Speculation: Roster Building Thread: Part XLII Time for Curtis Lazar?

[nyr2k2]

Not that the MLS is a model we'd want the NHL to follow, but they do have lots of interesting financial mechanisms to help teams keep their own players and bring in more expensive international talent.

I've always liked the idea of a homegrown player option. Limit it to maybe two guys. The exact mechanism, you could debate endlessly, but basically you tag guys meeting the homegrown criteria and they count less. Maybe 20% or 30% or something.

And then you can have a franchise player or designated player or something. One guy you can designate--whether you drafted and developed him (like McDavid) or acquired him (like Panarin or Zibanejad)--at a lower cap hit. Or, maybe every team has a pool, like $5M annually to designate to a total of up to three franchise players. Maybe you can trade up to half your pool money. Maybe you can bank up to half of that pool money, but never for more than one season in advance. Like if you carry over $3M of the pool into 20-21, you either use it on players that year or lose it for the next year.

Just a couple things like that. I don't want it to be confusing like the NBA or MLS, but I think if you add a couple wrinkles it could make things really interesting. I know it would be argued that this primarily helps large-market, wealthy teams, but the reality is right now 22 teams have spent to within $3M of the cap, and that doesn't include us, LA, Montreal, etc., who would spend more in most years. I think it would reward smart GMs who can get creative, more so than just rewarding teams with money.

Probably not going to happen, but I think things like this could appeal to both owners and players.

 

[Tawnos]

Not that the MLS is a model we'd want the NHL to follow, but they do have lots of interesting financial mechanisms to help teams keep their own players and bring in more expensive international talent.

I've always liked the idea of a homegrown player option. Limit it to maybe two guys. The exact mechanism, you could debate endlessly, but basically you tag guys meeting the homegrown criteria and they count less. Maybe 20% or 30% or something.

And then you can have a franchise player or designated player or something. One guy you can designate--whether you drafted and developed him (like McDavid) or acquired him (like Panarin or Zibanejad)--at a lower cap hit. Or, maybe every team has a pool, like $5M annually to designate to a total of up to three franchise players. Maybe you can trade up to half your pool money. Maybe you can bank up to half of that pool money, but never for more than one season in advance. Like if you carry over $3M of the pool into 20-21, you either use it on players that year or lose it for the next year.

Just a couple things like that. I don't want it to be confusing like the NBA or MLS, but I think if you add a couple wrinkles it could make things really interesting. I know it would be argued that this primarily helps large-market, wealthy teams, but the reality is right now 22 teams have spent to within $3M of the cap, and that doesn't include us, LA, Montreal, etc., who would spend more in most years. I think it would reward smart GMs who can get creative, more so than just rewarding teams with money.

Probably not going to happen, but I think things like this could appeal to both owners and players.

The problem with these kinds of proposals, from the players' perspective, is that they end up increasing escrow, unless you also simultaneously decrease the cap itself.

 

[nyr2k2]

The problem with these kinds of proposals, from the players' perspective, is that they end up increasing escrow, unless you also simultaneously decrease the cap itself.

There are more problems with it than just that. As I said, it's probably unrealistic. Just a fun thing to think about.

 

[romba]

My proposal was the following:

- A homegrown player qualifies for a 5% cap hit discount for each year after the ELC he is on the team, with a max of 25%
- A homegrown player is a player drafted by the team and has not been part of other organizations since
- Once a player moves, his contract is no longer eligible for a discount

This set up emphasizes building through the draft. Let's take Barkov for instance. When he hits his UFA status, he gets to negotiate with different teams. Florida can offer him 12m AAV with only an 8m cap hit. It gives teams a better chance at keeping their team together and competing for a cup while it incentivizes loyalty by a player

25% is waaayyyyy too much. No stars would EVER move. As it is, almost all stars don't make it to FA unless there's some issue (recent injury history etc.) and get resigned by their teams. Max it out at 8-10% cap credit. Gives the player incentive to stay and the team a bit of a negotiation advantage as well, but not too much to make FAs always stay with the same team.

