Vegas about to circumvent cap again? UPD: Mark Stone back practicing.

[Panteras]

"One pie" - one season, whether it's just the regular season or "regular season + playoffs."

I see, but I must apologize as I still don’t get how this supposedly explains away what I was trying to say. Either extend the cap artificially to be the same in the playoffs as it is on a daily basis in the regular season or if you “must calculate” and “math it up” then calculate it all together as a season being from day one of regular season to the theoretical last day that the SC finals could take place.

Then we don't have to worry about daily cap calculations. That then leads to "the cap hits of the guys on the roster can't exceed [some amount] at any point in time in the playoffs" arguments, which I've explained a couple times now creates a new set of problems.

Sorry, can you explain to me in simple terms what set of new problems this would create exactly?

OK, we'll make a cap on roster size in the playoffs. Because of your response to #2, we're back to "the cap hits of the guys on the roster can't exceed [some amount] at any point in time in the playoffs" and the problems that get created from it.

Waiting to hear how it’s problematic

You didn't answer the "you have to pick some amount" part. Gonna be critically important. And, I'll repeat yet again: it has to set at a point such that teams who permissibly added guys in the regular season and stayed cap compliant are still able to use those same players in the playoffs.

What is the amount that you’re asking that consists of # of players X # of games. The cap? And why is it a necessity to base it off of this?

Let me ask you, when the cap goes up in a few years or whenever it is, are the # of games and roster sizes also changing? Not asking as a rhetorical question, genuinely asking.

1. Injuries are always predictable.

Oh, wait - they're not. So you're telling teams "no matter how smartly you manage and calculate, if you have a rash of injuries and end up exhausting your cap space out of necessity, f*** you guys; you should have planned better for that."

2. Teams already calculate and consider how they're going to fit guys in with respect to LTIR. You and others are demanding they play by a set of rules in the playoffs that don't apply in the regular season, where they can permissibly add players - by trade, call-up, waiver claim or signing - due to LTIR.


This is like comparing fishing in the Gulf of Mexico is to camping in Minnesota. The fact that they're both outdoor activities doesn't make them the same thing.

you’re saying teams can’t do call ups in the playoffs? Surely I must be missing something because just in the SC finals the Panthers used a bunch of AHL players. I don’t understand why you’re so fixated in dealing with injuries only by what is allowed in the regular season by means of singing or a trade. I mean, even then when’s the last time a team dealt with an injury with an immediate signing or trade for their next game anyway? Teams have like 50 players under contract..why couldn’t we just simply call the next man up and fit him within the cap for your next game? This happens all the time. The only thing I can imagine I’m missing is that teams must have a taxi squad set for the playoffs and could only pick from those. I mean even then you must be really unlucky to run through it…or simply don’t have that rule…just be allowed to pick from your entire list of players under contract that you bring up to the playing roster. Again I don’t see how it’s so complicated?

 

[Umingmak]

Simple solution: Make LTIR a season ending designation. Any player placed on LTIR is ineligible to return to the lineup until the following season.

 

[Vegas07]

Yeh it’s conspiracy theory that’s all it is. Except every fan outside of Vegas thinks it bull shit. I’d post a picture of 3 people wearing Homer Glasses in reply but I don’t want to waste the effort.

Maybe the Teams and GMs that asked the League to look into this blatant cap cheating as reported by Friedman are wearing their tin foil hats as well.

Where’s the proof that every fan outside of Vegas thinks it’s bs? How do we know it isn’t just a small percentage of vocal haters?

I’ve seen people recently say with certainty that the Super Bowl was staged. Some of the comments here remind me of that. People willing to believe things with no evidence.

 

[mundyc3]

Y'all still think this is a perk? Have half an AHL team out there and getting hosed as expected.

 

[Vegas07]

Y'all still think this is a perk? Have half an AHL team out there and getting hosed as expected.

Like I said we look more like a team that could miss the playoffs than a team that will win a cup. Even if we make the playoffs we could easily get beat up in the first round.

