Salary Cap: Leafs' 2014-2015 Cap Situation and Strategy

[Faltorvo]

Perhaps we should say "consistent" bottom ten team then versus "perpetual"?

2.


occurring repeatedly; so frequent as to seem endless and uninterrupted.
"their perpetual money worries"


synonyms: interminable, incessant, ceaseless, endless, without respite, relentless, unrelenting, persistent, continual, continuous, nonstop, never-ending, recurrent, repeated, unremitting, sustained, around/round-the-clock, chronic, unabating; informaleternal
"her mother's perpetual nagging"

 

[Faltorvo]

People are blowing our cap situation and signed players way out of proportion. The only players at this point who are signed for more then three years that would be difficult to trade is Clarkson, Lupul (debatable) and possibly Dion. Most teams have a player or two with a bad contract. When better players come along we can trade our current players. The sky is not falling, everyone can return to their homes.

you are so full of it, that it's running out of your nose.

list the trades the leafs have managed to make that saw us relieve ourselves of cap space and not be forced to take back in kind.

gleason,liles,komi,connolly,grabo,tucker,beachemen,Blake,Armstrong?

 

[Stats01]

Meh this happens every year. People freak out and every year little actually happens where it's an issue. People say "well what if this happens, or what if that were to occur" and blah blah blah. LTIR will happen, cap space will be banked, players will be sent down to the minors (like Orr when we call up a 7th cheaper dman), trades will happen (Reimer for cheaper backup, Lupul if he hits up to par, any number of the 1 year UFA's we have who have good seasons) and everything will be a-ok.

Like someone already said, nothing to see here

The problem is this is a big cycle that happens every year..This is a middle of the pack team that is always up against the cap, the cap goes up let's say 5-6 mil that's barely enough to re-sign Bernier and Kadri next year. And once again we'll be at the ceiling with no real improvements banking on the same core to do something different...The contracts that Nonis has handed out to Clarkson and Lupul specifically hurt us. Even the Phaneuf deal sucks IMO. Three players (Dion, Lupul, Clarkson) are taking up 17.5 million dollars of our cap...add in Kessel and it thats 4 players taking up 25.5 million in cap space..It's ridiculous.

 

[Stats01]

And they're all long term deals. Lupul has 4 years left at 5.25, Clarkson 6 years left at 5.25, Dion is just starting his new deal 7 years at 7 mil and Kessel has 7 years left at 8 mil per. How is this team supposed to improve when there is so much cap space taken up by 4 players? All we do is sign these cheap 3rd-4th line players and just expect this team to somehow improve drastically.

 

[The Winter Soldier]

Leafs currently have 9 players signed to long term contracts, Kadri, Franson, and Bernier will be looking for long term contracts next summer. Which then can balloon up to 12 by next summer. Unheard of today in the NHL.

LA Kings and Chicago have only 7 players signed long term, this after winning the cup the past 3 years.

I don't know if some are in denial, but we are locking up mediocrities long term when we should only do so if we have players like the Kings or the BlackHawks.

Leafs cap management can only be termed as incompetent.

 

[Daisy Jane]

And they're all long term deals. Lupul has 4 years left at 5.25, Clarkson 6 years left at 5.25, Dion is just starting his new deal 7 years at 7 mil and Kessel has 7 years left at 8 mil per. How is this team supposed to improve when there is so much cap space taken up by 4 players? All we do is sign these cheap 3rd-4th line players and just expect this team to somehow improve drastically.

Once again - all of those contracts can be moved. Except Clarkson, because his stupid contract is stupid, but even HE can be moved if Shanahan voodoo'ed someone. And when they play well - they're actually players of value (Except Clarkson). So they CAN be moved.

Leafs currently have 9 players signed to long term contracts, Kadri, Franson, and Bernier will be looking for long term contracts next summer. Which then can balloon up to 12 by next summer. Unheard of today in the NHL.

LA Kings and Chicago have only 7 players signed long term, this after winning the cup the past 3 years.

I don't know if some are in denial, but we are locking up mediocrities long term when we should only do so if we have players like the Kings or the BlackHawks.

Leafs cap management can only be termed as incompetent.

