Yeah, I like Lack too. I'll keep fishing for common ground though....would you take on a bit of Cap and/or consider Ribiero or Berglund for Krejci? Would you move Peverley?

Do I have this right?

Example comparison of Free Agent Signing vs. Extensions.

LW Matt Moulson Ranked 30th in 11-12 and 51st in 10-11, so as the 30th Ranked LW would be required to Extend at 4m/year up to a maximum of 3 years.

If released to Free Agency he would be eligible for resigning at 50% of his Hockeybuzz Cap Hit (3,133,133) so half of 3.1m or 1.6m/year up to a maximum of 4 years.

Notwithstanding competitive bids it seems preferable to let most players walk and resign them later as FA's. There are a small number of exceptional players that should obviously be extended but in most cases it would seem better to play out a contract rather than signing an extension.

Even taking hostile bidding into consideration, given how little cap space GM's have to work with it's conceivable that a player like Mouslon could be re-acquired for less than 4m/year and at a term of 4 years rather than the 3 offered by extension. After all, the League only has 54 active roster slots at LW.

Is there strong enough incentive to pay a premium for the services of the 30th Ranked player even if his stock is somewhat on the rise?

Also, why is the length of the extension linked to the value of the re-signing? This entire clause seems to be written for young rapidly appreciating stars to keep them from being signed artificially low for a long period of time. That makes sense to me but why prohibit a player like Moulson from signing a 4 year extension when he could sign for 4 years via free-agency?

At the upper end of the scale I'll use the example of James Neal (the 2nd Ranked LW). I'm guessing he was dropped rather than being re-signed at the 8.5m/year extension number. As a Free Agent however bidding can start as low as 2.5m/year. That's quite a gap and I'm thinking there's room to extend the player at something closer to market value (both actual NHL and BY League).

Off the cuff I'm wondering if we could give our GM's an option to retain a player at a new value as determined by the market during Free Agency. In other words, release a player to free agency but have the ability to match the winning bid.

This may offer too much protection to GM's but by including a simple dis-incentive (an additional .5m/year added to the matched bid in order to bring that player back) may be enough to prevent GM's from releasing all their players to free-agency. Furthermore, GM's could be limited to matching one FA bid per season.


My rambling speculation aside I think we should be able to extend an aging veteran to a cheap 4 year contract.

The intent of this post is not to challenge the rules.
Rather, it is to ask if I have the correct understanding of them.


 


 

...

 

Looks like a nice little deal though I'm surprised Ottawa got the better pick as well as Read.

So this trade is officially invalid?

I think the interpretation is that it was a valid offer....that was withdrawn. It's not a trade until confirmed by both parties.