Arrow 1983

What was so memorable about this year I wish to forget that 2020 ever happen. Considering that other then Covid-19 nothing else happened ok Trump did get voted out and the NDP did win a majority long live the NDP see you never again Trump

Where's Sutter

You totally stole my whole post except you put Benn in the minors which screwed up your whole cap cause you can't bury his whole contract

What would be really help full is that you post the roster that you had in mind and then we people that like Capfriendly could review it there. I truthfully can't see the Canucks having a 20 man roster or in this case 21 and still gaining cap space

If you don't have Ferland on LTIR then your minimal roster would be 21 not 20 as Ferland has to remain on the team as an injured player

if you can't bank LTIR cap space then why not just keep a full roster

I do agree with you the CBA as it's current form doesn't make it cap circumvention how ever the CBA was not written to intend on a taxi squad

But last year and years before there was no taxi squad Using the Canucks for example your idea doesn't work at all as Ferland will be on LTIR and as you have pointed out many times a team can't bank LTIR capspace

The only way this could work is if a team kept enough open cap space to recall someone

As I said above 3.5mill is my max and only because it's a 1 year deal Anything less is even better, as I see it if we can replace Ferland Salary with Hamonic I think both of you would agree that would be a Huge upgrade to the Canucks and their defense.

I see where you where coming from now. read my post above that I wrote to provost I think we agree with each other on this point

I think holding a 20 player roster is absurd as this is clearly cap circumvention, and taking advantage of the taxi squad no team has ever run with 20 players in current past that hasn't been emergency . Toronto did 21-22 last year for some periods of the season but their AHL team is in Toronto. I could easily see teams going with 22 players as many teams do so when injuries happen but are not long term. Furthermore, it does a lot of harm to a team if many injuries occur all at one time. As this method is limiting a team to 26 player with Quarantine rules in Canada a team may not even get a new player up for 14 days and that's only if the AHL is playing. Truthfully it is limiting a team to 25 players as 1 of the extras has to be a goalie in your scenario it is easy to see a team have to play a forward at defense or vise versa. Moreover, a Taxi squad will work just like a AHL team. What happens if a player on the roster gets hurt but does not require LTIR that player would still require a roster spot and the team would have no cap space to replace the player. What if that player is a Goalie are you expecting a team to play with no backup. The minimum roster I could see happening is 22 players, That gives a team 1 extra defenseman and 1 extra forward for non LTIR injuries and if you lose a goalie a team can move a forward or defenseman down and recall their spare goalie from the taxi squad.

.

Now that we both have admitted we are not experts what do you think of the post would you like to see something like that happen if it could. I recommend your use you child hockey side and not the adult side of your brain

Look at my post above to you in more clear words it says I'm Not going to argue with you. This is for FUN. Your taking the FUN out of it

I am not saying at all that you are wrong I'm just saying that right now I'm going off the current CBA I Can't predict what the NHL and NHLPA have agreed to. I'm not part of the negotiations and I would guess you are not as well. This is just a signing proposal in a arm chair Gm forum I am not a real GM and have never been a GM this just for fun.

Also the NHL owners wouldn't care it would be the NHLPA

except for the fact that it is in the CBA that the max roster is 23 but is not a requirement as we saw with Toronto last season when they carried at times just 21 players

As I said in my post less would be better for the team and anything over 3.5 the Canucks should say no to. So 3.5mill is my max and only because it would be on a 1 year deal

Recently Benning commented that if the season where to start soon Ferland wouldn't be available for play. So I started to play around with roster ideas on Capfriendly and notice that the Canucks would be just over 3.5million under the cap with a few roster moves and Ferland on LTIR. I believe 3.5million is about the right amount to sign Hamonic for a 1 year deal (Feel free to disagree with me if you wish. some might say less if so even better for the Canucks some might say more in that case IMO more than 3.5mill and it should be no deal for the Canucks.) The Roster I worked out with Ferland on LTIR and with no Hamonic looked like this Cap Hit $77,926,878 Cap Space $3,573,122 Miller Pettersson Boeser Pearson Horvat Virtanen Roussel Gaudette Sutter Motte Beagle Hawryluk MacEnen Hughes Schmidt Edler Myer Benn Rafferty Demko Holtby First things that one might notice is Eriksson and Baertschi are not on the roster I personally wouldn't even have them on a taxi squad both should be sent to the AHL. Second thing one might notice is this is only a 21 man roster add Hamonic and it's only a 22 man roster and not the max 23 player roster. This year is starting to look very unique especially for the Canadian teams, because of the Border closure the Canadian teams and most likely all the teams will be carrying a taxi squad. As I look through Capfriendly, I start to think many teams might use this to their advantage. There is no point in Carrying a max roster when you can carry a 21-22 man roster and a taxi squad. 2 way players can be payed their lower salary and will not count against the cap and if injuries occur taxi squad players will be easily available for replacements. So with Hamonic on the roster at a cap hit of 3.5 mill the cap space would be $73,122 remaining with a 22 man roster. Finally one might notice that guys like Hoglander, Juolevi or Rathbone did not make the roster but guys like Hawryluk and Rafferty did. I refer you to what I just mentioned about taxi Squads. Hawryluk and Rafferty are on 1 way contracts well the other 3 are on 2 way contracts. Furthermore, Hawryluk and Rafferty both have cheaper NHL salaries then the other 3. Moreover, if a top forward or top defensemen gets injured longer term the team could easily call up one of the other 3 instead, if the team felt for example Juolevi was better then Rafferty then Juolevi could still fill the defense spot and Rafferty would still be the Canucks #7 defenseman. Same for Hoglander and Hawryluk in the forward category.

I think the sad part of all this is Gary Bettman is in the right on this one and the players are wrong. The revenue split is 50-50 that's what both sides agreed to and should adhere to period. I will point out I am not with the majority of NHL fans when it comes to the dislike of Bettman I think he has always done the best thing for the game. That sometimes went against doing the best thing for Canada building a strong southern market meant more money for the game which meant better viability for all teams. Just as I hold great respect for John Mccaw he insured this team stayed here he did what was best for team which meant he had to do things that was short term against what the fans wanted.

I don't know if anyone notice this but the Canadian Division has a massive advantage. With only 7 teams 1 of the teams will always have a night off in the long run it means more recovery time and the team that gets out of this division will have had more rest time accumulated then their out of division rival come playoffs. As I am writing this I also realize it will be difficult to get all 7 of these teams to 56 games played at the same time as the other divisions so expect to see back to back to back series in the Canadian division and back to back game series in the other 3 divisions

No Vegas had to do a trade they where offer the cap more then 10% That forced them to make a trade All I am saying is a great trade would have been some cap retention this is a Really good trade

no that would have been a terrible trade for Vegas

I didn't say that. I like the Trade But people cant call it a great trade come on there where reasons this happen that Benning got it so cheap