Art Vandelay Posted May 19, 2020 Share Posted May 19, 2020 I was joking! And wouldn’t like that idea. I feel like that’s unfair to the GM who “won” that extra cap space in the trade negotiations. Its reducing the value they received in the deal. It’s different than a bad contract where you agreed to it against an impartial negotiator. Jazz doesn’t receive any benifits from a bad deal. Like, I got a 1st rounder + decent prospect on a contender for McNabb + 50% retained. No way the other GM pays that without the retention and that deal looks bad without it. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salter Posted May 19, 2020 Share Posted May 19, 2020 1 hour ago, Art Vandelay said: I was joking! And wouldn’t like that idea. I feel like that’s unfair to the GM who “won” that extra cap space in the trade negotiations. Its reducing the value they received in the deal. It’s different than a bad contract where you agreed to it against an impartial negotiator. Jazz doesn’t receive any benifits from a bad deal. Like, I got a 1st rounder + decent prospect on a contender for McNabb + 50% retained. No way the other GM pays that without the retention and that deal looks bad without it. Plenty of people have paid big money to dump bad contracts, in our league and in real life. If the NHL allows a compliance buyout again it would for sure be used against at least a couple players used in the aforementioned scenario. IMO they are nearly identical impacts when it comes to previous deals, and if the league does come out with cap relief I’d be okay with any of the options laid out. (I also don’t have any bad retentions or buyout needs so I don’t consider myself bias) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salter Posted May 19, 2020 Share Posted May 19, 2020 4 hours ago, Master Mind said: AV's point on erasing a cap retention got us thinking -- perhaps it may not be a bad idea to allow 1 compliance buyout + erase 1 cap retention IF the salary cap drops low enough in real life. If this were to happen, the retention would just disappear, and the salary of the player would remain as is. I.e. if NYI erased the retention on Crosby, Crosby's contract on BOS would not change. This could help clear out more cap than compliance buyouts, including long term should the NHL not be able to go back up to 80M for a few years. We'd love to hear GM's thoughts on this possibility (again, this is for a scenario where the cap drops significantly). For visibility on the new page! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Mind Posted May 19, 2020 Share Posted May 19, 2020 3 hours ago, Art Vandelay said: Like, I got a 1st rounder + decent prospect on a contender for McNabb + 50% retained. No way the other GM pays that without the retention and that deal looks bad without it. In this scenario, the team that traded for McNabb would still have him at 50% retained. You just wouldn't be on the hook for the other 50%, should you erase that retention instead of the Weber one. Regardless, this is still all up in the air until we hear how the NHL handles it. Then we can try to make it follow them as closely as possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nolan Posted May 19, 2020 Share Posted May 19, 2020 (edited) 5 hours ago, Art Vandelay said: I was joking! And wouldn’t like that idea. I feel like that’s unfair to the GM who “won” that extra cap space in the trade negotiations. Its reducing the value they received in the deal. It’s different than a bad contract where you agreed to it against an impartial negotiator. Jazz doesn’t receive any benifits from a bad deal. Like, I got a 1st rounder + decent prospect on a contender for McNabb + 50% retained. No way the other GM pays that without the retention and that deal looks bad without it. I can go either way on it. I think there is a point to be made that the teams that had great cap control can get jipped with cap crunches teams getting a free lifeline. I think it’ll be important to wait and see how the NHL restructures everything. If there are big changes I think obviously we should follow to keep things realistic. Just being aware of the situation either decision has for all the Teams throwing out a life boat or not. Edited May 19, 2020 by Nolan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thejazz97 Posted May 20, 2020 Author Share Posted May 20, 2020 23 hours ago, Art Vandelay said: I was joking! And wouldn’t like that idea. I feel like that’s unfair to the GM who “won” that extra cap space in the trade negotiations. Its reducing the value they received in the deal. It’s different than a bad contract where you agreed to it against an impartial negotiator. Jazz doesn’t receive any benifits from a bad deal. Like, I got a 1st rounder + decent prospect on a contender for McNabb + 50% retained. No way the other GM pays that without the retention and that deal looks bad without it. I also am not the biggest fan of the deal, but look at it from my view: Outgoing cost: 1st rounder, prospect Incoming