Which team(s) in this year's playoffs will blow it up/make big changes?

[ZachaFlockaFlame]

If the Avs were in any other division they would still be in the playoffs.

I'd they had gotten out of the Central they would have ended up winning the SC. If just happens that this year's SCC was decided in the first round.

Avs would've lost a first round series to the Panthers and Oilers, get the f*** out of here lol

 

[ZachaFlockaFlame]

The obvious choice is LA/Toronto. This might not be the thread, but the Wild are looking to cook next year with all that cap and young talent coming up.

LA is all mental at this point, they had everything roster wise to beat Edmonton and arguably should've anyway.

 

[MoneyManny]

Right, but my point was in response to the previous poster saying that players have too much control over where they play, and the GMs/owners have no say. That's just not true. If you give NMCs and NTCs out like candy to try to get guys at a better cap hit or a different term length, then that might come back to bite you down the road. As a GM, you're the one drawing the contracts up. You have every right not to give an NTC out to any potential signees. The whole job is deciding who is going to be a positive asset for my hockey team and determining what price and how many years that player is worth to you.

Yeah, sure a GM could decide to take the hardline and say no to NTC's. Then the team is doomed to not retain any kind of talent forever. Not really a "choice" if you ask me.

Other sports are doing great WITHOUT NTC's. Not sure why any fan of a NHL team would have a positive view on them.

 

[atlanticobserver]

Yeah, sure a GM could decide to take the hardline and say no to NTC's. Then the team is doomed to not retain any kind of talent forever. Not really a "choice" if you ask me.

Other sports are doing great WITHOUT NTC's. Not sure why any fan of a NHL team would have a positive view on them.

I'm not even saying that a GM should do that per se, I am more saying that it's at the discretion of the GM to decide who is worth the NMC or NTC and who is not. That's why they pay GMs a ton to figure that stuff out. They should be on the hook for the contracts they choose to give out in my opinion.

 

[Strangle]

But think about it for a second.

99 times out of 100, a team gives a player an NMC/NTC essentially in exchange for a bit of a lower AAV on their contract. The player gets added security to their life by avoiding being uprooted from their home and family in a way that is beyond their control, and they are usually happy to shave a little off the top in exchange for that. In the interest of cap space, the GM is usually pretty happy to oblige in most cases.

Agents make their money by taking a cut of the contract they helped to secure for their clients. NMCs and NTCs typically drive contract value down from a monetary standpoint. It's pretty unlikely that the push for one of those clauses is being driven by an agent. I'm not 100% certain, but it stands to reason that that kind of request would come from the player. Also, I just don't think the agents have as much power as you might. Most contract negotiations do not stall out, meaning that both sides are typically getting what they want in terms of a signing. The conversation of "my guy wants this clause in his contract or we walk" is probably not one that most players are in a position to have, especially if a team has their signing rights. Also, if a player is that happy to walk (i.e., over a discrepancy in the contract clauses), I would think a GM would be okay trading the rights of that player or executing a sign-and-trade.

But I won't pretend to be an expert on this. I am not. This is just my $0.02. Worth even less

Hey man, I totally agree with you on that. That’s the way it should be.

Players should have to pay AAV for NMC.

The problem is that they have so much power they don’t have to

 

[SwissLeaf]

are we already in this phase of Torontos schedule?

- This is the year
- Choke
- Break the core
- Nothing happens
- repeat

That's the only phase this year!

 

[TheDawnOfANewTage]

Hey man, I totally agree with you on that. That’s the way it should be.

Players should have to pay AAV for NMC.

The problem is that they have so much power they don’t have to

I love how players get blamed for management and billionaire idiocy. GMs overspent, so owners shut down the league until players agreed to a salary cap. GMs still overpay and players get blamed for it, and now GMs also hand out NMCs like candy. Then they pressure dudes to accept trades and it’s.. the players fault of course.

I do think they should insist on a 3 NMC per team limit or somethin though, to save them from themselves.

Anyway, one of the few dudes I think actually is a lazy malcontent- PLD. I’m curious how his time in Washington goes. Don’t think Washington does anything, but if next season isn’t looking great I could see ‘em selling high on that turd before he totally sours.

 

[thebeernerd]

Toronto is going to have to whether they like it or not. One of Tavares or Marner is going to walk, and Knies might be a tempting offer sheet target if negotiations drag on.

The Avs probably won't, at least not yet. That may change next season if they fail to advance in the playoffs again.

The Caps probably won't and they probably shouldn't.

 

[Johnny HFBOARDS]

If the Jets don't resign Ehlers. it's the equivalent of blowing it all up, he's to good to lose and were not getting a replacement. Do or Die.

 

[SharksFan1992]

This can be for teams that are already eliminated or a hypothetical if one of the teams still alive were to bow out. Who do you think would be among the most likely to overhaul their team this offseason/pre-next deadline?

Atlantic: Leafs
Metropolitan: Caps
Central: Wild
Pacific: Kings

 

[SharksFan1992]

That’s just pure cope, they got smoked by a team missing their best players lmao

Losing in Game 7 is "smoked"?

 

[Sasha Orlov]

Losing in Game 7 is "smoked"?
View attachment 1037636

Yeah