BoS wrote: ↑Fri Jul 10, 2026 7:31 am
There’s the rub. He may have a short list of teams he’d accept a trade to, yet the ones interested in are not on his list.
So do you dump him now and take what you can get, or sit on him for a year and hope he his value doesn’t drop.
I guess it depends on how much RJ wants to remove him.
If we are talking about DeBrusk here, I don’t subscribe to take what you can get now. I don’t see his value changing much in the next season — especially if the contract length is one of the issues. Whatever year older he gets is offset by a shorter commitment and a lower cap %. But more importantly, DeBrusk’s NTC turns into a modified clause next year — I think either a 15 team no trade or a 15 team can trade.
To be sure, listen to offers now, listen at the deadline, but the market knows his not part of the team’s future and trades stop involving a third party (DeBrusk himself) once that trade protection is no longer absolute.
I think RJ has said he will not hold a fire sale and trade players for the sake of trading them. Yes he wants to make more moves and will explore them but he is not into dumping salary or chasing out a body for the sake of it. If he gets a return that he thinks will help this cub achieve their short term or their long term objectives then he will make a move.
Gallagher meets the short term objectives as does Schenn and Oleksiak. Trading M Pettersson and the return meets the long term objective. So I think he would go either way in any trade as long as the return is in meeting with their mission statement. But I cannot seem being rushed into anything, unless there are problems with that player.
When I hear amounts like that, I am glad they moved on from him.
I do not see any team winning when they have a player making that much, may work in some sports because they can impact a game but it does not work in hockey when you need 6 top forwards, 4 top D and some proper goaltending. That won't be cheap.
Ducks are so screwed right now, they will be for at least 3 - 4 more seasons. I used AI and they projected a $140M+ cap by 2032, I cannot see it going that high that quick. Maybe $130M?
If the cap stops rising again, those teams will be in trouble. I've seen the trend where a lot of teams simply use the increase in cap to extend their RFAs on entry or bridge contracts. That's not a lot of planning for developing and paying for talent that is on the rise. Most GMs seem to be hoping the cap rises enough to cover the increases.
This is why I made the comment regarding the NHL looking like the NBA.....that is a recipe for league-wide Maple Leaves.
For the sake of discussion, lets say the cap rises to $130M.
Then let's say that the going rate for your superstar contract extension (Hughes, Makar, Celebrini) is 17% of the cap.
17% of $130M is $22.1M.
Teams that acquire two such players will be committing $44.2M on those players. They will be very hard pressed to build any sort of contender with the balance of the cap.
Also bear in mind that you will have a larger group of players who come in below the franchise/elite superstar level and are seeking say 14% of the cap. You will have a few of those guys on good teams.....
And of course, when you sign a guy like Celebrini to $22M in an increasing cap world, well give it 2 years and he's only gobbling up 15% of the cap, so there's room to grow. Except for the fact that you will have his supporting cast that will be wanting the same money (albeit a lower percentage of the cap) so the challenge is going to be very real to build a winner.
Maybe we start to see more Hurricane-model teams.....win by committee.
The shitty part for fans is that it will get "stressful" watching your team try and retain talent, particularly the up and coming kind.
The exciting part for fans will be July 1st.
Somewhere in NW BC trying (yet again) to trade a(nother) Swede…..
