Could the Wild Offload Hartman At the Trade Deadline?

14 hours ago, RazWild said:

A Hartman buyout costs very little in the grand scheme of things.

A Hartman buyout would be another gross mismanagement of assets.  Hartman has market value.  It's probably at an all time low right now, so let him play his role and let everyone forget about his suspension (we all have short term memories) and deal Hartman then.  Absorbing more cap hits with nothing to show for it must stop.

1 hour ago, FredJohnson said:

Skor North guys lost me a long time ago. They are on the Stephen A. Smith spectrum…lower on it, but on it. There’s not a lot of substance there but folks listen to their verbal vomit for some reason.

I like Judd's level headed analysis and him not being afraid to make a hot take (because he's not on Guerin's payroll.  Carter/King have become an extension of the Wild Marketing dept. which is too bad because Cart's is a great hockey mind and Kinger is funny.  But they have become watered down shill's for Guerin)

AJ is...just ok.  repeating Judd's takes and over using metaphors.

Jesse (Bar Down Beutties) is absolutely brutal.  Can't listen when she's on.

14 hours ago, RazWild said:

There is no limit to the number of buyouts a team can have at any one given time. Guerin could theoretically buyout the entire roster if he so chose to do so at the same time. The Wild could have only one player bought out, or they could have ten. Doesn't matter.

Nor is there any rule limiting the set number of buyouts a team can perform over a set period of time either. Guerin could buyout another one or even more players every year for the next 10 years if so chose for as long as he remained GM. Or his replacement for that matter.

So if that is correct (I've heard differently and that it's 3 at any one time), it wouldn't be quite as bad, but I would still trade him first and stick by the 'if BG can't trade him he should be gone'.

I'm curious why you would rather take the hit before trying to get value back? 

18 hours ago, Dean said:

IMO Hartman isn’t an enforcer.  Hes a pest or rat type player.

This is completely true, there is a difference between and enforcer and an agitator. This is important to distinguish for Bekki's whole argument. 

With the cap going up in the next several years, Shooter bought the inflation numbers on these guys. But as far as the designation, Hartzy only got an NMC for this season. July 1 is a 15 team NTC, and the next season it's a 10 team NTC. Does Hartzy have any value with another organization? Possibly, but I'll bet those avenues are blocked.

But, here's the thing about the NTC, he could be put on waivers and claimed by one of those teams on his list. If the Wild were going to eliminate him from the roster, this would be the direction I would go, not the buyout. You can always hide his roster spot in the A and fill it with an ELC. One would think that Evason could use a guy like Hartman on CBJ.

16 hours ago, RazWild said:

But saying he wasn't worth the contract when he signed it or that he wasn't getting that on the open market is ludicrous. His literal listed market value according to both the Athletic and Evolving-Hockey at the time was squarely above $4M per. Specifically $5.3M a year according to the Athletic, and $4.8M a year according to Evolving-Hockey contract projections.

I've never liked these models and have always thought they were inflated prices. But, what do I know? I still expect to go to a vending machine and pay a quarter for a can of coke! I don't even think they take spare change anymore.

16 hours ago, RazWild said:

Lastly, for everyone's bitching about Hartman not being worth his contract. His current market value according to the Athletic is $3.6M for his current season of play. So just $400k under his $4M AAV.

If this is truly the case, I wonder how they like Johansson? I think I remember someone saying he was seen as a $3m player with stellar defensive metrics.

16 hours ago, RazWild said:

A Hartman buyout costs very little in the grand scheme of things.

While I agreed with buying out Suter and Parise...well, I thought we could have kept Suter for another year, but perhaps he was never waiving his NMC for expansion vulnerability, I just hate buyouts. Surely you can do better than buying out a guy and paying for dead cap. Even a trade and retain would be better.

3 hours ago, FredJohnson said:

I can’t tell if there’s a limit overall or a limit per the buyout period each year.

”The NHL allows each team to use a maximum of 3 buyouts during a specific time window, which typically falls in June or July.”

https://icehockeycentral.com/understanding-buyouts-in-hockey-how-they-work-and-impact-teams/

Either teams can only have 3 going at any given time or they can only do 3 during the ‘specific time window’.

Again, there is no limit to the number of buyouts a team can have at any given time.