So what exactly do you suggest then? Signed everyone to 2-3 year deals because they crashed and burned, and if they didn't do that, just let them walk, because you certainly couldn't trade them after poor performances minus a select few after this season?

And not a lot of people ever wants to really hear oh - yeah, we could have traded a couple of pieces a few years ago either.

Once again - the people in charge of managing the cap has been fired. They. Are. GONE. They are NOT HERE. They ain't comin' back no more. So. in actuality, it's the Leafs cap management could only be termed as incompetent, because you have no idea who Shanahan is going to hire to take over that specific duty (capologist/contract negotiator), and how he'll handle things from now on.

And once again - every contract that we have can be moveable, except Clarkson - and again, you never really know - everyone can be traded, even with a contract as albatross-esque as Clarkson 's.

To which i say again - i find it so funny how it's bad asset management if we don't sign them instead of letting them walk to get the capspace most people are freaking out about in this thread, and when the Leafs lock up the players in deals that supposedly make it easier to deal and retain our asset, people bleat about how this is cap management gong wrong.

 

[glue]

Dubas has little to do with this.

These cap issues stem from the boards top mandate, the most important thing to them and that's

"just make the playoffs"

It's been this constant fear and mandate on our GMs that has motivated them to so many horrid contracts , the players agents know this issue and have constantly extorted these bad contracts from our GMs. The GM can't risk the team taking a step back by losing a player.

One can only pray that Tim lieweekly in tandem with shenanigans get this board mandate fixed.

What I meant was dubas being a numbers guy can perhaps influence or provide more input on a 'value' signing vs one which is not eg. Clarkson..but I do see what you're saying

 

[The Winter Soldier]

Once again - all of those contracts can be moved. Except Clarkson, because his stupid contract is stupid, but even HE can be moved if Shanahan voodoo'ed someone. And when they play well - they're actually players of value (Except Clarkson). So they CAN be moved.





So what exactly do you suggest then? Signed everyone to 2-3 year deals because they crashed and burned, and if they didn't do that, just let them walk, because you certainly couldn't trade them after poor performances minus a select few after this season?

And not a lot of people ever wants to really hear oh - yeah, we could have traded a couple of pieces a few years ago either.

Once again - the people in charge of managing the cap has been fired. They. Are. GONE. They are NOT HERE. They ain't comin' back no more. So. in actuality, it's the Leafs cap management could only be termed as incompetent, because you have no idea who Shanahan is going to hire to take over that specific duty (capologist/contract negotiator), and how he'll handle things from now on.

And once again - every contract that we have can be moveable, except Clarkson - and again, you never really know - everyone can be traded, even with a contract as albatross-esque as Clarkson 's.

To which i say again - i find it so funny how it's bad asset management if we don't sign them instead of letting them walk to get the capspace most people are freaking out about in this thread, and when the Leafs lock up the players in deals that supposedly make it easier to deal and retain our asset, people bleat about how this is cap management gong wrong.

I think you missed a key part of my reply Daisy. Why can't we be more like the good teams? You want to model successful teams, not bad ones.

I don't know if some are in denial, but we are locking up mediocrities long term when we should only do so if we have players like the Kings or the BlackHawks.

 

[Stats01]

Once again - all of those contracts can be moved. Except Clarkson, because his stupid contract is stupid, but even HE can be moved if Shanahan voodoo'ed someone. And when they play well - they're actually players of value (Except Clarkson). So they CAN be moved.





So what exactly do you suggest then? Signed everyone to 2-3 year deals because they crashed and burned, and if they didn't do that, just let them walk, because you certainly couldn't trade them after poor performances minus a select few after this season?

And not a lot of people ever wants to really hear oh - yeah, we could have traded a couple of pieces a few years ago either.

Once again - the people in charge of managing the cap has been fired. They. Are. GONE. They are NOT HERE. They ain't comin' back no more. So. in actuality, it's the Leafs cap management could only be termed as incompetent, because you have no idea who Shanahan is going to hire to take over that specific duty (capologist/contract negotiator), and how he'll handle things from now on.

And once again - every contract that we have can be moveable, except Clarkson - and again, you never really know - everyone can be traded, even with a contract as albatross-esque as Clarkson 's.

To which i say again - i find it so funny how it's bad asset management if we don't sign them instead of letting them walk to get the capspace most people are freaking out about in this thread, and when the Leafs lock up the players in deals that supposedly make it easier to deal and retain our asset, people bleat about how this is cap management gong wrong.

The people who were *****ing about not trading Kulemin, Raymond etc at the deadline when we were in a playoff spot and then let them walk aren't looking at things straight. First of all you don't trade assets off your roster that have helped you get in a playoff spot for picks/prospects. Letting them walk was actually good asset management or I should say cap management. Kulemin and Raymond got crazy deals. We actually did well not signing them. My issue is everyone keeps saying "We're ok, we can just send guys up and down and save cap space" My question is...How the heck does a middle of the pack team get into so much cap trouble where the idea of sending players up and down just to save a little cash is good?" I'm amazed that teams like LA/Chicago are able to win Cups and have a better cap situation than us.

 

[Stats01]

It truly is pathetic that we're this tight against the cap and we're not even a playoff team. Yet we're A OK to a lot of people on here.

 

[Daisy Jane]

I think you missed a key part of my reply Daisy. Why can't we be more like the good teams? You want to model successful teams, not bad ones.

and ironically enough, the good teams sucked and mediocre until they became good. No one was saying "why couldn't we be Chicago & LA", while they were struggling for 9+ years, and a lot longer than 9 years+ and not doing well, and making mistakes and things like that. We've started to make strides in both our European scouting, getting good players in the later rounds. this has to get better in the 1st/2nd rounds and I think this is so with our recent 1st round picks, and maybe eventually we'll start drafting in the 2nd.

As well - which I have to keep stressing: Shanahan has been on the job for 4 months, tasked with the challenge of making us better. He saw how the people involved with dealing with the cap handled their jobs, didn't like what was going on and he. fired. them. They didn't fit in to his plan. Ergo: the people involved in not making us good are gone, and people are going to be coming in to help us make good, so now we have to wait and see how that turns out.

and as I have also mentioned there have been crumbs indicating that Shanahan will make changes to players he feels who do not want to be maple leafs depending on how they come to camp & their play. Ergo - all those long term contracts people are complaining about will be moved out should they need to be.

to which again - I have to echo Wookie - this is not a 'thing' until it becomes 'a thing' teams with money (good or bad) spend to the cap, and team without it, don't. in a perfect world you'd ideally want teams who aren't good not to spend to the cap, but that is not the case. with a number of teams, not just the Leafs.

 

[The Winter Soldier]

and ironically enough, the good teams sucked and mediocre until they became good. No one was saying "why couldn't we be Chicago & LA", while they were struggling for 9+ years, and a lot longer than 9 years+ and not doing well, and making mistakes and things like that. We've started to make strides in both our European scouting, getting good players in the later rounds. this has to get better in the 1st/2nd rounds and I think this is so with our recent 1st round picks, and maybe eventually we'll start drafting in the 2nd.

As well - which I have to keep stressing: Shanahan has been on the job for 4 months, tasked with the challenge of making us better. He saw how the people involved with dealing with the cap handled their jobs, didn't like what was going on and he. fired. them. They didn't fit in to his plan. Ergo: the people involved in not making us good are gone, and people are going to be coming in to help us make good, so now we have to wait and see how that turns out.

and as I have also mentioned there have been crumbs indicating that Shanahan will make changes to players he feels who do not want to be maple leafs depending on how they come to camp & their play. Ergo - all those long term contracts people are complaining about will be moved out should they need to be.

to which again - I have to echo Wookie - this is not a 'thing' until it becomes 'a thing' teams with money (good or bad) spend to the cap, and team without it, don't. in a perfect world you'd ideally want teams who aren't good not to spend to the cap, but that is not the case. with a number of teams, not just the Leafs.

I can't accept a team as bad as we have been having 9 and possibly 12 players locked in next summer if Leafs re-sign Bernier and Kadri to long term contracts.

Again I cite the best teams in the NHL do not operate this way. You want to model successful teams, not bad organizations.

There is simply no logic or reason having as many players locked in long term for the lack of success this team and its players have shown.

Let's be more like Chicago and LA, if they have only 7 players locked up as core players, then for a team that has not accomplished a thing like us, should follow suit. Reward success, not mediocrity.

 

[Delicious Dangles*]

Lol, you people and your overdramatization.

We are fine with the cap. There are plenty of ways to get additional cap space, but our team is set for the season so not sure why we would need it.

As for people clamoring on about why we spend so much when, by their flawed estimations, we are a "perpetual bottom-10 team", cap space really has no correlation at all to how good a team is.

As for why Toronto has a high cap hit, it is not because we have a multitude of horrible contracts. It is because the players that we have locked up on contracts are our top players that will command the highest dollar.

Unfortunately, we are also in that phase where our best prospects are either in the NHL already or a year or 2 from being ready. This means that our bottom players, which would normally be filled in with super cheap ELC contracts have to be filled in for a couple seasons with seasoned players on 1-year contracts.

The only contract we have that is untradeable and above market value is Clarkson, and for all we know, that could change by the end of next season. If you think anybody else on this team is overpaid by any detrimental amount, you are sadly out of touch with current market trends.

Next year, Santorelli, Winnik, Booth, Kontiola, Orr, Bodie, and Franson will likely be off our books, filled in by cheaper prospects, and the cap will go up by as much as 5 million. Nothing to see here but a bunch of the usuals trying to incite fear in the gullible.

 

[Delicious Dangles*]

Leafs currently have 9 players signed to long term contracts, Kadri, Franson, and Bernier will be looking for long term contracts next summer. Which then can balloon up to 12 by next summer. Unheard of today in the NHL.

LA Kings and Chicago have only 7 players signed long term, this after winning the cup the past 3 years.

I don't know if some are in denial, but we are locking up mediocrities long term when we should only do so if we have players like the Kings or the BlackHawks.

Leafs cap management can only be termed as incompetent.

What are you counting as long term? The only possible way you can get 9 players for the Leafs is if you count 3 years as a long term contract, which in itself is laughably ridiculous, but also makes your numbers for Chicago and LA wrong. So no idea where you are getting these numbers. Without explanation, you are just spouting nonsense. Show your breakdown.

Now, really the minimum possible length you could realistically call "long-term" is 4 years. Let us examine the number of players:

Toronto - 8
Chicago - 6
LA - 8

Toronto seems to be right in line with LA and Chicago.

Now, you can argue all you like about next year, not knowing who is going to be signed and for how long, but that seems a little pointless. However, if one were to count all 3 possible long term contracts next year as having already happened in their mind, they must remember that LA and Chicago would also be adding long term contracts for their RFAs, and 4 of the contracts currently counted as "long term" for the Leafs would move out of that "long term" range, as they would then only be 3 years long.

All this being said, no idea what "long term" contracts have to do with anything. Without context, counting them provides no useful information. Long term contracts can be good, bad, or horrifyingly crippling. Just because a team has a lot or few of them, it really says absolutely nothing about their cap situation.

Everybody, don't be gullible and give in to sensationalist numbers without the facts. Don't let people incite fear in you for no reason. The Leaf's cap situation is perfectly fine, and there is no cause for concern.

 

[Daisy Jane]

Lol, you people and your overdramatization.

We are fine with the cap. There are plenty of ways to get additional cap space, but our team is set for the season so not sure why we would need it.

As for people clamoring on about why we spend so much when, by their flawed estimations, we are a "perpetual bottom-10 team", cap space really has no correlation at all to how good a team is.

As for why Toronto has a high cap hit, it is not because we have a multitude of horrible contracts. It is because the players that we have locked up on contracts are our top players that will command the highest dollar.

Unfortunately, we are also in that phase where our best prospects are either in the NHL already or a year or 2 from being ready. This means that our bottom players, which would normally be filled in with super cheap ELC contracts have to be filled in for a couple seasons with seasoned players on 1-year contracts.

The only contract we have that is untradeable and above market value is Clarkson, and for all we know, that could change by the end of next season. If you think anybody else on this team is overpaid by any detrimental amount, you are sadly out of touch with current market trends.

Next year, Santorelli, Winnik, Booth, Kontiola, Orr, Bodie, and Franson will likely be off our books, filled in by cheaper prospects, and the cap will go up by as much as 5 million. Nothing to see here but a bunch of the usuals trying to incite fear in the gullible.

but what SOME people are arguing is that those top talents are "mediocre". other than that - you basically said the exact same thing i did. All our contracts are tradeable except for one. I don't know any team who doesn't have their top talent locked up longer than 4 years regardless if they are currently the League's best team or the League's worst team. The only team that I can think of that doesn't do long-term deals, is San Jose. (but that doesn't prevent them from doing STUPID things either ie: John Scott's contract, and signing two players who flat out said they don't want to go anywhere else to no move clauses, and then be all like "Oh yah, we're rebuilding," and now aren't able to move them because - shock - they have no move clauses."

If it's not "oh my god, how can the leafs not have any cap space, DOOM" it's "why are the leafs locking up all of these people, DOOM!" or it's "WELL WHY DIDN'T THE LEAFS DO THIS WHEN THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN CHEAPER, DOOM!"

God - can it BE September 15th already? Holy Moses, does this board ever need to see some hockey being played.

 

[King85Kong]

you are so full of it, that it's running out of your nose.

list the trades the leafs have managed to make that saw us relieve ourselves of cap space and not be forced to take back in kind.

gleason,liles,komi,connolly,grabo,tucker,beachemen,Blake,Armstrong?

Besides the players I named (Clarkson, Lupul, and Dion) who exactly do you think we couldn't trade off without retaining salary? We have good young players like Gardiner signed, oh the horror. People around here make mountains out of molehills. Look around the league and you will find most teams have a bad contract or two. Hell the Kings have Richards as 4th line center making good money. Hows that working for them? Sorry if I'm not going to fall in line with the sky is falling crowd. In today's NHL you sign your skilled young talent, and trades are give and take. We have players to deal, and moves to make.

The Beachemen deal worked out wonderfully for us getting Lupul and Gardiner, and is an example of smart asset management. Gleason shouldn't have been bought out, same for Grabo and tucker. Liles was just a bonehead move by Burke, but we got back similar money, so a wash in the end. Blake got Giguere who did well for us his first couple seasons, not a bad trade at all. Connolly walked as a free agent, so no loss, not sure why he is down. So that leaves just Komi, and one year of Armstrong buyout, which compared to teams around the NHL is not bad.
People are overreacting.

 

[Faltorvo]

The problem is this is a big cycle that happens every year..This is a middle of the pack team that is always up against the cap, the cap goes up let's say 5-6 mil that's barely enough to re-sign Bernier and Kadri next year. And once again we'll be at the ceiling with no real improvements banking on the same core to do something different...The contracts that Nonis has handed out to Clarkson and Lupul specifically hurt us. Even the Phaneuf deal sucks IMO. Three players (Dion, Lupul, Clarkson) are taking up 17.5 million dollars of our cap...add in Kessel and it thats 4 players taking up 25.5 million in cap space..It's ridiculous.

middle of the pack team WTF?

sorry, you meant to say consistent bottom 10 team,no?

 

[Faltorvo]

Once again - all of those contracts can be moved. Except Clarkson, because his stupid contract is stupid, but even HE can be moved if Shanahan voodoo'ed someone. And when they play well - they're actually players of value (Except Clarkson). So they CAN be moved.





So what exactly do you suggest then? Signed everyone to 2-3 year deals because they crashed and burned, and if they didn't do that, just let them walk, because you certainly couldn't trade them after poor performances minus a select few after this season?

And not a lot of people ever wants to really hear oh - yeah, we could have traded a couple of pieces a few years ago either.

Once again - the people in charge of managing the cap has been fired. They. Are. GONE. They are NOT HERE. They ain't comin' back no more. So. in actuality, it's the Leafs cap management could only be termed as incompetent, because you have no idea who Shanahan is going to hire to take over that specific duty (capologist/contract negotiator), and how he'll handle things from now on.

And once again - every contract that we have can be moveable, except Clarkson - and again, you never really know - everyone can be traded, even with a contract as albatross-esque as Clarkson 's.

To which i say again - i find it so funny how it's bad asset management if we don't sign them instead of letting them walk to get the capspace most people are freaking out about in this thread, and when the Leafs lock up the players in deals that supposedly make it easier to deal and retain our asset, people bleat about how this is cap management gong wrong.

I call, complete and utter shenanigans

name me the players we have been able to ship out since the advent of the cap and then list me all these movable cap hits we have had to either bury in the ahl(when you could) buyout or trade for like kind cap return.

hells name me even 2 decent sized cap hits we have been able to trade away to clear cap space in the last 5 years.

 

[GordieHoweHatTrick]

Not perpetual lol.

Today's english lesson.

Perpetual: occurring repeatedly; so frequent as to seem endless and uninterrupted.

Placing in the playoffs in one of the last two seasons, is not what I would call "uninterrupted".

But I know how much you and Mess and a hundred other posters can't help but preach only of criticisms and negatives and never ever look at a single positive. So continue.

Wow, so because the Leafs weren't bottom-10 one season out of the last seven you're going to give people an elementary english lesson? Fine, a team that sucks more often than not it is!

The great lengths people will go to to make a turd shine!

The Leafs being a big question mark this season and so close to the cap (and will probably forfeit cap-space next season if guys like Rielly, Percy, Finn, Leivo, Grannberg, McKegg see ice-time and collect bits and pieces of their bonuses) is nothing to read about, but a thread about avatars is. Pass around whatever it is you're inhaling, please

 

[Faltorvo]

Once again - all of those contracts can be moved. Except Clarkson, because his stupid contract is stupid, but even HE can be moved if Shanahan voodoo'ed someone. And when they play well - they're actually players of value (Except Clarkson). So they CAN be moved.





So what exactly do you suggest then? Signed everyone to 2-3 year deals because they crashed and burned, and if they didn't do that, just let them walk, because you certainly couldn't trade them after poor performances minus a select few after this season?

And not a lot of people ever wants to really hear oh - yeah, we could have traded a couple of pieces a few years ago either.

Once again - the people in charge of managing the cap has been fired. They. Are. GONE. They are NOT HERE. They ain't comin' back no more. So. in actuality, it's the Leafs cap management could only be termed as incompetent, because you have no idea who Shanahan is going to hire to take over that specific duty (capologist/contract negotiator), and how he'll handle things from now on.

And once again - every contract that we have can be moveable, except Clarkson - and again, you never really know - everyone can be traded, even with a contract as albatross-esque as Clarkson 's.

To which i say again - i find it so funny how it's bad asset management if we don't sign them instead of letting them walk to get the capspace most people are freaking out about in this thread, and when the Leafs lock up the players in deals that supposedly make it easier to deal and retain our asset, people bleat about how this is cap management gong wrong.

ummmm seriously??? seriously???

how about the premise of trading pending UFAs before they walk so one can get cap space AND stock up on picks/prospects at the trade deadline.

idk call it a crazy concept,

 

[Faltorvo]

The people who were *****ing about not trading Kulemin, Raymond etc at the deadline when we were in a playoff spot and then let them walk aren't looking at things straight. First of all you don't trade assets off your roster that have helped you get in a playoff spot for picks/prospects. Letting them walk was actually good asset management or I should say cap management. Kulemin and Raymond got crazy deals. We actually did well not signing them. My issue is everyone keeps saying "We're ok, we can just send guys up and down and save cap space" My question is...How the heck does a middle of the pack team get into so much cap trouble where the idea of sending players up and down just to save a little cash is good?" I'm amazed that teams like LA/Chicago are able to win Cups and have a better cap situation than us.

try consistent bottom 10, there is nothing middle of the pack going on here at all, at all

 

[Delicious Dangles*]

but what SOME people are arguing is that those top talents are "mediocre". other than that - you basically said the exact same thing i did. All our contracts are tradeable except for one. I don't know any team who doesn't have their top talent locked up longer than 4 years regardless if they are currently the League's best team or the League's worst team. The only team that I can think of that doesn't do long-term deals, is San Jose. (but that doesn't prevent them from doing STUPID things either ie: John Scott's contract, and signing two players who flat out said they don't want to go anywhere else to no move clauses, and then be all like "Oh yah, we're rebuilding," and now aren't able to move them because - shock - they have no move clauses."

If it's not "oh my god, how can the leafs not have any cap space, DOOM" it's "why are the leafs locking up all of these people, DOOM!" or it's "WELL WHY DIDN'T THE LEAFS DO THIS WHEN THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN CHEAPER, DOOM!"

God - can it BE September 15th already? Holy Moses, does this board ever need to see some hockey being played.

Everybody thinks a team's players are mediocre and guys you can never win with and overpaid, etc. until they are awesome and you win with them and everybody worse starts getting paid more.

Same held true for LA and Chicago, the apparent holy teams now. I remember, not that long ago, when everybody laughed at them and their players because of their extended periods of horribleness, which of course, meant all of their players (many of which are the same now/when they won) were also horrible, overpaid guys you could never win with, with the possible exception of the just-drafted top pick who hadn't yet given people something to nitpick.

Our top players are far from mediocre. We just don't have the right mix of complementary players yet, and some of those top players or soon-to-be top players haven't finished growing.

Sadly, September 15th will change nothing except provide more entertainment for people like us so we have to deal less with the troubled individuals on here. Stupid people will be stupid people year-round.

 

[Daisy Jane]

I call, complete and utter shenanigans

name me the players we have been able to ship out since the advent of the cap and then list me all these movable cap hits we have had to either bury in the ahl(when you could) buyout or trade for like kind cap return.

hells name me even 2 decent sized cap hits we have been able to trade away to clear cap space in the last 5 years.

the argument was - we have all these contracts, and we can't do anything, oh woe, oh sadness.

all I said was no - all the contracts that we have minus one, can be moved

now the question of IF they WILL be moved is a totally different argument.

ummmm seriously??? seriously???

how about the premise of trading pending UFAs before they walk so one can get cap space AND stock up on picks/prospects at the trade deadline.

idk call it a crazy concept,

to which again the argument will be do you trade all of your pieces to get picks/prospects when you are #2 in your division? [this was the situation where we were this year]. then you get into trading rights and you have to trade rights now super early because now there's that 1 week shopping window - which means you have to have to make decisions earlier.

And THIS is where Nonis has an issue.

but we don't know how Shanahan will address that situation.

 

[Faltorvo]

and ironically enough, the good teams sucked and mediocre until they became good. No one was saying "why couldn't we be Chicago & LA", while they were struggling for 9+ years, and a lot longer than 9 years+ and not doing well, and making mistakes and things like that. We've started to make strides in both our European scouting, getting good players in the later rounds. this has to get better in the 1st/2nd rounds and I think this is so with our recent 1st round picks, and maybe eventually we'll start drafting in the 2nd.

As well - which I have to keep stressing: Shanahan has been on the job for 4 months, tasked with the challenge of making us better. He saw how the people involved with dealing with the cap handled their jobs, didn't like what was going on and he. fired. them. They didn't fit in to his plan. Ergo: the people involved in not making us good are gone, and people are going to be coming in to help us make good, so now we have to wait and see how that turns out.

and as I have also mentioned there have been crumbs indicating that Shanahan will make changes to players he feels who do not want to be maple leafs depending on how they come to camp & their play. Ergo - all those long term contracts people are complaining about will be moved out should they need to be.

to which again - I have to echo Wookie - this is not a 'thing' until it becomes 'a thing' teams with money (good or bad) spend to the cap, and team without it, don't. in a perfect world you'd ideally want teams who aren't good not to spend to the cap, but that is not the case. with a number of teams, not just the Leafs.

umm I need a little bit of help here DJ

when was this stretch of 9+ years and a lot longer then 9+ years that these two franchises struggled through?

years what to what,?

ahhh my research can't find anything close to those kind of stretches in even what one would call relatively recently.

 

[Delicious Dangles*]

name me the players we have been able to ship out since the advent of the cap and then list me all these movable cap hits we have had to either bury in the ahl(when you could) buyout or trade for like kind cap return.

The players we have now on "long term" contracts and the players you are talking about that we were not able to get rid of are not comparable in the slightest. Age, contract, and most importantly, quality of player are all on opposite ends of the spectrum.

hells name me even 2 decent sized cap hits we have been able to trade away to clear cap space in the last 5 years.

We never needed to clear cap space. In fact, most of the last 5 years was a period in which we were trying to take on cap space for additional assets. In fact, the only time we weren't was when the cap was squished to unnatural levels because of the lockout.

Not sure how that says anything about our current team or players or the market situation.