I will repeat...

We did not need the additional space that moving Ohlund would have provided.
- uf1910

Having the flexibility to add a couple veterans for a playoff run would be the purpose of additional cap space. With all the prospect depth, seems like TB is a position to make those types of trades.

LA is loading up, leveraging other teams cap space to gain a competitive advantage. Meanwhile, TB left themselves in a position were they can't actually spend to the full cap on roster players. In a league where teams are so close, these are the differences between cup winners and runners up.

Second, while it's entirely possible the Blues are in on Stamkos or Drouin, or both, I think it's a bad idea. Chances are, Stamkos signs with Toronto as soon as he's free; and while Drouin has potential, I haven't seen anything that makes me believe he's a #1 center, much less the one the Blues are looking for.
.
- RobShouts

Well the fact that Drouin isn't a center... that's probably the main reason he isn't a number 1 center.... Great detective work . Not sure if anyone else brought that to your attention...

I'm basing it on this:

https://www.hockeyscap.com/teams/lightning

On the daily tracker, they have $3.5M of Ohlunds $3.6M as LTIR relief. That tells me TB was right up against the cap.

I disagree philly/bos had to accept lesser returns. My understanding is both of those contracts are insured. Even if they weren't - both have minimal actual salary left on them. AZ and Florida acquired those contracts to their benefit - in order to ensure they exceed the cap floor.
- Tumbleweed

Yes the Bolts cap situation is not nearly as good this year, but this is also a Bolts team that went to the Cup finals last season and made exactly one NHL move in the offseason (add Condra subtract Morrow). If Yzerman saw the "need" for the additional cap wiggle room moving Ohlund would have provided, I have little doubt he would have done something. After all he has certainly not lacked creativity with moves like the Purcell/Gagner swap. Also given the fact the Bolts can't even get Drouin consistent ice time I'm not sure you can make the case they "need" to get extra room to acquire another player who they won't be able to get ice time for.

You mentioned Yzerman not "maximizing" his cap space like Boston and Philly did. Well put simply Yzerman has been putting this team together with flexibility knowing he had the Stamkos/Hedman contracts moving forward so any Ohlund deal would be made for short term relief on a team with a full roster and prior to this season the space necessary to make a deadline deal like Coburn. Granted this year is not the same as last with Coburn's full salary on the books but coming into this season Yzerman was staring at a full roster with young depth in the AHL to fill in for injuuries and moving Ohlund wouldn't do anything past this year where the flexibility would really become needed IF Stamkos were to re-sign and Hedman needing a deal the following offseason.

Yes the Bolts cap situation is not nearly as good this year, but this is also a Bolts team that went to the Cup finals last season and made exactly one NHL move in the offseason (add Condra subtract Morrow). If Yzerman saw the "need" for the additional cap wiggle room moving Ohlund would have provided, I have little doubt he would have done something. After all he has certainly not lacked creativity with moves like the Purcell/Gagner swap. Also given the fact the Bolts can't even get Drouin consistent ice time I'm not sure you can make the case they "need" to get extra room to acquire another player who they won't be able to get ice time for.

You mentioned Yzerman not "maximizing" his cap space like Boston and Philly did. Well put simply Yzerman has been putting this team together with flexibility knowing he had the Stamkos/Hedman contracts moving forward so any Ohlund deal would be made for short term relief on a team with a full roster and prior to this season the space necessary to make a deadline deal like Coburn. Granted this year is not the same as last with Coburn's full salary on the books but coming into this season Yzerman was staring at a full roster with young depth in the AHL to fill in for injuuries and moving Ohlund wouldn't do anything past this year where the flexibility would really become needed IF Stamkos were to re-sign and Hedman needing a deal the following offseason.
- uf1910

fair enough.

don't get me wrong - Yzerman has done a good job drafting and developing players and made a couple smart trades. I still like TB's roster and their chances in the East.

The way I see it, in order to put this team over the top, I think you need to aggressively pursue every option to max out the current roster. To me, there was potentially an opportunity to do something with ohlund. But it is quite possible there is an underlying reason ohlund's contract wasn't moved.

I posted this a couple days ago....


Honestly, I think EK is poking me in the eye with a stick for doing so and writing today's blog to reflect that.


***************************
Blog from a couple days ago:

On Drouin:

My sources tell me that Toronto, St. Louis, Montreal and both the New York Islanders and Rangers have expressed deep interest, yet the dark horse teams that should not be forgotten include Nashville, Dallas and Anaheim. I am also hearing from special insides that Chicago, Philly, New Jersey and even Colorado may be in the mix. More to come on the rumours from Edmonton and Ottawa who show that they will be players in this deal while Detroit, Winnipeg and Carolina have made calls. Do not forget Pittsburg or San Jose I am getting a tweet at this very moment that Washington and Minnesota are now a solid contenders. Meanwhile Calgary and Los Angles have been putting together packages while Florida and Calgary are working behind the scenes as well as Buffalo and Boston... and Phoenix.

BREAKING: Tampa Bay may have mended fences and are keeping him.

More to come on why Vancouver is #@&!ed and has no chance.... which may be the best thing.

More to come.


DOMINOS!!!! INTERESTING!!! COWBELL!!! HABS ROOMERS!!!!

Having the flexibility to add a couple veterans for a playoff run would be the purpose of additional cap space. With all the prospect depth, seems like TB is a position to make those types of trades.

LA is loading up, leveraging other teams cap space to gain a competitive advantage. Meanwhile, TB left themselves in a position were they can't actually spend to the full cap on roster players. In a league where teams are so close, these are the differences between cup winners and runners up.
- Tumbleweed

Well again given the fact the Bolts can't even get Drouin ice time I would think that any deadline deal would also include a subtraction off of the active roster thereby creating some space to make a move. Honestly speaking, I don't think Yzerman was planning for another deadline rental type, after all this is (on paper) an "improved" roster (Condra>Morrow) over last season's version that went to the SCF. Besides, if we were to make a deal it would most definitely be a deadline deal where the cap hit would be much easier to maneuver than an offseason deal. Both Pronger and Savard had multiple years remaining on their deals so the flexibility afforded stretches beyond just this year, whereas an Ohlund move would free up a little money for this year only on a team with a full roster. Last year an Ohlund move wasn't necessary given the fact we were able to get Coburn. That being said it could still happen if a deal arises, but (and this is what I don't understand from your side of the argument) that would only be the case if a need/deal arose. Currently this team can't find ice time for a high end prospect like Drouin yet you are arguing that Yzerman should have made a negative value deal to have more space/flexibility to acquire player(s) who without subtraction would just increase the current roster logjam Yzerman has. Sorry but that just seems to be an argument to make a deal for the sake of making a deal and I've yet to see a benefit to an Ohlund deal.

Also comparing a Kings team that didn't make the playoffs and has done quite a bit of player maneuvering since last year to the SC runner up is a bit apples to oranges imo. Kings were in cap hell, Bolts are now in a cap hell situation with a full returning roster that went to the SCF. Sorry but I don't see the comparison. If anything teams that don't make reactionary moves b/c of what other teams do are the ones who stay at a high level for longer. Yzerman has always acted with plan for now balanced with an eye on the future and how he has handled this year and last year is reflective of that. Maybe he does make a deadline deal, but with a full roster and high end talent serving popcorn or languishing in Syracuse, my guess is Yzerman would subtract some current NHL salary to add some vs you're "loading up" theory.

If there is a player Yzerman would give a nut to deal it would be Carle b/c his cap hit goes beyond this year and he has found himself serving some popcorn recently. That would actually give the Bolts benefit now (open up more ice time for youngsters like Nesterov to continue to develop) AND provide a little more long-term flexibility. Instead we are arguing about trading a LTIR player whose contract runs for a few more months and whose cap hit is less than Carle.

fair enough.

don't get me wrong - Yzerman has done a good job drafting and developing players and made a couple smart trades. I still like TB's roster and their chances in the East.

