Around the NHL 2023-24 - offseason part II

[Goptor]

https://x.com/i/web/status/1841226610382618642

Easily fake. The NHL logos are supposed to be logos of gambling sites, insurance companies, and beer manufacturers.

 

[njdevils1982]

https://x.com/i/web/status/1841226610382618642

TNT didnt do that for the last game... i'll bet they'll bring it back for the regular season.

it's moronic.

if you want to do that garbage have a ticker on the bottom of the screen that shows names on ice... the constant jumping on the screen is beyond distracting. i know i cant concentrate on the game... f***ing madness

 

[Jersey Fan 12]

https://x.com/i/web/status/1841277604067737707

I know it’s a change to increase league revenue but I would rather have 2 more regular season games over 2 of the preseason games.

Shortening the preseason has not worked well for the NFL in terms of quality of play nor injury prevention - though I'd imagine it has increased revenue.

Hockey "camp" is basically three days now before exhibition games start. Would hate to see it shortened even further.

 

[Satans Hockey]

Shortening the preseason has not worked well for the NFL in terms of quality of play nor injury prevention - though I'd imagine it has increased revenue.

Hockey "camp" is basically three days now before exhibition games start. Would hate to see it shortened even further.

I don't watch the NFL but didn't they only get rid of 1 week of camp and get rid of 1 preseason game? What's going on there that 1 week is making that big of a difference? Don't they still have like 3-4 weeks of camp and 3 pre-season games?

 

[My3Sons]

Shortening the preseason has not worked well for the NFL in terms of quality of play nor injury prevention - though I'd imagine it has increased revenue.

Hockey "camp" is basically three days now before exhibition games start. Would hate to see it shortened even further.

The NFL did the correct thing in my view. The fourth preseason game was just a final tryout for a handful of players. Teams were really only gearing up in three games. But I understand why it could be seen differently.

 

[Zajacs Bowl Cut]

 

[Darkauron]

So dumb

 

[MadDevil]

Vegas won't be losing their spot as the league's biggest heel franchise any time soon.

 

[Blackjack]

The usual suspects are in the main board thread acting like this is completely fair.

f***ing revolting

 

[MartyOwns]

i don't see how that benefits vegas at all?

 

[MasterofGrond]

i don't see how that benefits vegas at all?

They don't have to have him on LTIR, which means they can start the year under the cap honestly, instead of being into LTIR, so they can accrue cap space.

Functionally I don't think it matters that much. The LITR system is bullshit, I don't think having to put a dude on LTIR for years on end just so he gets paid out his money is really the best solution in general. I think there should probably be some sort of (with league or third party approval of some kind) injury retirement, where a player can receive his paycheck, but everybody acknowledges he's done so we don't have to do the LTIR game.

 

[TheUnseenHand]

I hate how the league makes up rules on the fly that clearly demonstrate their objectively obvious biases.

 

[MasterofGrond]

Honestly the way the whole cap works is kinda ridiculous. Just go to a "your roster must have AAVs that sum to less than the salary cap for each game, including playoffs" and be done with it.

 

[HBK27]

i don't see how that benefits vegas at all?

This could potentially open up ~$6.7M in cap space at the deadline that Vegas otherwise would not have had if they had to spend the season in LTIR.

https://x.com/i/web/status/1841873583703720229

 

[MartyOwns]

They don't have to have him on LTIR, which means they can start the year under the cap honestly, instead of being into LTIR, so they can accrue cap space.

Functionally I don't think it matters that much. The LITR system is bullshit, I don't think having to put a dude on LTIR for years on end just so he gets paid out his money is really the best solution in general. I think there should probably be some sort of (with league or third party approval of some kind) injury retirement, where a player can receive his paycheck, but everybody acknowledges he's done so we don't have to do the LTIR game.

This could potentially open up ~$6.7M in cap space at the deadline that Vegas otherwise would not have had if they had to spend the season in LTIR.

https://x.com/i/web/status/1841873583703720229

i get that, but wasn’t it reported that he never showed up for camp? so instead of being able to terminate his contract for a breach, now they have to pay him real dollars?

 

[HBK27]

i get that, but wasn’t it reported that he never showed up for camp? so instead of being able to terminate his contract for a breach, now they have to pay him real dollars?

Yes, that is the downside for Vegas - but I highly, highly doubt they're doing that out of the goodness of their heart versus trying to avoid any battles with the NHL/NHLPA that could result in that contract remaining on the books.

Here's what I just posted on the mainboards as being the issue I have with this:

The unfair part if the precedent that this sets moving forward. I don't know the specifics of this particular situation, but what's to stop a team/player in the future from working out an agreement that the otherwise LTIR player not show up for his physical and the team just pays him out the rest of his contract, as is the case here?

From a player's perspective - you're getting your money either way and it saves you a trip. From the team's perspective, it may cost you real money (depending on how the situation impacts insurance vs. the team paying out the rest of the contract), but if it allows your team to avoid having to be stuck on LTIR all season, any additional cost may be worth it.

Regardless on how this all came together, it is clearly a competitive advantage for Vegas to have Lehner off the books completely versus LTIR and the league seems to have no problem with it. Meanwhile, the league docked the Devils draft picks and fined them for the Kovalchuk contact (yes, I'm still bitter) that was never even approved in the first place and thus had absolutely zero benefit for the team out of some "spirit of the CBA" bullshit.

 

[MartyOwns]

Yes, that is the downside for Vegas - but I highly, highly doubt they're doing that out of the goodness of their heart versus trying to avoid any battles with the NHL/NHLPA that could result in that contract remaining on the books.

Here's what I just posted on the mainboards as being the issue I have with this:

The unfair part if the precedent that this sets moving forward. I don't know the specifics of this particular situation, but what's to stop a team/player in the future from working out an agreement that the otherwise LTIR player not show up for his physical and the team just pays him out the rest of his contract, as is the case here?

From a player's perspective - you're getting your money either way and it saves you a trip. From the team's perspective, it may cost you real money (depending on how the situation impacts insurance vs. the team paying out the rest of the contract), but if it allows your team to avoid having to be stuck on LTIR all season, any additional cost may be worth it.

Regardless on how this all came together, it is clearly a competitive advantage for Vegas to have Lehner off the books completely versus LTIR and the league seems to have no problem with it. Meanwhile, the league docked the Devils draft picks and fined them for the Kovalchuk contact (yes, I'm still bitter) that was never even approved in the first place and thus had absolutely zero benefit for the team out of some "spirit of the CBA" bullshit.

i agree that it sets a dangerous precedent, my point was more that this doesn’t benefit vegas the way everyone seems to be assuming it does. they had the option of pursuing contract termination, where they wouldn’t get a salary cap hit AND they wouldn’t have to pay him. i’m sure you’re right, they don’t want to get embroiled in a dispute with the PA, but either way this isn’t an ideal outcome for anyone other than lehner.

vegas has a pretty piss poor PR track record already, and they likely didn’t want lehrer to play the mental health card and have yet another black eye on their resume.

 

[Blackjack]

Honestly the way the whole cap works is kinda ridiculous. Just go to a "your roster must have AAVs that sum to less than the salary cap for each game, including playoffs" and be done with it.

They will never do this because the whole point of the cap is to appear to be fair while providing plenty of opportunity for circumvention. This is why the Kovalchuk penalty is so disgraceful. Lou treated the cap rule like toilet paper, exactly the same as all the other GMs, and we’re the only team that’s ever been penalized.

 

[ZachaFlockaFlame]

Yes, that is the downside for Vegas - but I highly, highly doubt they're doing that out of the goodness of their heart versus trying to avoid any battles with the NHL/NHLPA that could result in that contract remaining on the books.

Here's what I just posted on the mainboards as being the issue I have with this:

The unfair part if the precedent that this sets moving forward. I don't know the specifics of this particular situation, but what's to stop a team/player in the future from working out an agreement that the otherwise LTIR player not show up for his physical and the team just pays him out the rest of his contract, as is the case here?

From a player's perspective - you're getting your money either way and it saves you a trip. From the team's perspective, it may cost you real money (depending on how the situation impacts insurance vs. the team paying out the rest of the contract), but if it allows your team to avoid having to be stuck on LTIR all season, any additional cost may be worth it.

Regardless on how this all came together, it is clearly a competitive advantage for Vegas to have Lehner off the books completely versus LTIR and the league seems to have no problem with it. Meanwhile, the league docked the Devils draft picks and fined them for the Kovalchuk contact (yes, I'm still bitter) that was never even approved in the first place and thus had absolutely zero benefit for the team out of some "spirit of the CBA" bullshit.

