Lets say he is willing to waive it for any of the top 5 (entering postseason) teams in each conference.
- PT21

So 10 teams involved. Than that would be simply amazing for the flyers. Would open up a potential bidding war.

you claim cant move CC because of his cap. Yet you insisted ex selke is easily moveable.

Come on Cliff provide some team names he is easily moveable to.
- hello it's me 2050

To be fair MJL didn't say you can't move G, he just said it will not be as easy as some believe it is, and that is correct given G has over an $8M cap hit which goes to the team that trades for him regardless of how much real money he is owed.

I also agree that Couts could be moved because he signed a very friendly team deal for under $8M/per. Imagine getting a Bergeron like player for that price? You don't think some contending teams would not want Couts as their 2nd line center? But I really don't think it makes sense for the Flyers to do this.

so a late 1st is not enough so you keep him then?
- hello it's me 2050

No, I believe the Flyers should trade G but they should be able to do much better than a late 1st round pick for him.

I am quite skeptical that Giroux is moveable. First impediment is his cap hit. Then there is very limited cap space for those who are interested. Then there are so many other comparable players who have lower hits (Paveslki, Hertl, even Kessel) not to speak of many defensemen who are traditionally more prized for cup runs than a player like Giroux.
- PT21

Cap hit isnt an issue. Giroux is a UFA. Only what remains on his contract counts against the cap plus PHI can always retain as well

To be fair MJL didn't say you can't move G, he just said it will not be as easy as some believe it is, and that is correct given G has over an $8M cap hit which goes to the team that trades for him regardless of how much real money he is owed.

I also agree that Couts could be moved because he signed a very friendly team deal for under $8M/per. Imagine getting a Bergeron like player for that price? You don't think some contending teams would not want Couts as their 2nd line center? But I really don't think it makes sense for the Flyers to do this.
- jd250

Well he is incorrect. Good team and organizations find a way. Cap will not be an issue if CC wants to be traded.

Who can ex selke be moved to? What kind of return do you think he brings back? Right now with an 8 year ext that kicks in in a few months of which he will be 30 years old. Him being injured. I do not think he is moveable unless you are taking some slop back.

I cant wait to see what JT miller returns if he is moved.

if giroux isn't movable you guys must not think he's as good as you say he is

No, I believe the Flyers should trade G but they should be able to do much better than a late 1st round pick for him.
- jd250

If they cant? if Boston is the only team he will go to then what?

Let's start with what you are ridiculously wrong about. According to my definition of tanking, and the rest of the hockey world for that matter. Which is different from yours. Trading Couturier would not constitute tanking. One player move is not tanking. Congrats on changing the atmosphere with one post.

Next, if you want to discuss the merits of trading Couturier, we can do that also. As long as you act like a decent human being and keep the discussion to hockey.
- MJL

The problem of your definition of tanking (moving players to increase chances of losing) and not-tanking (moving players who are not part of the future) is that they are not mutually exclusive. Consider the Wings moving Mantha last summer for example: only 26, a legit 2C, just signed to a reasonable deal.

Were they moving him with an eye to the draft position? Or moving him because they believed their timeline was not consistent with his trajectory?

The answer is: yes.

But then we have had this discussion endlessly, so...

So 10 teams involved. Than that would be simply amazing for the flyers. Would open up a potential bidding war.
- hello it's me 2050

Gimme, gimme, gimme.

All this abstraction ...give me a deal that makes sense.

If they cant? if Boston is the only team he will go to then what?
- hello it's me 2050

I don't think this question is very realistic. G wants to be traded but only to the Bruins??

I don't think this question is very realistic. G wants to be traded but only to the Bruins??
- jd250

It is very realistic as that is a possible scenario is it not? Insert any team. He may limit it to only 1 team.

Cap hit isnt an issue. Giroux is a UFA. Only what remains on his contract counts against the cap plus PHI can always retain as well
- xShoot4WarAmpsx

Yes, it is an issue when you look at the cap picture and that most of the contending teams don't have the cap space to take on Giroux even at 50% retained without involving another team or clearing cap space.

The problem of your definition of tanking (moving players to increase chances of losing) and not-tanking (moving players who are not part of the future) is that they are not mutually exclusive. Consider the Wings moving Mantha last summer for example: only 26, a legit 2C, just signed to a reasonable deal.

Were they moving him with an eye to the draft position? Or moving him because they believed their timeline was not consistent with his trajectory?

The answer is: yes.

But then we have had this discussion endlessly, so...
- PT21

Yes, and again, you can't understand that making one player move is not in any way tanking. It's just more evidence that you don't understand what tanking is.

Gimme, gimme, gimme.

All this abstraction ...give me a deal that makes sense.
- PT21

gimme some more...great black flag song

The discussion is can he be moved. The answer is very easily. Cliff mentioned Nino on carolina (plus obviously other assets)

to ranges for 1st kratzov.

