[Friedman] Canucks looking to “overhaul blue line” ...Ekblad & Cernak could be available

[JM_]

1 hour ago, mll said:

 

Quite a few GMs are implying that fat trimming could be challenging - Poile, Bergevin, Fletcher, Lamoriello have been doing the media rounds this week.

 

Lamoriello says there are going to be far more players available than people expect.

 

Teams were hoping to dump cap on NJD but Custance says it's not an option.  They want to improve their team and are instead looking to add good players as teams are being forced to trim.  Fits with what Fitzgerald was saying at the TDL.

 

Fletcher thinks there won't be many cap clearing trades.  Already a couple of months back he was talking of cap in / cap out trades where teams have to find a way to change their roster by making hockey trades.   

 

High-end players will always be in demand but it might be harder to move mid/bottom of the lineup players without taking equal cap back.  Their contracts were signed when there was no pandemic.  LeBrun hears that some teams are going to wait out UFAs and allow time for bargains to develop - the hope is that some players will become desperate for a contract and take a pay-cut.  Rather than give up assets for players who were signed when the cap/revenue were still increasing, teams might prefer to go the UFA route for depth players.

 

The arbitration risk could make even more players available than usual.  The walk-away limit this year is about 4.54M.  GMs were already complaining about the arbitration process before the pandemic and actually proposed changes. It wasn't addressed in this version of the CBA given the time crunch to get it approved.  An executive was saying that arbitration has become player friendly where some players are getting higher contracts than they would on the open market - it's probably more likely this year as the comparables were mostly signed pre-pandemic. 

 

I know the media has reported Benning won't add for Loui but I wonder if we'll end up seeing that happen after all given the potential for a lot of RFAs hitting the open market. If we could land one of those asset free and move Loui with an asset, its equivalent to trading for the RFA and Loui walking for free. Jim has to take the cap dump risk first though. 

[J.I.A.H.N]

I came here to read about overhauling the defense, which IMO, was singled out, during the playoffs.....

IMO, what was the most glaring deficiency was the need for size on the back end

Just look at Myers and how his size impacted the control of the puck during his shift 

He was able to out muscle opponents and get in font of them in corner battles

and clear and control the front of the net.......

to me, that was what was lacking in the other pairings

Tanev, who was a warrior, had alot of trouble doing that

and Hughes was none existent in that regard

That is not to say they were ineffective, as many of times they were able to control

the zone by getting to the puck first, and their positioning was spot on

But as a first pairing they as a pair were lacking

Playoff hockey is just different, and so much more physical

and the Canuck blue line is not built for it 

 

IMO, we need to go after a large defensive defenseman for Hughes

never mind the chemistry......that is totally over blown, 

as in most cases, people are talking about friendship instead of ability

 

So, if Hughes is going to be a first pairing Dman, he needs a large complimentary Dman

In the vain of Mayfield, Cernak, etc, someone who has Hughes back and can play that

more aggressive role....Tanev can not do that

 

IMO, I think we will see that Hughes, Juolevi and Rathbone will all be able to provide the offense

So, the RHD will have to be the bigger, more aggressive ones.......

 

Tampa will not give up Cernak easily and Mayfield's contract makes him invaluable on the Islanders

Severson plays on a team that is weak on Defense.......this is constant throughout the league

Valuable players cost............................pretty simple!

 

The one question that is not looked at is, how open is Benning and Green to playing Hughes on the Right side?

This opens up alot of additional variables and should make it easier long term to revamp our defense

 

My suggestion is that we sign Tryamkin as a 5/6 defenseman and hope he is more than that.............

 

Short term............

 

Edler (6M)/Hughes (1M)

Juolevi (1M)/Myers(6M)

Rathbone(1M)/Tryamkin (2.5M) 

 

and Fantenberg(1M)/Rafferty (1M)

 

IMO, this is a much more balanced defense, and is a very cap controlled defense

It is young and inexperienced...no doubt

 

But short term, this allows for alot of development, and long term allows us to understand who is worthy of top 4 billing

Is their pain? Yes. But if just 1 of our new recruits turns into a viable top 4, it will take alot of pressure off the franchise

 

IMO, this should have been done last year (2019-2020) Albeit, moving Hughes to the right in his first year would have been

a risky proposition..........

 

Long term, "IF" the experiment does not work, then you over pay! And don't complain.

 

Cernak (23) expect a huge over payment...........Tampa really needs to revamp their defense, so they will be doing everything they can to keep him

Carlo (23) expect a huge over payment.............Carlo plays 2nd pairing behind McAvoy, on a good defensive team ??????? he is solid, but how solid

Mayfield (27) expect over payment due to great contract, especially with NYI being tight to the cap

Montour (26) may be the best type of option, as Buffalo really needs help in other areas

Soucy(26) pretty unproven

 

Ekblad? Severson? Trouba?.........................Huge cost

 

Conclusion...............Resign Tanev, sign Tryamkin and hope someone steps up! Unless you want to move Boeser!!!!!!

 

 

 

 

Edited October 1, 2020 by janisahockeynut

[oldnews]

14 hours ago, aGENT said:

Agreed. There's certainly some tidying, fat trimming and work to do but it's hardly the Mt. Everest the media and some posters are making it out to be.

 

And if we do manage (the impossible!) to dump/terminate/retire Eriksson, we're absolutely laughing.

Wasn't looking for an echo chamber response though aGent.

Or a couple one-liners with Mt Everest metaphors, embellishments, and emojis. 

 

The obvious next step in the direction this takes a discussion is not one I really care to bother with.

The point was actually the rest of the exercise - as opposed to what you've trimmed and paraphrased.

My point was - within the parameters of realistic moves and not adding a single player to the roster, what kind of options does the team have this offseason.

I'm not here to agree with or take a 'side' - or waste time on opposing echo chambers.

If I was I wouldn't have bothered with the exercise.

 

 

[aGENT]

9 minutes ago, janisahockeynut said:

So, if Hughes is going to be a first pairing Dman, he needs a large complimentary Dman

In the vain of Mayfield, Cernak, etc, someone who has Hughes back and can play that

more aggressive role....Tanev can not do that

 

Problem being, those aren't first pair D men and while certainly more physical, they can't play defence, read plays, transition the puck etc at the level Tanev can.

 

What you're describing is a #1 or #2 D. While that certainly would be nice to add, is not exactly something Jim can just go pick up at the 'corner defensemen store'.

[aGENT]

1 minute ago, oldnews said:

Wasn't looking for an echo chamber response though aGent.

Or a couple one-liners with Mt Everest metaphors, embellishments, and emojis. 

 

The obvious next step in the direction this takes a discussion is not one I really care to bother with.

The point was actually the rest of the exercise - as opposed to what you've trimmed and paraphrased.

My point was - within the parameters of realistic moves and not adding a single player to the roster, what kind of options does the team have this offseason.

I'm not here to agree with or take a 'side' - or waste time on opposing echo chambers.

If I was I wouldn't have bothered with the exercise.

 

 

Well, I apologize for agreeing with you ON 

[oldnews]

3 hours ago, Provost said:

Well that doesn’t make sense.  Of course if we happen to be able to move $12 million in cap off the books (your plan) it relieves our “cap crisis”.... that doesn’t mean we aren’t in a cap crisis right now...  That is like saying I am not fat because I could potentially lose 50lbs sometime in the future.

 

No one is saying there isn’t any path out, we could make any of dozens of moves... we have made zero so far.

 

In your specific plan, we get worse on paper just to fit under the cap.  Pearson is not a throwaway player and adding in a likely injured Ferland into our top 6 doesn’t even let us tread water.

 

It also seems like it is millions over the cap once you factor in ELC bonuses.  In this case pushing $4 million into the following season when we also have to free up money to pay our superstars.

 

So unfortunately back here in reality, we still have that $12 million on the books, so you can’t sign ANY of Toffoli, Tanev, Stecher, or Virtanen.  Each of those has to be a league minimum player so their cap hits are $3 million total rather than $15 million.  Your roster looks terrible without those players.

I'm going to respond in a way similar to what I did aGent.

The fat metaphor is as worthless as the Mt Everest one wadr.

You've extracted 8 words from a post, and you've whiffed/willfully blinded yourseld entirely to the baseline point of the exercise.  Your prerogative.  

