Rumor: Rumors and Proposals Thread | Reseason Training Camp Opens July 13th?

Status
Not open for further replies.

McJadeddog

Registered User
Sep 25, 2003
20,186
5,110
Regina, Saskatchewan
No it won't. This will affect every team, not just the Oilers, lowering the asking price of FA's for the next 3 years.

Yes, obviously. But the important number is the % of the cap you are paying your best players. With the cap staying flat, that % obviously doesn't decrease. Sure it will help keep the costs down for the players that need to be resigned over the next 3 years, but that isn't Edmonton's (or a team like Toronto) problem, our problem is that a large chunk of our cap is being eaten up by 2 players. The "Pittsburgh model" only worked so well because they had Sid and Malkin on sure sweet-heart deals. The cap staying flat is very, very bad for teams with large existing contracts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mcnotloilersfan

McJadeddog

Registered User
Sep 25, 2003
20,186
5,110
Regina, Saskatchewan
Both those guys will be staying put. The only logical choice for Russell is Ottawa but he'll just put them on his limited NTC. I can't see any of our UFA's coming unless they are willing to take a discount. The NHL is going to have to allow teams a compliance buyout this year or there will be almost no signings on UFA day.

Yeah, you gotta figure a compliance buyout is going to happen sometime in the next 2 years. The players becoming UFAs in the next couple seasons will certainly be pushing for that.
 

McJadeddog

Registered User
Sep 25, 2003
20,186
5,110
Regina, Saskatchewan
We don't need the McDavid and Draisaitl caphits to start doing anything to become cap friendly.

They already are

Drai's is already pretty friendly, McDavid's (yes, even though he is McDavid and the best player in the world) is not. The point wasn't whether they are friendly now or not, it was that because they were so long and we were still in the front half of the years, that by the end of the contracts the idea was that they would have been REALLY team friendly, and we could have filled out the team around them. I have always said since the day we signed 97/29, that our window to win the cup was the last 4 years of Drai's contract because of this exact fact. Now this will be even more difficult.
 

McJadeddog

Registered User
Sep 25, 2003
20,186
5,110
Regina, Saskatchewan
That's a tough call.

Normally I'd say yes but there's extra value to Lafrenieres contract over the flat cap.

If we won the first, I'd draft him and trade high picks over the next 3 years to clear cap space and add to the roster.

Trade Lafrenier after year 3 to restock the cupboards.

ELC years just became pretty much the most valuable thing a franchise can have now (if the flat cap is true, or even if it doesn't move up much). Don't get me wrong, the were valuable before, but they are essential now.

How happy is everybody that we kept Bouchard in the AHL last year now? I believe because of his weird birthday + when we signed him, that his ELC doesn't actually start until this year correct? Can somebody confirm that?
 

5 Mins 4 Ftg

Life is better with no expectations.
Sponsor
Apr 3, 2016
48,607
80,673
Edmonton
Yeah, you gotta figure a compliance buyout is going to happen sometime in the next 2 years. The players becoming UFAs in the next couple seasons will certainly be pushing for that.

Friedman reported that the majority of owners are not in favor of adding compliance buyouts to the CBA. Thus far there’s been no mention of them.
 

Fourier

Registered User
Dec 29, 2006
25,444
19,581
Waterloo Ontario
ELC years just became pretty much the most valuable thing a franchise can have now (if the flat cap is true, or even if it doesn't move up much). Don't get me wrong, the were valuable before, but they are essential now.

How happy is everybody that we kept Bouchard in the AHL last year now? I believe because of his weird birthday + when we signed him, that his ELC doesn't actually start until this year correct? Can somebody confirm that?
Yes. Bouchard's deal slides.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Samus44

McJadeddog

Registered User
Sep 25, 2003
20,186
5,110
Regina, Saskatchewan
Friedman reported that the majority of owners are not in favor of adding compliance buyouts to the CBA. Thus far there’s been no mention of them.

uggggg, no good at all. Obviously the owners won't want this. But it would really help the Oil out, and with a flat cap, not having them will really screw the players for the next few years.
 

samiam

Registered User
Oct 4, 2010
662
200
Yeah, you gotta figure a compliance buyout is going to happen sometime in the next 2 years. The players becoming UFAs in the next couple seasons will certainly be pushing for that.

I hear you, but I'm not so sure the players are unanimous on that subject. If there are buyouts, then that will come out of the players share of the kitty, thus more being held-back via escrow etc.
 

BigTime99

Registered User
Mar 27, 2014
373
92
What do you think the value of the 1oa pick is?
Would the sens give up the 3oa, 2 x 2nd round picks in 2020, 2nd round pick in 2021? Too much, too little?
 

Mcnotloilersfan

I'm here, I'm bored
Jul 11, 2010
11,042
5,069
Niagara
What do you think the value of the 1oa pick is?
Would the sens give up the 3oa, 2 x 2nd round picks in 2020, 2nd round pick in 2021? Too much, too little?

