Confirmed Trade: [VGK/CGY/PHI] Noah Hanifin (75% retained), Mikhail Vorobyov to VGK; 2026 1st , 2025 cond. 3rd, Daniil Miromanov to CGY; 2024 5th to PHI

[DKH]

Even as a pure rental, this return seems mediocre for who I thought was the best player on the market. Most of the players traded for 1sts+ are really guys the acquiring teams are probably not going to sign either.

Mediocre return was likely best can get when you factor in the 3 headed monster

Teams on no movement
Cap space available
Playoff teams

I bet he did a great job getting what he did if we were sitting in on all this

Plus he’s got a deal in place with Tampa likely

Tampa probably never wanted him for 6 weeks for what?

They keep what assets have and mid April should be able to figure how to make this work better

Tampa is smart. Why give up anything for Hanifin when Noah will come running full on sprint to them as soon as the summer starts? It wouldn't surprise me if Noah already bought a new place in Tampa.

You are smart as well to understand this is what probably happened

 

[JurassicTunga]

After the Hertl deal, Flames are going to receive the 2026 1st from Vegas which is unprotected.

Will be interesting to see how that plays out.

 

[MMC]

 

[Siludin]

Example: Cap = $85 million.

Team A:
* Carries $80 million in total cap hits for 4/5ths of the season.
* At the 4/5ths mark, when the trade deadline occurs, has been charged 80 x 4/5 = $64 million
* Can spend up to $21 million the rest of the way and still be cap compliant
* Permissibly - and without LTIR - makes trades and adds $15 million in cap dollars.
* Now carries $95 million in cap dollars from the trade deadline to the end of the season
* Gets charged 95 x 1/5 = $19 million for that last 1/5th of the season
* Ends the season having spent $83 million, so $2 million less than what was allowed under the cap

Your rule for the cap in the playoffs: that team - which had a roster that was completely valid in Game 82, which ran with a roster that was completely cap compliant the entire season, under the rules of how the salary cap is calculated had $2 million to spare - is non-compliant for the playoffs and must cut $10 million.

This is easily fixed with the simple rule that teams can never have their AAV exceed the cap. You can't bank - If you don't spend it you lose it.
If total AAV salaries are over the cap then you must begin waiving players.
You can still put players on the IR/LTIR to make space, but if someone comes off LTIR/IR and you become uncompliant on account, you have to waive.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

This is easily fixed with the simple rule that teams can never have their AAV exceed the cap. You can't bank - If you don't spend it you lose it.

Well, what can I say except ...

You've just made the salary cap even more inflexible, made it more difficult for teams to make trades in-season, confined better players to non-playoff teams, made playoff teams overall weaker, made the playoffs more boring, and decreased fan interest. And, because teams have to strictly stay under the cap even with the IR allowances you give them, you've caused player salaries to get depressed as teams realize f***, I gotta keep cap space available in case shit hits the fan and they cram down salaries on contracts to depress cap hits so they everyone can fit under the cap at all times, with room to spare for unexpected circumstances, no exceptions.

But goddamn it, you "fixed" the "problem" of teams "going over the cap." I can't wait to see how you "solve" all the actual problems you created.

 

[Siludin]

Well, what can I say except ...

You've just made the salary cap even more inflexible, made it more difficult for teams to make trades in-season, confined better players to non-playoff teams, made playoff teams overall weaker, made the playoffs more boring, and decreased fan interest. And, because teams have to strictly stay under the cap even with the IR allowances you give them, you've caused player salaries to get depressed as teams realize f***, I gotta keep cap space available in case shit hits the fan and they cram down salaries on contracts to depress cap hits so they everyone can fit under the cap at all times, with room to spare for unexpected circumstances, no exceptions.

But goddamn it, you "fixed" the "problem" of teams "going over the cap." I can't wait to see how you "solve" all the actual problems you created.

The problems you pointed out are a flawed extrapolation
Player movement would be just as frequent but largely through waivers, or panic trades when a team realize they are about to exceed the cap due to a player returning from LTIR.
Teams at the bottom of the waiver priority would largely be the recipients of another team mismanaging their team structure, unless a contending team wants to come in and snag a player that is about to hit waivers with a pick or other player package.
If teams want to save money to pick up players at the deadline, they can run with salary room until they want to make that trade; they don't need to sign their whole roster to be right against the cap at the beginning of the season - plenty of teams don't.
Salaries wouldn't be suppressed because it's the same total salaries being paid (since it is guaranteed through the CBA that players will get 50% of revenues regardless). The weighing of player salaries could change but I don't really care about that.
Regarding fan interest, that's subjective. I am more interested as a fan when it seems like the structure makes sense.

 

[Larry Hanson]

I prefer the later unprotected pick, could be a better pick in a better draft, it's unlikely to be a worse pick. Flames are going to be rebuilding for a few years.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

The problems you pointed out are a flawed extrapolation

1. No, it's not. You just don't want to acknowledge your idea is not nearly as perfect as you want to imagine it is.

2. I get paid to think out ahead of the current moment, think about if we do X, what impact will that have? and then run scenarios accordingly so that X is a smart decision. I've done that for much of 20 years. You've got a 5-second idea that you've spent zero time thinking about the possible implications of, but because it's an idea and you like it by god nothing can be wrong with it, and if anything is wrong with it, ... well, nothing's wrong with it, f*** all the naysayers.

Player movement would be just as frequent but largely through waivers, or panic trades when a team realize they are about to exceed the cap due to a player returning from LTIR.

Teams currently accrue cap space to save up for trades where they can acquire another player to improve their roster; moving out a player on the current roster is occasionally needed, but it's not dollar-for-dollar.

Your idea requires it to be much closer to dollar-for-dollar, and if it's less teams have to have not spent money on players before that - which is money not spent on players in aggregate, which is to the detriment of the entirety of the NHLPA.

Do not suggest we ignore the NHLPA in all of this. I'm dealing with reality, not a far-fetched fantasy world where we might as well be talking about how I can have 3 hot chicks from Canada and Anna Kendrick and Jennfier Lawrence and Mila Kunis, one each day of the week and all 6 on Sunday.

Teams at the bottom of the waiver priority would largely be the recipients of another team mismanaging their team structure, unless a contending team wants to come in and snag a player that is about to hit waivers with a pick.

Teams at the bottom of the waiver priority have to have that cap space available to make a claim. Oh, wait - the player on waivers sucks and really isn't any better than what they have? f*** their bad luck.

Oh, wait - they'd have to waive a couple guys to add that guy, and they're already only carrying the minimum of 20 because they're trying to stay under your artificial cap with breathing room in case they need it for injuries and such? f*** their bad luck. That guy can't be claimed by anyone else? f*** that guy, he can go toil in the minors. Or Europe. Or the Mississauga Super Senior Thursday Night league. Not our f***ing problem, we gotta protect the integrity of the cap!

A "contending team wants to come in and snag a player that is about to hit waivers with a pick?" They have to have the cap space for that. Wait, they've spent theirs? Shit, guess they gotta waive someone too. Holy shit, no one else can claim him? f*** that guy, he can go toil in the minors. Or Europe. Or the Mississauga Super Senior Thursday Night league. Not our f***ing problem, we gotta protect the integrity of the cap!

Salaries wouldn't be suppressed because it's the same total salaries being paid (since it is guaranteed through the CBA that players will get 50% of revenues regardless).

The players don't give the first shit about it. If they did, you wouldn't see players trying to sign for every dollar they can even though every excess dollar comes out of the pockets of the players as a whole.

But .... let's pretend "it's the same total salaries being paid." Teams aren't giving up higher-priced players, who are better: they're giving up lower-priced players. That means fewer players carried on the roster. That means fewer players in the league, which gives rise to the possibility that the league says "you know what, no one is carrying 23 players, ... we're cutting 23 to 22. Maybe even 21."

The NHLPA will go to war over that.

The weighing of player salaries could change but I don't really care about that.