I do like some aspects of how the cap works for the NFL. Guaranteed money and being able to cut guys, you see guys like Brendan Smith who get their money and slack off. Dustin Brown spent the last few years as a top 6 player after spending almost 5 years looking like he was on his way out, so the talent is still there...a lot of those dudes from those Kings teams won their cups, partied and did a bunch of coke. And you know a budget team like Ottawa has been handicapped a bit by Bobby Ryan. There's a lot of flexibility because if you go all in a player with almost all guaranteed money there's a good chance you can't cut him, flipside... A guy like Semin a few years ago would be the perfect example of a guy you could throw a bunch of money to with 0 guaranteed money and if he underperforms.goodbye, good for a budget team

Owners love the concept of non-guaranteed contracts too, players will never go that direction though and I honestly agree. It's super douchey how the NFL works. The NFL players career average is tiny so Player's Union gets bowled over by the NFL due to lack of solidarity and players unable to go a few months without a pay check and the result is non-guaranteed contracts for them. The training and preparation players do to get to the top in these leagues is too much to lose it all to an injury imo. NHL Players would rightfully and literally strike forever over non-guaranteed contracts. They're not shaving off a few years of happy non-dementia life for non-guaranteed contracts. They caved to the Cap demands, and the league AND players has flourished under this system with salaries steadily rising. Everyone won.

 

[SA16]

Not that the MLS is a model we'd want the NHL to follow, but they do have lots of interesting financial mechanisms to help teams keep their own players and bring in more expensive international talent.

I've always liked the idea of a homegrown player option. Limit it to maybe two guys. The exact mechanism, you could debate endlessly, but basically you tag guys meeting the homegrown criteria and they count less. Maybe 20% or 30% or something.

And then you can have a franchise player or designated player or something. One guy you can designate--whether you drafted and developed him (like McDavid) or acquired him (like Panarin or Zibanejad)--at a lower cap hit. Or, maybe every team has a pool, like $5M annually to designate to a total of up to three franchise players. Maybe you can trade up to half your pool money. Maybe you can bank up to half of that pool money, but never for more than one season in advance. Like if you carry over $3M of the pool into 20-21, you either use it on players that year or lose it for the next year.

Just a couple things like that. I don't want it to be confusing like the NBA or MLS, but I think if you add a couple wrinkles it could make things really interesting. I know it would be argued that this primarily helps large-market, wealthy teams, but the reality is right now 22 teams have spent to within $3M of the cap, and that doesn't include us, LA, Montreal, etc., who would spend more in most years. I think it would reward smart GMs who can get creative, more so than just rewarding teams with money.

Probably not going to happen, but I think things like this could appeal to both owners and players.

The problem is the league is never going to go with any of these models because they effectively turn it into a soft cap. It's also bad for the vast majority of players who will make less money due to higher escrow. It would obviously be a great system for the Rangers though.

 

[Leetch3]

.

 

[Blue Blooded]

The problem is the league is never going to go with any of these models because they effectively turn it into a soft cap. It's also bad for the vast majority of players who will make less money due to higher escrow. It would obviously be a great system for the Rangers though.

Making it even better for the Rangers would be changing the status of "homegrown" to a player who made his NHL debut with the team rather than being drafted.

And it makes sense to me since otherwise players like McDonagh and Fox who never even were part of the organizations they were drafted by would not be considered homegrown by the Rangers.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

.

Good point

 

[Avery16]

https://nypost.com/2020/06/09/rangers-mailbag-no-quick-fix-to-jacob-trouba-partner-search/

Brendan Smith impressed everyone with the way he played as Trouba’s partner in the nine games that followed Brady Skjei’s trade to Carolina, but that’s not likely a long-term pairing. Libor Hajek, still just 22, will get a shot to compete for the job (maybe even as soon as next month). So, in time, will Miller.

 

[Oscar Lindberg]

Bless Larry's heart for still saying the team is "rebuilding"

The rebuild ended the day they signed a 30 year old power forward to a 7 year deal

 

[Tawnos]

.

Agreed.

 

[Avery16]

Bless Larry's heart for still saying the team is "rebuilding"

The rebuild ended the day they signed a 30 year old power forward to a 7 year deal

Kreider just turned 29, was 28 when re-signed.

 

[Leetch3]

Agreed.

lol I responded to your comment on escrow and then realized that based on the comment that you were responded to my comment was completely out of context and didn't apply but couldn't delete the post lol

 

[Oscar Lindberg]

Kreider just turned 29, was 28 when re-signed.