You've made a bunch of pointless embellishments - some weak paraphrases - ie "Pearson is not a "throwaway player" - strawman material, plain and simple.  He's used in that scenario to clear cap and gain moderately valued picks, that are then used to move a secondary cap problem/dump - that much should be exceedingly easy to understand - he's used to make a gain in the process, period (not a 'throwaway').  If you need further qualification of why I'd elect to use Pearson in that sense - he has value imo, he is a veteran with a year of term remaining (and I'm doubtful they could re-sign him next offseason in any event.  He's a winger - a position the team has an abundance (in fact I'd move multiple wingers -while not actually being a general manager, so you can throw your arms in the air and say 'it's eazy to say' - of course it's easy to say.  I don't 'expect' the team to execute this particular 'gameplan' - it's simply where I would start and proceed with the realities everyone is aware of - stalled Covid cap. Luongo recrap - the team will need to make a sacrifice or two - and ironically, what I've done there is not that pie-in-the-sky - and it involves the mere hypothetical of signing all their expiring contracts.

Your assumption that I in fact expect every expiring contract to return - or your protests/straw criticisms of the exercise - is, again, a whiff on the point.

 

I don't see any engagement whatsoever with the actual proposed moves, whether they represent realistic values, etc. 

Of course there is work to do this summer - and it is going to involve, at the very least, moving assets for no return in the process - and it's possible people like yourself will perceive the team to be worse on paper.  The point is not to impress you on paper - I find it borderline comical that you'd consider the team that much worse - having dumped a few of the veterans you consider useless, an AHLer, and literally one middle six LW.   Moving Pearson is in no way worthy of the drama you've assigned that post.  And the fact Ferland is pencilled in - and you waste your time missinterpreting that evidences that you did not read - or actually engage - with the post.   I don't expect Ferland to be in the lineup.  I've actually pointed out a number of options I'd look at. 

 

Anyhow - cheers - I see literally no basis for a discussion there - I see regression where we've managed to have actual discussion recently - back to drama, protest, manipulative paraphrasing, assumptions of  steps backwards - I really didn't realize that Pearson was driving the team as much as you imply.  But I'm going to leave this stuff to you and aGent, because I've wasted enough time on these boards engaging in this stuff.  I'm resolving to go back to avoiding/ignoring it - as I did for years here before the avalanche of rething drama hit these boards.

Edited October 1, 2020 by oldnews

[JM_]

14 hours ago, aGENT said:

And if we do manage (the impossible!) to dump/terminate/retire Eriksson, we're absolutely laughing.

Super agent JP Barry might be thinking the pressure is all on Jim to move Loui. But the fact is when you start looking at whats in Jim's control its not too bad. Certainly not worth blowing the future over. 

 

The longer Loui waits to terminate the less likely it is he'll see NHL ice, at least within 18 months or so. If he waits for a Canucks buyout for his last year he's looking at PTO options to play again imo. 

 

Edited October 1, 2020 by Robert Long

[oldnews]

2 hours ago, aGENT said:

Well, I apologize for agreeing with you ON 

what are you 'agreeing' with, though?   y

 

Extracting a line to surround it with echo chamber comments is not something I'm interested in engaging and I'm not interested in being tagged into joining 'sides' of opposing echo chambers, whether I tend to 'agree' with one side more than the other, or not.

 

The post was a hypothetical exercise within certain constraints.  You haven't engaged with any of it with all due respect.

 

1)  all players with expiring contracts re-signed - not just the 'stars' - but Leivo, Motte, Virtanen etc - all of them.

2) no players added from outside the organization.

3) no fantasy scenarios - I may not consider it 'fantasy' that LE and the team terminate - however, I'm not depending on that in this exercise.  I am targetting the middle range assets on both sides of the value spectrum instead.

4) a player like Ferland - by virtue of his injury and clause, cannot be removed from the lineup - so there he is pencilled into 2LW - something that, if someone does not get the point, assumes that is some kind of gameplan.  I am in no way assuming he will be both healthy, and the 2LW.  I'm also not terribly concerned about it, given the rest of what I think that exercise illustrates.

 

That - as a cumulative 'whole' - is not particularly "realistic" - that is not the point.  The point is - to what extent would they need to go to make all these conditions borderline functional?   What it is intended - is an illustration of how far / how much cut would be necessary to adjust to the existing conditions - and a few of them imo - that truly push this situation into 'challenging' - were 1) unforseeable [Covid]  and 2) not Benning's responsibility {Luongo].

 

Now, if I remove those two real conditions, Benning has not really  "mismanaged" the cap situation.  If the team had another 5 or 6 million in cap space by virtue of not being subject to those two things - the curve is less steep.

Nevertheless - I would have stopped short of a few of the signings the team has made - specifically Eriksson, Roussel - not signings I endorsed at the time - and at the same time I am not here to second-guess, subject him to revisionism, or criticize the team for what got it in this position (I also don't have to serve two masters here)-  I'm simply looking at ways out of it - and I don't consider any of it particularly worth a lot of anxiety, drama, fatalism, etc.- or conversely, 'optimism', cheerleading, rose-goggles....a bit of a proposal to just dig into the reality and possibilities and forget the rest.

 

Which is why I'm diving into a cap friendly calculator context to work out a gameplan.  I don't really care about the peripheral noise wadr.

I don't think the team necessarily takes a significant step backwards - even if it loses a good asset (or two) in the process - I think the losses of a few players like Pearson and Roussel - are replaceable losses, particularly in a deflated market where UFAs will likely be subject to a reality version of musical chairs in the secondary stages of the free agent market.

As I've 'hypothesized' in that post - 'we' would need to replace Pearson.  Would his replacement represent a significant enough downgrade that it outpaces the progress/growth from within the franchise?  I highly doubt that.  I think my restrictive parameters hypothetical cap friendly armchair team actually still has Hughes, EP, etc growing, progressing, developing - it also has other youth potential....and it also stands to take another loss the following season - if an asset is not spent to relieve overage/bonus cap - and it stands to lose an asset in expansion.

 

The additional underlying thing - that people might consider as they concern themselves with a step backward - is the overall context of most teams being forced to take a step backwards in this context - the likely result is the majority of contenders seeing even a bit more parity emerging in the NHL, an NHL that has arguably been trending in that direction already.

Edited October 1, 2020 by oldnews

[aGENT]

6 minutes ago, oldnews said:

what are you 'agreeing' with, though?   y

 

Extracting a line to surround it with echo chamber comments is not something I'm interested in engaging and I'm not interested in being tagged into joining 'sides' of opposing echo chambers, whether I tend to 'agree' with one side more than the other, or not.

 

The post was a hypothetical exercise within certain constraints.  You haven't engaged with any of it with all due respect.

 

1)  all players with expiring contracts re-signed - not just the 'stars' - but Leivo, Motte, Virtanen etc - all of them.

2) no players added from outside the organization.

3) no fantasy scenarios - I may not consider it 'fantasy' that LE and the team terminate - however, I'm not depending on that in this exercise.

4)

 

None of that is particularly "realistic" - that is not the point.  What it is intended - is an illustration of how far / how much cut would be necessary to adjust to the existing conditions - a few of them imo - that truly push this situation into 'challenging' - were 1) unforseeable [Covid]  and 2) not Benning's responsibility {Luongo].

 

Now, if I remove those two real conditions, Benning has not "mismanaged" the cap situation, period.

Nevertheless - I would have stopped short of a few of the signings he has made - specifically Eriksson, Roussel - not signings I endorsed at the time - and at the same time I am not here to second-guess, subject him to revisionism, or criticize the team for what got it in this position -  I'm simply looking at ways out of it - and I don't consider any of it particularly worth a lot of anxiety, drama, fatalism, etc.

 

Which is why I'm diving into a cap friendly calculator context to work out a gameplan.  I don't really care about the peripheral noise wadr.

I don't think the team necessarily takes a significant step backwards - even if it loses a good asset (or two) in the process - I think the losses of a few players like Pearson and Roussel - are replaceable losses, particularly in a deflated market where UFAs will likely be subject to a reality version of musical chairs in the secondary stages of the free agent market.

As I've 'hypothesized' in that post - 'we' would need to replace Pearson.  Would his replacement represent a significant enough downgrade that it outpaces the progress/growth from within the franchise?  I highly doubt that.  I think my restrictive parameters hypothetical cap friendly armchair team actually still has Hughes, EP, etc growing, progressing, developing - it also has other youth potential....and it also stands to take another loss the following season - if an asset is not spent to relieve overage/bonus cap - and it stands to lose an asset in expansion.

 

The additional underlying thing - that people might consider as they concern themselves with a step backward - is the overall context of most teams being forced to take a step backwards in this context - the likely result is the majority of contenders seeing even a bit more parity emerging in the NHL, an NHL that has arguably been trending in that direction already.

Goodness...