The NHLPA does. I'm going to guess player agents do, too.

Regarding fan interest, that's subjective. I am more interested as a fan when it seems like the structure makes sense.

Ah, yes. You're interested in what makes you happy. f*** the rest of the fans - that's subjective. Your happiness is objective, and paramount to everything else, including whatever the NHLPA wants and what the teams want.

 

[Siludin]

1. No, it's not. You just don't want to acknowledge your idea is not nearly as perfect as you want to imagine it is.

2. I get paid to think out ahead of the current moment, think about if we do X, what impact will that have? and then run scenarios accordingly so that X is a smart decision. I've done that for much of 20 years. You've got a 5-second idea that you've spent zero time thinking about the possible implications of, but because it's an idea and you like it by god nothing can be wrong with it, and if anything is wrong with it, ... well, nothing's wrong with it, f*** all the naysayers.


Teams currently accrue cap space to save up for trades where they can acquire another player to improve their roster; moving out a player on the current roster is occasionally needed, but it's not dollar-for-dollar.

Your idea requires it to be much closer to dollar-for-dollar, and if it's less teams have to have not spent money on players before that - which is money not spent on players in aggregate, which is to the detriment of the entirety of the NHLPA.

Do not suggest we ignore the NHLPA in all of this. I'm dealing with reality, not a far-fetched fantasy world where we might as well be talking about how I can have 3 hot chicks from Canada and Anna Kendrick and Jennfier Lawrence and Mila Kunis, one each day of the week and all 6 on Sunday.



Teams at the bottom of the waiver priority have to have that cap space available to make a claim. Oh, wait - the player on waivers sucks and really isn't any better than what they have? f*** their bad luck.

Oh, wait - they'd have to waive a couple guys to add that guy, and they're already only carrying the minimum of 20 because they're trying to stay under your artificial cap with breathing room in case they need it for injuries and such? f*** their bad luck. That guy can't be claimed by anyone else? f*** that guy, he can go toil in the minors. Or Europe. Or the Mississauga Super Senior Thursday Night league. Not our f***ing problem, we gotta protect the integrity of the cap!

A "contending team wants to come in and snag a player that is about to hit waivers with a pick?" They have to have the cap space for that. Wait, they've spent theirs? Shit, guess they gotta waive someone too. Holy shit, no one else can claim him? f*** that guy, he can go toil in the minors. Or Europe. Or the Mississauga Super Senior Thursday Night league. Not our f***ing problem, we gotta protect the integrity of the cap!


The players don't give the first shit about it. If they did, you wouldn't see players trying to sign for every dollar they can even though every excess dollar comes out of the pockets of the players as a whole.

But .... let's pretend "it's the same total salaries being paid." Teams aren't giving up higher-priced players, who are better: they're giving up lower-priced players. That means fewer players carried on the roster. That means fewer players in the league, which gives rise to the possibility that the league says "you know what, no one is carrying 23 players, ... we're cutting 23 to 22. Maybe even 21."

The NHLPA will go to war over that.



The NHLPA does. I'm going to guess player agents do, too.


Ah, yes. You're interested in what makes you happy. f*** the rest of the fans - that's subjective. Your happiness is objective, and paramount to everything else, including whatever the NHLPA wants and what the teams want.

Your tilted stream of consciousness rambling is pretty brutal to read but I tried my best.

Teams at the bottom of the waiver priority have to have that cap space available to make a claim. Oh, wait - the player on waivers sucks and really isn't any better than what they have? f*** their bad luck.
They may not be bad players. In fact there are probably a higher quantity of quality players on waivers because GMs would have less capacity to maintain unnaturally large rosters. The whole point of waivers is that players who should be eligible for NHL minutes are able to find a team, rather than keeping company men on LTIR until the last minute.

Oh, wait - they'd have to waive a couple guys to add that guy, and they're already only carrying the minimum of 20 because they're trying to stay under your artificial cap with breathing room in case they need it for injuries and such? f*** their bad luck. That guy can't be claimed by anyone else? f*** that guy, he can go toil in the minors. Or Europe. Or the Mississauga Super Senior Thursday Night league. Not our f***ing problem, we gotta protect the integrity of the cap!
This is no different than right now. If a player doesn't get claimed, he is either not good enough or he makes too much money. I'm not going to cry about an overpaid former star who got stuck in the minors, or a heavily-compensated player acquired as a fill-in who ends up on waivers if the because a returning player is displacing them. There may be some unsavoury contracts stuck in the minors for some time. It may be awkward when a good player is waived from a contending team because of cap mismanagement, but that's not the point.
GMs could still retain AAV on trades as well, if they needed to get something done without waivers.

Regarding the NHLPA, like all major changes they would have to be discussed extensively, no different than something like expansion or adding games to the schedule or implementation of a hard cap to begin with. It depends on the final form, and what else is being negotiated upon.

At the end of the day, I want to cheer for a hockey team, not an assembly of mercenaries that represent to zero fidelity the team whose crest they wear, or any genuine reflection of the team that we saw play all season. It's a problem; I don't see any glory or gain any enjoyment in watching essentially frankenstein monster all-star teams win the cup.

 

[Sonk]

So, where do we expect Vegas to be in 2025/26?

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Your tilted stream of consciousness rambling is pretty brutal to read but I tried my best.

I split it up for you. If you only made one terrible thought instead of 12, it would help.

Teams at the bottom of the waiver priority have to have that cap space available to make a claim. Oh, wait - the player on waivers sucks and really isn't any better than what they have? f*** their bad luck.
They may not be bad players. In fact there are probably a higher quantity of quality players on waivers because GMs would have less capacity to maintain unnaturally large rosters. The whole point of waivers is that players who should be eligible for NHL minutes are able to find a team, rather than keeping company men on LTIR until the last minute.

This is conjecture, but
1. Lots of players pass through waivers not because a team doesn't want him, but because they don't have cap space to add him / they don't want to add him and then drop off someone else already on the roster. Nothing in your idea changes this, and
2. That has nothing to do with LTIR.

Oh, wait - they'd have to waive a couple guys to add that guy, and they're already only carrying the minimum of 20 because they're trying to stay under your artificial cap with breathing room in case they need it for injuries and such? f*** their bad luck. That guy can't be claimed by anyone else? f*** that guy, he can go toil in the minors. Or Europe. Or the Mississauga Super Senior Thursday Night league. Not our f***ing problem, we gotta protect the integrity of the cap!
This is no different than right now. If a player doesn't get claimed, he is either not good enough or he makes too much money. I'm not going to cry about an overpaid former star who got stuck in the minors, or a heavily-compensated player acquired as a fill-in who ends up on waivers if the because a returning player is displacing them. There may be some unsavoury contracts stuck in the minors for some time. It may be awkward when a good player is waived from a contending team because of cap mismanagement, but that's not the point.

So you have a pointless example where you agree nothing changes, but it somehow enhances your argument and makes everything better than the current state of things ... even though ... nothing changes.

GMs could still retain AAV on trades as well, if they needed to get something done without waivers.

Again, you have a pointless example where you agree nothing changes, but it somehow enhances your argument and makes everything better than the current state of things ... even though ... nothing changes.

Regarding the NHLPA, like all major changes they would have to be discussed extensively, no different than something like expansion or adding games to the schedule or implementation of a hard cap to begin with. It depends on the final form, and what else is being negotiated upon.

You are SO close to getting it. All you have to do is - and this is so simple - explain why the NHLPA is going to go for a change that restricts the ability of players to change teams in consensual transactions and potentially restricts a player's ability to play in the playoffs, while increasing the chances that they are involuntarily moved to another team for reasons beyond their ability to play.

And, then explain what the NHLPA is going to get out of this that the owners are giving up - because make no mistake, the loss of the items above is not a gain for the players, and they are not giving that up unless they're getting something pretty substantial in return.

You will get players to negotiate NMCs much more often than NTCs, though, or NMCs on top of limited NTCs, and nothing in your idea is going to change GMs to stop handing them out given that they already operate in a cap system that has a limit and NTC/NMCs impose limits on flexibility with regard to roster moves, so #winning.

At the end of the day, I want to cheer for a hockey team, not an assembly of mercenaries that represent to zero fidelity the team whose crest they wear or any genuine reflection of the team that we saw play all season.

This is 1950s thinking. You might as well propose for no trades, no waivers and no free agency at all, since anyone who comes into the team that wasn't drafted or sign as an entry-level free agent is really a mercenary who has zero fidelity to the new team whose crest they're asked to wear and they're only there because they're forced to or they're in it for the biggest paycheck they can get.

It's a problem; I don't see any glory or gain any enjoyment in watching essentially frankenstein monster all-star teams win the cup.

I don't know why you're following hockey at all then, because the NHL has had Frankenstein monster All-Star teams win the Cup for decades.

 

[Siludin]

This is 1950s thinking.

It's not 1950s thinking at all. It's human thinking. It's meaningful to win a team sportt with players that mean something as a unit, rather than whoever was available circumstantially. There is a lot of mercanary-ism in pro sports and it's ugly and lame and the current NHL system perpetuates it.
It's a simple premise: fill internally from your farm system and if you fill externally, pay the price when you can't ice the roster subject to the agreed-upon cap.
Right now the meta is to ice an injury-prone roster and spend assets to cover for injuries and then ensure all injuries magically end right when the season ends. It's shallow and bad.

 

[Mitts]

I prefer the later unprotected pick, could be a better pick in a better draft, it's unlikely to be a worse pick. Flames are going to be rebuilding for a few years.

We got it ! Now we need Vegas to suck hard in 2026 so we can draft Gavin Mckenna.

 

[Haguerbomb]

So the '26 or '25 1st condition is because we were already planning on a deal for Hertl. Doesn't make sense to trade for Hanifin if we think he won't sign an extension with us.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

It's not 1950s thinking at all. It's human thinking.

It's absolutely 1950s thinking. When you call players mercenaries with no allegiance to their employer and thus minimize their commitment to the organization and demand proof of loyalty or else be labeled undesirable, that's exactly the line of mentality employers pushed on employees when they dared think about going somewhere else to work.

If you have a problem with players wanting to act in their best-interests - something they've fought for 50 years for the right to have - maybe sports is not the right hobby for you and you need to go find something less stressful, like fishing, or gardening, or trainspotting, or watching paint dry.

 

[Tkachuk Norris]

26 unprotected is better than the 25 protected. Hopefully they get old fast or have some freakish injuries that year.

Also man it would be sweet if the flames could knock the Knights out with our replacement blueliners this year

 

[Siludin]

It's absolutely 1950s thinking. When you call players mercenaries with no allegiance to their employer and thus minimize their commitment to the organization and demand proof of loyalty or else be labeled undesirable, that's exactly the line of mentality employers pushed on employees when they dared think about going somewhere else to work.

If you have a problem with players wanting to act in their best-interests - something they've fought for 50 years for the right to have - maybe sports is not the right hobby for you and you need to go find something less stressful, like fishing, or gardening, or trainspotting, or watching paint dry.

I'm less interested in participating in loyalty kayfabe theatre.
Meaningless and heartless championships that reflect very little about the quality of the real team.
The NHL sells the premise that these players fight together for glory; I am less likely to believe those storylines under the present mechanics, less likely to attach myself spiritually to a club.
If the NHL's goal is fandom this system is broken.

 

[GeeoffBrown]

hopefully, all this wheeling and dealing catches up to the Knights specifically in 2025/2026

Maybe Mark Stone will be on LTIR permanently at that point. (or is it worse for the Knights if he's healthy the whole year?)

 

[Yepthatsme]

For what it’s worth, Miromanov played 19 minutes in his debut game with the flames, finishing with an even +/- and 3 shots in a lopsided 5-1 loss to Florida. Management and the coaching staff seems to really like this guy, will be interesting to see what he looks like after a healthy offseason and a training camp.