Cap hit isnt an issue. Giroux is a UFA. Only what remains on his contract counts against the cap plus PHI can always retain as well
- xShoot4WarAmpsx

I don't think that is the way hockey trades work. Specifically: Under the terms of the 2005 collective bargaining agreement, when a team traded for another player, it assumed the full cap hit and remaining salary obligations of the acquired player. Including cash in a trade was also forbidden. That was partially changed for the 2013 collective bargaining agreement. Including cash in trades is still prohibited, but teams may retain part of a traded player's salary to ease the cap burden on the acquiring team.

So the Flyers could retain at most 50% of G's cap hit, so about $4M if they needed to, which would be fine because its just for the remainder of this season.

Yes, it is an issue when you look at the cap picture and that most of the contending teams don't have the cap space to take on Giroux even at 50% retained without involving another team or clearing cap space.
- MJL

Clearing cap space by sending another contract back. Easy peasy. No issue at all Cliff.

I don't think that is way hockey trades work. Specifically: Under the terms of the 2005 collective bargaining agreement, when a team traded for another player, it assumed the full cap hit and remaining salary obligations of the acquired player. Including cash in a trade was also forbidden. That was partially changed for the 2013 collective bargaining agreement. Including cash in trades is still prohibited, but teams may retain part of a traded player's salary to ease the cap burden on the acquiring team.

So the Flyers could retain at most 50% of G's cap hit, so about $4M if they needed to, which would be fine because its just for the remainder of this season.
- jd250

The poster is correct in that only the prorated amount of what is left on a per day accounting basis is needed to acquire a player along with any potential tagging space issues. Since Giroux is a pending UFA, tagging space is not an issue.

It is very realistic as that is a possible scenario is it not? Insert any team. He may limit it to only 1 team.
- hello it's me 2050

I guess anything is possible, but think about it. Does it make sense that G is willing to be traded but only to one team?? I think like most players if he agrees to waive his NMC, he will give Fletcher a list of several teams so Fletcher has some leverage and can make the best deal he can.

Giroux will look nice setting up Ovie in the coming playoffs.

I guess anything is possible, but think about it. Does it make sense that G is willing to be traded but only to one team?? I think like most players if he agrees to waive his NMC, he will give Fletcher a list of several teams so Fletcher has some leverage and can make the best deal he can.
- jd250

Fletcher and Giroux may at some point have a conversation about where he would be willing to go to but I don't think Fletcher will ask Giroux to waive until he has a deal on the table.

The poster is correct in that only the prorated amount of what is left on a per day accounting basis is needed to acquire a player along with any potential tagging space issues. Since Giroux is a pending UFA, tagging space is not an issue.
- MJL

I'm not disagreeing with you, because I really don't know the rule completely, but the statement I copied above is pretty clear, in that if you are trading for a player, you get their full cap hit plus you pay what is remaining on their salary, unless the trading team retains some of it. What am I missing here?

I guess anything is possible, but think about it. Does it make sense that G is willing to be traded but only to one team?? I think like most players if he agrees to waive his NMC, he will give Fletcher a list of several teams so Fletcher has some leverage and can make the best deal he can.
- jd250

Yes it makes perfect sense. He does not give 1 schit about Fletcher making the best deal by providing a list of teams.

CC is only worried about himself. As he should be in this situation.

gimme some more...great black flag song

The discussion is can he be moved. The answer is very easily. Cliff mentioned Nino on carolina (plus obviously other assets)

to ranges for 1st kratzov.
- hello it's me 2050

I was thinking more of that foundational piece of western civilization, the song by ABBA (gimme^3 a man until midnight).

Canes is a possibility. I like that trade.

Rangers though can get Paveslki, much more impactful player in recent playoffs. They can get him for what you offer. They may also prefer to go a Vet Dman (my guess) given how young their D is.

I was thinking more of that foundational piece of western civilization, the song by ABBA (gimme^3 a man until midnight).

Canes is a possibility. I like that trade.

Rangers though can get Paveslki, much more impactful player in recent playoffs. They can get him for what you offer. They may also prefer to go a Vet Dman (my guess) given how young their D is.
- PT21

you asked for an example. I provided you one.

The poster is correct in that only the prorated amount of what is left on a per day accounting basis is needed to acquire a player along with any potential tagging space issues. Since Giroux is a pending UFA, tagging space is not an issue.
- MJL

This is from puckpedia:

When teams trades a player, they can retain, or keep, some of the players' salary and cap hit. The team keeps a % of both the cap hit and salary for the remainder of the contract.

Therefore, if a Player with a Salary of $2.0M and a Cap Hit/AAV of $3.0M is traded with 20% retention, the trading team would continue to pay 20% of the $2.0M Salary and would continue to have a cap hit of 20% of the $3.0M Cap Hit.

So this tells me that a team trading for G would have to have a minimum of $4.14M in cap space in order to fit him in, given the Flyers at most can retain 50%. This would restrict the number of teams that could trade for him unless they send salary back.