Bizarre response. Last season from the Knights was some of the best most positive hockey I have seen. They helped change the game as no team wants the heavy game anymore. As for the cost of players, the increases are not due to the playoff run. Players everywhere are going up thanks to am increasing cap. The players they didn't sign have age issues, nothing more. I really don't see what your beef is, the players were suppose to suck on purpose?
Karlsson, Miller, Nosek file for arbitration
- Thread starter LadyStanley
- Start date
Bizarre response. Last season from the Knights was some of the best most positive hockey I have seen. They helped change the game as no team wants the heavy game anymore. As for the cost of players, the increases are not due to the playoff run. Players everywhere are going up thanks to am increasing cap. The players they didn't sign have age issues, nothing more. I really don't see what your beef is, the players were suppose to suck on purpose?
Ending up with overpriced team has nothing to do with last year being fantastic hockey!
The thing is that every team will regress into an overpriced team before they get to bebuild via drafts etc. , I just don't want it to happen now.
edit:
Ofc I didn't want them to lose, but it might be better in the long run. If we end up paying guys like wild bill / reaves / etc. extra for one year performance, in the next 5 years it could be in wild bill case alone around 2-3 M$ less cap space per year. Reaves alone is 2,7 M$ extra, he got it thanks to few months of great performance.
Last edited:
LadyStanley
Registered User
I disagree.
Depends on the management. Those teams with GMs that are proactive and have long term planning down can anticipate when players need/deserve the bigger $$ contract.
Ideally, you have at least 1/3rd of NHL roster with expiring contracts. That way there is some continuity with 2/3rds of roster, while 1/3 either gets re-signed, traded, or walks (as UFA).
Teams MUST properly identify when skills no longer warrant retention. As well as when contract costs do not warrant re-signing.
Signing players the first week of July for **some** teams is the way they overpay.
Very few GMs have been able to keep the "window of opportunity" open for longer periods, and the current draft system should make it even harder in the longer run. I might argue that the current "big ones" like Chicago or even Penguins are having a hard time in the next few years. Especially Chicago seems to be getting expensive,top heavy and older. Few big dragging contracts can be enough to be the difference between the success and failure. And these are teams where the success has been fairly consistent.
There are plenty of teams that go all in just to have a decent chance to win the cup once, in expense of the future performance. We have the luxury of low amount of dragging contracts, low injuries and upcoming high picks. It shouldn't be our time yet to do risky/all in moves.
When all of the "experts" expected us to do poorly in the first season, they used the player quality as an argument. Either the "experts" were wrong or the first year success is based on something else than individual performance. The more it is about the latter, the more the new expensive contracts affect in managing the future performance.
LadyStanley
Registered User
So Ken Holland getting the DRW into playoffs 24 straight years is an anomaly? And Doug Wilson getting Sharks into playoffs 13 years out of 15 is not sustainable?
No. Those two particular teams have been able, in part, to succeed LONG TERM, without high draft picks (and sometimes no first round pick).
YMMV
No. Those two particular teams have been able, in part, to succeed LONG TERM, without high draft picks (and sometimes no first round pick).
YMMV
I didn't say there were no anomalies/exceptions and I don't think those two teams were stuffed with bad contracts. SJ is one of those anomalies, being able to stay competitive for long period of time. Probably it's not just the good players but the good management and coaching. But it won't last forever for SJ either, they've just managed to avoid the exact bad contracts we were discussing. All can change in a second if they would have some problem with Burns/Couture etc.
I didn't mean we need high picks to succeed, the current team has many undrafted or low draft players doing awesome. In fact I wish we could concentrate more on developing underrated/low value/low pick players, so far it has worked like magic. My current favorite is Carpenter, picking an undrafted player from the waivers and making him play like this.. Thanks SJ!!
LadyStanley
Registered User
@Aurinko and part of the reason for DRW and SJS success is that the team chooses (mainly) character-quality players to begin with. And with a team-first mentality, most players are willing to take a "home town discount" so that they can be surrounded by good (perhaps great) other players.
Sharks have taken some risks with players. Jeremy Roenick was almost a hopeless basket case when he was signed by his first NHL roommate. Evander Kane was acquired for relatively little in exchange and thrived his first few months with the team. (And even the Hoffman trades allowed the Sharks to accumulate assets.)
Red Wings were one of the first teams with very successful drafting/signing out of Europe.
And in both cases, a lot of that goes to the scouts who find the guys.
Sharks have taken some risks with players. Jeremy Roenick was almost a hopeless basket case when he was signed by his first NHL roommate. Evander Kane was acquired for relatively little in exchange and thrived his first few months with the team. (And even the Hoffman trades allowed the Sharks to accumulate assets.)
Red Wings were one of the first teams with very successful drafting/signing out of Europe.
And in both cases, a lot of that goes to the scouts who find the guys.
LadyStanley
Registered User
Sharks Sign Forward Ryan Carpenter
From announcement of signing undrafted Carpenter to ELS deal
But you have to scout to be able to find the guy. And then have enough cachet/panache/reputation that the player wants to sign with your organization.
From announcement of signing undrafted Carpenter to ELS deal
But you have to scout to be able to find the guy. And then have enough cachet/panache/reputation that the player wants to sign with your organization.
LadyStanley
Registered User
LadyStanley
Registered User
Minimum NHL is ~$625k. But asking for one way deal. Sounds like team not interested in paying him $$$ to play in AHL.
Two things.
One, Detroit had over half that run where they had more money to help them.
Two, over half the teams make the playoffs. It's easy to do it as a consistently mediocre team, especially in years where you are in the weaker conference/ division.
And I have not seen one case of one of our guys taking a hometown discount, so far. Quite the opposite, actually.
BattleBorn
50% to winning as many division titles as Toronto
LadyStanley
Registered User
$9m ask is just silly, guess his agent is hoping the arbitrator settles in the middle instead of asking for something realistic. Be interesting if they went back to the old way in MLB where the arbitrator had to pick one of the two numbers so calling for something out of reality just loses the case for you. No player with Stone's ~60 point a year production should get anywhere near $9m.
LadyStanley
Registered User
LadyStanley
Registered User
Knightmare
VGK fan since the 70’s
This is going to be very interesting. .
All though I must say if I’m Wild Bill I’m thinking - “how does our GM think that I’m only worth 700k more than Ryan Reaves?”
LadyStanley
Registered User
But in arbitration, you can't compare UFAs to RFAs. 
I'm thinking the $$ GMGM put forward is based on his AVERAGE offensive output of the past three years, while Wild Bill is emphasizing what he did last year.
I'm thinking the $$ GMGM put forward is based on his AVERAGE offensive output of the past three years, while Wild Bill is emphasizing what he did last year.
Just sign a 5/6 deal and let's move on. Figure he's set to get $5m/year for next two years, so he gets extended 3 more years at $6.66m per and everyone should be happy, Knights fans included
Boris Zubov
No relation to Sergei, Joe
The team is really low-balling him. Hope it doesn't create bad feelings long term.
LadyStanley
Registered User
I think a lot more of how the actual hearing goes will impact future relationship more.
"We selected $3m as these comparables represent the average of his entire NHL offensive output" is a lot more encouraging than "We don't see William as a future leader, think he can never reach 40+ goals again".
Schmidt didn't seem to have a bad hearing last season.
"We selected $3m as these comparables represent the average of his entire NHL offensive output" is a lot more encouraging than "We don't see William as a future leader, think he can never reach 40+ goals again".
Schmidt didn't seem to have a bad hearing last season.
LadyStanley
Registered User
Should Golden Knights go long or short-term with William Karlsson?
A look at Wild Bill's next contract (if not decided in arbitration).
A look at Wild Bill's next contract (if not decided in arbitration).
I'm sure he's fine with it, since he has become a fan favorite and face of the crazy first season. I still hope they are being honest with him, since this is just McPhee's way of making business.
All that crap being said, it does give a weird message when you pay Tatar 5,5M and Stastny 6,5M, knowing that their time on ice will be lower than Wild Bill's.
That SKATR looks like an awesome tool to look at some of the more meaningful advanced stats (and not just idiotic corsi values)! Thanks for sharing the link bud.
