D'Agostini Traded to the Devils

Discuss the St. Louis Blues, the NHL, or anything hockey.

Moderator: LGB Mods

Re: D'Agostini Traded to the Devils

Postby Oaklandblue » Sun Mar 24, 2013 6:40 pm

cprice12 wrote:
Oaklandblue wrote:
cprice12 wrote:
glen a richter wrote:They should have sent Elliott down. Tough shit if he doesn't clear waivers. I find it very hard to believe that, barring an injury, he'll ever play another game in the note.

Allen hasn't played enough games to simply give him the backup job by sending Elliott down.
If Allen starts to struggle, the Blues will probably send him down and let Elliott try to win the backup job back.


The problem with sending Ells down is that we are going to take a hit on his contract, whether he clears waivers or not (1.8m for 2 years as it stands, have no idea how much we'd be responsible for if a team cleared him off waivers) and I think given the team's economic situation that they're going to keep him and Halak as-is (unless they're traded or packaged off for a trade, of course), especially considering Jake isn't costing us jack atm.

I didn't say they will send Elliott down. They won't.


No, Glen suggested they should, which is why I quoted HIS post first.

You're talking about if they send Allen down, etc. I got that.

If you noticed, I quoted both of you because I was trying to figure out what the ramifications would be if we did and threw it out there because the subject was on sending a player down and the whole waivers system. I don't know it very well, so I brought it up.

Make sense now?
2013-2014 LGB Sponsor of Derek "In The Middle" Roy
2012-2013 LGB Sponsor of Chris "NO SLEEP TIL THE CUP!" Stewart - Shhhhh!!!

Image
Oaklandblue
1st Line Sniper
1st Line Sniper
 
Posts: 718
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2011 11:20 pm

Re: D'Agostini Traded to the Devils

Postby DaDitka » Mon Mar 25, 2013 7:03 am

Oaklandblue wrote:
If you noticed, I quoted both of you because I was trying to figure out what the ramifications would be if we did and threw it out there because the subject was on sending a player down and the whole waivers system. I don't know it very well, so I brought it up.

Make sense now?


Under the new CBA, the team claiming a player assumes the remainer of the contract and the cap hit for salary still owed

In the event that the contract was structured as such to to spread a cap hit with lesser actual dollar amount compared to annual cap charge, then the team that is loosing the player will be penalized the amount of the remaining difference.

For instance.....let's say the new deal we gave Elliot was 4 years 20 million but we paid him 8 mill last year 5 mill this year and 3.5 each of the final two years. His annual cap hit would be 5 mill a year.

So if he were claimed on wavers today, his new team would assume his remaining pro-rated salary for this year as well as 3.5 mill each of the next two seasons. The Blues would get a 'cap sharge' of 3 million for the cap savings we received in the first year of the deal where he counted only 5 million while we paid him 8 million.

Now, that's not an actually monetary charge and wouldn't cost the Blues a penny, considering we have the most cap space in the league and and barely even pay up to the salary floor, the 'charge' wound not only NOT be a determent, it could actually be welcomed because it would allow the club to actually spend even less 'real' money next year (if they so chose to).
Image

2012-2013 Official LGB Sponsor of Patrik 'Bulan' Berglund
User avatar
DaDitka
Hall Of Fame
Hall Of Fame
 
Posts: 2800
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2006 12:21 pm
Location: sailing with the Captain

Previous

Return to St. Louis Blues Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], ComradeT, Google [Bot] and 8 guests