Leafs to trade McCabe to Florida

[Doggy 130]

I've read that it'll be McCabe for Van Ryn, Booth and a 4th round pick, which is a good deal for TO.

McCabe for three kicks in the nuts is a good deal for TO.

[MacK_Attack 108]

I've read that it'll be McCabe for Van Ryn, Booth and a 4th round pick, which is a good deal for TO.

Most of what I've heard is that it involves at least two roster players from Toronto (McCabe + one more player) for Van Ryn, a young player/prospect (potentially Booth) and a mid-level pick.

[daniel1 32]

I have two questions for someone who knows more about the Cap and Bryan McCabe than me.

1. Why would anyone want him? I've watched lots of Toronto games over the past couple years and honestly never thought once that if I were a GM I would want him on my team. What is his upside? It's sure not defensively and other than one year he's never been a huge point producer so what gives?

2. If Florida did acquire him what would his Cap hit for their team be? If he stays in Toronto he counts against the cap for 5.7mil for the next three seasons due to the fact they paid him 7 mil for the past couple of seasons and it's the average of all the years over the life of the contract. (amount for each year added up and divided by number of years for Cap hit). However; Florida would be inheriting him for only the last 3 years of his contract and would not have paid him the 7mil for the last two seasons so would their Cap hit for McCabe be based on the total amount for the last 3 years divided by 3? Or would they be stuck with a cap hit of 5.7 even though they will only be paying him 6.15, 4,15, 4,15 over the next three years (which would be an average of 4.81 rather than the average of 5.7 which is based on ALL the years in his contract)? It would make quite a difference as I don't think he's worth nearly 6mil in cap space at all but if he only counts as 4.8 against the cap for whichever team picks him up then it's a little more reasonable/believable that someone would trade for him. Cap experts feel free to enlighten me! Thanx

[MacK_Attack 108]

I have two questions for someone who knows more about the Cap and Bryan McCabe than me.

1. Why would anyone want him? I've watched lots of Toronto games over the past couple years and honestly never thought once that if I were a GM I would want him on my team. What is his upside? It's sure not defensively and other than one year he's never been a huge point producer so what gives?

2. If Florida did acquire him what would his Cap hit for their team be? If he stays in Toronto he counts against the cap for 5.7mil for the next three seasons due to the fact they paid him 7 mil for the past couple of seasons and it's the average of all the years over the life of the contract. (amount for each year added up and divided by number of years for Cap hit). However; Florida would be inheriting him for only the last 3 years of his contract and would not have paid him the 7mil for the last two seasons so would their Cap hit for McCabe be based on the total amount for the last 3 years divided by 3? Or would they be stuck with a cap hit of 5.7 even though they will only be paying him 6.15, 4,15, 4,15 over the next three years (which would be an average of 4.81 rather than the average of 5.7 which is based on ALL the years in his contract)? It would make quite a difference as I don't think he's worth nearly 6mil in cap space at all but if he only counts as 4.8 against the cap for whichever team picks him up then it's a little more reasonable/believable that someone would trade for him. Cap experts feel free to enlighten me! Thanx

1. He can make a world of difference for a powerplay. Special teams are paramount to any success in the NHL. As for only having one year of significant point production, care to point out which year? The year he had 53 points? 57 points? 68 points?

2. $5.75 million regardless of where he plays. Florida will only be paying him $4.15 million this season, as he will be paid $2 million by the Leafs on Sept. 1st as part of a signing bonus, which is why this trade has not yet gone through.

Edited August 21, 2008 by MacK_Attack

[daniel1 32]

1. He can make a world of difference for a powerplay. Special teams are paramount to any success in the NHL. As for only having one year of significant point production, care to point out which year? The year he had 53 points? 57 points? 68 points?

2. $5.75 million regardless of where he plays. Florida will only be paying him $4.15 million this season, as he will be paid $2 million by the Leafs on Sept. 1st as part of a signing bonus, which is why this trade has not yet gone through.

To me this doesn't make any sense. Suppose a player signs a 5 year deal which pays him 7mil in the first 4 years of the deal and 1mil in the last year of the deal. If he's traded during that last year it's ridiculous for the team that acquires him to take a cap hit of 5.8mil for that player even though they would actually only be paying him 1mil or less depending on when he's traded in that last year of his contract. Can anyone else verify that the team acquiring the player assumes the cap hit of the full length of the contract rather than what is owed on the remainder of the contract at the time he is acquired?

It does not seem feasible that a team could pay a player 1mil/yr yet be "charged" 5mil/yr against their cap limit.

[Doggy 130]

To me this doesn't make any sense. Suppose a player signs a 5 year deal which pays him 7mil in the first 4 years of the deal and 1mil in the last year of the deal. If he's traded during that last year it's ridiculous for the team that acquires him to take a cap hit of 5.8mil for that player even though they would actually only be paying him 1mil or less depending on when he's traded in that last year of his contract. Can anyone else verify that the team acquiring the player assumes the cap hit of the full length of the contract rather than what is owed on the remainder of the contract at the time he is acquired?

It does not seem feasible that a team could pay a player 1mil/yr yet be "charged" 5mil/yr against their cap limit.

If the CBA had cap hits structured the way you're saying, all GM's would sign players to top heavy contracts in the beginning to make them more tradable later on. It's a good way to have player salaries blow out again. The total value of a player's contract should always be the total cap hit, no matter where he plays. It only makes sense to do things this way.

I see what you're saying but it does not make sense. What's wrong with making general managers accountable for their mistakes?

[daniel1 32]

If the CBA had cap hits structured the way you're saying, all GM's would sign players to top heavy contracts in the beginning to make them more tradable later on. It's a good way to have player salaries blow out again. The total value of a player's contract should always be the total cap hit, no matter where he plays. It only makes sense to do things this way.

I see what you're saying but it does not make sense. What's wrong with making general managers accountable for their mistakes?

Honestly, I thought they did do it that way in certain cases to make a player more tradeable in the later stages of the contract. If you look at Vinny Lecavalier's new contract for example, it starts out as 10mil/yr for the first 7 years, then steadily declines over the next 4 down to 1mil/yr. Is this not structured so he is moveable in the last 4 years? Otherwise what's the point of doing it that way? The cap hit for Tampa will still be 7.7mil/yr even in those last years when he's making 1.5 and 1mil per season. So you're telling me that if Tampa trades Vinny in Sept. of the last year of his deal that the team acquiring him will be paying him 1mil for that season but taking on a 7.7mil cap hit? Bulls***.

Mike Richards, Scott Gomez and Chris Drury all have similar "declining value" contracts so there must be some advantage to doing it this way over the long term that allows for more movement otherwise why would teams do it? Why not just sign for an amount and divide it equally over the length of the contract in every case if there's no advantage. I guess I need to either read it in the CBA or hear it from a GM before I'm going to be convinced that if the Wings acquire Vinny in the last year of his deal that it would inflate our cap number by 7mil while we are actually only paying him 1mil.

[daniel1 32]

Honestly, I thought they did do it that way in certain cases to make a player more tradeable in the later stages of the contract. If you look at Vinny Lecavalier's new contract for example, it starts out as 10mil/yr for the first 7 years, then steadily declines over the next 4 down to 1mil/yr. Is this not structured so he is moveable in the last 4 years? Otherwise what's the point of doing it that way? The cap hit for Tampa will still be 7.7mil/yr even in those last years when he's making 1.5 and 1mil per season. So you're telling me that if Tampa trades Vinny in Sept. of the last year of his deal that the team acquiring him will be paying him 1mil for that season but taking on a 7.7mil cap hit? Bulls***.

Mike Richards, Scott Gomez and Chris Drury all have similar "declining value" contracts so there must be some advantage to doing it this way over the long term that allows for more movement otherwise why would teams do it? Why not just sign for an amount and divide it equally over the length of the contract in every case if there's no advantage. I guess I need to either read it in the CBA or hear it from a GM before I'm going to be convinced that if the Wings acquire Vinny in the last year of his deal that it would inflate our cap number by 7mil while we are actually only paying him 1mil.

Taken from www.nhlscap.com:

TRADES

When two teams trade players, the cap figures of each player immediately become the responsibility of the other team. The new CBA prevents teams from picking up any part of a player's salary for another team in the future, or including cash in any transaction between teams. Any such agreements in the past are still valid, with the new team only counting the portion of the player's salary they are responsible for paying against the team cap. An example of this is Jaromir Jagr of the New York Rangers, who is paid $8.36 million in '07-08 but only counts $4.94 million (the portion the Rangers pay) against the Rangers team cap; the difference is paid by Washington but does not count against their team cap.

To answer an often-asked question: when a player is traded from one team to another, his cap number DOES NOT change. Thus, if Bryan McCabe is traded from Toronto to the Islanders in the 2008-09 offseason, his cap number with the Islanders remains $5,750,000 - it does not recalculate based on the remaining years of the contract.

Well I'll be damned! There goes my hope of picking up Vinny in the last year of his deal and adding him for our attempt at an octopeat, lol. This still leaves me with the question of why his deal (and a few others) is so front loaded though. Perhaps it allows him to bank interest on the money sooner and for a longer period of time. Can anyone tell me why else teams would want to front load contracts?

[Doggy 130]

Honestly, I thought they did do it that way in certain cases to make a player more tradeable in the later stages of the contract. If you look at Vinny Lecavalier's new contract for example, it starts out as 10mil/yr for the first 7 years, then steadily declines over the next 4 down to 1mil/yr. Is this not structured so he is moveable in the last 4 years? Otherwise what's the point of doing it that way? The cap hit for Tampa will still be 7.7mil/yr even in those last years when he's making 1.5 and 1mil per season. So you're telling me that if Tampa trades Vinny in Sept. of the last year of his deal that the team acquiring him will be paying him 1mil for that season but taking on a 7.7mil cap hit? Bulls***.

Mike Richards, Scott Gomez and Chris Drury all have similar "declining value" contracts so there must be some advantage to doing it this way over the long term that allows for more movement otherwise why would teams do it? Why not just sign for an amount and divide it equally over the length of the contract in every case if there's no advantage. I guess I need to either read it in the CBA or hear it from a GM before I'm going to be convinced that if the Wings acquire Vinny in the last year of his deal that it would inflate our cap number by 7mil while we are actually only paying him 1mil.

This is such a stupid post, I don't know where to start.

Forget it.

[MacK_Attack 108]

Mike Richards, Scott Gomez and Chris Drury all have similar "declining value" contracts so there must be some advantage to doing it this way over the long term that allows for more movement otherwise why would teams do it? Why not just sign for an amount and divide it equally over the length of the contract in every case if there's no advantage. I guess I need to either read it in the CBA or hear it from a GM before I'm going to be convinced that if the Wings acquire Vinny in the last year of his deal that it would inflate our cap number by 7mil while we are actually only paying him 1mil.

There is a distinct advantage to front-loading contracts in terms of trade value down the road.

There's only a handful of teams who aren't concerned about the actual salary paid out. All of the other teams are on fixed budgets, so they're more likely to be interested in those kinds of players later on when the actual salary paid out is much lower.

[MacK_Attack 108]

Bryan McCabe will officially become a Florida Panther by 11am tomorrow. The Leafs paid McCabe $2 million today as part of a signing bonus, which is what held up the trade until now.

The Leafs will get defenceman Mike Van Ryn, while the Panthers get McCabe and a late draft pick.

http://tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=248234&lid...os=topStory_nhl

[Doggy 130]

Yeah, I knew it wouldn't include Bouwmeester.

Not bad for T.O. Overly large cap numbers like his need to go in order to rebuild their team. Stupid trade by Florida though. I can't work out what they're trying to achieve. It's not like they're a contender that needs to be put over the top with an all-star player. Even if he is an over-rated all-star.

[Guest Dump-N-Thump]

I want to see the whole deal, i cant believe that this will be straight up.

[Kp-Wings 3]

I really can't see it being a straight-up deal. McCabe and Van Ryn are two very similar players, minus their salary differences, so unless Florida is really stupid enough to believe that McCabe is that much better of a player (which wouldn't surprise me, to be honest), then Florida would probably expect something else more in return (since this is basically a dump on Toronto's part).

If it wasn't for the salary differences, this would still be a pretty fair trade. I'd still take Van Ryn over McCabe any day of the week, and twice on Sunday's, as my own personal preference, but as far as abilities go, these two both bring pretty much the same thing to the table. Their salaries are what really set them apart.

Edited September 2, 2008 by Kp-Wings

[Guest Shoreline]

I think there needs to be another team in the Toronto area to remind the Leafs front office that being cheapskates and making an excessive profit takes a backseat to forming a winning team. Good teams need to spend because they will have superstars to get/keep.

Anyone with even a child's sense of NHL hockey will understand that Pavel Kubina, Tomas Kaberle, Jason Blake, and Vesa Toskala will not take them anywhere, besides to a decent draft pick.

Although, with Jeff Finger, they really have a chance to go all the way.

Edited September 2, 2008 by Shoreline

[egroen 384]

McCabe is a good #2, great #3 and bad #1.

Toronto is tanking, look at these freakin' lines:

Kulemin-Antropov-Ponikarovsky

Blake-Grabovsky-Hagman

Tlustly-Stajan-Steen

Kubina - Kaberle

Finger - Van Ryn

Coliaicovo - Stralman

Frogren

It's a big list of nobodies (for the most part)... and of course Toskala.

