VMR Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 People seem to be throwing the words "Cap Space" around like they know what it means.... To me it means we are not doing all we can to win. Currently we have rumors of big names possibly being moved and younger players coming back giving us "Cap Space", does this not mean owners are saving money and yet we will continue to pay the same? Having "Cap Space" does not guarantee free agents will sign here in the summer. It seems to me that Canucks need to make Hockey Deals to keep us competitive, because what good is Cap Space if we stink and owners continue to reap the benefits. What are your thoughts? PS: If I posted in the wrong place I apologize, to me this is Canucks talk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goalie13 Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 People seem to be throwing the words "Cap Space" around like they know what it means.... To me it means we are not doing all we can to win. Currently we have rumors of big names possibly being moved and younger players coming back giving us "Cap Space", does this not mean owners are saving money and yet we will continue to pay the same? Having "Cap Space" does not guarantee free agents will sign here in the summer. It seems to me that Canucks need to make Hockey Deals to keep us competitive, because what good is Cap Space if we stink and owners continue to reap the benefits. What are your thoughts? PS: If I posted in the wrong place I apologize, to me this is Canucks talk. I disagree. There's having cap space and then there's staying above the cap floor. I don't think it is wrong for the team to plan on always having a reasonable amount of cap space. This means they will have the ability to make a deal for a big ticket player if the opportunity comes up. They won't be handcuffed because they are already at the cap. This is far different than a team that plays barely above the cap floor. I see nothing wrong with trying to be as competitive as possible while maintaining a little cap space for flexibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prana16 Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 People seem to be throwing the words "Cap Space" around like they know what it means.... To me it means we are not doing all we can to win. Currently we have rumors of big names possibly being moved and younger players coming back giving us "Cap Space", does this not mean owners are saving money and yet we will continue to pay the same? Having "Cap Space" does not guarantee free agents will sign here in the summer. It seems to me that Canucks need to make Hockey Deals to keep us competitive, because what good is Cap Space if we stink and owners continue to reap the benefits. What are your thoughts? PS: If I posted in the wrong place I apologize, to me this is Canucks talk. Not having cap space does guarantee that we can't sign free agents in the summer. So getting young players (hopefully some blue chippers) and some picks, stocking up our youth AND having cap space to hopefully sign a couple of good free agents should leave us in a better position. ... but thats not a guarantee that you can attract free agents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chalky Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 Salary Cap is the total number any team can spend on their roster players. Cap Space is Salary Cap minus Roster Salary. The "space" is simply the value a team is allowed to spend before reaching the cap. There are scenarios where the ownership can be paying more or less than the Cap value because of front loaded contracts, for example, Luongo's cap hit is 5.25Mil, his salary for the first 2 years was ~10Mil, for those two years Aquaman was paying more than the Cap value. I totally agree Cap Space means nothing to free agents. It has to be an attractive market and team to attract free agents. The owners don't necessarily reap the benefits. In our case, Aquaman is more than willing to spend to the cap, which is generally necessary to ice the best team. In many cases, such as Florida, the teams lose too much money to be flippant with total roster value. That is why front loaded contracts can be appealing in the ending years to poorer teams who can use the Cap Hit to reach the Cap Floor (the minimum value a team must reach) yet pay less than the Cap Hit in actual dollars. I think it is a valid conversation to have, but it is less relevant to the Canucks given Aquaman's ability and desire to spend to the Cap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazzle Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 Not having cap space does guarantee that we can't sign free agents in the summer. So getting young players (hopefully some blue chippers) and some picks, stocking up our youth AND having cap space to hopefully sign a couple of good free agents should leave us in a better position. ... but thats not a guarantee that you can attract free agents. Good free agents are hard to come by. We could get lucky and get a cheap contract like Santorelli. But for "big name free agents"... that's nearly impossible. It's never worked out for any team to spend an enormous amount of money on a highly coveted player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VMR Posted March 4, 2014 Author Share Posted March 4, 2014 I disagree. There's having cap space and then there's staying above the cap floor. I don't think it is wrong for the team to plan on always having a reasonable amount of cap space. This means they will have the ability to make a deal for a big ticket player if the opportunity comes up. They won't be handcuffed because they are already at the cap. This is far different than a team that plays barely above the cap floor. I see nothing wrong with trying to be as competitive as possible while maintaining a little cap space for flexibility. I agree to a certain extent, there is a difference between cap floor and cap ceiling. With that said, if GM's do things correctly and can trade/sign players I want our team near the top. Now if our GM unloads players and can't sign anyone, what good is cap space? Not having cap space does guarantee that we can't sign free agents in the summer. So getting young players (hopefully some blue