GDT: Free Agency 2021

[Hivemind]

lol, the prince of the good faith arguments.

What part of "not mismanaging the middle tier of their roster would have allowed them to remain competitive even with a selection of "bloat" contracts are you just not getting? You keep saying "oh, they did this because this". Show me the Capitals' Bickell. They did too much, and then tried to aggressively get out of that and f***ed the whole thing up. You'll note that I'm not in favor of handing out 4 more ring of honor contracts and trying to bring Jay Beagle back, and neither is GMBM...

They very actively could have avoided it by doing what I've actually been a proponent of the whole time: managing your team through a three year window and making sure that the parts you're rotating in and out allow you a modicum of freedom and don't have to, say, give up Teuvo Teravainen. You deciding not to count Panarin as an asset is... a choice. To my memory they traded Saad, people went "yeah, that's what you do to stay competitive", they scooped up Panarin, looked scarier, mismanaged the whole thing (which I guess I'm in favor of because I like that my team is letting some of their players stay after outliving their "value") and walked themselves right into a wall. The Capitals are Chicago when they have to trade Wilson and Orlov just because they're the only parts anybody wants to take to get them out of cap trouble without payment.

I genuinely can't believe the attitude you have with people when you do this shit all day. My only options are: do it your way, or become Chicago's champion because no contract could be a bad contract. You leave absolutely zero room for nuance and critical thinking.

You talk about bad faith arguments, yet you keep trying to imply that I said the Caps are Chicago. Where have I said that? (Spoiler - nowhere) You are the one who brought up Chicago as an analogy.

The Blackhawks had MORE THAN HALF of their salary cap tied up in their core contracts. Their "starting six" of a center, 2 wingers, 2 defense, and goalie (yes, I'm aware they didn't all actually play on the same line) represented 61% of their salary cap in 2015-16. SIXTY-ONE PERCENT. They only had 28 million to split among the other 17 players on the roster. You don't get to have nice second and third line players and top 4 defensemen when you're spending that much on the top of your roster. You just don't. Is giving $4M to Bryan Bickell bad? Absolutely, but if you have more cap flexibility you can eat that without blowing up your roster. They didn't have that cap flexibility. The root of the Blackhawks issues all stem from that top heavy salary cap distribution.

They weren't giving away secondary players for the sake of giving away secondary players. Do I think they handled things particularly well, no. But I don't think there's a single GM in the league who navigates them out of that cap hell without some serious pain. Having GMBM in place doesn't mean they get to keep Sharp or Hjalmarsson. The three-year plan in Chicago was always obvious, get as much mileage out of their roster as they could before the continued raises and expiring contracts forced their hands. They would make salary-neutral swaps to patch holes, and do what it took to remain salary cap legal. In case you need a reminder, they won their third Cup (2015) during this the period you defined in your previous post (2014 onwards).

They picked up Panarin AFTER the last of their Cups. The Kane line looked scarier (and also in part to Anisimov, who came over in the Saad trade). But the Toews line declined after they lost Saad (who had been his stable linemate). Their $10.5M 1C was put up back-to-back 58 point seasons, and scored a combined one playoff goal in those two first round exits. Panarin made the Kane line scary good, but the team was already in decline as a whole. They lost in 7 games to St. Louis, and then were swept by Nashville the following year. If you want to play semantics regarding "assets" vs "players" you can, but if you're going to count losing Panarin as an asset loss for Chicago, you should also give them credit for getting him in the first place. His 2016 arrival as an undrafted free agent is well within your 2014 timeframe. So if you want to do a total account of that asset in-out, the net result is basically them gaining Artem Anisimov. Would it have been better to hang onto Panarin? You and I actually agree that it would be. But it's hardly a franchise ruining asset loss all things considered. And it's not like they were storming through the playoffs with Panarin.

There's plenty of room for nuance and critical thinking, you're just ignoring the forest for the trees. Sometimes you need to stop studying a particular branch and see the whole canopy. Don't study every individual trade to determine winners and losers, and look at the macro. This even fits with your purported "plan ahead" ideology. The bigger picture in Chicago's decline was that their core ate up a huge portion of their cap and their core couldn't carry scrubs. There simply was no way to maintain that level of depth with that much salary cap tied up at the top of the line-up. They were in a position where they had to choose between paying linemates for Toews or Kane.

The fact the Capitals have avoided the very worst of the salary cap hell has little to do with GMBM. We were fortunate enough to sign Ovechkin to a 13 year contract well before GMBM took over (a term which is no longer legal in the current CBA and was not legal when Kane or Toews signed their deals). We had Backstrom and Carlson under complete sweetheart deals as well, both signed under McPhee. It's only as these sweetheart deals expire that the cap crunch really starts to bind. We were fortunate enough to avoid having Ovie or Nicky need to re-up their deals during their prime years (it could have hurt even more). Now that these guys are on new (and more expensive in the case of 19, 77, and 74) contracts is when it becomes imperative to strike before their deals start to weight the team down too much. Our core is, fortunately, still cheaper than the Blackhawks', so we can have a little more depth. But it's still a large enough portion of the salary that we need them to be able to carry their own water.

Moreover, making significant adjustments doesn't mean you're not planning ahead. Nowhere have I, or anyone, argued that they should be operating willy-nilly without a thought to the future. In fact, I'm arguing quite the opposite. The Capitals NEED to look ahead. They need to look ahead and realize the contracts to their stars aren't going to get better, they're going to get worse. Your version of a "three year plan" seems to be figuring out how to best maintain the roster in its current form. This ties back to the posts that started this conversation. For many of us Caps fans, simply maintaining the roster isn't good enough, unless we're resigned to the chase for 894 being the primary goal of the team. Maintaining this roster doesn't make them a Cup contender. Looking at various sportsbooks, the Capitals are rated between the 10th and 14th most likely for the Cup next year. Right around teams like the Rangers and Oilers. Is being a slightly-above-average team part of the three year plan? Is that more acceptable than making some risky salary-in and salary-out trades for a chance at tasting glory?

Chicago built a dynasty. The first the NHL has seen since the Gretzky Oilers. The best during the salary cap era. They then paid the price of building a dynasty under a salary cap while rewarding their star players. To decry their management and claim that ours, with its one cup in franchise history, is better is patently absurd. This doesn't mean that every move Chicago made is right anymore than it means that GMBM is a bad general manager. But to hold Chicago up as an example of failure (especially when they have a f***ing Stanley Cup in he exact window of failure you defined) is ridiculous.

 

[HTFN]

You talk about bad faith arguments, yet you keep trying to imply that I said the Caps are Chicago. Where have I said that? (Spoiler - nowhere)

The Blackhawks had MORE THAN HALF of their salary cap tied up in their core contracts. Their "starting six" of a center, 2 wingers, 2 defense, and goalie (yes, I'm aware they didn't all actually play on the same line) represented 61% of their salary cap in 2015-16. SIXTY-ONE PERCENT. They only had 28 million to split among the other 17 players on the roster. You don't get to have nice second and third line players and top 4 defensemen when you're spending that much on the top of your roster. You just don't. Is giving $4M to Bryan Bickell bad? Absolutely, but if you have more cap flexibility you can eat that without blowing up your roster. They didn't have that cap flexibility. The root of the Blackhawks issues all stem from that top heavy salary cap distribution.

They weren't giving away secondary players for the sake of giving away secondary players. Do I think they handled things particularly well, no. But I don't think there's a single GM in the league who navigates them out of that cap hell without some serious pain. Having GMBM in place doesn't mean they get to keep Sharp or Hjalmarsson. The three-year plan in Chicago was always obvious, get as much mileage out of their roster as they could before the continued raises and expiring contracts forced their hands. They would make salary-neutral swaps to patch holes, and do what it took to remain salary cap legal. In case you need a reminder, they won their third Cup (2015) during this the period you defined in your previous post (2014 onwards).

They picked up Panarin AFTER the last of their Cups. The Kane line looked scarier (and also in part to Anisimov, who came over in the Saad trade). But the Toews line declined after they lost Saad (who had been his stable linemate). Their $10.5M 1C was put up back-to-back 58 point seasons, and scored a combined one playoff goal in those two first round exits. Panarin made the Kane line scary good, but the team was already in decline as a whole. They lost in 7 games to St. Louis, and then were swept by Nashville the following year. If you want to play semantics regarding "assets" vs "players" you can, but if you're going to count losing Panarin as an asset loss for Chicago, you should also give them credit for getting him in the first place. His 2016 arrival as an undrafted free agent is well within your 2014 timeframe. So if you want to do a total account of that asset in-out, the net result is basically them gaining Artem Anisimov. Would it have been better to hang onto Panarin? You and I actually agree that it would be. But it's hardly a franchise ruining asset loss all things considered. And it's not like they were storming through the playoffs with Panarin.

There's plenty of room for nuance and critical thinking, you're just ignoring the forest for the trees. Sometimes you need to stop studying a particular branch and see the whole canopy. Don't study every individual trade to determine winners and losers, and look at the macro. This even fits with your purported "plan ahead" ideology. The bigger picture in Chicago's decline was that their core ate up a huge portion of their cap and their core couldn't carry scrubs. There simply was no way to maintain that level of depth with that much salary cap tied up at the top of the line-up. They were in a position where they had to choose between paying linemates for Toews or Kane.

The fact the Capitals have avoided the very worst of the salary cap hell has little to do with GMBM. We were fortunate enough to sign Ovechkin to a 13 year contract well before GMBM took over (a term which is no longer legal in the current CBA and was not legal when Kane or Toews signed their deals). We had Backstrom and Carlson under complete sweetheart deals as well, both signed under McPhee. It's only as these sweetheart deals expire that the cap crunch really starts to bind. We were fortunate enough to avoid having Ovie or Nicky need to re-up their deals during their prime years (it could have hurt even more). Now that these guys are on new (and more expensive in the case of 19, 77, and 74) contracts is when it becomes imperative to strike before their deals start to weight the team down too much.

Moreover, making significant adjustments doesn't mean you're not planning ahead. Nowhere have I, or anyone, argued that they should be operating willy-nilly without a thought to the future. In fact, I'm arguing quite the opposite. The Capitals NEED to look ahead. They need to look ahead and realize the contracts to their stars aren't going to get better, they're going to get worse. Your version of a "three year plan" seems to be figuring out how to best maintain the roster in its current form. This ties back to the posts that started this conversation. For many of us Caps fans, simply maintaining the roster isn't good enough, unless we're resigned to the chase for 894 being the primary goal of the team. Maintaining this roster doesn't make them a Cup contender. Looking at various sportsbooks, the Capitals are rated between the 10th and 14th most likely for the Cup next year. Right around teams like the Rangers and Oilers. Is being a slightly-above-average team part of the three year plan? Is that more acceptable than making some risky salary-in and salary-out trades for a chance at tasting glory?

Chicago built a dynasty. The first the NHL has seen since the Gretzky Oilers. The best during the salary cap era. They then paid the price of building a dynasty under a salary cap while rewarding their star players. To decry their management and claim that ours, with its one cup in franchise history, is better is patently absurd. This doesn't mean that every move Chicago made is right anymore than it means that GMBM is a bad general manager. But to hold Chicago up as an example of failure (especially when they have a f***ing Stanley Cup in he exact window of failure you defined) is ridiculous.

I bolded sentences that indicate you're arguing some entirely different point here. It's absolutely ridiculous. The whole point of this thing is that in the flat cap, they had to pivot. To manage to do so, without being in cap hell, and still a middling competitive team is not a failure. "Pulling a Chicago" had f*** all to do with winning a bunch of cups and everything to do with turning Panarins into Anisimovs on a slide down to the bottom. You maintain that the Capitals will apparently inevitably do that despite a different cap structure because rather than bother to try getting the point, you've gone "Oh yOu DoNt wAnT tO wIn CuPs?!"

Trading Vrana is how you avoid becoming a team with too many bloated contracts. That's part of this restructure. Having to potentially make a slightly less competitive team for this year in the f***ing sportsbooks because you need to keep flexibility in the next three is the whole goddamn point. I get that you're on a mission after being called out but goddamn, this is not that controversial and I'm not even on the hook for half of the shit you're arguing against. To take one reference to a thing Chicago did and blow that up to "THEY WON CUPS LOL" is missing the whole goddamn point.

 

[Hivemind]

I bolded sentences that indicate you're arguing some entirely different point here. It's absolutely ridiculous. The whole point of this thing is that in the flat cap, they had to pivot. To manage to do so, without being in cap hell, and still a middling competitive team is not a failure.

There it is. The crux of the issue. You admit it. You're happy with being a "middling competitive team." I'm not.

"Pulling a Chicago" had f*** all to do with winning a bunch of cups and everything to do with turning Panarins into Anisimovs on a slide down to the bottom. You maintain that the Capitals will apparently inevitably do that despite a different cap structure because rather than bother to try getting the point, you've gone "Oh yOu DoNt wAnT tO wIn CuPs?!"

For as much as you want to put your fingers in your ears and scream "NUH UH," the winning Cups and shedding off of the middle of their roster are directly related. You're hung up on a specific move (trees) that we agree was bad, but that move alone didn't sink the team (forest). The success of their core led to their core getting paid. Their core getting paid led to them having to shed off the middle of their roster. This is a causal relationship. Their core declined and was no longer able to carry the reduced depth.

Trading Vrana is how you avoid becoming a team with too many bloated contracts. That's part of this restructure.

This is the dumbest take yet. Mantha makes $5.75M. Best case scenario is that it works out salary neutral for Washington. More than likely Mantha ends up more expensive than Vrana's new RFA deal. Look at other RFA deals. David Pastrnak got $6.67M coming off a 34G 70P season. Ehlers got $6M after a 64P season. Guentzel got $6M in the middle of a 40G season. Vrana's numbers simply don't stack up to those players'. He's not going to get paid like them as a RFA unless the Red Wings buy up a bunch of UFA years (something the Capitals certainly didn't have to do). Vrana's QO is only $3M. Even if Vrana gets the same deal that Pavel Buchnevich just got ($5.8M, and Buch has better boxcars than Vrana this past season), that's STILL just a salary neutral deal compared to Mantha. And he very well could sign a bridge deal like Jake DeBrusk's $3.675M deal or Tyler Bertuzzi's $3.5M.

So your plan for avoiding too many bloated contracts is to take on a player with an equally fat (if not fatter) contract? Really?

Having to potentially make a slightly less competitive team for this year in the f***ing sportsbooks because you need to keep flexibility in the next three is the whole goddamn point. I get that you're on a mission after being called out but goddamn, this is not that controversial and I'm not even on the hook for half of the shit you're arguing against.

Making an aggressive trade doesn't have to make them less flexible. Hell, you just yourself argued for that with the Mantha-Vrana trade (as misguided as your opinion may be on that one specifically). Nobody is saying that cap flexibility is bad. But you have this unfounded belief that making bold trades somehow leaves you less cap flexible, and in worse shape.

And as nice as cap flexibility is, you don't get to hang a banner for "Most Cap Flexible Roster 2021-22." And if we did, teams like Arizona and Detroit would walk away with it. The team in perhaps the worst cap bind of all has won the past two Stanley Cups, and we all know how you feel about that. Keeping a flexible structure is fine, but you're letting the dog wag the tail here. The flexible cap should help you build a competitive roster. You shouldn't be sacrificing your competitiveness for flexibility.

Go back and read your posts and what I write, and claim to me with a straight face that YOU aren't the one arguing against ghosts here. I'm taking what you write and building off of the examples you provide. You bring up Chicago, we talk about Chicago. Now you bring up Vrana, and we'll talk about Vrana.

 

[tenken00]

The team in perhaps the worst cap bind of all has won the past two Stanley Cups

To be fair, you can't use this as an example. We all know this

 

[Hivemind]

To be fair, you can't use this as an example. We all know this

Sure, you can omit the 2021 Cup if you want. But do you think the Lightning regret going into their salary cap hell in 2020 to win that Cup? They didn't let their "three year plan" and "cap flexibility" be an impediment to their success.

 

[HTFN]

There it is. The crux of the issue. You admit it. You're happy with being a "middling competitive team." I'm not.


For as much as you want to put your fingers in your ears and scream "NUH UH," the winning Cups and shedding off of the middle of their roster are directly related. You're hung up on a specific move (trees) that we agree was bad, but that move alone didn't sink the team (forest). The success of their core led to their core getting paid. Their core getting paid led to them having to shed off the middle of their roster. This is a causal relationship. Their core declined and was no longer able to carry the reduced depth.


This is the dumbest take yet. Mantha makes $5.75M. Best case scenario is that it works out salary neutral for Washington. More than likely Mantha ends up more expensive than Vrana's new RFA deal. Look at other RFA deals. David Pastrnak got $6.67M coming off a 34G 70P season. Ehlers got $6M after a 64P season. Guentzel got $6M in the middle of a 40G season. Vrana's numbers simply don't stack up to those players'. He's not going to get paid like them as a RFA unless the Red Wings buy up a bunch of UFA years (something the Capitals certainly didn't have to do). Vrana's QO is only $3M. Even if Vrana gets the same deal that Pavel Buchnevich just got ($5.8M, and Buch has better boxcars than Vrana this past season), that's STILL just a salary neutral deal compared to Mantha. And he very well could sign a bridge deal like Jake DeBrusk's $3.675M deal or Tyler Bertuzzi's $3.5M.

So your plan for avoiding too many bloated contracts is to take on a player with an equally fat (if not fatter) contract? Really?


Making an aggressive trade doesn't have to make them less flexible. Hell, you just yourself argued for that with the Mantha-Vrana trade (as misguided as your opinion may be on that one specifically). Nobody is saying that cap flexibility is bad. But you have this unfounded belief that making bold trades somehow leaves you less cap flexible, and in worse shape.

And as nice as cap flexibility is, you don't get to hang a banner for "Most Cap Flexible Roster 2021-22." And if we did, teams like Arizona and Detroit would walk away with it. The team in perhaps the worst cap bind of all has won the past two Stanley Cups, and we all know how you feel about that. Keeping a flexible structure is fine, but you're letting the dog wag the tail here. The flexible cap should help you build a competitive roster. You shouldn't be sacrificing your competitiveness to flexibility.

Go back and read your posts and what I write, and claim to me with a straight face that YOU aren't the one arguing against ghosts here. I'm taking what you write and building off of the examples you provide. You bring up Chicago, we talk about Chicago. Now you bring up Vrana, and we'll talk about Vrana.

I admitted it forever ago. I don't fault them for pivoting in the flat cap world even if it means temporarily becoming less competitive than they otherwise may have, if the end goal is a more functional transition from the end of an era to the start of another one without bottoming out in the meantime or getting there too soon. It doesn't bother me and I'm not going to howl about it.

He traded to get rid of a contract, and to get cost certainty out of another one, again, in the flat cap. You'll say "other teams have a flat cap too" but they aren't Washington. They didn't have to work around Ovechkin's demands, whatever they were, they didn't have to make sure it didn't crash into their ability to retain a RFA, and so on.

Where Chicago is concerned I guess we just disagree. I have also said that they gave out too many big contracts, but the Capitals aren't necessarily guilty of that yet. They can get there real fast one of two ways, by taking on a big contract that fails, or by f***ing up how they handle the middle 6 over the next few years. Protecting TvR to trade Dillon is a good example of being aware of that, to me. I think a Chicago staff that managed their team more like this one has could have remained powerful all decade, challenging the Penguins in the later half.

Where the Capitals are concerned, they've been powerhouses before, it doesn't matter half as much as everyone getting that little wind at the right time. To me, it's a safer but still reasonable bet to play the "win it for Ovi" card with a playoff contender than to make one more swing at a powerhouse. The fallout is entirely different and I don't think you can do it without burning the bridge to the future at possibly the worst time for the franchise.

 

[tenken00]

Sure, you can omit the 2021 Cup if you want. But do you think the Lightning regret going into their salary cap hell in 2020 to win that Cup?

I can see what you are saying. But the large majority of Tampa's core is in their prime. We have to be a bit more selective and deliberate with our team build now that we are older.

Edit: er now that I reread the post. Yeah like Chicago and Tampa, when you are in your prime you have to gun it and worry about the consequences later. But in the Caps case, we can't do that now for obvious reasons.

But we still need to try. I definitely agree with that.

 

[Langway]

 

[Hivemind]

He traded to get rid of a contract, and to get cost certainty out of another one, again, in the flat cap. You'll say "other teams have a flat cap too" but they aren't Washington. They didn't have to work around Ovechkin's demands, whatever they were, they didn't have to make sure it didn't crash into their ability to retain a RFA, and so on.

If the goal was to guarantee they had the cap flexibility to meet whatever Ovechkin's demand, getting a guaranteed $5.75M contract in place of Vrana's RFA status hurts that. With Vrana's RFA status you have options. They can go long term if they have the space and desire to do so, and likely at less than that $5.75M figure based on comparable. If they don't want to go long term, they can opt for a shorter deal at a slight raise compared to his current $3M salary. If Ovechkin did come in demanding $11M instead of $9.5M, having the option for a potential 1 year $4M deal with Vrana instead of a guaranteed $5.75M with Mantha definitely gives them a lot more flexibility.

The worst case scenario is he goes to arbitration, but if he elects arbitration the team can then elect if it's a 1 year or 2 year contract via arbitration award (giving them an opportunity to either try again for a long term deal the following year or bridge him straight to UFA status at a relatively affordable arbitration award, based on their desires). We've already been over his boxcar comparisons to other RFAs, so a 1 year RFA award likely wouldn't put them in a cap bind. In the very worst of the worst, arbitration awards open up a second buyout window, in which they could so something like buy out Hagelin to remain cap compliant. But that's a far fetched case that we know wouldn't come to pass based on Ovechkin's $9.5M deal.

