Another who to drop post

[pdel21]

It's that magical time of year again where we we need to make some cuts and get under the salary cap. At the moment, I am 13.834 million over the cap (team in signature), so I have some significant cutting to do. I have made up my mind on a few: Gustavsson (I am rich in goalies, and I can't keep him in the minors anymore), Klefbom (all indications are that he will not return this year at least, and perhaps not at all), Coghlan (was hoping he'd get taken by Seattle, but didn't and I don't think he will amount to much in Vegas, also can't shelter him in the minors), L. Andersson (bust of a 6th pick overall, can't keep in minors any longer). With these cuts completed, I am still 7.291 over the cap. This is now where I am stuck.

Is now the time cut Giroux (8.275mil)? He is the kind of player that teams will pick when they have a significant injury and can stash the injured on the IR, but no one will part with assets for him.
Schwartz (5.5 mil)? Can he stay healthy and make a big contribution on Seattle?
Monahan (6.375 mil)? Is he in free-fall, or can he get back to 3 years ago where he was point a game (or close)?
Eriksson Ek (5.25mil)? Is he worth that raise in points only league that has a premium on goals?
Bjorkstrand (5.4 mil)? Same as Eriksson Ek?
Strome (3 mill)? Will he ever be anything other than a bust at the 3rd overall pick in his draft?

Any one else stand out as someone to cut (I know I can cut Kalynuk too, but then I would just have to promote another D, so savings will be tiny, but still savings all the same I guess)
Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks for reading!

[mdratch]

Clear keepers for me here are Bjorkstrand and Strome. Both will hit there 10 points/mil and Strome could have a great year, imo. Bjorkies contract is NASTY.

I personally don't see much issue cutting Giroux.. I think you can find cheaper 60 point players which is what I think Giroux will be next year. Or trade him for an extra pick, or a player like Mangianpane (cheap but will produce) if you can. I like Eriksson Ek as a two-way center but will he consistantly hit 10 pts/per mil? (52) - it's possible... he made strides last year and he's signed at that price for an eternity, so I'm probably giving him a chance this year at that pricetag. His linemates are likely to improve in the next few years but does he get bumped down to a 3c checking role? I remember from WJC loving how quick he got his shots off from good areas in the offensive zone. I'm not sold on Monahan hitting 62 points under Sutter, but if he gets traded to the right team, I think he can once again make his 10 points per million. At 6.2 for two more years he might be worth the gamble? Schwartz will have all the opportunity in the world in Seattle to be a top line player and top pp, it's simply whether he can stay healthy... but I probably give him a chance with his new team.

I think it's probably between Giroux and Monahan for me personally... Giroux makes things easy because he alone allows you to clear cap.

[Dr.Brad]

Claude Giroux was in the 2006 NHL draft. Yes, he’s had a damn good career, if probably just short of HOF caliber. But he’s done. Ok, ok, that was harsh. He could have one more decent year. To expect more than that is folly. Drop Giroux.

[Luffy D Monkey]

I like Bjork and Monahan (or Giroux).

I really hate D. Strome. I watched him a decent amount last year and he's just terrible in pretty much every element of hockey. Even with great opportunity handed to him, he contributed almost nothing statistically. I think he's a flat-out bust.

[stevegamer]

First, I strongly disagree with cutting Gustavsson. He costs under a million, and is the backup behind an injury prone and erratic starter. At worst, he should have trade value, but if he gets no interest, he's a keep.

I think cutting Giroux is fine, he's trending downward and is pricey in a cap league, especially points-only. I'd additionally cut one of Monahan or Eriksson-Ek to give yourself breathing room under the cap - you might be able to move one + Gustavsson, though.