GDT: Training Camp 2023

[Raccoon Jesus]

Making a trade in an attempt to improve the team and strengthen a position that has been worked two playoffs in a row is a self-inflicted wound? If that's the case then that standard might as well be applied to any team that makes any move that makes the cap ceiling tight.

no, the self inflicted wounds are

--only being able to address the G position by picking up not one, not two, but THREE below-average NHL journeyman goaltenders;
--not being able to field the starting roster you want because of cap restraints;
--losing at least one NHL-capable forward on waivers because of mismanagement;
--having zero flexibility for suspensions and injury--see TO last year having to play some games with 18-19 players.

The combo of all of the above is awful. Imagine getting a guy banged up on a road trip and pretending you're a contender with an 18 man roster and Cam f***ing Talbot in net.

Don't worry, I'll address the nuance of the teams you listed above next

I'm not going to parse through every single roster move by every team and the prevailing fan board opinion about the purpose and/or ostensible effect of that roster move to try to discern which teams are starting with a short roster because they made choices about shaping their team, which teams are ostensibly morons for trying to upgrade a position, and which teams are starting with a short roster for the hell of it.

Already a quarter of the league is starting with a short roster and not all rosters have been announced. The Kings are not some pariah here.

lmao

"oh no i'm not going to deal with the burden of proof"

don't worry I'll pick a few for you.

 

[Chazz Reinhold]

no, the self inflicted wounds are

--only being able to address the G position by picking up not one, not two, but THREE below-average NHL journeyman goaltenders;
--not being able to field the starting roster you want because of cap restraints;
--losing at least one NHL-capable forward on waivers because of mismanagement;
--having zero flexibility for suspensions and injury--see TO last year having to play some games with 18-19 players.

The combo of all of the above is awful. Imagine getting a guy banged up on a road trip and pretending you're a contender with an 18 man roster and Cam f***ing Talbot in net.

Don't worry, I'll address the nuance of the teams you listed above next



lmao

"oh no i'm not going to deal with the burden of proof"

don't worry I'll pick a few for you.

You're acting as if other teams don't make specific choices about where to allocate resources on the roster. That's how it works in a cap world. The histrionics about this are borderline comical at this point.

There's no "burden of proof" here. The rosters are what they are. Numerous teams have been affected by the stagnant cap. This is not unique.

Your inevitable subjective justifications of how teams arrived at less than 23 players on the opening night roster in manners that are so vastly different than the Kings such that the Kings are the one and only incompetent team starting with a short roster do not change the fact that at least 1/4 of the league is starting with short rosters.

 

[Schrute farms]

I hate to attempt to dispel the TM hates Kaliyev narrative, but....

View attachment 750421

Sure, but if you believe what TM tells to the media, then there is no way they try to move Fagemo thru waivers with how he gushed about him and being a "really good player". A very young, very cheap, former FRP, etc. who you think is a "really good player". Yeah, either they are complete idiots or you should take what they say with a grain of salt.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

The tight cap is affecting many teams, not just the Kings. People are acting as if starting with a short roster is uniquely afflicting the Kings due to mismanagement. Four years of virtually no cap growth has made it difficult for most teams. I guess all these other teams are clowns too?

Vancouver (22):

Carolina (21):

Calgary (22):

Colorado (21):

Minnesota (21):

Dallas (22):

Washington (22):

Added after the initial post:

Boston (21):

okay, so--under the premise that mismanaged teams are 'clowns'--i'm going to assume you aren't holding up Vancouver and Calgary as model franchises, and I think you'll agree that's fair.

In that list you have true final four contenders in Carolina, Colorado, Dallas--two who just emerged from contender status in Boston, Washington. And famously mismanaged Minnesota. Here's where it gets fun.

It didn't stop Vancouver--they actually traded for toughness in Lafferty literally yesterday--when they Kings were shitting their pants. They haven't had to leave anyone off their roster, and are actually only 1 short.

Ditto Carolina, who are actually using their young cheap depth in Jarvis and Jack Drury and don't have any issues fitting in all their literal best players.

Calgary is absolutely a f***ing mess and not a model but they are working in their kids to keep the salaries down. If only....

Ditto Colorado. I guess you can point to their ongoing search for a nails goalie, but that hasn't stopped them from deep runs AND they've still had the flexibility to take swings and make trades.

Minnesota is a mess, add them to the Vancouver and Calgary tier, though at least they're a playoff team with help on the way and the cap hasn't prevented them from icing anyone AND despite cap issues for years Guerin has been creative and capable in making trades.

Dallas, true contender, fantastic mix of youth and vets, and it hasn't stopped them from making moves, they're icing 22.

Washington, I mean they've got patches and edmundson on IR, I think you can argue their contender status but it's pretty clear they're ticking out ovy's last years and they're at 22/23.


In short--the cap hasn't stopped the true contenders from icing their best team or losing good players to waivers. The Kings though--they're one of the only teams who has kneecapped themselves with the cap, being unable to address their goaltending, being unable/unwilling to ice their best contingent of players, and being completely inflexible with further moves. LA is the only team there that lost an NHL capable player to waivers. LA is ALSO the only team there who is carrying 3 goaltenders, and a suspended player--so they're actually projecting to start day 1 with 18 skaters and 3 goalies where most of the others are at 20+ skaters and 2 goalies. They're the only team firmly stuck currently in the blackhole as the teams you've mentioned SHOULD be capping out as they're the 'true' contenders, the teams that have just fallen out of contention and will need to start addressing cap, or the clownshow management teams.

You're acting as if other teams don't make specific choices about where to allocate resources on the roster. That's how it works in a cap world. The histrionics about this are borderline comical at this point.

There's no "burden of proof" here. The rosters are what they are. Numerous teams have been affected by the stagnant cap. This is not unique.

Your inevitable subjective justifications of how teams arrived at less than 23 players on the opening night roster in manners that are so vastly different than the Kings such that the Kings are the one and only incompetent team starting with a short roster do not change the fact that at least 1/4 of the league is starting with short rosters.

okay well then here, in short--

out of all those teams you listed, the Kings are the only ones who
lost an NHL level skater to waivers;
are playing 3 goalies instead of 2;
have 18 skaters (+ suspension) instead of 20+;
AREN'T icing their best players and having to play roster/waiver games to simply ice a team.

Yeah, it's all nuanced. We get it. It's not histrionics to point out shit-tacular foresight, and particularly with the Kings, as a lot of this has been a long time coming and incredibly easy to see. "the cap is affecting other teams too" isn't much of a rebuttal.

 

[Chazz Reinhold]

okay, so--under the premise that mismanaged teams are 'clowns'--i'm going to assume you aren't holding up Vancouver and Calgary as model franchises, and I think you'll agree that's fair.

In that list you have true final four contenders in Carolina, Colorado, Dallas--two who just emerged from contender status in Boston, Washington. And famously mismanaged Minnesota. Here's where it gets fun.

It didn't stop Vancouver--they actually traded for toughness in Lafferty literally yesterday--when they Kings were shitting their pants. They haven't had to leave anyone off their roster, and are actually only 1 short.

Ditto Carolina, who are actually using their young cheap depth in Jarvis and Jack Drury and don't have any issues fitting in all their literal best players.

Calgary is absolutely a f***ing mess and not a model but they are working in their kids to keep the salaries down. If only....

Ditto Colorado. I guess you can point to their ongoing search for a nails goalie, but that hasn't stopped them from deep runs AND they've still had the flexibility to take swings and make trades.

Minnesota is a mess, add them to the Vancouver and Calgary tier, though at least they're a playoff team with help on the way and the cap hasn't prevented them from icing anyone AND despite cap issues for years Guerin has been creative and capable in making trades.