 

I agree that the cap hysteria is overblown and unwarranted. It's there work to be done? Yes. That's literally his job. I subscribe the sentiment that if you're not dancing on the edge of the cap ceiling (which clearly would include needing to manage it, particularly under current circumstances), you're not doing your job as GM to be competitive.

 

I agreed with the general (+/-) dollars you suggested for re-signing the likes of Motte, Leivo etc.

 

I agree we may need to move some of otherwise useful players like Pearson, Roussel etc for little/no return to squeeze under.

 

I agree that we will likely be as good/better than last year on the merit of continuing development of the young core, addition of the likes of Juolevi etc despite replacing some of those Pearson, Roussel etc players with supposed 'downgrades' and/or less veteran, savvy or experienced youth.

[oldnews]

22 hours ago, MikeBossy said:

Gotcha - I guess the issue is do we need an upgrade on defense? I agree 100 percent when you look what's out there price wise and what we have coming down the pipe Tanev is a priority to sign ( he is a minute muncher and very sound defensively) - personally i think he might be number 1 on the list of our UFAs to sign. I think the D needs a bit of an upgrade but think we are a year or two from being able to spend the money to do that unless we go bargain bin shopping. My only suggestion is see what else is out there option wise other than Stecher - don't get me wrong - love the kid but as i said feel like we need a bit of size on the back end. Would a guy like Bogosian be an option?

I agree with you - particularly with respect to Tanev possibly being the number 1 priority - personally I'd probably make him the first signing over Markstrom for a few reasons - and then move from him to the question of whether Markstom is viable - and to Toffoli third, if it's possible to create those condiions.

 

I love both Tanev and Markstrom - but a few things would lean me towards Tanev as the priority.  First - in spite of Markstrom being the team's MVP - he's also at a position of relative strength in the team's pipeline - not only Demko, but DiPietro as well stands to be a possible succession.  I acknowledge that goaltenders are the most difficult futures to project - which also plays into the uncertainty of signing a starter to a big, long term deal - a  lot of goaltending deals subsequently become subject to second-guessing, perhaps even moreso/with more frequency than skaters.   Beyond the 'pipeline' there's also the looming expansion draft.....The team stands to expose a more important goaltender than blueliner at this (projected) stage imo - and with Hughes in the mix of these considerations, I think the question of who his partner will be, the importance of that decision, also plays in.

 

I'd sign Tanev today if I could and move onto the next steps afterwards.  

 

The fact that he publicly considers Marktrom to the priority - and understands the circumstances - only puts him that much higher in my personal cue of priorities.  That speaks to his character - and the fact he's nothing like a 'me-first' player - I don't take players like him for granted (I think there's a lot of that going on in this market right now).  People thinking it's wise to walk away from Tanev, will realize the difference once he's gone - and probably whenever we face whomever he signs with.  The guy continues to quietly remain one of the more under-rated D out there -and will probably remain one of the more reasonable cap hits out there (as is Edler)....

Edited October 2, 2020 by oldnews

[oldnews]

Interesting that - with as much work as there is to be done - by as many teams that need to rearrange (a lot) of assets....

 

That there has not only been so little player movement/trades - but also virtually next to no re-signings yet around the league in general...

 

I wonder if there's a bit of a "time out' taking place - to reassess whether things like a compliance buyout might 'help' under the circumstances - or give a 'carrot' to fans / to generate a bit of renewed interest in times where...well...enough said.

 

I realize some teams might be cash strapped, while others are cap strapped - and a few may have to deal with both sets of circumstances(?) - but the league also has to sell itself - and in the end the on-ice product matters - so I'm not sure it should be a foregone conclusion to reject a compliance buyout under the circumstances - I found the fairly swift and pre-emptive rejection of that possibility interesting - did not bother to dig too deeply into it (not the kind of thing that interests me terribly tbh  - so I'm sure there are a lot of posters here with more insight on that question that I have (and honestly can't be bothered to research it - whatsoever).    But with compliance buyouts - nothing then commits a team to turn around and re-spend that cap - (aside from the cap floor it appears not a single franchise has been challenged to meet (whether that's true next season - I don't know)...  It would, however clear out some contracts that effectively block better players (in the present) from taking some roster spots around the league away from underperforming former UFAs - and in turn, improves teams, improves the on-ice product, and removes some barriers (as well as resentments) from the picture.

 

I just find the relative quiet of the past few days a bit surprising - I was expecting a bit more haste to be made around the league....

[DIBdaQUIB]

9 minutes ago, oldnews said:

Interesting that - with as much work as there is to be done - by as many teams that need to rearrange (a lot) of assets....

 

That there has not only been so little player movement/trades - but also virtually next to no re-signings yet around the league in general...

 

I wonder if there's a bit of a "time out' taking place - to reassess whether things like a compliance buyout might 'help' under the circumstances - or give a 'carrot' to fans / to generate a bit of renewed interest in times where...well...enough said.

 

I realize some teams might be cash strapped, while others are cap strapped - and a few may have to deal with both sets of circumstances(?) - but the league also has to sell itself - and in the end the on-ice product matters - so I'm not sure it should be a foregone conclusion to reject a compliance buyout under the circumstances - I found the fairly swift and pre-emptive rejection of that possibility interesting - did not bother to dig too deeply into it (not the kind of thing that interests me terribly tbh  - so I'm sure there are a lot of posters here with more insight on that question that I have (and honestly can't be bothered to research it - whatsoever).    But with compliance buyouts - nothing then commits a team to turn around and re-spend that cap - (aside from the cap floor it appears not a single franchise has been challenged to meet (whether that's true next season - I don't know)...  It would, however clear out some contracts that effectively block better players (in the present) from taking some roster spots around the league away from underperforming former UFAs - and in turn, improves teams, improves the on-ice product, and removes some barriers (as well as resentments) from the picture.

 

I just find the relative quiet of the past few days a bit surprising - I was expecting a bit more haste to be made around the league....

Havent been following the compliance buyout developments.  Is the rejection a league ownership position or is it more related to the nhlpa and  the league not wanting to open that can of worms?

[oldnews]

1 hour ago, aGENT said:

I agreed with the general (+/-) dollars you suggested for re-signing the likes of Motte, Leivo etc.

 

I agree we may need to move some of otherwise useful players like Pearson, Roussel etc for little/no return to squeeze under.

 

I agree that we will likely be as good/better than last year on the merit of continuing development of the young core, addition of the likes of Juolevi etc despite replacing some of those Pearson, Roussel etc players with supposed 'downgrades' and/or less veteran, savvy or experienced youth.

And the extent to which that is necessary really depends on the extent to which they are committed to re-signing expiring contracts.

 

Technically - they are not really in a "cap crunch".

That presumes the need to sign principally their UFA big names.

 

That exercise only illustrates the extent to which they'd have to cut in order to re-sign literally everyone.

Even under those constraints, I don't see moving Pearson, Rousel, Benn - and one secondary dump with the return on Pearson - to be that daunting a task.

 

From there I'd meter it back to account for the likelihood they do not in fact retain all their expiring contracts.  Would I start out with a gameplan not to do so?  Not necessarily.

 

I just don't see the point in 'election-debating' the alternatives - or spending a great deal of time on the noise as opposed to the particulars - which are actually the interesting part.

 

Where I'd agree with @Provost is in the point of keeping the overage/bonus aspects of the future cap in view - and with that in mind, I might actually trim deeper than the precursory outline of that capfriendly armchair calculator exercise.  I probably would go further than 'losing' Pearson (Roussel and Benn) to accomplish that - and I might not stop short of spending a player like Gaudette to do so.   At the same time, I don't think of Pearson, or Gaudette as particularly "irreplaceable".

 

If the goal - which I think it is - is to both get as healthy as possible in cap terms and remain as competitive as possible - I don't think there's a great deal of 'step back' in replacing any of them. ie if both Pearson was used as hypothesized, and Gaudette added, to gain a healthier measure of cap flexibility by spending to move LE (as opposed to leverage him to terminate his contract) - I still think the team could turn around, add a Richardson type, get opporutnistic in the cap crunch RFA uncertaintly market, do so fiscally conservatively, but if well-targeted, not come out particularly 'behind' on paper, if at all.   I think a player like Leivo - low cost but high relative value (to his cap) is another "wild card" who I'm not sure is that much 'less' of an asset than Pearson.    I also think there's room to improve at reduced cost in this offseason market - so when the variables are balanced, there remains both the nedd to cut/take 'losses' but also opportunity to make relative gains.  Other teams are also fully aware of this - so I have deflated (imo) Pearsons' market value to 'adjust' it to remove contention around the relative 'ease' of moving cap space in this context - would probably do so in 'reality' in order to get out ahead of the marketplace.   And in the end, they have a pretty healthy AHL pool and prospect pool beyond those nearing NHL ready - which tends to get blind-spotted by people predisposed to look at it as a crunch/crisis etc. 

