Speculation: Roster Building Thread II (2022-23): The Puck is Prepared to be Mounted

[Boris Zubov]

Bettman saying that their polling tells them that fans say it makes the game more enjoyable to watch is laugh out loud funny. It would be one thing to say that fans don't mind them, but to say ANYONE is saying it makes the game BETTER to watch is just insane.

They're just growing the game.

 

[Ruggs225]

The NHLPA got blown out 6-1 in 2005 and like 49-0 in 2013.

We're now seeing the effects of that. The NHL has become a playground for the owners -whose financial security does NOT hinge on hockey- to tittle themselves while everyone else suffers.

Just curious but who actually is suffering? The players are still making millions and the fans are seeing some of the most fun hockey ever.

So who exactly is suffering?

Or are u upset that owners are making money?

 

[Clark Kellogg]

Why is everyone buying out Goodrow?

He has value and would be easily moved.

I also think this team will be the same, give or a take a middle6 forward and LHD, for this season and the next. Big changes come in 2024

If we are out of the playoff hunt come TDL, I believe there will be teams willing to add Goodrow with his full contract.

 

[bleedblue94]

Jury’s still out I guess.

That’s about as bad an off-season a GM could have, but I liked his trade deadline and ‘22 off-season for the most part.

The most telling move will be how long he keeps Gallant around and who he replaces him with I guess.

Revisionist history. People clearly losing perspective of what shape this team and locker room were in going into that off-season. Not to mention the directive from the owner...

 

[Chalfdiggity3]

Well first off, Trouba was labeled the heart and soul of this team being named captain. I know Lindy had consideration too, but it didn't happen for a reason? If he's willing to re-sign for super cheap then cool, but lets not act like 24 year old Lindy doesn't have some serious miles on him. I'm looking at all angles for a pragmatic move. You could probably save $2.5 (without a raise) to perhaps what, $4 million if he's looking for a raise?

I don't think it's such a far cry.

Let me also finish this post with saying I am absolutely not calling for Lindgren's job. I do think it would be a conversation worth having when you're looking at the long term success of the team. I don't see him holding up great past his next contract and maybe even in the middle of it depending on how long it is.

Did you not watch the playoffs? Lindgren is crucial to the defense and playoff hockey, Nobody on this team plays that type of hockey and it was evident in the playoffs last year. When he was out we lost every game. Lindgren is 24yo, still has another bridge deal contract to go before we can move on from him. He makes 3m per year to play as a top 4 that hes VERY good at. Your not going to find another bargain player like that out there. Your moving a top 4 24yo defenseman making 3m per as a cap dump? Who is going to fill his space? Your going to save what on that move while seriously downgrading our defense. What offensively has lindgren done to deserve a raise from what he is currently making? He will get the same 3x3 deal. Then we can move on when we have players who can fill his role because currently there is nobody that can. Miller is a p***y and has only shown glimpses of being able to hold down a top 4 spot, Fox plays smart, Trouba sure when he wants to but cant seem to play physical in front of the net like lindy. Robertson hasnt shown he can yet and jones/robertson and so on are not even on the team. The long term success is adding more players like him. Not subtracting the one player that is on the team as a cap dump.

Again alot can change in a few years but as i see it, removing lindy now or the near future would be a mistake

 

[pld459666]

I think Goodrow could be traded for pennies.

Rather that than dead space for 6 years or however long.

A team like Seattle could use a guy like Goodrow to help solidify their bottom 6.

Take a 5th rounder for Goodrow and call it a day

 

[NYRFANMANI]

Take a 5th rounder for Goodrow and call it a day

I'm with you in trading Goodrow, but that's getting ripped off big time.

Goodrow cost Tampa a first, we should aim at exactly that, late 1st.

 

[Machinehead]

Just curious but who actually is suffering? The players are still making millions and the fans are seeing some of the most fun hockey ever.

So who exactly is suffering?

Or are u upset that owners are making money?

If this is fun for you, God bless.

I don't enjoy a league where literally nobody can do anything because the salary cap has been stuck in the same place for a hundred years. I don't enjoy a league with a hard cap in general.

