Rolston v Zubrus, and which one should go
by Triumph44 on Sep 10, 2010 1:25 PM EDT
Email
PrintThere has been a longstanding debate at ILWT ever since Kovalchuk got signed for the first time in July - we've all narrowed down the possibilities and we have been saying that one of Brian Rolston or Dainius Zubrus should be somehow disposed of. The problems with Brian Rolston are well-documented - he has a no-trade, and his contract is for far too much money. That is all true - however, I have been arguing for a re-entry waiving of Brian Rolston. Undertaking this procedure would leave the Devils with 2.53 million dollars in additional dead cap space for the next two seasons. This, plus moving Bryce Salvador, would enable the Devils to get under the cap and ice essentially any team they wish with the players they currently possess. I'll save everyone the CapGeek paste - just rest assured that it's more than possible.
The reason I think Dainius Zubrus should be kept, at least for now, is his versatility. There's a lot of claims that players like Adam Henrique, Jacob Josefson, or Mattias Tedenby can pick up the slack for any potential departed players, but as Derek Zona showed over at Copper and Blue, forwards this age aren't particularly successful. Rather than expose these players to the difficulties of NHL play, I think all three should be given significant time in the AHL to develop. The Devils have enough injury-prone players (Zubrus, Arnott, Elias, and Langenbrunner have all tended to miss parts of seasons) where getting these players NHL ice time, should they merit it, will not be a problem.
The Devils have a number of forwards on the cusp of the NHL; these include, in addition to the above-listed players, Alex Vasyunov, Nick Palmieri, David McIntyre, and perhaps Nathan Perkovich. I am not saying that all of these players will make the NHL. However, I think it likely that at least two of Josefson, Henrique, McIntyre, Palmieri, Tedenby, Vasyunov, and Perkovich will be ready for the NHL in 2011-12. I am not sure that any of them will be ready for NHL play this coming season. Thus we could use this lineup in 2010-11:
Parise-Zajac-Langenbrunner
Kovalchuk-Arnott-Elias
Zharkov-Zubrus-Clarkson
Leblond-X-Pelley
What if one of Henrique or Josefson impresses enough to stay at center in the NHL this season? Then the Devils can move Zubrus to left wing, and bump Zharkov down to the 4th line - injuries would soon crop up that put Zharkov in the top 9. Zubrus himself would be an adequate injury fill in for anyone in the top six as well, saving a rookie that possible duty.
Next season, however, things look different; Parise needs a new contract, and both Arnott and Langenbrunner are UFA. If we ditch Zubrus there, after hopefully inflating his value a tad with a season at center, we get this:
Parise-Zajac-Palmieri
Kovalchuk-Josefson-Elias
Zharkov-Henrique-Clarkson
Leblond-X-Pelley
Assuming a lineup with Andy Greene signed at 3.5 million a season, and Zach Parise at 8.5 million a season (what I think is both player's absolute top end for new contracts), and Vladimir Zharkov signed for 1 million, this team with 11 forwards, 4 defenseman, and 1 goalie, costs 54.6 million dollars. This is plenty of room for the additional 2 forwards, 3 defensemen, and a backup goaltender needed to fill out a roster, especially when many of these players should be from our own farm system and should therefore be quite inexpensive. We could even add one of Arnott or Langenbrunner back if they were willing to stay for a significant discount from their current prices, which given that both players are older than 35, shouldn't be too difficult.
In short, I think the first lineup is far superior to a lineup with Rolston and without Zubrus. We would likely have to protect a Henrique or Josefson line if we had one this season, hurting the team overall, and there's no guarantees that even if those rookies maintained their play for much of the season, that they could maintain it in the playoffs. Having a line that was at a significant disadvantage territorially this past season was a giant Achilles' heel that only got worse as the season progressed - I do not want to see a repeat of that debacle this season.
All FanPosts and FanShots are the respective work of the author and not representative of the writers or other users of In Lou We Trust.
37 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
but as Derek Zona showed over at Copper and Blue, forwards this age aren’t particularly successful.
He also, in that article, says, “There is a way to get productivity out of players in their first three years of eligibility, likely even on bad teams — feed the young prospects soft minutes.”
Considering we’re talking about the bottom two lines here, as our top two are already written in pen, that is not a difficult situation to manufacture.
Additionally, $2.5m ($3.5 if you include the buyouts) in dead space for the next two years is just not a desirable option. Zubrus’ flexibility is great and all, but he’s still overpaid. It’ll sound great in the sales pitch to deal him for less future-sucking additions to the deal than would be required to convince someone to take Rolston on re-entry waivers.
Playing Devils' advocate since 1982.
i would much, much rather feed those soft minutes to kovalchuk at home and watch his line absolutely dominate. the lines i have right there, any of them could be put out at any time. how do you stop that as an opposing defense?
you don’t seem to get the fact that dead space is totally irrelevant when we are talking about rolston. and then you say that we would need to convince someone to take rolston on re-entry waivers! how priceless. so in other words, rolston’s value is LESS than the 2.5M that he’d be paid on re-entry waivers, but having 2.5 M in dead space is just not desirable. that’s absolutely absurd. you don’t understand the concept of a sunk cost.
Kovalchuk is already going to see softer minutes because he’s going to be on the second line. And the third and fourth lines would see even softer minutes against weaker competition.
you don’t seem to get the fact that dead space is totally irrelevant when we are talking about rolston.
Not if you’re putting him through re-entry waivers. Then dead cap space is entirely relevant to Rolston.
and then you say that we would need to convince someone to take rolston on re-entry waivers!
Someone does have to claim him for the process to work, no?
how priceless.
How condescending.
so in other words, rolston’s value is LESS than the 2.5M that he’d be paid on re-entry waivers, but having 2.5 M in dead space is just not desirable.
His value isn’t the issue. The cost of bribing someone to do us the huge favor of claiming him is.
that’s absolutely absurd. you don’t understand the concept of a sunk cost.
And you don’t seem to understand the concept of a bad idea.
Playing Devils' advocate since 1982.
that WAS tremendously condescending. I have to agree with Triumph, though, that Rolston is a sunk cost – whether he’s on the roster or not. If we can use the $2.5 M saved by re-entry waiving Rolston to get more value than what we’re currently getting out of Rolston (via Zubrus’ value and whatever player replaces Rolston), then the “dead” space is worth it.
To put it mathematically, we have Rolston, Zubrus, the player that replaces the departed, the $900K difference in cap space between Zubrus and half of Rolston’s salary, and other assets which may be given up by trading Zubrus. It all comes down to whether we think that
Value of Zubrus + value of replacement player + value of other assets
is greater or less than
Value of Rolston + value of replacement player + $900K in cap space x 2 yrs
If we suppose that the replacement player is the same player in both instances (i.e. the fact that Zubrus can play center and wing doesn’t have any bearing on which of the prospects is promoted to the big club) then the issue of the replacement player cancels out and we have the question of whether the value of Zubrus + other assets is greater or less than the value of Rolston + $900K in cap space x 2 yrs
My personal opinion is that the value of Zubrus > value of Rolston, and the likely value of draft picks/prospects given up in dumping Zubrus > $900K in cap space (which might not get used this year), therefore the option of re-entry waiving is more appealing than the option of trading Zubrus. If the Devils can give Zubrus away for free – without giving up picks/prospects then that changes things, but I’m skeptical that will be possible.
If the Devils can give Zubrus away for free – without giving up picks/prospects
They can, by simply waiving him. Zubrus on waivers would definitely get picked up. He’s overpaid, but no so significantly to keep a rebuilding, cap floor level team from picking him up for nothing.
Go Devils
Go Jets
Like sports betting? Sign up with centsports and do it for free
All of this assumes someone would even want to claim Rolston for $2.5m for two years. It sounds like a bargain to us because we’re paying twice that, but to another GM his 15-20 goals could be had for cheaper and without all of his contract baggage… so why would any GM want to do the Devils the favor of claiming him?
Playing Devils' advocate since 1982.
it’s pretty slim pickings right now, where you have soft minute types like jason williams and marek svatos available. plus rolston is a ‘veteran’ with ‘leadership abilities’. rolston can play in a lot of situations, and if that GM hasn’t been watching closely, he might think rolston is actually still good at e.g. killing penalties. if it takes enticement to get someone to take him, it won’t take very much. and a team near the cap floor would be totally fine with rolston retiring next season.
rolston supposedly received 15 contract offers on july 1, 2008. it is hard for me to believe that all of them have soured on him at half price.
Those are just the free agents. I’d expect most teams have a prospect or two that could come up and, under the right circumstances, pot 15-20 goals.
If it takes enticements to get someone to take him, then it throws off everyone’s formulas about the cost of retaining him vs. Zubrus.
The offers for Rolston back then were after three straight 30+ goal seasons.
Besides, it doesn’t address the fact that all 29 other GMs know the situation the Devils are in. Even if there were a couple who thought they could get more out of the guy, why would they solve all of the Devils cap problems in one fell swoop? His potential value isn’t so great that it’s a deal anyone couldn’t refuse.
Playing Devils' advocate since 1982.
right, but how many of them kill penalties and can play the point on the power play? probably none. that and ‘veteran leadership’ where rolston’s ‘supposed’ value comes in. plus he did spend half the year with rob niedermayer which had to be a drain on his offense.
all 29 GMs knowing has not prevented teams from getting under in the past. GMs are too concerned about what helps their team to start holding teams up for ransom. especially wrt waivers, where any team can submit a claim, and it’s totally a mystery who might do so.
Probably more than the number that are 37 and obviously on the decline.
This “supposed” value is like someone fancying up their resume to make the bland sound original and valuable.
Yes, GMs are concerned about helping themselves, so why would a 37 year old fading talent whose biggest selling point is his experience garner much interest even at $2.5m + a NTC and 35+ baggege? Even if there were a team out there with interest, the fact that claiming him would instantly help the Devils would certainly weight into it. He isn’t such a bargain that that aspect doesn’t come into play.
Playing Devils' advocate since 1982.
35+ baggage is GOOD for teams near the salary floor. if rolston retires, that’s AWESOME for them. he can save them as much money as he costs. plus, imagine a scenario where a team near the floor wants to make moves at the deadline, but has some trouble just dumping salary because they will go below the salary floor.
Perhaps, but Rolston is not.
If a team is picking up Rolston’s $2.5m to help them reach the floor, they’re going to expect something in return. And, frankly, there are better ways to reach the floor.
Playing Devils' advocate since 1982.
Since it’s impossible to increase ones salary without paying someone I’m going to assume you meant ‘without having to bribe someone’.
Sign a free agent.
Pick up a guy like Souray on the way down through the waiver wire.
Make a trade for a guy with a big cap hit.
Playing Devils' advocate since 1982.
I think he meant it like this: After Rolston retires, perhaps with a year left on his contract, the $2.53M contributes to getting the team to the cap floor, but they don’t actually have to spend the money. That and a traditional buyout (years 2 and beyond) are the only ways I can think of to increase your cap without actually shelling out the dollars.
Go Devils
Go Jets
Like sports betting? Sign up with centsports and do it for free
another way is to get a player whose cap hit is bigger than his salary, but there aren’t that many players around for whom that’s true. michal rozsival is one, however.
as these front-loaded contracts start winding down, there will be a plethora of them.
Go Devils
Go Jets
Like sports betting? Sign up with centsports and do it for free
We’re stuck with Rolston. Nothing short of a miracle will get his albatross contract off the books. Of course we’d rather have Zubrus than Rolston right now, especially since we could always trade Zubrus later, but that isn’t how things will most likely play out.
Also, I think you’re over-estimating how much money Parise will get next year. $8.5M/yr is way too much. Even with the new rules, Lou can find a way to keep Parise’s cap hit at $7.5M/yr or lower for a long deal. Same for Greene. $3.5M/yr is more than he’s worth right now. He’d have to have a monster year to get that much.
"Everything is status quo." - Lou Lamoriello
"*Heavy groan*" - The Entirety of Devils Nation
If you take finances out of the equation, and make this solely an argument based on “which player would you rather have in a world where the money is completely irrelevant”, I’ll vote for Dainius Zubrus over Brian Rolston 100 times out of 100. I think Zubrus is overall the better player (though not by much). Zubrus is the younger player. Zubrus is the more versatile player. Zubrus also has a big body that allows him to do things (board work, or sitting in front of the net as a screen) that Rolston cannot do.
Alas, this is not the perfect world where the money doesn’t matter. And right now, that money is a significant deal, all the more since the Devils are pressed up against the salary cap.
