Around the League '16-'17 Other Teams' Free Agent Frenzy

[deeshamrock]

Looks like Papa Lou is getting the ball rolling in the Keeping JT court...Weight and Snow fired. (Never likes Snow) and their coaching staff has been awful.
So I guess when Lou and JT had that initial meeting a couple weeks ago, he got input on exactly what JT would like changed.
Papa Lou is in the GM's seat until they hire one and I'm guessing he has a plan...
And wasn't there some arbitration issue with DeHaan last year? Like a huge gap? He got 1 yr...And Lou tends to be old school, I"m guessing he starts with goaltending. Isles have 4 picks in the first 2 rounds and he might opt to use one to get a goalie and then do something with the defense and if they can shed some $$ thru trades, they ought to go after Carlson.

 

[kingsfan28]

Gallant is a pro at gamesmanship, he practically single-handedly got Doughty suspended for game 2 with his post game quotes.

Pretty much. He had the league and the media in his pocket and sold it well. He was trying to do it again on Oshies reverse hit that he said was an elbow to McNabbs face and broke his nose.

 

[Bandit]

In addition to what King17 said, this article spells out what the current CBA (players get 50% of the revenue) holds for CAP, escrow and the escalator and how it affects the players salaries. (article was written prior to LeBrun's tweet today)

The NHL projects the HRR (Hockey Related Revnue) prior to the year upcoming. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, like a few years ago when the Canadian Dollar plummeted. And the players had to sacrifice a good chunk of that to cover the losses by the NHL.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/threa...ther-teams-free-agent-frenzy.2365737/page-228


"Escrow is where each party puts a percentage of their revenue aside to cover the variables. Think of it as a locked-in savings account. At the end of the season, it has to be paid back to the party that’s owed, and it is paid back with interest. The percentage is calculated by a very complex system that I don’t quite understand. To makes things easy for my scenarios, I’m just going to use 15%. In reality, it is adjusted quarterly, based on league revenue projections, plus the escalator. To look at escrow history, click here. "

This is an example the author used of how much money from a players contract does he actually get and how escrow is a part of that

"Just for fun I thought we’d take a look at Connor McDavid’s contract. It’s an 8-year, 100 Million dollar deal. How much of that is he actually going to get? If we assume he’s losing close to 15% of it every year to escrow, it’s $85M, take away the 3% agent fee and the damn near 50% in taxes, and he’s probably only getting $40M over the course of that deal. It’s accepted that there’s nothing these players can do about taxes. Well, almost nothing, but these escrow payments are a huge extra tax that many players didn’t know they would have to be paying. It’s a strange world when GMs want a higher cap than the players, but it’s planting all the seeds for the next lockout. "

"Only" 40 million. Hang on, let me go get a hankie...

 

[Sol]

Why don’t you stop speaking out of both sides of your mouth? Is Gallant a good coach, or has he “not accomplished anything significant” because he has “the mind of a loser”?

You don’t seem to know yourself amidst all the incomprehensible non-sequitars. If you don’t understand what that means, I apologize for employing such elitist pseudo-intellectualism.

Why don’t you articulate a coherent thought first. Then we’ll debate it.

The fact you can't understand both points by themselves shows a lot. You're not impressing anyone. Your inferiority complex is well documented.

 

[SettlementRichie10]

The fact you can't understand both points by themselves shows a lot. You're not impressing anyone. Your inferiority complex is well documented.

As is your dodging of any substantive discussion beyond knee jerk hot takes and name calling. You always cop out of actually defending your positions when cornered, mostly because your positions are indefensible and contradictory, just like this Gallant discussion.

How's Gaborik doing, by the way?

 

[TheBradyBunch]

Would the Kings have any interest in a deal around Hoffman for Forbort + 20th overall?

Too rich for the Kings blood? A no-brainer in their favour? Just right?

 

[lumbergh]

Would the Kings have any interest in a deal around Hoffman for Forbort + 20th overall?

Too rich for the Kings blood? A no-brainer in their favour? Just right?

I think the Kings are done trading their 1st round picks unless it's a blockbuster. I think Forbort and a 3rd would do it. Don't get me wrong; Hoffman is a good player. The Kings have learned that you just can't go years without a first round pick.

 

[Sol]

As is your dodging of any substantive discussion beyond knee jerk hot takes and name calling. You always cop out of actually defending your positions when cornered, mostly because your positions are indefensible and contradictory, just like this Gallant discussion.

How's Gaborik doing, by the way?

What? When have I ever defended Gaborik? Wtf.

Are you kidding me? You have a sun like inferiority complex. You can never defend your points without insulting people. Even when you quoted me you couldn't do so without taking a shot at me. If anything, take a look in the mirror Icarus.

 

[SettlementRichie10]

What? When have I ever defended Gaborik? Wtf.

Are you kidding me? You have a sun like inferiority complex. You can never defend your points without insulting people. Even when you quoted me you couldn't do so without taking a shot at me. If anything, take a look in the mirror Icarus.

Again, you continue to dodge the actual discussion regarding Gallant.

I’ve pointed out several times the absurdity of your original “mind of a loser” comment. I pointed out Gallant took a team of castoffs and molded them into an impressive finals team. I pointed out the Knights’ impressive inaugural season.

You responded with, “well, he can be a good coach ... [but] he’ll never accomplish anything significant.”

If you can’t see the contradictions there, I can’t help you. Gallant has already accomplished something significant.

The issue is that you know I’m right. You know Gallant is a fantastic coach. You know the Knights have had a significant season. But your personal hatred for a rival is prohibiting you from eating any crow here. You made a reactionary sore winner post, attacking Gallant and the Knights. I called you out on it, pressured you to actually defend the position, and apparently you can’t do it.

You continue to peddle the bizarre “inferiority complex” attacks in typical ad hominem fashion because you know you’re beaten. I haven’t said anything about your personal character. I’ve only attacked what you’ve said, and the behavior you’ve exhibited on this forum.

You remember our heated Gaborik discussion. You claimed he would be a big contributor upon his return from injury. I thought he was finished in this league. You dug your heels in then and hurled the same insults, just like you’re doing now. You were wrong then, as you’re wrong now. See a pattern?

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

Again, you continue to dodge the actual discussion regarding Gallant.

I’ve pointed out several times the absurdity of your original “mind of a loser” comment. I pointed out Gallant took a team of castoffs and molded them into an impressive finals team. I pointed out the Knights’ impressive inaugural season.

You responded with, “well, he can be a good coach ... [but] he’ll never accomplish anything significant.”

If you can’t see the contradictions there, I can’t help you. Gallant has already accomplished something significant.

The issue is that you know I’m right. You know Gallant is a fantastic coach. You know the Knights have had a significant season. But your personal hatred for a rival is prohibiting you from eating any crow here. You made a reactionary sore winner post, attacking Gallant and the Knights. I called you out on it, pressured you to actually defend the position, and apparently you can’t do it.

You continue to peddle the bizarre “inferiority complex” attacks in typical ad hominem fashion because you know you’re beaten. I haven’t said anything about your personal character. I’ve only attacked what you’ve said, and the behavior you’ve exhibited on this forum.

You remember our heated Gaborik discussion. You claimed he would be a big contributor upon his return from injury. I thought he was finished in this league. You dug your heels in then and hurled the same insults, just like you’re doing now. You were wrong then, as you’re wrong now. See a pattern?

Whatever you do, don't ask him about Quick or Clifford though....

 

[Sol]

Again, you continue to dodge the actual discussion regarding Gallant.

I’ve pointed out several times the absurdity of your original “mind of a loser” comment. I pointed out Gallant took a team of castoffs and molded them into an impressive finals team. I pointed out the Knights’ impressive inaugural season.

You responded with, “well, he can be a good coach ... [but] he’ll never accomplish anything significant.”

If you can’t see the contradictions there, I can’t help you. Gallant has already accomplished something significant.

The issue is that you know I’m right. You know Gallant is a fantastic coach. You know the Knights have had a significant season. But your personal hatred for a rival is prohibiting you from eating any crow here. You made a reactionary sore winner post, attacking Gallant and the Knights. I called you out on it, pressured you to actually defend the position, and apparently you can’t do it.

You continue to peddle the bizarre “inferiority complex” attacks in typical ad hominem fashion because you know you’re beaten. I haven’t said anything about your personal character. I’ve only attacked what you’ve said, and the behavior you’ve exhibited on this forum.

You remember our heated Gaborik discussion. You claimed he would be a big contributor upon his return from injury. I thought he was finished in this league. You dug your heels in then and hurled the same insults, just like you’re doing now. You were wrong then, as you’re wrong now. See a pattern?

Cause he was out for an eternity? Did you forget how he tore it up just before his injury. It was completely reasonable and logical to assume he'd retain some form. You predicted one thing right out of a thousand that you predict wrong. Just because Vegas is in the SCF doesn't make him an amazing coach. He constantly bitches at the refs while losing his cool non stop, and whining to the media. He doesn't have any poise that a winning coach would have. He's never done shit in his career anyways for you to be kissing his ass. His team has lost all composure because of him.

