Sign in to follow this  
Bert Diesel

The Great Salary Cap Conundrum

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

The real question is, who do they consider a knowledgeable hockey person.  They’ve written off almost every media member, who’s left. Not even good old rick Dhaliwal was safe from them. 

 

 

ps. This is what he had to say on the signing

 

”There were over 10 teams involved on Beagle and Roussel, with the #Canucks low in the standings, they had to overpay in term and money.  These were 2 players they really wanted, it is the way free agency works.”

Convenient when they themselves get to decide, isn't it?

 

"Ray Ferraro said a bad thing about my beloved Canucks one time, therefore he's an idiot that knows nothing and shouldn't be on live radio"

 

-CDC

  • Haha 2
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish Loui would just call it a day.  By my calculations he has already received 31 of 36 million dollars.  Based on what I read that he is only actually owed 5 million more in the next two years. Maybe that's wrong, I'm having a hard time finding the number of what he actually has been paid out in total.  But whatever, even if its only close to that.....why not officially retire, Isn't 31 mill enough to carry him through now? Naslund forfeited $3 million to retire early. Others do it. I really don't know how he can show his face on the ice anymore to fans or to Travis Green.

 

And if he did retire, if a mere $31 million wasn't  enough for him, couldn't he simply make a 'return' to hockey by taking up offers to play in Sweden?  Or even another NHL team that now wouldn't have to worry about the cap hit?  For a more reasonable amount?  In fact, he may even be able to recoup the 5 million in a 2 or 3 season contract with another team.

 

Save us all a lot of grief.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, kilgore said:

I wish Loui would just call it a day.  By my calculations he has already received 31 of 36 million dollars.  Based on what I read that he is only actually owed 5 million more in the next two years. Maybe that's wrong, I'm having a hard time finding the number of what he actually has been paid out in total.  But whatever, even if its only close to that.....why not officially retire, Isn't 31 mill enough to carry him through now? Naslund forfeited $3 million to retire early. Others do it. I really don't know how he can show his face on the ice anymore to fans or to Travis Green.

 

And if he did retire, if a mere $31 million wasn't  enough for him, couldn't he simply make a 'return' to hockey by taking up offers to play in Sweden?  Or even another NHL team that now wouldn't have to worry about the cap hit?  For a more reasonable amount?  In fact, he may even be able to recoup the 5 million in a 2 or 3 season contract with another team.

 

Save us all a lot of grief.

Pretty sure it's 27 of 36 million - but your point is still reasonable.  He'd be 'missing out' on 9 million over 3 years (he's owed 1, 4 and 4 over the next 3 years after having his signing bonus paid for this season).

If he mutually agreed to terminate - he'd probably command that (3 million) in free agency.

And he'd have the freedom to go where he wants -- which, under the current circumstances is not the case - he's likely to wind up in Utica - while getting the monkey here off his back.

Unless some deal around Cogliano/Comeau could be worked out with Dallas (wishful thinking imo, but you never know - Calgary was just dumb enough to eat Lucic and his NMC = shocking - so anything is possible) - but termination might wind up being not a bad option for Eriksson...?

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, oldnews said:

Pretty sure it's 27 of 36 million - but your point is still reasonable.  He'd be 'missing out' on 9 million over 3 years (he's owed 1, 4 and 4 over the next 3 years after having his signing bonus paid for this season).

If he mutually agreed to terminate - he'd probably command that (3 million) in free agency.

And he'd have the freedom to go where he wants -- which, under the current circumstances is not the case - he's likely to wind up in Utica - while getting the monkey here off his back.

Unless some deal around Cogliano/Comeau could be worked out with Dallas (wishful thinking imo, but you never know - Calgary was just dumb enough to eat Lucic and his NMC = shocking - so anything is possible) - but termination might wind up being not a bad option for Eriksson...?

 

Yes thanks. I guess I read about 5 million for the next two years, something like that, but there's yet another year to play after that, sadly.

9 million is a lot more to park than 5 million.  But heck, even if he only earns back 5 or 6, its not a bad career haul. And he would have the luxury of heading home to Sweden early to play out his remaining years in his home country if he wants. It would be a bit of a risk for him, but really, when is enough enough?

  • Hydration 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, stawns said:

While I agree an LE trade would be best for all involved, it's pretty clear JB isn't wanting to bring back a bad contract in trade.......what's the point?

I would have taken 1 year of Neal to be rid of Eriksson.  

 

Eriksson should be easier to deal after his bonus pay out.  

 

Fingers crossed.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If LE was to walk away after they pay out his bonus , would it count against this years cap?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Phat Fingers said:

I would have taken 1 year of Neal to be rid of Eriksson.  

 

Eriksson should be easier to deal after his bonus pay out.  

 

Fingers crossed.  

I wouldn't have been willing to add sweetener to do it though.  It wasn't a 1 for 1 desl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, appleboy said:

If LE was to walk away after they pay out his bonus , would it count against this years cap?

 

He's not leaving millions of $ on the table

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, stawns said:

I wouldn't have been willing to add sweetener to do it though.  It wasn't a 1 for 1 desl

4 years of Lucic.  Not a buy out friendly deal.  At least there us only 3 years of Loui.  He also got an 8 m bonus, making it a buyout friendly deal.  Not apples to apples.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, oldnews said:

Ironic appeal to the 'authority' of a twitter personality.

 

While whiffing on a key underlying claim there - that over 10 teams were pursuing Beagle - I suppose the 'authority' of NHL GMs wouldn't qualify them as 'experts' or knowledgeable hockey people though.    They clearly set and determined market value - but the true experts are your twitter favorites lol.

 

Other GM’s showing interest doesn’t mean the team that ended up getting him didn’t overpay. Derp.in fact that supports the idea that he did get overpaid....”it is the way free agency works”.

 

Seems like you whiffed on some basic logic. 

 

Quote

The assumption that overpayment depends on "being low in the standings' is an incredibly weak way to determine a player's value relative to their contract - when there are so many other actual hockey - ie on-ice - ways to determing that - and ironically, by that (weak) standard the 'low standing' Canucks 'should have' had to 'overpay' for all of Myers, Ferland and Benn....

“I think the thing we do have going for us is players see our team kind of transformed last year with our young players. I’m getting the feel through free agency that players want to come out and be part of our group moving forward, where I don’t know if that was necessarily the case before.”

-benning. 

 

What?... benning agrees with media that hack rick dhailwal.... swoosh. 0 for 2 oldnews. And you’re about to strike out. 

 

Quote

Roussel

31 pts in 65 games

38.5% ozone starts

 

What an 'overpayment' lol - because, because - wait for it - 'low in the standings.'

 

Beagle

56.2% faceoffs

18.5% ozone starts

2nd to Sutter in forward pk ice time/game.

102 hits in 57 games.

'Foundational' - to a Stanley cup championship in Washington.

Game over. You have zero clue how to use analytics in context. Posting a players stats means relatively nothing in context of there salary comparable to the rest of the league. 

It hilarious watching you pretend like you know what you are talking about.   Please explain how 56% face off percentage equates to him being worth 3x4 oh wait it doesn’t. 

 

Haha let me try:

brad Richardson 

1st on arz in PK min

34% ozone starts

55% in faceoff dot

27 points in 66 games. 

....wait he’s getting under 1.5 million????

 

Quote

Outstanding 'bottom six' forwards - are criminally under-rated among noobs on these boards - among NHL GMs = not so much - as over 10 of them were in the running for both these players.

 

If other gms wanted him so bad. Why didn’t anyone else outbid us. If we paid “just” market value and the demand for him was so great, you would think one team would have overpaid  :bigblush: to make sure they landed him. 

 

Like i said poor rick is now being writing off. I can post a handful over other quotes from respectable hockey media (lebrun, Friedman, kuzma, Armstrong, macintyre) but because you disagree with them due to your own lack of knowledge and bias. Even former GM Doug Mclean said they were overpaid. (Followed it up with who cares it’s FA’s money and you can buy them out later). Craig button said the same. But I guess since they’re former GM’s doesn’t count right?  Nice little bubble you live in. 

 

Nope good ole... oldnews posted their ozone starts and corsi he’s obviously is the expertzzz. 

 

Heres the funny thing, I like beagle a lot. Played against him a bunch of years growing up and met him a few times through mutual friends, he’s a really solid guy. In canucks situation I was fine with them overpaying to get a guy like him. 

 

Keep on being you oldnews. I always get a good chuckle from your posts. Lol

  • Hydration 1
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Phat Fingers said:

I would have taken 1 year of Neal to be rid of Eriksson.  

 

Eriksson should be easier to deal after his bonus pay out.  

 

Fingers crossed.  

And losing a third rounder?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, stawns said:

And losing a third rounder?

Losing a 3rd to lose Lucic is an accomplishment.  A 3rd rounder can be recouped easily.  

 

Edmonton saves 3 years of Lucic and Neal could bounce back.  

 

If Neal does return to scoring, he will get more than a 3rd at the TDL.  

 

Could Edmonton actually have sorted out its management issues?  

 

As for LE. Giving up a mid to late pick to lose his salary, even with some retained is a win.  

 

We could take someone else back, I would even add salary to make it work, if the player coming back was able to play.  

 

A Bobby Ryan for Eriksson deal for example.  

 

Whatever happens, it wont be pretty.  

 

We have other guys that can also be dealt.  Sutter is one,  Schaller the other.  JB balked at moving Gaudette reportedly.  Gaudette could pass Sutter on the Depth chart.  

 

IMO, all 3 make a very expensive 5th line.  Schaller Sutter Eriksson, 12.2m for our 5th line.... damn son, that's a problem.  

  • Hydration 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Phat Fingers said:

Losing a 3rd to lose Lucic is an accomplishment.  A 3rd rounder can be recouped easily.  

 

Edmonton saves 3 years of Lucic and Neal could bounce back.  

 

If Neal does return to scoring, he will get more than a 3rd at the TDL.  

 

Could Edmonton actually have sorted out its management issues?  

 

As for LE. Giving up a mid to late pick to lose his salary, even with some retained is a win.  

 

We could take someone else back, I would even add salary to make it work, if the player coming back was able to play.  

 

A Bobby Ryan for Eriksson deal for example.  

 

Whatever happens, it wont be pretty.  

 

We have other guys that can also be dealt.  Sutter is one,  Schaller the other.  JB balked at moving Gaudette reportedly.  Gaudette could pass Sutter on the Depth chart.  

 

IMO, all 3 make a very expensive 5th line.  Schaller Sutter Eriksson, 12.2m for our 5th line.... damn son, that's a problem.  

I'd rather see him stay and try to re-establish some value so they can actually make a hockey deal without sacrificing assets they can't afford to sacrifice.  His (dis)ability has been over exaggerated, as is the "controversy" around his "interview".......he can still be a passable member of the team and his contract isn't hurting them yet.  Imo, he's not a "must get rid of now" cap dump 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, stawns said:

I'd rather see him stay and try to re-establish some value so they can actually make a hockey deal without sacrificing assets they can't afford to sacrifice.  His (dis)ability has been over exaggerated, as is the "controversy" around his "interview".......he can still be a passable member of the team and his contract isn't hurting them yet.  Imo, he's not a "must get rid of now" cap dump 

If Loui’s comments were just a guy venting frustration in the moment, then I’d agree with you.  That’s not the case though.  Loui was complaining about his role (as defined by Green) for the entire season, as stated by Wisebrod when he was asked about being surprised by Loui’s public comments.  

I agree we should not sweeten a deal to trade Loui just to dump him, and I don’t think JB will do that.

That, again, leaves the only end for Loui (can’t be in our room, and can’t be traded) as getting demoted to Utica.  

Loui will retire before he gets embarrassed by being put on waivers fir the purpose of sending him down.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, kilgore said:

I wish Loui would just call it a day.  By my calculations he has already received 31 of 36 million dollars.  Based on what I read that he is only actually owed 5 million more in the next two years. Maybe that's wrong, I'm having a hard time finding the number of what he actually has been paid out in total.  But whatever, even if its only close to that.....why not officially retire, Isn't 31 mill enough to carry him through now? Naslund forfeited $3 million to retire early. Others do it. I really don't know how he can show his face on the ice anymore to fans or to Travis Green.

 

And if he did retire, if a mere $31 million wasn't  enough for him, couldn't he simply make a 'return' to hockey by taking up offers to play in Sweden?  Or even another NHL team that now wouldn't have to worry about the cap hit?  For a more reasonable amount?  In fact, he may even be able to recoup the 5 million in a 2 or 3 season contract with another team.

 

Save us all a lot of grief.

It's still $5mil! I wouldn't walk away from that and I don't know many people who would. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Fan since 82 said:

It's still $5mil! I wouldn't walk away from that and I don't know many people who would. 

Its probably more like $9 million.  But no, of course you and I wouldn't walk away from even one million. Heck, I'd stoop to pick up a loonie on the sidewalk.  Its relative.

If you have so many more times the amount it would take to make you and your family...and their families....very comfortable for the rest of their lives already, how much more do you need? Or rather, would you accept it no matter if you needed it, or what the working conditions were?

 

I think once one has amassed over, say, 10 million, that amount may vary person to person, but it becomes more about being happy at what you do.  ie. the leap from 60,000 salary to $70,000 salary is way more significant than a jump for a millionaire from 6 to 7 million, in terms of life needs and abilities, medical and housing expenses etc, as opposed to the actual amount difference.  And a million for the $60,000 year guy is waaaaay more significant than for the multi-millionaire.  conversely: $10,000 dollars has more practical real value for the poorer person that that same amount has for the millionaire.  The more you have, the less any new money has in the dire importance to the quality of your life.

 

So back to the "more about being happy".  Sure another 5 or 9 million guaranteed is hard to walk away from, but he could actually earn at least most of it back anyways. Not garanteed but he's still in shape and still has a few years left of hockey in him, as a decent defensive veteran, so he could re-sign with Dallas or a Swedish team or wherever if he really wants those extra mills to pad his account. But he'd at least be playing for a team whos coach and fans want him there. Where he'd at least get a fresh start. I think its at least an option for him. And you'd think he might consider it simply because its also a way to rectify his lack of production expectations he saddled the team with over the last few years.  I really don't know how he could come back, and float around the ice again all year and feel good about himself robbing the team like that.

 

 

  • Hydration 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/22/2019 at 7:10 AM, IBatch said:

Yes we have a lot of guys going off the books, but we also have to replace most of them, and re-up Hughes and EP among others.  Podz will help that, but we also will be relying heavily on our prospects to be make the show and replace a few players too.   Only that year could be hairy, we might have to rely quite a bit on our B level prospects and OJ to step in...will be interesting for sure.  After that year we are in the clear.  

I enjoyed this post, thanks.

 

You have hit the cruxt of it, in that we our system produces players who are effective on the ELC's? We should be in pretty good shape.

 

> 2020/21 Tanev's salary comes off the books.  We're ok if Tryamkin, Woo or Juolevi arrive? Does leave some left / right questions. Tanev's money goes to re-signing Markstrom? We have flex if Demko is ready and a back up emerges.  Schaller and Leivo come off the books. Which requires Gaudette winning a FT role, another rookie ready for spot duty. MaCewen, Lockwood? If Eriksson or another salary leaves, say Markstrom again, pretty easy to look at Barrie. Or bring back Chris Tanev...

 

> 2021/22  Is the real year we need rookies & young players. Sutter, Baertschi & Pearson, Spooners penalty come off the books. And all of our D except Myers. We only have 8 players assuming Brock signs now, among them 7 forwards, 1 D and no goalie signed.  But $43 mill aprox. in cap space? Several players will have resigned in between, presumably Gaudette, Virtanen, Stecher, Juolevi, Edler after expansion, maybe Tryamkin, on top of Pettersson & Hughes against that $43. 

 

In 2021/22 having only one D currently signed scares me.  I think we have numerous forward candidates to join the team at this time. Podkolzin, Hoglander, Lind, Lockwood, Madden.  Being able to add Juolevi, Tryamkin & Woo, having Sautner and Brisbois is a bit scary considering we need 5 D.  ALL 5 have to become core players and be integrated?

 

The cap suggests we may not have room for Tyson Barrie next year.  Or someone like him.

 

Reality says we will be moving Loui Eriksson to make room. 

 

On 7/23/2019 at 5:51 AM, oldnews said:

Pretty sure it's 27 of 36 million - but your point is still reasonable.  He'd be 'missing out' on 9 million over 3 years (he's owed 1, 4 and 4 over the next 3 years after having his signing bonus paid for this season).

If he mutually agreed to terminate - he'd probably command that (3 million) in free agency.

And he'd have the freedom to go where he wants -- which, under the current circumstances is not the case - he's likely to wind up in Utica - while getting the monkey here off his back.

Unless some deal around Cogliano/Comeau could be worked out with Dallas (wishful thinking imo, but you never know - Calgary was just dumb enough to eat Lucic and his NMC = shocking - so anything is possible) - but termination might wind up being not a bad option for Eriksson...?

 

I understood to terminate, he had to retire from the NHL.  ie could sign in Europe like Datsyuk.  But could only come back to the NHL on the same team, or if the same team traded him, like Kovalchuk. Kovalchuk had to wait till all the years on his Jersey deal expired was my understanding.

 

Honest question?

18 hours ago, Phat Fingers said:

4 years of Lucic.  Not a buy out friendly deal.  At least there us only 3 years of Loui.  He also got an 8 m bonus, making it a buyout friendly deal.  Not apples to apples.  

Loui's bonuses are guaranteed.  $4mill this year already paid, followed by $3 mill and $1 mill. $8 mill. We pay & 100% of any signing bonuses in a buyout counts against our cap. 2/3rds the salary over twice the term.

image.thumb.png.a55f4fa2c26341312c0ee42ba9dd99a6.png

 

To buy out we only save $1.67 mill in real cash, and have all these cap hits.  Loui Eriksson's contract is pretty buyout proof.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/20/2019 at 4:11 PM, King Heffy said:

We have 2 sweet spots.  2020-21, the last year of EP40/Hughes on ELC,s and the above stated window.  I'm pretty confident we'll be losing one of Demko/Markstrom in the expansion draft, and I've made my peace with it.  Losing a good player means we have a solid group.

I was worried about Demko/Markstrom, but there are going to be lots of goalies exposed - we will continue to have lots of prospects, so we may be able to retain them by surrendering a prospect in addition to our exposed player (considering our possible future depth, that player may also be desirable) so our goalies may be let alone. And that may not be an issue if DiPietro or one of our goalie prospects pans out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.