If we ditch Zubrus there, after hopefully inflating his value a tad with a season at center
We know what Dainius Zubrus is at this point in his career. Despite what our author might think, his value is not going to be inflated, and it certainly won’t skyrocket by centering the third line with Clarkson and a winger-to-be-named later. Dainius Zubrus is 32, and has been in the League for almost a decade-and-a-half. Over the course of a healthy season, Zubrus will provide you roughly 40-45 points. He will have some brilliant stretches, and he will virtually disappear at other times. Short of his playing on the top line with Parise and Zajac, or the second line with Kovalchuk and Arnott, I don’t see how there will be a considerable deviation from this, considering the weight of evidence collected since the Bill Clinton presidency.
Zubrus’ value isn’t going to go up. Instead of the Zubrus you have now, you’ll have a guy who is a year older, who has put his rugged frame through another year of NHL punishment, and perhaps a guy who has gotten hurt (again). If you look at his history of injuries, it isn’t what I’d call a quick read.
I accept that Brian Rolston’s value isn’t going anywhere but down. However, I think there’s at least the possibility of trading him next summer, because he will be attractive to someone with his contract expiring, and perhaps a team would take a chance on him when they can simply walk away after a season if it doesn’t work. Perhaps it would mean taking a contract of some sort back, but most teams are more willing to swallow one year where they would balk at two or three. Even if you can’t trade or “donate” him at that point, you could always reserve the option of trying re-entry waivers next summer — perhaps a team will take him for his last season at $2.5 million.
If you trade or “donate” Zubrus and keep Rolston, you’re paying $5 million plus the replacement cost of one player.
If you re-entry waive Rolston and keep Zubrus, you’re paying $5.9 million plus the replacement cost of one player.
So what my question boils down to is thus: Is Dainius Zubrus going to give you enough extra over Rolston that he’s worth the $900k difference this year and $2.5 million next year? After all, if you re-entry waive Rolston this season, you’re losing the space next year as well without anything to show for it and now possibility of reclaiming it. If you “donate” (i.e. waive or trade for nothing on the NHL level) Zubrus, there’s no impact on the cap going forward.
Zubrus is the better player, but I don’t think he gives you so much more than Rolston as to make it worthwhile to play the waiver game. So my vote is to keep Brian Rolston and take what you can get out of him.
I wish I’d read this comment before I replied to elesias’ above. You’re reasoning along the lines that I am.
If Lou is willing to banish Zubrus to another league, be it the AHL or the KHL or whatever, then I agree with you that the difference between Zubrus and Rolston doesn’t justify the cap difference.
I feel, though, that Lou will try his best to trade players rather than waiving them, even if it costs the team draft picks and the like. There will be a line drawn, though, at which the cost is too high and where this plan of re-entry waiving Rolston becomes more palatable.
Waiiiiiit a second….
When I first read it, the 900K this year and 2.5 M next year made sense to me. Then I got confused. Then I worked out your argument and I got the following four plans:
1. If we keep Rolston and waive Zubrus, btwn those two players we are on the hook for $5M for the next 2 yrs
2. If we keep Zubrus and re-waive Rolston, we are on the hook for $5.9M for the next 2 yrs and $3.4M in the third yr
3. If we waive Zubrus now and trade Rolston next year, we are on the hook for $5M this year and $0 thereafter
4. If we waive Zubrus now and re-waive Rolston next year, we are on the hook for $5M this year and $2.5M next year
But with the last two plans, we would need to not only replace Zubrus this year and replace Rolston next year. For simplicity’s sake, let’s say Zubrus is waived, not traded, therefore dumping him costs us nothing in picks/prospects
So if we take plan (1) as the default, the other plans would provide a relative benefit if they can deliver the following:
Plan (2) – Zubrus provides more than $900K of value than Rolston for the next two years
Plan (3) – $5M next year and Rolston’s replacement provide more value than Rolston + the assets potentially given up in trading Rolston
Plan (4) – $2.5M next year and Rolston’s replacement provide more value than Rolston
So…I do agree with you that Plan (4) is fairly appealing. I am still skeptical of Lou’s willingness to waive and banish Zubrus, though. Besides the notion that it would represent a failure of loyalty by a man famous for loyalty and principled action, I think it would hurt the Devils’ future ability to sign free agents and may cause any future free agents to take a hardline stance on a NMC in negotiations.
to me, i just don’t see how rolston’s value goes up. if he’s not re-waivable this year, he’s probably not going to be next year. given that arnott gets hurt a lot and that zubrus could easily go back to his role with zajac and parise if one of josefson or henrique became viable (or to a role in between kovalchuk), i think zubrus could increase his value enough to be interesting. rolston’s clearly a persona non grata, i don’t think he’s any good at center or right wing, and parise and kovalchuk are both durable players – it’s hard to see where he gets valuable ice time. throw in the fact that rolston could just up and retire if he went to the wrong team – it’s not a good situation.
i don’t understand why option 5 isn’t there, where the devils re-waive rolston this year, and waive/trade zubrus next year, especially since it’s what i proposed in my post above.