Even if what this article is saying is true, which is highly debatable given no other site I've seen while researching this has this specific information repeated, not at PuckPedia nor through any Google search, it's readily apparent it is specifying that a team can only buyout 3 players during each buyout window.

Essentially, it's saying a team could buyout 3 players over a single buyout window, and another 3 during a 2nd buyout window.

Hypothetically, over the course of 4 buyout windows a team could buyout a total of 12 players.

3×1=3

3x2=6

3×3=9

3×4=12

Again, all this, just according to the article you linked.

Strictly speaking, again following this supposed 3 buyouts allowed during a single buyout window. Parise and Suter were bought out 5+ seasons ago. That has no bearing on this current year's roster. Guerin could buy out 3 players during this year's buyout window if he so chose to do so.

Overall, in total, there is no limit to the number of buyouts a team can have on file at any given time.

Please no more buyouts.

2 hours ago, Pewterschmidt said:

Jesse (Bar Down Beutties) is absolutely brutal.

I had hoped to like her, but her takes were pretty bad the 1 or 2 times I listened.

I didn't think Judd was that good either.

50 minutes ago, mnfaninnc said:

I've never liked these models and have always thought they were inflated prices. But, what do I know? I still expect to go to a vending machine and pay a quarter for a can of coke! I don't even think they take spare change anymore.

If this is truly the case, I wonder how they like Johansson? I think I remember someone saying he was seen as a $3m player with stellar defensive metrics.

You're not alone. But the model from the Athletic made by Dom L. is fairly solid on predicting market rates correctly for players who go to UFA and what they eventually sign for. While it's definitely on the high end in terms of market value in total. It's a great counterpoint to Evolving-Hockey's contract projection numbers which are typically pretty conservative for their part.

In short, taken by themselves it's not that informative. But utilized together they can be enlightening.

Evolving-Hockey for the low-end numbers, and the Athletic for the high-end numbers.

You now have a solid market value *range* for players to fall into. Typically, I've seen players consistently sign within these market valuations for the last 4-5 years.

As for Johansson. His current market value according to the Athletic is $3.8M, so a $1.8M surplus over his $2M price tag. But his on ice 5v5 defensive numbers put him squarely into the top 83rd percentile. Which tracks, given despite all the vitriol surrounding him with this fanbase. His on ice 5v5 play has been fairly good this year.

49 minutes ago, mnfaninnc said:

While I agreed with buying out Suter and Parise...well, I thought we could have kept Suter for another year, but perhaps he was never waiving his NMC for expansion vulnerability, I just hate buyouts. Surely you can do better than buying out a guy and paying for dead cap. Even a trade and retain would be better.

Buying out Parise allowed Guerin to sign and extend Kaprizov.

Buying out Suter allowed Guerin to keep Fiala around another year. Which allowed him to sell high on him the following offseason which netted us Faber and Ohgren.

No Suter buyout that year, no Faber and Ohgren (19th ova) acquisition after the fact.

Which would you rather of had?

1 more 85 point season of Fiala?

Or

1 more season of Suter?

Guerin made the right call.

59 minutes ago, mnfaninnc said:

While I agreed with buying out Suter and Parise...well, I thought we could have kept Suter for another year, but perhaps he was never waiving his NMC for expansion vulnerability, I just hate buyouts. Surely you can do better than buying out a guy and paying for dead cap. Even a trade and retain would be better.

Additionally, as far as Hartman goes.

It would have to depend entirely on the level of retention involved to be considered better than just buying him out.

Again, a Hartman buyout costs only roughly $1.17M a year for 4 years.

To move Hartman with retention, you likely have to retain a full 50% before another team considers taking on his prone to idiotic antics of a headache from us, so essentially likely $2M per over the next two years. That's $4M.

So while you *ARE* paying an additional $2.34M over an extra two years compared to just $4M over two. You are paying $830k LESS in each of the the first two years.

Which is roughly the same cost of a single injury call up in cap space should we need it in each of those two years.

4 hours ago, FredJohnson said:

You are most surely correct. I thought I heard Anaheim was barely spending the minimum. Would San Jose want Hartzy?

Probably not. But if we sent some capital their way to take the contract?

Who knows. 🤷‍♂️

That said. You'd have to figure they would be on Hartman's NTC.

I'd keep Hartman. He'll be needed in the first round on a already soft playoff team.

