qwijibo
Members-
Posts
8,144 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Everything posted by qwijibo
-
A 2020 Would U ?! Van/Jackets(Discussion)
qwijibo replied to Nuxfanabroad's topic in Proposals and Armchair GM'ing
From all reports It’s very unlikely there will be a compliance buyout. Pettersson is a phenomenal young player. But there’s no way in hell Columbus makes that trade. -
Not that I’d consider the deal. But... Ericksson’s contract is pretty much buyout proof, Sutter likely doesn’t have value to any team unless Vancouver retains on him, and Baertschi successfully passed through waivers twice this season. No GMs are lining up to trade for him. it’s not a deal Vancouver makes, but by the same token you’d be just as hard pressed to find a willing trade partner willing to take on $14m in cap for next year and another &6m the following year.
-
(proposal) My Vancouver offseason
qwijibo replied to Nicklas Bo Hunter's topic in Proposals and Armchair GM'ing
Here’s the thing about compliance buyouts vs a standard buyout. The compliance buyout erases the cap completely, so it frees the GM to turn around and spend the money again. A standard buyout only clears a portion of the cap, so the GM is forced to exercise restraint. You’re right, the cap hadn’t completely reined in spending. That’s because it’s a function of revenue (plus the escrow inflator). So as the cap has gone up, so has spending. Regardless of that, there’s still a ceiling that prevents rich teams from going completely nuts. I remember the pre-cap era when the Rangers were constantly trying to buy a cup. St Louis and Dallas were bad for it too. getting back to the current situation, the owners have made it clear they don’t want compliance buyouts, the players are already going to take it on the nose with escrow. So they’re not going to want anything that raises escrow even more. You’re overlooking an important aspect to the Recapture penalty. The reason it was retroactive is the CBA of the time allowed for the contract. The NHL was aware of the loophole and warned teams not to circumvent the cap. They couldn’t actually stop it or punish it UNTIL the CBA expired and was reworked. The point here is the parties involved can’t make huge sweeping changes to the institution. The league and the players union want stability. Now more than ever. There’s talk of extending the existing CBA. So you can talk all you want about how covid will force a bunch of changes, but the system to deal with this is in place. Some teams will thrive, some will suffer. But that would have happened even if the cap went up. -
[SIGNING] Goldobin signs with CSKA Moskow
qwijibo replied to Beefcake's topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
Unless of course Rathbone refuses to sign and goes free agent next summer. -
(proposal) My Vancouver offseason
qwijibo replied to Nicklas Bo Hunter's topic in Proposals and Armchair GM'ing
The problem is all your “what if’s” are ignoring some actual facts. The fact is that after inciting massive losses, owners don’t want compliance buyouts. Compliance buyouts mean massive outlays of lump sums to players who won’t even be playing for you. It’s throwing good money after bad in a financial landscape where the pocketbooks have already taken a big hit. Players won’t want compliance buyouts because it will negatively effect escrow even more. Lowering every players cheque The only people who want compliance buyouts are GM’s who want a blank cheque to erase a screwup (and sign other contracts), and fans who think they’re GM’s lol. No matter how the league chooses to deal with the losses they’re taking/going to take. I can Pretty much guarantee it won’t result in a magic bullet that magically creates a bunch of cap space for a team that was in so trouble before. There’s an ebb and flow to teams dealing with the cap. Teams being up against it and having important players to re-sign is nothing new. How do you think the Canucks got Miller out of Tampa? He was a cap casualty. Some teams will be in trouble cap wise. Other teams will be well positioned to take advantage. Yes. We’re in new territory. But remember that we lost a whole season so the owners could impose a cap system to limit. spending. We lost another half season so players could get what they considered a fair split. The system is in place. GM’s will need to deal with it as it comes. Neither the owners nor the players are going to give up ground that was hard won and contractually guaranteed by the CBA. It’s going to be interesting for sure. But there are a lot of things that are known amongst the chaos. -
(proposal) My Vancouver offseason
qwijibo replied to Nicklas Bo Hunter's topic in Proposals and Armchair GM'ing
There likely will NOT be a compliance buyout. If there was there is no Luongo contract to buy out. It’s a penalty against the cap with no actual monetary value. No money is actually being paid on the Luongo penalty. So there’s nothing to buy out. Sutter has a NTC. And SJ doesn’t really have the cap space to take him. They have over $66m committed to only 13 players next season. That only leaves $15m to sign 10 players to fill out the roster. -
[Discussion] Getting out of Cap Mess
qwijibo replied to Provost's topic in Proposals and Armchair GM'ing
Welcome to the world of guaranteed contracts in the NHL. Eriksson is 34. Based on his performance this is likely his last big contract. Sending him to the AHL isn’t that big a threat right now considering his pay won’t be subject to escrow if he’s demoted. You say you’d walk away from $5m for two years of playing in the AHL? He won’t make a fraction of that in Europe. He likely won’t get another NHL contract. Personally I’d collect my $5m before riding off into the sunset -
[Discussion] Getting out of Cap Mess
qwijibo replied to Provost's topic in Proposals and Armchair GM'ing
Why should he? -
[Discussion] Getting out of Cap Mess
qwijibo replied to Provost's topic in Proposals and Armchair GM'ing