 

As for the uptick from within - the cap challenges are faced (with the Luongo recrap exception) right accross the league - so any steps back have to be measured against those of other franchises also needing to cut (and also prepare for the e.d.).

 

I'm just wondering why there is so little movement at this point - pointing out that Benning hasn't done anything yet - comes against the backdrop of virtually all the league's GMs doing very little to this point.  I find that a bit curious.

Edited October 1, 2020 by oldnews

[oldnews]

33 minutes ago, DIBdaQUIB said:

Havent been following the compliance buyout developments.  Is the rejection a league ownership position or is it more related to the nhlpa and  the league not wanting to open that can of worms?

I don't really know how that balance plays/played out in their negotiations or what really lead to the rejection of the idea - but I think it's a device that would appear to have real overall applicability in the present, whether one side 'likes' it or not. 

 

When it comes to the nhlpa's position - it would seem to be slanted in the interests of the bigger fish - when it would probably play out in favour of as many, if not more players in the end - and being an NHL roster player would probably be dictated moreso by present merit.  And beyond that, a compliance bought out LE, for example, might actually have a better chance of playing in the NHL next season than otherwise...so I'm not sure I'd see the (overall) player resistance.

 

My guess would be that financial/ownership concerns might be more weighted - but in the end, are they then committed to re-spend that money (are there any/many that the cap floor becomes problematic for?   They might need to 'reel' in their GMs - as always seems to be the case - restraint has not exactly been 'currency' - but free agent 'frenzies' have tended/seemed to be less so.

 

One thing though - foregoing that option would seem to effect a general levelling out / asset equalization / parity effect around the league - perhaps that's something that is in general prefered because maybe it makes the games more 'competitive', entertaining in general....?

Edited October 1, 2020 by oldnews

[mll]

35 minutes ago, DIBdaQUIB said:

Havent been following the compliance buyout developments.  Is the rejection a league ownership position or is it more related to the nhlpa and  the league not wanting to open that can of worms?

Despite fan chatter (and hope) it has apparently barely been discussed and was not included in the CBA update that was approved by the Board of Governors and the NHLPA this summer.  McKenzie confirmed that there was really no interest on both sides.  Owners didn't want the increase spending and players didn't want their escrow to increase.

 

[oldnews]

Part of the reason I also don't perceive this as a 'crunch/crisis' is relative in another way...

 

Ie

'We' just lost to a "team like that"...

And now "we" are going to 'lose' Pietrangelo...

 

and comparably, (without the Cup in the back pocket), but with subsequent counter-indicating results....

 

'We' just lost our franchise center / also a captain (like AP).

And now Toronto is going to win all our Cups....

(this is the NYI hypothetically-speaking here)

 

Are even the biggest 'losses' that fatal to a franchise?  Not if they otherwise do a good job of building and 'rebuilding' / retooling around what remains.

 

The Islanders - have gone considerably further than the Leafs, for example.   How much panic ensued - prematurely - in New York, while conversely, how much premature parade planning took place in Toronto (and not just inside Toronto, but in other markets like this where they were presumed to have secured 'contention' into the future that 'we' could not even dream of yet...

 

If the Canucks elect to not sign a UFA or two - they on the other hand could create opportunities of the flexibility....

I hope both Tanev and Markstrom can be retained - but I'm not particularly attached to the outcome (aside from loving them both as players and Canucks - they are part of our 'identity' at this point, and there is some value in that imo.

But I'm going to focus on possibilities as opposed to 'New Yorking' / or 'Torontoing' / this....

 

 

[oldnews]

25 minutes ago, mll said:

Despite fan chatter (and hope) it has apparently barely been discussed and was not included in the CBA update that was approved by the Board of Governors and the NHLPA this summer.  McKenzie confirmed that there was really no interest on both sides.  Owners didn't want the increase spending and players didn't want their escrow to increase.

 

players "troubled" economy? 

 

the players 'troubled' by the economy would be the ones closer to league minimum - and those who might not get a contract this offseason - some of whom may have contracts precluded by the likes of LE - who aint going to be 'troubled' by anything economic any time in his lifetime (unless he were literally adolescent with him tens of millions....)

 

in any event, while I hear the GM's life 'easier' point he makes - (which is still a reductive take in general) - which he counterpoints with the owners interests - that might still be further metered with respect to the economy, as opposed to simply the salary floor/cap, where there may be internal cap ceilings re-established...

 

It might make owners life easier if they reined in spending themselves in the first places - ie oversight (not a moot point when it's a recurring phenomena).

 

While I appreciate the reference and source - and what it indicates with respect to the word he received on it's unlikelihood - I personally don't see it as simply as that one-liner.

 

"players" don't necessarily share an interest in this sense - they have counter-competing interests where something like a compliance buyout is concerned - it may harm one LE - but mean more relative money for those with expired contracts, and possibly another player with a seat when the music stops in the musical chairs of free agency....

 

and "owners" might not want to dole out money (that they are owing/contracted to pay in any event) and then spend again to replace that player - but nothing really commits them to exceed their loss, and in the end, the health of the league overall is not separable from their interests, so if compliance buyouts could contribute to the enhanced quality of and interest in the on-ice product...it's maybe not as foregone a conclusion.

 

I hear the answer - but I'm not finding that one-liner that 'explanatory'.

 

And more to the present point (as to why the present radio silence)....where is the player movement?!!?!

 

 

 

Edited October 1, 2020 by oldnews

[Jayinblack]

3 hours ago, aGENT said:

 

Problem being, those aren't first pair D men and while certainly more physical, they can't play defence, read plays, transition the puck etc at the level Tanev can.

 

What you're describing is a #1 or #2 D. While that certainly would be nice to add, is not exactly something Jim can just go pick up at the 'corner defensemen store'.

Exactly why i want to see Hughes paired with Myers moving fwd

[mll]

7 minutes ago, oldnews said:

players "troubled" economy? 

 

the players 'troubled' by the economy would be the ones closer to league minimum - and those who might not get a contract this offseason - some of whom may have contracts precluded by the likes of LE - who aint going to be 'troubled' by anything economic any time in his lifetime (unless he were literally adolescent with him tens of millions....)

 

in any event, while I hear the GM's life 'easier' point he makes - (which is still a reductive take in general) - which he counterpoints with the owners interests - that might still be further metered with respect to the economy, as opposed to simply the salary floor/cap, where there may be internal cap ceilings re-established...

 

It might make owners life easier if they reined in spending themselves in the first places - ie oversight (not a moot point when it's a recurring phenomena).

 

While I appreciate the reference and source - and what it indicates with respect to the word he received on it's unlikelihood - I personally don't see it as simply as that one-liner.

 

"players" don't necessarily share an interest in this sense - they have counter-competing interests where something like a compliance buyout is concerned - it may harm one LE - but mean more relative money for those with expired contracts, and possibly another player with a seat when the music stops in the musical chairs of free agency....

 

and "owners" might not want to dole out money (that they are owing/contracted to pay in any event) and then spend again to replace that player - but nothing really commits them to exceed their loss, and in the end, the health of the league overall is not separable from their interests, so if compliance buyouts could contribute to the enhanced quality of and interest in the on-ice product...it's maybe not as foregone a conclusion.

 

I hear the answer - but I'm not finding that one-liner that 'explanatory'.

 

And more to the present point (as to why the present radio silence)....where is the player movement?!!?!

 

 

 

 

Compliance buyouts counts towards the players' share of HRR.   So allowing for compliance buyouts increases the amount they owe back to owners given the 50-50 revenue sharing.  That's why they were also against it.

 

 

 

[NHL97OneTimer]

1 hour ago, mll said:

Despite fan chatter (and hope) it has apparently barely been discussed and was not included in the CBA update that was approved by the Board of Governors and the NHLPA this summer.  McKenzie confirmed that there was really no interest on both sides.  Owners didn't want the increase spending and players didn't want their escrow to increase.

 

I can't see there being many games played this coming season if there's no bubble play.  It will be interesting to see how this all goes down for owners.  Perhaps insurance is picking up the tab?  I assume players are paid their salary despite number of games played. Either way, owners will be heavily bleeding and this will take many years to sort out.  Not many long-term deals being signed this summer I'd imagine.  There may perhaps be a longer wait than normal for players to be signed as owners and GMs play the waiting game as prices on players drop.  Pretty hard for any player to expect top dollar when they might not even play in December.

Edited October 1, 2020 by NHL97OneTimer