The biggest issue with this is that both Florida and Ottawa already have a retained salary on their books. Ottawa is paying Phaneuf $1.75M through 2020-2021, and Florida is paying Demers $562.5K through 2020-2021 as well. Taking on Lucic's retained salary for Ottawa means that they are only able to have one more retained salary transactions on the books for the next 2 years. Florida, if they ever decide they wanted to move Lucic, would be in the same boat.

The only realistic scenario that I can see for Edmonton moving Lucic is for them to retain 35-50% of his remaining contract AND add a piece that is going to be of value for the other team. Teams that are lacking a physical presence are going to be the Oilers best bet, given that Lucic's offensive prowess has all but disappeared. The Blackhawks, Predators, and Sabres are all near the bottom of the league in terms of their physicality, and all have young superstars that may benefit from a physical presence (DeBrincat, Forsberg, Eichel, etc.)

Really creative proposal. I'd say that would be beneficial to all parties involved even with Lucic pacing at his current production. Biggest road block would be Florida, I'd say with the amount of prospects they have vying for roster spots in the next 1-2 seasons it would be perplexing to have Lucic logjam them with a guaranteed roster spot (NMC)

An alternative path would be to trade for Karl Alzner. Alzner has three more years at $4.625 million left after this season. Buying out Alzner is more manageable than buying out Lucic. There’s a big spike in year two, similar with a Lucic buyout, otherwise it’s four years of $1.069 million with a $2.194 million year in between.

Nice try, but the proble is that NOBODY need Lucic, nobody wants Lucic. And defenitly not in a four years span. Edmonton is probably locked in to keep him in two more years, THEN trade him in a 50% retained + draftpick deal (the best), or a another bad contract-but I don´t want that for Edmonton. How much is FLorida paying in the end?? I can see Katz put up the money, because he needs to, for keeping the team competitive an McDavid happy, and Lucic is clogging the team up,

I´ve have done soe Edmonton tries, and I had also Jarnmark in my mind, somehow I think he brings stuff Edmonton needs.
And in many armchair GM tries, I see that Benning is the odd man out, and Brown is coming in, but that trade in itself is not wanted by Leaf fans.
I think Benning is a good player when paired with a veteran or Klefbom.

And I don´t think they should put the pressure on a young rookie like Benson to put him up in the top 6, It´s time to create a more healthy culture, fight and earn your spot. But of course, you need to have depth to make that possible... Os it´s a bad circle.. But put Benson on the 4th, to begin with, and let him work himself up.

So talking about that, I think Edmonton needs a 3C (veteran or not, somehow 2 way responsible, and have a hockeybrain), then two middle costly wingers to create a depth in the lines.
Maybe armchair GMs should GM Edmonton? That would meant bringing in Connor Brown, in almost every case, bringing Benning out, and may armchair GMs also like to bring in J.Donskoi, B,, Connoky and sometimes Kapanen.

Maybe a big trade involving Kapanen + Brown for Benning + prospect (maybe Bear, we already have Bouchard) ?

THe annoying thing is that Kicking out Lucic contract in itself would solve 85% of all problems, but at the same time, it´s probably the second worst contract in the leauge (Seabrook only worse), and almost impossible to trade, ´cause the team taking him can´t buy him out - it´s to expensive.

Wow, Was Chiarelli ever bad AND stupid.

Probably the biggest reason why no one is taking Lucic is that he must be protected in the expansion draft due to his NMC. As far as I know, the NMC from his contract changes to M-NTC just after the expansion draft...not to mention that as a player and as a contract, he completely sucks.

Your best bet is trying to trade him to a young team that does not have 7 experienced forwards to protect (meaning that they're rebuilding and consists mostly from young players / rookies) and have cap space. Technically OTT or LA could be one of your best bets, but Lucic has no reason to waive his NMC to go from a dumpster fire to another... And LA has their own share of bad contracts already (Phaneuf and Kovy, I'm looking at you)...

In my opinion, the only way you get rid of Lucic is either via buyout or just wait until his contract expires. No team wants him and no team needs him - at all.

If Lucic gets traded at all, it means that he has agreed to waive his NMC... therefore it's GONE and not in anyone's consideration for the expansion draft.