He was more intent sending Reaves out the final few minutes of every game to injure the other team. He is a loser and will remain a loser. Once his team gets eliminated, at least You will still be there with both of your lips glued to his cheeks.


You and GoldenBear have no idea how to make a constructive argument without coming off like complete tools.

 

[Sol]

This is baseless nonsense.

Gallant took a group of castoffs and turned them into fantastic finals team. That’s more than the Kings could do with their ten trillion dollar lineup.

Now Vegas is going through the ringer against a superior opponent, and Gallant has “the mind of a loser”? Where do you come up with this tripe? Everyone gets chippy when they’re being blown out, including the Kings. And don’t forget Captain Embellisher himself Dustin Brown. Your lack of self awareness is mind blowing.

I’m sure you’re one of the geniuses who thought the Knights were a joke at the expansion draft, but now wants the rules changed for Seattle.

Assumptions and attacked me right off the bat. I didn't think I'd have to requote you to show you how you attack people and get butt hurt when I give it back.

Take your inferiority complex somewhere else. Must be easy to run your mouth behind a screen.

Now if you don't mind, let's discuss the sport rather than going back and forth with whatever issues you have.

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

Cause he was out for an eternity? Did you forget how he tore it up just before his injury. It was completely reasonable and logical to assume he'd retain some form. You predicted one thing right out of a thousand that you predict wrong. Just because Vegas is in the SCF doesn't make him an amazing coach. He constantly *****es at the refs while losing his cool non stop, and whining to the media. He doesn't have any poise that a winning coach would have. He's never done **** in his career anyways for you to be kissing his ass. His team has lost all composure because of him.

He was more intent sending Reaves out the final few minutes of every game to injure the other team. He is a loser and will remain a loser. Once his team gets eliminated, at least You will still be there with both of your lips glued to his cheeks.


You and GoldenBear have no idea how to make a constructive argument without coming off like complete tools.

Here's a constructive argument,

You made absolutely conflicting statements on Gallant, and when confronted about it, you went on the attack,

Is that constructive enough?

 

[Sol]

Here's a constructive argument,

You made absolutely conflicting statements on Gallant, and when confronted about it, you went on the attack,

Is that constructive enough?

I did not at all. And I clarified again. But the way you structure your current response is much better because you didn't attack. This is the right way. Good job.

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

I did not at all. And I clarified again. But the way you structure your current response is much better because you didn't attack. This is the right way. Good job.

You absolutely did, you said that Gallant is a good coach, then you said, he's a loser and has done nothing significant.

Contradictory right there, and flat out wrong. Having the first ever true expansion team reach the SCF (discounting the 60's expansion because they were all promised 1 of the 6 would get to the SCF the first three years) without having that promise in place, he brought his team to the SCF,

If that isn't significant, what is?

 

[Sol]

You absolutely did, you said that Gallant is a good coach, then you said, he's a loser and has done nothing significant.

Contradictory right there, and flat out wrong. Having the first ever true expansion team reach the SCF (discounting the 60's expansion because they were all promised 1 of the 6 would get to the SCF the first three years) without having that promise in place, he brought his team to the SCF,

If that isn't significant, what is?

You don't think a good coach cant be a loser?

 

[KINGS17]

Cause he was out for an eternity? Did you forget how he tore it up just before his injury. It was completely reasonable and logical to assume he'd retain some form. You predicted one thing right out of a thousand that you predict wrong. Just because Vegas is in the SCF doesn't make him an amazing coach. He constantly *****es at the refs while losing his cool non stop, and whining to the media. He doesn't have any poise that a winning coach would have. He's never done **** in his career anyways for you to be kissing his ass. His team has lost all composure because of him.

He was more intent sending Reaves out the final few minutes of every game to injure the other team. He is a loser and will remain a loser. Once his team gets eliminated, at least You will still be there with both of your lips glued to his cheeks.


You and GoldenBear have no idea how to make a constructive argument without coming off like complete tools.

I think Gallant is a good coach, but I gotta say I don't recall Sutter or Quenneville doing something similar. I am sure folks will let me know if I am wrong.

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

I think Gallant is a good coach, but I gotta say I don't recall Sutter or Quenneville doing something similar. I am sure folks will let me know if I am wrong.

Are you referring to throwing goons out there, or playing to the refs, because Quennville absolutely plays to the refs etc.

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

You don't think a good coach cant be a loser?

Gallant has had one year with Vegas,

Tell me, was it a losing year?

 

[Sol]

Gallant has had one year with Vegas,

Tell me, was it a losing year?

In context, his team has performed way over their heads. So, I can see why some people would think hes done a great job. But he's no Sutter or Quenneville. He lacks a lot of poise. Think of it like this is Bruce Boudreau a winner or a loser. His team's over perform but never win. I respect that you're being respectful. What do you think? Do you think you can be a winning coach but have a losing personality.

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

In context, his team has performed way over their heads. So, I can see why some people would think hes done a great job. But he's no Sutter or Quenneville. He lacks a lot of poise. Think of it like this is Bruce Boudreau a winner or a loser. His team's over perform but never win. I respect that you're being respectful. What do you think? Do you think you can be a winning coach but have a losing personality.

What do I think? That you have absolutely zero idea of what you are talking about.

So you think the team over performed IN SPITE of Gallant, not because of him? That just flies in the face of anything...it makes ZERO SENSE.

Cmon guys, let's play our ass off for this guy that we don't even like.....

Just curious, but you do realize Gallant is a former player right? There's a reason why he garners respect among players...

 

[Sol]

What do I think? That you have absolutely zero idea of what you are talking about.

So you think the team over performed IN SPITE of Gallant, not because of him? That just flies in the face of anything...it makes ZERO SENSE.

Cmon guys, let's play our ass off for this guy that we don't even like.....

Just curious, but you do realize Gallant is a former player right? There's a reason why he garners respect among players...

You're completely missing my
Point.

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

You're completely missing my
Point.

Of course, so was Settlement Richie, and anyone who else who disagrees with you.

You don't like Gallant, or Las Vegas, we get it, in that dislike, you can't FATHOM the job they have done, so you try to undermine it, discredit it.

All it does is reconfirm everyone's thoughts, that you know nothing about the sport.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

In context, his team has performed way over their heads. So, I can see why some people would think hes done a great job. But he's no Sutter or Quenneville. He lacks a lot of poise. Think of it like this is Bruce Boudreau a winner or a loser. His team's over perform but never win. I respect that you're being respectful. What do you think? Do you think you can be a winning coach but have a losing personality.

He got Florida to perform above their heads as well before his unceremonious departure. He also slaughtered it in juniors, hence his promotion. He has some history of getting the most out of his players and by all accounts is a new-age players' coach. The Boudreau comparison might be fair but Bruce hasn't been this far yet.

I agree with you about him working the refs and sending out goons though. K17 pointed out that Sutter never did that--one thing I did really like about him is he preached hard, but not cheap, hockey. There were plenty of occasions--when we were railing the Coyotes comes to mind--where opposing players started playing incredibly cheap and we did nothing but steadily play our game, maybe hit even harder. That became a complaint later in his tenure when we'd get run over and no one would lift a finger, so there's gotta be a happy mediu. But I digress.

I'll have a hard time forgetting him announcing Carrier day-to-day immediately then bringing him right back to practice. That's shady as f*** and I can't believe the NHL was ok with that. IIRC they did it again the next round too. Between that and many of their players constantly flopping and diving, it's a pretty tacit endorsement of rat hockey, and I've given Gallant and Laviolette in particular a lot of blame for that.

That being said, you can be a total chode and a great coach. Those guys both exemplify how. They don't have to be on Sutter's or Q's level to be considered great.

 

[Sol]

He got Florida to perform above their heads as well before his unceremonious departure. He also slaughtered it in juniors, hence his promotion. He has some history of getting the most out of his players and by all accounts is a new-age players' coach. The Boudreau comparison might be fair but Bruce hasn't been this far yet.

I agree with you about him working the refs and sending out goons though. K17 pointed out that Sutter never did that--one thing I did really like about him is he preached hard, but not cheap, hockey. There were plenty of occasions--when we were railing the Coyotes comes to mind--where opposing players started playing incredibly cheap and we did nothing but steadily play our game, maybe hit even harder. That became a complaint later in his tenure when we'd get run over and no one would lift a finger, so there's gotta be a happy mediu. But I digress.

I'll have a hard time forgetting him announcing Carrier day-to-day immediately then bringing him right back to practice. That's shady as **** and I can't believe the NHL was ok with that. IIRC they did it again the next round too. Between that and many of their players constantly flopping and diving, it's a pretty tacit endorsement of rat hockey, and I've given Gallant and Laviolette in particular a lot of blame for that.

That being said, you can be a total chode and a great coach. Those guys both exemplify how. They don't have to be on Sutter's or Q's level to be considered great.

I understand this. That's why I'm saying he can be considered a good coach, but I think he has the personality of a loser by how he gets completely sidetracked into antics. Washington is beating them because the Knights are being outcoached right now. He's unstable.