Ryan might get sent down just because of $$ ?

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/ducks-league-ryan-2177869-salary-festerling

"Ryan, a winger chosen second overall in the 2005 entry draft, is in jeopardy of not making the team because of a relatively big contract that includes an $821,700 base salary at the NHL level and $925,000 more in potential performance bonuses.

Festerling, a defenseman who was never drafted and originally joined the Ducks on a training-camp tryout in 2005, could land a spot in part because his $473,300 NHL salary would be barely above the league minimum of $450,000. Most important, Festerling's contract contains no bonus clauses."

Does anyone know at what point Ryan officially counts against the cap as "made the team"? Can he play a few games of the regular season or not?

H.

Aren't we a bit below the cap if Ryan's hit is 1.7whatever?

Does anyone know at what point Ryan officially counts against the cap as "made the team"? Can he play a few games of the regular season or not?
There are 2 things:
1. Cap money paid
2. Cap space left for the rest of the season.

Now I said "cap money paid" because the money paid to the player may or may not match the amount of cap dollars. Money is allocated toward the cap on a daily basis, not on games played. So if a player is sent down for 30 days and then brought back up, those 30 days he was sent down do not count against the cap.

The second issue, is that the team has to show that they will be under the cap for the rest of the season.

As far as Ryan goes, if he is sent down it will probably only be for part of the season until the Ducks have enough cap space room to bring him back up. Also, most of Ryan's cap number is based on bonuses that have a min number of games played to reach, so if Ryan is sent down enough that he can not achieve those bonuses then the Ducks no longer will have to have cap space to cover them.

This isn't exactly your question, but I'll give a little cap primer, based on how I understand it. It helps to answer your question later.

The thing to keep in mind is the cap is calculated daily. So whoever is on the team on day 1 "counts against the cap as having made the team." (answer 1 for you) So as is (if we don't make ANY moves not involving Ryan), we cannot have him on the team, even on day 1.

Now how to "count" the cap and see how you can play with it. The cap is kind of complicated. The way I think of it is that you can never be on pace to exceed having paid the cap max for the year (this is camel's "2nd issue"). Having Ryan on the team would put us over the cap. Once you send him down, he doesn't count on the cap.

But if you stay UNDER the cap, then you're "saving money." So say you stay under the cap for a week. Now you decide after this week that you want to spend more. You could have a daily salary that, if counted for the whole season, would equal the salary cap just like before. But also, because you didn't spend all the money for the first week, you can actually spend MORE per day. Enough so that by the end of the season, you pay out exactly the cap max. The daily salary will have been greater because you didn't pay so much the first week.

Another way to look at it: imagine a graph. Days on the bottom, and dollars paid on the left. Now graph a 45 degree line (it wont' be 45, but pretend for easy numbers), such that at the top right you have paid exactly the cap max (56.7 million). This 45 degree angle is the most you can pay from day 1 to the end of the season; it's a theoretical maximum. The line is less important than that dot on the top right: each and every day you must be on pace (based on today's salary... ie extend out the graph at the slope of that day's salary) to be equal or less than that top dot. But now say you spend part of the season paying less than the max rate (less than 45 degrees). For a number of days, say 20. Make this graph for a little, and notice that it's under the 45 degree max. After this time you make a trade or something to add payroll. You can now adjust the projected salary as high as you want as long as the top right of the line is below the top right of the 45 degree theoretical line. Because you were below the maximum at day 20, the angle that you are now on will be steeper than the 45 degree line. But as I said, as long as your endpoint is still at the 56.7 million max, your daily slope can be greater than 45 degrees.


Now here's the answer to your question: Now by sending Ryan down, you would be spending below the cap. After sending him down for a little, we would have saved up some cap space, allowing us to call him up. Our daily salary would be above 56.7 million if we played a full season with that roster. But because we paid less per day earlier, the total expenditure can be less than the 56.7 max. So to answer question 2: yes he can play games in the regular season, just not immediately. Assuming we make not other moves. We could always clear cap space (and I expect it to happen) by trading or waiving some guys (a few of our 5 million 4th liners) from the team.


As camel points out, Ryan has some bonuses that will expire if he can't play a minimum number of games (42). However we're probably close enough to the cap that we don't have to wait that long to call him up. I'm not going to do the numbers because there's still a lot of uncertainty, but really just a month or so is probably enough.

Aren't we a bit below the cap if Ryan's hit is 1.7whatever?
Not currently, no. But only because we have too many players. We should be when we pare down to 21/22 guys though.

I think is sucks that Ryan may not get to play because we're just over the cap. I still think we should dump Marchant and be done with cap talks for a while even if we just waive him.

