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

[Daisy Jane]

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.

exactly. that's the point i made.

LA is the team to be- but before 5 years ago - they were equally not as good.
Chicago is the team to be - but we'll ignore that the nine years before that they were crashing and failing (it may not have been historically horrible as we are but they were bad just the same).

People keep going we can't win with __________________ but we'll ignore that people say that about a multitude of players until they win. (which ironically enough are on those teams).

but again - the main point is - the people in charge of contract negotiation and cap management got fired. so regardless of the issues people have at these contracts, there's nothing right now indicating that it's going to continue.

 

[GordieHoweHatTrick]

The issue isn't with the Maple Leafs spending, the issue is with the Leafs spending so close to the cap that some bonuses will carry over to next season. The Bruins took a 4.750m $ cap-hit this season for the Cap Overage penalty, their saving grace is a team that will more than likely be competitive this season. The Maple Leafs are struggling to compete with teams like the Bruins and will likely take a Cap Overage hit next season (though I don't expect it will be close to 4.750m but between 1-2m), difference is that they still need to make room for improvement.

 

[Delicious Dangles*]

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,

Destroying team confidence, destroying player confidence in management, losing potential millions in pure profit, losing huge fan support which results in losing sales, losing priceless playoff experience, and sentencing your team to an endless cycle of suck so that you can get a couple 2nd and 3rd round picks that have a statistically horrific chance of becoming a player of any importance (in a bad draft year no less!) when we were one of the better teams in the league the year before and took the SCF to game 7 OT.

Yeah, I'd say that's a crazy concept.

 

[Faltorvo]

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.

ya, we just happen to league the entire league in total buy outs and hiding contracts in the ahl since the inception of the cap, because unloading cap to other teams is so easily done.

you claim it's easily done, then I ask you, give me some examples of the leafs so easily doing this since the cap came into effect.

making mountains out of moles hills, hrmm really?

a consistent cap maxed team that has finished 7th,,7th,,2nd,,9th,,5th,,8th last in the past 7 seasons surely is a team that is working the cap correctly.

oh and for the record between the 3 names you listed plus the other cap hits not on the roster we are just talking about a paltry 18.4 million in cap space, next season that jumps to 19.4 million but ya just mole hills.

 

[Delicious Dangles*]

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.

The last few years are the first sustained success that Chicago and LA have had in decades. They went through many years of mediocrity in the 90s and a long stretch from before the lockout (2002) to 2009 for Chicago and 2010 for LA.

In fact, Chicago still might not be anywhere if they hadn't won the lottery and moved from 5th to 1st to pick Kane.

 

[Daisy Jane]

The last few years are the first sustained success that Chicago and LA have had in decades. They went through many years of mediocrity in the 90s and a long stretch from before the lockout (2002) to 2009 for Chicago and 2010 for LA.

In fact, Chicago still might not be anywhere if they hadn't won the lottery and moved from 5th to 1st to pick Kane.

and the only reason why we're not "up to speed" was because

A: Peddie wouldn't allow it
B: Burke didn't want to do it and
C: Nonis is trying to build upon what we have


we don't know what Shanahan wants to do.

 

[Faltorvo]

The last few years are the first sustained success that Chicago and LA have had in decades. They went through many years of mediocrity in the 90s and a long stretch from before the lockout (2002) to 2009 for Chicago and 2010 for LA.

In fact, Chicago still might not be anywhere if they hadn't won the lottery and moved from 5th to 1st to pick Kane.

2002/03 to 2008/09 that's only 6 seasons played that had 1 17th place finish in there and 3 bottom 10. Still don't see the 9+ years.

LA 2002/03 to 2009/20, 7 seasons played only 3 bottom 10 finishes, still struggling to find this 9+ years or even longer.

 

[Faltorvo]

The last few years are the first sustained success that Chicago and LA have had in decades. They went through many years of mediocrity in the 90s and a long stretch from before the lockout (2002) to 2009 for Chicago and 2010 for LA.

In fact, Chicago still might not be anywhere if they hadn't won the lottery and moved from 5th to 1st to pick Kane.

do you do any research or do you just spew out words?

1990/91 season

chi 106 points #1

LA 102 points #3

91/92

8th chi

10th la

92/93

chi 106 points 3rd

la 11th

93/94 chi

13th

94

chi 8th

95

chi 6th

umm what troubles?

 

[Faltorvo]

The last few years are the first sustained success that Chicago and LA have had in decades. They went through many years of mediocrity in the 90s and a long stretch from before the lockout (2002) to 2009 for Chicago and 2010 for LA.

In fact, Chicago still might not be anywhere if they hadn't won the lottery and moved from 5th to 1st to pick Kane.

the last few?????

5 and 6 years straight of success and 6 and 7 years of being down since just before the cap,

but ya see,

that's how folks make mole hills 5/6 good = few,,,6/7 bad = 9+ years and even longer some people

 

[King85Kong]

ya, we just happen to league the entire league in total buy outs and hiding contracts in the ahl since the inception of the cap, because unloading cap to other teams is so easily done.

you claim it's easily done, then I ask you, give me some examples of the leafs so easily doing this since the cap came into effect.

making mountains out of moles hills, hrmm really?

a consistent cap maxed team that has finished 7th,,7th,,2nd,,9th,,5th,,8th last in the past 7 seasons surely is a team that is working the cap correctly.

oh and for the record between the 3 names you listed plus the other cap hits not on the roster we are just talking about a paltry 18.4 million in cap space, next season that jumps to 19.4 million but ya just mole hills.

Not sure if you're serious or not. Please quote me where I said we were a good team.
Dion is fine at his cap hit, taking on Lupul netted us Gardiner which I would do again in a heart beat. Clarkson was a terrible signing which I was against from the start. Signing veteran depth players like Clarkson is the real problem. Ironically enough, the posters who are screaming the loudest against long term contracts where the ones here in July telling the rest of us how lucky we are to have signed Clarkson; hypocrisy at its finest.

Examples of unloading players
Beachemen for Lupul and Gardiner
Scheen for JVR
Blake and Toskala for Giguere
Kaberle for Colberne 1st round pick 2011, 2nd round pick 2012
Not to bad eh

Again besides Clarkson who else would be difficult to trade away if better players come along?

 

[Morbo]

the last few?????

5 and 6 years straight of success and 6 and 7 years of being down since just before the cap,

but ya see,

that's how folks make mole hills 5/6 good = few,,,6/7 bad = 9+ years and even longer some people

Guess you missed the "in decades" part.

 

[Faltorvo]

Not sure if you're serious or not. Please quote me where I said we were a good team.
Dion is fine at his cap hit, taking on Lupul netted us Gardiner which I would do again in a heart beat. Clarkson was a terrible signing which I was against from the start. Signing veteran depth players like Clarkson is the real problem. Ironically enough, the posters who are screaming the loudest against long term contracts where the ones here in July telling the rest of us how lucky we are to have signed Clarkson; hypocrisy at its finest.

Examples of unloading players
Beachemen for Lupul and Gardiner
Scheen for JVR
Blake and Toskala for Giguere
Kaberle for Colberne 1st round pick 2011, 2nd round pick 2012
Not to bad eh

Again besides Clarkson who else would be difficult to trade away if better players come along?

sorry, I thought the entire debate was unloading players to create cap relief

example 1= nope
example 2 =nope
example 3= nope
example 4= yup and big woops a UFA shuffled out at the TD

 

[LeafalCrusader]

The issue isn't with the Maple Leafs spending, the issue is with the Leafs spending so close to the cap that some bonuses will carry over to next season. The Bruins took a 4.750m $ cap-hit this season for the Cap Overage penalty, their saving grace is a team that will more than likely be competitive this season. The Maple Leafs are struggling to compete with teams like the Bruins and will likely take a Cap Overage hit next season (though I don't expect it will be close to 4.750m but between 1-2m), difference is that they still need to make room for improvement.

Very few of our players who will make the big club have bonuses in their contracts. None of our 15 forwards have bonuses in their deals. On defense Rielly has 850k in bonuses (per capgeek). Then on the farm guys like Granberg and Leivo have 100 or 200k in bonuses in their deals. The worst I see us getting is another 500 thousand carry over penalty.

 

[King85Kong]

sorry, I thought the entire debate was unloading players to create cap relief

example 1= nope
example 2 =nope
example 3= nope
example 4= yup and big woops a UFA shuffled out at the TD

Oh so I was right, your not serious. Lol you had me there for a bit. I thought you were being serious. Your just pulling peoples legs here, well played sir .

 

[hobarth]

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

TO was basically forced into an ill advised trade for Holland last year because of the cap situation which resulted in the loss of a 2nd rounder for what may end up being a 4th liner.

 

[The Winter Soldier]

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.

Actually the number is 9 and could be 12 players that were given over 3 to 8 year contracts by this Management group.

LA has to sign Kopitar in 2 years, yet they only have 7 players locked up to 3 or more years long term contracts that can be termed as core players. One can say they have been a very successful franchise correct?

Surely you are not comparing Quick, Doughty, Brown, Voynov, Gaborik, Richards, Williams to our core players of 12 if we sign Kadri, Bernier, and Franson next year…

Again, another that missed the point. The best teams do not lock up mediocre players, Leafs do. Said this about 5 times in this thread. It's a very easy point to grasp.

 

[King85Kong]

Actually the number is 9 and could be 12 players that were given over 3 to 8 year contracts by this Management group.

LA has to sign Kopitar in 2 years, yet they only have 7 players locked up to 3 or more years long term contracts that can be termed as core players. One can say they have been a very successful franchise correct?

Surely you are not comparing Quick, Doughty, Brown, Voynov, Gaborik, Richards, Williams to our core players of 12 if we sign Kadri, Bernier, and Franson next year…

Again, another that missed the point. The best teams do not lock up mediocre players, Leafs do. Said this about 5 times in this thread. It's a very easy point to grasp.

Yet you praised when we signed Bozak and Clarkson to long term deals. Double standard.

 

[The Winter Soldier]

Yet you praised when we signed Bozak and Clarkson to long term deals. Double standard.

Bozak has turned out to be Nonis' best contract value wise, it is a steal infact when you compare him to Weiss at 4.9 signed that same summer. if we can draft say Mcdavid, we will have a great 1-2 punch at Center. There are far worse #2 Centers than Bozak at 4.2. I'm very sure you do not have a strong point on this one.

I always said Clarkson was 2 years too long, so as for my praise, maybe you made this up. However, if you want to infer that I think he is better than the player he showed last year, ok you got me there.

 

[Menzinger]

If we draft McDavid it will because Bozak is our topline centre.

 

[King85Kong]

Bozak has turned out to be Nonis' best contract value wise, it is a steal infact when you compare him to Weiss at 4.9 signed that same summer. if we can draft say Mcdavid, we will have a great 1-2 punch at Center. There are far worse #2 Centers than Bozak at 4.2. I'm very sure you do not have a strong point on this one.

I always said Clarkson was 2 years too long, so as for my praise, maybe you made this up. However, if you want to infer that I think he is better than the player he showed last year, ok you got me there.

When Bozak signed that contract many questioned it. Was over payment at the time.
Would be awesome if we drafted McDavid (slim chance). McDavid and Kadri as 1-2 is awesome, and Bozak at 3c is also good, can do much worse, I agree with you in this part.

Clarkson's contract is 7 years to long more like. Even 5 years at 5.25 for a depth third liner is a crazy contract, not smart asset management at all.

 

[Gary Nylund]

Destroying team confidence, destroying player confidence in management, losing potential millions in pure profit, losing huge fan support which results in losing sales, losing priceless playoff experience, and sentencing your team to an endless cycle of suck so that you can get a couple 2nd and 3rd round picks that have a statistically horrific chance of becoming a player of any importance (in a bad draft year no less!) when we were one of the better teams in the league the year before and took the SCF to game 7 OT.

Yeah, I'd say that's a crazy concept.

Losing fan support? In Toronto? If that was even possible it would have happened by now don't you think?

I agree playoff experience is valuable but calling it priceless is overstating it. I certainly didn't see the experience gained against Boston carry over to this year in any meaningful way. Perhaps it would have been better if we missed the playoffs considering where we are now.

Calling us one of the better teams that year is another huge overstatement. 2 points ahead of the 8th place team in a historically weak Eastern conference is hardly brag-worthy.

I realize that since we haven't won a playoff series in what seems like forever, people have a desire to romanticize our series loss against Boston as some kind of noteworthy achievement. In the end though, we lost and still haven't won anything in what seems like forever. The fact that the team we lost to went on to win some more might make you feel better but it really isn't anything that we can to our list of accomplishments.

Good to have you back posting though. I remember before you disappeared you were arguing vehemently that we had as good a chance of winning the cup as LA. I thought you'd left us for good after that fiasco.

 

[The Winter Soldier]

When Bozak signed that contract many questioned it. Was over payment at the time.
Would be awesome if we drafted McDavid (slim chance). McDavid and Kadri as 1-2 is awesome, and Bozak at 3c is also good, can do much worse, I agree with you in this part.

Clarkson's contract is 7 years to long more like. Even 5 years at 5.25 for a depth third liner is a crazy contract, not smart asset management at all.

If Kadri doesn't improve this season, he won't be #3C with us, never mind a #2C. His contract is up and I would wager the Leafs will re-sign Bernier over Kadri if Bernier can repeat his first 45 games last year.

 

[King85Kong]

If Kadri doesn't improve this season, he won't be #3C with us, never mind a #2C. His contract is up and I would wager the Leafs will re-sign Bernier over Kadri if Bernier can repeat his first 45 games last year.

And I'll wager they will both re-sign. Furthermore I would wager Bozak will be gone before Kadri. Kadri is progressing just fine by the way, smashing Bozaks numbers at his age, and Kadri will again destroy Bozaks numbers for his 24 year old season. Pressure is on Bozak this season to see if he can repeat or last year numbers were a one off.

 

[The Winter Soldier]

And I'll wager they will both re-sign. Furthermore I would wager Bozak will be gone before Kadri. Kadri is progressing just fine by the way, smashing Bozaks numbers at his age, and Kadri will again destroy Bozaks numbers for his 24 year old season. Pressure is on Bozak this season to see if he can repeat or last year numbers were a one off.

Well that's a logical argument!

Bozak was playing for the U of Denver when he was 23! Obcourse Kadri had more points in the NHL at 23. A bigger minus too!

I would give Kadri a bridge contract next year. 3M and sign Bernier to a longer term contract if he doesn't regress this year. Otherwise both get one year deals. Their best bets for a long term contract is for Nonis not be fired with the way he is signing mediocre players to long term contracts. But I wouldn't count on Nonis lasting another year.

 

[SeaOfBlue]

And I'll wager they will both re-sign. Furthermore I would wager Bozak will be gone before Kadri. Kadri is progressing just fine by the way, smashing Bozaks numbers at his age, and Kadri will again destroy Bozaks numbers for his 24 year old season. Pressure is on Bozak this season to see if he can repeat or last year numbers were a one off.

I actually see Kadri as a winger. If we ever need to trade Lupul to get a deal done salary wise, look for Kadri to take his spot and then having Holland, Kontiola, etc. taking over if it's this year or others (Nylander for example) if it's later.