Toggle sidebar

Around the NHL: Free Agent Frenzy begins July 1 at noon

Status
Not open for further replies.
joshjull

joshjull

Registered User
Aug 2, 2005
79,619
42,483
Hamburg,NY
joshjull said:
@reporterchris: Gary Bettman told the NHL board about interest from ownership groups from Las Vegas, Seattle and Quebec City. There's your big three.


If these three all have strong bids and the NHL goes with two. Could the third city get a consolation prize in the form of the Coyotes?
Click to expand...

I guess not


@reporterchris: The NHL remains extremely committed to keeping the #coyotes in Arizona. Downtown Phoenix is seen as a potential long-term solution.
 
old kummelweck

old kummelweck

Registered User
Nov 10, 2003
25,763
5,854
joshjull said:
@reporterchris: Gary Bettman told the NHL board about interest from ownership groups from Las Vegas, Seattle and Quebec City. There's your big three.


If these three all have strong bids and the NHL goes with two. Could the third city get a consolation prize in the form of the Coyotes?
Click to expand...

Bad timing for a Canadian team to enter the league with the strength of the USD. Quebec ownership group better have deep pockets.
 
FoSotC

FoSotC

Registered User
Aug 16, 2010
952
22
Kruschiki said:
Bad timing for a Canadian team to enter the league with the strength of the USD. Quebec ownership group better have deep pockets.
Click to expand...
Revenue sharing is supposedly in place for things like this. If the Coyotes can be allowed to hemorrhage money for as long as they have while also lacking solid ownership, Quebec City should have absolutely nothing to worry about if they were awarded a team.
 
old kummelweck

old kummelweck

Registered User
Nov 10, 2003
25,763
5,854
FoSotC said:
Revenue sharing is supposedly in place for things like this. If the Coyotes can be allowed to hemorrhage money for as long as they have while also lacking solid ownership, Quebec City should have absolutely nothing to worry about if they were awarded a team.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about the franchise fee. LV will pay between $450 - $500 million. That's north or south of $600 million Canadian. In 2012 that would have been par.
 
old kummelweck

old kummelweck

Registered User
Nov 10, 2003
25,763
5,854
Also, the canadian dollar dragged down the salary cap and revenues for 2015/16, and made revenue sharing more expensive for US teams. I'd be surprised to see a Canadian franchise until the dollar recovers.
 
FoSotC

FoSotC

Registered User
Aug 16, 2010
952
22
Kruschiki said:
I'm talking about the franchise fee.
Click to expand...
Gotcha. While I hope it does happen, I get this feeling that QC won't/wouldn't be getting an expansion team regardless. The league seems more interested in gambling on "non-traditional" markets in the hopes that people there will form an interest in the sport. QC is probably viewed as a safe emergency landing spot a la Winnipeg.
 
joshjull

joshjull

Registered User
Aug 2, 2005
79,619
42,483
Hamburg,NY
@lakingsinsider: Have learned that the Kings have also suspended Slava Voynov, in addition to the NHL. His salary does not count against LA's cap...

@lakingsinsider: ...am told that part of the impetus for Voynov's suspension by LA was due to the injury he suffered away from hockey activity.

@lakingsinsider: With Voynov off the books, the #LAKings have roughly $59.98M spent on 16 players for 15-16. In the process of trying to learn more...
 
Heraldic

Heraldic

Registered User
Dec 12, 2013
2,937
51
Mark Stone's contract is surprisingly costly, considering it covers only RFA years, it has really, really high QO number (4,5 million) and Stone practically got it with playing no more than half a season (really, really well, though).

Not even Palat or Johnson got that good contract. Outside of RoR (who got offersheeted) and Ryan Johansen, I can't remember anyone getting more than Stone got covering only RFA years. For example Giroux and Duchene got the same number - no more.

But I think that B.Murray was forced to give that lucrative contract to Stone, because Ottawa's players getting offersheeted was a legitimate threat, and they could not match them most likely, if it indeed had happened. And giving long term contract might not be wise, because you really don't know, was that season just a stroke or is it something that will last. Or can you even offersheet him/them? If not, I really have to wonder B.Murray's health...
 
Jame

Jame

Registered User
Sep 4, 2002
52,673
9,037
Florida
Heraldic said:
Mark Stone's contract is surprisingly costly, considering it covers only RFA years, it has really, really high QO number (4,5 million) and Stone practically got it with playing no more than half a season (really, really well, though).

Not even Palat or Johnson got that good contract. Outside of RoR (who got offersheeted) and Ryan Johansen, I can't remember anyone getting more than Stone got covering only RFA years. For example Giroux and Duchene got the same number - no more.

But I think that B.Murray was forced to give that lucrative contract to Stone, because Ottawa's players getting offersheeted was a legitimate threat, and they could not match them most likely, if it indeed had happened. And giving long term contract might not be wise, because you really don't know, was that season just a stroke or is it something that will last. Or can you even offersheet him/them? If not, I really have to wonder B.Murray's health...
Click to expand...

When was that? What was the cap at the time?

You're right though, it's not really a bargain... it just set a new bar. And follows the trend of setting a high RFA QO bar for the next contract as Oreilly/Johansen had done.

It's pretty comparable to Palat's deal though...

Palat coming off 63 in 75
2.8 / 3.2 / 4.0 = 3.333 cap

Stone coming off 64 in 80
2.25 / 3.75 / 4.5 = 3.5 cap

Great Deals
 
TehDoak

TehDoak

Chili that wants to be here
Sponsor
Feb 28, 2002
32,214
9,524
Will fix everything
Jame said:
When was that? What was the cap at the time?

You're right though, it's not really a bargain... it just set a new bar. And follows the trend of setting a high RFA QO bar for the next contract as Oreilly/Johansen had done.

It's pretty comparable to Palat's deal though...
Click to expand...

I wonder if the backloaded deals is a mandate from ownership. Gotta think the Sens go up for sale pretty soon, the owner just can't afford to put out a competitive team.
 
Heraldic

Heraldic

Registered User
Dec 12, 2013
2,937
51
Jame said:
When was that? What was the cap at the time?

You're right though, it's not really a bargain... it just set a new bar. And follows the trend of setting a high RFA QO bar for the next contract as Oreilly/Johansen had done.

It's pretty comparable to Palat's deal though...

Palat coming off 63 in 75
2.8 / 3.2 / 4.0 = 3.333 cap

Stone coming off 64 in 80
2.25 / 3.75 / 4.5 = 3.5 cap

Great Deals
Click to expand...

Giroux's contract was signed when the cap was 64,3 million and Duchene's when the cap was 70.2 million. Considering they both had three (almost) full seasons under their belt, I think those deals were more "bargains". But to be honest, I really don't think there really is a "bargain" deal to be made, when all or majority of the years are RFA years. As a GM, you absolutely HAVE TO get those deals look like "steals". I personally think that it is really funny to see every deal which covers fully or mostly RFA years, considered as "steals" (and with this I don't mean anyone on our board) on boards etc.

Salary of the RFA years is pretty much pre-determined, and you almost always get those years extremely cheaply, if a player establishes himself during his ELC. And that is the reason I want us to utilize that fact as much as possible. We have A LOT of our core guys still having many RFA years ahead of them, and that is the reason why we can get a real edge to other teams, if we use those years smartly. After those years, if everything goes well, we're most likely going to be in a cap hell, but I don't care unless we use that window before it maximally.
 
joshjull

joshjull

Registered User
Aug 2, 2005
79,619
42,483
Hamburg,NY
TehDoak said:
I wonder if the backloaded deals is a mandate from ownership. Gotta think the Sens go up for sale pretty soon, the owner just can't afford to put out a competitive team.
Click to expand...

I imagine the backloading was from the players side. Now their next QOs are based on 3.25mil and 4.5mil respectively.
 
Jame

Jame

Registered User
Sep 4, 2002
52,673
9,037
Florida
Heraldic said:
Giroux's contract was signed when the cap was 64,3 million and Duchene's when the cap was 70.2 million. Considering they both had three (almost) full seasons under their belt, I think those deals were more "bargains". But to be honest, I really don't think there really is a "bargain" deal to be made, when all or majority of the years are RFA years. As a GM, you absolutely HAVE TO get those deals look like "steals". I personally think that it is really funny to see every deal which covers fully or mostly RFA years, considered as "steals" (and with this I don't mean anyone on our board) on boards etc.

Salary of the RFA years is pretty much pre-determined, and you almost always get those years extremely cheaply, if a player establishes himself during his ELC. And that is the reason I want us to utilize that fact as much as possible. We have A LOT of our core guys still having many RFA years ahead of them, and that is the reason why we can get a real edge to other teams, if we use those years smartly. After those years, if everything goes well, we're most likely going to be in a cap hell, but I don't care unless we use that window before it maximally.
Click to expand...

a 3.5 cap hit for a top 6 player isn't a bargain?
3.5 cap hit for 55-65 point production isn't a bargain?

Sure it may not be a steal/bargain if your perspective is ALWAYS the future... but in the present, it's a steal. It's top line production for half the cost, creating more cap space to put a better team on the ice

The high final year shouldn't mean much, when you are signing a 50-60 point player for cheap (3.5)... you are going to end up paying significantly more than 4.5 in 3 years anyways.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Latest posts

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom
X