Even if Marchant is waived, there's no guarantee he gets claimed. Then we'd just have $2.5 mil sitting in the minors.

...i think its HUGE that we establish that line with ryan. i dont want him to have to deal with being sent down and then developing chemistry again with getz and perry sometime in the middle of the season. we gotta get rid of somebody too expensive, even if it means sending away a draft pick too. i think its just too important for our offense and for ryan's development. he's one of those players who i think will benefit from things just going right. just seems like hes a bit unsure of himself at times and is prone to playing down to the level of his opponents when hes not motivated. everything is going splendidly with that line and we can't disrupt it, young players need the confidence, especially bobby ryan, but even getzlaf and perry. they're thriving on finally knowing the nhl it seems like, gotta get ryan involved in that as soon and as often as possible, he's definitely been in the ahl long enough.

Whos' going to play on the top 6 if Ryan is sent down? Carter?, the truth is Ryan could end up being one of the biggest bargains on the team. His game I think just will fit naturally with the twins.

Whos' going to play on the top 6 if Ryan is sent down? Carter?, the truth is Ryan could end up being one of the biggest bargains on the team. His game I think just will fit naturally with the twins.
Carter plays well with Selanne. Ebbett seems to work with the twins too, he's lined up with them in practice (including yesterday). If we get desperate, there's also Lindstrom.


I just wish we could get rid of Marchant. Things would be so much easier. We could have Ryan in and have some breathing room for injuries. It would make things easier on the budget. If we had gotten rid of him earlier, we might still have McDonald.

Yup he's been sent down.

I'm pretty disappointed.

Mad. Pissed.

Ryan deserves to be on the team.

:(
I thought he will stay, Im dissapointed. If ryan will stay in AHL whole year I dont know if we will see him in duck uniform someday...I would be sso pissed..

and we lost joakim lindstrom too?
wtf...

and we lost joakim lindstrom too?
wtf...

There is no place for Lindstrom on a Brian Burke team.

and we lost joakim lindstrom too?
wtf...
The best part about that is now we've sent Columbus a 7th round pick for nothing.

The best part about that is now we've sent Columbus a 7th round pick for nothing.

Lets look at the BIG picture now. Chicago is just test driving Lindstrom but once they send him down through waivers, the Ducks will have the first option to take him back again.

Of course Ryan was sent down because of cap issues and at this stage of his career this is not good for Ryan. The other issue is that Ryan does not quite fit with Carlyle's system which encompasses two major factors: fitness and not making mistakes. On the Ducks the coach picks the players not the GM. On 29 other teams in the NHL Ryan would be on his second NHL season but not this one. If you make a mistake in your game; especially in your end, your toast with Carlyle. If your MVO2 does not reach elite levels or a player show signs of not being able to handle a long shift ; which leads to mistakes then your toast.

The bar is set very high on this team. There is no defenceman in the world that plays like Scott Neidermeyer or a shut down center like Sammy Paulson. Or a power center like Getzlaf. The Ducks are asking too much of a rookie like Ryan. Like I have said before- you have to play in the NHL to be an NHL player. Hopefully Ryan gets that chance somewhere.

Lets look at the BIG picture now. Chicago is just test driving Lindstrom but once they send him down through waivers, the Ducks will have the first option to take him back again.
Well it's not a big deal, a 7th round pick isn't really worth anything. And hey, there's some value in to geting Lindstrom in training camp so he can practice with the team to see how likely he really is to make the team, rather than claiming him off of waivers at the end of camp like Chicago did.

But in the end it's still not a good move. It's more the principle of the thing.

Lets look at the BIG picture now. Chicago is just test driving Lindstrom but once they send him down through waivers, the Ducks will have the first option to take him back again.

Ducks wouldn't get the first option to take him back--waiver order would still go by current standings.

There is a CBA clause that if a team reclaims a waived player they can assign them to the minors without clearing waivers again though.

Ducks wouldn't get the first option to take him back--waiver order would still go by current standings.

There is a CBA clause that if a team reclaims a waived player they can assign them to the minors without clearing waivers again though.

Unless they changed it in the CBA. The old rule would allow the Ducks to have first dibs at reclaiming a player they lost through waivers. This is how we got Kunitz back from Atlanta.

Ryan will be back. This is just a temporary cap solution.

I'm a Kings fan, but I'm not some punk looking to troll, just asking a question.

Are you guys getting tired of this cap situation, moreover, how do you think it's going to affect the team/organization a year or two down the line? If it affects that group at all. Just interested.

Are you guys getting tired of this cap situation, moreover, how do you think it's going to affect the team/organization a year or two down the line? If it affects that group at all. Just interested.

75% of the team will be unrestricted free agents after this season so the salary cap will be a non-issue for the Ducks starting next summer.

I'm a Kings fan, but I'm not some punk looking to troll, just asking a question.

Are you guys getting tired of this cap situation, moreover, how do you think it's going to affect the team/organization a year or two down the line? If it affects that group at all. Just interested.

You're not trolling, but you just asked an incredibly slanted question. The proper way to ask that question if you really were "just asking a question" would be to ask how we felt about the situation, not if we were tired of it. I realize I may be splitting hairs and your comment was probably innocuous, but from the outset, your question is loaded against the Ducks.

To answer it, however, the cap issues affect everybody, and the situation we're in now isn't permanent. We can live with it, but it seems it's the fans of the other 29 teams who can't live without reminding us constantly (see: main board).

The proper way to ask that question if you really were "just asking a question" would be to ask how we felt about the situation, not if we were tired of it. I realize I may be splitting hairs and your comment was probably innocuous, but from the outset, your question is loaded against the Ducks.
Sorry about the way I asked. I hurried because I was watching Sons of Anarchy on that hulu.com website.

Sorry about the way I asked. I hurried because I was watching Sons of Anarchy on that hulu.com website.

Well, I still answered it anyway. ;)

You're not trolling, but you just asked an incredibly slanted question. The proper way to ask that question if you really were "just asking a question" would be to ask how we felt about the situation, not if we were tired of it.

Lighten up, I am tired of it. But that's the reality of a cap driven sport. Football and basketball are no different in that respect. Honestly its what I like least about either sport... and now hockey.

Lighten up, I am tired of it. But that's the reality of a cap driven sport. Football and basketball are no different in that respect. Honestly its what I like least about either sport... and now hockey.

I hate the cap hell we're in, but quite honestly I hate it when sports don't have salary caps. Baseball is an absolute joke. I think I read somewhere a few years ago that the Yankee's payroll was 250 million+ and the Athletics payroll was 45 million. That's ridiculous. The salary cap is a pain sometimes but it's something that needed in every sport. The best thing about the cap era in the NHL so far was that all the teams seemed to be more even, which is a great thing for a sport.

The salary cap is a pain sometimes but it's something that needed in every sport. The best thing about the cap era in the NHL so far was that all the teams seemed to be more even, which is a great thing for a sport.

Parity sucks. I want a good team based on the merit of the organization from the GM down to the stick boy. Not a good team because everyone else is ham-strung from doing what they'd really like to do.

Hockey isn't quite to that point yet, but as the free agent age drops and the 2nd contract explodes from offer sheets its getting there. More player movement based solely on dollars and contracts, less team identity, parity, etc.... we'll see more and more of it every year and I don't like that.

Hockey isn't quite to that point yet, but as the free agent age drops and the 2nd contract explodes from offer sheets its getting there. More player movement based solely on dollars and contracts, less team identity, parity, etc.... we'll see more and more of it every year and I don't like that.

You should ask Oilers fans how much team identity they saw when their best players were leeched year after year by teams with double the payroll.

I hate the cap hell we're in, but quite honestly I hate it when sports don't have salary caps. Baseball is an absolute joke. I think I read somewhere a few years ago that the Yankee's payroll was 250 million+ and the Athletics payroll was 45 million. That's ridiculous. The salary cap is a pain sometimes but it's something that needed in every sport. The best thing about the cap era in the NHL so far was that all the teams seemed to be more even, which is a great thing for a sport.

Parity sucks. I want a good team based on the merit of the organization from the GM down to the stick boy. Not a good team because everyone else is ham-strung from doing what they'd really like to do.

Hockey isn't quite to that point yet, but as the free agent age drops and the 2nd contract explodes from offer sheets its getting there. More player movement based solely on dollars and contracts, less team identity, parity, etc.... we'll see more and more of it every year and I don't like that.


Both are valid points. Pre-cap there were teams, like Edmonton as mentioned, that lost players to 'richer' teams because they couldn't afford to keep them. Now with the cap there are teams like Buffalo and Ottawa that can't keep players because of the cap squeeze.

I would like to see them do what they do in the NBA where there are exceptions for the team that drafts/develops a player, allowing them to go over the cap, offer the player more money than other teams on the UFA market etc.

Parity sucks.
I could not disagree more.

Blowouts, both for and against, are not nearly as much fun to watch as hard fought battles between evenly matched teams.

I could not disagree more.

Blowouts, both for and against, are not nearly as much fun to watch as hard fought battles between evenly matched teams.

Agreed. The cap sucks when players have to be moved because of financial reasons, but it's worth it to me. I like seeing the teams being more competitive because everyone has the same cap limit. It's a need in every sport IMO. Personally I think the lack of a cap makes MLB a huge joke.

