CRAZY_4_NAZZY Posted October 14, 2023 Share Posted October 14, 2023 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EternalCanuckFan Posted October 14, 2023 Share Posted October 14, 2023 Curious. They don't really need to make the move for cap reasons unless they have a large cap hit incoming Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VegasCanuck Posted October 14, 2023 Share Posted October 14, 2023 25 minutes ago, EternalCanuckFan said: Curious. They don't really need to make the move for cap reasons unless they have a large cap hit incoming I guess the other question is, how bad do you have to be in game 1 of the season to be waived before game 2? 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
higgyfan Posted October 14, 2023 Share Posted October 14, 2023 Interesting. They just put Jiricek on the roster, which gives them 5 RDs. My bet is there will be a trade involving Boqvist, who didn't play in the season opener. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EternalCanuckFan Posted October 14, 2023 Share Posted October 14, 2023 Just now, higgyfan said: Interesting. They just put Jiricek on the roster, which gives them 5 RDs. My bet is there will be a trade involving Boqvist, who didn't play in the season opener. Certainly seems plausible given prior reporting. Non-trade related, they might have a player or two coming back from injury so maybe they also needed to demote someone to meet the max # of contracts. Robinson has an AAV of $1.6M which is why the demotion is a bit more intriguing to me since they have cap space even after calling up Jiricek. If they just need to clear a contract for a now healthy player (no trade on the horizon necessarily), then I guess they're committed to keeping all their waiver-exempt ELCs on the roster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coconuts Posted October 14, 2023 Share Posted October 14, 2023 Wonder if they're helping Ottawa clear room for Pinto Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeanSeanBean Posted October 14, 2023 Share Posted October 14, 2023 Huh... Wonder why. Seems like he can play Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
higgyfan Posted October 14, 2023 Share Posted October 14, 2023 27 minutes ago, EternalCanuckFan said: Certainly seems plausible given prior reporting. Non-trade related, they might have a player or two coming back from injury so maybe they also needed to demote someone to meet the max # of contracts. Robinson has an AAV of $1.6M which is why the demotion is a bit more intriguing to me since they have cap space even after calling up Jiricek. If they just need to clear a contract for a now healthy player (no trade on the horizon necessarily), then I guess they're committed to keeping all their waiver-exempt ELCs on the roster. Another interesting situation is that Werenski played one game and then went back on LTIR ($9.5m). So now they're down to 2 LDs along with the 5 RDs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted October 14, 2023 Share Posted October 14, 2023 Garland + Rathbone for Guddy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snoop Hogg Posted October 14, 2023 Share Posted October 14, 2023 31 minutes ago, Alflives said: Garland + Rathbone for Guddy? I don’t know. They could have claimed Bogosion, who has a much smaller cap hit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted October 14, 2023 Share Posted October 14, 2023 4 minutes ago, Snoop Hogg said: I don’t know. They could have claimed Bogosion, who has a much smaller cap hit. But claiming a guy off waivers doesn’t dumperoo all of Garland's cap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snoop Hogg Posted October 14, 2023 Share Posted October 14, 2023 39 minutes ago, Alflives said: But claiming a guy off waivers doesn’t dumperoo all of Garland's cap. No, it doesn’t but Garland has no value, so I doubt he’s traded. They’ve tried for 8 months. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted October 14, 2023 Share Posted October 14, 2023 39 minutes ago, Snoop Hogg said: No, it doesn’t but Garland has no value, so I doubt he’s traded. They’ve tried for 8 months. Garland does have value, he'd be a nice add to CHI e.g., who could easily retain on him and flip him for an asset at the TDL or just keep him. They could get him for free from us. He's just not worth it to most teams cap wise, but for a bottom feeder who can retain and flip him, getting him for free could work. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hammertime Posted October 14, 2023 Share Posted October 14, 2023 2 hours ago, Alflives said: Garland + Rathbone for Guddy? 2 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biff Tannen Posted October 14, 2023 Share Posted October 14, 2023 1 hour ago, Alflives said: But claiming a guy off waivers doesn’t dumperoo all of Garland's cap. And trading for Guddy who is paid almost as much for just as long doesn't really help either. Besides we can't hog all the tall, right sided, over-payed pylons. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RawkDrummer Posted October 15, 2023 Share Posted October 15, 2023 Guddy doesn't solve problems, he creates problems cap wise and otherwise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trebreh Posted October 15, 2023 Share Posted October 15, 2023 he has played nearly 300 NHL games but this is the first time I've ever heard of him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeanSeanBean Posted October 15, 2023 Share Posted October 15, 2023 The general consensus was the Guddy contract was a nightmare when it was signed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.