assets: McNabb (50% ret.) That doesn’t change. I’m not paying you to be saddled with the debt (I mean, maybe in some cases ), but I’m paying for the asset with a partially retained salary. I still have the asset, at partially retained salary. I get that it opens up a wider range if opportunities for the seller than the buyer in that instance though, though I don’t think that’s an issue. Unless you only have one, you’d still have to keep all but one retention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salter Posted May 20, 2020 Share Posted May 20, 2020 20 hours ago, thejazz97 said: I also am not the biggest fan of the deal, but look at it from my view: Outgoing cost: 1st rounder, prospect Incoming assets: McNabb (50% ret.) That doesn’t change. I’m not paying you to be saddled with the debt (I mean, maybe in some cases ), but I’m paying for the asset with a partially retained salary. I still have the asset, at partially retained salary. I get that it opens up a wider range if opportunities for the seller than the buyer in that instance though, though I don’t think that’s an issue. Unless you only have one, you’d still have to keep all but one retention. In another fantasy league I had somebody get quite nasty when they realized as we submitted a deal that a player I was moving already had the retention, and that it was not me retaining. They backed out and demanded I give up more. Either way they were receiving the same thing, but they focused on doing "damage" to the other team in a return as opposed focusing on what they're receiving. Such a bruuuuutal mentality to do fantasy sports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thejazz97 Posted May 20, 2020 Author Share Posted May 20, 2020 2 minutes ago, Salter said: In another fantasy league I had somebody get quite nasty when they realized as we submitted a deal that a player I was moving already had the retention, and that it was not me retaining. They backed out and demanded I give up more. Either way they were receiving the same thing, but they focused on doing "damage" to the other team in a return as opposed focusing on what they're receiving. Such a bruuuuutal mentality to do fantasy sports. lol why though, it’s just fantasy hockey 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Mind Posted May 21, 2020 Share Posted May 21, 2020 It seems the 24 team bracket is picking up more steam, and that it'd be the top 4 from each conference getting in, then a bracket afterwards. This is how that would play out: East 8. vs 9. Winner plays: 1. 5. vs 12. Winner plays: 4. 6. vs 11. Winner plays: 3. 7. vs 10. Winner plays: 2. West 8. vs 9. Winner plays: 1. 5. vs 12. Winner plays: 4. 6. vs 11. Winner plays: 3. 7. vs 10. Winner plays: 2. Keeping in mind that teams would be without players on BOS, TBL, WSH, PHI, STL, COL, VGK, DAL, due to getting byes in real-life. (Below is how bracket is stated to be in NHL) Spoiler East 8. vs 9. Winner plays: 1. 5. vs 12. Winner plays: 4. 6. vs 11. Winner plays: 3. 7. vs 10. Winner plays: 2. West 8. vs 9. Winner plays: 1. 5. vs 12. Winner plays: 4. 6. vs 11. Winner plays: 3. 7. vs 10. Winner plays: 2. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Mind Posted May 21, 2020 Share Posted May 21, 2020 (edited) Should those 8 teams get a bye, my playoff roster would be reduced to this in round 1: Connolly - Brassard - Granlund Khaira - Ryan - Foegele Johnston - Gerbe Ellis - Edmundson Larsson - DeMelo Tinordi - Riikola Rittich Montembeault vs Spoiler Dadonov - Duchene - Arvidsson Eriksson Ek - D.Strome - McGinn Hayton - Donato Skjei - Vatanen Russell - Beaulieu Ceci Markstrom Could be a first round exit for the Rangers here. I need that bye into the round of 16 to get all my Knights, Bolts, Caps, and Flyers. Edited May 22, 2020 by Master Mind 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salter Posted May 22, 2020 Share Posted May 22, 2020 20 hours ago, Master Mind said: Should those 8 teams get a bye, my playoff roster would be reduced to this in round 1: Connolly - Brassard - Granlund Khaira - Ryan - Foegele Johnston - Gerbe Ellis - Edmundson Larsson - DeMelo Tinordi - Riikola Rittich Montembeault vs Reveal hidden contents Dadonov - Duchene - Arvidsson Eriksson Ek - D.Strome - McGinn Hayton - Donato Skjei - Vatanen Russell - Beaulieu Ceci Markstrom Could be a first round exit for the Rangers here. I need that bye into the round of 16 to get all my Knights, Bolts, Caps, and Flyers. Apparently they're talking about having the teams with byes play a mini series for seeding! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Mind Posted May 22, 2020 Share Posted May 22, 2020 3 minutes ago, Salter said: Apparently they're talking about having the teams with byes play a mini series for seeding! Yeah I realized shortly after their plans to do that. Thankfully this means DeMelo won't have to carry the entire team, at least not right away. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck Surfer Posted May 22, 2020 Share Posted May 22, 2020 Good to see everyone alive & excited about hockey! Including @Art Vandelay 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Mind Posted May 26, 2020 Share Posted May 26, 2020 (edited) The NHL has announced the regular season is done. They'll be doing the 24 team style. https://www.nhl.com/news/nhl-plans-to-return-with-24-team-stanley-cup-playoffs/c-317031010 Edited May 26, 2020 by Master Mind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Mind Posted May 26, 2020 Share Posted May 26, 2020 (edited) With that said, congrats to @JE14 and the Carolina Hurricanes on clinching the Presidents Trophy! I will keep people posted as new info comes out regarding playoffs (such as the draft lottery, the tracking of stats for play-in and round robin games, etc.) and we'll go from there. Edited May 26, 2020 by Master Mind 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sestito'sHandMadeVodka Posted May 28, 2020 Share Posted May 28, 2020 (edited) oooo boy this draft is gonna get weird. Mainly because the bottom playoff teams IRL have almost identical points (71 and 72, chicago and montreal). So you can order the teams with "fewer than 71" points from both conferences, and have the lottery normally. Not so in puck! We are the 23rd best team, typically good for 9th best lottery odds. BUT! of the 8 teams worse than us, 3 of them are in the qualifying round of the playoffs, and therefore not lottery teams. Does that mean that we get the 6th best lottery odds? And then, if the teams that are worse than us don't win the lottery, and don't advance past the playoffs, do they get a better draft pick than us? That feels wrong! They got playoff games (in a year where, literally anything could happen, anybody could win, and all our strategy was for naught) and we didn't. But also, do we get a better draft pick than a team that objectively did worse than us in the regular season? That also feels wrong! There's no good answers, and I'm trying not to make a case, despite having a vested interest, but I feel like this situation, between art, burrows, matthews and me/sygvard is gonna get at least a little weird and it will be impossible to please everybody. Edited May 28, 2020 by Sestito'sHandMadeVodka 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sygvard Posted May 28, 2020 Share Posted May 28, 2020 Yup. Gonna get weird. Some folks behind us in points are gonna be in playoff-play-in. Pulls em out of the initial lottery. Cause if they win the play-in round, they are in the playoffs and the highest they can pick is 16. If you go over to the IRL habs forum you can watch all the fans praying that they lose the play-in round so it doesn't ruin their tank. :p 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Mind Posted May 29, 2020 Share Posted May 29, 2020 NHL Draft lottery It is a bit different due to Buffalo being ahead of Winnipeg and St. Louis in the standings, but since Buffalo doesn't participate in the play-in round while the others do, it looks like our draft lottery will resemble this: @Jaku --> 18.5% @Nolan --> 13.5% @canuckledraggin --> / 11.5% @JimLahey --> 9.5% @Azzy --> 8.5% @Matthews --> 7.5% @Sygvard / @Sestito'sHandMadeVodka --> 6.5% Then the placeholders would follow the NHL's method (i.e. lowest team in standings eliminated from play-in would be highest seeded placeholder). 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sestito'sHandMadeVodka Posted May 29, 2020 Share Posted May 29, 2020 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Master Mind said: NHL Draft lottery It is a bit different due to Buffalo being ahead of Winnipeg and St. Louis in the standings, but since Buffalo doesn't participate in the play-in round while the others do, it looks like our draft lottery will resemble this: @Jaku --> 18.5% @Nolan --> 13.5% @canuckledraggin --> / 11.5% @JimLahey --> 9.5% @Azzy --> 8.5% @Matthews --> 7.5% @Sygvard / @Sestito'sHandMadeVodka --> 6.5% Then the placeholders would follow the NHL's method (i.e. lowest team in standings eliminated from play-in would be highest seeded placeholder). My original post here was dumb and I can't count, I deleted it. Edited May 29, 2020 by Sestito'sHandMadeVodka 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimLahey Posted May 29, 2020 Share Posted May 29, 2020 4 minutes ago, Master Mind said: NHL Draft lottery It is a bit different due to Buffalo being ahead of Winnipeg and St. Louis in the standings, but since Buffalo doesn't participate in the play-in round while the others do, it looks like our draft lottery will resemble this: @Jaku --> 18.5% @Nolan --> 13.5% @canuckledraggin --> / 11.5% @JimLahey --> 9.5% @Azzy --> 8.5% @Matthews --> 7.5% @Sygvard / @Sestito'sHandMadeVodka --> 6.5% Then the placeholders would follow the NHL's method (i.e. lowest team in standings eliminated from play-in would be highest seeded placeholder). I KNEW icing Lucic, Perry AND Neal in my top six would be too much firepower for a bottom 3 pick. 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now