Speculation: Roster Building Thread: New Season Edition

[Rongomania]

I feel like no one could have predicted Vesey becoming so effective defensively, but you have to give some credit to Drury. That is literally the exact type of find for the bottom 6 that was needed at $750k cap.

Vesey becoming prime Ruslan Fedotenko is completely beyond hilarious.

 

[TheBloodyNine]

Agreed that cost certainty is the main reason behind the cap.

But the financial results still vary by market and the league is ultimately a collection of 32 owners.

If ~10 teams are on the cusp of profit/loss in any given year, that is a sizable voting block who has an interest in ensuring that the 5-10 most financially successful teams (that spend to the cap, have great ticket sales in good and bad years, and likely earn a substantial profit to boot) don't receive additional advantages that make it harder for those teams on the cusp to attract talent, build a winning team, and drive more gate revenue.

But the thing is nothing the cap does is going to make Arizona more attractive to a player than New York. That's just the reality of the situation. The smaller market teams will always be at a disadvantage because they play in less desirable markets. Cap doesn't change that. If the cap truly affected the parity in this league we would have seen way more smaller market teams win by now. They did the first two seasons of the cap, but after that it is pretty much exclusively large hockey markets who have won championships. The additional advantages are already built in and literally nothing will change that.

 

[bhamill]

They need to be creative with the cap. Even something as simple as UFA players who have played their entire NHL career, or at least the six prior seasons, with the team signing them having their cap hit calculated at 60% of their actual yearly average would be a big deal. UFA years past 35 years of age and older at a 45% cap hit for those players.
Have RFA contracts for players you drafted count at 90% hit.
That's how you keep team roster continuity which is good for the fans.

 

[TheBloodyNine]

They need to be creative with the cap. Even something as simple as UFA players who have played their entire NHL career, or at least the six prior seasons, with the team signing them having their cap hit calculated at 60% of their actual yearly average would be a big deal. UFA years past 35 years of age and older at a 45% cap hit for those players.

How about cap hits calculated based on yearly salary as opposed to AAV? Teams can take a bigger hit up front to get a lesser hit on the backend.

 

[rangersfansince08]

What are the odds we actually get McDavid after Panarin's contract expires?

 

[bhamill]

How about cap hits calculated based on yearly salary as opposed to AAV? Teams can take a bigger hit up front to get a lesser hit on the backend.

That's been manipulated in the past. They changed the rule after Lou abused it with the Kovalchuk contract. But yeah give some flexibility while putting safeguards. Why not?

What are the odds we actually get McDavid after Panarin's contract expires?

Sign me up for McDavid Lafrenierre Kakko...

 

[TheBloodyNine]

That's been manipulated in the past. They changed the rule after Lou abused it with the Kovalchuk contract. But yeah give some flexibility while putting safeguards. Why not?

Keep the same rules as part of year to year salary and what percentage it can be. For example, to use a commonly referenced player here, Patrick Kane would have had a 13.8 mill cap hit in the first three years, then 12 mill, 9.8, 7 and the final two years are 6.9.

 

[rangersfansince08]

That's been manipulated in the past. They changed the rule after Lou abused it with the Kovalchuk contract. But yeah give some flexibility while putting safeguards. Why not?


Sign me up for McDavid Lafrenierre Kakko...

I just realized their contract expire at the same time. Would be interesting. He'd still be in his prime and we'd still have Fox and Shesterkin along with Laf, Kakko, Miller on the roster.

 

[GAGLine]

Isn't the NHLPA influenced by Vets, who are not RFAs. There's an underlying issue when players are getting $8-12M off of their ELC. Who does that effect? The middle and low tiers, ie the majority

Okay, say you limit RFA contracts. There's 2 ways that could work out:

1) The limit applies to only the RFA years included in the contract.
2) The limit applies to all years of the contract signed as an RFA.

With option 1, players would ask for more money in the UFA years to compensate. If they don't get it, why would they agree to sign long term? With option 2, you'd see a lot more players signing shorter term contracts, trying to become UFA as soon as possible so they can sign a new contract without restrictions. You can say goodbye to the long term deals that turn into bargains down the road.

 

[bhamill]

I just realized their contract expire at the same time. Would be interesting. He'd still be in his prime and we'd still have Fox and Shesterkin along with Laf, Kakko, Miller on the roster.

Depending on what happens in EDM and in NY in the meantime, McJesus might WANT to come here all things being equal. As a preference, not just the money...

 

[rangersfansince08]

Depending on what happens in EDM and in NY in the meantime, McJesus might WANT to come here all things being equal. As a preference, not just the money...

It would certainly be good for the NHL to have McDavid in the biggest US market.

I don't expect Edmonton to get better over the next few years. They were screwed once they hitched their future to Nurse and Campbell as their 1D and G.

 

[Ola]

There are percentages of players panning out at certain picks versus percentages of rentals winning Cups.

Beyond those things, which are certainties, it’s preference. Ie, “it’s worth it,” vs “it’s not worth it.”

Every contingency has high and low possibilities.

But I don’t know what he’s talking about because no one has framed things here any different than I have.

I remember being a debate a few years ago defending a statement about how rentals "never" win Cups. It is a bit of a matter of definition and of course a very complex field -- but no matter what, by a very wide margin teams "going all in" on the rental markets fail and the teams that tends to come out on top are the ones who at most add a little depth. Like if we trade for Pat Kane and win a Cup -- wouldn't we become the team who won the Cup having the biggest rental ever?

Like I am sure some of those DRW, Colorado, NJ or Dallas teams won a cup with a big rental before the cap, but heck, even Bourque wasn't a rental. Colorado got him for 2 years and he won his second year. Think NJ won with AlMo as a rental.

Facts are, if we look at the last 10 years, there have been a ton of big TDL moves, but the winning teams have made -- none -- of them. Never added a top 6 forward or a top 4 D, except for LA adding Gaborik who wasn't a big part of that team. The biggest moves are Pitt getting Hagelin, Tampa getting Goodrow and Coleman for their 3rd/4th line, Tampa getting Savard, Chicago getting Vermette for their 3rd line, Chicago getting Handuz for their 3rd line,

The exceptions just proves the rule, you do not win a Cup by making a trade for a big name rental. The last 10 years, there are what, on average 3-4 top 6 forwards or top 4 Ds moved at the deadline. Not one of the teams trading for those players ever won a Cup. Not one.

 

[rangersfansince08]

Bertuzzi would be a good get. He can resign in Detroit if he wants to anyways.

 

[GAGLine]

They need to be creative with the cap. Even something as simple as UFA players who have played their entire NHL career, or at least the six prior seasons, with the team signing them having their cap hit calculated at 60% of their actual yearly average would be a big deal. UFA years past 35 years of age and older at a 45% cap hit for those players.
Have RFA contracts for players you drafted count at 90% hit.
That's how you keep team roster continuity which is good for the fans.

None of that will work. All it does is change whose pocket the money goes in.

Players get 50% of HRR. Period. If certain players count less against the cap, that allows the team to spend over the cap, but that extra money comes out of escrow. The owners are not paying it. The other players are losing it.

 

[Ola]

What are the odds we actually get McDavid after Panarin's contract expires?

200%

 

[rangersfansince08]

200%

Seems low

 

[GENESISPuck94]

The cap is conflicting as a Rangers fan. On one hand it's detrimental to keeping a good team like the one we have now together. On the other hand if there wasn't a cap, would the Rangers start selling off picks and prospects to chase big names like they did prior to the cap?

I wish the NHL would rework the cap so that teams who sign their own UFAs and RFAs don't get penalized.

The cap should only penalize teams that sign or trade for other teams' players. Make it so let's say a team trades for a player with 1 year left on their contract that counts against the cap. But if they resign that player when the contract ends the new contract doesn't count against the cap.

 

[Ola]

Why can’t NHL players shoot from both sideds-right and left? MLB has switch hitters. There were more prominent switch hitters years ago. Bernie Williams. You can learn how to hit lefty or righty. Throwing with both hands is difficult.

I have heard that some players could shoot from both sides before the curved blades, like going back to the 30s/40s. Not sure if its true.

 

[JimmyG89]

Without demoting a player, there will be no deadline deal that the Rangers could really make.



They would need to trim the roster by 1 in order to make this happen. Over time, I think that it needs to be someone like Hunt that gets waived and sent down. It could be that they are trying to decide if Kravtsov can hang on this team. He's healthy and now a scratch. I can't say I disagree, they dominated the Ducks all over the ice.

The Sharks would have been a good game to get Kravtsov in though. Struggling team that has 0 wins. The games after this one get tougher. Maybe gets in for the game against CBJ since they are a little lighter of a team? Colorado and the Islanders will not play that way.

