Speculation: Caps Roster General Discussion (Coaching/FAs/Cap/Lines etc) - 2023 Off-season

[twabby]

So you’re ok with the top revenue teams always getting the best of everything? Much like baseball?

Yes.

There’d still be a soft salary cap so that would disperse the talent a bit, but I’d rather the laborers get to go where they want and get paid for their talents immediately instead of being told what team to go to and be forced to make well under what they are worth.

Connor Bedard is going to a morally bankrupt organization next year and will make somewhere in the neighborhood of $3 million after all of the ELC bonuses are factored in. Why should he be forced to go to that team? Why should he be forced to make ~$10-12 million less per year for the next 3 years than he’d get if he could go to the highest bidder?

I’m not even convinced the big market teams would have much of an advantage. Hockey by its nature is very chaotic and is still not well understood by many front offices, so I don’t think having a bigger budget would necessarily make rich teams better.

 

[twabby]

I've never been so sure that trading Tom Wilson is the right move. So many teams are going to be willing to part with top talents in order to try to emulate the Panthers.

 

[Calicaps]

I think this is pretty naïve. Once a player decides to finish a check they absolutely are trying to take a player out and inflict pain and injury. Otherwise why would they be feared?

"inflict pain"? yes. injure to the point of can't keep playing? no. these two things are not the same.

 

[HTFN]

I think this is pretty naïve. Once a player decides to finish a check they absolutely are trying to take a player out and inflict pain and injury. Otherwise why would they be feared?

So you're just going to ignore an entire post about strategic value, plug your ears, and repeat the same shit huh?

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

Yes.

There’d still be a soft salary cap so that would disperse the talent a bit, but I’d rather the laborers get to go where they want and get paid for their talents immediately instead of being told what team to go to and be forced to make well under what they are worth.

Connor Bedard is going to a morally bankrupt organization next year and will make somewhere in the neighborhood of $3 million after all of the ELC bonuses are factored in. Why should he be forced to go to that team? Why should he be forced to make ~$10-12 million less per year for the next 3 years than he’d get if he could go to the highest bidder?

I’m not even convinced the big market teams would have much of an advantage. Hockey by its nature is very chaotic and is still not well understood by many front offices, so I don’t think having a bigger budget would necessarily make rich teams better.

Bedard can go do that…..just not in the privately run NHL. You want to play in the sandbox, play by the rules as ”collectively” bargained.

 

[twabby]

Bedard can go do that…..just not in the privately run NHL. You want to play in the sandbox, play by the rules as ”collectively” bargained.

Of course, no disagreements there. I'm not saying the NHL and the NHLPA can't do what they want as collectively bargained.

I'm just saying that if I ran a league I would do things differently.

 

[twabby]

So you're just going to ignore an entire post about strategic value, plug your ears, and repeat the same shit huh?

I'm sorry I missed your post. Please be assured that I am trying to answer every post directed my way but sometimes things fall through the cracks especially when there is a heavy disagreement and I have posts flying at me from all directions!

I understand the strategic value of finishing checks. I understand that as things currently stand you'd be unwise to not finish checks at every opportunity because as you correctly stated finishing checks can significantly impact the game.

I'm simply saying that if I were running things I would change the incentive structure such that finishing checks would be a net negative because I think it's stupid and boring to see guys plastered into the wall after the puck has left the vicinity. But I'm certainly not going to get mad at anyone for finishing checks because it is well within the rules right now.

 

[HTFN]

I'm sorry I missed your post. Please be assured that I am trying to answer every post directed my way but sometimes things fall through the cracks especially when there is a heavy disagreement and I have posts flying at me from all directions!

I understand the strategic value of finishing checks. I understand that as things currently stand you'd be unwise to not finish checks at every opportunity because as you correctly stated finishing checks can significantly impact the game.

I'm simply saying that if I were running things I would change the incentive structure such that finishing checks would be a net negative because I think it's stupid and boring to see guys plastered into the wall after the puck has left the vicinity. But I'm certainly not going to get mad at anyone for finishing checks because it is well within the rules right now.

Ultimately we're talking about the difference of less than a full second. I don't remember if it's clearly defined as a rule or not but colloquially at least I've always understood it as like .5 to .8 seconds before it's just straight up interference.