Edited September 2, 2008 by egroen

[skacore 2]

McCabe is a good #2, great #3 and bad #1.

Toronto is tanking, look at these freakin' lines:

Kulemin-Antropov-Ponikarovsky

Blake-Grabovsky-Hagman

Tlustly-Stajan-Steen

Kubina - Kaberle

Finger - Van Ryn

Coliaicovo - Stralman

Frogren

It's a big list of nobodies (for the most part)... and of course Toskala.

Bell, Mayers, Hollweg, possibly Newbury... will at least provide some entertainment. Hollweg was a great pick up though, he'll get plenty of untimely penalties to lose important games, and he couldn't score to save his life... he's a huge step towards Tavares.

[Earthhuman 8]

Taken from www.nhlscap.com:

TRADES

When two teams trade players, the cap figures of each player immediately become the responsibility of the other team. The new CBA prevents teams from picking up any part of a player's salary for another team in the future, or including cash in any transaction between teams. Any such agreements in the past are still valid, with the new team only counting the portion of the player's salary they are responsible for paying against the team cap. An example of this is Jaromir Jagr of the New York Rangers, who is paid $8.36 million in '07-08 but only counts $4.94 million (the portion the Rangers pay) against the Rangers team cap; the difference is paid by Washington but does not count against their team cap.

To answer an often-asked question: when a player is traded from one team to another, his cap number DOES NOT change. Thus, if Bryan McCabe is traded from Toronto to the Islanders in the 2008-09 offseason, his cap number with the Islanders remains $5,750,000 - it does not recalculate based on the remaining years of the contract.

Well I'll be damned! There goes my hope of picking up Vinny in the last year of his deal and adding him for our attempt at an octopeat, lol. This still leaves me with the question of why his deal (and a few others) is so front loaded though. Perhaps it allows him to bank interest on the money sooner and for a longer period of time. Can anyone tell me why else teams would want to front load contracts?

The declining values at the ends of contracts lowers the average salary cap hit over the course of the contract. I'll use your example from before- Lecavlier: If he didn't have 4 years of declining pay at the end, and he was only signed to 7 years at $10m, it would count at $10m against the salary cap every year... which is too much for one player. This way, his cumulative hit of $7.7m is more manageable and allows TB Lightning more room under the cap.

Put more simply, the GMs want the cap average to be lower so that there's more room under the cap.

[eva unit zero 271]

The declining values at the ends of contracts lowers the average salary cap hit over the course of the contract. I'll use your example from before- Lecavlier: If he didn't have 4 years of declining pay at the end, and he was only signed to 7 years at $10m, it would count at $10m against the salary cap every year... which is too much for one player. This way, his cumulative hit of $7.7m is more manageable and allows TB Lightning more room under the cap.

Put more simply, the GMs want the cap average to be lower so that there's more room under the cap.

Declining value allows teams to trade players later on more easily because the actual salary is less.

Case in point: 7 year deal worth $49M from 2008-09 on. Deal 1 is even all years, Deal 2 is worth $10m in year 1, $7.5m in year 2, and declines by $500k each year after that until $5.5m in year 6, after which it drops to $3.5m for year 7. Which player do you think would be more tradable? They both have the same cap hit. Unless you are trading the player within the first two years of the deal, the player with Deal 2 has a lower actual yearly salary from years 3-7. If actual cost is a concern, and the two players are of equal ability, then he's clearly the more attractive player from a trading standpoint.

[egroen 384]

Here's a question re: Lecavalier --

What if he was bought out towards the end of his contract? I may be wrong, but I believe under the current CBA (which will probably change by then) the team would only have to pay out 2/3 of his remaining salary and the resulting cap hit would be 1/3, spread out over twice the remaining years of his contract.

Loyalty aside, this contract seems to make it very appealing and easy to buy him out.

[Guest Dump-N-Thump]

i thought it was for Bouweester not Van Ryan :| :| :| :|

Wdf toronto

[egroen 384]

I think they realized being a perrenial "borderline playoff team" was getting them nowhere. Hey, bombing a few seasons helped Pittsburgh, Tampa Bay, Washington and many other teams...

[MacK_Attack 108]

Trade is official.

To FLORIDA: Bryan McCabe, 2010 4th round pick

To TORONTO: Mike Van Ryn

[Guest Dump-N-Thump]

Why would Toronto have to give up a draft pick.. wo da fak

[MacK_Attack 108]

Why would Toronto have to give up a draft pick.. wo da fak

It's a refund for the Chad Kilger deal.