I know he has his own thread for the blog, but this deserves its own thread.



As we await the resumation of free agent actiivities today and the possible revelation of the identity of the free agent from the Devils' reserve list that Lou Lamoriello promised that the team was about to sign, I thought I would provide a little perspective on the happenings -- or non-happenings -- of Wednesday.

It was a day of departures for the Devils with John Madden, Brian Gionta, Mike Rupp and Scott Clemmensen all finding new cities of employment. That it happened in one day -- while the Devils did nothing other than re-sign Andy Greene -- probably exaggerated the actual impact that it had on the organization. While the losses were significant, especially because Madden and Gionta were key players for the Devils in the past, they were not unexpected.

Rupp has been supplanted by Pierre-Luc Letourneau-Leblond and Clemmensen wasn't going to stay to be Martin Brodeur's backup and 15 starts -- not when he had a three-year offer from the Panthers that promised a decent amount of playing time and an average of $1.2 million per season.

The writing was on the wall for Madden because of his age (36), his reduced role in 2008-09 and the lack of any attempt to re-sign him before July 1. Gionta probably had the best chance of returning, but at five years, $25 million, it was probably the best decision to let him go.

One thing that was made clear by Lamoriello's inactions on Wednesday is that he is extremely wary of the salary cap going down for 2010-11. The cap went up $100,000 to $56.8 million for 2009-10, but there is some talk that it could plummet a year from now to close to $50 million or below.

Being cautious this summer might prove to be the smart play, but only time will tell.

http://njmg.typepad.com/devilsblog/2009/07/looking-ahead-and-looking-back-after-a-memorable-july-1-2009.html#more

Do you really believe that the cap drops to 50 millions next year? That's ridiculous. Even if it does, the contracts have to and will be adjusted to the new cap.

So, that's not an excuse for Lou doing nothing.

If it actually would drop any at all, I'd see it going down about $1M max... just too much riding on the things that happen when it goes UP, not DOWN and we all know it's funny how things just work out when there's more to benefit from events like that.

Why would you think contracts would be adjusted to the new cap? Wishful thinking if anything.

Do you really believe that the cap drops to 50 millions next year? That's ridiculous. Even if it does, the contracts have to and will be adjusted to the new cap.

So, that's not an excuse for Lou doing nothing.

Why take that chance on players who really don't deserve contracts. And no, you signed the players, you can't magically take away their salaries. There will be no rollback this time. They knew that the cap going down was a distinct possibility. If it stabilizes and what not, look at next years crop and then try and sign the guys you need. Plus, if someone becomes available through the course of the year, you have cap space to go nuts. There's no point in making a signing, just to make a signing. You have to be fiscally responsible right now.

Do you really believe that the cap drops to 50 millions next year? That's ridiculous. Even if it does, the contracts have to and will be adjusted to the new cap.

So, that's not an excuse for Lou doing nothing.




Failboat

I think that a youth movement and mini rebuild is what we will see this year. I'm thinking Lou plans on icing a very competitive team next year when Tedenboo and Jacobsen can compete for a spot along. We will be in great shape next year and will be able to bail out teams in cap hell for good players.

Failboat

Really?

If you take away 5 millions in cap space, you more or less take away 150 millions in cap space to spend for all teams.

If contracts aren't adjusted, who will take them? If the cap goes down and the cap numbers stay the same, then many of next years free agents can't be signed by the teams.

It's not so failboat as it seems to be.

I think that a youth movement and mini rebuild is what we will see this year. I'm thinking Lou plans on icing a very competitive team next year when Tedenboo and Jacobsen can compete for a spot along. We will be in great shape next year and will be able to bail out teams in cap hell for good players.

Excellent point. That's what I believe also. I think that Lou is planning ahead for next season (2010-11) and didn't want to lock up a Havlat LT cause that would jeopardise certain roster spots for some of our prospects who are ready to make the jump like Tedenby, Josefson, Bergfors, Cormier, etc... I think Lou will go with the guys we have now and add a couple of rookies and a UFA 3rd/4th liner and ride the wave.

Having all that free cap space available gives him a multitude of options regarding trades and opens some doors for the free agent market next year cause teams like the Flyers, Rags, Habs, etc... can't spend as much to land guys like Kovalchuk, Nash, Marleau, Jokinen, Savard and company.

I haven't read the CBA, but I'm curious to think that there would be the magic reduction to save GM's money. Why would the players union agree to something like that? There will be plenty of players under contract and they would be getting bent over. If the cap goes down, the GMs can still buy out players contracts.

what exactly did you want him to do? i mean, we are finally going to utilize our younger players. our biggest off season acquisition will be a new head coach. dave tippet, maybe. hopefully. there is still time to make some moves if we need to, and we are flexible with cap space. lou= a+

If the cap goes down next year we're gonna be two steps ahead of everyone else.

Do you really believe that the cap drops to 50 millions next year? That's ridiculous.

Uhhhhh......yes? The economy?

Sure, $50M might be a tad drastic, but I'd certainly expect it to drop to $52M-$54M based on the state of the economy. Also, the Canadian dollar isnt as strong as it was. For a while, it was equal to the US dollar, but now it bumps around as being 15%-30% less than the US dollar.

Actually, I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on why you think the cap WONT drop?

Actually, I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on why you think the cap WONT drop?

Because everyone would go nuts if it does. I know, it is a possibility that the cap goes down, but I don't think that it does.

90% of the GMs in the league are signing players, because they think the cap stays the same or goes up. And I know that it is their fault if the cap goes down indeed, but do you really think the league will drop the cap if that means, that 90% of the teams need to reorganize their rosters, just because they are pushed over the cap? I don't think so.

So basically Lou is the one you does everything right. He waits to see what happens. But in my opinion he won't be better of next year, because nothing will change.

Actually, I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on why you think the cap WONT drop?

not speaking specific to the NHL cap, but more to business dealings in general...

A)Piece of paper vs. B)Powerful rich men in suits who stand to lose/make profit

Somehow B tends to win regardless of what A says... :whatever:

If the cap goes down next year we're gonna be two steps ahead of everyone else.

Not like it matters since we won't do anything at the deadline or FA anyways. Lou keeps saying that contracts aren't making fiscal sense and that people are being overpaid....well when EVERYONE is getting insane amounts of money, that's not overpaying, that's the norm.

Lou has been way too frightful of the cap since it was put in as is evident by his lack of action on deadline and FA days, I'd like to say lowering the cap next season will open things up for us as we'll have lots of room to bailout some teams needing the space, but I'm willing to bet he'll just let someone else walk to recover the breathing room we currently enjoy.

Because everyone would go nuts if it does. I know, it is a possibility that the cap goes down, but I don't think that it does.

The cap is LOCKED at something around 54% of league revenue...

This is true, however I think that the players can opt to artificially keep the cap high by putting more money into escrow or something like that....which is basically what they did this year.

I do know for a fact however, that if the cap does drop a significant amount (not saying it will, but IF it ever did), player salaries will NOT get rolled back. That was a 1 time thing in 05 with the introduction of the salary cap.

Should the cap drop significantly for whatever reason, teams will have to ditch players to get under the cap.

Because everyone would go nuts if it does.

Well at least your logic is based on solid mathematical principles.


not speaking specific to the NHL cap, but more to business dealings in general...

A)Piece of paper vs. B)Powerful rich men in suits who stand to lose/make profit
Somehow B tends to win regardless of what A says... :whatever:

This is not simply a "piece of paper", it's a contract that the entire business dealings of the NHL are now based on. All hell would break loose if they just tossed it aside. Besides, why would the 21 or 22 "rich men in suits" break the contract just because 8 or 9 other "rich men in suits" were irresponsible? Not happening. If the cap is supposed to go down based on the formula, the cap is going down. Just like it has gone up the last few years based on the same formula.

