to Omsk and the Caps would simply suspend him, although I’m sure they wouldn’t strenuously object. As long as Nyls has no great hopes for playing in any IIFH sanctioned tourneys (and he’s probably not earning a spot on any big rosters by staying here and not playing) he probably wouldn’t care about the NHL’s opinion on the matter if it’s what he wanted to do.
by brs03 on Jun 11, 2009 4:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think I’d be willing to pay to see that.
by gfcaps fan on Jun 11, 2009 4:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wouldn’t it be cool if that brick were sent to the HHOF?
Russian Machine Never Breaks
by macvechkin on Jun 11, 2009 8:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
questions for the ignorant (me): what were the ramifications (salary-cap wise) of radulov skipping out on the predators? since the preds had no hand in it and presumably wanted him back, was the cap hit excused? and how could the league prove that the capitals were complicit in a nylander exit?
by Natty Bumppo on Jun 11, 2009 3:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think Radulov’s hit was excused because the NHL and IIHF both objected to the breach, so Nashville got to suspend him without pay (refusal to report) and got free of the hit.
by Bald Pollack on Jun 11, 2009 3:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
so that was my layman’s understanding, also. so if the league and the IIHF both protested a nylander move, that couldn’t actually prevent him from jumping ship if he was willing to give up his salary, and whether the caps secretly wish him to leave is irrelevant. why not just take the public stance against the move and recoup the salary hit if he leaves? i can’t see how the league could punish the caps if nylander picked up and left against their wishes.
by Natty Bumppo on Jun 11, 2009 3:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So Nylander utterly destroys his reputation and leaves $9m on the table while the Caps ramp up the faux outrage over him leaving the team? It’d be a traveshamockery.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
by J.P. on Jun 11, 2009 3:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
One day I’ll learn to read through a thread before posting.
by Yoshietree on Jun 11, 2009 3:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
then the expectation is that nylander only leaves if he gets two paychecks next year? because the entire discussion revolves around nylander skipping out on the NHL one way or the other…his reputation is what it is at this point.
if a nylander KHL move necessitates a true contract buyout (which has been discussed here before), then there’s no reason to be excited about it. again i know radulov is the only real example, but he left money on the table for his move…albeit much less.
by Natty Bumppo on Jun 11, 2009 3:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
In addition to him up and leaving (doubtful), it also happens if a) Nylander waives his NMC so that b) he is bought out (leaving ~$3m on the table here) and c) then he leaves town.
Is there any reason to believe that b would happen? No, no, a hundred times no.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
by J.P. on Jun 11, 2009 3:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
right, but moreover there’s no reason we would ever want B to happen (same GOD fanpost link). so all of the excitement and “i’ll drive him to the airport” comments are false. only a move within the NHL* would actually benefit the caps, since the team would need to buy him out otherwise.
*yes, and only if he waives his NMC.
by Natty Bumppo on Jun 11, 2009 3:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What if Nylander retires?
Then later he signs a contract with the KHL. Guys have certainly come out of retirement before.
by Stormblue on Jun 11, 2009 4:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
if nylander retires, you get back to the assumption (probably a safe one) that he would never leave that much money on the table.
by Natty Bumppo on Jun 11, 2009 4:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s $8.5m here. Would he leave that on the table for $10m there?
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
by J.P. on Jun 11, 2009 4:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Depends on how much he values the opinions throughout North America. I’d say that 1.5 million is much too small a number as his reputation and career here would be tarnished.
by Yoshietree on Jun 11, 2009 4:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
more tarnished than sitting on the bench for the Caps like he did in the playoffs?
by Stormblue on Jun 11, 2009 4:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
wouldn’t it be more money once you factor in lower taxes and no player escrow (and assume the KHL team pays their bills??)
Because now I can justify browsing and commenting during the work day with the argument that I am promoting my business.
by Sombrero Guy on Jun 11, 2009 4:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t think his rep would matter one whit to him. He’s on his last legs as a hockey player. This is his last North American contract. Given how he handled the Edmonton situation, I don’t think he gives a rat’s ass. His primary concerns are now: family, getting paid, and getting some playing time.
If his family’s amenable to the move, and he can pull down (after the smaller Russian income tax) around the same amount of money, why not leave?
by D'ohboy on Jun 11, 2009 4:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Btw…
When a player aged 35 or older signs a multi-year contract, his average salary is counted against the team’s salary cap during every year of the contract, even if the player retires before the contract is up.How old was Nyls when he signed here?
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
by J.P. on Jun 11, 2009 4:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
34. Huzzah.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
by J.P. on Jun 11, 2009 4:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That’s got to be one of the most mind-boggling things I’ve ever read. I’m sure there is something obvious that I’m completely missing, but why the hell should a team be penalized like that?
For example, suppose last summer Feds signed a 2 yr/$8 mil contract instead of a one year, and then right now he feels like he has nothing left and wants to retire and walk away from the contract. Why should the Caps salary cap for ’09-10 be fucked because an old player decided to hang them up?
by Cluster on Jun 11, 2009 9:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So you cant front load an old guy with a huge contract. If you give a 35 year old 11 mil for year 1 and 1 mil for years 2-10, his cap hit is 2 mil. Then he can retire at any time and you lose the cap hit. This is to prevent that. Maybe?
At least that is my guess
by renstar on Jun 11, 2009 9:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bingo.
One would think, though, that a clause that would exempt from the rule any contract in which the salary was the same in each year would adequately address both concerns.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
by J.P. on Jun 11, 2009 9:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Makes sense. Second part of the clause could be that old fogey contracts with varying annual salaries have yearly cap hits equal to the salary being paid that year, rather than an average hit across the life of the deal.
by Cluster on Jun 11, 2009 9:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Or cap hits equal to the max paying year, that would hurt
by renstar on Jun 12, 2009 7:29 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s gonna have to be a HUGE contract for him to leave 9 million sitting on the table in DC.
by Yoshietree on Jun 11, 2009 3:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Radulov was under contract. He bolted himself and so was suspended, thus no cap hit. Here, Nylander would, it seems, have to be bought out (and Caps would have to absorb the cap hit for that, which McPhee has stated that he isn’t willing to do). Then Nylander’s contract would be done, and he would then be a FA.
Nylander would never leave on his own accord, as did Radulov. It makes no sense financially or for his family. Looks like there’s only one way to rock, as Sammy Hagar would say, and McPhee isn’t, for now, going that route.
by Stephen Pepper on Jun 11, 2009 3:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
They should be able to organize a loan, and as far as I know that would mean it would simply be Omsk paying his contract. I’m not sure the Caps would be allowed to compensate them if the salary’s too rich (I’m guessing not) but either way that seems like the most likely “legal” option.
Illegally he could just bolt and we suspend him, but I think that has the negative of his contract never expiring which means if he ever wanted to come back to the NHL he’d still be ours.
by brs03 on Jun 11, 2009 4:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think a bigger issue will be in play if the NHL forbids players from participating in the Sochi Olympics…will we see players (particularly Russian) jump to the KHL for a year?
Could you really blame Ovechkin if he did that?
The NHL needs to work this out….though hopefully after Nylander jumps through this no movement clause loophole.
by Stormblue on Jun 11, 2009 3:04 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Could you really blame Ovechkin if he did that?
Yes – he’d be in violation of a contractual obligation.
But that would never happen, because the IIHF would be out in front barring any player who made such a move from participating in the Olympics.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
by J.P. on Jun 11, 2009 3:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
IIHF would be out in front barring any player who made such a move from participating in the Olympics.
really? dothe NHL and IIHF often work together in that way? what about if a player like ovechkin just decided to take the fine/suspension and leave the team for three weeks against NHL wishes? could the IIHF prevent it?
by Natty Bumppo on Jun 11, 2009 3:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s my understanding that the IIHF, whenever possible, honors the suspensions and disciplinary actions of the Leagues from which the players originate.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
by J.P. on Jun 11, 2009 3:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Of course, the IIHF did let Radulov play in the World Championships…
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
by J.P. on Jun 11, 2009 3:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Let’s see…Hart Finalists…Ovie. Malkin. Datsyuk.
I’d be mighty surprised if the NHL plays with fire and tries to deny these guys the Sochi Olympics. You do not want to create that kind of ill will.
Russian Machine Never Breaks
by macvechkin on Jun 11, 2009 8:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
KELLY: Technically, he can’t. Unless the Capitals take certain steps to end his contract by buying him out or something like that. And this is one of the issues we have had with the KHL. We should be respecting each other’s contracts. The NHL shouldn’t be signing any players under contract in Russia, and vice versa, they shouldn’t be signing guys who have NHL obligations. We will watch that very carefully, but they should not permit players, who have contractual obligations elsewhere, to sign.
Q: Even if the Capitals, for example, don’t mind him signing in the KHL?
KELLY: Again, if it gets cleared by the club and the league approves then it is a different story. I am not aware that that’s happened with respect to Michael Nylander.
Why do I read this and see a big “wink” coming on, like one of those “automatic” suspensions (cuz that’s what the “rule” says) that ends up being not so automatic?
If you've read this far...seek help.
by ThePeerless on Jun 11, 2009 3:29 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Kasparaitis
If I recall correctly, the Rangers did something like this with Kasparaitis two years ago. Does anyone know the details of how they pulled that off?
by D'ohboy on Jun 11, 2009 4:17 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Despite working hard towards a return to the NHL, Kasparaitis was once again waived by the Rangers prior to the 2007–08 season.
On November 3, 2007 the Rangers announced that Kasparaitis had been loaned to SKA St. Petersburg of the Russian Superleague (RSL). The deal is made possible due to a lack of a transfer agreement between Russia and North America, however the Rangers will retain his NHL rights. (per Wiki)
See, this is what I’m failing to understand. Kelly seems to imply that only via ending the contract can Nylander move to the K. But here we have that word “loan” again.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
by J.P. on Jun 11, 2009 4:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What it sounds like to me is that Nylander the person can do whatever he wants. “Nylander” the contract entity, however, looks like he will either be bought out, or a Cap. Kelly’s making it sound like the Caps will have to deal with his cap hit no matter what happens.
by DrinkingPartner on Jun 11, 2009 4:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s possible that Kelly doesn’t know what the hell he’s talking about and/or is just blowing smoke.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
by J.P. on Jun 11, 2009 4:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I think Kelly doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Per the CBA:
13.2 The “Playing Season Waiver Period” shall begin on the twelfth (12th) day prior to the start of the Regular Season and end on the day following the last day of a Club’s
Playing Season. Subject to the provisions of this Article, the rights to the services of a
Player may be Loaned to a club of another league, upon fulfillment of the following
conditions, except when elsewhere expressly prohibited:
(a) Regular Waivers were requested and cleared during the Playing Season
Waiver Period; and
(b) the Player has not played in ten (10) or more NHL Games cumulative
since Regular Waivers on him were last cleared, and more than thirty (30) days
cumulative on an NHL roster have not passed since Regular Waivers on him were last
cleared.
So he waives his NMC, Caps waive him and he’s either claimed (fine) or can be loaned to the KHL (fine). Problem solved?
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
by J.P. on Jun 11, 2009 4:33 PM EDT up reply actions 11 recs
Exactly.
He’s loaned, the Caps pay his salary but don’t pay the cap hit, end of story.
by David M. Getz on Jun 11, 2009 4:34 PM EDT up reply actions 4 recs
so i’m allowed to get excited again about the extremely unlikely KHL-loan scenario? sweet!
by Natty Bumppo on Jun 11, 2009 7:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This needs to be rec’d so it turns green and no one has to read the mental gymnastics we did trying to get around Kelly’s misrepresentation of the CBA.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
by J.P. on Jun 11, 2009 4:37 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I did my part, rec’d. Good job, J.P.
by DrinkingPartner on Jun 11, 2009 4:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I just wish I’d been thinking at the outset – would’ve saved time. Oh well, this is what happens when you’re trying to do something important… and work at the same time.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
by J.P. on Jun 11, 2009 4:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It should also be mentioned that the NHL can’t even manage to keep their TEAMS from moving…how likely is it they are going to get this right.
by Stormblue on Jun 11, 2009 4:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I turns green? I hate being colorblind sometimes. . .
by D'ohboy on Jun 11, 2009 8:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If memory serves, they really did discover that Kasparaitis was a disease.
by TylerG on Jun 11, 2009 4:19 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Ok, to answer myself, it seems like he’d have to waive his NMC, then we’d waive him. Once he clears waivers, we’re free to “loan” him to a KHL franchise, assuming he’s willing.
The real question is, would he make it through waivers? He likely wouldn’t. So then the question is, would he agree to waive his NMC knowing full well that he wouldn’t make it through waivers and might end up somewhere like, oh, I dunno. . . EDMONTON. If he did agree to be placed on waivers, and someone claimed him, we’d be on the hook for half his salary for the remainder of the contract. I think I’d be OK with that. . .
by D'ohboy on Jun 11, 2009 4:21 PM EDT up reply actions 5 recs
If he agreed to be placed on waivers and was claimed, that team would be responsible for ALL of his salary, not just half. It’s re-entry waivers that’s half, and we wouldn’t have to worry about re-entry, b/c he’d be loaned out once he cleared good ol’ regular waivers.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
by J.P. on Jun 11, 2009 4:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But how would he not clear waivers? And if he wouldn’t, why wouldn’t the Caps just trade him to a team with interest in him, allowing him to have some control over where he went? This, it seems, is back to square one.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
by J.P. on Jun 11, 2009 4:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What about Col. Mustard in the library with the pipe?
by TylerG on Jun 11, 2009 4:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I thought a team would be interested in grabbing him for .5 of the total salary. At $2.5m or so, he’s not a bad addition. At $4.875m, he’s an albatross.
If he’s not available for half-price, then I don’t think anyone grabs him, but then, Garth Snow is still a GM in the NHL and Jacques Martin still has a job. . .
by D'ohboy on Jun 11, 2009 4:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The only reason to believe there is a chance of this happening is that there is a dearth of UFA Cs. Speaking of which… I figure either Brian Gionta or Mike Knuble will be a Cap in the fall. But among the teams that STILL needs a second-line C….
by TylerG on Jun 11, 2009 4:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Gionta is solid, but do you think he would be a good fit for the top line at 5’ 7"? I like Knuble (well not really, but I would in Caps sweater), but is there any chance to sign an UFA for 1 year? He seems too old for a multiyear deal at biggish bucks.
by CaliCapsFan on Jun 11, 2009 5:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Knuble is old, but he’s stayed pretty healthy over the last few years. He’s a pretty good skater for someone of his size, but his game (like say, Andrew Brunette’s) doesn’t rely much on blazing speed. If he were a baseball player, you’d say that he has “good old-player skills.” For two years at a reasonable rate, I’d be very happy to have him.
My big hope is that this team doesn’t block Bourque from coming up and getting regular minutes next year. Every time I watch the Bears, I’m more impressed with him. He needs to play with/against better players though.
by D'ohboy on Jun 11, 2009 8:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
For a moment, if we divorce ourselves from the disappointment in Nylander’s contract and performance this season, we can recall that he’s a year removed from essentially three straight years of point-per-game production. For $2.5m, that’s a steal. Now obviously, he’s highly unlikely to produce at that level again, but even at a half a point-per-game, I’d take him at $2.5m if I had a place for a top-2 center and I didn’t think I was a cup contender.
Now, for the Caps (or most any other rational team) at $4.875m, he either needs to do a great impersonation of a #2 center or get the heck out of town, because he’s cramping our cap room.
I could see Knuble, Gionta not so much. McPhee likes bigger players, and something tells me that there’s a GM out there willing to pay Gionta for his 05-06 season when he went batshit-crazy. I sure hope it’s not McPhee, because his true talent level is as a 20-25 goal scorer.
by D'ohboy on Jun 11, 2009 8:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why wouldn’t they trade him? Because if you can get him without giving anything up, that has to be a plus, especially when you know his team wants to be rid of him. But as you say, he has to agree to it.
by gfcaps fan on Jun 11, 2009 4:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You’re doing a lot of replying to yourself today - time to up those schizophrenia meds? ;)
by Scott in Shaw on Jun 11, 2009 5:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m rec’ing this because you figured it out 12 minutes before JP posted the green block above that says the same thing.
by Scott in Shaw on Jun 11, 2009 5:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Damn. Pwnd.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
by J.P. on Jun 11, 2009 5:37 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on Japers' Rink
Related FanShots on Japers' Rink
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
Southeast Standings
| GP | W | L | OTL | PT | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Washington
|
16 | 9 | 3 | 4 | 22 |
|
Tampa Bay
|
14 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 15 |
|
Atlanta
|
12 | 6 | 5 | 1 | 13 |
|
Florida
|
14 | 5 | 8 | 1 | 11 |
|
Carolina
|
15 | 2 | 10 | 3 | 7 |
(updated 11.7.2009 at 9:10 AM EST)
Latest stories and headlines from NHL.com
- Hurricanes G Ward taken to hospital after being cut in leg by skate
- Islanders get offence from unlikely places, beat Thrashers 6-3 before long road trip
- Stars extend Moose's losing streak to five games with 3-1 victory
- Detroit Red Wings lose Jason Williams to injury against Maple Leafs
- Saint John Sea Dogs wins 10 in a row, take a 6-2 bite out of Huskies
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
