• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

Leaf Rumours

leafman101 said:
No. They get traded for less than they would without the problems, nto for garbage.

Savard wouldn't even be available but for the risk. His price is WAY down.

And most rumours say the Leafs won't give Kaberle for him anyway.
Click to expand...

His price is way down because it should be.

His production dropped by a 1/4 last year, and had already dropped by around 10% the two years prior compared to the two previous years.

This is a player who is declining, and will be doing so even moreso in the near future.

Sorry, I don't want to invest $4M for 7 years in a guy who may top out at 60-65 points for the next couple of years and then fall off a cliff.
 
After the 4th year his contract is already at a buyout price and you can do it at 2/3 of that too. Savard at $4M is a very good contract. You guys haven't really looked at his contract if you think it is a bad one.

And if you think Savard is only good for 60-65 points playing with Kessel you're absolutely nuts.

Oh and guess what? 60-65 point players make.... $4-$5M a year.
 
axlsalinger said:
He doesn't have negative value, because his contract is nowhere near "onerous". Yes it's long and he is a risky pickup, but the Bruins aren't going to give him away, because they don't have to. As has been mentioned many times, it's a $4M cap hit.
Click to expand...

Unless we get rid of Finger and Grabo in the same deal (or at least one), which is unlikely given that they want cap space, it definitely is onerous because it will stop us from going out and getting a good, young player instead.
 
If the Bruins are forced to make a "soft trade" and they have to choose between Ottawa and Toronto, why would they help the team that hurts their draft position next year?

If Savard goes for a steal, it will be to the Sens and not the Leafs, but I'm not conviced ANY team will be getting him at a firesale price.

His trade value is being far underrated. 4 mil for what he brings is quite reasonable. If he retires later in the deal, the cap hit is fine.

If a team is willing to take the Thomas contract with Savard, then they could be looking at a bargain.
 
Last edited:
Habsy said:
After the 4th year his contract is already at a buyout price and you can do it at 2/3 of that too. Savard at $4M is a very good contract. You guys haven't really looked at his contract if you think it is a bad one.
Click to expand...

Someone will have to confirm this, but I'm pretty sure your cap hit on a buy out like Savard's (where the actual salary differs from the cap hit) is not handled that way.

Yeah, we'd have to pay 2/3 of the actual dollars owed, but I think the surviving cap hit would be 2/3 of the cap hit, not the dollars. So, if we were to buy him out after year 5, we'd pay him 2/3 of the actual dollars, but have 2/3 of a $4M per year cap hit left over. In other words, around $5.3M over four years, which is like another Tucker hit but worse - over $1M of dead cap for four years. If it doesn't work this way, it'd be a gross evasion of the rules, and I can't imagine they'd allow it.

The only out is if he retires.
 
LeafOfFaith said:
Unless we get rid of Finger and Grabo in the same deal (or at least one), which is unlikely given that they want cap space, it definitely is onerous because it will stop us from going out and getting a good, young player instead.
Click to expand...

It won't stop them from doing anything. His cap hit is only $4 million.

And really, even if it did, why should preventing the team from getting a worse player be of any concern?
 
leafman101 said:
It won't stop them from doing anything. His cap hit is only $4 million.

And really, even if it did, why should preventing the team from getting a worse player be of any concern?
Click to expand...

I think the concern is preventing the team from getting a better player, not worse.

If Savard is now a 65 point player, he's fallen pretty far from where he was before, and you can't just automatically think he'll return to form. If anything, he's more likely to get worse.
 
It won't prevent them from doing anything. His cap hit is ONLY $4 million.

And there is no way that it is more likely that Savard will be worse than a 60 point player, than better.
 
SENSible said:
If the Bruins are forced to make a "soft trade" and they have to choose between Ottawa and Toronto, why would they help the team that hurts their draft position next year?

If Savard goes for a steal, it will be to the Sens and not the Bruins, but I'm not conviced ANY team will be getting him at a firesale price.

His trade value is being far underrated. 4 mil for what he brings is quite reasonable. If he retires later in the deal, the cap hit is fine.

If a team is willing to take the Thomas contract with Savard, then they could be looking at a bargain.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I think the Bruins can get Savard for nothing.
 
LeafOfFaith said:
Someone will have to confirm this, but I'm pretty sure your cap hit on a buy out like Savard's (where the actual salary differs from the cap hit) is not handled that way.

Yeah, we'd have to pay 2/3 of the actual dollars owed, but I think the surviving cap hit would be 2/3 of the cap hit, not the dollars. So, if we were to buy him out after year 5, we'd pay him 2/3 of the actual dollars, but have 2/3 of a $4M per year cap hit left over. In other words, around $5.3M over four years, which is like another Tucker hit but worse - over $1M of dead cap for four years. If it doesn't work this way, it'd be a gross evasion of the rules, and I can't imagine they'd allow it.

The only out is if he retires.
Click to expand...

Wrong. That is only for players signed AFTER the age of 35. Savard's contract was signed prior.
 
leafman101 said:
It won't prevent them from doing anything. His cap hit is ONLY $4 million.

And there is no way that it is more likely that Savard will be worse than a 60 point player, than better.
Click to expand...

Because 32 year olds whose production has already been declining usually improve after they've gone through a poor, injury-riddled year?
 
TSNBobMcKenzie

IF Marc Savard goes to TOR, and there is a chance it may happen, Kaberle won't be part of it. It would be a "softer" trade.
 
LeafOfFaith said:
Unless we get rid of Finger and Grabo in the same deal (or at least one), which is unlikely given that they want cap space, it definitely is onerous because it will stop us from going out and getting a good, young player instead.
Click to expand...
As that link said about a soft deal, if you're not going to give them a Kaberle or a Schenn, capspace is the most valuable asset they can get. So please explain to me why they would trade a $4M #1 center in a deal like that, for $3.5M + $2.9M of total garbage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top