Okay fine, an almost 30 year old power forward to a 7 year contract

 

[romba]

Kreider just turned 29, was 28 when re-signed.

we can agree on 'the wrong side 20'

 

[SA16]

Making it even better for the Rangers would be changing the status of "homegrown" to a player who made his NHL debut with the team rather than being drafted.

And it makes sense to me since otherwise players like McDonagh and Fox who never even were part of the organizations they were drafted by would not be considered homegrown by the Rangers.

Yea any system that requires the player to be drafted by the team is very bad because it will decrease the frequency of trades. Why would you swap a pick for a struggling prospect when the pick has the potential to count less on the cap and the prospect doesn't? Same goes for just including picks in trades for rentals.

 

[B17 Apricots]

25% is waaayyyyy too much. No stars would EVER move. As it is, almost all stars don't make it to FA unless there's some issue (recent injury history etc.) and get resigned by their teams. Max it out at 8-10% cap credit. Gives the player incentive to stay and the team a bit of a negotiation advantage as well, but not too much to make FAs always stay with the same team.


Owners love the concept of non-guaranteed contracts too, players will never go that direction though and I honestly agree. It's super douchey how the NFL works. The NFL players career average is tiny so Player's Union gets bowled over by the NFL due to lack of solidarity and players unable to go a few months without a pay check and the result is non-guaranteed contracts for them. The training and preparation players do to get to the top in these leagues is too much to lose it all to an injury imo. NHL Players would rightfully and literally strike forever over non-guaranteed contracts. They're not shaving off a few years of happy non-dementia life for non-guaranteed contracts. They caved to the Cap demands, and the league AND players has flourished under this system with salaries steadily rising. Everyone won.

You're definitely right the PA would never go for it, it doesn't favor the players. If I'm on that side I wouldn't want it. But it's rare to have a job that you can be contracted to perform at a certain level, completely underperform and still have your job. If you have some assignment and instead of preparing for it you do coke, drink and get fat and show up unable to do it, your fired. And by no means am I taking sides, I'm not going to feel bad for some billionaire owner but that's also how you get lockouts. The amount of horrible contracts out there right now is astounding. And that's on both sides, owners giving out horrible contracts, players demanding horrible contracts, players throwing it in. The Sharks alone have 3 potential albatrosses, and every one of those guys some other team would have gave them that contract. Just about every team has at least one

Edit: And ya I agree about the douchness of it, it doesn't need to be strictly like their system, you could put something in place so that all players including lower income guys are guaranteed something in some manner like a percentage, a cutting fee or something along those lines...

 

[GoAwayPanarin]

Bless Larry's heart for still saying the team is "rebuilding"

The rebuild ended the day they signed a 30 year old power forward to a 7 year deal

It ended the second they signed Panarin.

Its straight up a build now and seeing where they are collectively, thats what it should be.

 

[Black Aces]

Bless Larry's heart for still saying the team is "rebuilding"

The rebuild ended the day they signed a 30 year old power forward to a 7 year deal

Who was 30? He was 28 and the deal is structured to be able to get out from under it after 4 years if necessary.

 

[Oscar Lindberg]

edit: nvm

 

[East Coast Bias]

It ended the second they signed Panarin.

Its straight up a build now and seeing where they are collectively, thats what it should be.

Ohhhhh boy did people not want to see it then.

 

[romba]

You're definitely right the PA would never go for it, it doesn't favor the players. If I'm on that side I wouldn't want it. But it's rare to have a job that you can be contracted to perform at a certain level, completely underperform and still have your job. If you have some assignment and instead of preparing for it you do coke, drink and get fat and show up unable to do it, your fired. And by no means am I taking sides, I'm not going to feel bad for some billionaire owner but that's also how you get lockouts. The amount of horrible contracts out there right now is astounding. And that's on both sides, owners giving out horrible contracts, players demanding horrible contracts, players throwing it in. The Sharks alone have 3 potential albatrosses, and every one of those guys some other team would have gave them that contract. Just about every team has at least one

Edit: And ya I agree about the douchness of it, it doesn't need to be strictly like their system, you could put something in place so that all players including lower income guys are guaranteed something in some manner like a percentage, a cutting fee or something along those lines...

If the job your talking about showing up and under-performing for is unionized then you're probably fine lol. The point is you can't really compare high level athletics to regular fields. I can quit my job if I get a more lucrative offer. I'm not drafted by one company and forced to stay for a certain amount of time.

And bad contracts handed out means there's less money for the little guys on those teams, so it balances out. Allowing teams to get out from under their ineptness is not a reason to make contracts not guaranteed. Risk-Reward needs to be evaluated, but many GMs are focused on surviving to the next day and therefore make short-sighted bad decisions. That's on ownership. Make smarter decisions or face the consequences. Freak injuries not withstanding of course.

 

[East Coast Bias]

You're definitely right the PA would never go for it, it doesn't favor the players. If I'm on that side I wouldn't want it. But it's rare to have a job that you can be contracted to perform at a certain level, completely underperform and still have your job. If you have some assignment and instead of preparing for it you do coke, drink and get fat and show up unable to do it, your fired. And by no means am I taking sides, I'm not going to feel bad for some billionaire owner but that's also how you get lockouts. The amount of horrible contracts out there right now is astounding. And that's on both sides, owners giving out horrible contracts, players demanding horrible contracts, players throwing it in. The Sharks alone have 3 potential albatrosses, and every one of those guys some other team would have gave them that contract. Just about every team has at least one

Edit: And ya I agree about the douchness of it, it doesn't need to be strictly like their system, you could put something in place so that all players including lower income guys are guaranteed something in some manner like a percentage, a cutting fee or something along those lines...

People always massively overrate the effectiveness of corporations and "the market" in identifying and removing poor performers or people just bad at their job. In every corporation across America there are absolutely useless people walking around all over the place. People think sales, with specific targeted, easily identified measurements of success when they talk about this - but its nowhere near that cut and dry with most employees and fields.

 

[LiveLongandProspal]

So the Maple Leafs can only pick 1-3 or after the top-10. There's no chance they can pick 4-10.

 

[LokiDog]

Panarin - X - X (Kakko)
Kreider - Zbad - X

Lindgren - Fox
X - Trouba
(DeAngelo)

Shesterkin


The core is in place. Kakko realistically should be a lock to become a top six player. Lindgren is really only there because of the dearth of LHD, while DeAngelo should be here long term but due to the overloaded right side and his contract status I listed him tentatively as well... is he a trade chip to fill one of the X’s in the top-six/top-four? Regardless, those are the big pieces.

We have an interesting range of guys following:

Strome - if he replicates his success and takes a decent contract he ends up part of the core of this new build, for better or worse.

Chytil - ostensibly should be part of the new core but needs to take a more meaningful step forward to cement himself. Could be a top-six C/W.

Buchnevich - very established right now but not a core piece. Could get pushed out with the development of Kakko/Kravstov due to a crowded top-six. Do we pay him to be third line scoring depth? Decision isn’t imminent and he could be a valuable trade piece. Still young.

Kravstov - looks like he should be on track to be a similar player to Buchnevich. Hardly a sure thing, but the potential is still there.

Gauthier - big body who can skate and should be coachable enough to contribute in the bottom six or find his scoring touch and be a complimentary winger on a scoring line. Questions are will he be a third liner, a fourth liner or round into something more that can slot up and down. Should at least have a solid spot somewhere in the lineup.

Lemieux - valuable for several reasons, seems to have the potential to be more, may need coaching/mentorship to hone himself and focus more on being a productive, disruptive force rather than chasing hits and just being an agitator. Should at least be a solid fourth liner who can slot higher but young enough to find another gear.

Andersson - discussions been beat to death. Can he put himself together and be a serviceable 4C? That would be a win at this point. A 3C? One step at a time.

Howden - he’s either a mediocre bottom six guy who can slot around or he takes a step. He’s young and cost controlled and has some tools.

Fast - is he back? Can we pay him? Great utility guy who can play anywhere in the lineup but cap is a concern.


Defensively it’s a lot of questions about prospects. On the surface we have such depth at D in the system we like to project a bunch of internal solutions but realistically, with where we are now in this process, I believe we have to bring in a middle pairing veteran to start making solid playoff pushes and meaningful progress in gaining post season experience while insulating the young guys who may crack the lineup.


Overall, this is truly not a rebuild any longer and much more of a wait and see who takes the right steps and what holes it leaves us with. How JG negotiates dealing from surpluses and addressing those holes as they become more clearly defined in the next 18 months will probably determine if we successfully emerge as a true contender.