NFT: Rangers not expected to buy out Girardi per Brooks.

But really not surprising. I can understand not wanting to buy him out, but they should be trying to move him in a trade even if they have to eat a few bucks.

Guess it isn't too early to start praying that AV buries him on the 3rd pair at 15 min/game. Or that Brooks is just full of shit.

So in reality, the "won't be moved" list is Hank, Buch, Skjei plus DG.

to not buy out Girardi is he has 15 mill left over 4 years, so he would get 10 million of it anyway, and effect the cap well beyond the 4 years left on his deal which is the important part. the first 2 years would be definite cap relief, the last 2 years of the 4 not as much, and then after would be something like 1m-1.4 mill each year

there may well be an expansion draft next off-season which would require teams to expose players equaling 25% of the teams cap. Would be hard to do that an not lose someone you want to keep if you start getting rid of all the contracts on the team now.

here is the link, btw


Brooks on Rangers - ( New Window )

In comment 12971949 BocaGiants91 said:

Quote:

to not buy out Girardi is he has 15 mill left over 4 years, so he would get 10 million of it anyway, and effect the cap well beyond the 4 years left on his deal which is the important part. the first 2 years would be definite cap relief, the last 2 years of the 4 not as much, and then after would be something like 1m-1.4 mill each year

Yeah, his cap hit on a buyout in a couple of the years would be over 3M. The hits between 1 and 2M you can deal with.. over 3 is steep.

pretty sure his annual cap hit is 1.6 million or so in the out years, not $3 million+. But... 8 years is a looong time to have dead cap money on the payroll. Its not a matter of Dolan having deep pockets - it means we'd be at a competitive disadvantage for nearly a decade.

One of Girardi or Staal has to be dealt. No way around it -- if there is a plan/inclination that G will get taken in an upcoming expansion draft... fine, i am skeptical that will play out well, but i understand the logic to a degree.

If there are no plans to trade one of G or Staal though... just tear this thing down now and start the rebuild. We arent winning a Cup with that deployment of resources.

In comment 12971996 MetsAreBack said:

Quote:

pretty sure his annual cap hit is 1.6 million or so in the out years, not $3 million+. But... 8 years is a looong time to have dead cap money on the payroll. Its not a matter of Dolan having deep pockets - it means we'd be at a competitive disadvantage for nearly a decade. One of Girardi or Staal has to be dealt. No way around it -- if there is a plan/inclination that G will get taken in an upcoming expansion draft... fine, i am skeptical that will play out well, but i understand the logic to a degree. If there are no plans to trade one of G or Staal though... just tear this thing down now and start the rebuild. We arent winning a Cup with that deployment of resources.

MAB, these would be the cap hits each year..

2016-17 $1,750,000
2017-18 $2,750,000
2018-19 $3,750,000
2019-20 $3,750,000
2020-21 $1,250,000
2021-22 $1,250,000
2022-23 $1,250,000
2023-24 $1,250,000

This would be the cap savings for each of those years..

2016-17 $3,750,000
2017-18 $2,750,000
2018-19 $1,750,000
2019-20 $1,750,000
2020-21 -$1,250,000
2021-22 -$1,250,000
2022-23 -$1,250,000
2023-24 -$1,250,000

and by the way, i'd be surprised if no team was interestd in Girardi at say half price. So we'd eat $2-3 mil/year... but only for 4 more years, not 8.

But they may have gotten wind that he's just not interested in a trade either. Fuckin' Sather and his NMCs.

I still think Staal is moveable and that someone would take on his full contract. I don't think we'd get much of anything back.. probably a late rd pick and meh prospect or something but that's fine. The salary space would be the real prize. Hopefully they explore it. If they can unload him this summer I guess I could take my chances with Girardi in the expansion draft scenario. Definitely can't move neither and rely on that itself, though. Would be a shitty plan.

The team doesnt think he is as bad as we think he is.

Interesting to me is the rebound of oil. Essentially, whereas revenues have exploded in MLB, NBA, and NFL because of new TV money, the NHL cap has been kept largely flat because the crash of oil has killed the economy in Canada. Oil is finally at $50 after having dropped into the $20s. Wont be reflected in this year's cap, but I could see the 2017-18 cap exploding.

In comment 12972055 Deej said:

Quote:

The team doesnt think he is as bad as we think he is. Interesting to me is the rebound of oil. Essentially, whereas revenues have exploded in MLB, NBA, and NFL because of new TV money, the NHL cap has been kept largely flat because the crash of oil has killed the economy in Canada. Oil is finally at $50 after having dropped into the $20s. Wont be reflected in this year's cap, but I could see the 2017-18 cap exploding.

Yes, commodity prices have had a nice rebound since January -- but unfortunately we have a cap crunch this year that will force us to deal young, nucleus players unless we can ship off two of Nash / Staal / Girardi.

If G is a lost cause - really hope they can deal MS and RN -- with Nash returning us a Shattenkirk, or couple of good prospects.

If I were a team like Toronto or Arizona, I'd be calling the Rangers offering to take Girardi if they threw in one of Hayes/Kreider/Miller.

I think both Girardi/Staal are movable. I think you'd get a surprisingly good return for Staal - like a second or a prospect.

why are the Rangers so stupid with signing bonuses? Girardi's 33 million deal includes only 8 million in signing bonus money. Compare that to Clarkson, signed by another uber rich team. His 36.75 million deal included 29 million in signing bonus. That means that when Toronto needed to move him for cap reasons, the buyer was stuck (or gifted!) with Clarkson's 5.25mm annual cap hit, but only owed him 7.75 million total over 6 years.

In comment 12972069 BrettNYG10 said:

Quote:

If I were a team like Toronto or Arizona, I'd be calling the Rangers offering to take Girardi if they threw in one of Hayes/Kreider/Miller. I think both Girardi/Staal are movable. I think you'd get a surprisingly good return for Staal - like a second or a prospect.

Toronto? They went out of their way to unload cap space this offseason - and now they want to invest 4 years in Dan Girardi just to get one asset back with him?

Maybe Arizona makes sense. It's a tough sell - to others point, maybe the better bet is to wait for an expansion draft or another year to buy out when the penalty shortens to 6 years from 8.

re: expansion draft, players with NMCs will be required to be one of the players that a team would have to protect, thus forcing the team to leave other assets unprotected.

I should have said 'generic rebuilding team'. Unclear on TOR's cap situation. More a point of a young team acquiring a hugely valuable asset while having to carry around an anchor for a few years prior to being ready to compete for a Cup.

In comment 12972081 Metnut said:

Quote:

re: expansion draft, players with NMCs will be required to be one of the players that a team would have to protect, thus forcing the team to leave other assets unprotected.

Girardi's NMC turns into a modified NTC after next year, I believe.

he has a full no move contract. Unless he waives it he can't be traded.

In comment 12972097 arniefez said:

Quote:

he has a full no move contract. Unless he waives it he can't be traded.

Not true. He has a NTC

can be traded to 15 teams. This year he has a full no move contract.

either you're wrong of this list is wrong.
2016 NHL Trade Deadline: No-Movement, No-Trade Clauses - ( New Window )

Contract Notes:
No Move Clause: 2015-2017
Modified No Trade: 2018-2020
Marc Staal Contract - ( New Window )

could have sworn I read his NTC was kicking in this year.

if these guys refuse to, we have no choice but to pull the rug out from under them, and start the rebuild while rewarding them with resounding boos at MSG throughout the season.

Hopefully it doesnt come to that and Staal wants to play with his over-rated brother who i still cant believe we gave up 3 assets for.

his form and try to find a trade he'll waive for, and look at particulars for expansion draft inclusion, etc, before they'll install 8 years of cap hits on the books.

Just wait and see where Eric goes and then try trading Marc there.. he'll probably waive the NMC to keep playing with him.

to get guys to waive. But there is some confusion about whether the NTC and NMC apply to the draft. Has that ever been settled?

been waiting to hear as it would seem to be the next amnesty opportunity for teams in need of it that are unable to pull off a trade.

Quote:

With the addition of the salary cap since the NHL last expanded, there are other nuances and question marks to be ironed out. Will players with no-move clauses in contracts be eligible for the draft? Will they be able to waive their no-move clause and opt-in for a fresh start elsewhere? “I don’t think it’s that complicated, but it’s an issue that hasn’t been resolved in terms of how we intend to treat that,” Daly said. “It’s something that we’re going to have to have a discussion with the Players’ Association.” Will teams attempt to use the expansion draft as a de facto salary dump, exposing only players with unpalatable contracts? Teams must expose at least 25 per cent of the previous season’s salary cap. “And in terms of drafting players, [expansion] teams would have to draft a certain threshold of salary,” Daly said, in order to reach the salary cap floor or minimum.

NHL presents potential expansion draft plans - ( New Window )