|
|
Post by dezaruchi on May 25, 2015 19:40:41 GMT
....are usually teams that are trying to win. Check out this story from February regarding the cap issues of various clubs. Ignore that it's presented by "Bleacher Report" as the author, Lyle Richardson (Spector's Hockey), is well respected throughout the hockey world. You'll notice that of the 10 teams listed, only 2 of them weren't expected to contend this year (or at least won recently). T-Bay and Ducks managed to stay off the list but the Bolts have huge signings coming in 2016-17 (Stamkos, Coburn=UFAs-Killorn,Paquette, Kucherov,JT Brown,Nesterov=RFAs) . The Ducks will have issues as well (Kesler,Jackman=UFAs- Palmieri,Sekac, Rakell,Lindholm, Vatanen, Manson, Depres=RFAs)but not as bad as T-Bay. Long story short, if you're a GM that's trying to win it all, there's a really good chance you'll run into cap issues somewhere along the way. edit: I also added a more recent article from Richardson featured in The Hockey News bleacherreport.com/articles/2365014-ranking-the-10-nhl-teams-with-the-worst-salary-cap-issueswww.thehockeynews.com/blog/rumor-roundup-stamkos-next-contract-could-impact-lightnings-future/ |
|
|
|
Post by dezaruchi on May 25, 2015 21:28:38 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by walktheline on May 25, 2015 21:40:12 GMT
There are 2 ways to get into cap trouble.
1. Have a GM who sucks balls
2. Win
|
|
|
|
Post by UtahGetMeTwo on May 25, 2015 22:17:01 GMT
3. Hang onto veterans too long
4. Give extra years on contracts when you didn't need to.
5. Give NTC/NMCs out like candy to players that shouldn't get them.
6. Give up on prospects to soon.
|
|
|
|
Post by thanx4memORRies on May 25, 2015 22:52:12 GMT
spending to the max and continually going deep in the playoffs, i.e. Black Hawks, is one thing....
spending to the max and winning a round or not making the playoffs is another....
because PC decided to take last summer off, Don Sweeney's got a busy one coming up....
|
|
|
|
Post by islamorada on May 25, 2015 23:57:51 GMT
Please remember when analyzing GMs actions since the last CBA, the cap was to be projected in the mid 70s if not higher. JJ was instrumental in finalizing the CBA; isn't he a financial wizard. So it is a brave new world with the Canadian dollar down 20%, and a fanbases that demand excellence without consideration of $$$$. Sandog's list is correct given the above considerations:
3. Hang onto veterans too long
4. Give extra years on contracts when you didn't need to.
5. Give NTC/NMCs out like candy to players that shouldn't get them.
6. Give up on prospects to soon.***
7. Drafting small forwards who were seemingly quick and had potential to be the next Marchand type of scorer.
*** Demanding the coach understand the new Cap restrictions and bring in players who can play defensive hockey without being pushed around like the players......Smith and Krug.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevegm on May 26, 2015 0:41:45 GMT
Notice in the last paragraph of the article, there's a list of teams having to shed some serious talent to stay cap compliant. Bruins aren't on that list. They're merely a team paying for their past success. |
|
|
|
Post by Fletcher on May 26, 2015 1:02:29 GMT
Notice in the last paragraph of the article, there's a list of teams having to shed some serious talent to stay cap compliant. Bruins aren't on that list. They're merely a team paying for their past success. ^Bingo. And as far as hanging on to veterans "too long", that's almost always something that is determined after the fact, not when the decisions need to be made. Teams that have a successful core and believe they are ready to make a Cup run do not dump key veterans. But if they fail to win a Cup and two years go by people say "you should've gotten rid of player X sooner". It's Monday morning quarterbacking at it's finest. Teams that are close generally stick with their core in the hopes of winning. The flip side would be Boston moving Johnny Boychuk or Chicago moving Nick Leddy early -- and both moves have been characterized by rampant second guessing. You're damned if you do...etc. |
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on May 26, 2015 1:55:48 GMT
3. Hang onto veterans too long AKA trying to win4. Give extra years on contracts when you didn't need to. AKA trying to win by locking up key guys, and likely reducing the yearly cap hit by giving an extra year (and how do you know "didn't need to?")5. Give NTC/NMCs out like candy to players that shouldn't get them. AKA trying to win by giving non-cap compensation that, most of the time, amounts to meaningless security.6. Give up on prospects to soon. AKA trading high value prospects who aren't ready to strengthen the roster NOW - to win.I don't think any of this is rocket science; just a different way of looking at the same actions. Of course none of this is ideal, but when you're trying to win a Cup without first going through the valley of death (Blackhawks made the playoffs once in 10 years before this run and lost in the first round; Kings missed the playoffs 11/15 years, won only one round in that time, then lost twice in the first round before taking their first ever Cup) you're often borrowing from the future to augment the present just as rebuilding teams will borrow from the present to augment the future by trading players for picks. It's not a stupid mistake by a foolish GM. It's strategy. And to get what you want, you sometimes have to give up things you'd rather not in negotiations. |