Dallas, true contender, fantastic mix of youth and vets, and it hasn't stopped them from making moves, they're icing 22.

Washington, I mean they've got patches and edmundson on IR, I think you can argue their contender status but it's pretty clear they're ticking out ovy's last years and they're at 22/23.


In short--the cap hasn't stopped the true contenders from icing their best team or losing good players to waivers. The Kings though--they're one of the only teams who has kneecapped themselves with the cap, being unable to address their goaltending, being unable/unwilling to ice their best contingent of players, and being completely inflexible with further moves. LA is the only team there that lost an NHL capable player to waivers. LA is ALSO the only team there who is carrying 3 goaltenders, and a suspended player--so they're actually projecting to start day 1 with 18 skaters and 3 goalies where most of the others are at 20+ skaters and 2 goalies. They're the only team firmly stuck currently in the blackhole as the teams you've mentioned SHOULD be capping out as they're the 'true' contenders, the teams that have just fallen out of contention and will need to start addressing cap, or the clownshow management teams.



okay well then here, in short--

out of all those teams you listed, the Kings are the only ones who
lost an NHL level skater to waivers;
are playing 3 goalies instead of 2;
have 18 skaters (+ suspension) instead of 20+;
AREN'T icing their best players and having to play roster/waiver games to simply ice a team.

Yeah, it's all nuanced. We get it. It's not histrionics to point out shit-tacular foresight.

10 teams now.

 

[bland]

I would also add that you need to look at the quality of players on LTIR and SOIR for those teams, and also compare it with the production those teams are receiving from players either on their ELCs or second contracts.

The Kings developmental plan has cost them so much more than necessary. Their kids aren't being put into position to push veterans out, and other than Arvidsson, there are no spaces anyway.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

10 teams now.

Okay. I've done my part. Feel free to do your homework and show us all how much better the Kings are at this than everyone else, I'd love to be wrong.

My point in the end is the Kings ARE in a unique situation because no one can figure out how to make the cap work without losing players and icing 3 equally shitty goaltenders while even clownshoes franchises like the Canucks are able to trade for toughness yesterday and the true contenders have no problem icing their best rosters INCLUDING stud youths. while the Kings are here in no man's land trying to figure out how to sneak down their remaining 1st /2nd round picks and a goalie while icing barely enough players to start a game.

 

[Fishhead]

If adding PLD means we struggle a bit with suspensions or lose a tweener on waivers, it's fine with me. He's worth it in my eyes.

All of the little stuff doesn't really matter right now, the main impact is cap space for a goaltender. But PLD or no PLD, it was going to be a big challenge to have cap space for a really good one anyway. There aren't many in the league and teams tend to not trade them unless right up against UFA. The difference between the PLD trade certainly wasn't close to enough to retain Korpisalo, who got $4M.

Any recent move isn't the reason for the current cap hell, that was the poison pill to get rid of Peterson. This is a minor inconvenience compared to that mess of a contract.

 

[bland]

Are we also excluding the Provorov retention here? That entire deal was the result of piss poor management.

 

[bland]

If adding PLD means we struggle a bit with suspensions or lose a tweener on waivers, it's fine with me. He's worth it in my eyes.

All of the little stuff doesn't really matter right now, the main impact is cap space for a goaltender. But PLD or no PLD, it was going to be a big challenge to have cap space for a really good one anyway. There aren't many in the league and teams tend to not trade them unless right up against UFA. The difference between the PLD trade certainly wasn't close to enough to retain Korpisalo, who got $4M.

Any recent move isn't the reason for the current cap hell, that was the poison pill to get rid of Peterson. This is a minor inconvenience compared to that mess of a contract.

Its a never-ending series of "minor inconveniences".

 

[tigermask48]

This whole off season feels like the professional equivalent of me making a bunch of trades and signings in EHM only to realize the day before the season starts that I have 55/50 players under contract, can't send anyone to juniors, and have 9 goalies under contract.

 

[King'sPawn]

I'm not going to parse through every single roster move by every team and the prevailing fan board opinion about the purpose and/or ostensible effect of that roster move to try to discern which teams are starting with a short roster because they made choices about shaping their team, which teams are ostensibly morons for trying to upgrade a position, and which teams are starting with a short roster for the hell of it.

Already a quarter of the league is starting with a short roster and not all rosters have been announced. The Kings are not some pariah here.

It's pretty easy just to see transactions.

Out of Calgary, Vancouver, Minnesota, Dallas and Carolina did 1-for-1 trades, if any trades at all.

Washington traded a third and seventh round pick for Edmundson. He's also injured and will likely be on LTIR once they can.

Now, Colorado DID make a few trades, but they're also expected to be able to go over the cap once the season starts, as Landeskog will go on LTIR.

Boston traded multiple players for Ian Mitchell and Regula, who are making league minimum. They traded out Hall and Foligno. So, they traded away $10 million in salary for $1.5.

So all the teams you listed, quickly checking, either:
- didn't trade depth for a single player
- didn't trade anything at all, and were tryingbto retain salary.
- traded more salary out with all of their trades
- have LTIR to lean on after the season starts.

 

[Chazz Reinhold]

Okay. I've done my part. Feel free to do your homework and show us all how much better the Kings are at this than everyone else, I'd love to be wrong.

My point in the end is the Kings ARE in a unique situation because no one can figure out how to make the cap work without losing players and icing 3 equally shitty goaltenders while even clownshoes franchises like the Canucks are able to trade for toughness yesterday and the true contenders have no problem icing their best rosters INCLUDING stud youths. while the Kings are here in no man's land trying to figure out how to sneak down their remaining 1st /2nd round picks and a goalie while icing barely enough players to start a game.

Nowhere did I say the Kings were better at this than everyone else. You're making up a position to argue with. I pointed out that all teams on are the equal footing of several years of stagnant cap growth. The effect of the stagnant cap growth is that teams have to make choices about how to allocate money and how to construct a roster.

I'll put this a different way: if each team could start with 23 players on the roster today no matter what, do you think teams would voluntarily choose to be starting with less than that?

 

[Fishhead]

I would also add that you need to look at the quality of players on LTIR and SOIR for those teams, and also compare it with the production those teams are receiving from players either on their ELCs or second contracts.

The Kings developmental plan has cost them so much more than necessary. Their kids aren't being put into position to push veterans out, and other than Arvidsson, there are no spaces anyway.

For sure, those ELC's make it much easier.

But there are still ways to screw that up. Ottawa is 63K under the cap right now with 20 rostered players. And Sanderson gets a $7M raise next year, more than their 3 UFA's that are up combined. They do have some penalties falling off which will help.

I'm kind of glad they handed out those high value contracts, though. Not that those players aren't worth it, but using the leverage they had could have saved them at least $5M. Multiple cup potential if they would have done that.

 

[Chazz Reinhold]

It's pretty easy just to see transactions.

Out of Calgary, Vancouver, Minnesota, Dallas and Carolina did 1-for-1 trades, if any trades at all.

Washington traded a third and seventh round pick for Edmundson. He's also injured and will likely be on LTIR once they can.

Now, Colorado DID make a few trades, but they're also expected to be able to go over the cap once the season starts, as Landeskog will go on LTIR.

Boston traded multiple players for Ian Mitchell and Regula, who are making league minimum. They traded out Hall and Foligno. So, they traded away $10 million in salary for $1.5.

So all the teams you listed, quickly checking, either:
- didn't trade depth for a single player
- didn't trade anything at all, and were tryingbto retain salary.
- traded more salary out with all of their trades
- have LTIR to lean on after the season starts.

Does this selective parsing of certain moves change the fact that those teams are starting with less than 23 players?

 

[Fishhead]

Its a never-ending series of "minor inconveniences".

Yes, but it could be worse. There are teams that are worse than the Kings in worse shape, and our cap position will improve drastically over the next 2 years.

 

[GoldenBearHockey]

Does this selective parsing of certain moves change the fact that those teams are starting with less than 23 players?

It's useless to argue with them, they put their fingers in their ears and shout nah nah nah nah, not one of them have the sense of f***ing acorn,

Out of everyone, Herby is probably the only one who can put together a sensible argument, even though we disagree most of the time, the other f***ing acorn's just have an irrational hate of Blake and refuse to recognize that nearly all the clubs do the same shit, but because Blake does it, he's a f***ing moron....And Herby (I'm not really talking about development, so there is that)

 

[FSL KINGS]

Y'all freaking out way too much. Have we forgotten about the cap shenanigans last time the King's were being competitive? This isn't cap mismanagement. If you aren't getting creative & moving guys to the AHL constantly & exploiting LTIR, you aren't doing it right. Blake has crammed as much as possible under the cap & will try to add a goalie at the deadline. If they qualify for the playoffs, who cares about daily AHL demotions.

We're losing it over a 4 million, 30 point forward & a bunch of fringe NHL'ers moving on? Kupari, Vilardi, Durzi, Fagemo, JAD (Cleared waivers)

 

[King'sPawn]

Does this selective parsing of certain moves change the fact that those teams are starting with less than 23 players?

I literally did your work for you, since you wouldn't put in the effort.

The OTHER teams with less than a 23-man roster either already have an active plan and/or didn't sacrifice depth with cap constraints. They took corrective actions, or avoided trades that would have put them in a worse position.

No other team presented is starting with a less than 23-man roster traded depth for a single player at a time when the cap wasn't projected to go up much. AND sign that player for a higher cap hit than the aggregate of salaries he traded out for him.

So, aside from the other teams with a less than 23-man roster, list ways they are the same as the Kings. You can do your own work this time if you want to make a claim.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Does this selective parsing of certain moves change the fact that those teams are starting with less than 23 players?

I love your posts and appreciate you a lot so please take this as at your posts over the last page, not at you.

Sorry, this is bullshit. you keep moving the goalposts and started a line of argument you don't care to back up--and when others do your homework for you, you change the hypothesis? Sorry, that's not gonna fly for me, especially calling it "selective parsing." That's just f***ing rude. You don't like it? Do the digging yourself. you don't want to do the digging? Fine, you'd better not be insulting others that are actually looking.

You initially responded to my calling the Kings clown management. It wasn't JUST starting with less than 23 players, they have backed themselves into a unique corner demonstrated over the last page or so in a variety of manners.

Look, it's not the end of the world. As @Fishhead says, there are teams in worse cap shape. However, I'd like to think we have a higher bar than "it could be worse" for our management that's been in place for 5+ years and inherited a championship infrastructure and wants to contend this year.

Y'all freaking out way too much. Have we forgotten about the cap shenanigans last time the King's were being competitive? This isn't cap mismanagement. If you aren't getting creative & moving guys to the AHL constantly & exploiting LTIR, you aren't doing it right. Blake has crammed as much as possible under the cap & will try to add a goalie at the deadline. If they qualify for the playoffs, who cares about daily AHL demotions.

We're losing it over a 4 million, 30 point forward & a bunch of fringe NHL'ers moving on? Kupari, Vilardi, Durzi, Fagemo, JAD (Cleared waivers)

No one cares about paper moves, but we aren't talking about maximizing space by shuttling Laferriere back and forth via fax machine.

We're annoyed to be in a position to NOT ice our best roster, NOT address the goaltending, be starting a 'contending' season with essentially goalie tryouts, have zero flexibility for an ELC player getting suspended, and lose players to waivers, all symptoms of the cap no other contending team seems to have an issue with.

And we're REALLY annoyed to show how other teams are managing better only to be told "nuh uh" with no proof or further analysis. That's some Axl/GBH level discussion.

 

[Chazz Reinhold]

I literally did your work for you, since you wouldn't put in the effort.

The OTHER teams with less than a 23-man roster either already have an active plan and/or didn't sacrifice depth with cap constraints. They took corrective actions, or avoided trades that would have put them in a worse position.

No other team presented is starting with a less than 23-man roster traded depth for a single player at a time when the cap wasn't projected to go up much. AND sign that player for a higher cap hit than the aggregate of salaries he traded out for him.

So, aside from the other teams with a less than 23-man roster, list ways they are the same as the Kings. You can do your own work this time if you want to make a claim.

That's not doing my "work" for me; those are your subjective justifications for those moves, much as your personal dislike of the Dubois trade paints the trade as a negative on the Kings' ledger. Not everyone agrees that the Dubois trade was an inefficient swap of players and salaries. (Moreover, we've already seen the limitations of the roster that had those three players you appear to prefer over Dubois.) They are the same as the Kings because they had to make choices specific to those teams on how to construct their rosters such that they could not start the season with 23 players. It's pretty simple.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Relatedly, the Kings haven't released the final roster yet, so looking forward to whatever shenanigans make it fit.

 

[Chazz Reinhold]

I love your posts and appreciate you a lot so please take this as at your posts over the last page, not at you.

Sorry, this is bullshit. you keep moving the goalposts and started a line of argument you don't care to back up--and when others do your homework for you, you change the hypothesis? Sorry, that's not gonna fly for me, especially calling it "selective parsing." That's just f***ing rude. You don't like it? Do the digging yourself. you don't want to do the digging? Fine, you'd better not be insulting others that are actually looking.

You initially responded to my calling the Kings clown management. It wasn't JUST starting with less than 23 players, they have backed themselves into a unique corner demonstrated over the last page or so in a variety of manners.

Look, it's not the end of the world. As @Fishhead says, there are teams in worse cap shape. However, I'd like to think we have a higher bar than "it could be worse" for our management that's been in place for 5+ years and inherited a championship infrastructure and wants to contend this year.

Neither of you have done my "homework." You have offered your own interpretations of what other teams have done. That's not proof of anything. The fact is that now more than 1/3 of the league is starting the season with under 23 players on the roster.

And I don't take your opposition to my posts personally. I don't expect everyone here to agree with every single thing.

 

[Fishhead]

One thing to keep in mind with the current cap juggling going on is that the biggest difference between the Kings situation and Vegas is that they would have had someone on LTIR by now.

It's pretty close to a requirement to push the envelope capwise if you want a shot to win anything. So I do take solace in the fact that the Kings certainly don't seem afraid to do everything at their disposal to ice the best lineup possible.

I also hope they exploit every possible loophole.

 

[King'sPawn]

That's not doing my "work" for me; those are your subjective justifications for those moves, much as your personal dislike of the Dubois trade paints the trade as a negative on the Kings' ledger. Not everyone agrees that the Dubois trade was an inefficient swap of players and salaries. (Moreover, we've already seen the limitations of the roster that had those three players you appear to prefer over Dubois.) They are the same as the Kings because they had to make choices specific to those teams on how to construct their rosters such that they could not start the season with 23 players. It's pretty simple.

I literally asked if any team has made a trade like the Kings recently to put them in the same position. You said "I'm not going to look into that." So I did. That's doing your work.

Saying it's because I dislike the PLD trade is reductive bullshit, because I also dislike the Fiala trade. Notice how I didn't just bring up other moves I dislike?

I chose circumstances that illustrate that the Kings icing a less than 23-man roster was completely avoidable by not bringing in a huge contract, specifically at the cost of 3 smaller ones.

The other teams did not use the same decision tree as the Kings did at a time when they had a good idea of what the cap would be. Do you have an example of a team doing the same? If yes, I'll gladly agree that it was a stupid decision by them, too.