I picked up Bobby Ryan in the last round because well I felt like taking a risk because if Ryan does get to start the year with you guys I heard he'd do pretty well. I have one question for you guys what do you think the chances are that he'll be back before the season starts? or if not when do you think he'll get his chance?

I could not disagree more.

Blowouts, both for and against, are not nearly as much fun to watch as hard fought battles between evenly matched teams.

But the greatest games and series that people remember are almost always when you have juggernaut teams facing off ... not a couple of .500 teams. People want to see evenly matched great teams, not evenly matched mediocre ones.

While having a bunch of pretty good teams rather than a few great ones makes for more fans having their teams stay in it, it also means there's really no more truly epic battles. At best, you get good team vs. good team. And upsets aren't nearly as huge or meaningful as when a team nobody thought could lose actually loses.

Oilers-Islanders or Lakers-Celtics in the 80s ... Miami vs. Florida State or 49ers vs Cowboys in the 90s ... those are the types of matchups that really stick in people's minds. Nobody goes, "greatest game I ever saw was this one time there were these two .500 teams ..."

When you have parity, you pretty much are choosing general interest over greatness. If you're a fan of a particular team it's probably better, but if you're a fan of the sport first it kind of sucks.

I find cap-forced parity as lame. I also dislike the forced continual turnover. I miss the days of teams being able to keep their cores together for extended times.

I wouldn't mind the cap so much if they had some sort of Larry Bird exception.

But the greatest games and series that people remember are almost always when you have juggernaut teams facing off ... not a couple of .500 teams. People want to see evenly matched great teams, not evenly matched mediocre ones.

While having a bunch of pretty good teams rather than a few great ones makes for more fans having their teams stay in it, it also means there's really no more truly epic battles. At best, you get good team vs. good team. And upsets aren't nearly as huge or meaningful as when a team nobody thought could lose actually loses.

Oilers-Islanders or Lakers-Celtics in the 80s ... Miami vs. Florida State or 49ers vs Cowboys in the 90s ... those are the types of matchups that really stick in people's minds. Nobody goes, "greatest game I ever saw was this one time there were these two .500 teams ..."

When you have parity, you pretty much are choosing general interest over greatness. If you're a fan of a particular team it's probably better, but if you're a fan of the sport first it kind of sucks.

I understand where you coming from but I just disagree. I hate seeing teams that basicly try to buy championships. It's just lame when you have the same teams over and over again in the playoffs and in championship games. And I disagree about their not being elite teams, maybe it doesn't happen as often, but that's because teams can't buy their way into the playoffs and finals every year. Every team should have the same limits, it's better for the sport IMO. The new cap era has teams more competitive which is great for the NHL. I like seeing the playoff battles being really intense at the end. I mean we were the 4th seed last year and we didn't even clinch a playoff spot until a few days before the season ended. I don't understand you're .500 comment though. The only way a team makes the playoffs at .500 is if they're a bottom seed, which in order to advance would have to beat a top team, which would be an exciting upset.

I understand where you coming from but I just disagree. I hate seeing teams that basicly try to buy championships. It's just lame when you have the same teams over and over again in the playoffs and in championship games. And I disagree about their not being elite teams, maybe it doesn't happen as often, but that's because teams can't buy their way into the playoffs and finals every year. Every team should have the same limits, it's better for the sport IMO. The new cap era has teams more competitive which is great for the NHL. I like seeing the playoff battles being really intense at the end. I mean we were the 4th seed last year and we didn't even clinch a playoff spot until a few days before the season ended. I don't understand you're .500 comment though. The only way a team makes the playoffs at .500 is if they're a bottom seed, which in order to advance would have to beat a top team, which would be an exciting upset.
How often do teams "buy championships." Just look at the Knicks, or the Rangers. Just spending the money for FAs rarely works.

The teams who spent AND won tend to be the ones that have drafted and developed a number of stars, and who paid them well to keep them.

How often do teams "buy championships." Just look at the Knicks, or the Rangers. Just spending the money for FAs rarely works.

The teams who spent AND won tend to be the ones that have drafted and developed a number of stars, and who paid them well to keep them.

Yankees.

Besides even if they don't win the championship, imo it gets really old seeing the same teams in the playoffs every year. I know the old Avs-Wings series use to be a lot of fun to watch, but christ it's lame seeing usually the same teams up every year.

Yankees.

Besides even if they don't win the championship, imo it gets really old seeing the same teams in the playoffs every year. I know the old Avs-Wings series use to be a lot of fun to watch, but christ it's lame seeing usually the same teams up every year.
Now I don't follow baseball, but I do know the Yankees haven't won a championship in awhile. Their "buying a team" phase started as they've been trying to keep winning.

