Speculation: Coyotes 2021 Offseason Roster Discussion Thread #2

Status
Not open for further replies.

SpaceCoyote

Registered User
Jul 10, 2013
612
384
Wasting away
Army has shown an ability to find talent without needing high picks. How many early first rounders on the Blues? Off the top of my head it’s Brayden Schenn and he was added through trade.

Schenn, Perron, Schwartz, Tarasenko, Thomas, and Kostin all first rounders. Dunn, Barbashev and Kyrou are all early 2nds. Parakyo, Binnington, and maybe Blais are the only impactful player drafted by the Blues outside of 56th. You could argue the Coyotes have had more success outside 56th with Garland, Hill, and Dvorak.
 

Jamieh

Registered User
Apr 25, 2012
11,437
6,517
Army has shown an ability to find talent without needing high picks. How many early first rounders on the Blues? Off the top of my head it’s Brayden Schenn and he was added through trade.
Pietrangelo might be their only high pick but half the roster was 1st round picks.
 

cobra427

Registered User
May 6, 2012
9,383
3,421
Let teams dig their grave, term is fine. Smart teams will make smart decisions with their players. TB has Johnson as their worst contract and they are dominate. Montreal has Drouin. NYI don't appear to have a bad contract, just some guys that are slightly overpaid. Vegas has some overpaid guys but no one on that roster is bad. These teams are where they are because they made wise decisions on cap management and have awesome coaching.

I'd rather give teams more power to remove contracts that turned out bad. If they buy out a player, don't make it count against the cap, make them pay additional fees into revenue sharing. This lets rich teams play like rich teams and allows poor teams to be more competitive.

I'd also let teams exceed the cap, paying a fine that goes into revenue sharing. If the Leafs want to spend $100,000,000 in cap, cool, you're over the cap by 18,500,000 and have to pay 9,250,000 in fines which are put into the revenue sharing pot. If the Ranger want to spend 150,000,000 in cap, cool, they are above the cap by 68,500,000 and have to pay 34,250,000 in fines.

I also allow teams to trade cash again. If a team wants to buy Soderstrom from us, great! Send us 10,000,000 and a 1st and he's yours for instance.

I think we need to open up options, not create more walls.
Wealthy teams would spend a fortune and buy the best players, buy out their mistakes, it would be a lopsided NHL. The salary cap keeps the NHL competitive, look at the parity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jakey53 and Kaizen

Jamieh

Registered User
Apr 25, 2012
11,437
6,517
Wealthy teams would spend a fortune and buy the best players, buy out their mistakes, it would be a lopsided NHL. The salary cap keeps the NHL competitive, look at the parity.
Where is this parity you speak of?
 

GhostofYotesFan47

Registered User
Jun 16, 2012
4,175
2,105
Phoenix, Arizona USA
Wealthy teams would spend a fortune and buy the best players, buy out their mistakes, it would be a lopsided NHL. The salary cap keeps the NHL competitive, look at the parity.
I don't know how rev sharing is set up but I would imagine it would depend on the weight of the fines. This also doesn't remove the player salary cap. In theory, if 10 teams spend over the cap by 100,000,000 total, 20 other teams get they percentage cut. Lets say there was another $50,000,000 in buyouts from teams. For a team like the Coyotes, that could be $10,000,000 from rev sharing? That income from rev sharing, plus say $5,000,000 of our own funds, we could buy some pretty big names. $10,000,000 in rev sharing could also move our internal budget from $72,000,000 to maybe $78,000,000. $6,000,000 is a top 6 player we otherwise would have gone without.

There is also no guarantee that the players that the rich team sign that bring them over the cap even contribute much. We've seen teams time and time again spend $6,000,000+ on a player that plays closer to a $3,000,000 player. If that $6,000,000 player is also 100% above the cap, they pay an additional $3,000,000 in rev sharing ($9,000,000 in total cash if using equal years). If your $9,000,000 player is playing like a $3,000,000 player, you'll be inclined to buy him out and save that money over the next X years of being over the cap. That's additional funds to rev sharing and raising the cash flow of the lower rev teams towards players and coaches.

This also does not remove the money owed to that player, which the team will still have to pay.

Team Owners will only allow for so much of this to go on. This is their money and none of them want to bleed money without a strong chance at a championship. Owners will reel in GMs if things get too out of hand.
 

Grimes

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Jan 5, 2012
8,680
5,202
Tippet's Doghouse
cleanhits.substack.com
When I look at the best teams, I see top 5 draft picks. Please show me examples of teams that went from mediocrity to contention on the backs of trades and UFA players. I would love to see winning hockey. I have season tickets after all and remember the misery of Tocchet's first season, the long drive home after loss after loss.

