Toggle sidebar

Speculation: Roster Building Thread LVI: Artemi, where art thou? In NY.

  • Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
  • We're expecting server maintenance on March 3rd starting at midnight, there may be downtime during the work.
Status
Not open for further replies.
duhmetreE said:
Hard cap is fine. 50/50 is fine. Escrow is fine.

They need to limit the young players. If the idea is parity, then teams need to be able to afford their young talent for longer. Going to 14% cap after their ELC is bad IMO. A longer ELC would help but I dont think they will go for it. I'd just restrict the 2nd contract to 3-4 year deals, 8-10% max.
Click to expand...

Escrow is not fine. That'll be the battlecry from the players.

I longer ELC is being discussed. The question is- what's a fair structure. Especially for ELCs that overperform. I could see a 4th & 5th year option- with the dollar value for the option being based on an ELC's performance relative to the NHL market. I think that system is fair for players.

One thing I do know is that there may be early arbitration.

The Marner/Nylander situations... they get stuck because there is no medium to negotiate past due to a lack of arbitration rights.

So lots of options to consider. I could also see signing bonus structures or signing bonus buyout penalties be adjusted.

The last issue is going to be post playing career health insurance.

Other than that, there is not a whole lot of issues to drive a lockout.
 
  • Like
Reactions: egelband
duhmetreE said:
The only other would be no cap but luxury taxes.
Click to expand...

This isn't happening. The league's bottom tier teams wouldn't be able to compete. At least in the current system you end up with 2-5 dead teams by December. That would change under a luxury tax.

You'd get the Rangers of old under a luxury tax.
 
Mikos87 said:
Escrow is not fine. That'll be the battlecry from the players.

I longer ELC is being discussed. The question is- what's a fair structure. Especially for ELCs that overperform. I could see a 4th & 5th year option- with the dollar value for the option being based on an ELC's performance relative to the NHL market. I think that system is fair for players.

One thing I do know is that there may be early arbitration.

The Marner/Nylander situations... they get stuck because there is no medium to negotiate past due to a lack of arbitration rights.

So lots of options to consider. I could also see signing bonus structures or signing bonus buyout penalties be adjusted.

The last issue is going to be post playing career health insurance.

Other than that, there is not a whole lot of issues to drive a lockout.
Click to expand...
Then they shouldn't vote to escalate the cap
 
True Blue said:
Strome took his game to a different level under Quinn. Not just in the tangible points but in the way he played the game. He has always had the talent. There is no denying that. Could be he is another player from whom Quinn extracted his potential from. Maybe not. But it is certainly worth a see.

As for Staal, come one. You know full well that the elder statesman in the room deserves respect. Full stop. The best would be if they can speak and his playing time the amount of games he gets dressed for) gets reduced.
Click to expand...

Its become a thing to expect Strome to regress on his shooting but its ignored that he isn't playing in the hot mess of Edmonton for half the season. The biggest argument against him playing 2nd line center is the shooting percentage regression due. But he could play with 2 of Panarin, Buchnevich, Kakko, Kravtsov, Chytil and Kreider. Worst case is one of them and Namestnikov. If he works hard and thinks the game like the veteran he is, and he is motivated in a contract year, he could hit 50 points again.

Shooting percentage drops but quality of play goes up.
 
Mikos87 said:
Escrow is not fine. That'll be the battlecry from the players.

I longer ELC is being discussed. The question is- what's a fair structure. Especially for ELCs that overperform. I could see a 4th & 5th year option- with the dollar value for the option being based on an ELC's performance relative to the NHL market. I think that system is fair for players.

One thing I do know is that there may be early arbitration.

The Marner/Nylander situations... they get stuck because there is no medium to negotiate past due to a lack of arbitration rights.

So lots of options to consider. I could also see signing bonus structures or signing bonus buyout penalties be adjusted.

The last issue is going to be post playing career health insurance.

Other than that, there is not a whole lot of issues to drive a lockout.
Click to expand...

Players hate escrow but 50% is 50%. The alternative is to have a lower cap that guarantees no escrow but that has the risk that if revenue goes up more then expected the players end up getting less than 50%
 
Leetch3 said:
Players hate escrow but 50% is 50%. The alternative is to have a lower cap that guarantees no escrow but that has the risk that if revenue goes up more then expected the players end up getting less than 50%
Click to expand...

The players can’t get less than 50%. The owners put in an escrow fund too. They’ve paid out the players in the past, though not in a while.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leetch3
NYR Viper said:
The only thing that should adjust is tax, both federal and state should be allowed to adjust the salary cap per team.

The idea of having your home grown players not count against the cap make no sense. It would just revert back to big market teams paying their home grown all stars insane amounts of money and poaching other teams players who can’t afford similar contracts.

Also, what’s defined as home grown? Is Fox? What about Hajek? Must the player be drafted by that team or just play his first game for that team? What would happen is more Fox situations where young players decide not to sign only to become free agents and pick large market teams so that they can make more money than otherwise available.

This team has made more than a couple of poor decisions and they are paying for them. That’s the way it should work. Girardi, Staal, Smith and Shattenkirk. An aging Hank who is no longer that perennial all star player. These things will need to be dealt with either via a fortuitous trade, buyout or just time.

Also, let’s not act like the team only signed Panarin. They also acquired a RD in Trouba who they knew wanted a good amount of money long term. Those two together are going to be ~$19m.

This system has been in place for a while, the team knew the rules of the game and made their decisions. Just because it has turned out poorly doesn’t mean they can just request the rules to be changed.
Click to expand...

Just players drafted by your team. Adjusting the cap for those players incentivizes smart development and could actually result in fewer NCAA walkaways as those guys would theoretically not be able to make as much of they signed with a team other than the one that drafted them.
 
The point of the cap is cost certainty and parity through player redistribution. They are never going to form a system where player retention is encouraged. Its finally working the way it was intended, good or bad. Tavares walked from his draft team. Tavares' new team is getting rid of good players to make it fit. Parity.

I don't love it but it's pointless to debate how they should change a single thing that creates parity. It will be on Bettman's grave stone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pld459666
DutchShamrock said:
Its become a thing to expect Strome to regress on his shooting but its ignored that he isn't playing in the hot mess of Edmonton for half the season. The biggest argument against him playing 2nd line center is the shooting percentage regression due. But he could play with 2 of Panarin, Buchnevich, Kakko, Kravtsov, Chytil and Kreider. Worst case is one of them and Namestnikov. If he works hard and thinks the game like the veteran he is, and he is motivated in a contract year, he could hit 50 points again.

Shooting percentage drops but quality of play goes up.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree, but he just isn’t that good though.

He has benefitted from getting weaker opponents and been put in that center spot where he as a RHS can just skate to the net and bang home lose pucks at the far left point. Sure those goals count as much as any other goals, but “anyone” can score them in that role and you want some more.

I have nothing against Ryan Strome, but he is just never any kind of difference maker on the ice. He never causes any concerns for a defense, he isn’t any kind of significant factor defensively, he isn’t very smart on the ice, he isn’t clutch or battles hard and so on.
 
Crease said:
What do they want the owners to do? The players vote to artificially jack up the ceiling 5% every year.
Click to expand...

They haven’t don’t this in many years... ;)

They have rolled back on the escrow for a long time, last season it was like 1.5% and this year it should be smaller. Have anyone BTW heard what the number was?

Edit: Found it, 0.5% this year. That is just 400k. Had they used the same escalator as last season the cap would have been 82.3m.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom