[Signing] Blue Jackets re-sign Joonas Korpisalo

[-Vintage Canuck-]

 

[Where's Wellwood]

does this affect Markstrom's market value at all? I know Korpisalo is younger and was going to be RFA but this contract does use a UFA year. 

[I.Am.Ironman]

^^^hopefully. Korpisalo had a good year

[RonMexico]

Man this sucks for my keeper league. I want to keep Elvis but this muddies the waters now.

[Borvat]

18 hours ago, Where's Wellwood said:

does this affect Markstrom's market value at all? I know Korpisalo is younger and was going to be RFA but this contract does use a UFA year. 

Well if any (or all) of the doom and gloom comes true regarding league revenues this year and going forward due to covid it will affect everyones market value at least in the short term.  Many of the UFA's and RFA's coming due for a contract will be disappointed.  The whole escrow / cap issue will also become interesting.  Available cap space will be extremely valuable.  May be difficult for the Canucks to retain the players they really need like Tanev, Toffoli and Markstrom.

[theo5789]

36 minutes ago, Borvat said:

Well if any (or all) of the doom and gloom comes true regarding league revenues this year and going forward due to covid it will affect everyones market value at least in the short term.  Many of the UFA's and RFA's coming due for a contract will be disappointed.  The whole escrow / cap issue will also become interesting.  Available cap space will be extremely valuable.  May be difficult for the Canucks to retain the players they really need like Tanev, Toffoli and Markstrom.

The reality is this will be a league wide problem. If we can't retain them, there won't be a big market to acquire them at the price tag they want anyway. Players will simply have to take less, possibly for short term and hope things trend back up. If that's the case, then we should still be able to retain or add players that we not have expected to become available as things shift proporrionally. Not like these players are going to bolt to Europe or whatever, so both players and teams will feel the crunch if they want to keep the league going.

[Borvat]

25 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

The reality is this will be a league wide problem. If we can't retain them, there won't be a big market to acquire them at the price tag they want anyway. Players will simply have to take less, possibly for short term and hope things trend back up. If that's the case, then we should still be able to retain or add players that we not have expected to become available as things shift proporrionally. Not like these players are going to bolt to Europe or whatever, so both players and teams will feel the crunch if they want to keep the league going.

There are teams with more exisiting cap space - pre-covid - that is my point.  As in they can "potentially" offer more than the Canucks if they want said player.  It's not about what the player wants it's what can they get and who can pay it - cap space.  All teams are not equal in that regard.

[theo5789]

59 minutes ago, Borvat said:

There are teams with more exisiting cap space - pre-covid - that is my point.  As in they can "potentially" offer more than the Canucks if they want said player.  It's not about what the player wants it's what can they get and who can pay it - cap space.  All teams are not equal in that regard.

And those teams were intentionally looking to hit the cap floor, so they are either intentionally not spending, rebuilding (and not look to make significant adds to their team yet, or what cap space they did have prior is not as much as they had before with the cap stagnating or even possibly dropping.

 

Then there's the factor is those UFAs want to sign with lesser teams for the money because they have the space or if they want to stay with a contender (and/or keep loyalties to their respective teams). If teams want to outbid, then they are eating up their precious cap space. Thankfully we have depth of up and coming prospects to help mitigate any losses significantly. We may just have to rush in a player sooner than expected (eg Demko takes the starting gig if we lose Marky, Tryamkin assuming he returns gets a bigger role if we lose Tanev, MacEwen/Lind/Hoglander cracks the roster in Toffoli's spot, plus Boeser is still around).

 

The point is, this isn't just a Canucks problem, it'll be a league-wide problem. If we get a compliance buyout, then that eases our situation further.

[Borvat]

2 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

And those teams were intentionally looking to hit the cap floor, so they are either intentionally not spending, rebuilding (and not look to make significant adds to their team yet, or what cap space they did have prior is not as much as they had before with the cap stagnating or even possibly dropping.

 

Then there's the factor is those UFAs want to sign with lesser teams for the money because they have the space or if they want to stay with a contender (and/or keep loyalties to their respective teams). If teams want to outbid, then they are eating up their precious cap space. Thankfully we have depth of up and coming prospects to help mitigate any losses significantly. We may just have to rush in a player sooner than expected (eg Demko takes the starting gig if we lose Marky, Tryamkin assuming he returns gets a bigger role if we lose Tanev, MacEwen/Lind/Hoglander cracks the roster in Toffoli's spot, plus Boeser is still around).

 

The point is, this isn't just a Canucks problem, it'll be a league-wide problem. If we get a compliance buyout, then that eases our situation further.

