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

[joepeps]

It's not that simple if you want an even playing field. You'd have to account for cap accruals, buyout hit and cap retentions. Otherwise teams that accrued cap during the season are being punished and teams that have buyouts/retentions are being rewarded.

It's the same shit either way... You can only ice a team worth 75 mil... 19 players

 

[Kairi Zaide]

It's the same shit either way... You can only ice a team worth 75 mil... 19 players

It's not. Retentions and buyouts count on the cap and aren't players.

Your solution also completely ruins the TDL. And would require a complete overhaul of the way cap works in general in order to remain consistent.

There's also many aspects on the fairness and competitive side of things in regards to players. How is it fair for a player that played 70% of the season before being injured, thus resulting in their team making a trade to push for the playoffs, but who's back sometime in the playoffs to be told "oh sorry, you can't play in the playoffs"? (or their replacement).

 

[pantherbot]

There's also many aspects on the fairness and competitive side of things in regards to players. How is it fair for a player that played 70% of the season before being injured, thus resulting in their team making a trade to push for the playoffs, but who's back sometime in the playoffs to be told "oh sorry, you can't play in the playoffs"? (or their replacement).

Agree with the beginning parts of your post but disagree with this.

No matter what, a player coming back is replacing another player, even under the current rules.

 

[Tawnos]

It's not. Retentions and buyouts count on the cap and aren't players.

Your solution also completely ruins the TDL. And would require a complete overhaul of the way cap works in general in order to remain consistent.

There's also many aspects on the fairness and competitive side of things in regards to players. How is it fair for a player that played 70% of the season before being injured, thus resulting in their team making a trade to push for the playoffs, but who's back sometime in the playoffs to be told "oh sorry, you can't play in the playoffs"? (or their replacement).

Exactly. I think GMs want to have the ability to put out the best lineup of players on the team who are healthy enough to play. And players want to have their place in a playoff lineup decided by nothing but their ability and their health. So while, yes, no matter what a healthy player is going to come out of the lineup, that's an acceptable outcome when it's because a better player than him can play.

 

[Strangle]

1. How would you get consensus on when a player is deemed healthy enough to play?
2. So a player might have to miss playoff games, which is exactly what people keep saying can't be done. Plus how do you even decide which games a player should miss, maybe a team wouldn't have even dressed that player anyways.
3. This is even more complicated than people proposing putting in a playoff cap.

It’s pretty simple, if you can’t play in game 82, if you can’t be activated from LTIR… what? 2 days before game 1? You’re ineligible for the first round of the playoffs.

Maybe you can activate game 82 LTIR players in round two. If you make it that far

 

[bert]

It's a simple solution. Just have to be cap compliant with the 20 players you dress in the playoffs and keep the current format otherwise.

 

[joepeps]

It's not. Retentions and buyouts count on the cap and aren't players.

Your solution also completely ruins the TDL. And would require a complete overhaul of the way cap works in general in order to remain consistent.

There's also many aspects on the fairness and competitive side of things in regards to players. How is it fair for a player that played 70% of the season before being injured, thus resulting in their team making a trade to push for the playoffs, but who's back sometime in the playoffs to be told "oh sorry, you can't play in the playoffs"? (or their replacement).

it doesn't matter... The salary cap for the year is the salary cap, LTIR is LTIR... trade deadline is still the same.

If you get people to fill in for other players and then they come back, then yeah, sorry pick the players you want to play that fit under the cap.... Stop this BS cheating.

 

[Tawnos]

It's a simple solution. Just have to be cap compliant with the 20 players you dress in the playoffs and keep the current format otherwise.

Then what the Knights did last year wasn't a problem, I guess? Their 20-player roster in game 1 of the Winnipeg series last year had a cap hit of $80.2m.

 

[Kairi Zaide]

Agree with the beginning parts of your post but disagree with this.

No matter what, a player coming back is replacing another player, even under the current rules.

In that sense that is indeed true. Could've added "potentially impactful" in there but that's judgmental in a way.

it doesn't matter... The salary cap for the year is the salary cap, LTIR is LTIR... trade deadline is still the same.

If you get people to fill in for other players and then they come back, then yeah, sorry pick the players you want to play that fit under the cap.... Stop this BS cheating.

How much will a player that carries a 7M yearly cap hit that a team acquired at the TDL count towards the cap for the playoffs under your proposal?

 

[Kairi Zaide]

1. Require that a player on LTIR who was deemed healthy enough to play must come off LTIR (...)

That is already how it is, I'm pretty sure. Doctors won't risk lying and ruining their career just for that. If a doctor says a player is fully healthy, I'm fairly confident their team is forced to activate jim.

It's just that "healthy enough" means "fully healthy to the point there are no realistic risk to the player". A doctor cannot ethically and morally deem a player "healthy enough" just because they think he can endure some pain for a few games. They need to be 99% sure before deeming a player healthy.

 

[joepeps]

In that sense that is indeed true. Could've added "potentially impactful" in there but that's judgmental in a way.

How much will a player that carries a 7M yearly cap hit that a team acquired at the TDL count towards the cap for the playoffs under your proposal?

I'm not sure what your not understanding... 80 mil cap is 80 mil cap... a players has a cap hit... I dont care when someone acquired him. for playoffs it doesn't matter

 

[agent082]

Maybe it's just luck.

 

[Gabrielor]

 

[Skolman]

Vegas is so greasy.

The league needs to do something about this

 

[BB88]

Oh no how did this happen?

Just stop the bs excuses and people are more fine with this

 

[TheBeard]

Honestly, If you're a Vegas fan and still don't see this as sketchy then you really have no ability to look at things through an honest, unbiased lens. Practically everyone that knew better knew he was going to be back for game 1 while all Vegas fans were like "No chance. He's probably not playing at all these playoffs and I'd bet anything he won't play the first series".

 

[CapSpace]

f*** Vegas. Fix this bullshit.

 

[Nucker101]

I wanna see Ottawa try this when they get back to the playoffs

Bettman will probably relocate the franchise as punishment

 

[R3DDRAG0N]

What a scumbag, sleazy org. I hope Dallas sweeps them. Get rekt Vegas. We are all Dallas fans this series.

 

[KirkAlbuquerque]

It’s a miracle!

 

[Three On Zero]

Let’s f***ing go Vegas, appreciate you can play within the lines and still piss off fans. One of the best ran organizations in the NHL

 

[Maple Leaf]

if you ain't cheatin you ain't trying

 

[oldwpgjet]

I like the idea of your playoff team that dresses for a particular game should be cap compliant based on their regular season salary. A 4 mil player traded for with 50% retention could be considered a 2 mil player for instance. If a team is at the cap with their lineup for a playoff game, and want to add a 6 mil player , then they should have to take out 6 mil in salary. I don't blame Vegas for doing it, it is the way the rules are now, just brilliant management, and other teams when given the opportunity do it as well.

 

[krutovsdonut]

I like the idea of your playoff team that dresses for a particular game should be cap compliant based on their regular season salary. A 4 mil player traded for with 50% retention could be considered a 2 mil player for instance. If a team is at the cap with their lineup for a playoff game, and want to add a 6 mil player , then they should have to take out 6 mil in salary. I don't blame Vegas for doing it, it is the way the rules are now, just brilliant management, and other teams when given the opportunity do it as well.

yep. maybe allow a small amount of leeway but not enough to sneak a mark stone onto the roster. it is an easy fix if they want to fix it.

the truth is that vegas is a huge success story for the nhl and all the owners are very happy to let this kind of thing slide given that vegas winning cups leads to people willing to pay billion dollar expansion fees.

the next question will be how the reffing goes. dallas is a big market and a longstanding owner so they should get a fair shake, but if vegas gets past them and starts playing lesser markets, things will get interesting.

 

[JKG33]

Honestly, If you're a Vegas fan and still don't see this as sketchy then you really have no ability to look at things through an honest, unbiased lens. Practically everyone that knew better knew he was going to be back for game 1 while all Vegas fans were like "No chance. He's probably not playing at all these playoffs and I'd bet anything he won't play the first series".

I'm not a Vegas fan and I see 0 issues with it