I don’t see Rolston’s value going up, either, at least not in an absolute sense. I simply believe that his contract is easier to dump (and less expensive, too!) when there is only one year and five million remaining on it, as opposed to two years and ten million. You aren’t asking the lucky recipient to take on as much of a risk, or for as long a time period…. so it is reasonable to assume that you won’t be as badly gouged in the process. That isn’t to say it won’t be prohibitively expensive to dump the contract anyhow…. but there you have my “logic”.
More than that, reducing the financial burden on a lucky recipient opens up the market to more teams that might have some financial issues.
In addition, the process with dumping the last year of Rolston’s contract would likely start in early-to-mid June of 2011. There’d be a better idea of how much a Devils’ draft pick is worth, and teams would have their rosters less settled and less money already “spent”. Teams would also have a better idea of their plan entering the summer, and whether Rolston might make an attractive alternative (or at least a Plan B) to playing the free agency market.
Right now, I imagine rosters are mostly settled. There are some teams with cap space to spend and an unsettled depth chart on their forward lines…. but it isn’t a very large list, and a lot of teams can’t even afford the reduced cap hit of Brian Rolston on re-entry waivers. While it makes for a poor tool given the possibility of some roster juggling during training camp as some rookies excel and others get sent to the AHL or juniors, CapGeek presently has 14 teams listed with less than $2.5 million in cap space or over the cap entirely (Devils included). That certainly cuts into the pool of potential buyers, no?
I don’t see Rolston’s value going up, either, at least not in an absolute sense. I simply believe that his contract is easier to dump (and less expensive, too!) when there is only one year and five million remaining on it, as opposed to two years and ten million. You aren’t asking the lucky recipient to take on as much of a risk, or for as long a time period…. so it is reasonable to assume that you won’t be as badly gouged in the process. That isn’t to say it won’t be prohibitively expensive to dump the contract anyhow…. but there you have my "logic".
my issue is rolston’s NTC. i don’t think he’ll waive it, and the devils really don’t have any way to threaten him to do so because he’s 35+. so i’d rather dispose of him as soon as possible, before anyone gets wise to the fact that he sucks and is playing out the string.
In addition, the process with dumping the last year of Rolston’s contract would likely start in early-to-mid June of 2011. There’d be a better idea of how much a Devils’ draft pick is worth, and teams would have their rosters less settled and less money already "spent". Teams would also have a better idea of their plan entering the summer, and whether Rolston might make an attractive alternative (or at least a Plan B) to playing the free agency market.
same logic applies to dainius zubrus. the devils could take on a bad contract in exchange for zubrus and then bury that contract.
Right now, I imagine rosters are mostly settled. There are some teams with cap space to spend and an unsettled depth chart on their forward lines…. but it isn’t a very large list, and a lot of teams can’t even afford the reduced cap hit of Brian Rolston on re-entry waivers. While it makes for a poor tool given the possibility of some roster juggling during training camp as some rookies excel and others get sent to the AHL or juniors, CapGeek presently has 14 teams listed with less than $2.5 million in cap space or over the cap entirely (Devils included). That certainly cuts into the pool of potential buyers, no?
i’m not concerned about this. i think most teams would rather take a shot in free agency than go after a 38 year old winger, that’s a desperation move. right now, all that’s left are teams that lost out in free agency and still might want their man. that’s a good market for re-entry waiving.
Obviously, there is no way to predict 2011-2012. I’m using the following assumptions myself:
1. If you keep Zubrus and re-entry waive Rolston, you lose $900k this season.
2. If you re-entry waive Rolston this season, you lose $2.5 million in cap for next season for no discernable return. That is a sunk cost and cannot be reclaimed by any means.
3. If you trade or “donate” Zubrus, he disappears from your cap entirely. He’s not there this year, he’s not there next year…. and he’s not there in 2012-2013, for what it is worth.
….then there is….
4. It will be less expensive in terms of other assets to move Zubrus than it will Rolston.
5. There is no certainty in exposing Rolston to waivers and re-entry waivers. A lot of people think it is a reasonably sure thing he will be claimed if the claiming team is only obliged for $2.5 million, but I’m not so sold on that one.
6. Brian Rolston’s contract may be more tradable next season than this one, especially if you have relatively low standards for your return.
7. Dainius Zubrus will not provide $900k in “added value” compared to Brian Rolston, unless you project Rolston as a fourth line player and Zubrus as a third line player.
I believe the first three points are indisputable facts, and simply raw mathematics.
I believe Zubrus has some value to other clubs, even with his contract. I believe there is a chance he would be claimed on simple waivers, were the Devils to expose him…. and if he is not, he would require less of an enticement to trade than Brian Rolston.
I believe Rolston may have some value to other clubs, at least if you go by the comments of their blogs related to ILWT. However, I do not know that the GMs see things the same way — just because the fans like an idea doesn’t mean the guy whose butt is on the firing line agrees. Rolston is certainly a risk, due to his age, contract, and declining production. More than that, there’s the real risk you take him and he retires at the end of the year, leaving the receiving club holding their own batch of dead cap space. It may not be a substantial risk, but how many GMs will be willing to risk it, especially if there’s the idea out there that Rolston may not approve of the move and it is being facilitated by re-entry waivers to get around his NTC?
I do not believe Rolston can significantly decrease his value this season, if we go on the assumption that it is astronomically low to begin with — for example, if you need to use Jamie Langenbrunner and multiple draft picks to get someone to take Rolston off your hands. Holding onto Rolston doesn’t even carry the risk of serious injury — if Rolston gets badly hurt, the Devils stash him on LTIR and the problem is solved. The only way Rolston can further hurt his value is to completely “lose it”. That would leave the Devils with $5 million in “sunk costs”, but many of us believe we’re already there.
I have stated in no uncertain terms that I don’t see a whole lot of value in Zubrus. If he is healthy and plays on the third line (or even the second line in case of an injury), I see his “ceiling” as 20 goals and 45 points. If Rolston were used on the third line and as a power play specialist, I believe he is capable of reaching those numbers as well, although 15 goals and 30 points might be a more reasonable expectation. Is the difference between 20-25-45 and 15-15-30 really worth $900k? Admittedly, I have put forth the idea that Rolston could play the fourth line and special teams, with a prospect making the jump to the third line. While that would cut into Rolston’s numbers, there would be something of a counter-balance in the prospect’s output because he’d have significantly more ice time.
Now, to your conclusions and analysis. I agree with three of your points, and just disagree with the following
So if we take plan (1) as the default, the other plans would provide a relative benefit if they can deliver the following:
Plan (2) – Zubrus provides more than $900K of value than Rolston for the next two years
I don’t think you took plan 2 far enough. To be effective, Zubrus has to provide that extra value for two years and positive value (relative to his contract) in year #3. And that begs the question to how much value you can expect out of a 34-year old Zubrus who has taken two more years of pounding on his big frame working the boards and the front of the net (assuming he seriously isn’t hurt doing so). If Zubrus is deadweight by the end of his contract, I don’t see that as a positive situation either.
Admittedly, well down the line…. but it is something to keep in the back of your mind, that Zubrus extends out further and that might alter plans a few years out.
I’m inclined to agree with you acasser except for point #5. I really believe Rolston would get claimed on re-entry. As deep in my doghouse as Rolston is, I think another team would be smart to pick him up for $2.5M. He can provide a team with scoring punch from the third line.
And I agree with you that Zubrus will not nearly deliver on his $3.4 M cap hit in the last year of his contract. He doesn’t even deliver on it right now. So yes, that should be part of the equation. And the possibility that Rolston is re-waived this year and Zubrus is traded next year should be one of the options as well.
You’ve convinced me, acasser, that trading/waiving Zubrus now and potentially attempting to get Rolston is not only the most feasible option, but the most cap-sensible option.
However, the question that is still unanswered for me is whether we need to give Zubrus more credit for being able to play both wing and center. What if both Josefson and Henrique are not ready to play this year? Who will be our third center, being able to get the most out of Rolston and Clarkson, as well as being able to handle minutes with the likes of Kovalchuk, Elias, and Parise when the lines are shuffled?
Even if Josefson is ready, what if (some would say “when”) Arnott gets injured – what then? We could shift Elias back to center but I like having Zubrus as an insurance policy. I also think though Zubrus may not provide much more value than Rolston as an individual, he plays better with his linemates.
I'm not sure if this is possible,
but could the Devils ‘loan’ Rolston to a league overseas without voiding his NTC, a la Huet? Sure, the organization would still have to pay him, but it would not count against the cap.
I know Huet does not have a NTC, so I’m unsure if this is even a possibility without Rolston voiding said clause.
Is it possible to...
Waive Zubrus this season, loan him to the KHL (or wherever he wants to go), and then bring him back next offseason, possibly after we have managed another way to get rid of Rolston, without exposing Zubrus to re-entry waivers?
Of course there is the possibility that Zubrus simply doesn’t tolerate that, but I wonder if it’s an option.
No, it isn't
13.1 A Club shall not dispose of the services of any Player in which it has a proprietary
interest by Loan to a club of another league without first having complied with the
provisions of this Article. The Waivers that are recognized by this Agreement are
Regular Waivers, Re-Entry Waivers and Unconditional Waivers.
When he comes back from the KHL, he’s subject to re-entry waivers. Doesn’t matter whether that other league is the AHL, ECHL, or KHL.
Go Devils
Go Jets
Like sports betting? Sign up with centsports and do it for free
i don’t think a player who returns to the NHL is subject to re-entry waivers if he’s gone back to the AHL for a season on a multi-year contract, though i’m struggling to think of anyone who’s done that. translating my previous sentence out of gibberish, i mean that if zubrus were to go to the KHL, then return for the next season, i don’t see where he’s going through re-entry waivers. likewise with a player who was in the AHL. wouldn’t mike mottau have been subject to re-entry waivers under this in 2008? (he had a multi-year deal iirc, though i don’t recall if he was eligible for re-entry waivers).
could be. I don’t know for sure, just tried to interpret what was in the CBA, but then I’m not a lawyer.
Go Devils
Go Jets
Like sports betting? Sign up with centsports and do it for free
I think Matt answered my question in his post:
To the extent the Player does require Waivers to be Loaned to a minor league affiliate, he cannot be Loaned or recalled without first clearing regular Waivers, and then cannot be Recalled to the NHL parent Club during the same League Year without also clearing a new Re-Entry Waiver procedure, pursuant to which the Player can be claimed by another NHL Club for fifty (50) percent of the contract’s remaining amounts to be paid, with the balance to
be paid by and charged to the waiving NHL Club (both amounts to be counted against each Club’s Upper Limit, Actual Club Salary and Averaged Club Salary, and counted against the Players’ Share);
The key phrase being “during the same League Year”. So I think it’s possible.
I don’t think it would have already happened even if it is possible. I imagine Zubrus’ preference would be to stay in the NHL, and I think Lou is obligated to try every avenue to help keep him in the NHL.
My fear
Is that Zubrus is traded or waived and then Rolston gets injured. Not that I’m hoping it will happen, but afraid it will. If that is the case, we probably don’t have an equivalent level player for each (outside of a trade, which would create another hole). Yeah, that opens up a boatload of money for Parise/Greene, but hurts the team depth. Perfect situation is obviously Lou finds someone who wants Rolston and doesn’t have to give away the farm for it to happen. But John’s unicorn skating on the 4th line has a better chance of happening.
Go Devils
Go Jets
Like sports betting? Sign up with centsports and do it for free
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on In Lou We Trust
Related FanShots on In Lou We Trust
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Devils try to even series with Rangers; watch the ‘Sandley Cup’ get built (Playoff Puck Previews)
- Sean Avery: Not in NHL playoffs, getting a handle on semi-nude modeling (PHOTO)
- No lion: KCBS angers Bailey, LA Kings mascot, after confusion with Slamson, Sacramento Kings mascot
- Ratings down for conference finals; Ted Nugent backs David Booth; NHL 13 teaser (Puck Headlines)
- Chris Chelios and Eddie Vedder form karaoke super-band, sing ‘The Weight’ in Chicago bar (VIDEO)
Latest stories and headlines from NHL.com
- Frattin scores twice, including winner as Marlies defeat Barons 5-3 in Game 3
- Buffalo Sabres give defenceman Alexander Sulzer a one-year deal to dodge free agency
- Sabres sign defenseman Sulzer for one year
- Devils make lineup change for Game 4 vs. Rangers; Jacob Jacobson in, Petr Sykora out
- Josefson replaces Sykora in Devils' lineup Monday
