Vegas about to circumvent cap again? UPD: Mark Stone back practicing.

[Panthaz89]

yeah Stone and Hanifin have zero impact on the Vegas Stars series boys....clearly irrelevant players .

 

[Ted Hoffman]

You aren’t even addressing what I’m saying.

I'm not addressing what you want to believe can happen ... because it's not going to happen. You seriously need to understand the NHLPA is not agreeing to that because everything you're asking for necessarily is going to require the NHLPA to agree to it. I've told you repeatedly that's not going to happen, it's still not going to happen if you demand it an 11th time, 50th time, 100th time, whatever.

You designate your playoff roster on game 82.

Let's just start right here. There is no provision currently in place that any team has to designate its playoff roster at any point before the start of the playoffs. A player on the Reserve List of the team, signed to an NHL contract, is eligible to play in the playoffs regardless of whether the player had played in the NHL at any point in the regular season.

Your idea requires the team to designate some number of players who are eligible to play in the playoffs, and everyone else is ineligible unless .... whatever rules you want to then lay out. That alone is a complete non-starter with the NHLPA, so everything else you lay out from there is irrelevant.

LTIR already has rules around minimum games missed so it isn’t like this is an entirely new concept.

LTIR doesn't automatically make a player ineligible for the playoffs, in part or in whole. The NHLPA isn't agreeing to any change to that.

So again, tell me who this impacts that isn’t intentionally trying to run an over-cap roster in the playoffs by abusing LTIR.

You're not solving a problem with the abuse of LTIR. You're creating a scenario where teams who have legitimate injuries, where players can't play before Game 82 but could play at some point after the playoffs start, are declared ineligible for the playoffs in part or in whole just in case their team might be abusing LTIR, even when it's very apparent that they're not. And, you're doing with ideas that will require the NHLPA to sign off on, which the NHLPA is never doing as you keep describing.

 

[tucker3434]

I'm not addressing what you want to believe can happen ... because it's not going to happen. You seriously need to understand the NHLPA is not agreeing to that because everything you're asking for necessarily is going to require the NHLPA to agree to it. I've told you repeatedly that's not going to happen, it's still not going to happen if you demand it an 11th time, 50th time, 100th time, whatever.

Let's just start right here. There is no provision currently in place that any team has to designate its playoff roster at any point before the start of the playoffs. A player on the Reserve List of the team, signed to an NHL contract, is eligible to play in the playoffs regardless of whether the player had played in the NHL at any point in the regular season.

Your idea requires the team to designate some number of players who are eligible to play in the playoffs, and everyone else is ineligible unless .... whatever rules you want to then lay out. That alone is a complete non-starter with the NHLPA, so everything else you lay out from there is irrelevant.


LTIR doesn't automatically make a player ineligible for the playoffs, in part or in whole. The NHLPA isn't agreeing to any change to that.


You're not solving a problem with the abuse of LTIR. You're creating a scenario where teams who have legitimate injuries, where players can't play before Game 82 but could play at some point after the playoffs start, are declared ineligible for the playoffs in part or in whole just in case their team might be abusing LTIR, even when it's very apparent that they're not. And, you're doing with ideas that will require the NHLPA to sign off on, which the NHLPA is never doing as you keep describing.

Yeah and the PA would NEVER agree to a salary cap. Until they did. They would NEVER allow a cap on lengths of contracts. Until they did. This stuff gets ironed out during CBA’s all the time. It would honestly not make the top 50 of things worth fighting over in the next CBA because it would have nearly zero impact on player compensation or safety.

Again, no it isn’t. That’s not what I’m saying. It would just require a team to include any player that’s been injured since the TDL in the final salary cap calculation of the season if you want him to play in the first round. Nothing else changes.

You keep arguing points that I’m not trying to make to tell me this is impossible. Cap compliance is something the PA has lived with for 20 years now, and loopholes are closed in every CBA. I don’t know why you think this is the hill the PA will die on. Realistically it would only affect a team every several years or so. Because, to say it for the millionth time, teams that want/expect their players to return do NOT go and replace their full salary in trade. If a team loses a guy in October for 3 months, they won’t replace him. Why should a team that loses a guy in February be able to? You’re screaming bloody murder about how the PA is would never allow teams to… manage their own salary cap?

 

[Golden_Jet]

Yeah and the PA would NEVER agree to a salary cap. Until they did. They would NEVER allow a cap on lengths of contracts. Until they did. This stuff gets ironed out during CBA’s all the time. It would honestly not make the top 50 of things worth fighting over in the next CBA because it would have nearly zero impact on player compensation or safety.

Again, no it isn’t. That’s not what I’m saying. It would just require a team to include any player that’s been injured since the TDL in the final salary cap calculation of the season if you want him to play in the first round. Nothing else changes.

You keep arguing points that I’m not trying to make to tell me this is impossible. Cap compliance is something the PA has lived with for 20 years now, and loopholes are closed in every CBA. I don’t know why you think this is the hill the PA will die on. Realistically it would only affect a team every several years or so. Because, to say it for the millionth time, teams that want/expect their players to return do NOT go and replace their full salary in trade. If a team loses a guy in October for 3 months, they won’t replace him. Why should a team that loses a guy in February be able to? You’re screaming bloody murder about how the PA is would never allow teams to… manage their own salary cap?

Telling players they can’t play, is NOT going to happen lol, it’s a non starter.
Come up with something that PA could get behind.

 

[Skolman]

Pietrangelo this year is a waste of $8.8 million. Sometimes the extra money on the roster is a disadvantage.

Terrible argument

 

[tucker3434]

Telling players they can’t play, is NOT going to happen lol, it’s a non starter.
Come up with something that PA could get behind.

That already exists under the salary cap. The same cap that has existed for 20 years. If a team can’t manage their cap, that’s their problem. The PA has absolutely zero issue with that right now. In fact, the current rule says Stone can’t compete during the regular season in order for the team to stay cap complaint. So they are ALREADY preventing guys from playing.

 

[TheBeard]

Telling players they can’t play, is NOT going to happen lol, it’s a non starter.
Come up with something that PA could get behind.

Actually, it’s the teams that are making the final decisions as to who can and cannot play.

 

[Golden_Jet]

Actually, it’s the teams that are making the final decisions as to who can and cannot play.

lol, it wouldn’t get that far, as it wouldn’t be approved.

That already exists under the salary cap. The same cap that has existed for 20 years. If a team can’t manage their cap, that’s their problem. The PA has absolutely zero issue with that right now. In fact, the current rule says Stone can’t compete during the regular season in order for the team to stay cap complaint. So they are ALREADY preventing guys from playing.

Wrong, there is no cap in playoffs currently, and your wanting to add one,
That is a change.
Are you being obtuse on purpose, it hard to tell.

 

[tucker3434]

lol, it wouldn’t get that far, as it wouldn’t be approved.


Wrong, there is no cap in playoffs currently, and your wanting to add one,
That is a change.
Are you being obtuse on purpose, it hard to tell.

No, I’m specifically trying to avoid adding a cap in the playoff because I think that would be worse for everyone. I just want teams to be complaint at game 82.

I’m not sure why you guys think they can’t make changes during CBA negotiations. It’s literally what they’re for.

 

[Cypher]

I don't blame Vegas, I blame the NHL for allowing it.

Vegas' starting 20 yesterday was like 2m over the 83.5m cap. If they had that roster 1-2 weeks ago, it wouldn't be allowed. But suddenly it's playoffs and the rules go out the door. Dumb.

 

[Golden_Jet]

No, I’m specifically trying to avoid adding a cap in the playoff because I think that would be worse for everyone. I just want teams to be complaint at game 82.

I’m not sure why you guys think they can’t make changes during CBA negotiations. It’s literally what they’re for.

I’m sure they’ll try and come to an agreement in the next one.

I don't blame Vegas, I blame the NHL for allowing it.

Vegas' starting 20 yesterday was like 2m over the 83.5m cap. If they had that roster 1-2 weeks ago, it wouldn't be allowed. But suddenly it's playoffs and the rules go out the door. Dumb.

No cap in the playoffs, since they don’t get paid. Adding LTIR in the playoffs isn’t the solution either.

 

[WhataKnight]

Yeah and the PA would NEVER agree to a salary cap. Until they did. They would NEVER allow a cap on lengths of contracts. Until they did. This stuff gets ironed out during CBA’s all the time. It would honestly not make the top 50 of things worth fighting over in the next CBA because it would have nearly zero impact on player compensation or safety.

Again, no it isn’t. That’s not what I’m saying. It would just require a team to include any player that’s been injured since the TDL in the final salary cap calculation of the season if you want him to play in the first round. Nothing else changes.

You keep arguing points that I’m not trying to make to tell me this is impossible. Cap compliance is something the PA has lived with for 20 years now, and loopholes are closed in every CBA. I don’t know why you think this is the hill the PA will die on. Realistically it would only affect a team every several years or so. Because, to say it for the millionth time, teams that want/expect their players to return do NOT go and replace their full salary in trade. If a team loses a guy in October for 3 months, they won’t replace him. Why should a team that loses a guy in February be able to? You’re screaming bloody murder about how the PA is would never allow teams to… manage their own salary cap?

This is what negotiations are for.

The NHLPA wasn’t into a cap in the playoffs; similar to enough owners to kill the effort to install one last CBA. All involved parties couldn’t come up with a better option then - but - concessions being made which don’t inadvertently penalize a team for valid injuries done in light of the actions of 3 teams should yield a better option.

I’m all for that better option. One that makes sense, and doesn’t get squashed by all parties negotiating. Until then, I can’t blame the team using the “physics of the environment”; the league’s diligence didn’t find anything worth hammering Vegas over. It’ll be decided on the ice.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Yeah and the PA would NEVER agree to a salary cap. Until they did.

The NHL was willing to lose 2-3 seasons for a salary cap. I don't see this being something the league is willing to lose even the first regular season game over. Huge difference.

They would NEVER allow a cap on lengths of contracts. Until they did.

The NHLPA didn't give a shit about contract lengths, because it saw "more money to players on shorter contracts." It also didn't truly solve anything, because nothing keeps a team from signing a 34, 35, 36-year old player to a 7-year, 8-year contract that's max front-loaded and the player retires after 4 seasons and the team never has to pay back the first dollar of cap savings it realized in the 4 years the player played.

Again, a "solution" to a "problem" that doesn't solve the real problem.

This stuff gets ironed out during CBA’s all the time. It would honestly not make the top 50 of things worth fighting over in the next CBA because it would have nearly zero impact on player compensation or safety.

The NHLPA gives a shit about a hell of a lot more than player compensation or safety. And I would argue it doesn't give that much of a shit about safety given how it repeatedly fights stiffer suspensions for actions truly related to player safety.

Beyond that: I'm out of ways to explain to you why your idea isn't going to work, and you clearly have no interest in understanding what you've been told repeatedly by me and others because you're hell bent on trying to solve one specific situation with a blanket "solution" that is going to cause far more problems, which you obviously don't give a shit about no matter how many times it gets pointed out.

Someone else is going to have to take up the discussion.

 

[TheBeard]

The NHL was willing to lose 2-3 seasons for a salary cap. I don't see this being something the league is willing to lose even the first regular season game over. Huge difference.


The NHLPA didn't give a shit about contract lengths, because it saw "more money to players on shorter contracts." It also didn't truly solve anything, because nothing keeps a team from signing a 34, 35, 36-year old player to a 7-year, 8-year contract that's max front-loaded and the player retires after 4 seasons and the team never has to pay back the first dollar of cap savings it realized in the 4 years the player played.

Again, a "solution" to a "problem" that doesn't solve the real problem.


The NHLPA gives a shit about a hell of a lot more than player compensation or safety. And I would argue it doesn't give that much of a shit about safety given how it repeatedly fights stiffer suspensions for actions truly related to player safety.

Beyond that: I'm out of ways to explain to you why your idea isn't going to work, and you clearly have no interest in understanding what you've been told repeatedly by me and others because you're hell bent on trying to solve one specific situation with a blanket "solution" that is going to cause far more problems, which you obviously don't give a shit about no matter how many times it gets pointed out.

Someone else is going to have to take up the discussion.

Literally no one is asking you to. You seem to have anointed yourself the official know-it-all.

 

[syz]

The playoffs were originally going to have a cap but Ken Holland talked them out of it.

 

[Vegas07]

Because even if Vegas lost, they still had an advantage from the LTIR situation that other teams don't have. Just because it wasn't successful doesn't mean it's not an issue. Not sure why that even needs to be said...

But Vegas also has some disadvantages, such as playing the top seed in round 1, no home ice in game 7 in ANY round, the challenges of putting together lineups that haven’t played together much, losing draft picks, losing players in free agency every year that the team doesn’t want to lose, and the possibility that a trade doesn’t work out.

But when I read comments here people make it seem like we should just give Vegas the trophy today and make plans for the parade already.

And as I said before, if this is so wrong then Calgary, San Jose and Washington should have refused to make the trades. Instead, they chose to do the “wrong” thing so they could help themselves and they didn’t care about the impact on other teams. Yet they don’t get criticized. Hmm. I guess when nobody is jealous of them it’s okay if they refuse to do the right thing.

 

[Vegas07]

Terrible argument

Man, some people are way too serious.

But there was some truth to what I said. Pietrangelo cost his team a couple of games in the series. High salaries don’t guarantee anything. The Knights made the Finals in season one. How many high priced players were on that team?

 

[HanSolo]

I think that's a part of it, but Vegas looked absolutely dominant last year en route to the cup and theoretically they should have a better team this year. Looks like the arrogance of Wild Bill's drunken "Day F'n One" speech last year was more indicative of the team mentality than we thought.

I don't think that run of three straight losses was them thinking they were hot shit and the wins would just come eventually. To me it really looked like they didn't care if they lose out. It wasn't complacency, it was a total lack of drive from the majority of the roster.

What I find bizarre is the few guys, Hertl included, who weren't on the team last year and haven't won a cup yet looked just as lazy.

 

[tucker3434]

The NHL was willing to lose 2-3 seasons for a salary cap. I don't see this being something the league is willing to lose even the first regular season game over. Huge difference.


The NHLPA didn't give a shit about contract lengths, because it saw "more money to players on shorter contracts." It also didn't truly solve anything, because nothing keeps a team from signing a 34, 35, 36-year old player to a 7-year, 8-year contract that's max front-loaded and the player retires after 4 seasons and the team never has to pay back the first dollar of cap savings it realized in the 4 years the player played.

Again, a "solution" to a "problem" that doesn't solve the real problem.


The NHLPA gives a shit about a hell of a lot more than player compensation or safety. And I would argue it doesn't give that much of a shit about safety given how it repeatedly fights stiffer suspensions for actions truly related to player safety.

Beyond that: I'm out of ways to explain to you why your idea isn't going to work, and you clearly have no interest in understanding what you've been told repeatedly by me and others because you're hell bent on trying to solve one specific situation with a blanket "solution" that is going to cause far more problems, which you obviously don't give a shit about no matter how many times it gets pointed out.

Someone else is going to have to take up the discussion.

They don’t allow the front loading of contracts the way they used to either, but I’m not trying to step into another endless argument here.

They also allowed cap recapture penalties to happen which reduced the amount of salary available to their players.

You’re out of ways to explain to me why this doesn’t work because you were piecing together strawman arguments to begin with. You never countered this specific rule, just rules that would be somewhat like it and worse.

If you guys want to tell me teams that actually exist that would’ve been burned by this rule, I’m all ears. If it’s a terrible rule that would never work, there should be plenty to choose from. But I’m pretty sure the list is Chicago, Tampa, and Vegas and that’s exactly the point.

This is what negotiations are for.

The NHLPA wasn’t into a cap in the playoffs; similar to enough owners to kill the effort to install one last CBA. All involved parties couldn’t come up with a better option then - but - concessions being made which don’t inadvertently penalize a team for valid injuries done in light of the actions of 3 teams should yield a better option.

I’m all for that better option. One that makes sense, and doesn’t get squashed by all parties negotiating. Until then, I can’t blame the team using the “physics of the environment”; the league’s diligence didn’t find anything worth hammering Vegas over. It’ll be decided on the ice.

That’s kinda what I’m going for here but it also depends on your definition of penalize. I think it should be fairly rare that you go out and replace a guy’s salary one-for-one in trade unless he’s got the kinda injury where he might be back 2nd/3rd round at the earliest, more likely out until training camp. I think that was more along the lines of what LTIR intended to do and we have seen CBA’s clean up rules to more closely match intent.

 

[Divine]

Vegas’ team doctor has to take a look at Tavares spleen next year. He’s been taking a ton of crosschecks along the board.

 

[pantherbot]

But Vegas also has some disadvantages, such as playing the top seed in round 1, no home ice in game 7 in ANY round, the challenges of putting together lineups that haven’t played together much, losing draft picks, losing players in free agency every year that the team doesn’t want to lose, and the possibility that a trade doesn’t work out.

But when I read comments here people make it seem like we should just give Vegas the trophy today and make plans for the parade already.

And as I said before, if this is so wrong then Calgary, San Jose and Washington should have refused to make the trades. Instead, they chose to do the “wrong” thing so they could help themselves and they didn’t care about the impact on other teams. Yet they don’t get criticized. Hmm. I guess when nobody is jealous of them it’s okay if they refuse to do the right thing.

Ok.... Not sure what your point is really. Vegas was the 8th seed because of injuries, as is appropriate given injuries, happens to lots of teams. They also had to give up assets to trade for players which again is what every team would have to do.

Vegas has an advantage from the LTIR situation, there's no arguing that. Even if they lose in Round 1, they had an advantage that other teams didn't. Retroactively looking at the result instead of the process and thinking it's all good would be incorrect.

I'm also not criticizing Vegas or any specific team. I'm criticizing the way the system works currently using Vegas as the most recent example.

 

[Skolman]

Man, some people are way too serious.

But there was some truth to what I said. Pietrangelo cost his team a couple of games in the series. High salaries don’t guarantee anything. The Knights made the Finals in season one. How many high priced players were on that team?

Your argument makes no sense.

Every team has bad contracts...

The fact of the matter is, the Knights are playing with more money than any other team

But Vegas also has some disadvantages, such as playing the top seed in round 1, no home ice in game 7 in ANY round, the challenges of putting together lineups that haven’t played together much, losing draft picks, losing players in free agency every year that the team doesn’t want to lose, and the possibility that a trade doesn’t work out.

But when I read comments here people make it seem like we should just give Vegas the trophy today and make plans for the parade already.

And as I said before, if this is so wrong then Calgary, San Jose and Washington should have refused to make the trades. Instead, they chose to do the “wrong” thing so they could help themselves and they didn’t care about the impact on other teams. Yet they don’t get criticized. Hmm. I guess when nobody is jealous of them it’s okay if they refuse to do the right thing.

Wtf is this

 

[TheBeard]

I don't think that run of three straight losses was them thinking they were hot shit and the wins would just come eventually. To me it really looked like they didn't care if they lose out. It wasn't complacency, it was a total lack of drive from the majority of the roster.

What I find bizarre is the few guys, Hertl included, who weren't on the team last year and haven't won a cup yet looked just as lazy.

It’s more indicative of how they played all year, not just the three losses. Started out hot in the season and were really no better than a .500 club the rest of the way.

 

[TheBeard]

But Vegas also has some disadvantages, such as playing the top seed in round 1, no home ice in game 7 in ANY round, the challenges of putting together lineups that haven’t played together much, losing draft picks, losing players in free agency every year that the team doesn’t want to lose, and the possibility that a trade doesn’t work out.

This is the most delusional attempt at being a victim I’ve ever seen, pertaining to sports, in my entire life. Do people actually think stuff like this?

 

[HanSolo]

It’s more indicative of how they played all year, not just the three losses. Started out hot in the season and were really no better than a .500 club the rest of the way.

Fair. I thought they'd elevate a lot more but yeah they'd gotten really complacent and overall unmotivated a lot earlier than this.