Where Chicago is concerned I guess we just disagree. I have also said that they gave out too many big contracts, but the Capitals aren't necessarily guilty of that yet. They can get there real fast one of two ways, by taking on a big contract that fails, or by f***ing up how they handle the middle 6 over the next few years. Protecting TvR to trade Dillon is a good example of being aware of that, to me. They've been powerhouses before, it doesn't matter half as much as everyone getting that little wind at the right time. To me, it's a safer but still reasonable bet to play the "win it for Ovi" card with a playoff contender than to make one more swing at a powerhouse. The fallout is entirely different and I don't think you can do it without burning the bridge to the future at possibly the worst time for the franchise.

We also still fundamentally disagree that making bold moves now means their "burning the bridge to the future." Running a middling team thru Ovechkin's twilight years isn't exactly going to build them a strong prospect pool or base of young talent. We already have one of the worst in the NHL (and the oldest team). If you want to build for the next chapter, after Ovechkin, the path forward would be something that I think both of us would be upset by (selling off players for futures and avoiding salary cap obligations that last longer than Ovechkin's window). But making moves to try and improve the CURRENT status of the team doesn't have to drastically harm the future. Let's take the proposed move that started this whole conversation for example. Trading Carlson and then signing Dougie Hamilton as a UFA. In that scenario the Capitals actually gain considerable resources that can come into play in the future of the franchise, given that Carlson is presumably traded for mostly draft picks or prospects.

You're worried about the risk of taking on a big contract that fails. That risk is already there. I'm worried about our existing big contracts failing. And with Backstrom's hip, Oshie being held together with duct tape by the end of last year, and Carlson's limp dick performance in the past few playoffs that's a real concern. We can still very much be set up for failure with or without bold moves.

 

[HTFN]

If the goal was to guarantee they had the cap flexibility to meet whatever Ovechkin's demand, getting a guaranteed $5.75M contract in place of Vrana's RFA status hurts that. With Vrana's RFA status you have options. They can go long term if they have the space and desire to do so, and likely at less than that $5.75M figure based on comparable. If they don't want to go long term, they can opt for a shorter deal at a slight raise compared to his current $3M salary. If Ovechkin did come in demanding $11M instead of $9.5M, having the option for a potential 1 year $4M deal with Vrana instead of a guaranteed $5.75M with Mantha definitely gives them a lot more flexibility.

The worst case scenario is he goes to arbitration, but if he elects arbitration the team can then elect if it's a 1 year or 2 year contract via arbitration award (giving them an opportunity to either try again for a long term deal the following year or bridge him straight to UFA status at a relatively affordable arbitration award, based on their desires). We've already been over his boxcar comparisons to other RFAs, so a 1 year RFA award likely wouldn't put them in a cap bind. In the very worst of the worst, arbitration awards open up a second buyout window, in which they could so something like buy out Hagelin to remain cap compliant. But that's a far fetched case that we know wouldn't come to pass based on Ovechkin's $9.5M deal.


We also still fundamentally disagree that making bold moves now means their "burning the bridge to the future." Running a middling team thru Ovechkin's twilight years isn't exactly going to build them a strong prospect pool or base of young talent. We already have one of the worst in the NHL (and the oldest team). If you want to build for the next chapter, after Ovechkin, the path forward would be something that I think both of us would be upset by (selling off players for futures and avoiding salary cap obligations that last longer than Ovechkin's window). But making moves to try and improve the CURRENT status of the team doesn't have to drastically harm the future. Let's take the proposed move that started this whole conversation for example. Trading Carlson and then signing Dougie Hamilton as a UFA. In that scenario the Capitals actually gain considerable resources that can come into play in the future of the franchise, given that Carlson is presumably traded for mostly draft picks or prospects.

You're worried about the risk of taking on a big contract that fails. That risk is already there. I'm worried about our existing big contracts failing. And with Backstrom's hip, Oshie being held together with duct tape by the end of last year, and Carlson's limp dick performance in the past few playoffs that's a real concern. We can still very much be set up for failure with or without bold moves.

That's losing value in the process as proposed, the Capitals either have next to no leverage if Vrana performs or no suitors if he stagnates. They sold high-ish at the right time in my eyes in order to unload Panik and get a quality player back.

I'm saying whether they do or don't almost doesn't matter. You need to delete them from your brain, look at the pieces around it, and try to make a possible playoff team. As a result of the team being willing to let those players ride off into the sunset as a unit, you need to treat them like... Halo skulls. It's a difficulty modifier, plain and simple. It changes the dynamic of the game a little. It's the reason why, if they were closer to their prime like the Tampa guys I'd be all for what you're saying (and probably was in the 2016-2018 range), but now the win condition is different. The goal, in my eyes right now, is to create a rigid and strong "foundation" that doesn't include the names of anybody entering their mid to late 30's, and try to make it a playoff team with the cap space you have left.

It's not just about taking on big contracts, it's about losing value in a time where you realistically need to moneyball everything that isn't a legacy player, and then if any of those 35 year old giants decide to wake up for 2 months that's suddenly an absolute monster. I don't think you do that by making big swings, I think you do that by being patient. In a predictable cap world, maybe you would want them to be more aggressive than this, but ironically enough when you... look at the whole forest, and take into account all the variables, it's not a bad move.

 

[Hivemind]

I'm not interested in the retirement tour vision. Being patient makes sense when you're close and you're players are ascending. When you're not particularly close and your team is on the descent, patience is no longer a virtue. The much better example for your argument than Chicago would have been San Jose. They took big swings when their club was on the descent. Some of those swings hurt them big now. But they also got the deepest playoff run in their team history as a result. I'm alright if it doesn't work out. But I sure as hell would like to give it a try rather than just becoming the 894 countdown team. And if we can get a deep playoff run out of it, like San Jose, I'm all for it.

We're at the stage in the game where I'm actively rooting for TJ Oshie to not make the Olympic team next year so he can have two weeks to recover (pray for a big season from the Tkachuks so they grab the last couple winger spots). We don't get that same hope with Backstrom, Ovechkin, Carlson, or Orlov. In a scenario in which NHLers don't go to the Olympics and the whole NHL schedule is bumped up two weeks and the whole team loses that recovery time... yikes

That's losing value in the process as proposed, the Capitals either have next to no leverage if Vrana performs or no suitors if he stagnates. They sold high-ish at the right time in my eyes in order to unload Panik and get a quality player back.

That's why it's the "worst case." A scenario that only arises if Ovechkin wants an $11M paycheck AND they can't agree to a deal with Vrana that still fits. In the reality we are in with a $9.5M Ovechkin, they would have the flexibility to sign Vrana to basically whatever deal they wanted with him.

If you play out that same expensive Ovechkin scenario with the guaranteed Mantha contract, you still end up losing value. Look at all the things people were proposing to meet our salary cap obligations when we feared Ovie might sign for a raise (paying assets to trade Schultz, accepting 50 cents on the dollar for Kuzy, etc). It's still losing value. Not to mention the value of the 1st and 2nd round picks they lost in the trade.

 

[twabby]

I feel like doing nothing and staying the current course is the worst of all worlds: you’re not rebuilding, you’re not really competing for a Cup in any meaningful sense, and you’re not maximizing Ovie’s chances of getting to 895.

On the other hand taking an aggressive approach toward winning now not only makes the team better but will also increase the chances that Ovie will get to 895. Yes it’ll likely make the eventual rebuild more painful than if they just stay the course but IMO it’s worth a few extra years of pain 6+ years from now to maximize the final years of Ovechkin’s tenure.

 

[Ovie's Neighbor]

I feel like doing nothing and staying the current course is the worst of all worlds: you’re not rebuilding, you’re not really competing for a Cup in any meaningful sense, and you’re not maximizing Ovie’s chances of getting to 895.

On the other hand taking an aggressive approach toward winning now not only makes the team better but will also increase the chances that Ovie will get to 895. Yes it’ll likely make the eventual rebuild more painful than if they just stay the course but IMO it’s worth a few extra years of pain 6+ years from now to maximize the final years of Ovechkin’s tenure.

Exactly what I was going to say. We are in some sort of grey area. Not committed to the future but not going all in either.

 

[g00n]

Months or years on end: "OMG this is terrible! How is GMBM going to get out of this inescapable mess!"

Out of the blue one day: "Oh, that's how. But here's ANOTHER huge problem that spells DOOOOOOM...."

 

[TheLegendOfPatPeake]

Months or years on end: "OMG this is terrible! How is GMBM going to get out of this inescapable mess!"

Out of the blue one day: "Oh, that's how. But here's ANOTHER huge problem that spells DOOOOOOM...."

I don’t see the commentary above as doom and gloom. I see it as having legitimate questions that the team hasn’t answered. The strategy on how they will improve to try to get Ovi another cup is unclear.

 

[g00n]

I don’t see the commentary above as doom and gloom. I see it as having legitimate questions that the team hasn’t answered. The strategy on how they will improve to try to get Ovi another cup is unclear.

It was a general comment that fits a lot of the hand wringing. There's no way in hell I'm reading all of that stuff above so was not talking specifically about that. lol

 

[txpd]

I don’t see the commentary above as doom and gloom. I see it as having legitimate questions that the team hasn’t answered. The strategy on how they will improve to try to get Ovi another cup is unclear.

I see a lot of the Caps as a bubble team at best is a pretty good serving of DOOM. You dont?

 

[Ridley Simon]

It’s pretty clear to me.

The management team is not convinced that this current group cannot make another run. I’m not convinced of that either. All the arguments they’ve been written hasn’t changed my mind. Does it make me a “management apologist”? If so….I don’t care.

Only way to change this is to trade their top C and their top D. Those are the guys that can jumpstart a next Gen ASAP. That’s it.

 

[895]

I think they should focus on getting 895 and retool at the same time. Keep a good top line and a good PP unit. Sell off everywhere else.

Imo this team can't win a cup, especially if they are trying to balance getting to 895 at the same time. 895 is more important to me.

 

[IafrateOvie34]

I want to win, however Ted's statement implies he's content with the Goal record. From viewing other teams moves and how the Caps didn't' panic, I have no reason to believe why the Cap's can't win another cup. It's all about the players motivation, it always has and being healthy. The NHL GMs are really bad now league wide.

 

[txpd]

I want to win, however Ted's statement implies he's content with the Goal record. From viewing other teams moves and how the Caps didn't' panic, I have no reason to believe why the Cap's can't win another cup. It's all about the players motivation, it always has and being healthy. The NHL GMs are really bad now league wide.

As things sit today, I have the Caps winning the division. This is assuming the Metro division is back. I reject the bubble team idea.

I think the really bad might be the ownership rather than all these gm's. I am sure some of the gm's are a mess but the Caps have had good managers because they have good ownership. For instance the ownership in Carolina and NYRs is clearly screwing them up.

 

[twabby]

I want to win, however Ted's statement implies he's content with the Goal record. From viewing other teams moves and how the Caps didn't' panic, I have no reason to believe why the Cap's can't win another cup. It's all about the players motivation, it always has and being healthy. The NHL GMs are really bad now league wide.

I disagree. These are 32 of the best and brightest minds in the world who are operating on a level you and I just cannot comprehend. They are playing 10-dimensional chess while you are playing "Punch Yourself As Hard As You Can in the Groin." Quite frankly, their decisions are beyond reproach.

You may not be able to comprehend why Ron Francis selected Gavin Bayreuther in the expansion draft, only to let him walk and re-sign immediately with Columbus. Or you may not understand why Ken Holland traded for Duncan Keith and signed Zach Hyman to a 7-year deal. And you certainly can't fathom why Stan Bowman signed Seth Jones to a 8-year, $76 million contract. But you have to trust the process. These executives know what they're doing, otherwise they wouldn't be in the positions they are in. Just like everywhere else in the business world these positions are earned.

 

[TheLegendOfPatPeake]

I think they should focus on getting 895 and retool at the same time. Keep a good top line and a good PP unit. Sell off everywhere else.

Imo this team can't win a cup, especially if they are trying to balance getting to 895 at the same time. 895 is more important to me.

Yes, let’s focus a team all around one individuals goal record. Yikes. I’d rather win and I’d hope most fans would agree but who knows at this point.

 

[BiPolar Caps]

Marcus Johansson is still available. He had broken his left arm against Vegas during the SC playoffs. Now I'll admit that he was my favorite whipping boy when he was last here with the Capitals, but these are different times. Don't know if there's a way to fit him in to the team salary wise even if he takes a Perreault type of signing with the Canadiens (900k - 1 mil), but he would bring some needed speed to the team, as well as position versatility at the forward positions plus the ability to play up and down in the top nine. Just a thought.

 

[Calicaps]

I disagree. These are 32 of the best and brightest minds in the world who are operating on a level you and I just cannot comprehend. They are playing 10-dimensional chess while you are playing "Punch Yourself As Hard As You Can in the Groin." Quite frankly, their decisions are beyond reproach.

You may not be able to comprehend why Ron Francis selected Gavin Bayreuther in the expansion draft, only to let him walk and re-sign immediately with Columbus. Or you may not understand why Ken Holland traded for Duncan Keith and signed Zach Hyman to a 7-year deal. And you certainly can't fathom why Stan Bowman signed Seth Jones to a 8-year, $76 million contract. But you have to trust the process. These executives know what they're doing, otherwise they wouldn't be in the positions they are in. Just like everywhere else in the business world these positions are earned.

This shtick is old and boring. No one here has ever said any GM is infallible, including BMac. What we're actually saying, and what we've seen this week, is that some GMs do suck, so jettisoning our pretty damned good GM because he's human and made a few missteps would be stupid.