3 hours ago, Pewterschmidt said:

A Hartman buyout would be another gross mismanagement of assets.  Hartman has market value.  It's probably at an all time low right now, so let him play his role and let everyone forget about his suspension (we all have short term memories) and deal Hartman then.  Absorbing more cap hits with nothing to show for it must stop.

He does. But the bigger question is to who?

He can't be moved without his consent until July 1st. After that, you can trade him to half the league. But depending on how his 15-team no trade list looks he could effectively block many of the teams that might actually have some interest in him.

Buffalo and New Jersey both could use a player with his edge and grit. But Buffalo likely gets listed, and the Devils are a 50/50 shot whether they are or not.

Maaaaaybe he waives to go back home to Chicago. But it's a long shot, if there ever was one.

Yes, explore and exhaust the trade market as much as humanly possible before reaching the decision to buy him out. But if you don't find anyone dumb enough to take him.

Buy him the F* out!

That's not gross mismanagement. It's getting rid of one headache, while opening up valuable cap space to improve the roster elsewhere.

4 minutes ago, RedLake said:

I'd keep Hartman. He'll be needed in the first round on a already soft playoff team.

For everyone's bitching about playoff records. (Spurgeon, Brodin, Boldy)

How conveniently we forget Hartman has among the worst records of all Wild roster players during the playoffs for the last 5 years.

He hasn't brought much *grit* to the playoffs either.

Ryan Reaves is on waivers...PLEASE DONT DO IT BILLY

2 hours ago, RazWild said:

Again, there is no limit to the number of buyouts a team can have at any given time.

Even if what this article is saying is true, which is highly debatable given no other site I've seen while researching this has this specific information repeated, not at PuckPedia nor through any Google search, it's readily apparent it is specifying that a team can only buyout 3 players during each buyout window.

Essentially, it's saying a team could buyout 3 players over a single buyout window, and another 3 during a 2nd buyout window.

Hypothetically, over the course of 4 buyout windows a team could buyout a total of 12 players.

3×1=3

3x2=6

3×3=9

3×4=12

Again, all this, just according to the article you linked.

Strictly speaking, again following this supposed 3 buyouts allowed during a single buyout window. Parise and Suter were bought out 5+ seasons ago. That has no bearing on this current year's roster. Guerin could buy out 3 players during this year's buyout window if he so chose to do so.

Overall, in total, there is no limit to the number of buyouts a team can have on file at any given time.

You are correct. As I’m reading more, I and others are likely conflating regular buyout with compliance buyout (which has limits on quantity).

I think he has a chip on his shoulder because he has zero stability. Part of that is his own fault and he apparently like to pout and throw temper tantrums. He was at his best with stability, instead of constantly being bounced around the lineup. He is a jack of all trades which is valuable and difficult to replace, I just think he doesn't want to play that role.

1 hour ago, MrCheatachu said:

Ryan Reaves is on waivers...PLEASE DONT DO IT BILLY

But he can stand up to physical teams bettererer than Rossi.

2 hours ago, RazWild said:

Guerin made the right call.

Be careful saying nice things about BG around here.

2 hours ago, Imyourhuckleberry said:

I didn't think Judd was that good either.

Judd is as stoopid as I am.

3 hours ago, RazWild said:

No Suter buyout that year, no Faber and Ohgren (19th ova) acquisition after the fact.

Which would you rather of had?

1 more 85 point season of Fiala?

Or

1 more season of Suter?

Guerin made the right call.

I disagree with this part. I think it would be more like no Goligoski and no some other $2m guy we signed to fill a roster spot. He could have fit Fiala into that equation. But, the main issue there was the expansion draft and Dumba. I think you could have kept him and had Spurgeon out there. I think Spurgy sneaks through because Francis didn't like small defenders, especially to begin with.  Dumba might have been the smallest he'd have taken, but he just wasn't the same player after the M. Tkachuk fight.

He was also a culture problem, but he could still play. I just wonder if Shooter could have put him in his place...or maybe buying him out was the only way to do that? 

Regardless, I was ok when it happened, but I'm not ok with a Hartman buyout. I think it would be better if Guerin trades Hartzy and puts him into a submission hold until Hartzy agrees to go there. And, there is market value for him and I believe there will be a couple of teams needing to hit the cap floor. This is where waivers can work out, such as Guerin calling the GM and asking "if I put X on waivers would you claim him....please?" It stinks for the player where this team might be on his list, but that's the CBA.