Speculation: Tampa Bay's upcoming cap crunch

[Killer Orcas]

Canucks may be willing to take Killorn or Miller off your hands.

Miller for sure I'll pass on Killhorn.

 

[Gaylord Q Tinkledink]

I just imagine Tampa's management are stoked when Point scores, but at the same time just want him to wait until they get him onto a cap friendly contract and then he can score all he wants.

This is how you build a contender. They're going to have to trade a fairly decent player in all likelihood and will get picks and/or good prospects in return while having good prospects to fill in.

 

[Leonardo87]

This is how you build a contender. They're going to have to trade a fairly decent player in all likelihood and will get picks and/or good prospects in return while having good prospects to fill in.

Moving JT Miller will clear enough cap for next season and also return some nice value for Tampa. They won’t have to move anyone else. Miller was moved down to the 4th line, but then again Tampa’s 4th line has been red hot, so not sure it was a demotion. Miller seems like the logical choice in this situation.

Tampa will then have around 15 million to 16 million of cap with the cap going up. So they can bridge Point , re-sign Stralman if needed, re-sign Paquette if needed, and fill the 5D, 6D and 4LW spots which should be ELC players. Without having to move anyone else out.

Would maybe even do it before the deadline since Miller is not a playoff performer, maybe take on a rental to fill in Miller’s spot or get a rental D, since it seems Stralman’s injury is worse than they are saying.

 

[Dekes For Days]

Well, Filppula was a whole lot more useless at the time we moved him.

Except he wasn't. His contract was smaller. He was a center. He was still pacing almost 50 points instead of 20 (in fact he still is this year, after being signed again). He was the 7th most played forward on your team before you traded him. The year before? 2nd most, behind Stamkos.

You also keep ignoring that this was in a time where there was a lot more available cap space around the league, and you're falsely assuming that because you did something once, you'll forever be able to do it again and again and again, with no care about what has changed since then, including your own GM.

Or, worst case, we buy out Callahan instead of trading him.

Ok, so now you're buying out your assistant captain, and putting dead cap space on the book in your two biggest cap crunch years. You have about 2.7m in dead cap, and save about 3 million from that contract next year, which isn't enough.

And we have repeatedly pointed out the guys who will move: JT Miller (No NTC until July), Brayden Coburn, and Dan Girardi. That's nearly $12m, before we even get to Callahan.

Lol, you're not "moving" Coburn and Girardi. They are UFAs and you don't have enough to sign them. Their absence was already counted in the limited cap space you had.

You assume that you'll be able to move Miller easily, and that's all you'll have to do. You assume that that is the target for your GM, who is brand new, but won't do anything different and will command the exact same respect and trust as a hockey legend. You assume that teams will happily give up value and no salary back, in a rushed trade before July 1st, to take on a significant contract with a 4-year term and NTC that you deem replaceable (and is apparently playing 4th line at over 5 mil?), with every GM in the league knowing the situation you are in. You assume that trading a guy that just signed a 5-year "discounted" contract to play on a contender in a "tax-free state" in his first year before his NTC kicks in will no have effects or consequences, even as you're about to ask your best player to take a heavily discounted bridge deal, which he already had no reason to want to do.

Who are we asking to waive, exactly?

There's been talk about a lot of players who have NTCs. Callahan, Killorn, Palat, Johnson, Miller if you can't find an deal before July 1st. Pretty much everybody on your team has one, so take your pick.

We might very well have a weak bottom pairing. Oh, the horror.

Stralman plays the single most time on ice per game on your team, and is a crucial anchor to your PK. His absence (and the absence of half of your D) will push everybody up into roles that are different and less comfortable for them. To blow it off like you'll just have a weak bottom pairing and nothing else will change is incredibly arrogant.

Our prospects are really good. They're not stars, but we have those bases covered. Our depth guys can come in and complement the stars on the team, the way Mathieu Joseph and Anthony Cirelli are this year, and the way Yanni Gourde did last year. Yeah. We sometimes turn 26 year-old rookies into 60 point guys. Our drafting and developing are top-notch, otherwise, how do you explain how we apparently have so many good players we can't keep them? They had to come from somewhere.

Drafting well and having a good support group to mask deficiencies can help, but to think you have a forever pipeline of effective NHL talent ready to walk into important roles en masse and not feel any effects as a team, especially as that support group is changing? Again, incredibly arrogant. Also again, just because something has happened for your team in the past, that has put you in the nice position you are in, does not mean that that same thing will happen forever. You don't have a prospect pool 10 times better than anyone else in the rest of the league, sorry.