Depends on the market, any small market team is getting dinged or laughed at by the league while the big boys will get to do whatever they want

 

[HBK27]

i agree that it sets a dangerous precedent, my point was more that this doesn’t benefit vegas the way everyone seems to be assuming it does. they had the option of pursuing contract termination, where they wouldn’t get a salary cap hit AND they wouldn’t have to pay him. i’m sure you’re right, they don’t want to get embroiled in a dispute with the PA, but either way this isn’t an ideal outcome for anyone other than lehner.

vegas has a pretty piss poor PR track record already, and they likely didn’t want lehrer to play the mental health card and have yet another black eye on their resume.

I disagree. As you stated, "they had the option of pursuing contract termination" - I don't think that was a slam dunk to get done, in which case there was always that risk that the contract might somehow stay on the books.

Vegas was also up against a time crunch for resolution with final rosters needing to be submitted in just a few days. If Lehner's cap hit were to stay on the books, Vegas was highly likely to trade for another LTIR player in order to maximize their cap space for the upcoming season (PuckPedia had previously outlined this before this "resolution").

Again, Vegas doesn't pay Lehner the rest of his contract out of any kindness or sympathy or to avoid some bad PR. It was done IMO because it comes with the assurance that they are completely free of this contract/cap hit for this upcoming season, which is most certainly a competitive advantage. Not ideal from an overall organizational/owner perspective as Vegas now has to pay out Lehner's $4.4M salary for this season versus potentially walking away from that obligation, but from purely a hockey ops perspective this is absolutely an ideal outcome.

 

[MasterofGrond]

i get that, but wasn’t it reported that he never showed up for camp? so instead of being able to terminate his contract for a breach, now they have to pay him real dollars?

It’s a compromise. Everybody gets what they want. They care more about the cap space than the dollars and lehner only wants to get paid while being absolved from team responsibilities.

If they contest it, maybe they don’t pay but maybe instead they don’t get the LITR relief. Small price to pay for a successful and competitive org.

 

[MartyOwns]

I disagree. As you stated, "they had the option of pursuing contract termination" - I don't think that was a slam dunk to get done, in which case there was always that risk that the contract might somehow stay on the books.

Vegas was also up against a time crunch for resolution with final rosters needing to be submitted in just a few days. If Lehner's cap hit were to stay on the books, Vegas was highly likely to trade for another LTIR player in order to maximize their cap space for the upcoming season (PuckPedia had previously outlined this before this "resolution").

Again, Vegas doesn't pay Lehner the rest of his contract out of any kindness or sympathy or to avoid some bad PR. It was done IMO because it comes with the assurance that they are completely free of this contract/cap hit for this upcoming season, which is most certainly a competitive advantage. Not ideal from an overall organizational/owner perspective as Vegas now has to pay out Lehner's $4.4M salary for this season versus potentially walking away from that obligation, but from purely a hockey ops perspective this is absolutely an ideal outcome.

if a player refuses to report to the team he's under contract with, i would think that is absolutely a slam dunk. unless you have examples showing otherwise, i can't think of any.

when you say "it comes with the assurance..." are you saying this was orchestrated between vegas and the league beforehand? was that reported somewhere?

finally, i doubt you'd have bill foley saying this is an ideal outcome, paying over $4 million for something unnecessary.

the whole thing is weird, and vegas has historically been treated with kid gloves, but i think it's a bit lazy and/or premature to say that's what's happening here. the only winner here is lehner.

 

[Bleedred]

I don't really understand why this isn't just an LTIRement.

Lehner is 33 years old. He's not playing this year, for the third year in a row. I think it's a foregone conclusion that his playing career is over. He's not gonna try to play next year at 34 years old. 3.5 years after his most recent game played.

 

[HBK27]

if a player refuses to report to the team he's under contract with, i would think that is absolutely a slam dunk. unless you have examples showing otherwise, i can't think of any.

when you say "it comes with the assurance..." are you saying this was orchestrated between vegas and the league beforehand? was that reported somewhere?

finally, i doubt you'd have bill foley saying this is an ideal outcome, paying over $4 million for something unnecessary.

the whole thing is weird, and vegas has historically been treated with kid gloves, but i think it's a bit lazy and/or premature to say that's what's happening here. the only winner here is lehner.

I can't think of examples of any player not reporting, so I don't think either one of us can provide a concrete example of what happens in that scenario regarding the rest of their contract.

This is all speculation on my part. If this was such a slam dunk, then why is the owner agreeing to pay out $4.4M if he doesn't have to? Goodwill? Avoid bad PR (never stopped Vegas before)...

 

[MasterofGrond]

If it were a slam dunk they wouldn’t be paying, full stop.

I assume some team employee at some point told him it was a formality or something along those lines. Enough plausible deniability for Lehner to challenge any termination