Salary Cap: - trouble in cap land? | Page 2 | HFBoards - NHL Message Board and Forum for National Hockey League
Toggle sidebar

Salary Cap: trouble in cap land?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Alberta_OReilly_Fan said:
no I get that... your posts are all attacks on me. I jsut dont think I ever posted anything positive back to you because you simply never are positive. this is the best you ever did and I wanted to give you at least some credit and I doubt you will ever manage anything this good ever again

so lets leave it at that. for you this is a gold standard and I appreciate the effort
Click to expand...
Wrong on so many levels it is laughable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DKH
Glove Malfunction said:
This is why I often don't read your posts. You often come off as high and mighty and condescending, especially when it comes to the salary cap. In the past I've PROVEN you were wrong about something with the cap and you still wouldn't back down.
Click to expand...

I invite you to necro that... show it to me... and make me eat the dirt. otherwise im sorry but I dont really know who you are. I cant remember any exchanges we ever had. and I cant really plead guilty to something I might be wrong on that I have absolutely zero memory.

on the other hand I often post im wrong... I probably do it more than anyone else here. I was a huge poster in that thread where we all had a chance to post what we are wrong about.

my mantra is that EVERYONE IS WRONG MORE THAN 50%

if thats what I say... it applies to me too. sorry... you are beating a dead horse when you say I dont admit im wrong. you are wrong

but when I am right... I will admit im right. I got a huge ego. I like to say when im right. I do it with more words then the next guy. I get told its a wall of text. I dont care. if it bothers you then dont read it

I will say when im right. I will say when im wrong.

if you feel you PROVED ME WRONG then share it and let everyone judge. I dont need to cower my head because someone proved me wrong.

I promise you when people argue finance... or favorite movie... or best fighting style... someone is ALWAYS WRONG. you cant be an opinionated person without being wrong all the time

I fully appreciated that in hockey talk... we are all wrong and the more opinions you share the more often you will be wrong. but im not so chickensht that I would ever keep my opinions to myself just out of fear of being wrong.

and when I am right... I am egostistical enough to admit it... sorry if that offends anyone
 
Alberta_OReilly_Fan said:
I invite you to necro that... show it to me... and make me eat the dirt. otherwise im sorry but I dont really know who you are. I cant remember any exchanges we ever had. and I cant really plead guilty to something I might be wrong on that I have absolutely zero memory.

on the other hand I often post im wrong... I probably do it more than anyone else here. I was a huge poster in that thread where we all had a chance to post what we are wrong about.

my mantra is that EVERYONE IS WRONG MORE THAN 50%

if thats what I say... it applies to me too. sorry... you are beating a dead horse when you say I dont admit im wrong. you are wrong

but when I am right... I will admit im right. I got a huge ego. I like to say when im right. I do it with more words then the next guy. I get told its a wall of text. I dont care. if it bothers you then dont read it

I will say when im right. I will say when im wrong.

if you feel you PROVED ME WRONG then share it and let everyone judge. I dont need to cower my head because someone proved me wrong.

I promise you when people argue finance... or favorite movie... or best fighting style... someone is ALWAYS WRONG. you cant be an opinionated person without being wrong all the time

I fully appreciated that in hockey talk... we are all wrong and the more opinions you share the more often you will be wrong. but im not so chickensht that I would ever keep my opinions to myself just out of fear of being wrong.

and when I am right... I am egostistical enough to admit it... sorry if that offends anyone
Click to expand...
It's not that you like to say it when you're right. it's that you believe you're the smartest guy in the room when it comes to the cap, and you believe your understanding of it is so intense that other people can't possible understand the concepts you put forth. You did exactly that in the post I responded to. And when you're wrong on the cap, you won't admit it. That's why I called you out.

As for the conversation we had, I can't find it. It was at least a couple of years ago, and maybe even before I changed my username. It doesn't matter though. I remember it clearly and it's why I say what I did.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Clint Eastwood
AOF - you're Borrowing Headaches. I think you've over thought this and might've followed your thought process a bit far down the rabbit-hole (we all do it at times) and kind of created a narrative that doesn't really exist nor matter.

A few years back when oil prices dropped, the Canadian dollar dropped, Canadian teams weren't bringing as much to the NHL coffers and The Cap essentially stagnated. The two teams hit hardest by this were essentially the two best big market teams with the deepest rosters - Chicago and Boston. Both teams survived.

Also. I don't think it's healthy for the league for The Cap to jump leaps and bounds every year. It's generally us that are paying for that. Poor teams can't keep up. It's way past inflation. I actually couldn't care less if the league subtracted a half dozen teams.

Lastly. If there's difficulty in the league over the next few years and the inevitable labour dispute. It'll be about second contracts. Especially ones whom were drafted high. They're out of control. Although I hate the whole Tanking methodology more and more teams are taking towards building a team - it really hasn't worked out in The Cap era as teams are gutting their roster to be bad, picking a young star or two, but by the time they're trying to fill-out their roster again these 21-22 year-olds are demanding top dollar, handi-capping bad teams all over again.
 
JRull86 said:
1.5 million is going to screw teams like Tampa who are already in a cap crunch way more than Boston.
Click to expand...

there are teams that wouldnt be effected by a 10 million drop... not a lot... there are some

then theres that argument over what constitutes being affected. joe might say losing boychuk for example was nothing... a second pair dman... didnt matter. would 1.5 mill more cap allowed us to keep boychuk? was that the difference that cost us boychuk? did his loss matter?

some will argue it matters.

I decided to lead off this thread with more of a point then a particular analysis. my point was that people are way too cocksure about the cap. some people say they got it all figured out. some people freak out when the team wont spend to the cap ceiling.

that it me boys and girls.

im the one that cautions we dont know. im the one that points out that teams hire experts and still screw up. im the one that says lets procede with eyes wide open because when they put poison koolaid on the table maybe we shouldnt be drinking

im saying trouble is a coming... simple as that. im saying a lot of teams were already in cap hell even at 83 mill. now im adding to it that the 83 number was fake

im saying that the escrow has been a huge issue for years and I was told it wouldnt matter... and now today it matters.

I am being told that I said this for years... ok... yes... thats what im saying too. but for some reason im being told I worried about nothing. and now today its something

im finally realizing some of you just dont want to know

reminds me of a funny personal story. the wife started drinking peperment tea recently... and she found some chocolate muffins at the same time. a few weeks later she had major stomach issues and needed tums.

so she says to me dont bring home more muffins... they are upsetting me. I said lets look up online because I think it might be the tea.

guess what... peperment can cause stomach problems. its a well known effect. muffins cant

so the wife gets so upset at me and says stop bringing home muffins. she was so intent on drinking that tea that she actually got angry when I showed her it was the problem

make of that story what you will... maybe I shouldnt share it. but, its interesting here how some of you can in one breath accuse me of saying this for years... then in the same breath accuse me of worrying too much... and in the same breath deny its happening as it happens

Netflix just released a shot about Chernobyl... mind numbing stuff... incredible how they show the authorities denying all problems as the place went nucleur. didnt matter what the experts were telling... didnt want to hear it

sometimes people just like to deny the truth and will attact whoever is telling it

I have some good company in history... so I dont get too upset at it
and hell... sometimes I even get a smile from it if a good godfather quote is included
 
Alberta_OReilly_Fan said:
I know edmontons talk is dominated about getting rid of lucic... Russell... other older players... but why? were they truely overpaid?
Click to expand...
Um - yes - the moment they signed. Maybe there's a point there, but those are poor examples.

The only tricky thing I see for the Bruins is trying to trade Moore or Miller if they won't be ready to start the season. Will we need to have that $5.25M on the books when the season starts...
 
The essays, the play of the victim card, and the panic over a difference of 1.5 million dollars in the salary cap really can't make me take this seriously.
 
On top of it all, I just cannot be made to believe that the Bruins (or any of the 30 other teams) have not considered varying caps and what they will need to do to be compliant. I can't take seriously the idea that the cap being possibly 1.5 mil smaller than originally projected is going to catch any NHL team by surprise and have them scrambling to figure out how to survive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ThomasJ13 and Chief Nine
Dr Hook said:
On top of it all, I just cannot be made to believe that the Bruins (or any of the 30 other teams) have not considered varying caps and what they will need to do to be compliant. I can't take seriously the idea that the cap being possibly 1.5 mil smaller than originally projected is going to catch any NHL team by surprise and have them scrambling to figure out how to survive.
Click to expand...

That's why the Bruins have Evan Gold as a full time employee so he can sit in an office and run through all possible scenarios. One thing we as Bruins fans can be sure of, as much crap as Jeremy Jacobs gets about being a chintzy owner, you can bet that he treats the Bruins like a business first and has very competent people like Evan Gold doing what he does.

There's way too much at stake to be "caught by surprise" in this day and age with the amount of revenue involved and you can bet Jacobs and his people are well ahead of all us bozos here on a hockey forum
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Estlin, Donnie Shulzhoffer and Alicat
Dr Hook said:
On top of it all, I just cannot be made to believe that the Bruins (or any of the 30 other teams) have not considered varying caps and what they will need to do to be compliant. I can't take seriously the idea that the cap being possibly 1.5 mil smaller than originally projected is going to catch any NHL team by surprise and have them scrambling to figure out how to survive.
Click to expand...

Except the cap is not $1.5 million smaller. The cap is actually going up $2 million.