The only deal I would consider in that case is the 3rd and 5th overall for first.

And that's the team deciding if they want there 3 year window to be Lafreniere on and ELC or one of Byfield/Stutzle and one of Raymond/Rossi.

I know I've pushed Drysdale in the 3-5 range but the flat cap changes that a bit
 

Mr Positive

Cap Crunch Incoming
Nov 20, 2013
35,799
16,187
Russell's deal still isn't a huge problem. We need to set aside the cap space anyway, for Larsson, Nuge and Yamamoto, whose deals expire with Russell's

The issue is of course Neal's contract. We have to re-sign Nurse and Jones before it's over. Klefbom's deal expires alongside Neal's though, which is fortunate.

I just hope we figure out how to do this without increasing our dead cap, by buying out Neal. Btw, likely for us, in the next few years our buyout and retention number dropps about 3 million.

It's a shame about no compliance buyouts. It would not only erase Neal's deal, but if and when Calgary bought out Lucic, we'd be off the hook for the retention too. 750k
 

mouser

Business of Hockey
Jul 13, 2006
29,285
12,586
South Mountain
You gotta think they give each team a compliance buyout or an exception player to the cap. Something to help teams without actually costing players money.

But it does cost players money. Money paid to players via buyout counts against the 50% share of HRR the players get and escrow.

The last round of compliance buyouts in 2013-14 cost all the players 2-3% of their paychecks for multiple years by increasing escrow.
 

McJadeddog

Registered User
Sep 25, 2003
20,186
5,110
Regina, Saskatchewan
But it does cost players money. Money paid to players via buyout counts against the 50% share of HRR the players get and escrow.

The last round of compliance buyouts in 2013-14 cost all the players 2-3% of their paychecks for multiple years by increasing escrow.

Ah interesting, I never knew the compliance buyouts came out of the players 50%. Yeah, that changes things a bit from the players perspective for sure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nally

CupofOil

Knob Flavored Coffey
Aug 20, 2009
46,279
39,510
NYC
Yes, obviously. But the important number is the % of the cap you are paying your best players. With the cap staying flat, that % obviously doesn't decrease. Sure it will help keep the costs down for the players that need to be resigned over the next 3 years, but that isn't Edmonton's (or a team like Toronto) problem, our problem is that a large chunk of our cap is being eaten up by 2 players. The "Pittsburgh model" only worked so well because they had Sid and Malkin on sure sweet-heart deals. The cap staying flat is very, very bad for teams with large existing contracts.

There's lots of teams that have their 2 top players signed for 17-21m. Off the top of my head, would you rather have Panarin+Trouba at 20m, Matthews+Tavares at 23m or McDavid+Draisaitl at 21m?
Outside of Boston and Colorado, there aren't too many teams that get more bang for their buck from their top players than the Oilers do. Yes a flat cap sucks for the Oilers but it also sucks for a lot of teams that have their top talent locked up especially teams that locked up their top talent more recently with the higher cap like the Rangers and Leafs examples.

The teams that will really benefit are the ones whose stars are due for a big payday. If those stars want a long term deal now they'll have to take a paycut, or risk taking short term deals until the cap rises. The real losers are the UFA's. Hall and Pietrangelo specifically.
 
Last edited:

McShogun99

Registered User
Aug 30, 2009
17,790
13,182
Edmonton
uggggg, no good at all. Obviously the owners won't want this. But it would really help the Oil out, and with a flat cap, not having them will really screw the players for the next few years.

I'm going to assume that Calgary's owner voted yes to a compliance buyout.
 

McJadeddog

Registered User
Sep 25, 2003
20,186
5,110
Regina, Saskatchewan
There's lots of teams that have their 2 top players signed for 17-21m. Off the top of my head, would you rather have Panarin+Trouba at 20m, Matthews+Tavares at 23m or McDavid+Draisaitl at 21m?
Outside of Boston and Colorado, there aren't too many teams that get more bang for their buck from their top players than the Oilers do. Yes a flat cap sucks for the Oilers but it also sucks for a lot of teams that have their top talent locked up especially teams that locked up their top talent more recently with the higher cap like the Rangers and Leafs examples.

The teams that will really benefit are the ones whose stars are due for a big payday. If those stars want a long term deal now they'll have to take a paycut, or risk taking short term deals until the cap rises. The real losers are the UFA's. Hall and Pietrangelo specifically.

I certainly agree with you there. I think you could see some big name UFAs take 1 or 2 year deals, in the hopes that the cap might rise afterward. A guy like Hall could take a 2 year deal and still be only 30 years old when he signed his next deal (as an example), which is more than young enough to sign another 4-5 year deal for big money.
 

Took a pill in Sbisa

2showToffoliIwascool
Apr 23, 2004
16,259
6,976
Australia
What do you think will happen with him? I think he’s worth re-signing

At the rate of Bear and Jones progression crossing over the point of Larsson's regression, and Bouchard most likely becoming at least a full time 3rd pairing righ-shot, I don't know if there's room for Larsson after next year.

Even if Jones isn't the ideal right-side defenceman for the top-4, I think it would be well within our ability to parlay one of him, Nurse or Klefbom to fill that void. Either that or use Larsson's money for more of a puck-moving RHD.
 

MessierII

Registered User
Aug 10, 2011
27,646
16,191
At the rate of Bear and Jones progression crossing over the point of Larsson's regression, and Bouchard most likely becoming at least a full time 3rd pairing righ-shot, I don't know if there's room for Larsson after next year.

Even if Jones isn't the ideal right-side defenceman for the top-4, I think it would be well within our ability to parlay one of him, Nurse or Klefbom to fill that void. Either that or use Larsson's money for more of a puck-moving RHD.
With Bear and Bouchard on the team we have more of a need for a Larsson type RD than another puck mover.
 

Took a pill in Sbisa

2showToffoliIwascool
Apr 23, 2004
16,259
6,976
Australia
With Bear and Bouchard on the team we have more of a need for a Larsson type RD than another puck mover.

By pucker mover I didn't mean 'offensive defensemen', more so a defenceman with puck-moving capabilities. Larsson type defensemen don't really have a place in today's NHL top-4 unless they're balancing out the offensive dynamos of the league, which we don't have. If Larsson's happy to make bottom pairing money, fine, but then Bouchard is either pushed into a top-4 role he may not be ready for, or out of the lineup entirely.
 

Fourier

Registered User
Dec 29, 2006
25,444
19,581
Waterloo Ontario
I certainly agree with you there. I think you could see some big name UFAs take 1 or 2 year deals, in the hopes that the cap might rise afterward. A guy like Hall could take a 2 year deal and still be only 30 years old when he signed his next deal (as an example), which is more than young enough to sign another 4-5 year deal for big money.
Hall would be better off signing long team now but structuring the deal in such a way to maximize actual money earned over the course of the deal if the prospect is a flat cap for as much as three years than he would be taking a chance on a serious injury with the likelihood that the cap is still tight at the end of his bridge. Something like...

2 2 12 11 10 7 5

with big signing bonuses in years 3-6 could work for a term like the Oilers. That's a $7M cap hit in which Hall looses relatively little in escrow. This deal is legal since it is not front loaded

Note: Forget this plan. mouser pointed out it is illegal!. A modified version would be:

2 4 6 8 10 10 9
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: North

McJadeddog

Registered User
Sep 25, 2003
20,186
5,110
Regina, Saskatchewan
Hall would be better off signing long team now but structuring the deal in such a way to maximize actual money earned over the course of the deal if the prospect is a flat cap for as much as three years than he would be taking a chance on a serious injury with the likelihood that the cap is still tight at the end of his bridge. Something like...

2 2 12 11 10 7 5

with big signing bonuses in years 3-6 could work for a term like the Oilers. That's a $7M cap hit in which Hall looses relatively little in escrow. This deal is legal since it is not front loaded

Although I don't see a fit with the Oilers, that type of contract is a good idea for the UFAs this and next year. I've seen those types of contracts posted a few places as a likely outcome, so you gotta figure that is what agents will be pushing for.
 

mouser

Business of Hockey
Jul 13, 2006
29,285
12,586
South Mountain
Hall would be better off signing long team now but structuring the deal in such a way to maximize actual money earned over the course of the deal if the prospect is a flat cap for as much as three years than he would be taking a chance on a serious injury with the likelihood that the cap is still tight at the end of his bridge. Something like...

2 2 12 11 10 7 5

with big signing bonuses in years 3-6 could work for a term like the Oilers. That's a $7M cap hit in which Hall looses relatively little in escrow. This deal is legal since it is not front loaded

Such a deal wouldn't be legal. There are still limits on non-front loaded SPC's.

- Difference between the first two years cannot exceed the amount of the lower of the two years.
- Subsequent year to year compensation cannot increase by more then the amount of the lower of the first two years.
- Subsequent year to year compensation cannot decrease by more then 50% of the lower of the first two years.

For example in a non-front loaded contract with $2m and $2m in the first two seasons the following year to year increases cannot exceed $2m and decreases can't exceed $1m.
 

Fourier

Registered User
Dec 29, 2006
25,444
19,581
Waterloo Ontario
Such a deal wouldn't be legal. There are still limits on non-front loaded SPC's.

- Difference between the first two years cannot exceed the amount of the lower of the two years.
- Subsequent year to year compensation cannot increase by more then the amount of the lower of the first two years.
- Subsequent year to year compensation cannot decrease by more then 50% of the lower of the first two years.

For example in a non-front loaded contract with $2m and $2m in the first two seasons the following year to year increases cannot exceed $2m and decreases can't exceed $1m.
Thanks! I missed that! which section of the CBA is this since I only saw 50.7? I must confess since leaving the BoH Board my CBA knowledge has rusted.

I'll modify it as follows:

2 4 6 8 10 10 9

(Edited thanks to mouser's comments.)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->