And my point was there will be teams with more cap space than the Canucks will have available should they want the players I mentioned in myoriginal post.  Pretty basic math.  They are not all equal (nor will they be if the cap falls or stagnates) some will be able to offer more if they choose.  End of my point. 

 

Not sure why you decided to hijack my point to imply I don't think there are other options for the Canucks or other teams.  If you want to undertake a discussion on what other teams will and should do about said players based on your opinion then feel free to start another discussion. If you want to take it further make your own post and we can discuss that point. My point stands. 

 

  

[theo5789]

1 hour ago, Borvat said:

And my point was there will be teams with more cap space than the Canucks will have available should they want the players I mentioned in myoriginal post.  Pretty basic math.  They are not all equal (nor will they be if the cap falls or stagnates) some will be able to offer more if they choose.  End of my point. 

 

Not sure why you decided to hijack my point to imply I don't think there are other options for the Canucks or other teams.  If you want to undertake a discussion on what other teams will and should do about said players based on your opinion then feel free to start another discussion. If you want to take it further make your own post and we can discuss that point. My point stands. 

 

  

Yes but how many of those teams are looking to add? You're making it sound like we are in a bad position to lose a player when in reality, most contending teams are not going to have the space to pay "market value" for these players anyway. If you're suggesting that teams with more space can pay players more, that hasn't changed prior to covid-19. Everyone is affected proportionally. Players still have to want to sign for those teams and if they're only in it for the max money they can get, then they wouldn't fit into our plans anyway. I'm not hijacking anything, I'm saying there's more layers to it.

[Borvat]

1 hour ago, theo5789 said:

Yes but how many of those teams are looking to add? You're making it sound like we are in a bad position to lose a player when in reality, most contending teams are not going to have the space to pay "market value" for these players anyway. If you're suggesting that teams with more space can pay players more, that hasn't changed prior to covid-19. Everyone is affected proportionally. Players still have to want to sign for those teams and if they're only in it for the max money they can get, then they wouldn't fit into our plans anyway. I'm not hijacking anything, I'm saying there's more layers to it.

My point exactly, finally.  And yes players do leave teams for more money - happens all the time.  If you are saying the Canucks as constructed are currently a legitimate contender (especially if at a minimum they aren't able to retain these players and improve the roster further) and therefore these players will automatically take less I am not sure you are being realistic.  Then to go on and say they don't fit into your plans if/when they do sign somewhere else for more than you can/have offered is not really a plan it's an adjustment to your original plan becasue you couldn't afford to pay them enough to keep them - lack of cap space.  

[theo5789]

38 minutes ago, Borvat said:

My point exactly, finally.  And yes players do leave teams for more money - happens all the time.  If you are saying the Canucks as constructed are currently a legitimate contender (especially if at a minimum they aren't able to retain these players and improve the roster further) and therefore these players will automatically take less I am not sure you are being realistic.  Then to go on and say they don't fit into your plans if/when they do sign somewhere else for more than you can/have offered is not really a plan it's an adjustment to your original plan becasue you couldn't afford to pay them enough to keep them - lack of cap space.  

But you're treating it as a Canuck problem, yet it's going to be a league-wide problem. Will it be an issue? Most likely, but who is going to benefit? Cap floor teams aren't going to suddenly want to spend especially with this financial market and teams like Tampa have less cap space (5 million if cap stays the same) than us next year and could lose a very good player since they only have 3 dmen signed.

 

Last season, there were lots of talks about trying to find a suitor for LE. There weren't a lot of options. There may be even less options if the cap stays the same or is lowered. Other teams will feel the cap crunch and have players that will become available that weren't expected. That saturates the market with limited teams that can afford to pay. The reality is players will have to take less most likely no matter where they go, so the question is do they want to go?

 

As it stands we have 18 million in cap space for next season assuming the cap stays the same. At their current market value, we would we looking at about 17 million to sign Marky (6), Toffoli (6), Tanev (5). I imagine their market values will dip when we find out how the cap is affected. I'm not suggesting they slash their contracts in half to stay here, but the reality of the situation is that all UFAs and RFAs will be affected by this and they will have to take less or possibly find themselves out of the league as they've priced themselves out. So for example Marky signs for 5, Toffoli 5.25, Tanev 4.5, which would "save" us 2.25 of cap space.

 

If we do indeed get a compliance buyout, that's 6 million from LE saved, which gives us 7 million (or 9.25 with my "savings") to sign Jake, Gaudette, Motte, Tryamkin(?), and depth. Waive Benn to save 1+ million, buyout Baertschi to save another 800k or so for next season. It will take some tinkering to make it work, but this was the case even before covid.

 

Just look at the cap space that teams have for next season and not many teams have more space than we do and the ones that do will have to make a big decision to decide if it's worth picking someone up at above market and restricting their own space. It'll be even more costly to dump cap too, so it'll be that much harder for teams to make things work.

[Borvat]

7 hours ago, Borvat said:

Well if any (or all) of the doom and gloom comes true regarding league revenues this year and going forward due to covid it will affect everyones market value at least in the short term.  Many of the UFA's and RFA's coming due for a contract will be disappointed.  The whole escrow / cap issue will also become interesting.  Available cap space will be extremely valuable.  MAY be difficult for the Canucks to retain the players they really need like Tanev, Toffoli and Markstrom.

 

6 hours ago, theo5789 said:

The reality is this will be a league wide problem. If we can't retain them, there won't be a big market to acquire them at the price tag they want anyway. Players will simply have to take less, possibly for short term and hope things trend back up. If that's the case, then we should still be able to retain or add players that we not have expected to become available as things shift proporrionally. Not like these players are going to bolt to Europe or whatever, so both players and teams will feel the crunch if they want to keep the league going.

 

5 hours ago, theo5789 said:

And those teams were intentionally looking to hit the cap floor, so they are either intentionally not spending, rebuilding (and not look to make significant adds to their team yet, or what cap space they did have prior is not as much as they had before with the cap stagnating or even possibly dropping.

 

Then there's the factor is those UFAs want to sign with lesser teams for the money because they have the space or if they want to stay with a contender (and/or keep loyalties to their respective teams). If teams want to outbid, then they are eating up their precious cap space. Thankfully we have depth of up and coming prospects to help mitigate any losses significantly. We may just have to rush in a player sooner than expected (eg Demko takes the starting gig if we lose Marky, Tryamkin assuming he returns gets a bigger role if we lose Tanev, MacEwen/Lind/Hoglander cracks the roster in Toffoli's spot, plus Boeser is still around).

 

The point is, this isn't just a Canucks problem, it'll be a league-wide problem. If we get a compliance buyout, then that eases our situation further.

 

3 hours ago, theo5789 said:

Yes but how many of those teams are looking to add? You're making it sound like we are in a bad position to lose a player when in reality, most contending teams are not going to have the space to pay "market value" for these players anyway. If you're suggesting that teams with more space can pay players more, that hasn't changed prior to covid-19. Everyone is affected proportionally. Players still have to want to sign for those teams and if they're only in it for the max money they can get, then they wouldn't fit into our plans anyway. I'm not hijacking anything, I'm saying there's more layers to it.

 

47 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

But you're treating it as a Canuck problem, yet it's going to be a league-wide problem. Will it be an issue? Most likely, but who is going to benefit? Cap floor teams aren't going to suddenly want to spend especially with this financial market and teams like Tampa have less cap space (5 million if cap stays the same) than us next year and could lose a very good player since they only have 3 dmen signed.

 

Last season, there were lots of talks about trying to find a suitor for LE. There weren't a lot of options. There may be even less options if the cap stays the same or is lowered. Other teams will feel the cap crunch and have players that will become available that weren't expected. That saturates the market with limited teams that can afford to pay. The reality is players will have to take less most likely no matter where they go, so the question is do they want to go?

 

As it stands we have 18 million in cap space for next season assuming the cap stays the same. At their current market value, we would we looking at about 17 million to sign Marky (6), Toffoli (6), Tanev (5). I imagine their market values will dip when we find out how the cap is affected. I'm not suggesting they slash their contracts in half to stay here, but the reality of the situation is that all UFAs and RFAs will be affected by this and they will have to take less or possibly find themselves out of the league as they've priced themselves out. So for example Marky signs for 5, Toffoli 5.25, Tanev 4.5, which would "save" us 2.25 of cap space.

 

If we do indeed get a compliance buyout, that's 6 million from LE saved, which gives us 7 million (or 9.25 with my "savings") to sign Jake, Gaudette, Motte, Tryamkin(?), and depth. Waive Benn to save 1+ million, buyout Baertschi to save another 800k or so for next season. It will take some tinkering to make it work, but this was the case even before covid.

 

Just look at the cap space that teams have for next season and not many teams have more space than we do and the ones that do will have to make a big decision to decide if it's worth picking someone up at above market and restricting their own space. It'll be even more costly to dump cap too, so it'll be that much harder for teams to make things work.

See my original bolded statament.  What a rabbit hole and waste of time based on an observtion that MAY or may not come true that only time will tell.  I know you like having the last word from previous experience by engaging - my bad.  Please proceed and I will step off.  The floor is yours.  Enjoy your weekend.