This is true, however I think that the players can opt to artificially keep the cap high by putting more money into escrow or something like that....which is basically what they did this year.

I do know for a fact however, that if the cap does drop a significant amount (not saying it will, but IF it ever did), player salaries will NOT get rolled back. That was a 1 time thing in 05 with the introduction of the salary cap.

Should the cap drop significantly for whatever reason, teams will have to ditch players to get under the cap.

I believe they can only do a % escrow, so depending on how far it goes down they can't necessarily bring it back up to where it is, just add to it as a percentage of the overall cap.

I believe they can only do a % escrow, so depending on how far it goes down they can't necessarily bring it back up to where it is, just add to it as a percentage of the overall cap.
yea i know there is something that I am missing with that, but my overall point being that the players can artificially keep the cap from falling as much as it should

yea i know there is something that I am missing with that, but my overall point being that the players can artificially keep the cap from falling as much as it should
They did that this year. Without the players intervening, the cap falls $5M instead of going up $100k. The fall next year will be more traumatic, and the players are already giving a huge portion of their salaries back in the form of escrow.

This is not simply a "piece of paper", it's a contract that the entire business dealings of the NHL are now based on. All hell would break loose if they just tossed it aside. Besides, why would the 21 or 22 "rich men in suits" break the contract just because 8 or 9 other "rich men in suits" were irresponsible? Not happening. If the cap is supposed to go down based on the formula, the cap is going down. Just like it has gone up the last few years based on the same formula.

Perhaps you missed that first line of my reply???? Seriously.

And as for the "formula" it has inputs and variables which are up calculated based on the feeding from many teams and several sources any of which could easily provide data that helps them or hurts them. It is not unheard of in the NHL to have teams padding numbers - it's not some pious process that involves the Pope and some choir boys.

Like any issue where there is something to be gained and something to be lost, there will be powers at work, both financial and political, that will push the issue around in all directions using lawyers as pawns in a massive game of greed. If you think it has anything to do with hockey or shares any of the honorable aspects of the game including clearly defined rules; I'd say it's a good thing we don't have Lawyers on the bench debating the interpretation of the rulebook during the games... we'd still be waiting for a ruling on the goalie interference call with .2 seconds to go in game 4.

They did that this year. Without the players intervening, the cap falls $5M instead of going up $100k. The fall next year will be more traumatic, and the players are already giving a huge portion of their salaries back in the form of escrow.
yea I knew they did that this year.

Is something like that can be done year after year if chosen to, or is more like a crutch to keep the cap from dipping on an off year?

yea I knew they did that this year.

Is something like that can be done year after year if chosen to, or is more like a crutch to keep the cap from dipping on an off year?
It doesn't matter. Current revenue projections have the cap falling even if they do do it. And given the amount of money they're losing to escrow, I'm not sure they'll want to do it again.

The comparisons to 2007 offseason are absurd. This year they lost a guy with a replacement already on the roster, and another who ended up being more harm than good in the playoffs. Neither were core players anymore. In 2007 the Devils lost one of their top centers along with half their defense, including their top defensemen.

This isn't close to being that bad, and the Devils did survive that.

It doesn't matter. Current revenue projections have the cap falling even if they do do it. And given the amount of money they're losing to escrow, I'm not sure they'll want to do it again.
gotcha, thanks for the clarification

The comparisons to 2007 offseason are absurd. This year they lost a guy with a replacement already on the roster, and another who ended up being more harm than good in the playoffs. Neither were core players anymore. In 2007 the Devils lost one of their top centers along with half their defense, including their top defensemen.

This isn't close to being that bad, and the Devils did survive that.

if you think about what TG is saying, the replacements for Madden and Gionta are here already, not even in youth but in Zubrus and Rolston. It really is Gomez and Rafalski that haven't been replaced. Not saying at all that either was worth keeping given the money that they got but we haven't filled the number1/2 center void and the PP qback void.

Well at least your logic is based on solid mathematical principles.

I said that the cap cannot be reduced without adjusting the contracts, because if the cap drops to 50 millions, you take away 150 millions for all teams to spend. With about 20 teams up to the cap, I don't see where those big contracts can be dealt if the cap drops to 50 millions, because those teams which have cap space, also lose 5 millions. It's a simple calculation.

Edit: According to NHL numbers:

Last years maximum cap space: 56.7 millions * 30 teams = 1,701,000,000 $
Last years cap space spent ~ 1,669,000,000 $

That's around 32 million dollars cap space for all teams. Now if the cap goes down 150 million next year, what are you going to do with the contracts? You cannot trade them, because no team has enough cap space to take them.

Because then your contracts would be worth again 1,669,000,000 dollars, but you have only 1,551,000,000 dollars to spend.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it more or less has to be somehow like that.

I said that the cap cannot be reduced without adjusting the contracts, because if the cap drops to 50 millions, you take away 150 millions for all teams to spend. With about 20 teams up to the cap, I don't see where those big contracts can be dealt if the cap drops to 50 millions, because those teams which have cap space, also lose 5 millions. It's a simple calculation.

Wait, so under your logic, contracts should be adjusted upward when the cap rises?

Really?

If you take away 5 millions in cap space, you more or less take away 150 millions in cap space to spend for all teams.

If contracts aren't adjusted, who will take them? If the cap goes down and the cap numbers stay the same, then many of next years free agents can't be signed by the teams.

It's not so failboat as it seems to be.

Not every team right now spends to the cap max and that would just mean that those free agents will be making much less.

Wait, so under your logic, contracts should be adjusted upward when the cap rises?

I call this woman's shopping logic.

"I saved $50 on these shoes - it was buy 1 pair get 50% the 2nd pair!"

my response:

"You could have saved $150 by not buying anything."

I said that the cap cannot be reduced without adjusting the contracts, because if the cap drops to 50 millions, you take away 150 millions for all teams to spend. With about 20 teams up to the cap, I don't see where those big contracts can be dealt if the cap drops to 50 millions, because those teams which have cap space, also lose 5 millions. It's a simple calculation.

Edit: According to NHL numbers:

Last years maximum cap space: 56.7 millions * 30 teams = 1,701,000,000 $
Last years cap space spent ~ 1,669,000,000 $

That's around 32 million dollars cap space for all teams. Now if the cap goes down 150 million next year, what are you going to do with the contracts? You cannot trade them, because no team has enough cap space to take them.

Because then your contracts would be worth again 1,669,000,000 dollars, but you have only 1,551,000,000 dollars to spend.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it more or less has to be somehow like that.
You are right the players wouldn't be traded....except to teams with the cap space...ie the Devils :-)

But for teams that can't trade their players, they will buy the player out, take a hit against their cap, and the player is free to sign elsewhere for less money

I call this woman's shopping logic.


Every year around the big shopping weeks like Memorial Day and Black Friday, you're guaranteed to see the ad that says:

BUY MORE, SAVE MORE!!!!!


I always crack up when I see that.

Every year around the big shopping weeks like Memorial Day and Black Friday, you're guaranteed to see the ad that says:

BUY MORE, SAVE MORE!!!!!


I always crack up when I see that.

Sounds like Canada Day is one of the biggest shopping days of the year...

You are right the players wouldn't be traded....except to teams with the cap space...ie the Devils :-)

But for teams that can't trade their players, they will buy the player out, take a hit against their cap, and the player is free to sign elsewhere for less money

I think the whole system would collapse. And therefore it is not very likely that the cap goes down without contracts being adjusted.

You sure can buy them out, but if you look at my calculation up there, you need to shed about 120 million dollars in salary. So in the end, all those players would be unemployed. Some of them can be traded, some of them bought out, but not all of them.

I think the whole system would collapse. And therefore it is not very likely that the cap goes down without contracts being adjusted.

You sure can buy them out, but if you look at my calculation up there, you need to shed about 120 million dollars in salary. So in the end, all those players would be unemployed. Some of them can be traded, some of them bought out, but not all of them.
The system was constructed with this eventuality in mind. If teams get totally screwed by it falling, that's their problem. But I guarantee the players are NOT taking another reduction in their salaries across the board. You'd be looking at another strike if the owners tried to do that.

Not like it matters since we won't do anything at the deadline or FA anyways. Lou keeps saying that contracts aren't making fiscal sense and that people are being overpaid....well when EVERYONE is getting insane amounts of money, that's not overpaying, that's the norm.

Lou has been way too frightful of the cap since it was put in as is evident by his lack of action on deadline and FA days, I'd like to say lowering the cap next season will open things up for us as we'll have lots of room to bailout some teams needing the space, but I'm willing to bet he'll just let someone else walk to recover the breathing room we currently enjoy.

Lou has been anything BUT frightful of the cap in the past. Maybe this is why he's backing off and trying to stay around $50M when it's all said and done.

Or do you not remember us having to pull a Calgary a few years back and have Paul Martin play over 30 minutes in 60 minute games to cover up? Or not being able to activate Matvichuk for around 6 weeks until his hit was so miniscule it couldn't put them over the cap?

I think the whole system would collapse. And therefore it is not very likely that the cap goes down without contracts being adjusted.

You sure can buy them out, but if you look at my calculation up there, you need to shed about 120 million dollars in salary. So in the end, all those players would be unemployed. Some of them can be traded, some of them bought out, but not all of them.

why $120M? most teams don't spend to the cap. teams with budget restraints would be more likely to jump in. you would see a readjustment in where the money flows. not to mention, they players who were bought out still get paid 2/3rds, their cap existance just gets changed. hell, they could come out of it getting paid more, like Bobby did when the Rangers bought him out.

The system was constructed with this eventuality in mind. If teams get totally screwed by it falling, that's their problem. But I guarantee the players are NOT taking another reduction in their salaries across the board. You'd be looking at another strike if the owners tried to do that.

How do you handle the situation then?

If the cap goes down 5 million to about 50 million, then you would have to shed about 130 million dollars in players' salary. How do you do it?

How do you handle the situation then?

If the cap goes down 5 million to about 50 million, then you would have to shed about 130 million dollars in players' salary. How do you do it?
I'm not the NHL. I'm a particular GM. The NHL has no responsibility to help any given GM out of a cap jam. They have to figure it out for themselves.

But an across-the-board reduction in salary request is asking to kill this hockey league, because it'd cause a strike. They hated doing it the first time.

why $120M? most teams don't spend to the cap. teams with budget restraints would be more likely to jump in. you would see a readjustment in where the money flows. not to mention, they players who were bought out still get paid 2/3rds, their cap existance just gets changed. hell, they could come out of it getting paid more, like Bobby did when the Rangers bought him out.

I was talking about all teams. You have to shed 120M in salary. Those teams who are over the cap, can trade their contracts, to teams that have cap space. But those teams can take 1 or 2 players. And what happens to the rest?

I'm not the NHL. I'm a particular GM. The NHL has no responsibility to help any given GM out of a cap jam. They have to figure it out for themselves.

But an across-the-board reduction in salary request is asking to kill this hockey league, because it'd cause a strike. They hated doing it the first time.

If you don't adjust the salaries it is going to kill the league as well, because free agents can't be signed and are likely to sign in another league. (i.e. KHL)

If you don't adjust the salaries it is going to kill the league as well, because free agents can't be signed and are likely to sign in another league. (i.e. KHL)
Really? The KHL is having much bigger financial issues than the NHL is at the moment, and do you really think everyone is going to be willing to move to Russia?

It's not going to happen. What'll happen is teams with cap space will move players to teams without it for cheap, like the Malakhov deal. There'll be buyouts, some, for the players nobody wants. And there's likely to be a lot of stashing contracts in the AHL.

How do you handle the situation then?

If the cap goes down 5 million to about 50 million, then you would have to shed about 130 million dollars in players' salary. How do you do it?

By doing what Lou is doing.

Really? The KHL is having much bigger financial issues than the NHL is at the moment, and do you really think everyone is going to be willing to move to Russia?

It's not going to happen. What'll happen is teams with cap space will move players to teams without it for cheap, like the Malakhov deal. There'll be buyouts, some, for the players nobody wants. And there's likely to be a lot of stashing contracts in the AHL.

The KHL was just an example, because no team in the NHL will have cap space to sign players.

Again: You look at all 30 teams in the NHL. The cap goes down drastically to 50 millions. Then you have 120M dollars in salary, that needs to get shed, even if every team spends to cap maximum. What are you going to do with those 120M? Buyouts and trades are not options, because no team can take on salary.

I was talking about all teams. You have to shed 120M in salary. Those teams who are over the cap, can trade their contracts, to teams that have cap space. But those teams can take 1 or 2 players. And what happens to the rest?

no, you don't. you're assuming that every team in the league is at the cap. this offseason has been kinda quiet in the volume of teams getting involved. even, say, the Flyers big move, is for an expiring contract. the ducks brought back Nieds and Selanne, again, expiring contracts. Lou is going bargain basement. the Wings have done nothing, the Kings have made this their entire marketing point. there are teams that are preparing. OTOH, there are teams that are not.

I don't think it's going to be as severe as $50M, but it's something that it makes sense to prepare for.

I was talking about all teams. You have to shed 120M in salary. Those teams who are over the cap, can trade their contracts, to teams that have cap space. But those teams can take 1 or 2 players. And what happens to the rest?

Some get bought out, others get sent to the minors, and some get sent to Russia or Europe. The current CBA provides many ways for teams to get out of bad contracts without trading them. The reason why nobody does it is because it is an admission of bad management, or the team can't afford to have expensive minor leaguers. Worst is in the case of a buyout, which creates a dead cap hit. If the cap goes down, GMs will find a way around it even with the absurd contracts going onto the books now. It probably will affect the salaries of future UFAs because teams won't have the money to sign them, but GMs are not concerned about that.

By doing what Lou is doing.

But unfortunately about 20 teams in the league will be over the cap, and can't get rid of contracts.

no, you don't. you're assuming that every team in the league is at the cap. this offseason has been kinda quiet in the volume of teams getting involved. even, say, the Flyers big move, is for an expiring contract. the ducks brought back Nieds and Selanne, again, expiring contracts. Lou is going bargain basement. the Wings have done nothing, the Kings have made this their entire marketing point. there are teams that are preparing. OTOH, there are teams that are not.

I don't think it's going to be as severe as $50M, but it's something that it makes sense to prepare for.

I don't know how to explain it.

I'll try it this way.

A= cap of all players in the league
B= maximum cap for all teams in the league.

If A is higher than B you can't do anything. Even if some teams aren't spending to the cap this year, they cannot take on all contracts. If the overall amount of salaries is higher than the maximum cap space of all teams, then you have a problem.

But unfortunately about 20 teams in the league will be over the cap, and can't get rid of contracts.

how do you know that? there's probably around ten teams that straddle the FLOOR.
then there's the Buffalo's and Anaheims of the world that live on a budget.

you have this warped perception of what teams spend against the Cap. even the Flyers, who are a cap trainwreck, got out of it by bringing in Pronger. Pronger's salary cushions the blow downward when he goes UFA.

I call this woman's shopping logic.

"I saved $50 on these shoes - it was buy 1 pair get 50% the 2nd pair!"

my response:

"You could have saved $150 by not buying anything."

lol your the best for saying that i argue with my girlfriend all the time about that. lol best post ever

I haven't read the CBA, but I'm curious to think that there would be the magic reduction to save GM's money. Why would the players union agree to something like that? There will be plenty of players under contract and they would be getting bent over. If the cap goes down, the GMs can still buy out players contracts.

Players under contract will already have their $$ reduced in the form of escrow payments if league revenue goes down. If every team in the league is equally screwed, I can see the league and PA agreeing to a small lowering of the cap only, in exchange for greater escrow payments back to the league.

Players under contract will already have their $$ reduced in the form of escrow payments if league revenue goes down. If every team in the league is equally screwed, I can see the league and PA agreeing to a small lowering of the cap only, in exchange for greater escrow payments back to the league.
The league only permits teams to spend a given % of league revenue on players. If revenue drops, everything exceeding that % returns to the teams via escrow. It's a huge number, actually. The league doesn't need any concessions. The cap was constructed for exactly this scenario. Teams were supposed to be punished if they spent more than the league could healthfully sustain. Now that there are teams that are going to get screwed, the teams that aren't getting screwed aren't going to let the Rangers of the world get off easy because they were smart while the Rangers were stupid.

Players under contract will already have their $$ reduced in the form of escrow payments if league revenue goes down. If every team in the league is equally screwed, I can see the league and PA agreeing to a small lowering of the cap only, in exchange for greater escrow payments back to the league.

which ironicly, the PA might accept because it's only out for its richest and oldest members. even though the little guy gets bent over and fisted.

if you think about what TG is saying, the replacements for Madden and Gionta are here already, not even in youth but in Zubrus and Rolston. It really is Gomez and Rafalski that haven't been replaced. Not saying at all that either was worth keeping given the money that they got but we haven't filled the number1/2 center void and the PP qback void.

Zajac already replaced Gomez more or less, which cushioned the blow. Of course, Zajac as #1 means we really don't have a #2 center, which has been our glaring hole at forward.

And no, we never found even an adequate replacement for Rafalski, which is why our PP still sucked despite the emergence of Parise and Zajac and great years by Elias and Langenbrunner.

Zajac already replaced Gomez more or less, which cushioned the blow. Of course, Zajac as #1 means we really don't have a #2 center, which has been our glaring hole at forward.

And no, we never found even an adequate replacement for Rafalski, which is why our PP still sucked despite the emergence of Parise and Zajac and great years by Elias and Langenbrunner.
Barring Eckford turning into a star or Burlon/Gelinas dramatically accelerating their development, our defense improvements are going to have to come via trade.

The league only permits teams to spend a given % of league revenue on players. If revenue drops, everything exceeding that % returns to the teams via escrow. It's a huge number, actually. The league doesn't need any concessions. The cap was constructed for exactly this scenario. Teams were supposed to be punished if they spent more than the league could healthfully sustain. Now that there are teams that are going to get screwed, the teams that aren't getting screwed aren't going to let the Rangers of the world get off easy because they were smart while the Rangers were stupid.

My point is that when the CBA was signed, nobody had any idea the economy would crash this sharply this fast (outside of a few "fringe" liberal economists that unfortunately nobody actually listened to, but that's another story). So while it might be able to deal with slow decreases in revenue, I'm not sure it has a mechanism in place to adequately deal with a sharp decline, as we are seeing now.

Okay, so we lose 5 million at once off the cap, 15 teams have to shed players. Where do these players go? Yes, there are quite a few teams that have budgets and would still have cap space left. But the reason they have cap space is because they have budgets, so they aren't going to just take on all these new contracts.

I guess some would be unemployed until the economy recovers, others would have to sign 1 year deals for the league minimum until the cap goes up again or more contracts go off the books. I don't see it being too farfetched for the league and the PA to both decide to re-open the CBA (and I don't see why they can't do it if both sides agree) and come up with a solution to prevent this situation.

I mean, someone in the thread mentioned Pronger's salary coming off the books to save the Flyer's cap. Then what is Pronger supposed to do? Do you think the players want a situation where someone of Pronger's stature has to sign a one year deal for a milliion dollars just to remain employed?

Anyway, I can see the current CBA being able to handle a drop of 3-4 million in one year, but if it would drop 7 million at once, they might have to reopen the CBA to handle it.

My point is that when the CBA was signed, nobody had any idea the economy would crash this sharply this fast (outside of a few "fringe" liberal economists that unfortunately nobody actually listened to, but that's another story). So while it might be able to deal with slow decreases in revenue, I'm not sure it has a mechanism in place to adequately deal with a sharp decline, as we are seeing now.

Okay, so we lose 5 million at once off the cap, 15 teams have to shed players. Where do these players go? Yes, there are quite a few teams that have budgets and would still have cap space left. But the reason they have cap space is because they have budgets, so they aren't going to just take on all these new contracts.

I guess some would be unemployed until the economy recovers, others would have to sign 1 year deals for the league minimum until the cap goes up again or more contracts go off the books. I don't see it being too farfetched for the league and the PA to both decide to re-open the CBA (and I don't see why they can't do it if both sides agree) and come up with a solution to prevent this situation.

I mean, someone in the thread mentioned Pronger's salary coming off the books to save the Flyer's cap. Then what is Pronger supposed to do? Do you think the players want a situation where someone of Pronger's stature has to sign a one year deal for a milliion dollars just to remain employed?
They don't have a choice. They signed (and extended) the CBA. Might this happen? Very possibly. That's the way it is, though, and it's not going to change.

They don't have a choice. They signed (and extended) the CBA. Might this happen? Very possibly. That's the way it is, though, and it's not going to change.

Why don't they have a choice? If the CBA is like a standard contract, it can be torn up if both sides agree (though how that would work with 30 owners and 500 or so players, I'm not sure, but there are definately laws covering it).

Barring Eckford turning into a star or Burlon/Gelinas dramatically accelerating their development, our defense improvements are going to have to come via trade.

I agree. If Lou signs zero free agents, but manages to swing a trade for someone like Kaberle (that doesn't involves decimating our current roster), I'll consider this offseason quite the success.

Of course, I'd still like to sign another center, even a fringe 2/3 guy.

I said that the cap cannot be reduced without adjusting the contracts, because if the cap drops to 50 millions, you take away 150 millions for all teams to spend. With about 20 teams up to the cap, I don't see where those big contracts can be dealt if the cap drops to 50 millions, because those teams which have cap space, also lose 5 millions. It's a simple calculation.

Edit: According to NHL numbers:

Last years maximum cap space: 56.7 millions * 30 teams = 1,701,000,000 $
Last years cap space spent ~ 1,669,000,000 $

That's around 32 million dollars cap space for all teams. Now if the cap goes down 150 million next year, what are you going to do with the contracts? You cannot trade them, because no team has enough cap space to take them.

Because then your contracts would be worth again 1,669,000,000 dollars, but you have only 1,551,000,000 dollars to spend.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it more or less has to be somehow like that.

Your analysis is wrong. You're taking the total spent AFTER the off-season when you should be taking the total BEFORE. If the cap fell to $51M general managers would know before July 1st and they would adjust accordingly. Free agents, both unrestricted and restricted, would face a huge drop in pay. There would be more buy-outs. More players would be waived.

There wouldn't be a lack of cap space to go around.

Why don't they have a choice? If the CBA is like a standard contract, it can be torn up if both sides agree (though how that would work with 30 owners and 500 or so players, I'm not sure, but there are definately laws covering it).
Because the league would never assent to tear it up. You're talking about the potential for another lockout once they start arguing about things like UFA and RFA age. But you ask the players to take a salary decrease across the board and they'll walk. And if you ask half the league to bail the other half out from their bad decision making, they'll walk. No one is going to want to fix it, you'll never get a consensus to do so.

And legally, the CBA is binding and you can't just tear it up until it expires.

My point is that when the CBA was signed, nobody had any idea the economy would crash this sharply this fast (outside of a few "fringe" liberal economists that unfortunately nobody actually listened to, but that's another story). So while it might be able to deal with slow decreases in revenue, I'm not sure it has a mechanism in place to adequately deal with a sharp decline, as we are seeing now.

Okay, so we lose 5 million at once off the cap, 15 teams have to shed players. Where do these players go? Yes, there are quite a few teams that have budgets and would still have cap space left. But the reason they have cap space is because they have budgets, so they aren't going to just take on all these new contracts.

I guess some would be unemployed until the economy recovers, others would have to sign 1 year deals for the league minimum until the cap goes up again or more contracts go off the books. I don't see it being too farfetched for the league and the PA to both decide to re-open the CBA (and I don't see why they can't do it if both sides agree) and come up with a solution to prevent this situation.

I mean, someone in the thread mentioned Pronger's salary coming off the books to save the Flyer's cap. Then what is Pronger supposed to do? Do you think the players want a situation where someone of Pronger's stature has to sign a one year deal for a milliion dollars just to remain employed?

Anyway, I can see the current CBA being able to handle a drop of 3-4 million in one year, but if it would drop 7 million at once, they might have to reopen the CBA to handle it.

basically, yes, next season could be a bad year to be a UFA for some people. I don't think the dramatic effect is going to be as bad as you say, and it's not going to drop $7M at once, if it does, the salaries should be much, much lower to reflect the economic reality.

you will see alot of one-year carryover deals next season, I think, or some very frontloaded, very long-term deals to bring down cap value. maybe NFL-esque where players take on years they have absolutely no chance to be around for.

My point is that when the CBA was signed, nobody had any idea the economy would crash this sharply this fast (outside of a few "fringe" liberal economists that unfortunately nobody actually listened to, but that's another story). So while it might be able to deal with slow decreases in revenue, I'm not sure it has a mechanism in place to adequately deal with a sharp decline, as we are seeing now.

Okay, so we lose 5 million at once off the cap, 15 teams have to shed players. Where do these players go? Yes, there are quite a few teams that have budgets and would still have cap space left. But the reason they have cap space is because they have budgets, so they aren't going to just take on all these new contracts.

I guess some would be unemployed until the economy recovers, others would have to sign 1 year deals for the league minimum until the cap goes up again or more contracts go off the books. I don't see it being too farfetched for the league and the PA to both decide to re-open the CBA (and I don't see why they can't do it if both sides agree) and come up with a solution to prevent this situation.

I mean, someone in the thread mentioned Pronger's salary coming off the books to save the Flyer's cap. Then what is Pronger supposed to do? Do you think the players want a situation where someone of Pronger's stature has to sign a one year deal for a milliion dollars just to remain employed?

Anyway, I can see the current CBA being able to handle a drop of 3-4 million in one year, but if it would drop 7 million at once, they might have to reopen the CBA to handle it.

15 teams will not be over $51M before next off-season. I don't even think 3 will.

It would suck for the free agent class of 2010, but there would be no mass crisis.

My point is that when the CBA was signed, nobody had any idea the economy would crash this sharply this fast (outside of a few "fringe" liberal economists that unfortunately nobody actually listened to, but that's another story). So while it might be able to deal with slow decreases in revenue, I'm not sure it has a mechanism in place to adequately deal with a sharp decline, as we are seeing now.

Okay, so we lose 5 million at once off the cap, 15 teams have to shed players. Where do these players go? Yes, there are quite a few teams that have budgets and would still have cap space left. But the reason they have cap space is because they have budgets, so they aren't going to just take on all these new contracts.

I guess some would be unemployed until the economy recovers, others would have to sign 1 year deals for the league minimum until the cap goes up again or more contracts go off the books. I don't see it being too farfetched for the league and the PA to both decide to re-open the CBA (and I don't see why they can't do it if both sides agree) and come up with a solution to prevent this situation.

I mean, someone in the thread mentioned Pronger's salary coming off the books to save the Flyer's cap. Then what is Pronger supposed to do? Do you think the players want a situation where someone of Pronger's stature has to sign a one year deal for a milliion dollars just to remain employed?

Anyway, I can see the current CBA being able to handle a drop of 3-4 million in one year, but if it would drop 7 million at once, they might have to reopen the CBA to handle it.

That's exactly what I wanted to say. :)

Lou has been anything BUT frightful of the cap in the past. Maybe this is why he's backing off and trying to stay around $50M when it's all said and done.

Or do you not remember us having to pull a Calgary a few years back and have Paul Martin play over 30 minutes in 60 minute games to cover up? Or not being able to activate Matvichuk for around 6 weeks until his hit was so miniscule it couldn't put them over the cap?

Yes I remember that, I also remember him pulling some jedi mind trick **** to get Matty activated. Didn't he pull something similar when we traded Hale? He made way more cap space disappear than he let go.

I agree it's smart to not be an inch from the cap, buys you plenty of working room to make a trade on deadline day or FA day. But we all know that's not our style, so what's the point? Right now we have what, 12 million in cap space left and need what, 3 forwards? Seems like a lot of wiggle room there, unless he's cooking up something crazy yet.

Your analysis is wrong. You're taking the total spent AFTER the off-season when you should be taking the total BEFORE. If the cap fell to $51M general managers would know before July 1st and they would adjust accordingly. Free agents, both unrestricted and restricted, would face a huge drop in pay. There would be more buy-outs. More players would be waived.

There wouldn't be a lack of cap space to go around.

I know, but I don't have those numbers. But do you think that 120M $ dollars come off the books of all teams, just because of FAs?

Where are people getting the argument that a copious amount of teams will be over the cap if it drops down to $51M? I don't think any team even has $50 Million committed for 10-11 at this point.

EDIT: Scratch that, there isn't a team that has over $45M committed to 10-11 yet.

I know, but I don't have those numbers. But do you think that 120M $ dollars come off the books of all teams, just because of FAs?

Ugh. You don't understand.

NO TEAM HAS MORE THAN $45M COMMITTED TO 2010-2011 RIGHT NOW. AS OF RIGHT NOW, AND AS OF JUNE 30TH 2010, THERE WILL BE NO TEAM THAT NEEDS MONEY TO COME OFF THE BOOKS. Sure, a lot of teams will need to trade a player or two or maybe the rights to a RFA, but there won't be this dire to need shuffle contracts around.

Free agents are going to feel it big time, though.

And legally, the CBA is binding and you can't just tear it up until it expires.

All good contracts have provisions for both amendments and terminations. I'm sure in the hundreds if not thousands of pages that make up the CBA, there is a "back-door" for mutually agreed changes.

Ugh. You don't understand.

NO TEAM HAS MORE THAN $45M COMMITTED TO 2010-2011 RIGHT NOW. AS OF RIGHT NOW, AND AS OF JUNE 30TH 2010, THERE WILL BE NO TEAM THAT NEEDS MONEY TO COME OFF THE BOOKS. Sure, a lot of teams will need to trade a player or two or maybe the rights to a RFA, but there won't be this dire to need shuffle contracts around.

Free agents are going to feel it big time, though.

OK, man. I just got it. I looked it up at NHL numbers. You are right.

But those teams need to fill the rosters with about 6 millions to go. Those FAs next year won't be happy about it.

All good contracts have provisions for both amendments and terminations. I'm sure in the hundreds if not thousands of pages that make up the CBA, there is a "back-door" for mutually agreed changes.
You really think you'll get 30 GMs and the whole NHLPA to sign off on something even if such a loophole does exist?

OK, man. I just got it. I looked it up at NHL numbers. You are right.

But those teams need to fill the rosters with about 6 millions to go. Those FAs next year won't be happy about it.

No they won't. guyincognito is right though. Expect a lot of one year contracts next off-season. Not many players will want to sign long-term in that market.

And yes some of the teams with over $40M committed, which might be us, will need to fill the roster with lower paid players. That's how it goes though.

OK, man. I just got it. I looked it up at NHL numbers. You are right.

But those teams need to fill the rosters with about 6 millions to go. Those FAs next year won't be happy about it.
Sucks to be them, good to be one of the teams that will have cap room.

Players going UFA after next season: Kovalchuk, Luongo, Lidstrom, Nash, Marleau, Pronger, Kariya, Gonchar, Nabokov, Jokinen, Turco, Johnsson, Savard, Martin, Demitra, Frolov, Hejduk, Whitney, Mitchell...

Not really a lot of D options outside of our own.

Yes I remember that, I also remember him pulling some jedi mind trick **** to get Matty activated. Didn't he pull something similar when we traded Hale? He made way more cap space disappear than he let go.

I agree it's smart to not be an inch from the cap, buys you plenty of working room to make a trade on deadline day or FA day. But we all know that's not our style, so what's the point? Right now we have what, 12 million in cap space left and need what, 3 forwards? Seems like a lot of wiggle room there, unless he's cooking up something crazy yet.

I think they're going to end up at around $50M. you have to remember, Zajac is going to get $3M or so of that money. And the possibility that Shanny gets a Holik contract because they have money to spend for one year, but not after that.

That also leaves the option to chase expiring contracts via trade, even early in the season. Which I guess would be Plan B should the youth movement fail or someone important gets hurt.

So, if Lou sets up shop at $50-51M, that signals to me (considering that we're not FA laden), he probably thinks it's going to be in the low $50M's next season. A drop, but not a gigantic one.

Sucks to be them, good to be one of the teams that will have cap room.

Players going UFA after next season: Kovalchuk, Luongo, Lidstrom, Nash, Marleau, Pronger, Kariya, Gonchar, Nabokov, Jokinen, Turco, Johnsson, Savard, Martin, Demitra, Frolov, Hejduk, Whitney, Mitchell...

Not really a lot of D options outside of our own.

We are likely one of those teams that has committed over 40M $ in 12-14 players. That's not good at all. Because we have to fill our roster with about 8-10M $.

You really think you'll get 30 GMs and the whole NHLPA to sign off on something even if such a loophole does exist?

I'm not going to guess on matters I have no intimate knowledge of - especially something as massive as the CBA, but if the bottom drops out and the entire league is in crisis mode with everyone agreeing something needs to be done to save the season or even the league... you can bet something would be done even if there is a GM or two standing in opposition to it. More than likely they would simply be compensated in some manner via an abitrator or judge's ruling.

I don't believe a catastrophic drop in the cap will even happen - I'm just commenting on the dynamics of how big business rolls over the rules when they no longer are convenient for anyone playing the game.

Like Spock said; "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or one."

http://www.filmjunk.com/images/weblog/treknobabblespockdie.jpg

We are likely one of those teams that has committed over 40M $ in 12-14 players. That's not good at all. Because we have to fill our roster with about 8-10M $.

why isn't it good? we have minimal free agents next season (Bergfors/Clarkson RFA, Martin/Mottau UFA), we are going to have a payroll of give or take $50M (barring one year windfalls), and we have buyout/trade targets that can be replaced.

we're in pretty decent shape. I wouldn't necessarily expect to be bringing players in next year, but they shouldn't have to purge, either. if they had signed Gionta, they would have been in a serious purge situation.

We are likely one of those teams that has committed over 40M $ in 12-14 players. That's not good at all. Because we have to fill our roster with about 8-10M $.

Next year we have $38.75 committed to 13 signed players ( Still waiting on Zajac number to add to the $38.75 and bring us to 14)

Martin & Mottau are UFA, Clarkson & Bergfors are RFA

Next year we have $38.75 committed to 13 signed players ( Still waiting on Zajac number to add to the $38.75 and bring us to 14)

Martin & Mottau are UFA, Clarkson & Bergfors are RFA

which considering Mottau/Clarkson/Bergfors aren't going to make significantly more than they do now, you're looking at say, $46 million for 17 players. whoever else is coming in this season from the farm is going to be cheap in the longterm. They might have to dump someone like White or Sal... or Pando, but they're in pretty good shape.

Next year we have $38.75 committed to 13 signed players ( Still waiting on Zajac number to add to the $38.75 and bring us to 14)

Martin & Mottau are UFA, Clarkson & Bergfors are RFA

I have it at $38,225,500, because I have Oduya at $3.5M. Him at 3 would bring it down to where you are. (By the way, has anybody figured out what Oduya's # exactly is? - it's kind of bothering me)

But I only see 13 signed for beyond next year - Zajac, Parise, Langs, Elias, Rolston, Zubrus, Pandolfo, Leblond, Oduya, White, Salvador, Greene, Brodeur.

I have it at $38,225,500, because I have Oduya at $3.5M. Him at 3 would bring it down to where you are. (By the way, has anybody figured out what Oduya's # exactly is? - it's kind of bothering me)

But I only see 13 signed for beyond next year - Zajac, Parise, Langs, Elias, Rolston, Zubrus, Pandolfo, Leblond, Oduya, White, Salvador, Greene, Brodeur.


My bad, I included Halischuck.. That's the extra guys I have..I was counting the gray marks on nhlnumbers salaries and didn't look at the names too

I have no offical idea on Oduya's salary either

Uhhhhh......yes? The economy?

Sure, $50M might be a tad drastic, but I'd certainly expect it to drop to $52M-$54M based on the state of the economy. Also, the Canadian dollar isnt as strong as it was. For a while, it was equal to the US dollar, but now it bumps around as being 15%-30% less than the US dollar.

Actually, I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on why you think the cap WONT drop?

You wanna know why it is more than reasonable for people to believe the cap will remain about the same? Because all we heard this year was how the cap was going to drop, and did that happen? No it went up 1K. Some of you guys get so annoying over time and refuse to ever blame Lou for anything. Im not saying he even had a bad offseason, free agency just started, but to be content with what Lou did if this is indeed all he is doing is absolutely ridiculous.



Lou has not been a great GM since the lockout. He has been good, not great. If he was great he never would have let Rafalski go and he never would have signed players like Malakov, Mogilny, Vishnevsky, Rachunek, Zubrus, Salvador (his contract is a damn joke), Pandolfo, etc. Some of you guys need to shut up and stop acting like Lou is the worst GM all time and others need to get off your knees for the guy.

Bottom line, you dont lose two top nine players and not replace either of them while having a very mediocre farm system. You also dont waste the privledge of having what many of us consider the best goalie in the world at your disposal. And that is in FACT what he is doing IF he goes into opening day with this roster, which has no realistic shot at a Cup.

Edit: Possibly 3 top 9 players pending Shanny obviously.

You wanna know why it is more than reasonable for people to believe the cap will remain about the same? Because all we heard this year was how the cap was going to drop, and did that happen? No it went up 1K. Some of you guys get so annoying over time and refuse to ever blame Lou for anything. Im not saying he even had a bad offseason, free agency just started, but to be content with what Lou did if this is indeed all he is doing is absolutely ridiculous.

Lou has not been a great GM since the lockout. He has been good, not great. If he was great he never would have let Rafalski go and he never would have signed players like Malakov, Mogilny, Vishnevsky, Rachunek, Zubrus, Salvador (his contract is a damn joke), Pandolfo, etc. Some of you guys need to shut up and stop acting like Lou is the worst GM all time and others need to get off your knees for the guy.

Bottom line, you dont lose two top nine players and not replace either of them while having a very mediocre farm system. You also dont waste the privledge of having what many of us consider the best goalie in the world at your disposal. And that is in FACT what he is doing IF he goes into opening day with this roster, which has no realistic shot at a Cup.

So... what would you do?

See, I agree with everything he did. And I'm someone that's been overly critical of him. So, am I supposed to disagree with what he did and call for his head because he did what I thought he should do? I'm confused here.

And the only reason the cap didn't cliff this season was that the PA inflated it.

It seems like you're complaining, yet at the same time, taking all possible positions.

You wanna know why it is more than reasonable for people to believe the cap will remain about the same? Because all we heard this year was how the cap was going to drop, and did that happen? No it went up 1K. Some of you guys get so annoying over time and refuse to ever blame Lou for anything. Im not saying he even had a bad offseason, free agency just started, but to be content with what Lou did if this is indeed all he is doing is absolutely ridiculous.



Lou has not been a great GM since the lockout. He has been good, not great. If he was great he never would have let Rafalski go and he never would have signed players like Malakov, Mogilny, Vishnevsky, Rachunek, Zubrus, Salvador (his contract is a damn joke), Pandolfo, etc. Some of you guys need to shut up and stop acting like Lou is the worst GM all time and others need to get off your knees for the guy.

Bottom line, you dont lose two top nine players and not replace either of them while having a very mediocre farm system. You also dont waste the privledge of having what many of us consider the best goalie in the world at your disposal. And that is in FACT what he is doing IF he goes into opening day with this roster, which has no realistic shot at a Cup.

Edit: Possibly 3 top 9 players pending Shanny obviously.

Let me paint you, those idiots on TG's blog, nj.com, NJDevs, facebook, wherever, a picture of what our cap situation looks like - if the cap stays the same for next year as well.

We would have $15,574,500 to spend on for next year.

This year:
Halischuk given 4th line RW spot - $875,000
Corrente makes club - $821,667
Frazee given backup goaltender job - $541,667
Re-sign Shanahan

Shanahan retires after the season so his cap hit isn't important. But this brings down spending money to $13,336,166

Lets give $5.25M to Martin.
Lets give $1.8M to Clarkson.
Lets give $1.0M to Bergfors.
Re-sign Pelley for $650k
Re-sign Mottau for $800k.

Remaining money? $3,836,166

So, what impact player are we signing with that money folks?

Let me paint you, those idiots on TG's blog, nj.com, NJDevs, facebook, wherever, a picture of what our cap situation looks like - if the cap stays the same for next year as well.

We would have $15,574,500 to spend on for next year.

This year:
Halischuk given 4th line RW spot - $875,000
Corrente makes club - $821,667
Frazee given backup goaltender job - $541,667
Re-sign Shanahan

Shanahan retires after the season so his cap hit isn't important. But this brings down spending money to $13,336,166

Lets give $5.25M to Martin.
Lets give $1.8M to Clarkson.
Lets give $1.0M to Bergfors.
Re-sign Pelley for $650k
Re-sign Mottau for $800k.

Remaining money? $3,836,166

So, what impact player are we signing with that money folks?
If we're picking up an impact player (defenseman) one of the ones we've already got would have to be going out first.

If we're picking up an impact player (defenseman) one of the ones we've already got would have to be going out first.

What impact defenseman is available in this market for $4.3M, if you take off Mottau's $800k?

What impact defenseman is available in this market for $4.3M, if you take off Mottau's $800k?
No, I'm assuming Mottau stays but Salvador goes. And I'm assuming we're acquiring a defenseman through trade, not free agency.

No, I'm assuming Mottau stays but Salvador goes. And I'm assuming we're acquiring a defenseman through trade, not free agency.

That's a lot of assuming.

The gist of what I'm trying to say is, that even if the cap stays the same for next year, there still wasn't a whole lot that Lou could do. He could have signed one name, that's it, but some people still wouldn't be happy.

So... what would you do?

See, I agree with everything he did. And I'm someone that's been overly critical of him. So, am I supposed to disagree with what he did and call for his head because he did what I thought he should do? I'm confused here.

And the only reason the cap didn't cliff this season was that the PA inflated it.

It seems like you're complaining, yet at the same time, taking all possible positions.

No, i am simply taking the position of not being judgemental of Lou this early in the offseason, yet think it is idiotic if he indeed does chose not to sign anyone.

What i would do?

Atleast give a strong effort for Koivu at 5 million per year at 2 years. In my opinion a line with Elias, Koivu, and Rolston could be amazing. Assuming Zajac signs for about 3 million, re sign Shanny. 3rd line ends up being Shanny, Zubrus, Bergfors (let him adjust to the NHL for crying out loud). 4th line PL3, Clarkson, and whoever (i guess Pando if he has to play :cry:).

Then push hard for Nick Boynton. Solid d-man, not well known for offensive ability but he does have a right handed shot. Probably could be had for 2.5 million. I would prefer Bergeron from Minny, but i see him being too expensive for Lou's taste.

I honestly hate this if i were GM bs because obviously i dont know what these players expect, nor do i know what kind of offers they have received.

Lou needs to move Pando, whatever it takes. The 2.5 mil is critical.

Do you really believe that the cap drops to 50 millions next year? That's ridiculous. Even if it does, the contracts have to and will be adjusted to the new cap.

So, that's not an excuse for Lou doing nothing.

agree 100%

with the possibility of global warming wiping out all the ice on planet earth, should we not sign or draft anymore players because we "might" not have the NHL in a few years :shakehead

Then push hard for Nick Boynton. Solid d-man, not well known for offensive ability but he does have a right handed shot. Probably could be had for 2.5 million. I would prefer Bergeron from Minny, but i see him being too expensive for Lou's taste.

I like Boynton too, I would have no problem with that signing. Bergeron I don't see being that expensive. He's a good offensive defenceman, but he's a liability on defence and has a history of injury issues. I think he could be had on the cheap for the team willing to take a risk.

Lou needs to move Pando, whatever it takes. The 2.5 mil is critical.

Agreed, and the sooner the better. Maybe we should see if Chicago would be interested in reuniting the BFFs? Pandolfo would waive his NTC for that, and Chicago has good young RFA players, some of whom will need to be moved because of Hossa's contract. I doubt Tallon is that stupid though, he wouldn't trade us anything of value for Pandolfo.

No, i am simply taking the position of not being judgemental of Lou this early in the offseason, yet think it is idiotic if he indeed does chose not to sign anyone.

What i would do?

Atleast give a strong effort for Koivu at 5 million per year at 2 years. In my opinion a line with Elias, Koivu, and Rolston could be amazing. Assuming Zajac signs for about 3 million, re sign Shanny. 3rd line ends up being Shanny, Zubrus, Bergfors (let him adjust to the NHL for crying out loud). 4th line PL3, Clarkson, and whoever (i guess Pando if he has to play :cry:).

Then push hard for Nick Boynton. Solid d-man, not well known for offensive ability but he does have a right handed shot. Probably could be had for 2.5 million. I would prefer Bergeron from Minny, but i see him being too expensive for Lou's taste.

I honestly hate this if i were GM bs because obviously i dont know what these players expect, nor do i know what kind of offers they have received.

Lou needs to move Pando, whatever it takes. The 2.5 mil is critical.

can't sign Koivu for 2 years. whether people want to admit it or not, there is a cap issue, it's staring you right in your face if you scroll up in the thread. and that's at $56.8M. At $51-54M?

i say we offersheet staal just to **** the rangers over because im pretty sure they would match up to 5m

i say we offersheet staal just to **** the rangers over because im pretty sure they would match up to 5m

I don't want Staal. He has no offensive talent.

i say we offersheet staal just to **** the rangers over because im pretty sure they would match up to 5m

I highly doubt Staal would sign an offer sheet and I highly doubt that Lou would do that.

Lou and Sather are the old guard. I don't think either of them will offersheet anyone.

I don't want Staal. He has no offensive talent.

Haha, you don't want a guy that would be INSTANTLY your #2 d-man?

If you saw him play, you'd see that he rushes a lot and gets shots on the net a lot, also. A lot of the same problems with Redden's scoring were with Staal's. We had zero net presence last year and it took about 10 points away from each player.

I think Staal break's out a bit offensively this year. He's always had nice offensive instincts, going back to his junior days.

Haha, you don't want a guy that would be INSTANTLY your #2 d-man?

If you saw him play, you'd see that he rushes a lot and gets shots on the net a lot, also. A lot of the same problems with Redden's scoring were with Staal's. We had zero net presence last year and it took about 10 points away from each player.

I think Staal break's out a bit offensively this year. He's always had nice offensive instincts, going back to his junior days.
So he would have had 25 points instead of 15?

This team is looking for an offensive defenseman. No more shutdown D-men.

i say we offersheet staal just to **** the rangers over because im pretty sure they would match up to 5m

No thanks to a incredibly overrated, soft, mediocre shutdown defenseman with no discernible offensive upside, who because of his last name, will end up being the highest paid one-dimensional d-man in the league.

As I stated before, Corrente will be eventually be a better shutdown defenseman with a nasty, physical edge that Marc Staal will only dream about.

If I were going to screw with them (if it was a EHM or a video game or something), I would sheet Dubinsky. But not enough where I'd get stuck giving up picks.

You gotta remember, though, doing this in real life puts a target on your back. Especially if you stick someone with a contract (in that respect, the Vanek sheet was much worse than the Penner sheet.). Although I'm sure they wish Burke matched and Regier didn't.

I don't want Staal. He has no offensive talent.

Exactly. I'd be surprised if the guy ever sniffed 25pts in his career. It's really quite sad how limited he is offensively. A 5 mill offer sheet for a defenseman that offers very little offensively and gets bent over by robert lang? I'll pass.

Exactly. I'd be surprised if the guy ever sniffed 25pts in his career. It's really quite sad how limited he is offensively. A 5 mill offer sheet for a defenseman that offers very little offensively and gets bent over by robert lang? I'll pass.

But but but he's the bestest Staal in the world! He's a top ten dman in the leagues.:sarcasm:

But but but he's the bestest Staal in the world! He's a top ten dman in the leagues.:sarcasm:

:laugh::laugh:

Those delusional skirts idiots. Top-10 in the atlantic, yes. The league? Don't sniff paint kids. It's bad for the brain. Someone THAT one-dimensional will never be top-10 anything in the league.

Try get to 20pts this year offensively retarded Staal! I dare ya!

If I were going to screw with them (if it was a EHM or a video game or something), I would sheet Dubinsky. But not enough where I'd get stuck giving up picks.

You gotta remember, though, doing this in real life puts a target on your back. Especially if you stick someone with a contract (in that respect, the Vanek sheet was much worse than the Penner sheet.). Although I'm sure they wish Burke matched and Regier didn't.

Signing Dubinsky away would leave the Rangers with two centres, Drury (who is not a playmaker) and fellow unsigned RFA Higgins, unless they have centre prospects ready to play. They'll match anything within reason or else they'll have nobody to pass the puck to their shiny new glass winger.

And of course the Oilers wish they had gotten Vanek. There's a reason why they're desperately trying to dump Penner on Ottawa in the proposed Heatley deal. I don't see them doing that if they had had Vanek this whole time.

You'll see BC, Staal will get 1,000 points next year now that Gabs is there all while playing 52 minutes a game(now that the ass hat Mara isn't around to steal his playing time) and blocking 80 bajillion shots. :nod:

Gaborik will have trouble scoring goals when the defenseman that's supposed to feed him the puck is Marc Staal.

Try get to 20pts this year offensively retarded Staal! I dare ya!

We're living in the glass house on this one, let's not throw stones. Everybody on our D not named Oduya or Martin can't break 20 points either.

We're living in the glass house on this one, let's not throw stones. Everybody on our D not named Oduya or Martin can't break 20 points either.

Yeah but we don't make false claims about our dmen. We know ours can't put up points. To many Ranger fans think think Staal is the second coming.

We're living in the glass house on this one, let's not throw stones. Everybody on our D not named Oduya or Martin can't break 20 points either.

Not particularly considering I don't claim Motts, Salvador or White have offensive upside.

Big difference.

Not particularly considering I don't claim Motts, Salvador or White have offensive upside.

Big difference.

I would like to point out however that all three of those guys put up the same amount or more points then Staal.

I would like to point out however that all three of those guys put up the same amount or more points then Staal.

ZOMG that means we have 5 of the top-10 defensemen in the league!

Yeah but we don't make false claims about our dmen. We know ours can't put up points. To many Ranger fans think think Staal is the second coming.

Not particularly considering I don't claim Motts, Salvador or White have offensive upside.

Big difference.

Fair enough. This is why I'm almost willing to take the risk on signing Bergeron, we need a defenceman who can score, or at least someone who has a shot our forwards can deflect.

ZOMG that means we have 5 of the top-10 defensemen in the league!

you got it. Mike Mottau=Better then 99% of dmen in the NHL*.

Please note that Marc Staal is still better and should be considered the best dmen EVAR!

Fair enough. This is why I'm almost willing to take the risk on signing Bergeron, we need a defenceman who can score, or at least someone who has a shot our forwards can deflect.

He can be such a liability I don't know if it's worth it.

He can be such a liability I don't know if it's worth it.

We can turn liabilities into assets easily defensively. We're the freakin' Devils!

We can turn liabilities into assets easily defensively. We're the freakin' Devils!

Lemaire couldn't do it for him in Minnesota. I don't think there is much hope for him.

Lemaire couldn't do it for him in Minnesota. I don't think there is much hope for him.

Put him with White or Salvador, problem solved.

Ya, I don't actually believe that. But we do need someone with his offensive upside. And we can teach him how to play actual defence, who better than Stevens and Robinson to do it?

Put him with White or Salvador, problem solved.

Ya, I don't actually believe that. But we do need someone with his offensive upside. And we can teach him how to play actual defence, who better than Stevens and Robinson to do it?

Thats the reason I liked Leopold and wanted to get him since the trade deadline. He has the ability in him but he's never been able to put it all together. He was just as good as Martin at the U of Minnesota and got off to a decent start in the NHL but then it started to fall apart. I think with us he could have started to put it back together and probably been better then ever.

My problem with MAB is that I don't think he has the ability or desire to play defence. And if you force it upon him his production will drop. While we need a puck mover we can't sacrifice to much in our own end. The dman's job should always be to first play defense then worry about putting up points and I don't think MAB has that mindset.

While we need a puck mover we can't sacrifice to much in our own end. The dman's job should always be to first play defense then worry about putting up points and I don't think MAB has that mindset.

Agreed, that's why I said almost, he's too much of a risk for that reason. Seidenberg would be alright for a puckmover, but I think we're more likely to be able to pick one up in a trade. I wonder if Edmonton would be willing to trade one of their approximately 7389874 offensive defencemen for a shutdown guy like Salvador? Gilbert or Grebeshkov would be great here.