These amazing athletes you have tons and tons of faith in sometimes run into each other and fall over because shit's not perfect, and that's a guy they actually don't have an incentive to mess with. Ovechkin and Wilson hit each other multiple times per season at the blue line, Oshie gets tangled up in that mess too pretty regularly and is falling all over himself half the time anyway.

There's a point where you can't bail safely and you see it every time those guys look up, see each other, and just brace for contact because if they don't one is going to blow the other one's knee out.

It is literally not safe to do what you're asking from a bail out standpoint and now you've actively disincentivized hitting at all.

 

[twabby]

Ultimately we're talking about the difference of less than a full second. I don't remember if it's clearly defined as a rule or not but colloquially at least I've always understood it as like .5 to .8 seconds before it's just straight up interference.

These amazing athletes you have tons and tons of faith in sometimes run into each other and fall over because shit's not perfect, and that's a guy they actually don't have an incentive to mess with. Ovechkin and Wilson hit each other multiple times per season at the blue line, Oshie gets tangled up in that mess too pretty regularly and is falling all over himself half the time anyway.

There's a point where you can't bail safely and you see it every time those guys look up, see each other, and just brace for contact because if they don't one is going to blow the other one's knee out.

It is literally not safe to do what you're asking from a bail out standpoint and now you've actively disincentivized hitting at all.

The examples you cite are of two players who are unsuspecting in a purely accidental collision.

In the case of players who finish checks, the checker is certainly not unsuspecting of an incoming collision and should be able to bail pretty quickly if incentivized to do so.

I’m unconvinced that these guys simply must finish these checks in the name of safety.

 

[HTFN]

The examples you cite are of two players who are unsuspecting in a purely accidental collision.

In the case of players who finish checks, the checker is certainly not unsuspecting of an incoming collision and should be able to bail pretty quickly if incentivized to do so.

I’m unconvinced that these guys simply must finish these checks in the name of safety.

They're still unsuspecting of what the puck handler will be doing with the puck. They're still preparing for a likelihood, not a certainty.

At a certain point, that's absolutely true. I don't know how to convince you of that if you haven't done it but it would basically be the inverse of sticking the knee out to catch players avoiding contact. If you don't jump fully out of the way and sell out in time you'll leave your own extended leg exposed.

 

[twabby]

I’d be fine if they pursue exactly zero of these guys. In fact I’d be fine if they don’t sign a single veteran free agent.

 

[Corby78]

Yes.

There’d still be a soft salary cap so that would disperse the talent a bit, but I’d rather the laborers get to go where they want and get paid for their talents immediately instead of being told what team to go to and be forced to make well under what they are worth.

Connor Bedard is going to a morally bankrupt organization next year and will make somewhere in the neighborhood of $3 million after all of the ELC bonuses are factored in. Why should he be forced to go to that team? Why should he be forced to make ~$10-12 million less per year for the next 3 years than he’d get if he could go to the highest bidder?

I’m not even convinced the big market teams would have much of an advantage. Hockey by its nature is very chaotic and is still not well understood by many front offices, so I don’t think having a bigger budget would necessarily make rich teams better.

Nobody is forced into the NHL draft.

 

[Kalopsia]

Yes.

There’d still be a soft salary cap so that would disperse the talent a bit, but I’d rather the laborers get to go where they want and get paid for their talents immediately instead of being told what team to go to and be forced to make well under what they are worth.

Connor Bedard is going to a morally bankrupt organization next year and will make somewhere in the neighborhood of $3 million after all of the ELC bonuses are factored in. Why should he be forced to go to that team? Why should he be forced to make ~$10-12 million less per year for the next 3 years than he’d get if he could go to the highest bidder?

I’m not even convinced the big market teams would have much of an advantage. Hockey by its nature is very chaotic and is still not well understood by many front offices, so I don’t think having a bigger budget would necessarily make rich teams better.

So basically the European football system that allows a small group of super rich teams to win their leagues every year, but without the threat of relegation to keep owners of smaller teams from pulling a Bob Nutting and using their teams as a means to syphon revenue sharing dollars into their bank accounts. That league would be a player's paradise and totally unwatchable.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

I’d be fine if they pursue exactly zero of these guys. In fact I’d be fine if they don’t sign a single veteran free agent.