 

[GENESISPuck94]

That's because they are. Even strength numbers below

2021-2022
Goodrow
.7 G/60
.9 A/60

Vesey
.4 G/60
.5 A/60

2020-2021
Goodrow
.5 G/60
1.2 A/60

Vesey
.5 G/60
.4 A/60

Vesey also played on worse teams than Goodrow. Vesey's best seasons were better than Goodrow's best. And Vesey had 3 of those. Goodrow only ever broke double digits in goals once in his career. Vesey did it 3 times.

Neither one are world beaters. But good depth guys. I think Goodrow is overpaid.

 

[Off Sides]

If the NHL and PA wanted to make it easier for teams to keep their core players, they could limit the term length for older players.

Make a ratio where age at signing reduces the max term which can be signed. There is no reason a 30 year old player should be able to sign an 7-8 year deal, as no one expects that deal work out in the later years.

LTIR and Buyouts both come out of the players 50% share, and teams could then use that cap space, they'd otherwise be wasting, on keeping whoever their current core players were.

 

[bhamill]

None of that will work. All it does is change whose pocket the money goes in.

Players get 50% of HRR. Period. If certain players count less against the cap, that allows the team to spend over the cap, but that extra money comes out of escrow. The owners are not paying it. The other players are losing it.

And right now everything counts 100% so none of it works with how things are currently structured. When you restructure it let those overages just come out of the team's pockets INSTEAD OF ESCROW. If that owner wants to spend a little more of his end, under those specific circumstances, allow it. It still keeps other teams from poaching the lower income teams. It's a 50/50 split unless a team/owner WANTS to spend out of his end to RETAIN homegrown players. Just like they can spend out of their end for superior facilities or anything else. We are talking about changing rules here, lets actually change them.

 

[duhmetreE]

Okay, say you limit RFA contracts. There's 2 ways that could work out:

1) The limit applies to only the RFA years included in the contract.
2) The limit applies to all years of the contract signed as an RFA.

With option 1, players would ask for more money in the UFA years to compensate. If they don't get it, why would they agree to sign long term? With option 2, you'd see a lot more players signing shorter term contracts, trying to become UFA as soon as possible so they can sign a new contract without restrictions. You can say goodbye to the long term deals that turn into bargains down the road.

Option 1 can work IMO.

Hypothetically, if it were 10% max, using Fox...

instead of 7 years $66.5M at 9.5M per it would be 7 years - 62.45M
2022-2024 - $8.15M cap hit
2025 - 2029 - $9.5M cap hit

I just don't think there's a benefit to have RFAs, as an org.. Sure you have some control but it's losing it's intended purpose IMO. Maybe eliminate offer-sheets entirely?

Look at a guy like Aaron Judge, he still hasn't signed a long term contract after 7 years in the league. Yankees had the control of the player. After his rookie contract, he got 8.5M, 10.2M and 19M this season.

I don't know the exact ruleset but if Aaron Judge were in the NHL, he would have had a $25-30M contract from 2019. I just think there needs to be certain limits for RFAs...

 

[irishlaxburger2]

Without demoting a player, there will be no deadline deal that the Rangers could really make.



They would need to trim the roster by 1 in order to make this happen. Over time, I think that it needs to be someone like Hunt that gets waived and sent down. It could be that they are trying to decide if Kravtsov can hang on this team. He's healthy and now a scratch. I can't say I disagree, they dominated the Ducks all over the ice.

The Sharks would have been a good game to get Kravtsov in though. Struggling team that has 0 wins. The games after this one get tougher. Maybe gets in for the game against CBJ since they are a little lighter of a team? Colorado and the Islanders will not play that way.

I'm all in favor of trading for Brendan Smith and carrying 21. You basically open up like $7M in deadline cap space just by having him sit out as both our 13F and 7D.

 

[GAGLine]

And right now everything counts 100% so none of it works with how things are currently structured. When you restructure it let those overages just come out of the team's pockets INSTEAD OF ESCROW. If that owner wants to spend a little more of his end, under those specific circumstances, allow it. It still keeps other teams from poaching the lower income teams. It's a 50/50 split unless a team/owner WANTS to spend out of his end to RETAIN homegrown players. Just like they can spend out of their end for superior facilities or anything else. We are talking about changing rules here, lets actually change them.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, yes, the owners could agree to pay that money out of their own pockets, but why would they? They fought through 2 lockouts to put the cap in place and get the 50/50 split. Sure, the rich teams would take advantage of it if it were available to them, but I don't think you'd get enough owners to agree on it.