The way I see it, in order to put this team over the top, I think you need to aggressively pursue every option to max out the current roster. To me, there was potentially an opportunity to do something with ohlund. But it is quite possible there is an underlying reason ohlund's contract wasn't moved.
- Tumbleweed

I heard a few years ago that Ohlund wasn't insured but honestly I feel that is extremely minor in the grand scheme. I really think the bigger reason is there wasn't a need like Boston and Philly had. Plus the fact this is the last year Ohlund is on the books the relief would be temporary whereas both deals for Pronger and Savard offered both sides multiple years of relief (cap space for B's and F's and "free" money to the floor for teams with "uneven" financial situations). If the need and opportunity arises I have little doubt Yzerman would do something given his history of making "creative" deals, but only based on the need b/c at the end of the day the bigger need for the Bolts is to rid themselves of Carle than it is to move Ohlund

Anyways, good talk.

And my apologies to everyone else for thread jacking

Well again given the fact the Bolts can't even get Drouin ice time I would think that any deadline deal would also include a subtraction off of the active roster thereby creating some space to make a move. Honestly speaking, I don't think Yzerman was planning for another deadline rental type, after all this is (on paper) an "improved" roster (Condra>Morrow) over last season's version that went to the SCF. Besides, if we were to make a deal it would most definitely be a deadline deal where the cap hit would be much easier to maneuver than an offseason deal. Both Pronger and Savard had multiple years remaining on their deals so the flexibility afforded stretches beyond just this year, whereas an Ohlund move would free up a little money for this year only on a team with a full roster. Last year an Ohlund move wasn't necessary given the fact we were able to get Coburn. That being said it could still happen if a deal arises, but (and this is what I don't understand from your side of the argument) that would only be the case if a need/deal arose. Currently this team can't find ice time for a high end prospect like Drouin yet you are arguing that Yzerman should have made a negative value deal to have more space/flexibility to acquire player(s) who without subtraction would just increase the current roster logjam Yzerman has. Sorry but that just seems to be an argument to make a deal for the sake of making a deal and I've yet to see a benefit to an Ohlund deal.

Also comparing a Kings team that didn't make the playoffs and has done quite a bit of player maneuvering since last year to the SC runner up is a bit apples to oranges imo. Kings were in cap hell, Bolts are now in a cap hell situation with a full returning roster that went to the SCF. Sorry but I don't see the comparison. If anything teams that don't make reactionary moves b/c of what other teams do are the ones who stay at a high level for longer. Yzerman has always acted with plan for now balanced with an eye on the future and how he has handled this year and last year is reflective of that. Maybe he does make a deadline deal, but with a full roster and high end talent serving popcorn or languishing in Syracuse, my guess is Yzerman would subtract some current NHL salary to add some vs you're "loading up" theory.

If there is a player Yzerman would give a nut to deal it would be Carle b/c his cap hit goes beyond this year and he has found himself serving some popcorn recently. That would actually give the Bolts benefit now (open up more ice time for youngsters like Nesterov to continue to develop) AND provide a little more long-term flexibility. Instead we are arguing about trading a LTIR player whose contract runs for a few more months and whose cap hit is less than Carle.
- uf1910

If you guys are set with the roster, than fine. It's kinda of moot at this point. Making the move at the beginning of the year would have added the most benefit. I don't see extra flexibility as a bad thing.

I think it is really hard if not impossible to win the cup without pushing the boundaries on the cap. Every team that has won the cup since 2009 has had a cap circumventing deal on their books. I think Tampa and NYR only more recently made it to the finals without one.

Chicago last year iced a team in the playoffs that would not have been cap compliant in the regular season. They used the LTIR loophole of keeping Kane off the roster until the playoffs.

It seems like LA has been doing everything to gain cap advantages to ice a very deep roster.

I think TB can be a cup contender, but will fall short against a one of these two teams. These 2 teams just seem to do more to put their rosters over the top.

I heard a few years ago that Ohlund wasn't insured but honestly I feel that is extremely minor in the grand scheme. I really think the bigger reason is there wasn't a need like Boston and Philly had. Plus the fact this is the last year Ohlund is on the books the relief would be temporary whereas both deals for Pronger and Savard offered both sides multiple years of relief (cap space for B's and F's and "free" money to the floor for teams with "uneven" financial situations). If the need and opportunity arises I have little doubt Yzerman would do something given his history of making "creative" deals, but only based on the need b/c at the end of the day the bigger need for the Bolts is to rid themselves of Carle than it is to move Ohlund
- uf1910

The leafs may have been open to taking on the contract if it's not insured. Originally why i thought of all this. Maybe there just was not a fit for a trade.

HOLY poop!!


- glove_was_stuck

[/URL]
[/URL]

If you guys are set with the roster, than fine. It's kinda of moot at this point. Making the move at the beginning of the year would have added the most benefit. I don't see extra flexibility as a bad thing.

I think it is really hard if not impossible to win the cup without pushing the boundaries on the cap. Every team that has won the cup since 2009 has had a cap circumventing deal on their books. I think Tampa and NYR only more recently made it to the finals without one.

Chicago last year iced a team in the playoffs that would not have been cap compliant in the regular season. They used the LTIR loophole of keeping Kane on off the roster until the playoffs.

It seems like LA has been doing everything to gain cap advantages to to ice a very deep roster.

I think TB can be a cup contender, but will fall short against a one of these two teams. These 2 teams just seem to do more to put their rosters over the top.
- Tumbleweed

Don't disagree with anything you say here, but the Bolts are in a different situation (outside of legitimate cup aspirations) than any of the teams mentioned. The Bolts are younger with more future roster uncertainty than any listed given the Stamkos, Hedman, Killorn, Palat, Johnson, Kucherov deals upcoming in the next few years. Yes the flexibility this year would be nice, but at what cost? The Flyers deal also included cap dump Grossman. The B's deal was RFA Hayes for Smith (2 yr deal)/Savard. I have little doubt Yzerman tried to peddle Ohlund at one point or another, just like I have even less doubt he is actively trying to find a taker for Carle. If a deal presented itself to move both Yzerman would probably do it simply b/c whatever negative value he gave up to move those players would be offset by the salary cap relief positive value in return. In the meantime I doubt Yzerman was motivated to deal ohlund without "having" to do it as the real cap hell is another year+ down the road when extensions needed to happen. Like I said I think carle is the real domino Yzerman wants to move and eventually it will for sure happen, only question being is it during this year or more likely this offseason in a true dump trade like the Purcell/Gagner flip was 2 years ago. As it was with a full roster, good depth, and young players waiting in the wings any Ohlund deal, while nice to have happened, was more luxury than necessity and you and I both know luxury deals don't come around very often. Either Ohlund is dealt with other value to offset his negative value or Ohlund is dealt for equally bad value which brings no benefit this year or moving forward

Tampa won't trade Hedman...real teams realize D is the most important position

Don't disagree with anything you say here, but the Bolts are in a different situation (outside of legitimate cup aspirations) than any of the teams mentioned. The Bolts are younger with more future roster uncertainty than any listed given the Stamkos, Hedman, Killorn, Palat, Johnson, Kucherov deals upcoming in the next few years. Yes the flexibility this year would be nice, but at what cost? The Flyers deal also included cap dump Grossman. The B's deal was RFA Hayes for Smith (2 yr deal)/Savard. I have little doubt Yzerman tried to peddle Ohlund at one point or another, just like I have even less doubt he is actively trying to find a taker for Carle. If a deal presented itself to move both Yzerman would probably do it simply b/c whatever negative value he gave up to move those players would be offset by the salary cap relief positive value in return. In the meantime I doubt Yzerman was motivated to deal ohlund without "having" to do it as the real cap hell is another year+ down the road when extensions needed to happen. Like I said I think carle is the real domino Yzerman wants to move and eventually it will for sure happen, only question being is it during this year or more likely this offseason in a true dump trade like the Purcell/Gagner flip was 2 years ago. As it was with a full roster, good depth, and young players waiting in the wings any Ohlund deal, while nice to have happened, was more luxury than necessity and you and I both know luxury deals don't come around very often. Either Ohlund is dealt with other value to offset his negative value or Ohlund is dealt for equally bad value which brings no benefit this year or moving forward
- uf1910

if ohlund's deal is uninsured like you think, than the best deal you would have got in the summer was robidas from the leafs. probably why it never happened.

The leafs may have been open to taking on the contract if it's not insured. Originally why i thought of all this. Maybe there just was not a fit for a trade.
- Tumbleweed

Frontloaded deal would have saved minimal "actual" money for this year (and Bolts don't have money issues of Cats/Yotes). Plus we both know the Leafs wouldn't do it out of kindness, so what else would have needed to be included to make this happen? A few years ago dealing Ohlund would have made sense from a financial perspective, but in the last year of a frontloaded deal financially speaking is a non-issue. Any deal would be for cap reasons, whereas the Flyers/B's deals had both sides "winning" in their respective deals with financial incentives and cap incentives. That's why there wasn't the pure "negative value" that the Bolts would have had to make up for in a hypothetical deal save making that deal with either of the Yotes or Cats

Frontloaded deal would have saved minimal "actual" money for this year (and Bolts don't have money issues of Cats/Yotes). Plus we both know the Leafs wouldn't do it out of kindness, so what else would have needed to be included to make this happen? A few years ago dealing Ohlund would have made sense from a financial perspective, but in the last year of a frontloaded deal financially speaking is a non-issue. Any deal would be for cap reasons, whereas the Flyers/B's deals had both sides "winning" in their respective deals with financial incentives and cap incentives. That's why there wasn't the pure "negative value" that the Bolts would have had to make up for in a hypothetical deal save making that deal with either of the Yotes or Cats
- uf1910

i think we've beaten this one to death

if ohlund's deal is uninsured like you think, than the best deal you would have got in the summer was robidas from the leafs. probably why it never happened.
- Tumbleweed

Yeah that wouldn't even be a winning deal for Bolts since Robidas would still have another year. I'm not sure of math, but what savings would the Bolts get from this for this season? Sure seems minimal given Robidas has $3M cap hit, Ohlund has $3.6M hit and LTIR factor. Plus Robidas hit would still be there next season. Like you said wouldn't happen

- KINGS67[/URL]
[/URL]

i think we've beaten this one to death


- Tumbleweed

Agreed. So I'll say again good talk

And again apologize to others for jacking the thread

At Washington interested in Trading Mike Richards

Man this site never ceases to amaze me.

What's next? Columbus is looking to trade Seth Jones.

Agreed. So I'll say again good talk

And again apologize to others for jacking the thread
- uf1910

have a good one

Elliotte Friedman @FriedgeHNIC
Etem to VAN for Jensen and a pick

Elliotte Friedman @FriedgeHNIC
Etem to VAN for Jensen and a pick
- Fruitcakenipple

leafs should make more trades with benning

Elliotte Friedman @FriedgeHNIC
Etem to VAN for Jensen and a pick
- Fruitcakenipple

This may be the first trade Benning has actually won.

a 7th rounder, and Jensen who absolutely sucks for Etem seems like a decent deal.

This may be the first trade Benning has actually won.

a 7th rounder, and Jensen who absolutely sucks for Etem seems like a decent deal.
- classic321

Not according to Rags fans