Toggle sidebar

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

  • Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
JoVel said:
I think calling what Vegas does cheating is pretty dumb, because cheating would imply they're doing something the NHL doesn't want them to do. Which is clearly not the case.
Click to expand...
an 800 million dollar entry fee earns you extra leeway for at least a decade.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Devonator
Three On Zero said:
Something is only an issue if you gain an unfair advantage over your competition

Vegas actively trading for players and using assets that ALL 32 teams have to acquire players is not an unfair advantage.

How do you punish teams for being located I desirable markets and using THEIR assets to acquire players?

This isn’t some voodoo magic that only Vegas can use.

It was fine when Chicago did it, it was fine when Tampa did it and it’s still fine that Vegas is doing it
Click to expand...
Your first comment is so just wrong bro.

Your roster is at 98 mil with a cap of 84 mil? How is that not an advantage, come on.

It was not fine/fair when Chicago or Tampa did it either.
 
Three On Zero said:
All teams have the field a cap compliant team in the regular season, a healthy team is far less likely to miss than a team with serious injuries.


Do you think a team with a healthy McDavid or a team without mcdavid but 2 $5 million players would fair better? Healthy teams are not being punished
Click to expand...

How would a team in a playoff spot that gets to put McDavid on LTIR, get his cap relief and sign another 8 and 5 million with McDavid coming back in game 1 fare vs that same team just going straight into the playoffs with just a healthy McDavid fare?

Like....I get all the arguments. But you can't tell me things are equal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pearljamvs5
Three On Zero said:
Injuries are causing them the free fall in the standings, this isn’t some magic pill :laugh:
Click to expand...
The team has been hot garbage since their 11-0-1 start. They're in freefall because the toll of 22 extra games made Petro and Martinez into ordinary D-men and Adin Hill isn't standing on his head. Barbashev and Stephenson were also garbage and the kids expected to step up simply did not. The team is under .500 since that start so blaming it solely on injuries is a lazy excuse.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: Devonator and Video Nasty
TheBeard said:
The team has been hot garbage since their 11-0-1 start. They're in freefall because the toll of 22 extra games made Petro and Martinez into ordinary D-men and Adin Hill isn't standing on his head. Barbashev and Stephenson were also garbage and the kids expected to step up simply did not. The team is under .500 since that start so blaming it solely on injuries is a lazy excuse.
Click to expand...
Oh it’s not solely on injuries, it’s what all cup hangover teams experience. Its a melting pot of issues
 
  • Like
Reactions: Devonator, Vegas07 and VivaLasVegas
VivaLasVegas said:
Who knows? Cassidy seems to randomly put them together these days and them immediately mixes them up when the puck drops, seems mostly to be a "everybody plays with everybody at least one period" strategy.
Click to expand...
Well it gets boring having the same partner every round.... we were talking about on the golf course right?
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: Ted Hoffman and VivaLasVegas
pantherbot said:
You're telling me when the cap system was put in place, the NHL and NHLPA wanted a situation where one team (Arizona) is getting to the cap floor by taking on LTIR contracts while another team (Vegas) actively manages when players come back from legit injuries so they can go over the cap in the playoffs?
Click to expand...
I'm going to split this into two parts:

1. Arizona - I think there was a > 30% chance someone thought of it, but no one was too bothered by it. Alternatively, I think people recognized there may be situations where a team may need to be at or near the cap floor for whatever reasons, and if it happened via LTIR, OK. That said, I know there's been years where Arizona is actually capped out due to contracts that would be on LTIR elsewhere, and then has to use LTIR on one or more of those contracts ... but, its cash layout is at the cap floor - which, since 2012 there's a requirement for teams to have total salaries that reach the cap floor, and Arizona's LTIR contracts are contributing a little but not like tens of millions of dollars to it.

2. Vegas - I'd say there's a 99.999999999% chance no one thought about this. The other 0.000000001%, someone did and no one was bothered enough about to say "you know what, maybe we need to think about this more and figure out a solution for it."

pantherbot said:
Fact that the Lightning actually complained about it tells you that's not what was intended. You could claim its an unintended consequence of how the rules have been set up and they're just leaving it as is, but this is not what was intended.
Click to expand...
There's been a lot of unintended consequences from "fixes" to "problems" and everyone just rolls on with it anyway.

Limits on contract lengths to fix ultra-long contracts? The problem was never guys at 24 getting 9-year contracts, or guys at 22 getting 11-year contracts. It was guys getting 11-year, 12-year, 13-year contracts and/or contracts that took guys out to 43 and were ultra-front loaded with the clear intent of circumventing the cap by having the player retire - or, "retire" - before the end of the contract. And, never making their signing teams pay back all the cap savings they realized in the years they had that player under contract, playing for them.

The "solution" was declaring all contracts over 7 years as "bad" [over 8 if you were signing with the team that held your rights] and artificially restricting contracts lengths accordingly.

Matthews signing for 10 years at 21? You probably expect him to still be playing at 33.
McDavid signing for 12 years at 21? You probably expect him to still be playing at 33.
Marchessault signing for 8 years at age 33? You probably don't expect him to still be playing at 41.

The first two contracts? Those are null and void, they're prohibited because they're bad. The third? Oh, that's still perfectly legal - and, it can still be structured in a way to circumvent the cap [albeit not as blatantly as before]. And, Matthews and McDavid now carry significantly higher cap hits and thus reduce cap space for their respective teams than if they could have signed for a couple more years at lower salaries that would have brought their cap hits down. And, that reduction in cap space makes it more difficult for teams to keep other players - which has caused people to propose "solutions" to that "problem" that create other problems they never think about, because they're only focused on the "solution" they want to put in place.

Oh, and teams still don't have to pay back cap savings they realize - which then allows teams like Arizona to have to pay it back instead and thus reach the cap floor, which pisses people off.

But, we put in uniform limits on contract lengths and "solved" the "problem" of teams signing ultra-long contracts that might circumvent the cap. Hooray, everyone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Infamousprime
Panteras said:
31 other teams don’t have Mark “I always get injured in February to comeback in April” Stone
Click to expand...
But they can.... lets getting a bidding war going for Mark stone in 2024.

And if you think Vegas won't trade their captain for a little more, you haven't been paying attention

:laugh::laugh::laugh:
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: ChanceVegas, Ted Hoffman and VivaLasVegas
What surprised me most this time is the "Wheel of Injury" in Kelly McCrimmon's office landed on "lacerated spleen" this time when Stone spun it.

What are the odds of that? My money was on acute kidney stones.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BlackDogg
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom