Around the NHL 2022-2023 *Mod warning in effect pg145

[Thallis]

Kraken are playing great, but just like we learned that we had unsustainable shooting percentage last year, they have highest 5x5 shooting percentage on record. They aren’t this good.

You're correct, but their metrics generally show a pretty solid team underneath. The shooting % is mostly covering for goaltending and special teams at this point, but those deficiencies are not insignificant for sure.

 

[Brockon]

Jesus f***ing H Christ!

I'm sick to death of the non-stop back and forth over Pietrangelo, he's been gone for over 2 years and still dominates the forum threads for pages at a time.

I took a one year hiatus from HFBlues because I was done with the constant back and forth. Came back and everything seemed to have finally moved on, but here we are again... There's no proof, just shades of grey being thrown around as evidence that doesn't actually clear anything up.

Kids, just let it go. There's no need keep bringing this up. If this shit keeps up, I've half a mind to petition the admins to issue short term bans over flogging this particular dead horse.

It's a shame that you're going to appoint yourself petition starter for a ban for Brian39 since he has several posts on the subject today in this thread. He seems like a solid poster. But you did garner a couple likes after all, so adios Brian! You can't skim past a couple pages, nope he has to go. Very reasonable.

I mean that's a great way to hyperbolize what I've said - I made a conditional statement, which has drawn eyes, in accordance with my intent. Said response drew some limited displays of agreement - this shit has gone too far and doesn't need to be re-hashed for the umpteenth time.

You're now cherrypicking a partial statement I made, repeating the most radical interpretation thereof and have thrown Brian39 under the bus in the process... llustrating my exact point from my second response here, the back and forth in the Pietrangelo discussions I commented on has lost objectivity and is now more about proving the other party to be wrong than discussing something of merit.

Just stop. Find a different subject to discuss here, or go elsewhere to continue the Petro NMC talk ad nauseum without taking the board captive. And for the love of God, stop skewing other people's statements to extremes. In my case - Having half a mind doesn't equate to I'm hell bent on doing something right now...

 

[Reality Czech]

Agree with that. But there is a lot of anecdotal evidence and a lot of tangible evidence (Faulk trade) that the guy just didn’t want to retire a Blue. That Backes quote about his best friends intentions being an anecdotal example. It just seems like one of those contracts that would have been done if the player wanted to be here. In my opinion anyway.

100%

Everything that can be said about the situation already has been said. I think it's obvious he wanted a fresh start and a lot of the excuses given in the media are just for PR. People still complaining about it now are like someone who can't get over the gf that dumped them years ago.

 

[TheDizee]

My previous post garnered some likes, so I'm not alone in being over this discussion, which has completely taken over this particular thread. What I'm highlighting is that the Pietrangelo discussion is old news. It's certainly not contemporary content from around the NHL. If you're deadset on this discussion you're involved in - take it somewhere else so I can read current discussions?

To add to my frustration with the resurrection of the topic, regardless of how organically it came up - the dialogue has become a game of twisting each other's responses by cherry picking certain aspects of stl76's response and vice versa... It's grown heated in language and is creating a quasi hostile environment in what should be a light atmosphere to discuss our favourite team.

So, yeah, I'm going to weigh in here. Call me cop, whatever... Someone has to draw a line somewhere, and if that has to be me - so be it.

For all I know, I could be the one looking at reprimands for my use of language and directly addressing this as opposed to reaching out to a mod - and I really don't care, because this nature of discussion is what soured me on the board to begin with. If it's going to come back and dominate discussions again, I won't miss reading it while I serve my ban.

Should have their own Pietrangelo thread where they can talk about him nonstop. This is worse than the Brian Elliott holdouts ever were. Even some GDT get derailed by Pietrangelo talk. It has been 3 years now, time to move on folks.

 

[joe galiba]

My previous post garnered some likes, so I'm not alone in being over this discussion, which has completely taken over this particular thread. What I'm highlighting is that the Pietrangelo discussion is old news. It's certainly not contemporary content from around the NHL. If you're deadset on this discussion you're involved in - take it somewhere else so I can read current discussions?

To add to my frustration with the resurrection of the topic, regardless of how organically it came up - the dialogue has become a game of twisting each other's responses by cherry picking certain aspects of stl76's response and vice versa... It's grown heated in language and is creating a quasi hostile environment in what should be a light atmosphere to discuss our favourite team.

So, yeah, I'm going to weigh in here. Call me cop, whatever... Someone has to draw a line somewhere, and if that has to be me - so be it.

For all I know, I could be the one looking at reprimands for my use of language and directly addressing this as opposed to reaching out to a mod - and I really don't care, because this nature of discussion is what soured me on the board to begin with. If it's going to come back and dominate discussions again, I won't miss reading it while I serve my ban.

just don't use the term "keyboard warrior", I got some sort of timeout for using that

 

[Bobby Orrtuzzo]

Should have their own Pietrangelo thread where they can talk about him nonstop. This is worse than the Brian Elliott holdouts ever were. Even some GDT get derailed by Pietrangelo talk. It has been 3 years now, time to move on folks.

While I agree with what you’re saying, there is a lot of irony in those last 5 words from you lol

 

[TK 421]

I believe in you Flyers, keep winning.

 

[Majorityof1]

I find the anti-Pietrangelo crowd hilarious.

Anti-AP poster: "At least this player we are talking about wants to be here, Not like greedy Captain creampuff"
Anti-AP poster: "That's how a captain should play. Stand up for your teammates. not like Captain creampuff"
Anti-AP poster: " Look at this wedding picture over the summer. Who don't you see. I told you everyone hated Petro."
Pro-AP poster: " I wish our D was better"
Anti AP poster: "You can't blame Armstrong, what else could he have done?"
Pro-AP poster "Sign Pietrangelo."
Ant-AP poster: "Oh god why do you always have to bring him up. Just out of nowhere. We are so sick of talking about him [precedes to rant for 20 posts about him]."

 

[PocketNines]

I mean that's a great way to hyperbolize what I've said - I made a conditional statement, which has drawn eyes, in accordance with my intent. Said response drew some limited displays of agreement - this shit has gone too far and doesn't need to be re-hashed for the umpteenth time.

You're now cherrypicking a partial statement I made, repeating the most radical interpretation thereof and have thrown Brian39 under the bus in the process... llustrating my exact point from my second response here, the back and forth in the Pietrangelo discussions I commented on has lost objectivity and is now more about proving the other party to be wrong than discussing something of merit.

Just stop. Find a different subject to discuss here, or go elsewhere to continue the Petro NMC talk ad nauseum without taking the board captive. And for the love of God, stop skewing other people's statements to extremes. In my case - Having half a mind doesn't equate to I'm hell bent on doing something right now...

Yeah the point is you are not the cop of Blues subjects. Quite obviously many more people wanted to discuss the subject than wanted to agree with your furious rant at what other people are saying on the sports message board. You are not without heat in Ukraine, you can actually just suck it up and survive somehow in your state of being wounded by the words you see in one thread once every once in awhile, as you admit in the original rant. i think your position is every bit as contemptible and disgusting as you do mine, and you do not have the power to shut down conversation. So thank you for your input, but I don't even slightly care.

 

[BadgersandBlues]

I love the cognitive dissonance of people who are all like, see, he didn't really want to spend his career here! When the most notable major hangup of the contract was a NMC lol.

Here's what I think happened - in response to someone who asked earlier. Some of this has been reported on, some of this is speculation, I'll try and separate out which is which (But please note that speculation has some critical thought put into it)

Fact - Summer of '19 - Blues and AP meet and share initial numbers. The Blues decide that they're going to push negotiations off until a future date.

Speculation - AP is asking for the moon. And why not? He's the most important player on our team, he's just a few weeks from being the first ever Blue to lift a Stanley Cup, and he's proven through multiple seasons that he's a legit #1 guy who gets Norris buzz every year, as well as our Captain. Did he want 10M? 11M? 11M and a NMC? I don't know, it doesn't really matter all that much. What matters is, he wanted to sign a big fat contract here, likely with max trade protection, and (in my opinion) was justified for at least starting negotiations with it.