The cap is $79.5 million. Any team that prepared beyond that deserves to have their work cut out for them.

There's a reason they announce the cap before July 1. To announce any changes before free agency.

Planning for anything above $79.5 before it's announced is bad business and shame on any team that has done so.

And at no time did the NHL ever say the cap was going to be $83 million. They said it "projected" to be and based on a lot of variables, including the NHLPA invoking the escalator.

If someone is caught with their pants down, I'm glad it's not Don Sweeney and Evan Gold
 
  • Like
Reactions: BBB24, Trizz617, Bruin4 and 3 others
Dom - OHL said:
Except the cap is not $1.5 million smaller. The cap is actually going up $2 million.

The cap is $79.5 million. Any team that prepared beyond that deserves to have their work cut out for them.

There's a reason they announce the cap before July 1. To announce any changes before free agency.

Planning for anything above $79.5 before it's announced is bad business and shame on any team that has done so.

And at no time did the NHL ever say the cap was going to be $83 million. They said it "projected" to be and based on a lot of variables, including the NHLPA invoking the escalator.

If someone is caught with their pants down, I'm glad it's not Don Sweeney and Evan Gold
Click to expand...

Right, I meant 1.5 smaller in regards to the premise of this thread that the reported cap was going to be 83 mil or whatever. The OP to me was silly in that it presupposes that teams were banking on the reported number and are going to be screwed because of it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chief Nine
Dr Hook said:
Right, I meant 1.5 smaller in regards to the premise of this thread that the reported cap was going to be 83 mil or whatever. The OP to me was silly in that it presupposes that teams were banking on the reported number and are going to be screwed because of it.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

But my point is that anyone who prepared for more then a $79.5 million cap is in the wrong business.

No one ever guaranteed that the cap was even going up, let alone to $83 million. Although logic would dictate that with new deals signed by the NHL it would, even if the NHLPA didn't invoke the escalator.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Donnie Shulzhoffer and Dr Hook
Isn't the worst case scenario in terms of the salary cap that they have to bridge the RFAs, can't trade any of their contracts to create more room, and as a result can't re-sign Johansson or other replacement free agent? I mean, we'd all love for them improve the team, but they're not facing disaster if the cap's not as high as projected.
 
Dr Hook said:
Buyout between the two sides? What sort of nonsense is that? A buyout is a one way decision, is it not? I guess they need something to write about other than the game 7 loss.
Click to expand...

I don't know where that site came from but between the endless clickbait titles and the useless/poorly written articles, I am not a fan
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dr Hook
lots of good cap talk on leafs lunch with bob McKenzie today... heard brian burke doing a segment with bob staffer on oilers now yesterday

its interesting that they are starting to wonder how things 'changed' so much as recently as this past year... certainly over the last 2 years. it almost feels like they are saying no one saw this coming

dubas said at Christmas he would match any offer for his rfa... today he said he might have to take the picks...

things are hitting the fan exactly as I predicted. wait until reality is finally fully accepted... once this good problem to have finally splits apart into a million pieces

countdown has begun... 10-9-8-7

and how does it effect McAvoy? how will it effect Charlie coyle resigning? hayes wasnt a rfa but 7 mill for hayes? how can coyle accept a penny less than 6 mill after that?

these things matter... and its turning insane faster than almost anyone say it. new cba just around the corner... and things are unravling right before out eyes
 
one funny comment that keeps popping up is this idea that non ufa years are cheaper. I wonder how long it will take for everyone to stop talking this way. ufa are going to find it harder and harder to get contracts specially with guys like lucic/Eriksson/neal in the news so much as cap dumps... Toronto desperate to move marleau… boston with backes… the buyouts for perry/Phaneuf

its all adding up

ufa contracts are going to be reserved for the truely elite... and meantime depth guys like kapanen and carlo and nylander and so many others are going to get paid more than ufa.

its outdated thinking when media people continue to say that rfa years cost less than ufa

I tell you one thing... this isnt why veterns went through 2 lockouts. the players are now very angry at escrow. they are going to be demanding cost controls on it in the next cba. and as they get frozen out of big contracts as ufa they will realize they will never get that money back they lost in the lockout.

trouble is coming in paradise
 
a good problem to have?

Toronto just gives up this next years first round pick to move marleau. is that the end to their hurting?

obviously they were caught with their pants down about just how expensive it would be to keep Matthews/marner. 2 years ago when marleau was signed they thought it would be around 16 mill at the absolutely most to get Matthews/marner signed. now its going to be 22 or more... and thus they just gave away a first round pick

plus lost depth

ok... some of you were right when you told me it was a good problem to have {oops I mean you were wrong... its not a good problem. its a bad problem. it will get worst}
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Latest posts

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom