Salary Cap: - trouble in cap land? | Page 3 | 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:
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}
Click to expand...

Would you stop with this foolishness.

Everyone knew the Leafs would have to shed some salary after this past season. Marleau and Zaitsev were the two most likely candidates. Marleau is gone, they found a taker. Let's not act like the Leafs are the first team to need to add good young assets/draft picks to move out the salary commitment of an older player so they can keep the rest of the group together.
 
Alberta_OReilly_Fan said:
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
Click to expand...
The entire league has problems
 
BruinDust said:
Would you stop with this foolishness.

Everyone knew the Leafs would have to shed some salary after this past season. Marleau and Zaitsev were the two most likely candidates. Marleau is gone, they found a taker. Let's not act like the Leafs are the first team to need to add good young assets/draft picks to move out the salary commitment of an older player so they can keep the rest of the group together.
Click to expand...
Sure, but that’s a shit ton to give up just to be rid of him.
 
BruinDust said:
Would you stop with this foolishness.

Everyone knew the Leafs would have to shed some salary after this past season. Marleau and Zaitsev were the two most likely candidates. Marleau is gone, they found a taker. Let's not act like the Leafs are the first team to need to add good young assets/draft picks to move out the salary commitment of an older player so they can keep the rest of the group together.
Click to expand...

its a good problem to have?
 
DKH said:
The entire league has problems
Click to expand...
will give you credit dan... when we were discussing this 2 years ago you were on board with me... we both made more than 1 post

some other people here {a lot} were pretty adamant that the team would make some great trades because they had so many good players. I said I think its going to be a huge problem to deal with. I was told to shut up because it would be easy and good to have this problem

well... ok... its now the time I was predicting would be a problem and surprise surprise.

its going to get worst... but im pretty satisfied its already going exactly as I said
 
BruinDust said:
Having talented young players that will need to paid isn't a problem.

You make it sound like mediocrity in drafting and developing is a better situation.
Click to expand...

I make it sound like giving guys a % of the contract without an eye at the future... paying rfa like ufa without an eye to the future... that that... those things... werent the good idea

but you didnt get it when I explained it to you 2 years ago... I honestly didnt think you would learn now either
 
Alberta_OReilly_Fan said:
I make it sound like giving guys a % of the contract without an eye at the future... paying rfa like ufa without an eye to the future... that that... those things... werent the good idea

but you didnt get it when I explained it to you 2 years ago... I honestly didnt think you would learn now either
Click to expand...

Explain this to me then.

How is paying UFAs more than RFAs keeping an eye on the future?
 
Giving money to young #1 defencemen and 90+ point players isn't a problem in the slightest. The problem is giving 6 million dollar AAV to bottom-6 plugs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BruinDust
bob27 said:
Giving money to young #1 defencemen and 90+ point players isn't a problem in the slightest. The problem is giving 6 million dollar AAV to bottom-6 plugs.
Click to expand...

Apparently the way to go in a cap system is to stick it to your best young players in the 22-28 age range so you have more cap space to spend on older declining UFAs age 28-36.
 
  • Like
Reactions: finchster and bob27
BruinDust said:
Explain this to me then.

How is paying UFAs more than RFAs keeping an eye on the future?
Click to expand...

well... it is complicated so dont feel too bad

first we look at how unions behave. guys with seniority want to be paid. they are the ones that suffer lost seasons of pay when they negotiate new cba. they are the ones hurt by escrow when new guys get huge contracts. these guys lost a years wage because they thought a new cba would reward them... ok strike 1

now lets look at how merchandise works... and ticket sales to casual ticket buyers in the entertainment world. young hip fans know the most current music... the most cutting edge movie makers... but casual older fans {who still are the majority} like well known brand names and comfortable farmilar heros

so... this is why people like Madonna and bruce springsteen and rolling stones still have the biggest most successful tours. and its why its so important in sports like hockey that want to go from niche to mainstream need to have their famous names still going to the bigger markets.

the entire cap was sold on the idea... you can draft kids and afford to keep them until you become competitive. small market teams wanted to know they could play by the rules and compete.

meanwhile big market teams went along with it because it would mean that the famous names would end up there as they got older.

this was the sales pitch...

but what is the reality???

ok I explained all this many times... you didnt get it then... you probably still dont

but the new cba is coming... and trust me these people know... the vetern members of the union know... the small market teams know... the big market teams know...

it will get explained to the rest of you once the sky has fallen. if you listen to the carnary in the coalmine now you might not be surprised. I wont be surprised. but... im not saying I know how to fix it. its beyond fixing

hell is coming... sorry. sadly a lot of you cheered it along but it was going to come anyhow
 
BruinDust said:
Apparently the way to go in a cap system is to stick it to your best young players in the 22-28 age range so you have more cap space to spend on older declining UFAs age 28-36.
Click to expand...


opps… I guess you do get it. its like how they stuck it to elc contracts in the last cba

you did figure out what will happen in the next cba
 
Alberta_OReilly_Fan said:
well... it is complicated so dont feel too bad

first we look at how unions behave. guys with seniority want to be paid. they are the ones that suffer lost seasons of pay when they negotiate new cba. they are the ones hurt by escrow when new guys get huge contracts. these guys lost a years wage because they thought a new cba would reward them... ok strike 1

now lets look at how merchandise works... and ticket sales to casual ticket buyers in the entertainment world. young hip fans know the most current music... the most cutting edge movie makers... but casual older fans {who still are the majority} like well known brand names and comfortable farmilar heros

so... this is why people like Madonna and bruce springsteen and rolling stones still have the biggest most successful tours. and its why its so important in sports like hockey that want to go from niche to mainstream need to have their famous names still going to the bigger markets.

the entire cap was sold on the idea... you can draft kids and afford to keep them until you become competitive. small market teams wanted to know they could play by the rules and compete.

meanwhile big market teams went along with it because it would mean that the famous names would end up there as they got older.

this was the sales pitch...

but what is the reality???

ok I explained all this many times... you didnt get it then... you probably still dont

but the new cba is coming... and trust me these people know... the vetern members of the union know... the small market teams know... the big market teams know...

it will get explained to the rest of you once the sky has fallen. if you listen to the carnary in the coalmine now you might not be surprised. I wont be surprised. but... im not saying I know how to fix it. its beyond fixing

hell is coming... sorry. sadly a lot of you cheered it along but it was going to come anyhow
Click to expand...

Just a big pile of drivel to avoid answering a simple question. Because you didn't answer my question in any way, shape or form. Just more incomprehensible deflection like you're known for.

Have a nice day and enjoy the draft.
 
Mr. Make-Believe said:
No one, not one person, claimed that Patrick Marleau was a "good problem to have." You can leave that disingenuous BS to yourself.
Click to expand...

I don't believe he ever stated that anyone did.

His point, i think, is that a lot of people kind of poo pooed the notion that there would be severe problems with having a great deal of young RFA, or soon to be RFA, eligible talent.

I have read posts on here that suggested that these types of problems could be dealt with relatively easily, not with having to dump first rounders etc.. but with more equitable talent for talent deals that would balance out rosters.

There is a reckoning coming certainly, the current model is not sustainable for all the parties involved (vets, young players, small market, large market etc..).
 
Over the volcano said:
Vancouver deals a first+ to get JT Miller who had 13 goals last year

Toronto deals a 1st+ to get rid of Marleau who had 16 goals last year
Click to expand...

NHL GM's have been sweetening deals to move bad contracts since the advent of the salary cap. The first deal of this type occurred as far back as 2006, This is nothing new and wasn't even addressed in the subsequent CBA.

There will always be players who are under-performing relative to their contract value.
 
Dreghorn2 said:
I don't believe he ever stated that anyone did.

His point, i think, is that a lot of people kind of poo pooed the notion that there would be severe problems with having a great deal of young RFA, or soon to be RFA, eligible talent.

I have read posts on here that suggested that these types of problems could be dealt with relatively easily, not with having to dump first rounders etc.. but with more equitable talent for talent deals that would balance out rosters.

There is a reckoning coming certainly, the current model is not sustainable for all the parties involved (vets, young players, small market, large market etc..).
Click to expand...

The question is, why do all parties need to be satisfied?

The only party who won't like where this is going, the way it's been going since 2013 and the current CBA, is the mid-tier veteran in the age range of 28-36.

Simply put, less and less of the cap will be allocated for their "class" of player. And the reality is, their value as players in terms of helping teams win is diminishing. So if their value to winning hockey games is diminishing, then they should accept a smaller piece of the pie. Actually seems kind of fair when you think about it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mr. Make-Believe
Dreghorn2 said:
I don't believe he ever stated that anyone did.

His point, i think, is that a lot of people kind of poo pooed the notion that there would be severe problems with having a great deal of young RFA, or soon to be RFA, eligible talent.

I have read posts on here that suggested that these types of problems could be dealt with relatively easily, not with having to dump first rounders etc.. but with more equitable talent for talent deals that would balance out rosters.

There is a reckoning coming certainly, the current model is not sustainable for all the parties involved (vets, young players, small market, large market etc..).
Click to expand...
He's using the Marleau trade as evidence. That they had to give up a first to get out of a bad contract.

Well no shit, Sherlock. Bad contracts suck. In our faces?

The "good problem to have" is drafting good players who contribute to the team and carry value. Yeah, those guys cost money too. And if you're lucky enough to have enough of them that you can't keep em all, some of them have to be dealt. But for value returns because they, you know, carry value. And if you're a good enough at drafting developing and dealing for draft currency, your team can continue a cycle of dealing with that good problem.

Again... Nothing that has anything to do with Patrick f***ing Marleau and his shitty contract that the Leafs never would have had to dump if they never signed it in the first place.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chief Nine and Donnie Shulzhoffer
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Latest posts

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom