Prospect Info: Nikita Tryamkin | VI

[Cupless44]

Shame Benning couldn't offer him a contract because of his gross mismanagement of the team's cap structure. With the loss of Tanev and Stecher, Tryamkin would have given this team a huge boost.

Tryamkin could have been here this year at 2 million on a one year deal but Canucks would not agree to one way deal.

Doesnt seem so bad right about now

 

[Tim Calhoun]

Safe to say he's playing on the top pairing so far this season?

No. His team only dresses 3 d-men, with the other top 2 guys logging 45 mins/game.

 

[VanJack]

Tryamkin could have been here this year at 2 million on a one year deal but Canucks would not agree to one way deal.

Doesnt seem so bad right about now

Exactly. Maybe other posters can explain this to me. If the Canucks strongly suspected they'd be walking away from Tanev and Stecher in the off-season, why wouldn't they have hedged their bets by signing Tryamkin to an affordable contract so he'd be available for the start of the season?

I've long concluded however that this management group basically operates by the seat of its pants. There doesn't appear to be any long-term plan or vision. It's just a month to month thing.

Apparently after the OEL deal collapsed, Benning hastily doubled back on both Tanev and Stecher. But by then, they both basically told him to take a hike. The new nickname for the Canucks should be 'Team Chaos". What an organization!%&$

 

[ChilliBilly]

Tryamkin could have been here this year at 2 million on a one year deal but Canucks would not agree to one way deal.

Doesnt seem so bad right about now

Where does this info come from? Can't believe they wouldn't pull the trigger on that deal. I suspect that if Tryamkin's camp is smart, they ask for and get at least a decent signing bonus in case the season falls apart. Not that it matters now, but I hope to see him here next season.

 

[DL44]

Exactly. Maybe other posters can explain this to me. If the Canucks strongly suspected they'd be walking away from Tanev and Stecher in the off-season, why wouldn't they have hedged their bets by signing Tryamkin to an affordable contract so he'd be available for the start of the season?

Because at the time Tryamkin had to make a decision, the league's cap situation was still in flux. Canucks were right to to wait since it was obvious revenues and cap were gonna be flat, so difficult to pin a number on Tryamkin till after this post season... Tryamkin couldn't take that gamble.

I've long concluded however that this management group basically operates by the seat of its pants. There doesn't appear to be any long-term plan or vision. It's just a month to month thing.

Apparently after the OEL deal collapsed, Benning hastily doubled back on both Tanev and Stecher. But by then, they both basically told him to take a hike. The new nickname for the Canucks should be 'Team Chaos". What an organization!%&$

I have no doubt about Tanev declining... Benning wasn't going to give him that term.
Stecher.. I think that had looong sailed anyways... Unqualified players don't like returning to the same locker room after taking a pay cut. Benning could have offered 1.9-2 and doubt Stecher would have come back.

 

[iceburg]

Because at the time Tryamkin had to make a decision, the league's cap situation was still in flux. Canucks were right to to wait since it was obvious revenues and cap were gonna be flat, so difficult to pin a number on Tryamkin till after this post season... Tryamkin couldn't take that gamble.


I have no doubt about Tanev declining... Benning wasn't going to give him that term.
Stecher.. I think that had looong sailed anyways... Unqualified players don't like returning to the same locker room after taking a pay cut. Benning could have offered 1.9-2 and doubt Stecher would have come back.

Exactly, on both points. With Stecher, it is a flaw in the RFA system. Why is it preferable to him to go to a team that will pay him less...because of pride.

 

[DL44]

Exactly, on both points. With Stecher, it is a flaw in the RFA system. Why is it preferable to him to go to a team that will pay him less...because of pride.

100% pride.
Well.. in his case.. increased role as well..
Mentioned he thinks he's getting PP time...

So.. mostly pride... and part belief he'll get an expanded role...

 

[Fatass]

Exactly, on both points. With Stecher, it is a flaw in the RFA system. Why is it preferable to him to go to a team that will pay him less...because of pride.

Is it a flawed RFA system that allows players (not qualified) to become UFAs? Troy got to shop himself to all the teams, and pick what’s best for him.

 

[iceburg]

Is it a flawed RFA system that allows players (not qualified) to become UFAs? Troy got to shop himself to all the teams, and pick what’s best for him.

Yes it is flawed because it sets up an RFA in a process that by its very nature pits him against the incumbent team. The team has to qualify him to a contract that, in many cases, is more than on the open market. When the team doesn't qualify him, the player is less than open to resign for a lower price. He then goes to the open market and gets less. It's a total lose lose.

 

[iceburg]

I could see an RFA system where the incumbent team had a right to match at cost+x% (say 20%). SO the player isn't qusalified. He goes to the open market and gets an offer. His previous team f4rom which he became an RFA can retain his rights for athe offer + 20%. In Stecher's case the Canucks could have retained his rights for $2.1M.

 

[digger1188]

IMO the RFA system is totally broken in it’s current format. Teams need to be rewarded more than they currently are for drafting, and developing players the right way. Teams should enjoy, at the very least, a 5-10% discount on their overall cap hit, for actually re-signing their own drafted players. I would also add that each team should be given a franchise tag to place on a single player. That tag would see their salary not count against the team’s overall cap number. The current format stinks. Teams basically get 3 affordable years to use a drafted generational talent, and then they’re punished with having to trade away 3-4 guys, in order to re-sign that developed generational RFA. We’re going to see it next offseason, where our roster is going to be neutered, in order to pay Petterson and Hughes their market value. Something has to change.

 

[Melvin]

IMO both the RFA system is broken. Teams need to be rewarded more than they currently are for drafting and developing players the right way. Teams should enjoy at the very least a 5-10% discount on their overall cap hit for actually re-signing their own drafted players. I would also add that each team should be given a franchise tag to place on a single player that would see their salary not count against the team’s overall cap number. The current format stinks. Teams basically get 3 affordable years to use a drafted generational talent, and then they’re punished with having to trade away 3-4 guys, in order to re-sign their drafted and developed generational RFA. We’re going to see it next offseason, where our roster is going to be neutered, in order to pay Petterson and Hughes their market value. It’s broken.

I disagree with this in the strongest possible way.

 

[vanuck]

IMO both the RFA system is broken. Teams need to be rewarded more than they currently are for drafting and developing players the right way. Teams should enjoy at the very least a 5-10% discount on their overall cap hit for actually re-signing their own drafted players. I would also add that each team should be given a franchise tag to place on a single player that would see their salary not count against the team’s overall cap number. The current format stinks. Teams basically get 3 affordable years to use a drafted generational talent, and then they’re punished with having to trade away 3-4 guys, in order to re-sign their drafted and developed generational RFA. We’re going to see it next offseason, where our roster is going to be neutered, in order to pay Petterson and Hughes their market value. It’s broken.

Well every team has to play under the same rules. It's what you make of it over the long run that determines whether you're a perennially mediocre team or a contender.

 

[digger1188]

I disagree with this in the strongest possible way.

Care to explain?

 

[digger1188]

Well every team has to play under the same rules. It's what you make of it over the long run that determines whether you're a perennially mediocre team or a contender.

I understand that everyone plays by the same rules, but under the current format teams simply aren’t rewarded for drafting and developing at all. It’s really the fans who get to suffer. The turnover created just by teams having to dump salaries in order to keep their RFA’s is out of control at this point. Turnover should occur when players become UFA’s and, or via hockey trades. Not because of a team having no choice but to dump cap, because they’re being punished for drafting and developing a good young player. It’s also leading to a bunch of situations where quality veterans are being forced to take huge pay cuts, in order to stay in the league. Otherwise they get pushed out by players on ELC deals who aren’t as good. Which waters down the overall on ice product. In everyday life experience and accomplishments count for something. Not in today’s NHL. The bottom line is that too many RFAs are being paid way too much these days, and there is no system in place to limit the off-setting damages that are occurring because if it.

 

[Lonny Bohonos]

Teams could easily get a 10% discount on signings if they stopped barfing money at players.

 

[Melvin]

Care to explain?

The system is already maddening in its rewarding of teams for failure. We need to stop treating poorly run franchises with kid gloves and let them sink to the bottom with no easy way to acquire talent.

 

[digger1188]

The system is already maddening in its rewarding of teams for failure. We need to stop treating poorly run franchises with kid gloves and let them sink to the bottom with no easy way to acquire talent.

I totally agree. The only problem is that the current RFA system is actually allowing the bad teams and GMs around the league to acquire good talent on the cheap, because there are so many cap dump deals taking place. Look at Tyler Johnson and a couple other good players in Tampa right now being offered up on waivers, for almost nothing etc. Strictly cap dump deals, in order to allow Tampa to re-sign their own RFAs. How many Stanley cup winning rosters do we need to see get totally gutted? Do I agree with teams like Vegas getting punished for signing AP as a UFA and going way over the cap? Sure. But teams shouldn’t be punished in the exact same manor for simply trying to keep the players who they’ve invested in drafting and developing.

 

[digger1188]

Teams could easily get a 10% discount on signings if they stopped barfing money at players.

So what does Benning do? Should he throw a low ball offer at Petey and Hughes next off-season, and be the first GM to try and break the trend? Or should he try and keep his superstars happy and paid in Vancouver until they become UFA’s? That’s where the problem lies. In a years time those two guys will be making roughly 20million a year, between the two of them. That means bye bye for Virtanen, and possibly Boeser to make it all fit. More, if Demko has a great year, and asks for what he’s worth as an RFA to!

