RomanP Posted October 21, 2020 Share Posted October 21, 2020 30 minutes ago, Provost said: Interesting take that $3.2 million isn't "millions"... it is literally, objectively millions. They, along with most teams, are not going to have 23 man rosters. There will be either taxi squads of guys practicing with the team and not on the roster counting towards the cap or our farm team will be local. There is no way to do it otherwise since you can't be flying AHL players around the continent with the various public health rules. so with 21-22 players on the roster and a bunch of very good players left on the market who will be on PTOs or near league minimum deals, they can flesh out the rest of their roster just fine... certainly with much better players and values than what we are giving our depth guys. Oh, right, so is that your professional opinion that Calgary will just go with 21-22 active roster and put themselves at a disadvantage in case of injuries? lol 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted October 21, 2020 Share Posted October 21, 2020 8 minutes ago, RomanP said: Oh, right, so is that your professional opinion that Calgary will just go with 21-22 active roster and put themselves at a disadvantage in case of injuries? lol My opinion is that most teams will do so because of the way the next season is going to have to be run. Heck even under normal, non-covid restrictions many teams went with 22 players to save cap space. You know... based on how they had to do things in the playoffs due to Covid. It is not like I am making it up. They carried extra players because they couldn't bring more players in if there were injuries. Once we get to the regular season and cap considerations, they can't just carry 30 players on the active roster, and they aren't going to completely redo the CBA. They will have a solution to have injury replacements with the team and not flying back and forth across a closed border or from a non-existent AHL farm club. There is no practical alternative other than having non-roster players on a "practice squad" with your team or having the entire farm club co-located with your NHL team. Either scenario means that you can call up players immediately in case of injury and don't have to carry a bunch of spares on the active roster. They won't be at any disadvantage. They will have their injury replacements right with them (not counting towards the cap) and can activate them as soon as they have an injury. I don't think you are following at all. "lol" 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazzle Posted October 21, 2020 Share Posted October 21, 2020 1 hour ago, Provost said: My opinion is that most teams will do so because of the way the next season is going to have to be run. Heck even under normal, non-covid restrictions many teams went with 22 players to save cap space. You know... based on how they had to do things in the playoffs due to Covid. It is not like I am making it up. They carried extra players because they couldn't bring more players in if there were injuries. Once we get to the regular season and cap considerations, they can't just carry 30 players on the active roster, and they aren't going to completely redo the CBA. They will have a solution to have injury replacements with the team and not flying back and forth across a closed border or from a non-existent AHL farm club. There is no practical alternative other than having non-roster players on a "practice squad" with your team or having the entire farm club co-located with your NHL team. Either scenario means that you can call up players immediately in case of injury and don't have to carry a bunch of spares on the active roster. They won't be at any disadvantage. They will have their injury replacements right with them (not counting towards the cap) and can activate them as soon as they have an injury. I don't think you are following at all. "lol" In spite of the Canucks cap, the team is well protected from: 1) expansion draft 2) offer sheets 3) rfa uncertainties Next year, a lot of the players you've been whining about will come off the books. Petterson and Hughes are going to get good offers from the Canucks so they will feel happy about staying because of cap space, and the Canucks will get better with new prospects coming in. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted October 21, 2020 Share Posted October 21, 2020 6 minutes ago, Dazzle said: In spite of the Canucks cap, the team is well protected from: 1) expansion draft 2) offer sheets 3) rfa uncertainties Next year, a lot of the players you've been whining about will come off the books. Petterson and Hughes are going to get good offers from the Canucks so they will feel happy about staying because of cap space, and the Canucks will get better with new prospects coming in. Well nothing you posted has anything to do with my post you quoted... so it doesn’t make any sense aside from being a random rant. Calgary doesn’t “have to” field a 23 man roster... not sure how that has your panties in a knots, but ai guess we are used to that from you. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theo5789 Posted October 21, 2020 Share Posted October 21, 2020 2 hours ago, Provost said: My opinion is that most teams will do so because of the way the next season is going to have to be run. Heck even under normal, non-covid restrictions many teams went with 22 players to save cap space. You know... based on how they had to do things in the playoffs due to Covid. It is not like I am making it up. They carried extra players because they couldn't bring more players in if there were injuries. Once we get to the regular season and cap considerations, they can't just carry 30 players on the active roster, and they aren't going to completely redo the CBA. They will have a solution to have injury replacements with the team and not flying back and forth across a closed border or from a non-existent AHL farm club. There is no practical alternative other than having non-roster players on a "practice squad" with your team or having the entire farm club co-located with your NHL team. Either scenario means that you can call up players immediately in case of injury and don't have to carry a bunch of spares on the active roster. They won't be at any disadvantage. They will have their injury replacements right with them (not counting towards the cap) and can activate them as soon as they have an injury. I don't think you are following at all. "lol" If you're up against the cap, I don't think you could simply call someone up due to an injury. You only get the cap space to bring someone up if a player goes on IR. Not having the room to bring someone up for minor injuries could mean you're playing a player or two short for a game or two. If they bend the rules a bit here to accommodate this, then I guess we would benefit as well as we could sign Jake for up to 3 million and send down Baertschi and Loui and we would be compliant already with a 21 man roster and can call up whoever freely for injury replacements. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Camel Toe Drag Posted October 21, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted October 21, 2020 Had to read the Joakim Nordstrom thread when I saw it was 7 pages. It’s like “something’s not right here”... pure entertainment. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted October 21, 2020 Share Posted October 21, 2020 (edited) 30 minutes ago, theo5789 said: If you're up against the cap, I don't think you could simply call someone up due to an injury. You only get the cap space to bring someone up if a player goes on IR. Not having the room to bring someone up for minor injuries could mean you're playing a player or two short for a game or two. If they bend the rules a bit here to accommodate this, then I guess we would benefit as well as we could sign Jake for up to 3 million and send down Baertschi and Loui and we would be compliant already with a 21 man roster and can call up whoever freely for injury replacements. I never suggested that you could. It isn’t being right up against the cap with having a 21 man roster, it was running under a 23 man roster to make some extra space under the cap. The guy said that they had to sign 5 players to get to a 23 man roster and I said they didn’t. Many teams even last year went with a 22 man roster, and sometimes less in order to squeeze out more cap space. If we have something like a practice squad next season, you don’t need to keep any spares and can have a 20 man “active” roster.... and just have injury replacements right there if you need one instead of needing to get one in from Utica. You can “call a guy up” from your practice roster on game day and demote him right after. The can buy you a couple million in cap space. Edited October 21, 2020 by Provost Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theo5789 Posted October 21, 2020 Share Posted October 21, 2020 2 minutes ago, Provost said: I never suggested that you could. It isn’t being right up against the cap with having a 21 man roster, it was running under a 23 man roster to make some extra space under the cap. The guy said that they had to sign 5 players to get to a 23 man roster and I said they didn’t. Many teams even last year went with a 22 man roster, and sometimes less in order to squeeze out more cap space. If we have something like a practice squad next season, you don’t need to keep any spares and can have a 20 man “active” roster.... and just have injury replacements right there if you need one instead of needing to get one in from Utica. You can “call a guy up” from your practice roster on game day and demote him right after. The can buy you a couple million in cap space. But they need to sign 2 players to have a full roster with 3+ million left. They will be right against the cap even without a full roster as it stands. I get that it would be more convenient to bring someone up, but you still need the cap space to do so. Minor injuries don't give cap relief. Not sure how the cap works out if they're constantly moving players back and forth and how much cap that actually uses up. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AV. Posted October 21, 2020 Share Posted October 21, 2020 Just now, theo5789 said: But they need to sign 2 players to have a full roster with 3+ million left. They will be right against the cap even without a full roster as it stands. I get that it would be more convenient to bring someone up, but you still need the cap space to do so. Minor injuries don't give cap relief. Not sure how the cap works out if they're constantly moving players back and forth and how much cap that actually uses up. They can sign two league minimum guys and spend only 1.4M of the 3M+ remaining. They'll be fine. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted October 21, 2020 Share Posted October 21, 2020 (edited) 11 minutes ago, theo5789 said: But they need to sign 2 players to have a full roster with 3+ million left. They will be right against the cap even without a full roster as it stands. I get that it would be more convenient to bring someone up, but you still need the cap space to do so. Minor injuries don't give cap relief. Not sure how the cap works out if they're constantly moving players back and forth and how much cap that actually uses up. Ummm that just isn’t true, literally in my post I mentioned that there will be a number of very good players left who are going to end up signing $700k deals... and that they are in a good spot to be able to do that. We have already seen solid players sign for those kinds of dollars and even more so when players realize they might not have a job if they don’t pounce on the few remaining league roster spots. That was the entire point of my post. $3.3 million left with 18 players signed. $1.4 million for 2 players... equals $1.9 million left. More likely they run a 21 man roster, so sign another guy leaving you $1.2 million left in cap space. With a 22 man roster which has been the norm for a lot of teams of recent years and they still have $500k for short term injury call ups. They have plenty to space to flesh out the bottom of their roster and take advantage of the unique market conditions to do so. They are going to have really decent depth because there are more legit NHLrs still looking for spots than there are spots left. Folks will be shocked at how good some players will be who are only getting PTOs. There have been lots of reports of guys that earned $2-4 million last year only getting $700k-$1 million dollar offers. Edited October 21, 2020 by Provost Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theo5789 Posted October 21, 2020 Share Posted October 21, 2020 39 minutes ago, Alain Vigneault said: They can sign two league minimum guys and spend only 1.4M of the 3M+ remaining. They'll be fine. 29 minutes ago, Provost said: Ummm that just isn’t true, literally in my post I mentioned that there will be a number of very good players left who are going to end up signing $700k deals... and that they are in a good spot to be able to do that. We have already seen solid players sign for those kinds of dollars and even more so when players realize they might not have a job if they don’t pounce on the few remaining league roster spots. That was the entire point of my post. $3.3 million left with 18 players signed. $1.4 million for 2 players... equals $1.9 million left. More likely they run a 21 man roster, so sign another guy leaving you $1.2 million left in cap space. With a 22 man roster which has been the norm for a lot of teams of recent years and they still have $500k for short term injury call ups. They have plenty to space to flesh out the bottom of their roster and take advantage of the unique market conditions to do so. They are going to have really decent depth because there are more legit NHLrs still looking for spots than there are spots left. Folks will be shocked at how good some players will be who are only getting PTOs. There have been lots of reports of guys that earned $2-4 million last year only getting $700k-$1 million dollar offers. My bad, I thought we were talking about quality players rather than bargain binning. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted October 21, 2020 Share Posted October 21, 2020 2 minutes ago, theo5789 said: My bad, I thought we were talking about quality players rather than bargain binning. Again... typed really slowly this time. There will be quality players to fill out the bottom of their roster at bargain prices. Not sure how that is evading you at this point or you just can’t let go of a bad position that you took. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theo5789 Posted October 21, 2020 Share Posted October 21, 2020 2 minutes ago, Provost said: Again... typed really slowly this time. There will be quality players to fill out the bottom of their roster at bargain prices. Not sure how that is evading you at this point or you just can’t let go of a bad position that you took. We will see what's left. Waiting out to see who will take 700k contracts is the definition of bargain binning. The better ones will be gone already at either a higher price or have chosen teams they would like to go to. All that will be left are players that were hoping for more and settling, but those players won't be the sought after ones most likely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted October 21, 2020 Share Posted October 21, 2020 just checked, and Calgary still sucks. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazzle Posted October 22, 2020 Share Posted October 22, 2020 3 hours ago, Provost said: Well nothing you posted has anything to do with my post you quoted... so it doesn’t make any sense aside from being a random rant. Calgary doesn’t “have to” field a 23 man roster... not sure how that has your panties in a knots, but ai guess we are used to that from you. Funny thing is, @Alain Vigneault is still reading my posts, so it's working LOL. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazzle Posted October 22, 2020 Share Posted October 22, 2020 (edited) @Caboose@Patrick Kane@Alain Vigneault @Monty @BM24 Edited October 22, 2020 by Dazzle Look at the people who weren't involved that became involved -> 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazzle Posted October 22, 2020 Share Posted October 22, 2020 1 minute ago, Zfetch said: Whats so uncertain about RFAs? Pree sure that's one of the most certain things in the Canucks given situation. They are secured to a team and have contracts priced at the going market rate. And what is the going market rate for Pettersson and Hughes next year? Pretty high I would assume, yes? Unless you ask them to do bridge contracts. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zfetch Posted October 22, 2020 Share Posted October 22, 2020 2 minutes ago, Dazzle said: And what is the going market rate for Pettersson and Hughes next year? Pretty high I would assume, yes? Unless you ask them to do bridge contracts. Yeah it might be relatively high, think 9m/7m type deal. But the Canucks nor any other team (other than the leafs) would overpay an RFA. At the end of the day their next contract value is determined by what will happen if an arbitrator comes knocking at their door. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazzle Posted October 22, 2020 Share Posted October 22, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Zfetch said: Yeah it might be relatively high, think 9m/7m type deal. But the Canucks nor any other team (other than the leafs) would overpay an RFA. At the end of the day their next contract value is determined by what will happen if an arbitrator comes knocking at their door. That's what I meant about these uncertainties. @Blue Jay 22 Go back to your RGMG thread. @Master Mind You too. Don't know why you're even involved in this conversation. Edited October 22, 2020 by Dazzle 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zfetch Posted October 22, 2020 Share Posted October 22, 2020 Just now, Dazzle said: That's what I meant about these uncertainties. But isn't it a certainty that the Canucks will be able to project Petey/Hughes next contract with quite confidence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now