Jump to content

2018 Offseason Thread


LittleBallofHate

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, NJDfan1711 said:

Yikes - relax.  I wasn't at all saying that personal property was somehow equal to a person's life, not sure where you got that from.  It was simply an example, in theory, relating the situation to another real-world scenario where these concepts apply. 

I’m totally relaxed. I got it from your example, where you did exactly that. I’m sure you didn’t mean to equate them, but I’m uncomfortable with the analogy. But for the sake of argument, we can treat people as assets. 

My point is simple. A salary cap should limit the players you have on your active roster. Having guys who will never play again count against that is nonsense. The ability to trade that player, and his cap hit, is really just a way for the aggrieved team to circumvent the cap. That being the case,  why bother, just let them circumvent it by eliminating the cap hit. It’s dumb for a team to be able to get assets for taking on another team’s ineligible player. 

And again, yes, even when we do it. But the rules being what they are, I don’t object to us doing it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, mfitz804 said:

I’m totally relaxed. I got it from your example, where you did exactly that. I’m sure you didn’t mean to equate them, but I’m uncomfortable with the analogy. But for the sake of argument, we can treat people as assets.  

Geez, you really can't let that go can you lol.  I thought this was obvious, but apparently not - I'm not at all treating people as assets, I'm treating their future perceived earnings as an asset.  HUGE difference. 

Let's put that aside though and change it up - pretend it's not a guy who's injured so there's no emotional or sentimental feelings for you attached to it lol.  Say it's a Datsyuk.  Guy was perfectly fine, just "retired", err, left to go play somewhere else.  He's still owed money, and someone's responsible for paying it.  As mentioned, I'm fine with it coming off of the cap, but since it is in fact a current rule like you mentioned.... (go to my next point below)

My point is simple. A salary cap should limit the players you have on your active roster. Having guys who will never play again count against that is nonsense. The ability to trade that player, and his cap hit, is really just a way for the aggrieved team to circumvent the cap. That being the case,  why bother, just let them circumvent it by eliminating the cap hit. It’s dumb for a team to be able to get assets for taking on another team’s ineligible player.

And again, yes, even when we do it. But the rules being what they are, I don’t object to us doing it
 
Why though?  Why shouldn't a team that doesn't have financial problems at the moment be able to take on the burden of a contract in order to obtain something else of value?

Edited by NJDfan1711
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t need to let anything go, you said it, I agreed to accept that people are assets for the purposes of this conversation, what else am I supposed to do?

The answer to your question remains my original point...I think it’s stupid. There’s no point in keeping disabled players who cannot come back on a team’s cap. 

I acknowledged in my FIRST POST I didn’t know is there’s an answer,and maybe there isn’t and the current way is the best way. Datsyuk is a good example, he’s not hurt and in theory could come back. Maybe that’s a contract that could stay in play. But a guy who 100% can never play again? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Nicomo said:

Severson is just as big of a question as well honestly. He can’t be watching games from the press box as a healthy scratch next season. 

Imo, severson is what he is, . he's your average 2nd pairing blueliner who offer 20 to 30 points.. who will be asked to play a 1st pairing role... the -31 was an  aberration, he just needs to fight to keep his head in the game

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mfitz804 said:

I don’t need to let anything go, you said it, I agreed to accept that people are assets for the purposes of this conversation, what else am I supposed to do?

The answer to your question remains my original point...I think it’s stupid. There’s no point in keeping disabled players who cannot come back on a team’s cap. 

I acknowledged in my FIRST POST I didn’t know is there’s an answer,and maybe there isn’t and the current way is the best way. Datsyuk is a good example, he’s not hurt and in theory could come back. Maybe that’s a contract that could stay in play. But a guy who 100% can never play again? 

I'm with ya.  A guy who up and leaves/retires has his contract remain on the books, and a player who suffers a career-ending injury has his waived.  Seems like a fair compromise/middle ground, compared to what's in place today.

And to the latest post with Butcher...man his fiancée is cute.  Seems like young NHLers nowadays are all landing smokeshows.  Good for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, NJDfan1711 said:

I'm with ya.  A guy who up and leaves/retires has his contract remain on the books, and a player who suffers a career-ending injury has his waived.  Seems like a fair compromise/middle ground, compared to what's in place today.

And to the latest post with Butcher...man his fiancée is cute.  Seems like young NHLers nowadays are all landing smokeshows.  Good for them.

What constitutes a career-ending injury? Does a new-found allergy to hockey equipment qualify?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, NewarkDevil5 said:

What constitutes a career-ending injury? Does a new-found allergy to hockey equipment qualify?

And THAT, my friend, is the issue that I acknowledged from the outset. 

On the one hand, maybe you have an NHL doctor who examines the patient (or their records) and makes a determination. Of course, that brings up a tertiary issue of what happens if the NHL doctor says no and "forces" an injured player to play? The NHL definitely does not want that responsibility. 

 

1 hour ago, LittleBallofHate said:

Another engagement - another "blonde" - Congrats to Will & his fiancee (PS my god he looks young without a beard)! 

Seriously, she looks like one of those teachers that gets "in trouble" next to him. 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, mfitz804 said:

And THAT, my friend, is the issue that I acknowledged from the outset. 

On the one hand, maybe you have an NHL doctor who examines the patient (or their records) and makes a determination. Of course, that brings up a tertiary issue of what happens if the NHL doctor says no and "forces" an injured player to play? The NHL definitely does not want that responsibility. 

 

Well I don't see how you could "force" a guy to play.  If he has some type of injury, or "illness" in the case of Hossa, and he feels he either physically can't play, or perhaps just doesn't want to play because of potential risks, yet the doctors say otherwise, and that guy doesn't show up for the next game (or any other game ever), then he simply forfeits his salary, and his contract is off the cap.  I don't see how it's any different than you or I not showing up for work - it's your choice, you'll just be fired if you don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mfitz804 said:

Seriously, she looks like one of those teachers that gets "in trouble" next to him. 

She's a flight attendant.  There was a pic of her in an overhead bin but it's gone now.

Edited by sammyk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, NJDfan1711 said:

Well I don't see how you could "force" a guy to play.  If he has some type of injury, or "illness" in the case of Hossa, and he feels he either physically can't play, or perhaps just doesn't want to play because of potential risks, yet the doctors say otherwise, and that guy doesn't show up for the next game (or any other game ever), then he simply forfeits his salary, and his contract is off the cap.  I don't see how it's any different than you or I not showing up for work - it's your choice, you'll just be fired if you don't.

Ask Mike Peluso. lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, MadDog2020 said:

Good read on Hall from THN: https://thehockeynews.com/news/article/taylor-hall-is-ready-to-build-off-new-jerseys-success
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Because the teams behind us haven't improved we have a chance at a playoff spot again, but making it past a round or two doesn't look promising.. just hope hall doesn't get discouraged  (too much)  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, EdgeControl said:

Because the teams behind us haven't improved we have a chance at a playoff spot again, but making it past a round or two doesn't look promising.. just hope hall doesn't get discouraged  (too much)  

Panthers may have improved with Hoffman but even if they didn't, they were a better team than us during the 2nd half they just came up short cause they dug themselves a hole in the first half and missed the playoffs by like a point or wtv

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think insurance money shouldn’t count against the cap; but anything the team pays out for an injured player should (like the 200k Arizona will be paying to Hossa)

also, if the insurance is paying up...   that’s a good indication the injury is legitimate enough and not simply cap circumvention.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, aylbert said:

I think insurance money shouldn’t count against the cap; but anything the team pays out for an injured player should (like the 200k Arizona will be paying to Hossa)

also, if the insurance is paying up...   that’s a good indication the injury is legitimate enough and not simply cap circumvention.

 

That’s a pretty good idea. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, aylbert said:

I think insurance money shouldn’t count against the cap; but anything the team pays out for an injured player should (like the 200k Arizona will be paying to Hossa)

also, if the insurance is paying up...   that’s a good indication the injury is legitimate enough and not simply cap circumvention.

 

I imagine the premiums the teams pay are so astronomical and that there are relatively few instances where insurance pays out a large amount, that insurers rarely if ever challenge the genuiness of the injury.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, EdgeControl said:

Because the teams behind us haven't improved we have a chance at a playoff spot again, but making it past a round or two doesn't look promising.. just hope hall doesn't get discouraged  (too much)  

Not to be too cliche, but thats why they play the season. You never know what can happen. Vegas, for example. Or Montreal falling like a rock after a 100 point season in 2016-2017. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Devil Dan 56 said:

Not to be too cliche, but thats why they play the season. You never know what can happen. Vegas, for example. Or Montreal falling like a rock after a 100 point season in 2016-2017. 

or Ottawa going for a decent contender to........ hell... not even sure what to call that now

Edited by SterioDesign
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NJDevils1214 said:

Was for some reason thinking about Mattias Tedenby and what a bust he was so I decided to go back and cry over past draft selections. Did you guys know Deryk Engelland of VGK was a Devils 6th round draft pick?

How 'bout

Quote

 

The GM said he is pleased with his opening night roster.

"I feel very good about it," Lamoriello said. "Some players certainly came forward. Pete (DeBoer) and the coaches have run an excellent camp."

The opening night roster:

Defensemen (7)

Andy Greene
Bryce Salvador
Mark Fraser
Adam Larsson
Anton Volchenkov
Henrik Tallinder
Mark Fayne.

 

 

And we had Stralman on a PTO who did really well but Lou typically decided to let him go and keep this over the hill slow D-corp and here we are years later but basically... 2 of these players are still active in the NHL and one shouldnt be at this point.

They clearly had a problem at evaluating talent

Edited by SterioDesign
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, SterioDesign said:

How 'bout

And we had Stralman on a PTO who did really well but Lou typically decided to let him go and keep this over the hill slow D-corp and here we are years later but basically... 2 of these players are still active in the NHL and one shouldnt be at this point.

They clearly had a problem at evaluating talent

I pointed this out in either this thread or the other offseason and someone pointed out Stralman really hit his stride midway that first season with the rags and only started to fall off this past year.

once again, fvck post-lockout Lou. The man is incompetent when it comes to the Modern Era NHL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, jagknife said:

I pointed this out in either this thread or the other offseason and someone pointed out Stralman really hit his stride midway that first season with the rags and only started to fall off this past year.

once again, fvck post-lockout Lou. The man is incompetent when it comes to the Modern Era NHL.

Strahlman apparently had some undiagnosed problem with his eyes before he turned his career around with the Rangers.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.