Who are the 9?

Of course, no disagreements there. I'm not saying the NHL and the NHLPA can't do what they want as collectively bargained.

I'm just saying that if I ran a league I would do things differently.

I don’t think your league would prosper….

 

[twabby]

Who are the 9?

Andreas Athanasiou
Ivan Barbashev
Tyler Bertuzzi
Connor Brown
Michael Bunting
JT Compher
Max Domi
Pierre Engvall
Evan Rodrigues

 

[Ridley Simon]

Andreas Athanasiou
Ivan Barbashev
Tyler Bertuzzi
Connor Brown
Michael Bunting
JT Compher
Max Domi
Pierre Engvall
Evan Rodrigues

Not a bad 9. All for a variety of reasons.

I wouldn’t mind any of them (sorry to disagree with above poster), but I probably wouldn’t spend as much as they will all get.

 

[marcel snapshot]

I'm mostly with Twabs here. I thought the purpose of hitting was to separate the player from the puck. And the knowledge that the player with the puck might get hit incentives said player to move the puck, which (together with the physicality inherent in hitting) makes the game more interesting because it ups the tempo.

To me, there's still too many hits that come well after the puck is off a guy's stick, and the post-hoc rationale is always "just finishing my check." That's what Chara said after he put Pacioretty on a stretcher when squashed him into the turnbuckle. And the NHL agreed, no discipline for that hit, despite the fact that even the Bruins homer announcers recognized it was way late and well after the puck left Pacioretty's stick (listen to Andy Brickey on the replay at about 55 seconds).


I look at the Sandin hit and see the same type of thing in terms of clear ability to avoid the injurious hit, even though they're different types of hits. Puck has left Sandin's stick long before contact takes place and Eyesimontt (of whatever the f*** his name is) actually re-routes after the puck is off Sandin's stick to make sure he makes contact.

 

[Calicaps]

I'm mostly with Twabs here. I thought the purpose of hitting was to separate the player from the puck. And the knowledge that the player with the puck might get hit incentives said player to move the puck, which (together with the physicality inherent in hitting) makes the game more interesting because it ups the tempo.

To me, there's still too many hits that come well after the puck is off a guy's stick, and the post-hoc rationale is always "just finishing my check." That's what Chara said after he put Pacioretty on a stretcher when squashed him into the turnbuckle. And the NHL agreed, no discipline for that hit, despite the fact that even the Bruins homer announcers recognized it was way late and well after the puck left Pacioretty's stick (listen to Andy Brickey on the replay at about 55 seconds).


I look at the Sandin hit and see the same type of thing in terms of clear ability to avoid the injurious hit, even though they're different types of hits. Puck has left Sandin's stick long before contact takes place and Eyesimontt (of whatever the f*** his name is) actually re-routes after the puck is off Sandin's stick to make sure he makes contact.

It's already illegal to hit a guy well after the puck is gone. But given the speed of the game, you simply cannot expect a player to hold up after a certain point.

And before we get another "but they're elite athletes!" argument. The fraction of a second they're allowed is a reflection of that elite status. Normal people would be unable to stop well before that but also would be moving much more slowly.

That hits like the above still happen may mean the penalty is not stiff enough or it may just go to show how difficult it really is to stop your momentum.

Lastly, twabby's assertion has been about intent. Sometimes yes the intent is to separate man from puck. But sometimes it's to deliver some pain so next time that man makes a mistake. That has always been true in professional hockey. I don't believe most pro players think, "I'm gonna break this guy's knee so he can't play anymore," which is what twabby is suggesting.

 

[twabby]

Not a bad 9. All for a variety of reasons.

I wouldn’t mind any of them (sorry to disagree with above poster), but I probably wouldn’t spend as much as they will all get.

I think in the case of Washington they already have so many inefficient contracts (or at least not efficient contracts) that they can't really afford to pay market value for anyone unless they are legit stars. One could make the case that all 5 of their highest paid forwards (Ovechkin, Backstrom, Kuznetsov, Oshie, Mantha) are overpaid. They'll look to trim some of the fat but they won't be able (or want to) to get rid of most of it. Given this, they need to be efficient elsewhere down the lineup and none of the UFAs above likely will provide good value. And I'm not really all that sure these guys are going to be much better than players Washington can simply bring in on ELCs: Protas and McMichael notably.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

I'm mostly with Twabs here. I thought the purpose of hitting was to separate the player from the puck. And the knowledge that the player with the puck might get hit incentives said player to move the puck, which (together with the physicality inherent in hitting) makes the game more interesting because it ups the tempo.