chippers) and some picks, stocking up our youth AND having cap space to hopefully sign a couple of good free agents should leave us in a better position. ... but thats not a guarantee that you can attract free agents. I see what you are saying but, you can sign anyone you want in the summer, you just have to be cap compliant in September for season start. You have tons of time to unload people then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goalie13 Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 I agree to a certain extent, there is a difference between cap floor and cap ceiling. With that said, if GM's do things correctly and can trade/sign players I want our team near the top. Now if our GM unloads players and can't sign anyone, what good is cap space? Agreed. It's not about having cap space, it's what you do with it that counts. Big picture, if the team is spending > 90% of the allowable cap, I don't feel shortchanged as a fan in any way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BenDrinkin Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 It means we may have money to sign a first line player eventually!! Honestly, I don't think we have a chance in hell of competing for a cup this year, nor should anyone who watches hockey. May as well make room for the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VMR Posted March 11, 2014 Author Share Posted March 11, 2014 It means we may have money to sign a first line player eventually!! Honestly, I don't think we have a chance in hell of competing for a cup this year, nor should anyone who watches hockey. May as well make room for the future. Come summer time who will want to sign with us if we continue with this "Retool"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ice orca Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 Come summer time who will want to sign with us if we continue with this "Retool"? Money talks, just ask Erhoff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BenDrinkin Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 Come summer time who will want to sign with us if we continue with this "Retool"? It's not just about next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 It means Gillis can re-sign Tanev, Kassian, hopefully Santorelli, (Achie and Schroeder) and still have quite a substantial amount to work with. Given Gillis' record in free agency, I'd say it bodes very well. Hamhuis, Garrison, Tanev, Lack, Malhotra, Richardson, Santorelli, Eriksson, Lain... We'll see. I for one welcome having more options than has been the case over the past 3 or 4 seasons... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VMR Posted March 11, 2014 Author Share Posted March 11, 2014 It means Gillis can re-sign Tanev, Kassian, hopefully Santorelli, (Achie and Schroeder) and still have quite a substantial amount to work with. Given Gillis' record in free agency, I'd say it bodes very well. Hamhuis, Garrison, Tanev, Lack, Malhotra, Richardson, Santorelli, Eriksson, Lain... We'll see. I for one welcome having more options than has been the case over the past 3 or 4 seasons... Malhotra? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Money Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 Money talks, just ask Erhoff. Funny you brought him up... The only reason we got Christian in the first place was that we had cap space, and another team needed to shed his cap hit. No way would we have got him for so little otherwise. The news that the cap may not be rising as much as teams thought is actually GOOD news for us. Some are going to be tight against it, and be in a position of weakness when trying to trade away players with bigger salaries. Just like us last year having to deal Luongo or Schneider... the tables will turn again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2009cupchamps Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 It means now we can overpay a UFA and give them a no-trade clause and potentially get a #1 goalie since we traded both of ours away Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRussianRocket. Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 Money talks, just ask Erhoff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BenDrinkin Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 Funny you brought him up... The only reason we got Christian in the first place was that we had cap space, and another team needed to shed his cap hit. No way would we have got him for so little otherwise. The news that the cap may not be rising as much as teams thought is actually GOOD news for us. Some are going to be tight against it, and be in a position of weakness when trying to trade away players with bigger salaries. Just like us last year having to deal Luongo or Schneider... the tables will turn again. Hey that's a great point, never thought of that. Here's to hoping!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 Malhotra? What's your question? I can add some names to further the point. Demitra, Samuelsson, Torres.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nino Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 You need cap space to get players weather it's free agents or upgrades to the team through trades. That's why we suck now, it was a number of players eating up too much cap room and we didn't have room to add talent (MG's screw up). Looks like the Canucks are trying to rid themselves of some of the contracts that are holding us back, not a bad thing although it's MG's mess to start with and he destroyed the team because he couldn't control the teams cap to start with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuck nit Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 First line winger hole(unless Burr completely turns his career around). Second line winger hole (with Kes still here) and Santo signed to a new deal that will eat plenty of cap. Never mind the d problems with the pairings and inconsistencies of Garrison,this team does not have a #1 puck mover with Edler refusing to grow into a man. Then there is this small problem in goal. The cap space available will address the first line hole and a second line winger-maybe. No D and no experienced NHL back up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.