Speculation - This initial ask clearly doesn't sit well with Armstrong for some reason. Maybe it was the NMC, maybe it was the AAV, again, no one really knows. It's pretty obvious with hindsight that he didn't like it though, b/c of the next thing that happens:

Fact - On Sept 24th, in the midst of training camp, we trade and extend Justin Faulk for Edmundson and Bokk. Faulks contract has an interesting feature - a NTC that modifies to a partial NTC in 2025-2026. This was for 6.5M AAV and has no bonus structure attached. At the time this was about 8% of the cap.

Speculation - AP has to be thinking right now - huh, that's weird. He's a RH Dman, we already have a guy behind me in Parayko that's locked in for another two years, and they just gave this guy, who hasn't played a single minute for this franchise, a 6.5M AAV. Players aren't stupid. Well, they may be, but agents aren't stupid. They know that signing a guy who plays the same position as their client for big money is usually not a good sign of things to come.

Fact - About a week and a half later, just as the regular season is starting, (Oct. 4th) we sign Brayden Schenn to a 6.5M deal, which again, has an interesting feature - a full NTC that turns into a partial NTC in the 2025-2026 year. As with Faulk, these are both the "Submit a 15 team no-trade," type NTCs. Again, this is for about 8% of the cap.

Fact - On Oct 29th, the Predators sign Roman Josi to an 8x9M contract (Yes it has that stupid remainder so his cap hit has a 59 in it, who cares) - this contract comes with a full NMC and about 1/2 of the contract is paid in bonus money.

Speculation - This is the part where AP and camp are going - ok guys, this should be easy. Did you see what Josi just got? That's what I'm looking for too. This shouldn't be hard, we've been contemporaries our whole career, maybe Josi has a bit more individual success, but I've won a Ring damnit. Armstrong isn't moved.

Fact - Jay-Bo has cardiac arrest and is basically finished for the season (And obviously, career). We trade for Scandella - who we then sign during the COVID shutdown for 3.25M a year.

For those playing at home - that's 16.25M handed out in contracts without AP getting one. Again, players aren't stupid - they understand in a cap world that every dollar going to someone else is one less available for them.

Fact - COVID ends, our season ends with a thud, and we go into the offseason. AP goes on to place third in Norris voting, with Josi winning.

Fact - It's widely reported that the major sticking point in negotiations with AP is the structure of the contract. According to reports, he wants a full NMC and Armstrong is unwilling to give it to him. Armstrong and Stillman reportedly even have a full on face-to-face meeting with AP about a week before UFA beings - (Speculation) to hopefully bridge the gap and explain why they're not budging on the NMC - AP isn't moved.

Fact - On the first day of UFA (Which occurs in Oct due to COVID) - we sign Tory Krug to a 6.5M contract - with a notable feature - his full NTC becomes a partial NTC in 2025-2026, with a 15 team no-trade list.

Guys - it's pretty easy to connect the dots here. You have three separate data points where Army gave out a contract where the NTC modified in 2025-2026 to allow himself flexibility to trade said player.

Speculation - Army wasn't interested in giving AP a Josi-like contract. He wanted flexibility to do whatever he wanted when he felt our competitive window was likely to close. That's 100% on him for not offering that contract to AP. AP probably did take that a little personally - because who wouldn't? He's been the face of our franchise since Backes left, arguably since he was drafted. He won a Cup, he came in third in Norris voting, and he's the captain of our team. There was a clear and direct comparable contract signed earlier that same year (Yes, before COVID hit, but still) that we didn't seem to even come close to matching.

Once UFA hit, and Vegas offered him what he wanted, he signed. I full believe Had we offered him an 8x8 with full NMC and at least -some- signing bonus money, he'd have been a Blue for life.

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

You're correct, but their metrics generally show a pretty solid team underneath. The shooting % is mostly covering for goaltending and special teams at this point, but those deficiencies are not insignificant for sure.

I like what they have done a lot, but it's interesting how high shooting percentage can cover for a lot of other issues. Just like crappy goaltending can obscure otherwise good teams. Funny that they have both.

