[Signing] Flames sign Blake Coleman (6 years, $4.9m AAV)

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Retaining on a rental makes the deal doable or not. Teams still have to make the cap work.

So far haven't retained once. They have 3 retention spots and only two UFAs their looking to deal. Those retention spots will be gone at the end of the year. So there is a lot of flexibility and options if they really want to maximize their assets.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Tuco

All this talk about players not wanting to move because of their young families is such BS. This is a business, man. They gotta do what's best for their short careers, not just what's convenient for their kids/wife.

This reads like perfect satire.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

This reads like perfect satire.

Man makes more money in a year than the majority of people will make in their entire lifetimes.

“He cannot afford to put his family first.”

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

This reads like perfect satire.

Saying F your wife and kids is a bit much, but athletes careers are different than other careers. Their careers last 5-20 years (with most closer to 5). They make huge amounts of money, and then they are done. It's a pretty short amount of time to maximize career earnings and maybe accomplish a personal goal, like a championship or playing for your favorite team.

Part of the job is moving around a lot. People in the USA, moreso than Canada, move around a lot for jobs anyways. Moving around between hockey cities is a lot more preferable than being forced to take a middle management job in "Scranton", Ohio, which is how things work for most people in the real world.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

This reads like perfect satire.

All of their posts do. Hopefully you weren't subjected to the blatantly awful Huberdeau takes in the other thread.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Hackey

So far haven't retained once. They have 3 retention spots and only two UFAs their looking to deal. Those retention spots will be gone at the end of the year. So there is a lot of flexibility and options if they really want to maximize their assets.

Dude, what are you even talking about in response to my post? You said retention was valueless in a rental deal. It's not - it's what allows a rental deal to be done sometimes.

On term deals it's essentially like buying a bad contract for assets because a team wants to use that space. It's like the Flames paying to shed Monahan's 6M because they wanted Kadri. Except in Markstrom's case it's all in one deal.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by blankall

Saying F your wife and kids is a bit much, but athletes careers are different than other careers. Their careers last 5-20 years (with most closer to 5). They make huge amounts of money, and then they are done. It's a pretty short amount of time to maximize career earnings and maybe accomplish a personal goal, like a championship or playing for your favorite team.

Right… so if you want to maximize earnings and opportunities on potential winning teams, you don’t ask for a NMC… like, the intent of the clauses are almost solely on not wanting to move a family around. Very rarely it’s used to ensure a team you gave a hometown discount to won’t trade you.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

Right… so if you want to maximize earnings and opportunities on potential winning teams, you don’t ask for a NMC… like, the intent of the clauses are almost solely on not wanting to move a family around. Very rarely it’s used to ensure a team you gave a hometown discount to won’t trade you.

Plenty of players without families get NMCs too. In fact, I'd say most superstars get them, long before they families or kids. NMC give the players huge amounts of control. The bigger factor, especially from an agent's and financial perspective, is will you put up points on the team you are playing on. There are many situations where players would get traded to bad situations and see their production fall, and lose out on the ability to control their situation.

Players also almost always waive their NMCs, but just not to play in situations that will be career killers.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Hackey

So far haven't retained once. They have 3 retention spots and only two UFAs their looking to deal. Those retention spots will be gone at the end of the year. So there is a lot of flexibility and options if they really want to maximize their assets.

I'd retain MAX on the UFAs to really drive up the price at the TDL. I mean, its a bit of money but it doesnt stay on the books very long.

Markstrom is more difficult. He has some control, and how much of his salary do you want to eat and for how long?

[GioforPM]

Some people are talking about multi-year cap retention like it's commonly done. Go look at CF and tell me how many teams have multi year retention on their books. Not very many, especially at amounts we are discussing. And fewer did them as a trade of a player the other team really wanted.

Montreal has Jeff Petry (25%) in the convoluted deal that sees SJ has 1.5 on Karlsson (13%) for a few years. Flyers have multi years of Hayes at 3.75 and it just seems dumb but that was them being desperate to shed the salary, not trading an asset - they paid to do it, not the other way around. Hawks have McCabe. AZ has tiny retentions on OEL. Kings did a deal to be the retainers on Provorov.