|
|
|
Post by UtahGetMeTwo on May 26, 2015 4:24:10 GMT
Notice in the last paragraph of the article, there's a list of teams having to shed some serious talent to stay cap compliant. Bruins aren't on that list. They're merely a team paying for their past success. You are right every player on the current Bruins is untouchable, untradeable,...everyone should stay. That's why the Bruins won more than one cup, many cups, after 2011. Stay the course, stay pat at the trade deadline, last year was a fluke. Hilarious! |
|
|
|
Post by UtahGetMeTwo on May 26, 2015 4:52:23 GMT
The Blackhawks have made it to 5 Conference Finals, winning 2 Stanley Cups, along with 2 Quaterfinals in the past 7 years all with cap problems.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevegm on May 26, 2015 11:24:38 GMT
3. Hang onto veterans too long 4. Give extra years on contracts when you didn't need to.5. Give NTC/NMCs out like candy to players that shouldn't get them. 6. Give up on prospects to soon. This is brought up frequently when concerning our Bruins.
It makes no sense to me. The reason Marchand is such an incredible deal, isn't his ability. It's his cap hit. Same with Max Paccioretti.
That's a function of "extra years"
If Lucic, had a few "extra years to go...there would be no hand wringing. If JB, had a few more...he'd still be here. If Bergeron, and DK's contract hadn't expired when they did...a couple more "extra years"...and they coulda signed Elvis, and got another stud dman somewhere. A little longer term....and Krug and Reilly Smith aren't forcing other guys out. Same with Hamilton. just another year or 2 on his term...and everythings rosey. A 4 year term, and the team is laughing all the way to the bank with Soderberg, instead of wondering how in Hell his contribution can be replaced for 1 mil per.
So far...how many players have left the Bruins for less money than Boston was paying them? Look at Elvis, JB...even poor ole Thorton got significantly more. We'll see about Paille and Campbell, but it's a sure bet they won't get a lot less.
Teams are only in Cap Hell, when they have several players, the industry figures are overpaid. After that, it's just a matter of having the brains and forsight to keep those that
|
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on May 26, 2015 12:06:36 GMT
The Blackhawks have made it to 5 Conference Finals, winning 2 Stanley Cups, along with 2 Quaterfinals in the past 7 years all with cap problems. What's your point? That cap problems isn't an excuse for not winning? I agree. Being tight to the cap isn't a problem if you can shuffle the deck when you need to shuffle. And if you have Jonathan Toews and Patrick Kane and multiple Norris winner Duncan Keith. Chicago had an incredible wealth of talent after their first Cup after stockpiling for years because they missed the playoffs for a decade. They had to bite the bullet on a lot of guys to pay their core, but they had cheaper options still in the system. Still...the transition from Niemi to Crawful, dropping Byfuglien and Campbell and Ladd and Brouwer all may have cost them at least another Cup. They've stayed competitive by keeping their top 5 scorers from that year and Seabrook together (Kane, Keith, Toews, Sharp, Hossa), and that's as good a group of 6 as you'll find anywhere in the league.
I mean, look at the guys they had to drop - Brouwer's a perennial 20 goal guy who pushed for 30 one year and had 19 in the lockout year - a 32 goal pace. Ladd, same thing - always in the mid-20s for goals and had a great lockout year just off a point/game pace. Campbell is what he is - talented but exposed in Florida. Byfuglien has turned into one of the league's best goal-scoring D. Put those four players back on that team and they would have overcome the goaltending yips they had for the next couple of years. Certainly wouldn't have lost to the limpcouver Canucks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2015 12:06:49 GMT
The problem, imo, with Chiarelli's cap management was that every player got handsomely rewarded. I can't think of one player besides Jordan Caron who took a team discount, and along with the bridge deals of last summer, that was too little too late. There aren't a lot of teams in cap trouble that largely avoided free agency.
|
|
|
|
Post by socca10 on May 26, 2015 12:53:47 GMT
The problem, imo, with Chiarelli's cap management was that every player got handsomely rewarded. I can't think of one player besides Jordan Caron who took a team discount, and along with the bridge deals of last summer, that was too little too late. There aren't a lot of teams in cap trouble that largely avoided free agency. So your contention is that all of the Bruins are paid over market value? Or even most of them? Name names. Also, you take issue with the fact that nobody hired a moron for an agent? Because why on Earth would someone take a "team discount" to play somewhere, unless they got longer term, NMC/NTC, etc. to make up for it... which are also part of the problem, right? There never was cap mismanagement here. The Bruins made some conscious decisions and they didn't work. Nobody, not you, not me, not anyone in the hockey world, predicted that this year's lineup would be out of the playoffs and one of the bigger disappointments in the NHL. Nobody. |
|
orrisgod
Regular Member
Posts: 83 
Your Favorite Bruin?: Orr
|
Post by orrisgod on May 26, 2015 12:56:11 GMT
The problem, imo, with Chiarelli's cap management was that every player got handsomely rewarded. I can't think of one player besides Jordan Caron who took a team discount, and along with the bridge deals of last summer, that was too little too late. There aren't a lot of teams in cap trouble that largely avoided free agency. You could argue that Bergeron's deal was team friendly. |
|
|
|
Post by Fletcher on May 26, 2015 13:06:54 GMT
I think of Krejci as a player that Chiarelli got at under market value for a pretty long time.
Chiarelli also had to pay Marc Savard for several years while he wasn't on the ice. That's some bad luck too. Imagine Chicago, or anyone, losing their leading scorer suddenly, and for good during this time.
But I'll concede that I don't quite understand why NTC clauses needed to be offered to the likes of Chris Kelly.
Chicago has undoubtedly had more success, and I'm sure nobody would dispute that. But when I look at Boychuk, the most recent casualty of the cap, I think that sacrifice pales to Chicago losing Nick Leddy. Boychuk is likely past or in the twilight of his prime. His potential is a fully known thing. The Isles will just hope he can stay there. Nick Leddy left as a 22-year old former 1st round pick who was just starting to blossom, after having the luxury of developing without ever being rushed in Chicago. For the Isles he basically became their #1 guy already. The sky is the limit. I talked to a diehard Blackhawks fan over the weekend who kept pointing to how bad that one hurts (especially with Roszival out and Crawford being so spotty).
That could have been a difference in this current series, which is razor close. But nobody could blame Chicago honestly. That's the price of success under the cap.
|
|
|
|
Post by socca10 on May 26, 2015 13:12:32 GMT
But I'll concede that I don't quite understand why NTC clauses needed to be offered to the likes of Chris Kelly. To me this is pretty simple: a veteran feels like they have the right to ask for this so they don't wake up one day and read in the paper that they've been traded. Okay, so it would come across Twitter or whatever other social media that scoops important NHL deals like a Chris Kelly trade. The GM doesn't mind giving it out because at the end of the day, it's more of a "No Surprise Trade Clause" than anything else. Edit: I'll also add, that you see NTC's more now with veterans who have families. They want stability, they want to know they'll be coming home to the same house every night, and they want their kids to know they'll be in the same town/school for the next several years. These things matter to everyone, even millionaires who play games. |
|
|
|
Post by jmwalters on May 26, 2015 13:20:33 GMT
But I'll concede that I don't quite understand why NTC clauses needed to be offered to the likes of Chris Kelly. I think at the time it was needed as a sweetener for him to re-sign. The B's had just won the cup in which he was a key cog and he had just had a career year goals-wise. The prospect pool was pretty thin back then and maybe someone could offer him more money and that is where the NTC fits in |
|
|
|
Post by kelvana33 on May 26, 2015 13:32:05 GMT
Biggest way to get into cap trouble is when you start paying players for what they've done instead of what theyre going to do. To this day I think the best contract Chiarelli got was Seguin.
|
|
|
|
Post by jmwalters on May 26, 2015 13:35:12 GMT
Biggest way to get into cap trouble is when you start paying players for what they've done instead of what theyre going to do. To this day I think the best contract Chiarelli got was Seguin. $5.75mill per season for top 3 point production? Not too bad yes |
|
|
|
Post by UtahGetMeTwo on May 26, 2015 13:44:44 GMT
The Blackhawks have made it to 5 Conference Finals, winning 2 Stanley Cups, along with 2 Quaterfinals in the past 7 years all with cap problems. What's your point? That cap problems isn't an excuse for not winning? I agree. Being tight to the cap isn't a problem if you can shuffle the deck when you need to shuffle. And if you have Jonathan Toews and Patrick Kane and multiple Norris winner Duncan Keith. Chicago had an incredible wealth of talent after their first Cup after stockpiling for years because they missed the playoffs for a decade. They had to bite the bullet on a lot of guys to pay their core, but they had cheaper options still in the system. Still...the transition from Niemi to Crawful, dropping Byfuglien and Campbell and Ladd and Brouwer all may have cost them at least another Cup. They've stayed competitive by keeping their top 5 scorers from that year and Seabrook together (Kane, Keith, Toews, Sharp, Hossa), and that's as good a group of 6 as you'll find anywhere in the league.
I mean, look at the guys they had to drop - Brouwer's a perennial 20 goal guy who pushed for 30 one year and had 19 in the lockout year - a 32 goal pace. Ladd, same thing - always in the mid-20s for goals and had a great lockout year just off a point/game pace. Campbell is what he is - talented but exposed in Florida. Byfuglien has turned into one of the league's best goal-scoring D. Put those four players back on that team and they would have overcome the goaltending yips they had for the next couple of years. Certainly wouldn't have lost to the limpcouver Canucks.
Right Bowman was able to drop players and maintain. Chicago had just as big of cap, if not bigger, problems as Boston. Conceding that the cap itself was the problem and not putting any blame on the cap manager is denial. |
|
|
|
Post by 50belowzero on May 26, 2015 13:53:56 GMT
Remember Sandog,the Hawks were crap for like 10 yrs or longer,they were able to stockpile some very good young players that all came to fruition at around the same time. They got into some cap trouble,shed some talent but still had a lot left over,thats the perks of stinking the joint out for yrs,ask the Yzerman Redwings about that,or the Pingu's or the soon to be better Oilers. I guess kudos should really go out to the Hawks scouting dept,they picked some really skookum players,some were no brainers but others were not and turned out very good. The B's never sucked for 10 yr stretches,they were never great but they made the playoffs and thus didn't draft too highly for extended periods,the Hawks have been reaping that futility for the last 6 yrs,good for them but pity the fans that suffered through the "Dollar" Bill Wirtz dictatorship.
|
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on May 26, 2015 14:00:26 GMT
What's your point? That cap problems isn't an excuse for not winning? I agree. Being tight to the cap isn't a problem if you can shuffle the deck when you need to shuffle. And if you have Jonathan Toews and Patrick Kane and multiple Norris winner Duncan Keith. Chicago had an incredible wealth of talent after their first Cup after stockpiling for years because they missed the playoffs for a decade. They had to bite the bullet on a lot of guys to pay their core, but they had cheaper options still in the system. Still...the transition from Niemi to Crawful, dropping Byfuglien and Campbell and Ladd and Brouwer all may have cost them at least another Cup. They've stayed competitive by keeping their top 5 scorers from that year and Seabrook together (Kane, Keith, Toews, Sharp, Hossa), and that's as good a group of 6 as you'll find anywhere in the league.
I mean, look at the guys they had to drop - Brouwer's a perennial 20 goal guy who pushed for 30 one year and had 19 in the lockout year - a 32 goal pace. Ladd, same thing - always in the mid-20s for goals and had a great lockout year just off a point/game pace. Campbell is what he is - talented but exposed in Florida. Byfuglien has turned into one of the league's best goal-scoring D. Put those four players back on that team and they would have overcome the goaltending yips they had for the next couple of years. Certainly wouldn't have lost to the limpcouver Canucks.
Right Bowman was able to drop players and maintain. Chicago had just as big of cap, if not bigger, problems as Boston. Conceding that the cap itself was the problem and not putting any blame on the cap manager is denial. So is pretending that the two situations were equal. Bowman was able to drop players and rebuild - they were not good immediately afterward - because of the strength of his core + having guys already in the system like Bolland and Kruger and Hjalmarsson who could step up to fill the void because - again - they missed the playoffs for 10 years. It took three years for guys like Bickell, Stalberg, Shaw and Saad to contribute enough for them to get back to the top of the league, not to mention the slow growth of Crawford as a number one. It's is emphatically NOT like Bowman dropped a few guys and maintained the same level - they dropped back, reloaded, and returned strong. The Bruins are just in the process of taking that step back. And I would think you know by now, I don't ever concede that the cap is the problem. I'm the guy who thinks the obsession with cap space is as bizarre as grown men going to Spice Girls concerts for the music. |
|
|
|
Post by UtahGetMeTwo on May 26, 2015 14:15:18 GMT
So Bowman worked the right guys into the Chicago system then ?
What a novelty, a great way to keep the winning ways going. Hope Chiarelli took notes on the way to Edmonton. Take a good long look at who PC brought in from the summer of 2011 until the last trade deadline compared to who Bowman and Lombardi brought into LA. Unmistakedly night n day, PC mis-managed the cap or he let the cap manage him.
We should know pretty quickly if Sweeney learned as he watched. I think Don gets it right.
|
|