Ottawa had no problem hitting the cap floor this year and they won’t have any trouble next year. As of right now they have $37m committed to only 9 players for next season. If the cap floor stays at $60m they only have to spend $23m on 14 players. Piece of cake. Cap space will be a valuable commodity in the new NHL and them taking on 2 seasons at $6m a year is worth a lot more than a goalie prospect. It cost Toronto a 1st to get rid of one year of Marleau. That was BEFORE covid put the breaks on cap growth. If Vancouver wants a team to do them a favour by clearing $12m of aggregate cap space it’s going to cost them. -
[Discussion] Getting out of Cap Mess
qwijibo replied to Provost's topic in Proposals and Armchair GM'ing
Ottawa would laugh historically -
I’m saying if they keep the cap level (which seems to be the talk) the salaries will be adjusted by escrow. No further adjustments at the team level will likely be made. GM’s were able to operate under a $81.5m cap this season, they’ll have to continue to do so going forward for a few years
-
How so? How is this any different from when Vancouver was able to take advantage of Tampa having no cap space in the Miller trade? Teams will adapt. Decisions will be made, trades will follow
-
No where in the CBA does it guarantee annual increases to the cap. Some teams will have cap issues, but that happens every year. GM’s will need to work within a level cap for awhile. Some teams will rise, others will fall. This is nothing new
-
Are the next 2 seasons throw aways? (Discussion)
qwijibo replied to J.I.A.H.N's topic in Proposals and Armchair GM'ing
Lol. Well considering the penalty is essentially a reduction of available cap space rather than an actual fiscal penalty I doubt that argument will get you far. also. You can’t argue the penalty isn’t fair in a stagnant cap environment. The rebuttal would be the Canucks enjoyed the benefits of Loungo’s artificial low cap hit when the cap ceiling was less than $60m. (Opposed you the current cap ceiling of $81m) The penalty isn’t going away. Accept it and focus on other things -
[Report]Canucks hope to re-sign Markstrom
qwijibo replied to peaches5's topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
What if Markstrom won’t sign without some sort of expansion draft protection? (Which I think is likely). The decision will be made this summer. You either commit to Markstrom long term or Demko long term. Any of the top UFA goalies are going to be looking for the same protection -
Are the next 2 seasons throw aways? (Discussion)
qwijibo replied to J.I.A.H.N's topic in Proposals and Armchair GM'ing
What does one have to do with the other? There’s no way the league will rescind it at this point -
[Report]Canucks hope to re-sign Markstrom
qwijibo replied to peaches5's topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
When I said security I was referring to a multi-year contract. Knowing he has a guaranteed contract for more than one year. I wasn’t referring to how much money he may have in the bank. -
[Report]Canucks hope to re-sign Markstrom
qwijibo replied to peaches5's topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
I don’t understand your insistence on referring to what he’s made so far. He’s been, and still is, paid on the low side of what starting goalies make. NHL careers are short. You make as much as you can while you have a job. you assuming that he’s satisfied with how much he’s made so far and he’s willing to forgo the payday he’s earned seems like homer mentality. -
[Report] Chris Tanev, Canucks want new contract
qwijibo replied to peaches5's topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
The talk is the league and players union are looking at keeping the cap flat for a few years and dealing with the losses through mechanisms like escrow. A substantial drop in the cap will mean buyouts, but that’s not what the owners or the players want. So the cap will be artificially higher than it should be, but still maintain the $81m ceiling it has right now -
[Report] Chris Tanev, Canucks want new contract
qwijibo replied to peaches5's topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
Let’s assume that the cap stays flat for a few seasons. Why would the NHL need to make any concessions to teams to help them stay under the cap? All 31 teams were able to operate under a $81m cap this season. Yes. Some were up against it and had to make some maneuvers . But will always be the case. if the cap remains flat, don’t expect any help from the league. Tampa had to give up a very good player in Miller for futures to stay under the cap. Toronto had to give up a 1st to dump a contract that would have been a cap problem. Teams being up against the ceiling is nothing new. There is no clause that says the cap has to rise every year. Teams will need to deal with it with the options they have now. -
[Report]Canucks hope to re-sign Markstrom
qwijibo replied to peaches5's topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
What he’s made over his career is immaterial. Plus he’s earned that. That’s not what he’s been paid. Take escrow off that. Agent fees, taxes. The final number is substantially lower (but again, immaterial) Hes played long enough to become a free agent. That’s when players cash in. He had a great year and he’s going to be in demand. There’s no reason for him to take the risk of having a poor season or an injury plagued season and lose all his bargaining power. Strike while the iron is hot. A bird in the hand is worth two in the Bush. -
[Discussion] Getting out of Cap Mess
qwijibo replied to Provost's topic in Proposals and Armchair GM'ing
Not to mention Tanev taking a 10% pay cut to sign as a free agent -
[Report]Canucks hope to re-sign Markstrom
qwijibo replied to peaches5's topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
Or. He signs a deal with trade protection, ensuring he’s protected from the expansion draft. And it’s not the same as playing the last year of a contract. That contract would have had multiple years of securities attached to it. It just happens to be ending. Players want security. The only guys who willingly sign 1 year deals are guys that don’t have any other choice. Markstrom will have multiple suitors