To me, there's still too many hits that come well after the puck is off a guy's stick, and the post-hoc rationale is always "just finishing my check." That's what Chara said after he put Pacioretty on a stretcher when squashed him into the turnbuckle. And the NHL agreed, no discipline for that hit, despite the fact that even the Bruins homer announcers recognized it was way late and well after the puck left Pacioretty's stick (listen to Andy Brickey on the replay at about 55 seconds).


I look at the Sandin hit and see the same type of thing in terms of clear ability to avoid the injurious hit, even though they're different types of hits. Puck has left Sandin's stick long before contact takes place and Eyesimontt (of whatever the f*** his name is) actually re-routes after the puck is off Sandin's stick to make sure he makes contact.

They are definitely predatory, but physical diminishment of your opponent in any contact sport are keys to winning very often.

That Chara hit was tough because they were physically engaged in a neutral zone breakup from the blue line to the red, then Chara decided to lower the boom at the perfect spot on the boards. It was dirty AF, but within the rules unfortunately on that one.

 

[Corby78]

Not a bad 9. All for a variety of reasons.

I wouldn’t mind any of them (sorry to disagree with above poster), but I probably wouldn’t spend as much as they will all get.

Offer them all 1.5 mil x2 years and see if any of them bite. Wide net strategy

 

[Ridley Simon]

I think in the case of Washington they already have so many inefficient contracts (or at least not efficient contracts) that they can't really afford to pay market value for anyone unless they are legit stars. One could make the case that all 5 of their highest paid forwards (Ovechkin, Backstrom, Kuznetsov, Oshie, Mantha) are overpaid. They'll look to trim some of the fat but they won't be able (or want to) to get rid of most of it. Given this, they need to be efficient elsewhere down the lineup and none of the UFAs above likely will provide good value. And I'm not really all that sure these guys are going to be much better than players Washington can simply bring in on ELCs: Protas and McMichael notably.

Brown should be cheap.

Barbashev, Bertuzzi, and Domi all hold value that the Caps could use in their top 9, or just depends on the price.

Protas and McMichael don’t bring the same stylistic approach that the above players do.

Offer them all 1.5 mil x2 years and see if any of them bite. Wide net strategy

It will need to be a tad bit higher for a few of them. But as stated above, I can see a few of these guys making a positive difference.

 

[HTFN]

They are definitely predatory, but physical diminishment of your opponent in any contact sport are keys to winning very often.

That Chara hit was tough because they were physically engaged in a neutral zone breakup from the blue line to the red, then Chara decided to lower the boom at the perfect spot on the boards. It was dirty AF, but within the rules unfortunately on that one.

I'd love to see a non-predatory hit that isn't just an accident. The act of proactively engaging in contact is predatory (or completely stupid, but usually predatory). Predators seek engagements they can win and then pounce to win them, hockey players seek engagements they can win and pounce to win them.

It's a stupid buzzword phrase

 

[usiel]

I think this is pretty naïve. Once a player decides to finish a check they absolutely are trying to take a player out and inflict pain and injury. Otherwise why would they be feared?

The vast majority of players duck checks like that all the time. Every now and then they simply are not fast enough. My SWAG opinion it is statistically no a big deal enough to make a rules change.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

I'd love to see a non-predatory hit that isn't just an accident. The act of proactively engaging in contact is predatory (or completely stupid, but usually predatory). Predators seek engagements they can win and then pounce to win them, hockey players seek engagements they can win and pounce to win them.

It's a stupid buzzword phrase

I think you can hit aggressively and amp it up to predatory from there….most Of the time you simply rub a guy out on the boards…..sometimes you decide to take a run, and recognize a guy in a vulnerable position for a monster hit….I guess I don’t have the negative association you‘re suggesting with predatory. Dog eat dog…..it’s a contact sport with hitting at its core.