Vegas, Minnesota, Islanders
 

Sinurgy

Approaching infinity
Feb 8, 2004
12,666
4,379
AZ
What more should he have done?
Not waited 20 more games to trade Vermette, Z and Yandle. They won 9 more games between the Dubnyk trade and the trade deadline when he moved everyone else, half of those games were won by a single goal. If he didn't p***y foot around and traded even one of those players immediately that likely would've resulted in at least 1 less win and guaranteed McEichel. But nope, instead he drug his feet and kept them all for another 6 weeks. The last year tanking was guaranteed to work and he blew it...absolutely blew it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Matias Maccete

rt

Clean Hits on Substack
Not waited 20 more games to trade Vermette, Z and Yandle. They won 9 more games between the Dubnyk and Yandle trades, half of which were won by a single goal. If he didn't p***y foot around and traded even one of those players immediately that likely would've resulted in at least 1 less win and guaranteed McEichel. But nope, instead he drug his feet and kept them all for another 6 weeks. The last year tanking was guaranteed to work and he blew it...absolutely blew it.
I’ve never heard of a team doing what you described. It would have been entirely novel.

Having said that, I do recall being frustrated they didn’t get it all done faster.
 

Sinurgy

Approaching infinity
Feb 8, 2004
12,666
4,379
AZ
I’ve never heard of a team doing what you described. It would have been entirely novel.

Having said that, I do recall being frustrated they didn’t get it all done faster.
Would've been entirely smart IMO but he didn't and 6 years later the Coyotes still don't have a 1C, a single prospect expected to become a 1C or hell even a player expected to become a first liner. Total. f***ing. Fail.

To be fair at the time I'm pretty sure I supported waiting until the deadline to maximize value but that's when I assumed he'd absolutely burn the team to the ground at the deadline and make sure Tippet had nothing to work with that could ruin the tank.

Basically DM should've went Ozymandias on Tippet instead of a monologuing bond villain.
 

The Feckless Puck

Registered Loser
Sponsor
Oct 26, 2006
18,751
12,006
When I look at the best teams, I see top 5 draft picks.

The odds of this franchise picking in the top five even if we're bad enough to be in the pre-lottery top five are not great.

Plus, this team can't afford to tank for even one season. The franchise's position is still too precarious.

If the core needs to be replaced, that's fine. But it's gotta be done with smart drafting, not just hoping to get Pittsburgh-style luck with a Crosby/Malkin return. And it should be pointed out that Edmonton has spent years getting the cream of the draft crop and still hasn't done squat in the Cup hunt.
 

BUX7PHX

Registered User
Jul 7, 2011
5,581
1,350
What more should he have done?

I think the answer goes back even before that season. Used his years here to figure out that we needed a scouting department to get the right players to try and build.

If you bank on the concept that you draft a #1 C and they don't pan out (or other moves made like Gormley, Visentin, et al), you get stuck with trying to always recreate magic in free agency. That pool will run thinner and thinner over time.

Imagine if we had brought Maloney on board, and the first thing he did was to invest in personnel to scout players.

Very possible that we could have replaced (player we took in parentheses):

Forbort (Gormley)
Tarasenko (Gormley)
Schwartz (Gormley)
Coyle (Visentin)
Faulk (Visentin)
Zucker (Lane)
Kucherov (Ruutu or Lessio)
Trochek (Ruutu or Lessio)
Larkin (Perlini)
Point at #73 (trading back with Montreal in 2014)
Marner (Strome)

If we can't compete on dollars in free agency, then we have to draft better than other teams, or make the right decisions in the draft.

I don't think any team should go with the mindset of losing on purpose, and injuries did derail our season to where we were likely not the 2nd worst team. What if Hanzal and Boedker had stayed healthy, and we finished with 63-67 points? If lottery stayed the same, we would have been moved from #3 odds to #1 pick. So, less to do with anything that could be done to guarantee worse record, but long haul, we needed to have a better drafting group under Maloney, and we failed miserably on that front.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Coyotedroppings

rt

Clean Hits on Substack
I think the answer goes back even before that season. Used his years here to figure out that we needed a scouting department to get the right players to try and build.

If you bank on the concept that you draft a #1 C and they don't pan out (or other moves made like Gormley, Visentin, et al), you get stuck with trying to always recreate magic in free agency. That pool will run thinner and thinner over time.

Imagine if we had brought Maloney on board, and the first thing he did was to invest in personnel to scout players.

Very possible that we could have replaced (player we took in parentheses):

Forbort (Gormley)
Tarasenko (Gormley)
Schwartz (Gormley)
Coyle (Visentin)
Faulk (Visentin)
Zucker (Lane)
Kucherov (Ruutu or Lessio)
Trochek (Ruutu or Lessio)
Larkin (Perlini)
Point at #73 (trading back with Montreal in 2014)
Marner (Strome)

If we can't compete on dollars in free agency, then we have to draft better than other teams, or make the right decisions in the draft.

I don't think any team should go with the mindset of losing on purpose, and injuries did derail our season to where we were likely not the 2nd worst team. What if Hanzal and Boedker had stayed healthy, and we finished with 63-67 points? If lottery stayed the same, we would have been moved from #3 odds to #1 pick. So, less to do with anything that could be done to guarantee worse record, but long haul, we needed to have a better drafting group under Maloney, and we failed miserably on that front.
I wasn't asking what he could have done better as a GM. I was talking specifically about losing MORE not less...
 

BUX7PHX

Registered User
Jul 7, 2011
5,581
1,350
I wasn't asking what he could have done better as a GM. I was talking specifically about losing MORE not less...

I understand that, but you also can't tell players to lose. They have their pride, so it is a busted situation to tell people to do worse for your benefit.

If the saying is to control what you can control - could he have made lineup changes that put worse players in more often? Sure, but you lose the room quickly that way. Better thing to do is control what you can, and if the idea is to be able to compete when you don't have the money to spend in FA, you can't leave our scouting department whittled down to nothing.

Would have been better to let Wolski or Stempniak leave in 2010 offseason, sign some 4th line grinder, and give $750k to cover 5 scouts and their travel and get players who can replace Stemp or Wolski, and not just reach into a grab bag for Phil Lane.
 

rt

Clean Hits on Substack
I understand that, but you also can't tell players to lose. They have their pride, so it is a busted situation to tell people to do worse for your benefit.

If the saying is to control what you can control - could he have made lineup changes that put worse players in more often? Sure, but you lose the room quickly that way. Better thing to do is control what you can, and if the idea is to be able to compete when you don't have the money to spend in FA, you can't leave our scouting department whittled down to nothing.

Would have been better to let Wolski or Stempniak leave in 2010 offseason, sign some 4th line grinder, and give $750k to cover 5 scouts and their travel and get players who can replace Stemp or Wolski, and not just reach into a grab bag for Phil Lane.
Gee-whiz. You aren’t hearing me man.

Sin said Maloney f***ed up by not tanking harder. I asked him to explain how he could have tanked harder.

Absolutely nobody is appraising Don Maloneys tenure right now. Lol.
 

Schemp

Registered User
Nov 12, 2018
4,452
2,855
Still stuck in Forum 40
...if we only had a #1:
the missing piece for Eichel
Part of a Reinhart trade
Seth Jones?
McTavish?

Even Seattle's chances looks better than the Coyotes and they don't have a team!
 

BUX7PHX

Registered User
Jul 7, 2011
5,581
1,350
Gee-whiz. You aren’t hearing me man.

Sin said Maloney f***ed up by not tanking harder. I asked him to explain how he could have tanked harder.

Absolutely nobody is appraising Don Maloneys tenure right now. Lol.

If you want to say trading players earlier, okay, but again, you lose the room that way. Not only that, but if you are looking to retain your job, doing that doesn't help.

So, my suggestion would be to not find yourself having to attempt to tank in the first place, which is not solely a 2014-15 season thing. Would we be in that position at that point in the season anyhow if we had made better decisions on drafting in earlier years? Probably not.

In a vacuum, easy to say make trades earlier and take Doan, Yandle, and others out of the lineup (essentially the same as trading them), but who knows if the NHL would have come down on teams for that after the season? Very possible that if we went that route, 29 other teams complain, and we get docked something for not keeping up competitive spirit of the game.

So the best f***ing answer that can be said is do your job better 2-3 years prior so you don't have to entertain that option in the first place.

Name the top 2 pick that really gets excited about playing for a team that knows if they want to improve for the future, they may get sat or have other players moved on from to do so? You alienate your team that way.
 

rt

Clean Hits on Substack
If you want to say trading players earlier, okay, but again, you lose the room that way. Not only that, but if you are looking to retain your job, doing that doesn't help.

So, my suggestion would be to not find yourself having to attempt to tank in the first place, which is not solely a 2014-15 season thing. Would we be in that position at that point in the season anyhow if we had made better decisions on drafting in earlier years? Probably not.

In a vacuum, easy to say make trades earlier and take Doan, Yandle, and others out of the lineup (essentially the same as trading them), but who knows if the NHL would have come down on teams for that after the season? Very possible that if we went that route, 29 other teams complain, and we get docked something for not keeping up competitive spirit of the game.

So the best f***ing answer that can be said is do your job better 2-3 years prior so you don't have to entertain that option in the first place.

Name the top 2 pick that really gets excited about playing for a team that knows if they want to improve for the future, they may get sat or have other players moved on from to do so? You alienate your team that way.
It’s like you’re responding to someone else but quoting me? I’m utterly confused here, man.
 

Mangosteen

Ground hog day no more
Apr 9, 2018
1,520
1,133
I wouldn’t trade a 1st round pick for Eichel. Injuries and attitude scare me.
 

WrinkledPossum

Play Dead
Apr 23, 2016
3,367
1,068
When I look at the best teams, I see top 5 draft picks. Please show me examples of teams that went from mediocrity to contention on the backs of trades and UFA players. I would love to see winning hockey. I have season tickets after all and remember the misery of Tocchet's first season, the long drive home after loss after loss.
VGS, MON, NYI, BOS all built off players not drafted high. Carolinas best player was a 2nd round pick. WPG is mostly 10-25 picks and Wheeler who wasn't their draft pick.

COL and TB are really the only 2 successful teams that are built off high picks. And what's really pushed Tampa to where they are, are guys not drafted high. Point, Kucherov etc.

Teams built around high picks I think of are TOR, EDM, BUF. All not successful. Some others are too soon to call like NYR.

What makes good teams is hitting on later 1sts, and 2nd round picks. Not eternally losing. We have a 23 year old top 10 D. 4 young top 6 forwards. Sign some FAs, make a couple big trades, and hit on the next 2/3 drafts and we could be contenders.

If Soderstrom, Jenik, Hayton, Bunting develop into top4/top 6 talent we could be really, really good.
 

Canis Latrans

Registered User
Jan 19, 2015
1,303
1,015
Australia
I don't know how rev sharing is set up but I would imagine it would depend on the weight of the fines. This also doesn't remove the player salary cap. In theory, if 10 teams spend over the cap by 100,000,000 total, 20 other teams get they percentage cut. Lets say there was another $50,000,000 in buyouts from teams. For a team like the Coyotes, that could be $10,000,000 from rev sharing? That income from rev sharing, plus say $5,000,000 of our own funds, we could buy some pretty big names. $10,000,000 in rev sharing could also move our internal budget from $72,000,000 to maybe $78,000,000. $6,000,000 is a top 6 player we otherwise would have gone without.

There is also no guarantee that the players that the rich team sign that bring them over the cap even contribute much. We've seen teams time and time again spend $6,000,000+ on a player that plays closer to a $3,000,000 player. If that $6,000,000 player is also 100% above the cap, they pay an additional $3,000,000 in rev sharing ($9,000,000 in total cash if using equal years). If your $9,000,000 player is playing like a $3,000,000 player, you'll be inclined to buy him out and save that money over the next X years of being over the cap. That's additional funds to rev sharing and raising the cash flow of the lower rev teams towards players and coaches.

This also does not remove the money owed to that player, which the team will still have to pay.

Team Owners will only allow for so much of this to go on. This is their money and none of them want to bleed money without a strong chance at a championship. Owners will reel in GMs if things get too out of hand.
If you allow teams over the salary cap like that, it will allow top revenue teams to continue driving up player salaries. I really doubt the owners want their costs going up, but this becomes another factor that can increase costs for the league aside from the cap already being tied to revenues generated. Currently there is a max the entire league can spend per season and that would be every team at the cap. That doesn't happen, but the cap does work as a barometer on player salaries because max contracts can only be a percent of it. The only way spending goes up now (outside of a team just spending closer to the cap) is if revenues increase.

You potentially can make a disconnect between player salaries and the cap by allowing teams to go over it, and we already know players use comparable players to negotiate, which are originally based on the max possible contract. If players continue to negotiate based on similar players who are now over the cap, you could raise the costs of the entire league irrespective of the actual cap. Then you run into issues when the hypothetical team of today that is say, $5M under the cap, all then have inflated salaries that push them to the actual cap. It becomes a further issue when a team that would have been under the cap is pushed over and now they have to pay the luxury tax as well. I think teams would rejigger their strategy around this of course, but I think the trend of increased league-wide spending on every team would be there.

I do like your idea of buy-outs going into revenue sharing, but think it may still need some limits. It could still cause an increase in spending because you've removed some of the risk. Perhaps put a limit on the number teams can use or perhaps increase penalties after some threshold (years bought-out, total salary bought out for the current season).

I'm also not sure you're linking revenue sharing evenly with team-spending, as you can be a poor revenue team and still spend a lot when you're team is making a run, yet you may not make enough revenue thus qualifying for sharing. Are you then just subsidizing yourself to spend more? Say we'll pay this penalty, but then get only 75% of the sharing we usually get. If you take that away from teams that go into the penalty, then do you actually dissuade the poorest teams from ever extending themselves out there like that, thus really giving only the richest teams the ability to take advantage of those rules?

Sorry for any one else who read this ramble.
 

Canis Latrans

Registered User
Jan 19, 2015
1,303
1,015
Australia
VGS, MON, NYI, BOS all built off players not drafted high. Carolinas best player was a 2nd round pick. WPG is mostly 10-25 picks and Wheeler who wasn't their draft pick.

COL and TB are really the only 2 successful teams that are built off high picks. And what's really pushed Tampa to where they are, are guys not drafted high. Point, Kucherov etc.

Teams built around high picks I think of are TOR, EDM, BUF. All not successful. Some others are too soon to call like NYR.

What makes good teams is hitting on later 1sts, and 2nd round picks. Not eternally losing. We have a 23 year old top 10 D. 4 young top 6 forwards. Sign some FAs, make a couple big trades, and hit on the next 2/3 drafts and we could be contenders.

If Soderstrom, Jenik, Hayton, Bunting develop into top4/top 6 talent we could be really, really good.
I think the real issue is Chayka pulled the trigger much too early on things. He was decent at drafting by this team's historic standards, but we needed a few years of the top picks being supplemented by hits on the late firsts, seconds, and thirds. He tossed out some of our promising ones too early in the process and then created a hole 2 years deep with the penalties. So imagine if we'd had a few more of Söderström, Jeník, Hayton, and Bunting making the team a season or so ago. Having those waves of guys coming into the lineup season after season would have really supplemented our current young core and allowed you to fiddle around with the core itself a lot more. Instead we have this huge gap behind the young core, and then question becomes, should we just restart the whole thing because you still really need a few years of solid drafting, prospects, and young players working their way into the lineup.
 

BUX7PHX

Registered User
Jul 7, 2011
5,581
1,350
It’s like you’re responding to someone else but quoting me? I’m utterly confused here, man.

In a way, I am agreeing that there is nothing else that could be done. The concept of tanking is a bad look all around, because even if you work things out as well as you possibly can, no guarantees that you control that. Even if we wound up with the worst record, who is to say Eichel doesn't get tired of Arizona for different reasons than what is going on in Buffalo.

To me, the best answer is never purposefully tank anyhow unless the control that you have is your roster is the absolute shittiest in the NHL, at which point tanking will take care of itself. We didn't have the shittiest roster, and it was only exacerbated by the injuries that took Boedker and Hanzal out.

So, yeah. I probably am responding to the wrong person, because I think there is no way to tank more than could be done, unless that was the intention from the start of the season. Best way to avoid that scenario is to do well with what you can control, which is how you make your decisions and the process behind it. Otherwise, you are left with the question of how can you make yourself blatantly worse, which can't be imparted on others.

So, I answered more generally, and the best measure of what more could have been done on Maloney's part is to avoid getting in that situation. I understand it was implued that it was in the realm of securing a top 2 pick, but I also consider something more to be done as to not put yourself in that position, either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Coyotedroppings

WrinkledPossum

Play Dead
Apr 23, 2016
3,367
1,068
I think the real issue is Chayka pulled the trigger much too early on things. He was decent at drafting by this team's historic standards, but we needed a few years of the top picks being supplemented by hits on the late firsts, seconds, and thirds. He tossed out some of our promising ones too early in the process and then created a hole 2 years deep with the penalties. So imagine if we'd had a few more of Söderström, Jeník, Hayton, and Bunting making the team a season or so ago. Having those waves of guys coming into the lineup season after season would have really supplemented our current young core and allowed you to fiddle around with the core itself a lot more. Instead we have this huge gap behind the young core, and then question becomes, should we just restart the whole thing because you still really need a few years of solid drafting, prospects, and young players working their way into the lineup.
Yup, the Stepan/Raanta and Hall trades really set us back. Moreso the Hall one. Even having POJ and Domi would have given us more assets to either develop or trade.

We have a good base, if we had more in the pipeline we would be in a really good spot. Even just as trade ammo now that we have a decent core. Could've used our 2019 1st round pick to upgrade on one of our current players.

We have 4 young top 6 forwards and a top 10 23 year old dman. It's too bad we didn't have more than Soderstrom, Hayton, Jenik, Maccelli developing. Chayka put us in a place where we need Soderstrom to be an impact player and 2 of the forwards.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad