Sign in to follow this  
DarkIndianRises

Cap strategy between now and Summer of 2021 when we have to re-up Petey and Hughes

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Baggins said:

Brock and Jake are both on the roster regardless of where. So with Brock gone for the season who replaces him as a call up that is an equivalent?

dont understand your question here...

they dont have anyone in the system to replace 1rw...thats why they got toffoli.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Darius said:

I agree with many things you say about other subjects but I think you are out to lunch on this one. 4 goals in his remaining 26 games when his career ppg is higher than that.

 

You extrapolate him not scoring since november but wont do the same with Jake who has gone MIA again...1 point in last 8 games.  You also give Jake the benefit of the doubt that he will improve but the younger brock wont.  

 

 

 

Then why did management trade for Toffoli if Jake was a realistic alternative?  If Jake could produce like Brock and is supposedly superior in many other areas wouldnt it be a no brainer to put him on the first line instead of spending organizational assets to fill in the hole in Brock's absence?

 

Think about it.  They gave up a top prospect and a second rounder because Brock got injured - Benning basically said that BBs injury triggered the deal.  If Jake was the superior player he would be on the top line and there would have been no need to pay a price to fill in the hole.

 

Even if they wanted to bring Toffoli here, regardless of Brock's health, why not put Toffoli on the second line and play Jake on the first?

 

They dont trust him, they dont think they can process the game at a first line level...whatever the reason...they just dont want him on the first line.  

 

Either they are out to lunch on this or you are....i think you know where I stand :-)

 

 

Sorry stawns, i dont trust your assessment here.   Despite what you say you havent liked this kid from the start.  You were calling for him to be in Utica since he got here.

 

They can get cap space without trading a core piece.  And yes they do consider him an important piece because look at what they just spent to get a rental to fill the hole his absence has created.

Actually what I said was his first stint at the end of the season wasnt enough to guarantee a spot on the roster and that starting the following season in Utica wouldn't have hurt him........I actually stand by that because he would have had a chance to hone other parts of his game that are weak.  I said the same thing about Jake, Petey and Hughes as well.  That's not an insult, that's wanting to make sure plsyers develop into complete players.  Petey and QH have done that, Boeser has not.

 

Liking him, personally, is irrelevant, im looking at what I think the best move for the team is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You didn't list a single salary $ amount for all of your "signings". How is this a cap strategy when you didn't include any #'s related to the actual salary cap?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Lois, a boat's a boat, but a mystery box can be anything. It can even be a boat. You know how much we've wanted one of those things?..." -- Peter Griffin, Family Guy

 

The only way a Boeser trade makes sense is if there is a suitable replacement (either in the pipeline or in the return) who can score at an average minimum of 0.8 Points per game and can average at least 62 games played in a season.

 

From the perspective of what's in the pipeline and existing roster, Podkolzin won't be joining the ranks until the 2021-2022 season. Hoglander won't bring that kind of production next season, provided he even signs his ELC within the upcoming international window. At the rate Virtanen is playing, it's possible he can grow into it, but he'll be lucky to end this season at 0.5 Points per game. Do we really expect Kole Lind to shoulder that responsibility next season? Jasek?

 

Replacing that production in Free Agency would cost more than retaining Brock Boeser at his current cap hit. Does Toffoli at $5.5 - $6 Million supplant Boeser? Does Taylor Hall at $9 Million make it worth losing Boeser at a lower cap hit? If the return in a trade includes a mid to low 1st round pick, it is more than likely that within 3 years that selected prospect may develop into a 60-70 point player... Like Brock Boeser. Hoffman would make the most sense, but he's only reached 70 points once in his career and may only reach 65 points this season if all goes well. He will command between $6-$7 Million per year in free agency. Resigning Toffoli could potentially work, but premature based on the single game he's played for us so far. I'd like to see how he progresses for the rest of the season before putting pen to paper. Even so, I imagine he'd cost at least $5 Million per.  

 

Let's say, hypothetically, Brock gets traded for one of the lottery picks in this year's draft. With the exception of Lafreniere, when do those picks reach Brock's production? Does byfield reach 40points in his rookie year and reach 60 points by 2022? How about Raymond? Holtz? Perfetti?