 

[joe galiba]

I like what they have done a lot, but it's interesting how high shooting percentage can cover for a lot of other issues. Just like crappy goaltending can obscure otherwise good teams. Funny that they have both.

Funny how the Blues unsustainable shooting percentage was sustained all year and funny how, after an offseason, teams were able to deny the things we were doing, and funny how our players and coaches haven't adjusted

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

Funny how the Blues unsustainable shooting percentage was sustained all year and funny how, after an offseason, teams were able to deny the things we were doing, and funny how our players and coaches haven't adjusted

As someone who has suffered through 40+ Blues games this season, I don't think that is funny.

 

[joe galiba]

As someone who has suffered through 40+ Blues games this season, I don't think that is funny.

definitely not funny ha ha

 

[Brian39]

For the examples you've outlined, do you think a partial NMC + full NTC could have changed the outcomes for the players you listed? Happy to read your response if you'd like to offer one. If not, no worries. Either way, I'm not going to respond tho... already spent way too much time derailing this thread as is

We've hit a point where a semantics discussion is necessary. The hockey world uses shorthand to describe trade/movement protection that doesn't exist in the CBA. The CBA doesn't define exactly what a no-trade clause or a no-move clause does. It is completely silent about what exactly a no-trade clause does and it simply states what a no-move clause may restrict (trades, waivers, and loans) and what it may not restrict (it can't prevent a buyout or prohibit termination for cause). The league and PA agreed that the exposing a player in an expansion draft was analogous to waivers for the purposes of NMCs, which is why players with a NMC can't be exposed without their consent. It is not a new criteria of protection within the CBA.

The terms the hockey world uses to describe NTCs and NMCs are informal shorthand not found in the CBA. There is no definition of the terms 'full,' 'partial,' 'limited,' or 'modified' within the CBA. Moreover, the league doesn't release contract details, so none of these terms are coming from official league sources. These are all terms created by reporters and sites like CapGeek/CapFriendly to describe the terms of each individually negotiated trade/movement clauses without needing to give a paragraph of info every time the contract is discussed.

This is important because there is no such thing as a 'partial NMC + full NTC' within the confines of the CBA. If a player has a full NTC, the only added benefit of a NMC is that he can't be waived (or loaned if he's not waivers eligible). That is a yes/no toggle, not something that could be 'partial.'

If a waivers eligible player can't be traded without his consent and can't be placed on waivers without his consent, that is what we call a NMC.

If a waivers eligible player can't be traded without his consent and can be placed on waivers without his consent, that is what we call a NTC.

If a waivers eligible player can be traded without his consent and can't be placed on waivers without his consent, that would either be called a partial/limited/modified NMC (or it could be classified as a NMC with a partial/limited/modified NTC).

But there is no scenario where a player can have a full NTC and a partial NMC.

A full NMC for the duration of the contract would have prevented each and every scenario I outlined.

A NMC in effect during the year of the event would have prevented every scenario I outline at the time it took place. It would not protect other such efforts to move the player in years where the NMC was not in effect (see Montreal trading Subban just before his NMC kicked in to get around it).

A partial NMC that allowed some trades without the player's consent might have prevented these scenarios or it might not have. That would have come down to the specific terms of clause.

A Full NMC for the entire duration of a contract offers certainty. Anything less leaves doors cracked for teams to move the player.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

I can't fathom why Brian spends the time it takes to research and makes posts of the quality that he consistently does. Its just a few of us dufuses here posting. Work of that caliber warrants financial compensation. Anyway, his posts alone make this board have reading value, even when the rest of it is just all the rest of us spouting off about something.

 

[PJJJP]

Does this Bruins team ever lose? Like save some wins for the rest of us

 

[Linkens Mastery]

Does this Bruins team ever lose? Like save some wins for the rest of us

Nooo we want to lose!

 

[shpongle falls]

Does this Bruins team ever lose? Like save some wins for the rest of us

Its going to be fun watching them get eliminated in the first round, at least thats what I hope happens lol.

 

[PocketNines]

One of the factors for the deadline is that already in January the first round matchup of Tampa-Toronto is locked. Tampa has traded away its top picks. Toronto simply must add player(s) who will get them past Tampa. Seven straight years of first round losses would be an existential situation for that team.

 

[PJJJP]

One of the factors for the deadline is that already in January the first round matchup of Tampa-Toronto is locked. Tampa has traded away its top picks. Toronto simply must add player(s) who will get them past Tampa. Seven straight years of first round losses would be an existential situation for that team.

Hopefully we trade ROR there. Also no ill will against ROR if he goes there but it would be funny to see then lose in the first round again

 

[Xerloris]

One of the factors for the deadline is that already in January the first round matchup of Tampa-Toronto is locked. Tampa has traded away its top picks. Toronto simply must add player(s) who will get them past Tampa. Seven straight years of first round losses would be an existential situation for that team.

TBH I think the only player we can offer that would be that valuable would be ROR.

 

[AjaxManifesto]

 

[BadgersandBlues]

I saw this last night on Reddit. I couldn't stop laughing for 15 minutes. The casual way the PBP guy just goes, "Was that you?" had me rolling.

 

[Brian39]

TBH I think the only player we can offer that would be that valuable would be ROR.

I wouldn't be surprised if they valued Tarasenko fairly highly. He has 41 career playoff goals (in 90 games played) and he had 6 of them in 2 rounds last year. He hasn't been as good this year as he was last year, but he's still scored at a 24 goal and 70 point pace.

They only have 5 every day forwards who have ever had a 20 goal NHL season (Matthews, Tavares, Nylander, Marner, and Bunting). They also have Wayne Simmonds, but he is pretty much washed and has just 5 goals in his last 82 NHL games, so I'm not counting him. After those top 5 studs, the offensive firepower gets thin real fast. They are running their top 5 forwards into the ground because the other forwards aren't all that great. Their 6th most-used forward plays 15:15 a night. Our 6th most-used forward (Tarasenko) plays 17:29 a night.

Plunking a guy like Tarasenko on the 3rd line and 2nd PP unit would likely help their secondary scoring quite a bit.

I think either of ROR or Tarasenko could be appealing to them as their main deadline upgrade.

With that said, I bet Barby is very appealing as a secondary upgrade and they should absolutely be looking to add two forwards. With 50% retention, Barbie's cap hit is just $1.125M. That's not much above league minimum, so he's an upgrade that wouldn't require much (if any) cap creativity. If I'm Army, I set my asking price with Toronto at Knies + 1st for whichever of ROR or Tarasenko they like best (with 50% retained obviously). They aren't going to do that, but instead of negotiating down from our asking price when they counter, start including Barby (with 50% retained) into our proposed deal.

Barby/Tarasenko was two-thirds of a pretty damn effective 2nd line for a good stretch last year and Barby was playing center on that line. There is a lot of appeal to just building a 3rd line around them. Barby/ROR haven't shown that same chemistry, but they could try Barby on the 2LW with Tavares/Marner and then make ROR the 3C with Jarnkrok and Engvall. Either way, the middle 6 should get way better at the cap cost of just a pro-rated $4.875M against the cap. They are going to have a tough time finding two acquisitions of that quality that combine for less than $5M against the cap. They can make the cap work on that by sending Kampf back to us as part of the deal (or Kerfoot or Engvall if they'd prefer) and running a 22 man roster after the deadline.

Bunting-Matthews-Nylander
Jarnkrok-Tavares-Marner
Engvall-Barby-Tarasenko

or

Bunting-matthews-Nylander
Barby-Tavares-Marner
Jarnkrok-ROR-Engvall

with Kerfoot as the 4C

Those are a couple legitimate looking 3rd lines that look a hell of a lot better than the McMann-Kampf-Engvall group they are running out there tonight. All that is before you get to the 'rings in the room' argument. That has value in the NHL. Bringing in two guys with rings who got those rings together has some chemistry value. They are going to have to go through Tampa and then likely Boston to reach the Conference Final. Boston has had that team's number for a generation. Can you think of some players available at the deadline who have slain that dragon?

If I'm Army, I'm pushing that narrative hard and asking for Knies+1st+Ottawa's 2023 3rd (or Toronto's 2024 2nd).