In 2000, their last championship, they did have the highest salary, but less than 3 million above 2nd place. It wasn't until 2002 that they were more than 10 million above 2nd place. And after they grew to 50+ million above the 2nd place team, they've only advanced past the first round once (out of 5).

So have they really "bought" any championships?

But I like seeing some continuity in the playoffs. You get to see the teams grow and succeed. It's lame having brand new teams every year. You don't get to know the teams or anything.

But the greatest games and series that people remember are almost always when you have juggernaut teams facing off ... not a couple of .500 teams. People want to see evenly matched great teams, not evenly matched mediocre ones.

While having a bunch of pretty good teams rather than a few great ones makes for more fans having their teams stay in it, it also means there's really no more truly epic battles. At best, you get good team vs. good team. And upsets aren't nearly as huge or meaningful as when a team nobody thought could lose actually loses.

Oilers-Islanders or Lakers-Celtics in the 80s ... Miami vs. Florida State or 49ers vs Cowboys in the 90s ... those are the types of matchups that really stick in people's minds. Nobody goes, "greatest game I ever saw was this one time there were these two .500 teams ..."

When you have parity, you pretty much are choosing general interest over greatness. If you're a fan of a particular team it's probably better, but if you're a fan of the sport first it kind of sucks.
So you are saying you did not think the '07 Ducks-Wings series was great hockey? or the '08 fliers-habs upset was not huge?

I am not choosing "general interest over greatness" by liking the parity the salary cap has brought...because there are still great teams and good upsets. What I am choosing is more close games and less blowouts.

There will always be great teams and poor teams. What we lose with the parity the cap has brought is NHL teams that were worse then some AHL teams. We lose the teams that can barely get 50 points. Seriously, how fun was it watching Atlanta play they year they only got 39 points?

During the last CBA, top 15 payroll teams won the cup everytime except last year of the CBA when Bolts won. Top5 payroll teams won the cup like 75% of the time. At one point Wings had nearly 80M budget compared to 20-30M budgets of some teams.

I don't see much fun there.

So you are saying you did not think the '07 Ducks-Wings series was great hockey? or the '08 fliers-habs upset was not huge?

I am not choosing "general interest over greatness" by liking the parity the salary cap has brought...because there are still great teams and good upsets. What I am choosing is more close games and less blowouts.

There will always be great teams and poor teams. What we lose with the parity the cap has brought is NHL teams that were worse then some AHL teams. We lose the teams that can barely get 50 points. Seriously, how fun was it watching Atlanta play they year they only got 39 points?

The Kings somehow still find a way to equal the excitement of that Atlanta squad.

The Kings somehow still find a way to equal the excitement of that Atlanta squad.
As much as I like to insult the kings...they are not THAT bad. And Kopitar always finds a way to make some excitment.

Keep re-signing those older players for top dollars while neglecting the younger ones and see what happens. Cough, NY Rangers, cough, cough.

Now I don't follow baseball, but I do know the Yankees haven't won a championship in awhile. Their "buying a team" phase started as they've been trying to keep winning.

In 2000, their last championship, they did have the highest salary, but less than 3 million above 2nd place. It wasn't until 2002 that they were more than 10 million above 2nd place. And after they grew to 50+ million above the 2nd place team, they've only advanced past the first round once (out of 5).

So have they really "bought" any championships?

But I like seeing some continuity in the playoffs. You get to see the teams grow and succeed. It's lame having brand new teams every year. You don't get to know the teams or anything.

Maybe they aren't buying championships, but they are buying their way into the playoffs, which is ridiculous IMO. I don't follow baseball that much either, cause frankly the grass growing outside is nearly as exciting to me. I don't mind seeing some continuity in playoffs, but I don't want to see it coming down to the same teams every year. Pepper summed it up pretty good IMO. Personally I think not having a cap ruins sports. I like how much more even the teams are. You still see upsets and great games. You just don't see the same teams on top every year because they can't buy their way there. The cap is a good thing for sports, and it's been a great thing for the Ducks.

Ryan isn't in Iowa because of the cap. He's there because of Burke's cap management (thank Scott Niedermayer for his shenanigans) , or because Carlyle doesn't like his effort or game.

If I had to guess, I think maybe it's the first, because (and I'm not a big Bobby Ryan fan) to my eyes Ryan was actually starting to look like an NHL player this year.

So you are saying you did not think the '07 Ducks-Wings series was great hockey?

Competetive hockey? Sure. Would it even come remotely close to the best series I've ever seen? Not a chance. Decades from now, when people are choosing the best series from our lifetimes, that one won't make any lists.

or the '08 fliers-habs upset was not huge?

