travel_dude

In the current CBA, you can only sign your own players to 8 years, while you used to be able to go longer. The advantage of the longer term is buying up years of UFA. Do you want to be in a situation where your top players will end their 2nd contract and go into UFA status? Underpay them and they won't re-sign with you and take the UFA market route instead. Tampa signed Stamkos to 5 years. They have to overpay just to keep him because of that. They could have opted to buy more years. McDavid will get whatever. If he earns the big bucks, he will get 8 years at whatever. Even for a bum team, he sells. What that translates to in salary is anybody's guess. Let's be realistic here. If Kane was on his 2nd contract today, he would get paid. The problem is that the cap isn't keeping up with player salaries. Bouma going to arbitration was potentially a one or two year deal at $2m+. Overpaying for that level of player is harder on the cap than paying a star. Engelland getting $2.9m. Wideman getting $5.25m. Stajan getting $3.1m. Raymond getting $3.2m. Smid getting $3.6m. There are your problem areas; paying too much for depth.

Tell that to the other major league sports. Bautista makes 14m a year. What do pro soccer players make? NBA stars like Lebron made 23m. Since the salaries are tied to revenue, the top players will make the top money. Why should Kane make the same as Troy Brouwer? He doesn't. If you want to fix the cap system for the 2nd tier players, you have to go back to the owners and ask them to give up more revenue. Why should a player that fills the seats have to take less to pay the support players? It's not his problem. Players do take hometown discounts in their 3rd contract, to stay where they are, but you have to give them security then, like a NMC or NTC. That created problems when Iggy was at the end of his stay.

If you look at their 2nd contract, you see what the market should be for Johnny and Monahan. The career numbers for both are similar to what Johnny and Mony produced. Toews and Kane got $6.3m over 5 years. Now, project $6.3m from 2010 to 2016 dollars. If you consider the results to be anywhere similar to Toews and Kane, then a 5 year deal at $6.75-7m is reasonable. Buying years of UFA is what bumps it up a bit more. Tarasenko's deal is far more desirable when you buy those years. Inflation, future value of 2010 dollars, and buying UFA years all account for deals in the range of $6-7.5m. Using a bridge deal bumps up the future cost of resigning these players.

You do recall that MTL used a bridge deal on Subban. His performance during those years ended up pricing himself that high in the next deal. And the blame really has to go to owners that throw out these crazy deals. Suter, Parise, Malkin, Crosby, Ovi....These were deals that allowed the owners to pay over 10m to a player, but used a backdiving contract to keep the cap lower. The stars are earning the money, as they are the ones that fans pay extra for (merchandizing, etc). The GM's are the ones creating the cap problems on their teams by overpaying for middling talent. Johnny Hockey was top 10 in league scoring in his 2nd year. Let that sink in. Do you think he deserves less than Kopitar got in his 2nd contract? I doubt there will be any mass changes to the CBA the next time around. The NHLPA and NHL would never be able to agree to anything radical.

It's not the revenue as much as it was the cap structure of the CBA. Years ago, players were making a ton. Crosby signed for 8.7m for 12 years. He was making 12m in year 1 and will be down to 3m in year 12. The cap balances out what you can do in that case now. What I am getting at is the cap eliminated the New York Yankees of hockey, where the rich teams paid double of poor teams. The star players still deserve and are getting the top salaries. The cap is squeezing out the middle guys. Blame it on the stars if you like, but the reality is that the owners want more of the revenue. Fans pay to see the top players, not the MOR players.

If you want to use Toews and Kane as examples, both signed their 2nd deals for 5 years, more or less a bridge deal. Each one was an average of $6.3m. Leverage is one thing, but you don't mess around with your top 2 players on the team. It sets the wrong tone. Dougie signed for 6 years at $5.75m, and he doesn't have as big an impact. Johnny and Monahan are not the reasons for cap issues. They do not need to be the solution. Wideman, Stajan, Engelland, Raymond and Bouma are the deals that created this mess.

If they start negotiations mentioning a bridge deal, they won't be talking much. Both player's agents know their comparable value in the league. Are you going to offer the same as what Frolik is making? So, you save a bit now, but then the cost goes up to buy more years of FA. In three years time, the cost for a #1C is goiing to be higher, not lower. Just for sake of argument, let's guess on the numbers: Mony bridge - 3 years @ $4.5m Mony long term deal - 8 years @ $7.5m Average = $7.35m per year Johnny bridge - 3 years @$5.5m Johnny long term - 8 years @ $8.5m Average = $8.45m

If the cost to obtain was not crazy, it would be an interesting prospect to get in the organization. I;m not sure how to gauge his results at this early age. This season, great results. Last season, not so much except for the final 6 games. Not sure of his height, as one place has him at 6 feet, while others have him at 6'2". Both have him at 167 lbs. I know you are just thinking down the road, but if he's a drafted player from another team are you suggesting we trade for him now? A bit risky for an unsigned Russian in the KHL.

Answered before you asked. I read the article, but another one said the Rags had until June 2018 to tender an offer, since he was drafted out of the USHL. Not sure which is more credible.

The prudent thing would be to sign a NHL backup, and assign (after re-signing) him to the farm. If he starts the season there with better than 0.920 and the NHL backup is not doing so hot, then swap the players between the farm. My problem with goaltenders is that one that struggles early on is going to derail the season. No time for Ortio to find his game as a backup; he has to prove it prior to getting the backup gig. Goalies like Bishop, Andersen, Elliott have the ability to come into a season and shine. Murray cemented himself after two great AHL seasons and a strong showing in injury relief and playoffs in the NHL. Valilevskiy has a smaller body of work in NA, and has shown less impressive numbers. He did show himself as a capable backup in the NHL though. Ortio has shown neither so far. He had a so-so AHL season and a so-so NHL injury relief season. Whoever our goalie tandem is this season has to be ready to play.

STL has to deal with their goalie situation sooner than later. They have cap issues this year trying to replace or re-sign players. Elliott has value, as does Allen, but they need to make a choice. Both goalies have a year left, one will be RFA while the other UFA. One of the two is going to be making over $4m in 2017/18. Can't keep em both. Anaheim has cap issues too. Do they really want to trade away Vatanen or Lindholm? Edmonton hopes so, but they can't take back Nuge or Eberle for one of them. Their goalie situation is as perilous as STL, since Andersen is a RFA this summer. He's due a big raise.

Stevie Y has talked about going into the season with Vas and Bishop. Seems to think there is no rush, but that is posturing more than anything. Should the expansion be held off for another year, we are going to have to talk to Western teams, as STL and ANA are the ones that have the dueling goalies and cap problems. Pitts and Tampa don't need to do anything if they can fix problems elsewhere in their rosters. As in buyouts.

They will likely have to make a choice between trading him before the draft or buying him out, assuming the expansion goes through. A team may be desperate enough to trade for him, but the Pens are stuck with him otherwise, and that makes keeping him this season risky. Expansion will help the Flames land a good goalie. Without it happening, we will be more limited to expensive trades and cap crisis situations.

Relocation doesn't benefit the NHL as much as a new team does. The entry fee is something crazy like $450m. A struggling team may not generate enough revenue for the league, but expansion eclipses that by a long shot. They can use the relocation card later for cities like Quebec or Seattle if they choose. Even Kansas City.

I felt that Vasilevskiy didn't handle the pressure well enough at times. He would lose focus and give up a squeaker. Both goalies have holes in their games, though. The upper part of the net. As far as NHL goalies that are guaranteed to have decent starter number: Bishop is arguably the best goalie that could be available. His pending new deal in 2017/18 makes him a costly addition, though. After Bishop, there is Elliott, Allen and Andersen. If Vasilevskiy (possible) and Murray (unlikely) are available, they will be more expensive than the NHL goalies listed above.

I think it has to be announced prior to the start of buyouts. You aren't necessarily going to buy a player out if you will need him to be exposed for salary reasons.

Who is that? Ortio? Who do you think is the next Murray out there that is actually available? Fucale? He doesn't seem to be any better right now than Ortio or MacDonald. Years away from the NHL. And you are thinking this is a NHL ready player? If you are going with a unknown quantity, then you better be picking up a starter at the same time. Develop the prospect for years. I would be on board with Vasilevskiy or Murray, because they both have NHL proven experience and played games at the highest level. Anything less than that better be a backup for the Flames.

Things happen fast. The buyout window opens after the SCF concludes. I think it's prudent to see if any coaches are let go in the next week, just to see what else is available. Anaheim is in the same boat. I think you will see some dominoes fall after the buyout window opens. We will have a better idea of the available cap, the roster spots, other players available that were bought out, etc. The draft plays a part in that as well; players going out in deals that are RFA's. You aren't necessarily going to qualify a RFA if you intend on trading them.

If you continue by doing nothing more than bleating out your view of the worlds, but your only backup is saying you are right, don't expect anyone to stroke your ego. Voice your opinion all you want, but abide by the rules and the spirit of the forum or leave. Being a STH doesn't make you right. By rights, Hartley should have been canned in November. That's how it works in the NHL. Your team fails and the coach or players are sent packing. In the Flames case, Raymond and Ramo were waived to make the team better. Nakladal was brought up to replace an injured player but sat on the bench. Bollig played a lot of games for a player that was a boat anchor. Hartley was given the rest of the season to get better results. He didn't. Tanking is a lot easier if you tell the coach to give less ice time to the stars. Hard to tank if your top player gets 78 points. If you consider trading three pending free agents as proof of tanking, then you you are wrong. We were out of the playoffs. Russell`s value had increased to a point where he couldn`t be re-signed. Hudler`s value had plummeted and there was no chance we were going to give him an extension. Granlund was traded because he wasn`t good enough at center to stay in the lineup. His spot was replaced by Bennett. We got a top prospect for him that played this year. Year 2 as GM, BT did just about everything as right as you would want. Trade picks for a future top 2 d-man. Sign him below what he turned down in Boston. Re-sign Gio to a contract that is below what top D-men in the league make (Subban, etc.) Re-sign Brodie to a value contract for a top pair d-man. Trade players at deadline for max value. Picks, prospects and a NHL defenseman for three players that were pending UFA`s and a waiver eligible depth center. Two of the best players on the team don`t have new contracts. We don`t have a new coach yet. So what. The buyout period has not begun, expansion has not been announced, and the playoffs are still on. A thorough search for a coach takes time. Well though out deals for top players take time.

I was just basing it on Ramo probably wanting to stay in NA. If it was a one-year deal, it at least makes it more likely that he gets back into the NHL. Going to Europe would kill that chance. He likely wouldn't sign for $1m+, but there are going to be a lot of goalies out there vying for positions. The offers may not be there, especially if he isn't even on the ice until October.

I think that there may be a place for Ramo in the organization, but it's not in the NHL. If we go with a real starter and with Ortio as backup, we don't have anyone on the farm besides Gillies. Maybe MacDonald turns pro, or maybe he goes back to junior. That leaves us a little light down on the farm. And it also assumes that Ortio is a bonafide NHL backup. Ramo is not likely to get many offers this summer. He may go back to Europe, but I think he would prefer to stay in NA. If he was desperate, would it be a reasonable option to sign him to a 1-way deal at around $1m? It manages the risk on the farm and Ortio crapping the bed. Maybe the $$ are way too small, but if it's that or the unemployment line, he may choose to stay in NA. Just a thought. Maybe MacDonald turns pro and this is not needed.

Sure, Vasilevskiy is a great guy to target, but it's very possible that Tampa makes Bishop available. Very much depends on RFA's and Stamkos situations for them. I guess I have the opinion that Vasilevskiy or Murray are going to cost the most to obtain, assuming either are available. Andersen is probably a goalie that would come in cheaper, mostly due to their cap. They can't afford both.

As you say, there are really only a few roster players that couldn't be part of the deal. Prospects, I have a little more trouble dealing. Kylington could be as good as Brodie. Andersson could be another Gio in the making. Extreme projections, but the point is what you could be giving up. Every other defense prospect IMHO could be made available. The forward group is smaller. If they were able to trade picks and prospects I would be happy.

Depends what "all out" means. 1st rounder - out. 2nd - sure. Prospect not named Kylington/Andersson/Shinkaruk - sure. Players from the roster - some off the list.

You mean like threatening to fine the Lightning for trying to have a viewing party for a 2nd time this series? I couldn't believe that. To your point, they will wait till as close to buyout period as possible. Teams have to know the status of the expansion draft before the buyout period begins.