 

[Lonny Bohonos]

So what does Benning do? Should he throw a low ball offer at Petey and Hughes next off-season, and be the first GM to try and break the trend? Or should he try and keep his superstars happy and paid in Vancouver until they become UFA’s? That’s where the problem lies. In a years time those two guys will be making roughly 20million a year, between the two of them. That means bye bye for Virtanen, and possibly Boeser to make it all fit. More, if Demko has a great year, and asks for what he’s worth as an RFA to!

Its the only solution.


But moreso quit dumping money on UFAs.

 

[vanuck]

I understand that everyone plays by the same rules, but under the current format teams simply aren’t rewarded for drafting and developing at all. It’s really the fans who get to suffer. The turnover created just by teams having to dump salaries in order to keep their RFA’s is out of control at this point. Turnover should occur when players become UFA’s and, or via hockey trades. Not because of a team having no choice but to dump cap, because they’re being punished for drafting and developing a good young player. It’s also leading to a bunch of situations where quality veterans are being forced to take huge pay cuts, in order to stay in the league. Otherwise they get pushed out by players on ELC deals who aren’t as good. Which waters down the overall on ice product. In everyday life experience and accomplishments count for something. Not in today’s NHL. The bottom line is that too many RFAs are being paid way too much these days, and there is no system in place to limit the off-setting damages that are occurring because if it.

I think it's actually a good thing that the RFA system basically forces NHL teams to invest more in playing their young talent instead of older vets. Given that most players actually reach their peak in terms of production by age 23 - and certainly by age 25 at latest - the focus should actually be giving them more opportunities earlier on.

To me the real overpayment generally happens in free agency to older UFA's year after year, whereas it's a lot rarer when it comes to RFA's. Just take the Canucks as a perfect example - without the likes of Eriksson, Beagle, Roussel etc. clogging up our cap we'd have so much more space to spend on players who actually make a difference.

 

[digger1188]

I think it's actually a good thing that the RFA system basically forces NHL teams to invest more in playing their young talent instead of older vets. Given that most players actually reach their peak in terms of production by age 23 - and certainly by age 25 at latest - the focus should actually be giving them more opportunities earlier on.

To me the real overpayment generally happens in free agency to older UFA's year after year, whereas it's a lot rarer when it comes to RFA's. Just take the Canucks as a perfect example - without the likes of Eriksson, Beagle, Roussel etc. clogging up our cap we'd have so much more space to spend on players who actually make a difference.

It would definitely be nice to have those guys off the books. They were terrible signings. That’s what bugs be the most about Benning. For every 4-5 bad moves he’s made, he gets lucky With the odd home run falling into his lap that saves his ass. We’re seeing it today with the Schmidt trade. Imagine if we still had all the cap space that his bad Past UFA deals are chewing up, with the market being as bargain friendly as it is right now? That one trade doesn’t change the fact that an unnecessary brutal offseason is currently taking place, because of Bennings terrible cap management. We could literally be loading up our roster with quality UFA players coming on 1 year deals right now, because of the current market. We really could make a serious run at the cup next season, while Hughes, Demko and Petterson are still on their bargain deals, if not for the roughly 20 million Benning has tied up in uselessness. Instead, we’re scrambling to find cap space to fill a couple of glaring holes in our roster, and wondering how we’re going to afford the Virtanen arbitration ruling? It’s going to look even worse next offseason, when those 3 raises kick in, and he’s forced to literally give away a good young player, or two, because a couple of his dumb signings are still lingering on the books.

 

[LickTheEnvelope]

IMO the RFA system is totally broken in it’s current format. Teams need to be rewarded more than they currently are for drafting, and developing players the right way. Teams should enjoy, at the very least, a 5-10% discount on their overall cap hit, for actually re-signing their own drafted players. I would also add that each team should be given a franchise tag to place on a single player. That tag would see their salary not count against the team’s overall cap number. The current format stinks. Teams basically get 3 affordable years to use a drafted generational talent, and then they’re punished with having to trade away 3-4 guys, in order to re-sign that developed generational RFA. We’re going to see it next offseason, where our roster is going to be neutered, in order to pay Petterson and Hughes their market value. Something has to change.

I don't think the franchise contract will work all that well. You'd basically just be giving massive bonuses to 32 guys to stay put. Once they have those contracts they will likely be too high to ever move.

 

[F A N]

I think the NHL should look into having exemptions like the NBA, especially the veteran exemption. A lot of veterans who are NHL contributors have been squeezed out not because they are not good enough to play. If a team can sign them to contracts that don't count against the cap (but counts towards the salary floor) this might be something both the owners and players can agree on.

 

[ChilliBilly]

I think the NHL should look into having exemptions like the NBA, especially the veteran exemption. A lot of veterans who are NHL contributors have been squeezed out not because they are not good enough to play. If a team can sign them to contracts that don't count against the cap (but counts towards the salary floor) this might be something both the owners and players can agree on.

What I think the players should agree to is more buyouts, without any penalties. Owners might be willing to sign more FA's if they new they could walk away for $.