bleedblue1223
Registered User
- Jan 21, 2011
- 52,925
- 16,380
Just because Army would want to move salary, doesn't mean he'll be able to.
2019-2020 St. Louis Blues - Defending the Cup - Part 3: The Prelude to Playoff Positioning
- Thread starter Stealth JD
- Start date
- Status
Brian39
Registered User
- Apr 24, 2014
- 7,580
- 14,247
His source could be Gary Bettman and he would not be able to honestly confirm or clarify any timeline because everything the league is doing right now is speculative. This is the timeline that every insider is talking about "hearing" so it seems clear that this is the goal at the moment.
Brian39
Registered User
- Apr 24, 2014
- 7,580
- 14,247
There is just no reason to believe that any scenario will make it impossible or even all that difficult to move the necessary salary. A flat cap means that Army needs to move 2 contracts to fit in a Petro extension. I've posted this before, but this is a list of the cap situations for a number of non-Central division teams:
Detroit: $34M to fill 12 roster spots
Buffalo: $33M to fill 13 roster spots
Florida: $20M to fill 10 roster spots and they are most in need of forwards/centers.
Montreal: $18M to fill 7 roster spots
Ottawa: $39M to fill 14 roster spots
Columbus: $10M to fill a couple roster spots (exact number is murky considering which injury fill ins they view as NHL players next year)
New Jersey: $25M to fill 13 roster spots
NY Islanders: $9M to fill 3 roster spots
NY Rangers: $13M to fill 7 roster spots
Philly: $11M to fill 8 roster spots (with no one but Nolan and Lindblom due real money)
Pittsburgh: $12 to fill 6 roster spots
Washington: $9.5M to fill 6 roster spots
Calgary: $16M to fill 9 roster spots
Edmonton: $10M to fill 7 roster spots with Athanasiu and their 2nd goalie being the only spots owed real money
Los Angeles: $20M to fill 7 roster spots
Vancouver: $17M to fill 8 roster spots
A flat cap reduces the value of guys like Bozak and Allen but it absolutely doesn't make them impossible to move. Every source is indicating that GMs and the league are talking about a flat cap being the worst case scenario as there isn't any desire from anyone involved to go lower: neither the owners nor the players want that, so everyone has incentive to avoid lowering the cap. However, any scenario where there is a flat cap will include some form of compliance buyout that would allow Army to get out of one of the two contracts he would need to get out of AND open up cap space around the league when 75% of the league gets rid of their big problem contract.
There just aren't realistic scenarios where moving $1-3M in bloated cap space is impossible. We aren't talking about moving guys who are overpaid by $3M each. We could also very likely manage to fit Petro in while retaining about $1M in cap space on either Bozak/Allen which makes them even easier to move.
The concern about Army being unable to shed the contracts of a couple good but non-core guys is about on par with concerns that we are going to see teams fold due to lost revenue.
Last edited:
bleedblue1223
Registered User
- Jan 21, 2011
- 52,925
- 16,380
I'm not arguing they are impossible to move, but between free agents and other teams looking to shed cap, it's not a guarantee that Army can just make a few moves and magically have cap space. Compliance buy-outs are another factor in this. They will help us drop someone, but also add more players to the market as well.
- Feb 12, 2008
- 19,931
- 9,463
- Feb 12, 2008
- 19,931
- 9,463
yeah, that’s true. He did tell me nothing is confirmed, but that’s what he’s hearing. He thinks he’ll be reporting early May to team facilities.
While steen can be moved and a buyout(which i dont see happening) still costs us some money, Bozak and allen can easily be moved this offseason if we really had to lose salary even if we got not much more than someone taking their contracrs
There is nothing official, although the last meeting with NHLPA and the league suggests a mid-May time frame for return to practice. Bettman has said there would need to be 3 weeks of training camp.
I read some reports about a playoff tournament with the top 6 teams from each division each in a single location, playing a mini tournament. Seeds 3-6 are playing best of 3 to go on. Seeds 1-2 play best of 3 for the positioning in the semifinal round.
Really, this makes sense since the top seeds can’t be idle and at a disadvantage vs teams that have already been playing.
Maybe the best thing about this proposal is that the Central would include every team but Chicago! Elsewhere you’d get San Jose and LAK missing. Ottawa, Detroit, Rangers and New Jersey.
I think this could be legitimately what the league is thinking for a few reasons. It accounts for the impact the disruption had on teams who were playing well. It allows the games to be played in designated locations that are in better situations relative to Covid. It involves more fans from a higher number of teams. For a TV only product, that’s important.
Originally, the timing of a return to play was limited by leaving enough room for a full season next year. But it’s becoming more clear that games with fans is the goal for next year, and that starting later (December) is preferable, independent of how long it takes to finish the no-fans season and playoffs this year. Because of this, I don’t think we’ll see a rush to get back immediately, or as soon as they could potentially. It will be a bit more deliberate and with a good bit of advertising, I’m betting.
I read some reports about a playoff tournament with the top 6 teams from each division each in a single location, playing a mini tournament. Seeds 3-6 are playing best of 3 to go on. Seeds 1-2 play best of 3 for the positioning in the semifinal round.
Really, this makes sense since the top seeds can’t be idle and at a disadvantage vs teams that have already been playing.
Maybe the best thing about this proposal is that the Central would include every team but Chicago! Elsewhere you’d get San Jose and LAK missing. Ottawa, Detroit, Rangers and New Jersey.
I think this could be legitimately what the league is thinking for a few reasons. It accounts for the impact the disruption had on teams who were playing well. It allows the games to be played in designated locations that are in better situations relative to Covid. It involves more fans from a higher number of teams. For a TV only product, that’s important.
Originally, the timing of a return to play was limited by leaving enough room for a full season next year. But it’s becoming more clear that games with fans is the goal for next year, and that starting later (December) is preferable, independent of how long it takes to finish the no-fans season and playoffs this year. Because of this, I don’t think we’ll see a rush to get back immediately, or as soon as they could potentially. It will be a bit more deliberate and with a good bit of advertising, I’m betting.
Brian39
Registered User
- Apr 24, 2014
- 7,580
- 14,247
The consensus I'm hearing is that the players and league don't want to jump right into playoffs due to injury concerns. Even though a little 1-2 and 3-6 play in tournament isn't the traditional "playoffs" that the NHL usually has, it is still the same intensity (and arguably more intense since there is less margin for error in a 3 game series than a 7 game series). I don't think jumping right into those mini-series addresses the players' concern that they need some tune up games before jumping into playoff intensity.
If that is a deal breaker for the players (which I think it probably is), then it is going to be interesting to see how the NHL structures things. Is the NHL willing to have a week of tune-up games between non-division opponents in these neutral locations and then move some teams once for division playoffs? I think that is a better option than telling teams to go play tune up games vs teams that they will shortly be playing in the playoffs.
For example:
City 1 starts with the top 3 from the Central and 4-6 from the Atlantic: Blues, Avs, Stars, Panthers, Habs, Sabres
City 2 starts with the top 3 from the Atlantic and 4-6 of the Central: Bruins, Lightning, Leafs, Jets, Predators, Wild
City 3 starts with the top 3 from the Metro and 4-6 of the Pacific: Caps, Flyers, Pens, Canucks, Coyotes, Ducks
City 4 starts with the top 3 from the Pacific and 4-6 of the Metro: Golden Knights, Oilers, Flames, Hurricanes, Blue Jackets, Islanders
We don't need to include the bottom 7 teams in the league. Tough break for the still-technically-alive Rangers and Hawks, but let's be honest about their chances. If the NHL really wants these markets to participate, put Chicago in the Pacific instead of the Ducks and put the Rangers in the Atlantic instead of the Sabres. Either way, I'm fine saying we only need to include 24 teams in this thing.
Each team plays the 3 teams from the opposite Conference in games that don't count towards the standings at all. These are essentially pre-season games against teams that you are least likely to see in the playoffs in order to minimize the incentive for cheap shots. That gives you 3 tune-up games that can be completed in a week with the lowest injury chance possible. If teams/players want 6 games, you play each opposite Conference team twice.
Then you move half the teams so that you get everyone from each division in the same city. The top 3 teams get to stay in the same place as a minor reward for being in the top half of the division. With the way I structured it, it minimizes the cross contamination as much as possible. Cities 1 and 2 are swapping teams and so are cities 3 and 4. Cities 1 and 2 don't receive anyone from cities 3 and 4 and vice versa.
City 1 now has the 6 Central teams: Blues, Avs, Stars, Jets, Preds, Wild
City 2 now has the 6 Atlantic teams: Bruins, Lightning, Leafs, Panthers, Habs, Sabres
City 3 now has the 6 Metro teams: Caps, Flyers, Pens, Hurricans, Jackets, Islanders
City 4 now has the 6 Pacific teams: Knights, Oilers, Flames, Canucks, Coyotes, Ducks
Now you start the 1 vs 2 mini-series for seeding plus the 3 vs 6 and 4 vs 5 mini series to determine who makes the playoffs. Once you have the 4 playoff teams from each division, you leave those 4 teams in the same city and do an all division rounds 1 and 2.
If that is a deal breaker for the players (which I think it probably is), then it is going to be interesting to see how the NHL structures things. Is the NHL willing to have a week of tune-up games between non-division opponents in these neutral locations and then move some teams once for division playoffs? I think that is a better option than telling teams to go play tune up games vs teams that they will shortly be playing in the playoffs.
For example:
City 1 starts with the top 3 from the Central and 4-6 from the Atlantic: Blues, Avs, Stars, Panthers, Habs, Sabres
City 2 starts with the top 3 from the Atlantic and 4-6 of the Central: Bruins, Lightning, Leafs, Jets, Predators, Wild
City 3 starts with the top 3 from the Metro and 4-6 of the Pacific: Caps, Flyers, Pens, Canucks, Coyotes, Ducks
City 4 starts with the top 3 from the Pacific and 4-6 of the Metro: Golden Knights, Oilers, Flames, Hurricanes, Blue Jackets, Islanders
We don't need to include the bottom 7 teams in the league. Tough break for the still-technically-alive Rangers and Hawks, but let's be honest about their chances. If the NHL really wants these markets to participate, put Chicago in the Pacific instead of the Ducks and put the Rangers in the Atlantic instead of the Sabres. Either way, I'm fine saying we only need to include 24 teams in this thing.
Each team plays the 3 teams from the opposite Conference in games that don't count towards the standings at all. These are essentially pre-season games against teams that you are least likely to see in the playoffs in order to minimize the incentive for cheap shots. That gives you 3 tune-up games that can be completed in a week with the lowest injury chance possible. If teams/players want 6 games, you play each opposite Conference team twice.
Then you move half the teams so that you get everyone from each division in the same city. The top 3 teams get to stay in the same place as a minor reward for being in the top half of the division. With the way I structured it, it minimizes the cross contamination as much as possible. Cities 1 and 2 are swapping teams and so are cities 3 and 4. Cities 1 and 2 don't receive anyone from cities 3 and 4 and vice versa.
City 1 now has the 6 Central teams: Blues, Avs, Stars, Jets, Preds, Wild
City 2 now has the 6 Atlantic teams: Bruins, Lightning, Leafs, Panthers, Habs, Sabres
City 3 now has the 6 Metro teams: Caps, Flyers, Pens, Hurricans, Jackets, Islanders
City 4 now has the 6 Pacific teams: Knights, Oilers, Flames, Canucks, Coyotes, Ducks
Now you start the 1 vs 2 mini-series for seeding plus the 3 vs 6 and 4 vs 5 mini series to determine who makes the playoffs. Once you have the 4 playoff teams from each division, you leave those 4 teams in the same city and do an all division rounds 1 and 2.
bleedblue1223
Registered User
- Jan 21, 2011
- 52,925
- 16,380
These mini-tournaments actually sound pretty fun. Would really change the dynamics of game 1, where in a traditional 7 game series, there is usually a game or team where you feel each other out before things really amp up.
- Jul 4, 2014
- 8,058
- 8,667
I like the idea of the mini tournaments, but I think there needs to be an adjustment to the seeding and the lottery process for the draft if they go this way.
First, I think they should include the Top 24 teams in the league (as opposed to the Top 6 from each division) as of the pause and move teams as needed like they do with the wild card to preserve the divisional alignment. This keeps the teams in the hunt that should be there. The Pacific Division would only have 5 teams survive and the Central would have 7, but figuring this out would almost certainly create a fairer outcome than having Chicago out with 72 points in 70 games and Anaheim in with 67 points in 71 games. Personally, with Vegas being 1st in the Pacific but 3rd in the West, I think the fairest move would be to send the 5th seed in the Central to the Pacific rather than the 7th. You'd also have 5 in the Atlantic and 7 in the Metro, but in this case with Boston being the 1st seed in the East I think you send the 7th seed in the Metro over to the Atlantic division bracket.
Next, I think they should do a draft lottery for the 25-31 teams where all teams have a chance at the first overall pick, but no guarantees that you only fall "x" number of spots like they normally do. Just weight the chances in a manner that's fair from 31-25 and draw the ping pong balls as they come out.
Finally, you would have a second draft lottery from the elimination round losers, with weighting for those 8 teams based on worst to best regular season points percentage. Again, just weight the chances in a manner that's fair from 24-17 and draw the ping pong balls as they come out. The teams that survive the Best-of-3 round would get ranked for the draft based on the current system, with the losers of the first two rounds prioritized by regular season points percentage and slots 28-31 determined by the outcome of the CF and SCF rounds.
First, I think they should include the Top 24 teams in the league (as opposed to the Top 6 from each division) as of the pause and move teams as needed like they do with the wild card to preserve the divisional alignment. This keeps the teams in the hunt that should be there. The Pacific Division would only have 5 teams survive and the Central would have 7, but figuring this out would almost certainly create a fairer outcome than having Chicago out with 72 points in 70 games and Anaheim in with 67 points in 71 games. Personally, with Vegas being 1st in the Pacific but 3rd in the West, I think the fairest move would be to send the 5th seed in the Central to the Pacific rather than the 7th. You'd also have 5 in the Atlantic and 7 in the Metro, but in this case with Boston being the 1st seed in the East I think you send the 7th seed in the Metro over to the Atlantic division bracket.
Next, I think they should do a draft lottery for the 25-31 teams where all teams have a chance at the first overall pick, but no guarantees that you only fall "x" number of spots like they normally do. Just weight the chances in a manner that's fair from 31-25 and draw the ping pong balls as they come out.
Finally, you would have a second draft lottery from the elimination round losers, with weighting for those 8 teams based on worst to best regular season points percentage. Again, just weight the chances in a manner that's fair from 24-17 and draw the ping pong balls as they come out. The teams that survive the Best-of-3 round would get ranked for the draft based on the current system, with the losers of the first two rounds prioritized by regular season points percentage and slots 28-31 determined by the outcome of the CF and SCF rounds.
bleedblue1223
Registered User
- Jan 21, 2011
- 52,925
- 16,380
mouser
Business of Hockey
Doesn't appear to be the situation.
The language from Friedman's podcast was: "I have heard the Owners are dead set against Compliance Buyouts. Absolutely against them. They've lost a lot of money as a group, their businesses, their stock prices, they don't want money outside the system."
Thanks for posting that here. I always thought a CBO seemed unlikely coming out of this unless the cap was lowered.
bleedblue1223
Registered User
- Jan 21, 2011
- 52,925
- 16,380
We're gonna be in trouble then. I doubt Stillman will be able or have the desire to retain salary or go with a regular buyout. There will be a lot of competition to dump salary places and some owners won't have interest in adding salary, even if they have space.
bleedblue1223
Registered User
- Jan 21, 2011
- 52,925
- 16,380
Mirtle did a breakdown of teams and their realistic cap space after RFA signings on The Athletic. He had 5 times with negative space, us, Toronto, Pittsburgh, Islanders, and Tampa. He estimated 3.5M for the remaining RFAs.
Teams that could really make a run at Petro could be Boston and Florida. I'm going to eliminate teams that are mostly in rebuilding stage, but there are more of those that could offer big money without making other deals. Colorado is also another one that should scare us. Florida will have money available, but we'll need to see how they handle Dadonov and Hoffman, and they already have a relatively expensive defensive core. Boston can easily fit Petro in if Krug and Halak leave. Dallas is another that could probably fit a big contract in.
Petro will get hurt, as will all the other free agents, but just to get him in, we'll have to make multiple moves, and it looks like one of them can't be a compliance buy-out.
I never thought compliance buyouts were likely. They’ve only been used when the cap was imposed or decreased.
We’ll see, but I still think moving Allen and Bozak won’t be difficult. At worst Armstrong will need to add enticement by swapping picks. The cap staying flat means just that. Also, if the owners are guaranteed half of revenue, they’ll get reimbursed via the escrow or some other means.
Mirtle’s article was interesting, but I was disappointed he didn’t mention Bozak at all. I can’t imagine Armstrong hasn’t already explored the markets for Allen and Bozak. He’ll know who is interested and what the prices are.
bleedblue1223
Registered User
- Jan 21, 2011
- 52,925
- 16,380
My hope is that enough teams like LA, Detroit, New Jersey, etc. decide to take on some expiring deals through trades instead of splurging on free agents. If we lose some draft picks or redundant prospects, then so be it. The part that I'm pessimistic is, there will be a lot of competition to make those trades, so we won't have an idea of how much those trades will cost us to make.
Brian39
Registered User
- Apr 24, 2014
- 7,580
- 14,247
Edit: I just noticed that my original post said a flat cap would include a compliance buyout. That was not what I meant to convey. I do not believe a flat cap would include a compliance buyout. I meant to write that a lowered cap would include a compliance buyout. I think you're absolutely right that there is no desire from the owners to include a compliance buyout on a flat cap.
Your quote illustrates the context of that discussion and explains that their issue about compliance buyouts is if the buyout money paid to the player doesn't count towards the players' share of HRR. The discussion was not about compliance buyouts where the money paid doesn't count against the cap but is still factored into the HRR calculation. Those are very, very different considerations. Owners don't have any interest in expanding the players' share of the pie (which means increasing spending). That is not the primary goal of a compliance buyout if the cap were to get reduced (even though that has been how they were structured in the past).
In a scenario with a reduced cap, the purpose of compliance buyouts would be to avoid a scenario where no teams have any money to spend on anyone AND some teams have to use several buyouts just to get their existing contracts under the reduced cap. Let's say that the cap is reduced to $75M for next year. There are a number of teams that are already over that number and would have to genuinely blow up their team to get under that number. With a $75M cap, Tampa can't field anything resembling an NHL roster without buyouts. Point is the only high salary player who can't veto a trade. They would need to trade him for futures and then fill 9 roster spots with guys making league minimum in order to stay under the cap. Toronto is in a similar boat, although they have more flexibility about which star to trade for peanuts.
The issue of whether a compliance buyout counts against HRR is one of the main reasons that both sides are likely to agree on a flat cap rather than a reduced cap. Every indication is that a reduced cap has all but been taken off the table and the argument about whether compliance buyouts should count against HRR is probably the main reason why. A flat cap with an agreement on escrow is a much cleaner way for both the league and the NHLPA to avoid a cap nightmare in the offseason. But if there is a reduced cap, it really can't be accomplished without giving teams an avenue to get out of contracts without cap penalty (even if the money paid still counts against HRR).
Brian39
Registered User
- Apr 24, 2014
- 7,580
- 14,247
Yeah, he very clearly doesn't have a firm grasp about our roster. The majority of his section on the Blues was him expressing surprise that we didn't have room to sign Petro without making moves. For those without the Athletic, this is his entire analysis about how we might be able to free up space:
"Maybe you find someone who wants Jake Allen, who had a pretty good year, and maybe you buyout Alex Steen, who did not. That gets you close – you’d only need another $2.5 million or so, and your roster isn’t much weaker."
The article was a good broad strokes look at each team around the league, but it offered absolutely zero insight that hasn't been discussed in significantly greater detail here. I left a pretty lengthy comment detailing why a Steen buyout doesn't help much and that it makes much more sense to buyout Bozak instead. His response was just that 'the Blues need to do more than move Bozak.'
bleedblue1223
Registered User
- Jan 21, 2011
- 52,925
- 16,380
That's the point though. We'll probably need to move 2-3 players, and after RFAs there isn't going to be an overwhelming amount of teams with space and there are going to be multiple teams needing to shed space. A Bozak buyout only gets you 500k more in cap space. Then factor in clubs that won't be spending to the cap regardless, there will be limited interest to take our players as cap dumps.
bleedblue1223
Registered User
- Jan 21, 2011
- 52,925
- 16,380
The thing that I've always been wondering about was the social distancing was always meant to just make sure the hospitals didn't get overwhelmed, but there was an assumption they'd be operating near capacity. What about the areas like KC where the numbers are extremely low for a city of it's size. Seems like social distancing just delayed when the big hit is going to happen, so all this was somewhat for nothing because on some level you have to let the virus burn through.
Celtic Note
Living the dream
- Dec 22, 2006
- 17,341
- 6,308
Some of social distancing was due to limited PPE supply, in addition to trying to prevent overwhelming bed capacity (and staff) and ventilator demand.
Last edited:
- Status
