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

[SA16]

If the NHL can make a guy sit a regular season game for missing the all star game, why can’t they make him sit 4-7 for missing a quarter of the season? Tell me who that would cause problems for (other than Vegas).

It doesn't cause problems. The NFL has always had some form of IR that the player can't return from. It's changed a bit over the years but there's still something similar. Hasn't hurt them that guys are ruled out from the entire playoffs. Would be better though to just say the player has to be on the active roster for game 82, it doesn't matter if they actually play. If the argument is then that you could be ruling out a top player the entire playoffs and it hurts the product well then maybe the GM should have considered that scenario and not wasted all his cap space on rentals at the deadline?

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Your post would make a lot more sense if you weren't strawmanning people's position on this issue.

I'm ... taking everyone's position on this issue and explaining what they're really asking for. The "strawmanning" - which you did with your weird example - is everyone distorting what Vegas is doing and pretending they get some tangible advantage toward winning games, when in fact the series started 0-0 and every game starts 0-0 just like every other series and every other game in the playoffs.

I have not seen a single post that claims they broke the rules or that they should suffer any form of league initiated punishment. This is not the Houston Astros.

I'm not digging through 122 pages to find all the examples that satisfy you, but suffice it to say there's been enough "the league should do something" complaints and enough comments about retroactive punishments that (1) weren't retroactive punishments, and (2) have nothing to do with this topic, that it probably sufficiently checks this box.

The position of most people here is that Vegas is scummy for exploiting something designed to promote competitive fairness and the league is stupid for not protecting against it.

OK. And? Vegas is doing something every other team could do, and either hasn't through lack of opportunity or choice - and yet, people here complaining about it want Vegas to have "done the right thing" as if it's a moral choice and everyone is obligated to follow their morals. To which, I've repeatedly called and will repeatedly call, bullshit on.

And to repeat my prior positions: yeah, I don't like what Vegas is doing. But, it's allowed. And/or, the league knows what's going on and intentionally chooses not to do anything. Going on over and over about Vegas doing something "wrong" ignores that simple point: the league is allowing it to happen. We can discuss whether it's intentional or not - I'd argue it's at least semi-intentional - but

Claiming that being able to exceed the salary cap is not a competitive advantage is ridiculous. It doesn't need to give them a lower threshold for victory to be considered an advantageous.

Is it a "competitive advantage" for teams to be able to save up cap space going into the deadline, then spend it all loading up the roster? Because ... the league has known (and expected) that teams might do that since 2005, and it's never bothered "protecting against it."

I know, this is different, this is ...... then we go back to all my comments above: the league knows it and is giving it the green light. Everything else is like complaining your parents treat you different than your siblings: yeah, probably not fair. Deal with it, make the best of it and move forward.

Your entire argument seems to be "They still need to win 4 games so it's not an advantage." That's like saying "They still need to cross the finish line first, so it's not an advantage". Yeah, obviously.

Really, that's the period in all of this. Everything else presumes that just adding players to a roster automatically makes things better; there are countless examples of teams having added "better" players in ordinary circumstances and the team didn't get better. Or, it got worse because it wasn't the good fit imagined. But, you're pretending they added this guy back and he's obviously 100% = everything is perfect for them, it will take a miracle to beat them.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

If the NHL can make a guy sit a regular season game for missing the all star game, why can’t they make him sit 4-7 for missing a quarter of the season?

1. I think it's stupid that the league can sit a guy for a regular season game for missing the All-Star Game because he doesn't want to go ... but that involves a rant about the ASG in general that there's 186 other threads on. I mean, I don't think it's fair, but I also don't demand everyone else accept my idea that it's not fair and then demand the league do something to alleviate my unhappiness.

2. That said, a player who is selected to the ASG has an obligation to be there. If the player makes a conscious choice to not be there when the player is healthy and otherwise available, then the player accepts that there may be consequences for shirking his obligation.

3. Players do not get suspended for being injured and unavailable to play. Nor do players get suspended for being injured and not coming back before they think they're ready. [Unless maybe you're Uwe Krupp and you claim you've got a back injury, and then you go off dog sledding.] The NHLPA isn't going to allow any player to be suspended for any part of the playoffs because the player didn't - especially if he couldn't - play in however many games at the end of the regular season.

Tell me who that would cause problems for (other than Vegas).

Any player on any other team who's legitimately hurt and can't play in Game 82, but could be ready to play in say 10 days when Game 4 rolls around and would be able to play thereafter. Any number of other similar situations. Seriously, that's not difficult to figure out.

