Jump to content

2021 Around The League Thread


Satans Hockey
 Share

Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, mfitz804 said:

Exactly, they took care of it. The Keith trade is the latest example. 

Back to back Stanley Cups. Such cap hell. I would hate to win two Cups. 

They took care of it to the point that they even made a joke out of it and wore these Kucherov shirts at their cup parade. I'm with you guys, I don't give two sh!ts about cap hell. Sure beats 1 measly fvcking playoff win and appearance in 9 seasons. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You referenced Toronto. 2-3 off seasons ago, there was “no way” they could keep Nylander and Marner, we were going to offer sheet Marner because there was no way they could afford to match it. 

Now they have Marner, Matthews, Tavares and Nylander. You can argue “they still haven’t won” until you are blue in the face, that’s irrelevant to this conversation. They found a way to keep them all.

But, if you wouldn’t want those 4 guys on your team, and don’t think having those guys makes your team better, then I don’t know what to tell you. I would trade our top 4 forwards for those guys immediately. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, mfitz804 said:

You referenced Toronto. 2-3 off seasons ago, there was “no way” they could keep Nylander and Marner, we were going to offer sheet Marner because there was no way they could afford to match it. 

Now they have Marner, Matthews, Tavares and Nylander. You can argue “they still haven’t won” until you are blue in the face, that’s irrelevant to this conversation. They found a way to keep them all.

But, if you wouldn’t want those 4 guys on your team, and don’t think having those guys makes your team better, then I don’t know what to tell you. I would trade our top 4 forwards for those guys immediately. 

I think you're missing the point.   The Leafs signed Tavares at which point every other forward on their team decided to compare themselves to that contract and ask for max value.   No one questions the quality of those 4 and yes, they are better than our top four.  They still can't win sh!t because they can't properly fill out the roster.  After those 4 the rest of their forward group is sh!t and getting worse because they can't afford Hyman and apparently want to lose Kerfoot and his 3.5ish million in salary to expansion.   I reference Tampa because the Kucherov LTIR allowed them to keep their depth.  No one seemed to notice that Point didn't score a goal in the finals and Stamkos was basically invisible in the playoffs because Coleman, Colton, Cirelli and Johnson were scoring timely goals.  Imagine if that were Matthews, he would have been killed because Toronto has no one to pick up the slack.   Tampa will have similar issues going forward when they lose 3 or 4 or those quality depth pieces this offseason.   

The teams that have gone top heavy in salary for their stars at the expense of the rest of the roster hasn't not proven to work.   See Toronto, Edmonton and Chicago post Kane and Toews contracts.   I don't see that spending 11 million on Landeskog is going to break that mold.           

Edited by Lateralous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Lateralous said:

I think you're missing the point.   The Leafs signed Tavares at which point every other forward on their team decided to compare themselves to that contract and ask for max value.   No one questions the quality of those 4 and yes, they are better than our top four.  They still can't win sh!t because they can't properly fill out the roster.  After those 4 the rest of their forward group is sh!t and getting worse because they can't afford Hyman and apparently want to lose Kerfoot and his 3.5ish million in salary to expansion.   I reference Tampa because the Kucherov LTIR allowed them to keep their depth.  No one seemed to notice that Point didn't score a goal in the finals and Stamkos was basically invisible in the playoffs because Coleman, Colton, Cirelli and Johnson were scoring timely goals.  Imagine if that were Matthews, he would have been killed because Toronto has no one to pick up the slack.   Tampa will have similar issues going forward when they lose 3 or 4 or those quality depth pieces this offseason.   

The teams that have gone top heavy in salary for their stars at the expense of the rest of the roster hasn't not proven to work.   See Toronto, Edmonton and Chicago post Kane and Toews contracts.   I don't see that spending 11 million on Landeskog is going to break that mold.           

The point in bringing in guys like Landeskog (and I’m not saying he is the guy to do it with) is that you show potential free agents, people with a NMC, etc. that you are actually trying. Perhaps then you can make your team a better destination. 

On top of that, you show people you are actually willing to spend money. Having cap space and saying “we can afford to pay XYZ more than anyone else can” is meaningless unless you actually crack open the piggy bank. Again, not saying Landeskog at $11m for 7 years is the way to do it, but overpaying a guy a little and people knowing that you have the means to pay these guys and are willing to do it would go a long way. 

I’m not saying spend to the cap. I’m saying you could bring in 2 guys right now, overpay them, and it’ll not present any problem with your cap down the road. We have plenty of room. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, on top of that, you’re pivoting from a team being in “cap hell” to saying that spending money on expensive players doesn’t mean you’ll win. That’s not my definition of “cap hell”, to me it means not being able to afford everyone you need to afford, which rarely happens and when it does, you trade Marcus Johansson and keep all of the good players. 

Perhaps you are working from a different understanding of the term. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, mfitz804 said:

The point in bringing in guys like Landeskog (and I’m not saying he is the guy to do it with) is that you show potential free agents, people with a NMC, etc. that you are actually trying. Perhaps then you can make your team a better destination. 