Not like when the Lemieux Penguins lost to the Islanders, no. Or when the Gretzky Oilers lost to the Kings. Those upsets were not just huge, they were monumental, the kind that are remembered for decades. Because an underdog beat true juggernauts.

I am not choosing "general interest over greatness" by liking the parity the salary cap has brought...because there are still great teams and good upsets. What I am choosing is more close games and less blowouts.

A bunch of close games because they've weakened the strong teams, but competitive doesn't necessarily mean better. I've watched some very evenly matched ECHL games, but they were still noticeably less well played than NHL games.

And what's wrong with blowouts? Sometimes there's something to be appreciated about watching a great team playing to perfection. When the vast majority of games are close, then an evenly played series kind of loses any claim to being notable.

There will always be great teams and poor teams. What we lose with the parity the cap has brought is NHL teams that were worse then some AHL teams. We lose the teams that can barely get 50 points. Seriously, how fun was it watching Atlanta play they year they only got 39 points?

There were never NHL teams worse than AHL teams. Even those horrific Nordique teams had some surprisingly good players on the roster. The difference was, the top teams in those days had 3 lines worth of star-caliber skill players instead of just one and a half.

barring no moves, when is the earliest he can be brought up?

Competetive hockey? Sure. Would it even come remotely close to the best series I've ever seen? Not a chance. Decades from now, when people are choosing the best series from our lifetimes, that one won't make any lists.
....
Not like when the Lemieux Penguins lost to the Islanders, no. Or when the Gretzky Oilers lost to the Kings. Those upsets were not just huge, they were monumental, the kind that are remembered for decades. Because an underdog beat true juggernauts.
I was not saying those series were the "best ever" at anything. I just said they were great hockey. Even without the cap, the odds that the best ever series or upset happened in the last few years is slim to none. But you can not deny that in the last few years there still have been many great games and playoff series.

A bunch of close games because they've weakened the strong teams, but competitive doesn't necessarily mean better. I've watched some very evenly matched ECHL games, but they were still noticeably less well played than NHL games.
Do you really think Detroit is "weakened"? So they may be missing 1 or 2 more stars on their roster, but really I think they are playing just as good hockey.

And what's wrong with blowouts? Sometimes there's something to be appreciated about watching a great team playing to perfection. When the vast majority of games are close, then an evenly played series kind of loses any claim to being notable.
It really does get boring watching the Globetrotters kill the Washington generals every time. Sure the Globetrotters do some neat fancy moves that look cool and belong in highlight reals, but before the game starts you know who is going to win and it really is not good basket ball. The excitement level drops from that of a good sporting event to that of watching someone else light off fireworks.

There were never NHL teams worse than AHL teams. Even those horrific Nordique teams had some surprisingly good players on the roster.
How odd that last night the Flyers lost to their AHL farm team while you were writing this post. (not picking on the flyers, just noting this as it happened last night).

There have been some great AHL teams and some crappy NHL teams. A lower skill hockey team that plays as a team will always beat a higher skill team that play as individuals.

The difference was, the top teams in those days had 3 lines worth of star-caliber skill players instead of just one and a half.
I would rather watch two teams with some star- caliber players play against one another then one dream team against some dregs.

As a season ticket holder, would you rather watch 60-65 good competitive games in a league with good parity? Or would you rather watch 40-45 good games with the rest being the Globetrotters against the Washington Generals?

barring no moves, when is the earliest he can be brought up?

Well if 1.5 mil were to be moved off the books he could come back tomorrow. But if that doesn't happen and we have to wait for his contract to be pro-rated enough.... 1-2 months I think. I think a move will be made before then unless Moen really shines in his new role then who knows? If Bobby tears up the A from the moment go then it could be sooner then we think.

If Bobby tears up the A from the moment go then it could be sooner then we think.
From that Bruke interview, Ryan was pretty much told he had to tear up the A to get back to the big club.

From that Bruke interview, Ryan was pretty much told he had to tear up the A to get back to the big club.
That's what he said publicly, Ryan was not happy at all about his demotion because he had done everything asked of him, and was one of the best players in camp.

That's what he said publicly, Ryan was not happy at all about his demotion because he had done everything asked of him, and was one of the best players in camp.

If he had such a good camp and played better than the others he would be playing right now.

Obviously the other players are better or they would be cut instead of him.

barring no moves, when is the earliest he can be brought up?
I can't answer because we would need to know who would be sent down. First of all, someone would have to be sent down for Ryan to have a roster spot. Also, right now the Ducks have 24 people on the roster (because Larsen is on IR/LTIR). So one more would have to be sent down anyways.

But as is, the Ducks have 27k cap room. Well, they could go up to 508k temporarily more than that using the LTIR thing, but only until Larsen comes back.

But for fun: With only the 27k cap room and assuming no one is sent down (not possible, because they'd need to send at least 2 more down at some point), they could never bring Ryan up. Ryan has those bonuses (which wouldn't get prorated), so they need to have at least .925 million cap space to pay for his bonuses.

That's what he said publicly, Ryan was not happy at all about his demotion because he had done everything asked of him, and was one of the best players in camp.
One of the best players is kind of pushing it.

I was not saying those series were the "best ever" at anything. I just said they were great hockey.

Yes, and there's great hockey to be seen down at your local beer league too. I'm not kidding.

Even without the cap, the odds that the best ever series or upset happened in the last few years is slim to none. But you can not deny that in the last few years there still have been many great games and playoff series.

Sure, but none that pitted all-time teams against one another. Something that parity has all but killed the opportunity to see.

Do you really think Detroit is "weakened"? So they may be missing 1 or 2 more stars on their roster, but really I think they are playing just as good hockey.

They're certainly the strongest team in the league over the last decade ... but they're still a far cry from the dynastic caliber teams of days gone by.

It really does get boring watching the Globetrotters kill the Washington generals every time. Sure the Globetrotters do some neat fancy moves that look cool and belong in highlight reals, but before the game starts you know who is going to win and it really is not good basket ball.

You do understand that the Globetrotters play a form of the sport that is more entertainment than real basketball? Yeah, it might not be exciting back in the day when a Gretzky team smashed some weak team 12-4, but it was also marvelous to watch if you wanted to see a truly great team.

How odd that last night the Flyers lost to their AHL farm team while you were writing this post. (not picking on the flyers, just noting this as it happened last night).

Well gee, maybe their AHL team and NHL team should swap. I'm sure their AHL team will finish higher than their NHL team would based on an exhibition game.

There have been some great AHL teams and some crappy NHL teams. A lower skill hockey team that plays as a team will always beat a higher skill team that play as individuals.

Even the best AHL teams in history aren't that loaded with true NHL-caliber players. There's a reason those guys are in the minors.

I would rather watch two teams with some star- caliber players play against one another then one dream team against some dregs.

I'd most like to watch two dream teams, but that's now a thing of the past thanks to parity. Instead, we get admittedly competitive games left and right, but when every game is close it sort of loses its meaning.

As a season ticket holder, would you rather watch 60-65 good competitive games in a league with good parity? Or would you rather watch 40-45 good games with the rest being the Globetrotters against the Washington Generals?

When I buy a ticket, I just want a good game, but good games take on many forms. You seem to believe the only good game is one that's close, and that you'd rather watch evenly matched mediocre teams every night just to guarantee such a game ... at the expense of ever seeing true greatness.

Competetive hockey? Sure. Would it even come remotely close to the best series I've ever seen? Not a chance. Decades from now, when people are choosing the best series from our lifetimes, that one won't make any lists.



Not like when the Lemieux Penguins lost to the Islanders, no. Or when the Gretzky Oilers lost to the Kings. Those upsets were not just huge, they were monumental, the kind that are remembered for decades. Because an underdog beat true juggernauts.


A bunch of close games because they've weakened the strong teams, but competitive doesn't necessarily mean better. I've watched some very evenly matched ECHL games, but they were still noticeably less well played than NHL games.

And what's wrong with blowouts? Sometimes there's something to be appreciated about watching a great team playing to perfection. When the vast majority of games are close, then an evenly played series kind of loses any claim to being notable.



There were never NHL teams worse than AHL teams. Even those horrific Nordique teams had some surprisingly good players on the roster. The difference was, the top teams in those days had 3 lines worth of star-caliber skill players instead of just one and a half.

See that's the problem. When a team buys their roster because they have so much more money to spend then others it's a joke. I remember when there was no cap and a big name was going to be a FA. I instantly thought "well he'll be a Ranger, Wing, or Av. Now every team has a shot at signing them, obviously if they have the cap space. Maybe we won't see a team with 10 hall of famers on it, but that's because that team can't buy them all from other teams because they have more money. It makes it funner to watch IMO.

See that's the problem. When a team buys their roster because they have so much more money to spend then others it's a joke.

The irony is, the two examples I gave of juggernauts being upset, were two juggernauts from small markets. Certainly, no one could ever accuse the Pens or Oilers of having bought their teams.

I think the debate boils down to what you care more about. The "I like the competitiveness" people are placing more value on a better regular season. And they're right, more competitive games in the regular season is better.

But the "the salary cap is killing sports" people care more about the playoffs, and the big battles there. The salary cap has killed the truly epic games of the playoffs. Maybe they were the same teams, and that bores some, but those YEARS of Colorado-Detroit games were great. Two heavyweights waging war. That's what the playoffs are all about.

For me, I don't like the cap too much. I wish that there wasn't such extreme turn over. The east is a big mess this year for example. Players switch teams like crazy now.

Of course one of the things the owners give up with the cap is the lowered UFA age. And now, guys get 400% raises off their rookie contracts, and the 'second contract' is now gone, making the player turnover even worse.

I wish that there was a way to keep players drafted, or whatever, for cheaper. I wouldn't know how to make it, but perhaps an 'if you play your first pro game with team x' discount, where if a player plays his first pro game with your team, they don't count toward the cap as much or something...

I think the debate boils down to what you care more about. The "I like the competitiveness" people are placing more value on a better regular season. And they're right, more competitive games in the regular season is better.

But the "the salary cap is killing sports" people care more about the playoffs, and the big battles there. The salary cap has killed the truly epic games of the playoffs. Maybe they were the same teams, and that bores some, but those YEARS of Colorado-Detroit games were great. Two heavyweights waging war. That's what the playoffs are all about.

To me, I always think back to the NBA. During the 70s they had 10 champs in 10 years, it was a free for all almost every season where any team could win, and the sport almost died. Then in the 80s you suddenly had multiple great teams pop up almost simultaneously, and it's now largely seen as the golden age. People remember those great Lakers-Celtics battles far more than they remember the Supersonics vs. the Bullets.

It's like what will people remember with more fondness ... the Isles-Oilers and the Battle of Alberta in the 80s, or the consecutive years of Flames-Lightning and Oilers-Canes 7 game finals? I know which I'd rather have a copy of, that's for sure, and I don't care that the Calgary-TB series was just as "competitive" as two dynasties facing off, it simply wasn't as good of hockey and didn't feature so many Hall of Fame players in their primes playing on the same sheet of ice.

And contrary to what seems to be believed by the naysayers, some of the great 80s teams did get upset from time to time, and because they were so loaded it was far more shocking (like the Lakers in '86, or the Miracle on Manchester), so it's far from predictable and boring. When upsets go from "whoa!" to "yeah I can see how that could have happened," you've really lost something special. So you've made October through April more interesting ... big whoop. Regular season's mostly a drag, both now and then.

Throwing away all the fluff in our previous arguments, I think these quotes really show the difference in our opinions:

Do you really think Detroit is "weakened"? So they may be missing 1 or 2 more stars on their roster, but really I think they are playing just as good hockey
They're certainly the strongest team in the league over the last decade ... but they're still a far cry from the dynastic caliber teams of days gone by.
You seem to think that today's good teams are much worse then the good teams of old. I disagree with that.

While I would agree that the cap does weaken teams, I do not think it is by very much. The good teams today have 1.5-2 lines of stars that play most of the game where the good teams of old had 2-3 lines of stars but only 2 lines played most of the minutes so the difference is not all that much in my eyes. The only real difference between now and pre-cap is the quality of the 3rd line on the monster teams.

Big epic dynastic battles that happen in the playoffs will not happen under the cap, not because the teams are weaker, but because the competition is stronger. Gone are the years where 4 teams would walk over everyone without any real challenge to battle in the playoffs; now instead we get lots of teams that are able to compete. I personally like the idea of not knowing which teams are going to the conference finals before the season starts.

Instead of having the same teams battle over and over again in the playoffs, we get entire divisions, like the Pacific and Northwest this year, where all but maybe 2 teams are really really good.

With the cap we get a lot more great hockey between a lot more great teams but the only thing we lose is the ability to use the word "dynasty" when talking about the top few teams.

But the "the salary cap is killing sports" people care more about the playoffs, and the big battles there. The salary cap has killed the truly epic games of the playoffs. Maybe they were the same teams, and that bores some, but those YEARS of Colorado-Detroit games were great. Two heavyweights waging war. That's what the playoffs are all about.

People forget that 99% of Avs vs. Wings games since '99 have been total snooze-fests.

And salary cap didn't mean the end of heavyweights, Ducks-Wings in 07 was a great series as well between easily the two best teams in the league.

Hey guys, Flyers fan here. Just wondering what type of point production you were expecting from Ryan (if he were to play a 82 game season). I was also wondering what you would want in a deal for Ryan and how likely it is he would get dealt.

Would prospects like Giroux and Nodl get the job done?

Who you guys accept Jordan Staal for Bobby Ryan?... I think a deal can be worked out if both sides were to add players that would help the Duck's Cap situation