 

I'm imagining what a trade to Minnesota would look like. It's possible they might bite on a one for one for Dumba, but feel as if we'd need to add, which probably causes a domino effect of issues.  Maybe a trade around Fiala (Add Boldy and a pick, maybe?) but Fiala would be due for a raise in the same year as both Pettersson and Hughes. 

 

Brain hurts. Will provide more analysis at a later time.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

some in here think that he is a bigger impact player than Boeser and can step into that first line spot and consistently put up points like BB did for the long term,

Lol just like they think juolevi will be a future top 2 dman... virtanen will never have success in the NHL until he decides to put in 100% effort in 100% of the games. Hes like what 4 5 years into his career still cant beat it into him yet. Once in a while you'll see why hes chosen #8.. then theres long stretches where you are scratching your head trying to look for him on the ice. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, grouse747 said:

plain and simple, the luongo thing should never have been allowed by the league....... not sure about all leagues, but many leagues make it so you can't trade away too many first round picks as you could trade away your next 10 years picks to get veteran players for a 2-3 year run..... showing my age, but i think the catalyst for this was the LA Kings trading for Rick Martin.

 

i know the NBA salary cap well......... where can i learn about the NHL salary cap?.............1) is there a luxury tax? 2) is there some sort of $$$$$ hold on first round picks so that you can load up with great free agents and then sign hughes/peterson to 2nd contracts? i believe the NBA has this......... 3) how long must a player play for your team to qualify as the team resigning its own player? again, the NBA has rules on this, players you pick up in february don't count as "resigning" your own player when they sign that summer. 

1) No, there salary cap is hard, no team can exceed it in season. All trades and signings have to be sent to the league head-office for approval before becoming official. If a trade/ signing will put a team over the cap, it will be rejected. (teams are allowed to exceed the cap by a little bit during the off-season, but must be cap compliant before opening night.

 

2) I'm not really sure what you mean here? Do you just mean that you have to have salary set aside? Then the answer is no. You can load up on free agents that expire the same year Pettersson/Hughes do then pay them with the money freed up. Issue is, high-end free agents will (most of the time) demand more term than that. NHL contracts are typically longer than NBA.

 

3) The day that player signs or is traded for counts. If a team picks up a player at the trade deadline (February/March), they can sign them to a contract extension immediately if they wish (Can only sign extension in the last year of a contract). The team who has the player has until July 1st in the year the contract expires to exclusively negotiate with the player, then they are a free-agent and can sign anywhere (for UFAs).  

 

There is a lot more detail to it than that, but this is just a quick summary. 

 

 

 

Edited by MattJVD

Share this post


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

dont understand your question here...

they dont have anyone in the system to replace 1rw...thats why they got toffoli.....

That's my point. Jake has bounced from 1st to 3rd line. Thus he's not a replacement for Brock as he's already there regardless of line. Whether Toffoli plays 1st, 2nd, or 3rd line he's Brock's replacement. As Brock has also bounced between them. Tofolli wasn't acquired because Jake can't fill 1st line, he was acquired because no call up available could replace Brock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Baggins said:

That's my point. Jake has bounced from 1st to 3rd line. Thus he's not a replacement for Brock as he's already there regardless of line. Whether Toffoli plays 1st, 2nd, or 3rd line he's Brock's replacement. As Brock has also bounced between them. Tofolli wasn't acquired because Jake can't fill 1st line, he was acquired because no call up available could replace Brock.

If Jake was capable of replacing Brock - ie being a productive 1st line RW consistently, i doubt Benning would have traded madden and a Second.  Why not just put Jake up on that line and use Utica winger to fill the third line spot.  its less than 25 games.

Edited by Darius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Darius said:

If Jake was capable of replacing Brock - ie being a productive 1st line RW consistently, i doubt Benning would have traded madden and a Second.  Why not just put Jake up on that line and use Utica winger to fill the third line spot.  its less than 25 games.