 

[Three On Zero]

Y'all still think this is a perk? Have half an AHL team out there and getting hosed as expected.

Circumvention working as intended

 

[TheNumber4]

Where’s the proof that every fan outside of Vegas thinks it’s bs? How do we know it isn’t just a small percentage of vocal haters?

I’ve seen people recently say with certainty that the Super Bowl was staged. Some of the comments here remind me of that. People willing to believe things with no evidence.

No proof cause no one does scientific polling for that. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. An obvious observation was made. But let’s ignore my hyperbole, and call it alot of fans cause a lot of fans do think this is complete bullshit. Or is this 17 page thread just filled with well wishes for Stone?

 

[Ted Hoffman]

I really want to pick apart everything, but let's just stop right here. Presuming the cap is $85 million for everything discussed below:

Either extend the cap artificially to be the same in the playoffs as it is on a daily basis in the regular season

What is going to be different with this? It's like saying "I have an idea, let's extend time so that hours today are just like hours tomorrow." You're not explaining what "problem" is getting "solved" here.

The only thing I can discern out of this is that, if the regular season cap is $85 million, you want "every team has to stay under $85 million in the playoffs too" without explaining how anyone is going to know whether a team is under $85 million in the playoffs.

If it's "well, no team can have $85 million in cap hits on its roster in the playoffs" we're back to the arguments I've shot down repeatedly by pointing out teams can have cumulative cap hits above $85 million but still be completely cap compliant in the regular season, but now it's the playoffs and you're telling teams "even though that roster was perfectly legal in the regular season, you cannot use the same exact roster in the playoffs because the total cap hits are too much." And the implementation of that idea for the playoffs rips the guts out of the in-season cap process because "cap savings" for adding players as needed is pointless - teams always have to have cumulative cap hits under $85 million - and effectively makes the cap an incredibly hard cap. [And if you think people think the trade deadline has been boring recently, it will grind to a goddamn halt.]

If it's something else, you're going to have to explain this in semi-excruciating detail to show this isn't "I'm lobbing an idea out without thinking more than 2 seconds about it."

or if you “must calculate” and “math it up” then calculate it all together as a season being from day one of regular season to the theoretical last day that the SC finals could take place.

Again, what is going to be different with this? If we decide we're not going to account for the cap over 190 days, we're going to account for it over 250 days instead, what "problem" is getting "solved" here? You're not suggesting changing rules on how the cap works, you're just saying "the same rules apply but I want to divide by a different number" as if whether we divide by 190, 250, 365.25 or 1 and then add up all the pieces somehow results in different numbers depending on the divisor.

Maybe you need to go do [a lot] of research on the cap and a ton of other stuff before you come back and try to discuss this. Maybe you need someone else to help explain things [a lot] better. I don't know. But I do know you're doing a really poor job of explaining things, and you're lobbing out "solutions" that don't fix anything and create more potential problems than the alleged problems you're trying to solve, and if someone is going to come up with something I'd like to see the alleged problem addressed as simply as possible instead of trying to come up with more rules than I have to manipulate data I work with for the various ways I have it get used at work.

 

[Three On Zero]

Is this topic even worth keeping open when it’s all just pure speculation and both players have been deemed to have legitimate injuries?

 

[Vegas07]

No proof cause no one does scientific polling for that. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. An obvious observation was made. But let’s ignore my hyperbole, and call it alot of fans cause a lot of fans do think this is complete bullshit. Or is this 17 page thread just filled with well wishes for Stone?

Obvious observation? Our team sucks right now and I expect to see them fall behind the Oilers and Kings in the standings. We look like an AHL team tonight and one reason is we have too many AHL players in the lineup.

If you team plays the Knights soon, enjoy it because your team will be kicking ass.

Could it be that a lot of fans are just pessimistic and like to complain? Maybe a lot of fans have emotional reactions and hate other teams.

I don’t see the Oilers biggest stars finding their way to the injured list soon so they can load up for a big postseason run.

 

[Three On Zero]

Obvious observation? Our team sucks right now and I expect to see them fall behind the Oilers and Kings in the standings. We look like an AHL team tonight and one reason is we have too many AHL players in the lineup.

If you team plays the Knights soon, enjoy it because your team will be kicking ass.

Could it be that a lot of fans are just pessimistic and like to complain? Maybe a lot of fans have emotional reactions and hate other teams.

I don’t see the Oilers biggest stars finding their way to the injured list soon so they can load up for a big postseason run.

They were 2-9-1 when McDavid was supposedly injured, imagine if he was completely out

 

[TheNumber4]

Obvious observation? Our team sucks right now and I expect to see them fall behind the Oilers and Kings in the standings. We look like an AHL team tonight and one reason is we have too many AHL players in the lineup.

If you team plays the Knights soon, enjoy it because your team will be kicking ass.

Could it be that a lot of fans are just pessimistic and like to complain? Maybe a lot of fans have emotional reactions and hate other teams.

I don’t see the Oilers biggest stars finding their way to the injured list soon so they can load up for a big postseason run.

A regular season slump doesn’t mean much when the goal is the Cup. Sorry not buying that argument, the Knights have proven they can win without their Star players. They also have reinforcements coming in from the TDL just around the around. So this momentary lapse in roster strength is just that, momentary and temporary. A lapse in roster strength that can be easilly absorbed by a still-strong team that’s already banked lots of points to make the playoffs.

No what it is, is that Fans invest time and passion in this sport. And all they expect is a FAIR shot to win. That is a basic expectation of all fans following a sport. Who wants to invest in a rigged sport? No one.

 

[Ninety7]

Is this topic even worth keeping open when it’s all just pure speculation and both players have been deemed to have legitimate injuries?

You’ve contributed to this thread with dozens of posts.

Maybe you should take your own advice, but I don’t see that happening as you can’t demonstrate any self control when it comes to Oilers fans.

 

[snag]

You're now creating a 2-tier system

It would seem we already have it.

 

[snag]

Is this topic even worth keeping open when it’s all just pure speculation and both players have been deemed to have legitimate injuries?

This isn't about the legitimacy injuries.

 

[fsanford]

This is incredibly stupid.

If a player breaks his arm in mid March and is out until the end of April, why should he lose his playoff eligibility?

If he breaks his Arm in March put him on IR not long term IR.
You call up someone from the minors
This is about LTIR and cap circumvention.

Not to hard to figure out, well for some it might be.

 

[Panteras]

I really want to pick apart everything, but let's just stop right here. Presuming the cap is $85 million for everything discussed below:


What is going to be different with this? It's like saying "I have an idea, let's extend time so that hours today are just like hours tomorrow." You're not explaining what "problem" is getting "solved" here.

The only thing I can discern out of this is that, if the regular season cap is $85 million, you want "every team has to stay under $85 million in the playoffs too" without explaining how anyone is going to know whether a team is under $85 million in the playoffs.

If it's "well, no team can have $85 million in cap hits on its roster in the playoffs" we're back to the arguments I've shot down repeatedly by pointing out teams can have cumulative cap hits above $85 million but still be completely cap compliant in the regular season, but now it's the playoffs and you're telling teams "even though that roster was perfectly legal in the regular season, you cannot use the same exact roster in the playoffs because the total cap hits are too much." And the implementation of that idea for the playoffs rips the guts out of the in-season cap process because "cap savings" for adding players as needed is pointless - teams always have to have cumulative cap hits under $85 million - and effectively makes the cap an incredibly hard cap. [And if you think people think the trade deadline has been boring recently, it will grind to a goddamn halt.]

If it's something else, you're going to have to explain this in semi-excruciating detail to show this isn't "I'm lobbing an idea out without thinking more than 2 seconds about it."


Again, what is going to be different with this? If we decide we're not going to account for the cap over 190 days, we're going to account for it over 250 days instead, what "problem" is getting "solved" here? You're not suggesting changing rules on how the cap works, you're just saying "the same rules apply but I want to divide by a different number" as if whether we divide by 190, 250, 365.25 or 1 and then add up all the pieces somehow results in different numbers depending on the divisor.

Maybe you need to go do [a lot] of research on the cap and a ton of other stuff before you come back and try to discuss this. Maybe you need someone else to help explain things [a lot] better. I don't know. But I do know you're doing a really poor job of explaining things, and you're lobbing out "solutions" that don't fix anything and create more potential problems than the alleged problems you're trying to solve, and if someone is going to come up with something I'd like to see the alleged problem addressed as simply as possible instead of trying to come up with more rules than I have to manipulate data I work with for the various ways I have it get used at work.

You’re seriously over complicating things. Teams literally have had to play games with a reduced squad during the regular season because they weren’t cap compliant. One such team was none other than Vegas. You can extend the same concept to the playoffs. Deal with your decisions. Forget all this accrual stuff during playoffs. I mean some teams could just play 4 games and you’re worrying about how we’re going to account for cap accruals…Teams simply should just learn to live and deal with their decisions or simply don’t go and get a new shiny toy. Use the players you have under contract and improve your team during the offseason. Or if you wanna use cap space saved for a trade then calculate how your overall roster is gonna look like to fit your new acquisition. Or if injuries happen then do what you think is best. If you wanna replace Kucherov with a trade for another Kucherov and active them both once healthy then so be it, but then your whole bottom 6 might be AHLers you have under contract to be cap compliant. Or simply put a minimum # of games that must be played in regular season to feature in the playoffs if you’re LTIR. Or penalize a team’s cap the following season for however much they went over in the playoffs. Or…end LTIR relief, tough luck…. I mean a bunch of different things can be easily done.

Now with that said, I understand that the owners and players association wouldn’t like any of this and would whine about it, but that’s another story…

 

[DownIsTheNewUp]

If he breaks his Arm in March put him on IR not long term IR.
You call up someone from the minors
This is about LTIR and cap circumvention.

Not to hard to figure out, well for some it might be.

With what cap space? If a guy goes on IR, they still count against the cap. If a team is already against the cap they wouldn't be able to fill out their roster.

 

[TheBeard]

You're so close to getting it.


Yeah, how f***ing dare Vegas want to win as quickly as possible. They should have suffered and been shit like a proper expansion team.

Really should have gone all-in and picked only the shittiest of available players in the expansion draft and rebuffed everyone's trade offers where Vegas would take a player for another team or not take a player from a certain team. Goddamn selfish prick bastards.

Hey. They made their bed and the only way to fix it now is via trades. This team is gonna look uuuuuugly in a couple years.

 

[TheSuperElite]

what a surprise lmao, can't win a cup under the cap

 

[Ted Hoffman]

You’re seriously over complicating things.

No, I'm not. I'm trying to apply consistency if we're making up a rule, not create new problems that unfairly punish teams for completely legal behavior because we're trying to punish some team for perceived unfairness. I'm certainly not trying to pretend dividing by a different number and then adding everything back up magically comes up with a different answer.

The rest of your post is a non-answer to the questions I asked. Which is OK, I'm fine if you don't have an answer, but I'd rather you concede that than continue to lob remarks that have nothing to do with the original question and response and instead raise the usual complaints.

It would seem we already have it.

Life isn't fair.

I know I keep saying this and eventually someone's going to get pissed about it, but seriously: it's like everything has to be fair in whatever desired fashion, and to achieve that we must come up with ways to make that happen so that we can feel good about ourselves in whatever way; if it screws over someone else in the process and that someone else did absolutely nothing wrong, whatever. Or if it creates new problems that need new solutions and that results in 38 layers of rules that perhaps [probably don't] "solve" the original problem, whatever. Or if it tilts "fairness" against some other group, as long as it's not "my" group getting screwed, whatever.

Pick easy but smart solutions, not knee-jerk, half-assed, "doesn't really solve anything, creates new problems that now need solutions" solutions.

 

[TheNumber4]

No, I'm not. I'm trying to apply consistency if we're making up a rule, not create new problems that unfairly punish teams for completely legal behavior because we're trying to punish some team for perceived unfairness. I'm certainly not trying to pretend dividing by a different number and then adding everything back up magically comes up with a different answer.

The rest of your post is a non-answer to the questions I asked. Which is OK, I'm fine if you don't have an answer, but I'd rather you concede that than continue to lob remarks that have nothing to do with the original question and response and instead raise the usual complaints.


Life isn't fair.

I know I keep saying this and eventually someone's going to get pissed about it, but seriously: it's like everything has to be fair in whatever desired fashion, and to achieve that we must come up with ways to make that happen so that we can feel good about ourselves in whatever way; if it screws over someone else in the process and that someone else did absolutely nothing wrong, whatever. Or if it creates new problems that need new solutions and that results in 38 layers of rules that perhaps [probably don't] "solve" the original problem, whatever. Or if it tilts "fairness" against some other group, as long as it's not "my" group getting screwed, whatever.

Pick easy but smart solutions, not knee-jerk, half-assed, "doesn't really solve anything, creates new problems that now need solutions" solutions.

This isn’t “life”. This is Sport. This is a Game. It’s a basic expectation of any Sport or Game that the Rules are Fair. What kind of Joke Ass League can’t even provide an even playing ground. To accept that the rules in a sport won’t be fair, is some major mental gymnastics. Who the hell wants to watch a Rigged Game. Integrity matters in a League if you are going to go after fan engagement and fan involvement.

 

[Leaf Fans]

Where’s the proof that every fan outside of Vegas thinks it’s bs? How do we know it isn’t just a small percentage of vocal haters?

I’ve seen people recently say with certainty that the Super Bowl was staged. Some of the comments here remind me of that. People willing to believe things with no evidence.

I don't think is bull shit. He has a knee injury. And he is traveling with the team. I am obviously not a knights fan.

 

[ZachaFlockaFlame]

I mean who cares? TB proposed a rule after they lost to the Hawks and it got shot down. Then they proceeded to win Cups using said rule out of spite. The league and its GMs clearly don't care, abuse the rule as much as you want if you can. I'd pissed the Devils can't abuse with Dougie on LTIR this year because the team is so shit

 

[nhlfan9191]

No, I'm not. I'm trying to apply consistency if we're making up a rule, not create new problems that unfairly punish teams for completely legal behavior because we're trying to punish some team for perceived unfairness. I'm certainly not trying to pretend dividing by a different number and then adding everything back up magically comes up with a different answer.

The rest of your post is a non-answer to the questions I asked. Which is OK, I'm fine if you don't have an answer, but I'd rather you concede that than continue to lob remarks that have nothing to do with the original question and response and instead raise the usual complaints.


Life isn't fair.

I know I keep saying this and eventually someone's going to get pissed about it, but seriously: it's like everything has to be fair in whatever desired fashion, and to achieve that we must come up with ways to make that happen so that we can feel good about ourselves in whatever way; if it screws over someone else in the process and that someone else did absolutely nothing wrong, whatever. Or if it creates new problems that need new solutions and that results in 38 layers of rules that perhaps [probably don't] "solve" the original problem, whatever. Or if it tilts "fairness" against some other group, as long as it's not "my" group getting screwed, whatever.

Pick easy but smart solutions, not knee-jerk, half-assed, "doesn't really solve anything, creates new problems that now need solutions" solutions.

Teams were signing players to 15+ year contracts before 2012 to circumvent the cap. It was something that was deemed legal until it wasn’t. The league corrected it and it looks like this is something they’ll have to step in and correct again.