And yes, I'm upset the owners are making money. Most of them purchased a product they didn't build with money they inherited. They provide nothing and hurt the quality of the game to make sure they get half the revenue for doing nothing. f*** them.

 

[IDvsEGO]

I'm with you in trading Goodrow, but that's getting ripped off big time.

Goodrow cost Tampa a first, we should aim at exactly that, late 1st.

Goodrow was moved when he had no trade protection, and had one year remaining and there was no flat cap. Cap hit impacts trade returns, especially if there’s a belief that the player will take a downturn.

Getting a return for goodrow would be nice but just moving him is better than the buyout, but the buyout is more likely.

 

[Machinehead]

Revisionist history. People clearly losing perspective of what shape this team and locker room were in going into that off-season. Not to mention the directive from the owner...

I don't know if revisionist history is fair.

Lots of people here hated the Goodrow contact day one and the Buchnevich trade was almost unanimously panned.

 

[Oscar Lindberg]

Can they though?
Goodrow at 2/3rds would be $2,4m. His 13 pts stacks up pretty well (and we'll ignore any intangibles he may or not bring) against other players making between $2.2-2.6m, especially factoring in he was a UFA
View attachment 621361

2 or 3 players not 2/3 the money

 

[Fitzy]

I don't know if revisionist history is fair.

Lots of people here hated the Goodrow contact day one and the Buchnevich trade was almost unanimously panned.

It was hard to be on the wrong side of those debates. Most moves are debatable but those two, along with Wade Redden, were universal bads from day 1.

 

[redwhiteandblue]

Did you not watch the playoffs? Lindgren is crucial to the defense and playoff hockey, Nobody on this team plays that type of hockey and it was evident in the playoffs last year. When he was out we lost every game. Lindgren is 24yo, still has another bridge deal contract to go before we can move on from him. He makes 3m per year to play as a top 4 that hes VERY good at. Your not going to find another bargain player like that out there. Your moving a top 4 24yo defenseman making 3m per as a cap dump? Who is going to fill his space? Your going to save what on that move while seriously downgrading our defense. What offensively has lindgren done to deserve a raise from what he is currently making? He will get the same 3x3 deal. Then we can move on when we have players who can fill his role because currently there is nobody that can. Miller is a p***y and has only shown glimpses of being able to hold down a top 4 spot, Fox plays smart, Trouba sure when he wants to but cant seem to play physical in front of the net like lindy. Robertson hasnt shown he can yet and jones/robertson and so on are not even on the team. The long term success is adding more players like him. Not subtracting the one player that is on the team as a cap dump.

Again alot can change in a few years but as i see it, removing lindy now or the near future would be a mistake

I did watch playoff hockey, every game. In fact I was in the Garden for Game 7 vs Pitt, I was in Carolina for Game 7, and I went to Tampa to root on the boys for Game 4. I endured about as much playoff hockey as a Black Ace lol.

I understand a lot of where your passion comes from, but again to use Girardi as an example, this won't end well. Let me stop again and re-iterate, I'm looking for pragmatic solutions, not taking aim at Lindy. I love watching the guy play hockey, but anyone that doesn't see the blemishes he makes, or the penalties he takes, is blind because of their love for his game.

He plays on the edge so he will get penalties, ok fine. Simply put, Fox has well surpassed him as a D partner. He's a 2nd pair D in this league, and on a Cup team he's a bottom 4 D with amazing depth. That's cool that him and Fox are besties so he gets to ride shotgun and play LD1, but investing in him on the next contract like he's a bonafide top 2 or 3 defensemen on any team, as he's been taxing his body nonstop, these players don't last.

And you say that defensemen not scoring don't get raises...... again do you remember Dan Girardi? Girardi broke 30 points once and was a career shutdown in your face D man who put his body on the line... yet he got $5.5 over 6 years. I'm weary to make that mistake again, not to mention at 35 I simply have accepted that sports is a business, and being able to see ahead of these things will pay off in the long run..

Again, I'm not calling for Lindy's head. I'm pumped to watch him play, but fooling ourselves that his level of play will last is foolish. Hell, I think he might even play harder than G did.