On top of that, you show people you are actually willing to spend money. Having cap space and saying “we can afford to pay XYZ more than anyone else can” is meaningless unless you actually crack open the piggy bank. Again, not saying Landeskog at $11m for 7 years is the way to do it, but overpaying a guy a little and people knowing that you have the means to pay these guys and are willing to do it would go a long way. 

I’m not saying spend to the cap. I’m saying you could bring in 2 guys right now, overpay them, and it’ll not present any problem with your cap down the road. We have plenty of room. 

Okay but I said in the first post I was willing to spend to go after a 1D because I think that makes sense for many of the reasons you stated.  I think anyone on the team understands that a adding a 1D is one of the most important roster building things our GM could do and given where we are, UFA is probably our only short term vehicle to do it.     

Spending 11 million on a winger who scores 75ish points when paired with MacKinnon and Rantanen doesn't make as much sense to me.   I think it sets up problems when people like Jack who will probably outperform him come up for a new contract.   It's like following the Toronto or Edmonton model with our top salary guys being Landeskog and Hughes instead of McDavid/Drai, Matthews/Tavares, Kane/Toews, Point/Kuch or whatever  

It took a lot of patience but one of the best moves Yzerman made as Tampa GM IMO was holding firm on the Stamkos contract demands.   He got Stammer locked in at a number he wanted and everyone else for a long period of time feel in line behind him on their salary asks.  In some ways they still do.  Kucherov makes more, but he could have rightly asked for significantly more.  They have a culture where guys are not looking to absolutely break the bank.     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, mfitz804 said:

Also, on top of that, you’re pivoting from a team being in “cap hell” to saying that spending money on expensive players doesn’t mean you’ll win. That’s not my definition of “cap hell”, to me it means not being able to afford everyone you need to afford, which rarely happens and when it does, you trade Marcus Johansson and keep all of the good players. 

Perhaps you are working from a different understanding of the term. 

I agree with this sentence but included in that are depth players.  We see time and time again the deepest teams are the ones advancing in the playoffs while the top heavy teams are not doing as well.   I don't mind paying for talent but when you over pay your top guys, which is exactly what Landeskog at 11 million would be, its the quickest way to find yourself losing useful players a few years out due to a cap crunch.   

Edited by Lateralous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Lateralous said:

Spending 11 million on a winger who scores 75ish points when paired with MacKinnon and Rantanen doesn't make as much sense to me.   I think it sets up problems when people like Jack who will probably outperform him come up for a new contract.   It's like following the Toronto or Edmonton model with our top salary guys being Landeskog and Hughes instead of McDavid/Drai, Matthews/Tavares, Kane/Toews, Point/Kuch or whatever  

Like I mentioned, I am not sure if that's the guy to overpay and/or if $11m is the right number. I get the concept. If your argument is to save it for a 1D, I would argue that you could do both. 

What Jack will be paid is a whole other argument and I believe, a topic for another thread...which I will start. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, mfitz804 said:

Like I mentioned, I am not sure if that's the guy to overpay and/or if $11m is the right number. I get the concept. If your argument is to save it for a 1D, I would argue that you could do both. 

 

I feel like our offense is right where it should be at this point in our rebuild.   I would prefer to see how it develops over the next year or two before I worry about plugging holes with expensive UFAs.   Does Nico become more Bergeron than Nugent Hopkins? Is Zacha a really good 65ish point LW or does he go back to an enigma who bounces around the lineup? Can Bratt be responsible and consistant enough to be a top 6 wing or is he more of a third liner?  What do Holtz and Mercer become?   If necessary, two years from now I think you will see some really good wingers become available like Forsberg and Patsa as their teams windows start to close.    

The D on the other hand needs help now regardless of who we land with the 4th overall.   Given the slower development rate of defenseman, I don't think we can solely draft our way out of that mess in the back.    

Edited by Lateralous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Lateralous said:

I feel like our offense is right where it should be at this point in our rebuild.   I would prefer to see how it develops over the next year or two before I worry about plugging holes with expensive UFAs.   Does Nico become more Bergeron than Nugent Hopkins? Is Zacha a really good 65ish point LW or does he go back to an enigma who bounces around the lineup? Can Bratt be responsible and consistant enough to be a top 6 wing or is he more of a third liner?  What do Holtz and Mercer become?   If necessary, two years from now I think you will see some really good wingers become available like Forsberg and Patsa as their teams windows start to close.    

The D on the other hand needs help now regardless of who we land with the 4th overall.   Given the slower development rate of defenseman, I don't think we can solely draft our way out of that mess in the back.    

Agreed, we need to think about the D nonstop until we get it. 

;) 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, MadDog2020 said:

Pekka Rinne retired: 

9A3B4754-7346-4420-A46D-2CEC1D58C49C.jpeg

Wasn't he supposed to sign a contract to be our backup before he did that??

  • Haha 2
  • Shocking 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Satans Hockey said:

They took care of it to the point that they even made a joke out of it and wore these Kucherov shirts at their cup parade. I'm with you guys, I don't give two sh!ts about cap hell. Sure beats 1 measly fvcking playoff win and appearance in 9 seasons. 

If all goes according to plan, there's plenty of Devils that will be due significant raises in the next couple of years.  That being said, let me actually SEE things go "according to plan".  