As Benning said, he wants to give the team a chance at making the playoffs. In a couple of days the news was Brock, Leivo and Ferland were all done for the season. Yes, Virtanen could be moved to the first. But would a call up be a 20 goal scorer replacing Jake spot? Would he be as good defensively? Is the team weaker with no Brock going with Jake and a call up? Just to break even the call up would need to be the equivelant of Brock. This is why he traded for Tofolli. Not because Jake can't play 1st line, but because replacing Brock with a call up weakens the team even further.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Step 1 : Extend Petey and Hughes July 1, 2020

Step 2: Then you work on other players....

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody gives a F about anyones plan about the cap situaiton going forward. Things will change and alot of moving parts going forward. At the end of the day Benning and staff will figure it out and get it done. They definitely wont be coming on message boards to see how they can fix the cap situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Baggins said:

As Benning said, he wants to give the team a chance at making the playoffs. In a couple of days the news was Brock, Leivo and Ferland were all done for the season. Yes, Virtanen could be moved to the first. But would a call up be a 20 goal scorer replacing Jake spot? Would he be as good defensively? Is the team weaker with no Brock going with Jake and a call up? Just to break even the call up would need to be the equivelant of Brock. This is why he traded for Tofolli. Not because Jake can't play 1st line, but because replacing Brock with a call up weakens the team even further.

 

 

sorry man, im not buying it.  Third line winger could have been patched for the rest of the season...its not like we are talking 82 games here...no need to spend considerable assets on Toffoli if  management viewed Jake as a viable replacement for 1st line RW.  Fact of the matter is Coach and or Mangagement dont seem to want Jake on that top line.  The reasons for this could be many and are debatable. Sure he could play there...but with the season on the line they dont trust him.  Proof will be in the pudding going forward.  I doubt Jake moves off of the third line.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m tired of the word “sweetener” JB will figure it out. End of story

 

Also really tired of the Boeser trade talks. The guys 22years old ffs 

Edited by Devron44
  • Thanks 1
  • Hydration 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Darius said:

sorry man, im not buying it.  Third line winger could have been patched for the rest of the season...its not like we are talking 82 games here...no need to spend considerable assets on Toffoli if  management viewed Jake as a viable replacement for 1st line RW.  Fact of the matter is Coach and or Mangagement dont seem to want Jake on that top line.  The reasons for this could be many and are debatable. Sure he could play there...but with the season on the line they dont trust him.  Proof will be in the pudding going forward.  I doubt Jake moves off of the third line.

 

 

You really don't get it.

Share this post


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

You really don't get it.

i get exactly what you are trying to say, its a net overall loss.  Sure it is.  The posters I was arguing with above were implying that Jake is at least as good as Boeser...if that was the case there was no need to go out and get a Toffoli calibre player to play on the top line.  If management thought this then they could have easily given Jake the 1RW reigns and patched that third line wing position up for 20 games. - no need to give up the valuable currency they did. Fact is they dont trust him on that 1rw position with the season on the line.

Edited by Darius
  • Hydration 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Darius said:

i get exactly what you are trying to say, its a net overall loss.  Sure it is.  The posters I was arguing with above were implying that Jake is at least as good as Boeser...if that was the case there was no need to go out and get a Toffoli calibre player to play on the top line.  If management thought this then they could have easily given Jake the 1RW reigns and patched that third line wing position up for 20 games. - no need to give up the valuable currency they did. Fact is they dont trust him on that 1rw position with the season on the line.

I think Virtanen is comparable. What he gives up in points to Brock he makes up in speed, phyisicality and defense. They bring different aspects to compliment Petey/Miller.

 

My point is the need for Toffoli is because:

Virtanen + Boeser, regardless of line each is on, is superior to Virtanen + call up regardless of what line each is on. It's the call up that is actually replacing the injured player. The call up options weakening the team being the reason we acquired Toffoli.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Baggins said:

I think Virtanen is comparable. What he gives up in points to Brock he makes up in speed, phyisicality and defense. They bring different aspects to compliment Petey/Miller.

 

My point is the need for Toffoli is because:

Virtanen + Boeser, regardless of line each is on, is superior to Virtanen + call up regardless of what line each is on. It's the call up that is actually replacing the injured player. The call up options weakening the team being the reason we acquired Toffoli.

I get your perspective Baggins.  I think they dont make the trade say if Jake goes down and Brock is healthy.  Toffoli was brought here to fill in on top line because coach/manager dont trust Jake on top line long term with the season on the line.

 

We can agree to disagree.  Its why I enjoy coming here and having these exchanges, and appreciate it when discussion can be had without insults! lol

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of this Boeser trade talk makes me amazed at how people didn't learn from the "trade Virtanen" panic that engulfed these message boards for a good couple of years.

 

I'll sit and wait for the next panic wave with Hughes if he "regresses" and doesn't hit 50 points next year.

  • Hydration 3
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Lazurus said:

Can't figure how. The clause contracts and expansion will have an impact as well as bonuses.

As far as Boeser moving, you have to trade good players to get good players and with this team still in a rebuild it will have a little more time to bring 3 or 5 more young players into the mix as first or second line forwards or another very good defense man.

 

Seattle expansion money does not count in the CBA hockey revenue for cap purposes and the players are getting tired of the salary claw back that they finance through esgrow, there was concern they may not bump the cap, and it was the NHLPA that did that, by 5%, if they didn't there would have been on increase this season.

 

The team might have a total of 18 million to sign all the contracts they need to deal with not counting anything left for Pettersson and Hughes next year

Yes at the moment they have about 18 mil for next year, plus whatever the cap increase will be which I assume will be modest at around 1.5.. so 19.5 for 10 players isn't much considering some of the players that need to be signed, but as I agreed with a part of the OP, I anticipate that Sutter and/or Baertschi will be moved this upcoming offseason thus freeing up more cap space, sure this years performance bonuses could effectively lower the available money next year, but i don't think all bonuses will be achieved maybe half so about 2 mil or so, also I'm not sure if ltir covers the bonuses? I think ltir may when the bonus is actually achieved it becomes that players full salary? not sure if you know? I am interested.

 The following year when Petey and Hughes need new contacts there will be a few other contracts coming off the books Edler, Pearson, the Spooner buyout, player taken in E.D etc.  They don't need to be given 6 to 8 max money contracts right off the bat, they can be bridged for a yr to 4 then given max contracts when other contracts will be off the books and a higher cap.  sorry I know seattle's expansion fees aren't part of the revenue sharing, it goes straight to the owners, to clarify i meant with them in the league they will help with the overall league growth of revenue which in turn will help increase the cap plus there will be the new league tv deal which I assume will double if not more.  All of this will increase the cap which may offset some of the escrow and claw back.

 

There are 3 NMC on the team this and next year, the rest are modified so again not that big a deal, those modified contract players could still be moved if there are any takers. As for the E.D the Canucks are in a very good position, they don't have any NMC so any player can be left unprotected. I'm not too worried about the salaries increasing because of Seattle and there being more competition to sign the same players, if that's what you mean? 

 

As to Boeser and really any player for that matter, trading them to get pieces that will improve the team I am for, not the 1st round pick or lesser quality players that OP and many others have suggested.  Those type of trades/moves do nothing for the team and thus I said better to keep him than trade him for a 1st

  • Hydration 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Darius said:

I get your perspective Baggins.  I think they dont make the trade say if Jake goes down and Brock is healthy.  Toffoli was brought here to fill in on top line because coach/manager dont trust Jake on top line long term with the season on the line.

 

We can agree to disagree.  Its why I enjoy coming here and having these exchanges, and appreciate it when discussion can be had without insults! lol

 

 

If Virtanen had been done for the season, combined with the other two, I think Benning still would have gone for Toffoli anyway. That's just pure speculation of course. But with three top nine forwards out, and all three top 6 capable (even Virtanen falling in that category in your scenario), I think Benning would still have made a move if the team was going to continue competing for a playoff spot. Again just opinion, but I think Benning really wants this team to get their feet wet in the playoffs this season.

 

There was some thinking Benning would shoot for a defensive upgrade instead but I think that's in the cards for the playoffs anyway. Tryamkin's contract expires when the KHL season is over and I suspect Benning will try to re-sign him before the season is over. 

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.