I agree that this is a creative proposal (although not an original one), what I don't get is this:

Lucic @ $3M is a negative asset, so much so that it cost's a 2nd + a 3rd to move him
Lucic @ $2M is a positive asset, OTT gets a 6th back for him in this scenario

These 2 things don't jive to me. If he's a mega-negative at $3M, how is he now a positive at $2M?

If traded, Lucic would have to waive his NMC. Then it only travels with him if the receiving GM opts for it (hint: he won't).


This is interesting. How do you propose the trade be structured? Straight up? With retention? Prospects or picks added?

Benning, (a 7th defender at best), isn't an upgrade to the leaf's blue line. They have a log jam in that area. Nice try.

His no movement clause is not 'GONE', he still has it and has control of where he wants to go. He will have to be protected in the Seattle draft or bought out. Just because he waives his right doesn't mean it is lost.

Look it up - if he waives it for a trade the receiving GM has the option as to whether the clause comes along or not. And since no GM would agree to have it travel with the player, it is indeed GONE. Here's the info from this very website:

What is a No-Move Clause (NMC)?
A No-Move Clause (NMC) can be added to a player's contract in the years after they are eligible for Group 3 Unrestricted Free Agency (7 Accrued seasons or 27 years of age), and has the following properties:
Player cannot be traded without his consent (however, the clause can specify a modified no-trade clause that limits the NTC to a certain number of teams)
Player cannot be placed on waivers without his consent
Player cannot be assigned to the minors without his consent
Player is not exempt from a buyout or contract termination
The clause can travel with the player even if he consents to being traded or is claimed on waivers
- This requires that the acquiring team sign an addendum to the contract ensuring that the clause does in fact travel with the player (written by the player's agent)
- If the acquiring team refuses to sign the addendum, and the player waives his clause anyway, at that point the clause may be nullified
If the player is traded before the clause takes effect, the acquiring team can opt to void the clause

The deal makes no sense from Toronto perspective. That's why it wasn't done at the deadline and that's why it won't be done at all. If Brown is moved, it's a cap casualty/savings move. Trading him for Benning who is a third pairing d-man makes no sense because Benning only makes $200K less than Brown. That's not even a league minimum contract. Brown's value will be right around a 2nd or 3rd round pick with a mediocre prospect as well. Benning might make the Leafs outta camp next season as a #6 d-man, but that's not beneficial when he still makes close to what Brown does and Toronto can call up Liljegren to play that role if needed who makes under $1M. Or Toronto signs a veteran to a league minimum contract to fill the role.

Bottom line: Brown for Benning will not, nor should it happen.

Oh I agree, I wasn't arguing in favor of the trade at all. TBH, I don't think it makes much sense from EDM's perspective either. I have seen several Leaf's rosters on here where Brown is traded for a 3rd, I think that's the way Dubas will go. Maybe EDM is the trading partner, but not for Benning.

How does Phaneuf still has his then since he waived his to go to the Kings?

That is beyond a bad take. A log jam of players that aren't fit to play on an NHL roster. Benning analytically is a terrific third pair dman. Take plus minus as you will, Benning is plus 12 on a team that has a minus 37 goal differential. His plus minus - Nobody is going to do the Leafs any favour and allow them to move CB for a pick to clear cap space to sign Kapanen and Johnsson.

The positive is only having to pay him 1 million in real dollars. for a cap floor team that could be appealing as his actual count against the cap has zero impact on team spending. I understand that he takes a position away from a younger player. Look I wouldn't make this trade as a floor team, but I have seen enough bad contracts be dealt in the NHL that I have suspicion something along these lines will get done. "Hockey boys" love having veterans to teach young kids how to be "pros" and by all accounts Lucic in the locker room is very well respected at every stop he has had.

Umm, if you read the post you replied to you'll see the answer. I even put it in bold to make it easier for you.

Be careful not to let sentimental feelings for players cloud your vision on their abilities as players.

I'd say 1 for 1 with nothing retained. Alzner is not even playing in the NHL and the Habs would get at the very least a 4th line grinder (if not a 3rd line PP specialist) so that would be a fair off-set for the difference in salary.