 

[tucker3434]

1. I think it's stupid that the league can sit a guy for a regular season game for missing the All-Star Game because he doesn't want to go ... but that involves a rant about the ASG in general that there's 186 other threads on. I mean, I don't think it's fair, but I also don't demand everyone else accept my idea that it's not fair and then demand the league do something to alleviate my unhappiness.

2. That said, a player who is selected to the ASG has an obligation to be there. If the player makes a conscious choice to not be there when the player is healthy and otherwise available, then the player accepts that there may be consequences for shirking his obligation.

3. Players do not get suspended for being injured and unavailable to play. Nor do players get suspended for being injured and not coming back before they think they're ready. [Unless maybe you're Uwe Krupp and you claim you've got a back injury, and then you go off dog sledding.] The NHLPA isn't going to allow any player to be suspended for any part of the playoffs because the player didn't - especially if he couldn't - play in however many games at the end of the regular season.



Any player on any other team who's legitimately hurt and can't play in Game 82, but could be ready to play in say 10 days when Game 4 rolls around and would be able to play thereafter. Any number of other similar situations. Seriously, that's not difficult to figure out.

A. As was mentioned above, the requirement could just be that he’s activated on the roster. Paper transaction that ensures the roster is cap compliant. No risk of additional injury to the player. Just requires management to plan accordingly.

B. Any legitimate injury where management is that unsure of the timeframe, you wouldn’t go out and make those extra acquisitions at the deadline that could push you out of cap compliance if the player returns early. So you’d activate the player for game 82 with no cap issues. Then if he's available for game 3, you’re all set.

C. If it’s a cap compliance rule, the PA won’t have any say in it. It would never actually need to be enforced because the loophole would be closed. You’d just manage your TDL differently.

 

[TheBeard]

Not a good look for the Vegas core if they brought in Hanifin and Hertl with their complete lineup (even if Stone is like 75%) and they're consistently getting manhandled by Dallas.

I do believe Vegas players have bought into their own hype a little much, or just don't think chemistry is a real thing.

 

[blankall]

Not a good look for the Vegas core if they brought in Hanifin and Hertl with their complete lineup (even if Stone is like 75%) and they're consistently getting manhandled by Dallas.

I do believe Vegas players have bought into their own hype a little much, or just don't think chemistry is a real thing.

Or Dallas is just a good team.

 

[TheBeard]

Or Dallas is just a good team.

I think that's a part of it, but Vegas looked absolutely dominant last year en route to the cup and theoretically they should have a better team this year. Looks like the arrogance of Wild Bill's drunken "Day F'n One" speech last year was more indicative of the team mentality than we thought.

 

[Mubiki]

Nikita Kucherov fully embraces his role as the NHL's newest villain with '$18M over the cap' shirt

Nikita Kucherov, expert troll.

ftw.usatoday.com

Friendly reminder that Vegas isn't the first to do this, and every team has had yrs to deal w it lol. The originators were knocked out, felt like a good time to put it up

I can't speak for everyone, but there are two specific reasons why that situation is less bothersome, especially now.

I'm ... taking everyone's position on this issue and explaining what they're really asking for. The "strawmanning" - which you did with your weird example - is everyone distorting what Vegas is doing and pretending they get some tangible advantage toward winning games, when in fact the series started 0-0 and every game starts 0-0 just like every other series and every other game in the playoffs.



I'm not digging through 122 pages to find all the examples that satisfy you, but suffice it to say there's been enough "the league should do something" complaints and enough comments about retroactive punishments that (1) weren't retroactive punishments, and (2) have nothing to do with this topic, that it probably sufficiently checks this box.

OK. And? Vegas is doing something every other team could do, and either hasn't through lack of opportunity or choice - and yet, people here complaining about it want Vegas to have "done the right thing" as if it's a moral choice and everyone is obligated to follow their morals. To which, I've repeatedly called and will repeatedly call, bullshit on.

And to repeat my prior positions: yeah, I don't like what Vegas is doing. But, it's allowed. And/or, the league knows what's going on and intentionally chooses not to do anything. Going on over and over about Vegas doing something "wrong" ignores that simple point: the league is allowing it to happen. We can discuss whether it's intentional or not - I'd argue it's at least semi-intentional - but


Is it a "competitive advantage" for teams to be able to save up cap space going into the deadline, then spend it all loading up the roster? Because ... the league has known (and expected) that teams might do that since 2005, and it's never bothered "protecting against it."

I know, this is different, this is ...... then we go back to all my comments above: the league knows it and is giving it the green light. Everything else is like complaining your parents treat you different than your siblings: yeah, probably not fair. Deal with it, make the best of it and move forward.


Really, that's the period in all of this. Everything else presumes that just adding players to a roster automatically makes things better; there are countless examples of teams having added "better" players in ordinary circumstances and the team didn't get better. Or, it got worse because it wasn't the good fit imagined. But, you're pretending they added this guy back and he's obviously 100% = everything is perfect for them, it will take a miracle to beat them.

Why do you keep pointing out that the series starts at 0-0 and with the scores at 0-0?

Are you entirely incapable of understanding that there are other advantages that exist outside of the starting score? Being intentionally obtuse is not a good strategy.

They got to spend more money on their playoff roster than anyone else did. That is the very definition of a TANGIBLE advantage. The salary cap is X, their salary cap is X+1. It's not debatable in any way.

No, it is not a competitive advantage for teams to save cap space to later spend on trade deadline aqusitions. The reason being that this strategy is equally available to all teams, and is completely immune to chance. It is ONLY relevant in situations in which the team chooses to utilize their cap in this manner. The Vegas loophole requires a fortuitously timed injury or a willingness to lie about one. (which is actually against the rules, but not something I'm accusing them of) You are comparing something that is egalitarian by nature and equally accessible to all teams based on their choices and something that is determined entirely by either chance or deception. Not close at all.

There worst part is that immediately after you made these asinine arguments, you pulled a 180 and directly admitted that it was an advantage, that it wasn't fair play, but that people should just "get over it" because the league never addressed it. You couldn't even get through your own post without realizing it was complete rubbish,

 

[NVious]

The team is soft af, I heard some of the players on the bench were asking if they could still trade for Crosby, when the coach yelled at them to focus on the game they instead started making plans how to poke holes in the tires of the Stars bus. This is what happens when you win cheating, let it be a lesson for everyone and anyone.

#VegasGoldenAsterisks

 

[Ted Hoffman]

A. As was mentioned above, the requirement could just be that he’s activated on the roster. Paper transaction that ensures the roster is cap compliant. No risk of additional injury to the player. Just requires management to plan accordingly.

I don't know why this is so difficult to understand, but ... what the hell, let's try it yet again.

A player cannot be taken off IR unless a physician attests he is healthy enough to play. That would include any "paper transaction" to put him on the Active Roster. The NHLPA is not going to allow a player to be compelled to agree that he is healthy enough to play so that he can engage in a "paper transaction" for the purposes of being eligible in the playoffs at whatever point you want to choose. It's especially not going to allow it because once on the Active Roster nothing stops the team from deciding "you know what, this game is important, ... we're dressing him so he can play, because 60% of him is better than 100% of his replacement."

B. Any legitimate injury where management is that unsure of the timeframe, you wouldn’t go out and make those extra acquisitions at the deadline that could push you out of cap compliance if the player returns early.

1. That's explicitly not what your solution solves. It's purports to solve that, but it instead punishes every other player who is injured and legitimately cannot come back and play in Game 82, but might be available 1-2 weeks later while the first round is still going on.

2. If management is unsure of the timeframe, it's absurd to think it has any control over how quickly the player heals from that injury. Your idea would cause teams to not replace players and run the risk of being short-handed when the player's status becomes more clear and he really can't play, to avoid the risk of the player healing faster and then being screwed with respect to the cap due to circumstances the team couldn't control.

Solve the problem that exists. Quit "solving" the "problem" and creating other real problems which you then choose to ignore because it's inconvenient to your solution. And, as I've said countless times now, the easiest solution is for the league to enforce its procedures re: validating LTIR. If it won't do that, everything else people are wishing for is pointless because either the league and/or the NHLPA won't adopt it, or they'll find ways to get around it and avoid having to park anyone for the playoffs for cap purposes.

C. If it’s a cap compliance rule, the PA won’t have any say in it. It would never actually need to be enforced because the loophole would be closed. You’d just manage your TDL differently.

1. If it was a "cap compliance rule" the NHL already has tools to enforce it. Perhaps use those.
2. If a new rule is needed to enforce cap compliance, that's something that has to go into the CBA and that is something the NHLPA gets a say over.

 

[Vegas07]

Pietrangelo this year is a waste of $8.8 million. Sometimes the extra money on the roster is a disadvantage.

 

[tucker3434]

I don't know why this is so difficult to understand, but ... what the hell, let's try it yet again.

A player cannot be taken off IR unless a physician attests he is healthy enough to play. That would include any "paper transaction" to put him on the Active Roster. The NHLPA is not going to allow a player to be compelled to agree that he is healthy enough to play so that he can engage in a "paper transaction" for the purposes of being eligible in the playoffs at whatever point you want to choose. It's especially not going to allow it because once on the Active Roster nothing stops the team from deciding "you know what, this game is important, ... we're dressing him so he can play, because 60% of him is better than 100% of his replacement."


1. That's explicitly not what your solution solves. It's purports to solve that, but it instead punishes every other player who is injured and legitimately cannot come back and play in Game 82, but might be available 1-2 weeks later while the first round is still going on.

2. If management is unsure of the timeframe, it's absurd to think it has any control over how quickly the player heals from that injury. Your idea would cause teams to not replace players and run the risk of being short-handed when the player's status becomes more clear and he really can't play, to avoid the risk of the player healing faster and then being screwed with respect to the cap due to circumstances the team couldn't control.

Solve the problem that exists. Quit "solving" the "problem" and creating other real problems which you then choose to ignore because it's inconvenient to your solution. And, as I've said countless times now, the easiest solution is for the league to enforce its procedures re: validating LTIR. If it won't do that, everything else people are wishing for is pointless because either the league and/or the NHLPA won't adopt it, or they'll find ways to get around it and avoid having to park anyone for the playoffs for cap purposes.


1. If it was a "cap compliance rule" the NHL already has tools to enforce it. Perhaps use those.
2. If a new rule is needed to enforce cap compliance, that's something that has to go into the CBA and that is something the NHLPA gets a say over.

Then create a separate designation for the guy. Allow him to stay on LTIR but with no cap relief for game 82 if you want him to be available for round 1. If you were operating within the spirit of the rules to begin with, that’s a risk you’d have to account for anyway.

I believe the number of guys that are injured on March 1st and ready to go in the first round is going to be extremely low. But even for those, how are they being punished? This rule would have no effect on 31 of 32 teams.

Of course teams won’t replace players at the TDL. That’s what they already do if they think there’s a shot the player will come back. That’s basically the way it should be. LTIR was intended to be used for replacement players. Not additional players.

 

[pantherbot]

Pietrangelo this year is a waste of $8.8 million. Sometimes the extra money on the roster is a disadvantage.

Lol now the argument is 'we didn't get any advantage because we're losing!'

Whether or not the Knights lose should have zero bearing on this discussion.

 

[Vegas07]

Lol now the argument is 'we didn't get any advantage because we're losing!'

Whether or not the Knights lose should have zero bearing on this discussion.

I wasn’t totally serious, kind of was making fun of Pietrangelo.

But it is a fair point that money doesn’t guarantee anything. If it did every high priced free agent would work out well. The cup isn’t awarded to the best team on paper.

Btw I expected Dallas to win this series because I think they are the better team.

Whether or not the Knights lose should have zero bearing on this discussion.

Why not? You know people would make a huge deal out of it if they win the cup. Also if one reason they lose is Stone doesn’t look 100% then it definitely is relevant.

 

[NikolaTesla]

Pietrangelo this year is a waste of $8.8 million. Sometimes the extra money on the roster is a disadvantage.

Every teams has bad contracts, only one have an extra 10 millions in cap space to compensate.

 

[pantherbot]

Why not? You know people would make a huge deal out of it if they win the cup. Also if one reason they lose is Stone doesn’t look 100% then it definitely is relevant.

Because even if Vegas lost, they still had an advantage from the LTIR situation that other teams don't have. Just because it wasn't successful doesn't mean it's not an issue. Not sure why that even needs to be said...

 

[TheNumber4]

I get why you'd cheat the cap to bring in the best and most expensive defenceman available in Hanafin. But why would you bring in the cap dumps that are Mantha and Hertl too? Guess its fun to spend money when it doesn't cost you assets for retention like all the other 31 teams Vegas competes with.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Then create a separate designation for the guy. Allow him to stay on LTIR but with no cap relief for game 82 if you want him to be available for round 1.

This is flawed on so many levels, one of which is my example that a guy may not be able to play in Game 82 but might be able to play in say Game 4 of the first round.

Your idea requires either a prospective declaration that a guy can't play in Game 82 which then rules him out of the entire 1st round even if he could play at some point in the 1st round [the NHLPA isn't allowing that], or a retrospective decision about whether a guy played in the 1st round after being unable to do so for Game 82 [which is a pointless exercise]. And, in the prospective declaration, handcuffs a team that may need to invoke LTIR after the trade deadline to make call-ups to fill out the playing roster.

And, to this comment:

This rule would have no effect on 31 of 32 teams.

You have no idea how that would play out in future years; you're just hell-bent on going after one team that you're desperately searching for a solution, and not thinking at all about what that solution means for other teams that may [will] get impacted, who are doing nothing wrong.

Seriously, stop it already. Figure out how to fix the problem - which might start with "what is the problem I really want to solve?" - and solve that problem and not create new problems along the way like every single one of these "brilliant" ideas is doing.

 

[Lt Dan]

A team is allowed to be 10% over the cap in the offseason , why not do the same for the playoffs?
We don't want to destory deadline deals, but we also can't have teams over the cap by 19.7 (Tampa)

So what about only allowing a team to ice a team that's fixed number to eliminate the Mark Stone loophole?

What's a fair percentage?
Looking to the future, the cap is expect to be 87.7 million.
Is a 5% overage fair? -$4,385,000
7.5%? $6,577,500
or the same10% as the offseason? 8,770,000



I think 10% works

 

[tucker3434]

This is flawed on so many levels, one of which is my example that a guy may not be able to play in Game 82 but might be able to play in say Game 4 of the first round.

Your idea requires either a prospective declaration that a guy can't play in Game 82 which then rules him out of the entire 1st round even if he could play at some point in the 1st round [the NHLPA isn't allowing that], or a retrospective decision about whether a guy played in the 1st round after being unable to do so for Game 82 [which is a pointless exercise]. And, in the prospective declaration, handcuffs a team that may need to invoke LTIR after the trade deadline to make call-ups to fill out the playing roster.

And, to this comment:


You have no idea how that would play out in future years; you're just hell-bent on going after one team that you're desperately searching for a solution, and not thinking at all about what that solution means for other teams that may [will] get impacted, who are doing nothing wrong.

Seriously, stop it already. Figure out how to fix the problem - which might start with "what is the problem I really want to solve?" - and solve that problem and not create new problems along the way like every single one of these "brilliant" ideas is doing.

You aren’t even addressing what I’m saying. You designate your playoff roster on game 82. That doesn’t mean the guy has to play in game 82. He just has to be included in your cap if you want him to play in the first round. If you think your guy will be good by game 3, include him. If the TEAM elects to exclude him, his LTIR is automatically extended by ~14 days or whatever.

I’d only apply the rule to guys on LTIR before the TDL. So it would have no effect on LTIR movement after the TDL. It only serves to ensure that you have a cap compliant roster at some point between the TDL and the playoffs.

LTIR already has rules around minimum games missed so it isn’t like this is an entirely new concept. If a team puts a guy on LTIR and he ends up being healthy early, tough, still gotta meet the minimum games before coming back. Not all that different of a concept here. PA isn’t pitching a fit about that.

So again, tell me who this impacts that isn’t intentionally trying to run an over-cap roster in the playoffs by abusing LTIR.

 

[karltonian]

Not a good look for the Vegas core if they brought in Hanifin and Hertl with their complete lineup (even if Stone is like 75%) and they're consistently getting manhandled by Dallas.

I do believe Vegas players have bought into their own hype a little much, or just don't think chemistry is a real thing.

Stone looks more like 25%

 

[pantherbot]

You aren’t even addressing what I’m saying. You designate your playoff roster on game 82. That doesn’t mean the guy has to play in game 82. He just has to be included in your cap if you want him to play in the first round. If you think your guy will be good by game 3, include him. If the TEAM elects to exclude him, his LTIR is automatically extended by ~14 days or whatever.

I’d only apply the rule to guys on LTIR before the TDL. So it would have no effect on LTIR movement after the TDL. It only serves to ensure that you have a cap compliant roster at some point between the TDL and the playoffs.

LTIR already has rules around minimum games missed so it isn’t like this is an entirely new concept. If a team puts a guy on LTIR and he ends up being healthy early, tough, still gotta meet the minimum games before coming back. Not all that different of a concept here. PA isn’t pitching a fit about that.

So again, tell me who this impacts that isn’t intentionally trying to run an over-cap roster in the playoffs by abusing LTIR.

I agree with you and I've already explained this multiple times, but if someone is coming at it with the framework that a team must be able to use all the LTIR space to maximize the roster, they aren't gonna agree with what you're saying. To them, a team must be able to use the LTIR space and therefore someone has to sit out and its not fair.

 

[Oilslick941611]

Stone looks more like 25%

and its beautiful to see and watch

 

[TheBeard]

Stone looks more like 25%

I think he's healthier than you think, but he's older, with a bum back, so conditioning is gonna be hard.

 

[Devonator]

I get why you'd cheat the cap to bring in the best and most expensive defenceman available in Hanafin. But why would you bring in the cap dumps that are Mantha and Hertl too? Guess its fun to spend money when it doesn't cost you assets for retention like all the other 31 teams Vegas competes with.

Ha ha ha....I would hardly call Hertl a cup dump....wow....