The Devils are going to have an insane amount of cap space...the bigger contracts just continue to keep coming off (PK is next, after this season).  And yeah, these teams that seem like they're in cap hell and oh look at them it's all going to go to sh!t continually find their ways out of it...and find a way to hang on to the players that they REALLY want to hang on to.

Yeah, in time you may become top-heavy, but that's what the draft is for...you need to sprinkle in cheap talent.  Blow your drafts, and it will eventually catch up with you.  But I'll worry about "cap hell" when the Devils are actually showing signs of being in it.  

 

Edited by Colorado Rockies 1976
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Colorado Rockies 1976 said:

If all goes according to plan, there's plenty of Devils that will be due significant raises in the next couple of years.  That being said, let me actually SEE things go "according to plan".  

The Devils are going to have an insane amount of cap space...the bigger contracts just continue to keep coming off (PK is next, after this season).  And yeah, these teams that seems like they're in cap hell and oh look at them it's all going to go to sh!t continually find their ways out of it...and find a way to hang on to the players that the REALLY want to hang on to.

Yeah, in time you may become top-heavy, but that's what the draft is for...you need to sprinkle in cheap talent.  Blow your drafts, and it will eventually catch up with you.  But I'll worry about "cap hell" when the Devils are actually showing signs of being in it.  

To some extent, guys are going to have to want to be here for this “cap hell” scenario to even work. I can’t imagine any teams have ever been in “cap hell” based on deals they have to their own RFAs. 

If we have a whole ton of talent that wants to sign huge deals to stay in NJ, I’d argue we’ve done something right. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is not to avoid cap hell at any cost. But if you're going to go into it, better be because you have the players worth that. Landeskog at 11m is just non-sense. 

Hell if he couldn't lead his team further than he did in the playoffs with THAT roster. What makes us think he could do it here while been overpaid? I'd overpay for MacKinnon or a Dman bringing something nobody else bring in our lineup for sure but not for landeskog. I like him but not 11m like him

Plus then you're just setting a bad precedent for free agents, now guys better and more productive than him can go "well see, this guy is getting paid this, so i want this or more". It's because of bonehead and desperate contracts like this that we see crazy contracts and overpayments around the league

Edited by SterioDesign
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of cap space, saw this on hf, apparently he had a bonus for games played at 10, 15 and 20 games...

“There’s clarity on Greene’s bonus overage for 2021-22. The Islanders are on the hook for $1.366 million in bonus overage for next season, reducing their cap space by that amount.”
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, mfitz804 said:

To some extent, guys are going to have to want to be here for this “cap hell” scenario to even work. I can’t imagine any teams have ever been in “cap hell” based on deals they have to their own RFAs. 

If we have a whole ton of talent that wants to sign huge deals to stay in NJ, I’d argue we’ve done something right. 

No argument here.  Right now, unless the Devils somehow start going hog-wild in UFA, I don't even really know how they find cap hell anytime soon.  The kids coming up who are supposed to figure into the Devils' plans will be on ELCs, and unless they wow and develop very quickly, will probably sign bridge deals or contracts that represent big money to them at the time, but have a good chance to become extremely cost-effective (like Palms' 5-year deal, Parise's 4-year deal when he was an RFA, etc).

And yeah, the bolded will be a nice problem to have.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Satans Hockey said:

Hahahahhaha signed together and leaving together...

 

Sounds about right…

Would ya think about it as a 3rd/4th liner with a cheap price tag for a year?

Only one year removed from 46 points in 69 games…which would have led our team that year in scoring. 

 

Edited by mfitz804
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Wild will pay each $6.7 million over the next eight years and be charged with $2.371 million, $6.371 million, $7.371 million and $7.371 million cap hits in the next four years, respectively, for each, then $833,333 cap hits the four years after that for each.

That's like 10% of the Wild's salary tied to dead cap money in 3 of the next 4 years. Holy fvcking lol. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, mfitz804 said:

Sounds about right…

Would ya think about it as a 3rd/4th liner with a cheap price tag for a year?

Only one year removed from 46 points in 69 games…which would have led our team that year in scoring. 

 

I don’t care if he’s Gretzky, we aren’t his fall back option after leaving us.

Just now, MB3 said:

The Wild will pay each $6.7 million over the next eight years and be charged with $2.371 million, $6.371 million, $7.371 million and $7.371 million cap hits in the next four years, respectively, for each, then $833,333 cap hits the four years after that for each.

That's like 10% of the Wild's salary tied to dead cap money in 3 of the next 4 years. Holy fvcking lol. 

Yeah it’s a very questionable move by them.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(But to answer your question,  mftiz, I would take Parise back here for a year or two in a fvcking second. What is there to lose?)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, devlman said:

I don’t care if he’s Gretzky, we aren’t his fall back option after leaving us.

Agree 100%. We already have him a 1 year deal to see what he could do, and the answer was get paid huge dollars by his hometown team. 

 

1 minute ago, devlman said:

Yeah it’s a very questionable move by them.

A very solid statement as to how bad they wanted them gone, as well. 

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...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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