 

[Machinehead]

It was hard to be on the wrong side of those debates. Most moves are debatable but those two, along with Wade Redden, were universal bads from day 1.

I don't think there's a move since I've been a fan that was more "lolwut" than the Buchnevich trade.

Even Redden had some rationale at the time, even if it was wrong.

I get why Buchnevich was traded but I just can't bring myself to believe that was the best return on the table.

Just my opinion, I think the Rangers saw a guy in Blais that hits a lot and was on a Cup team, and that was that.

Another shortcut to "identity" from a shortcut owner.

 

[Avery16]

I'm with you in trading Goodrow, but that's getting ripped off big time.

Goodrow cost Tampa a first, we should aim at exactly that, late 1st.

That was before we gave him an awful contract. We'll be lucky to get a 5th for him while retaining nothing and assuming its to a team not on his NTC list or is willing to waive for.

 

[Ruggs225]

If this is fun for you, God bless.

I don't enjoy a league where literally nobody can do anything because the salary cap has been stuck in the same place for a hundred years. I don't enjoy a league with a hard cap in general.

And yes, I'm upset the owners are making money. Most of them purchased a product they didn't build with money they inherited. They provide nothing and hurt the quality of the game to make sure they get half the revenue for doing nothing. f*** them.

No i just find it bizarre how people get upset at owners making money and think the players who are making a ton of money still are being treated unfairly. Its just really odd.

I personally could care less.

Though i wish the players and owners took 50% cuts so ticket prices and concessions could come down to reasonable levels.

So i guess in the end the fans pockets are suffering. But not the players.

 

[GAGLine]

Why is everyone buying out Goodrow?

He has value and would be easily moved.

I also think this team will be the same, give or a take a middle6 forward and LHD, for this season and the next. Big changes come in 2024

If the cap doesn't go up by more than 1 mil next year, which teams are going to have the cap space to take his contract? Other teams, if they have interest, are going to want to dump players back on us. So he may be moveable, but the net effect will be that we clear something less than the full 3.6 mil. A buyout clears the full amount, plus a cap credit, for the next 2 years.

Sure, if we can find a team that is willing to take on the entire contract without sending cap back, by all means do it. But that's going to be a lot harder than you think.

 

[lakeshirts37]

If the cap doesn't go up by more than 1 mil next year, which teams are going to have the cap space to take his contract? Other teams, if they have interest, are going to want to dump players back on us. So he may be moveable, but the net effect will be that we clear something less than the full 3.6 mil. A buyout clears the full amount, plus a cap credit, for the next 2 years.

Sure, if we can find a team that is willing to take on the entire contract without sending cap back, by all means do it. But that's going to be a lot harder than you think.

no more buyouts.

 

[TheBPA]

No i just find it bizarre how people get upset at owners making money and think the players who are making a ton of money still are being treated unfairly. Its just really odd.

I personally could care less.

Though i wish the players and owners took 50% cuts so ticket prices and concessions could come down to reasonable levels.

So i guess in the end the fans pockets are suffering. But not the players.

Yeah I don't think the point is to feel bad for the players because they aren't making enough money. The point is that the owners strongarmed the players into a system where 24 of 32 teams are within $2 million of the cap, making it near impossible (or at least giving the GM's an easy excuse to claim that it is near impossible) for there to be any player movement. The point of the cap was never to completely inhibit player movement, but when we have a cap that has hardly moved in 4 years, that is the ultimate result.

As much as I hate it, I do get what Bettman is doing though. He is going to position it as being a near certainty that there will only be a $1m raise unless he is 100% confident that the league will hit the necessary revenue target to raise the cap beyond that. He's basically putting it in the NHLPA's court to come to him with a proposal to live with increased escrow for a little while longer so that they can save the owners from the hard cap that they absolutely needed to have.

 

[Ruggs225]

If the cap doesn't go up by more than 1 mil next year, which teams are going to have the cap space to take his contract? Other teams, if they have interest, are going to want to dump players back on us. So he may be moveable, but the net effect will be that we clear something less than the full 3.6 mil. A buyout clears the full amount, plus a cap credit, for the next 2 years.

