Jump to content

2019 Offseason Thread


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Daniel said:

If they don’t match anyone, it seems like it would be Laine.  Sounds as if they’ve really soured on him.  

Laine will command a much higher AAV, thus taking us out of the running because we don't have our second

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 5.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Damn... my only comeback to this is really arrogant... That will not help my case... 

Daniel, you've been watching pro sports long enough to know that GMs don't often make for great interviews...they don't tend to spell out what they're going to do, and a lot of times fall back on vagu

Posted Images

1 minute ago, Daniel said:

If they don’t match anyone, it seems like it would be Laine.  Sounds as if they’ve really soured on him.  

So.. what's the number, in your opinion?

Keep in mind we don't have our 2nd round pick.  So any compensation involving that pick is automatically out of the question.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Derlique said:

Laine will command a much higher AAV, thus taking us out of the running because we don't have our second

i believe you can have a 5 years window where you give 4 picks if you do not have one of them. i think i read that somewhere

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SterioDesign said:

i believe you can have a 5 years window where you give 4 picks if you do not have one of them. i think i read that somewhere

That's only if you're going to the top tier of RFA signings, where four 1sts is the compensation

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SterioDesign said:

i believe you can have a 5 years window where you give 4 picks if you do not have one of them. i think i read that somewhere

Would also like to know when you have to decide which pick you’re keeping.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Derlique said:

Laine will command a much higher AAV, thus taking us out of the running because we don't have our second

The Jets are matching anything in the range of picks 1, 2 and 3 for both players.  That level above it, maybe not.

If Ray were serious about anything other than the four first round pick offersheet, he would have put something else in the Subban deal.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, CarpathianForest said:

Ray should offer sheet Trouba just to be a nose

Unless we got our 2nd back from Nsh, the only offers we could tender are sub 6.3m per year (costs 1st and 3rd) or above 10.5m (4x1sts). The former helps the Rangers and latter hurts us too much.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

43 minutes ago, Daniel said:

Would also like to know when you have to decide which pick you’re keeping.  

You don't decide. I believe, you pay the compensation as the picks are available. The five year window is if one year you don't have a draft pick already. If you have the picks in all five years, you lose the first four. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Neb00rs said:

 

You don't decide. I believe, you pay the compensation as the picks are available. The five year window is if one year you don't have a draft pick already. If you have the picks in all five years, you lose the first four. 

I believe they should fix the whole RFA approach (the 5 year rule, compensation structure, etc.), then the cap issues related to taxes and currency fluctuations. At the least state tax differences should be addressed, so it could mean different teams have different caps while leaving standard of living out. The taxes alone will complicate things enough.

Edited by Anhkheg
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Anhkheg said:

I believe they should fix the whole RFA approach (the 5 year rule, compensation structure, etc.), then the cap issues related to taxes and currency fluctuations. At the least state tax differences should be addressed, so it could mean different teams have different caps while leaving standard of living out. The taxes alone will complicate things enough.

There is no real way to address the differences in taxes that doesn't penalize teams in high tax states and countries. It's enough that it ranges from states like Florida with no state income tax to states like California and NJ with high state income tax, but then you've got the difference in Canadian income tax systems from province to province. When you add in the fact that Canadian teams bring in revenue in CAD and have to payroll in USD (effectively, they actually pay in CAD adjusted to USD value) with all the fluctuations involved in that exchange this would be a nightmare for even a motivated league to solve. This isn't that motivated of a league to solve these particular problems. The salary cap system as it stands has brought teams within enough of a range of one another that it has alleviated most of the issues of teams declaring bankruptcy for the most part and the teams that are too weak even with the current system would remain too weak even if the tax and currency issues were fully addressed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, NewarkDevil5 said:

There is no real way to address the differences in taxes that doesn't penalize teams in high tax states and countries. It's enough that it ranges from states like Florida with no state income tax to states like California and NJ with high state income tax, but then you've got the difference in Canadian income tax systems from province to province. When you add in the fact that Canadian teams bring in revenue in CAD and have to payroll in USD (effectively, they actually pay in CAD adjusted to USD value) with all the fluctuations involved in that exchange this would be a nightmare for even a motivated league to solve. This isn't that motivated of a league to solve these particular problems. The salary cap system as it stands has brought teams within enough of a range of one another that it has alleviated most of the issues of teams declaring bankruptcy for the most part and the teams that are too weak even with the current system would remain too weak even if the tax and currency issues were fully addressed.

They could probably weight it if they wanted to. Which, you're right they probably don''t and as you say, league parity is pretty damn good. The real problem is that it's only one factor that makes your team more desireable for UFAs. Okay, maybe it's a significant factor, but if you account for it, you have to start accounting for everything else too. Should the league account for teams that are in big attractive cities like NYC or Chicago? Should the league account for teams that can offer more money up front because of higher revenues? Should the league account for team success, as that is probably one of the biggest UFA draws? No matter what, it's never going to be completely fair, and teams with less factors that contribute to the overall attractiveness of signing with them will always have more trouble luring players in. 

Ultimately, the hard cap and RFA system are good enough to make it so every team can put a good enough team together to win. I do think we've seen more stacked teams in TB, NSH, and DAL, than maybe we've seen before. But, clearly the disparity isn't so acute that those teams are shoo-ins to win the Cup.

Edited by Neb00rs
Link to post
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.