Sure, if we can find a team that is willing to take on the entire contract without sending cap back, by all means do it. But that's going to be a lot harder than you think.

I like goodrow, but i tend to agree with this. U just cant pay that much for a bottom 6er. And the cap hit wont be that bad except one year.

 

[WojtekWolski86]

There’s guys better than him for 1M all around the league. Nothing against the guy but he’s bad.

Are these guys on ELC/RFA or "show me" 1 yr contracts?

Unless you are taking chances on back 9 guys like Stepan or Stastny you aren't improving on what Goodrow brings from the market.

We need to be hitting home on our mid round picks to develop the Gooodrow and Motte types internally...aka picks like Hagelin and Fast were the perfect Swiss army knife role players that your use up on cost controlled contracts and then let go or trade when it's time for that role player to get open Market money. We just didn't have a Fast replacement and tried to skip ahead with Goodrow

 

[karljans8279]

I don't think there's a move since I've been a fan that was more "lolwut" than the Buchnevich trade.

Even Redden had some rationale at the time, even if it was wrong.

I get why Buchnevich was traded but I just can't bring myself to believe that was the best return on the table.

Just my opinion, I think the Rangers saw a guy in Blais that hits a lot and was on a Cup team, and that was that.

Another shortcut to "identity" from a shortcut owner.

Funny thing is I remember right before that trade happened there were a ton of rumors that Rangers were close to trading Buchnevich for Bo Horvat. Imagine if that deal had gone through.

 

[Ruggs225]

Yeah I don't think the point is to feel bad for the players because they aren't making enough money. The point is that the owners strongarmed the players into a system where 24 of 32 teams are within $2 million of the cap, making it near impossible (or at least giving the GM's an easy excuse to claim that it is near impossible) for there to be any player movement. The point of the cap was never to completely inhibit player movement, but when we have a cap that has hardly moved in 4 years, that is the ultimate result.

As much as I hate it, I do get what Bettman is doing though. He is going to position it as being a near certainty that there will only be a $1m raise unless he is 100% confident that the league will hit the necessary revenue target to raise the cap beyond that. He's basically putting it in the NHLPA's court to come to him with a proposal to live with increased escrow for a little while longer so that they can save the owners from the hard cap that they absolutely needed to have.

But isnt it the GMs fault for still giving out these bad contracts knowing full well that the cap was going to be flat for 2-3 years?

I dont know. There is plenty of blame to go around for this situation including the players.

Im a fan of having a CAP in general, especially since we have such large leagues. Otherwise some franchises never would have a chance. See baseball, where like half the league is a glorified farm teams that have a run for maybe a year or two then lose their entire team bc they cant afford them.

I find hockeys system to be best so far. Though it could definitely need some tweaking. The one change i would make is the ability to have one home grown player (ie drafted by team) to not count against the cap.

 

[Machinehead]

No i just find it bizarre how people get upset at owners making money and think the players who are making a ton of money still are being treated unfairly. Its just really odd.

I personally could care less.

Though i wish the players and owners took 50% cuts so ticket prices and concessions could come down to reasonable levels.

So i guess in the end the fans pockets are suffering. But not the players.

The players are far from suffering but we also shouldn't forget that there are several owners who are worth more than every single player in the NHL put together.

The scale of what owners take vs what players take, combined with the scale of what owners provide (nothing) with what players provide (the entire sport), makes it an extremely one-sided fight, even if one side are millionaires.

And for me, it makes it kind of stomach-turning when the people with everything enter every negotiation with the intention of grabbing every nickel and dime, and they've hurt the game with the intention of grabbing every nickel and dime.

The players rely on this to make it their entire lives. The owners were billionaires before they had NHL teams. They're not the same.

 

[Machinehead]

You also have to keep in mind that the average NHL salary is inflated by the top.

Guys like Panarin, Fox, Zibanejad, Kreider, etc. are RICH.

Jonny Brodzinski might make $3m (gross) playing hockey and then ride off into the sunset at 31 with no experience doing anything else.

It would be nice if a guy like that, say, didn't have to pay into escrow because James Dolan entitled himself to 50% of revenue.