We think Point will do what all of our star players have done.

As I have pointed out, the current league environment is not the same as it was back then, and your star players have not all taken bridges. Stamkos and Hedman both took 5 year deals that bought UFA years and took them to UFA. Kucherov took the bridge, and has publicly talked about how much he regrets it, and if he had the opportunity again, he would sit out. So that's 3 stars, and 3 players that either didn't or wouldn't take a bridge, all on your team influencing Point, who unlike those stars, has broken out with a career year unlikely to be beaten in future years, before his contract is due. The issue still exists that you can't afford Point on even a bridge before making moves.

JT Miller, Dan Girardi, and Brayden Coburn. Worst case, we lose Stralman and keep one of the other two defensemen. Stralman will hurt, but we're currently winning games with no Stralman and no goalie.

Over a very short period of time. I really hope all your hopes aren't based on your rookie playing 11 games at under 17 minutes a night.

You don't have the money to bring back any of the 3 defensemen.

You know why kicking the problem down the road works? The cap rises. Alex Killorn's contract looked bad at the time we signed it. Now? Not so much. Two years from now Nikita Kucherov's contract is going to be a steal, when Matthews and the rest of the elite players are being paid 11m+.

You know why kicking the problem down the road doesn't work forever? The cap doesn't rise that fast, and the cap was designed to limit scenarios exactly like this.

You've used up your bridges and RFA years and won nothing, and now you have most of your team on their UFA contracts, with NTCs kicking in, with nobody wanting to willingly leave this supposed "tax-free haven" contender that they supposedly signed massive discounts for.

And all you keep doing is moving these big contracts further down the lineup, giving new massive contracts to the next guy, while expecting to easily move the previous guy as you diminish their value.

It matches the level of hyperbole. Who exactly do you think we're going to lose?

You probably lose somebody you're not expecting, or multiple people. You probably have difficulty moving out players and getting no salary back, and probably get pennies on the dollar to get the type of trades you want, or have to add value yourselves. You probably don't get Point signed to the bridge you want. You probably have rookies struggle next year, without nearly as much support and over bigger sample sizes.

No, you're not going to lose Kucherov, and you probably won't lose Point, but the navigation of the cap won't be the walk in the park you're pretending it will be, and Tampa will feel the effects next year, and the year after that when they have to do it again, and probably for a few years.

 

[Todd1a]

Our Cap Crunch is not that bad most of our core is signed but Point and Vasy. You Trade JT miller and trade or buy out callahan then they gets Point and Vasy signed long term. With out miller gone or callahan he got 10.5 million in cap space next year. Palat could be a guy they could also trade also our minors is loaded with forwards still on cheap contracts. Point signs a 6.75 to 7.5 cap hit for 6 years which with no state taxes is way more then nylander.

 

[COHawk]

In 2020-21, Vinny and Carle come off the books, but Vasileski, Sergachev, Cirelli and Joseph all need new contracts.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Vinny on the books until 2026/27?

 

[CupsOverCash]

Our Cap Crunch is not that bad most of our core is signed but Point and Vasy. You Trade JT miller and trade or buy out callahan then they gets Point and Vasy signed long term. With out miller gone or callahan he got 10.5 million in cap space next year. Palat could be a guy they could also trade also our minors is loaded with forwards still on cheap contracts. Point signs a 6.75 to 7.5 cap hit for 6 years which with no state taxes is way more then nylander.

Yea our "cap crunch" isnt as dramatic as HF wants it to be. Majority of core is signed. I think whats good about this team is we can find somebody to move if we need the money. This year we can move Miller. Callahan will probably be moved this summer as well. Later we can move Killorn, Johnson, or Palat. Killorn being the more likely since he has a limited ntc starting after next year. Then the other thing to note in why we havent been killed by the cap is because we have had guys ready to go from Syracuse if we need them. As long as team stays healthy they are young and full of talent. Should be in the thick of things for a while.

 

[AndreRoy]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Vinny on the books until 2026/27?

He was a compliance buyout so he has zero effect with regard to the cap.

 

[AndreRoy]

Yea our "cap crunch" isnt as dramatic as HF wants it to be. Majority of core is signed. I think whats good about this team is we can find somebody to move if we need the money. This year we can move Miller. Callahan will probably be moved this summer as well. Later we can move Killorn, Johnson, or Palat. Killorn being the more likely since he has a limited ntc starting after next year. Then the other thing to note in why we havent been killed by the cap is because we have had guys ready to go from Syracuse if we need them. As long as team stays healthy they are young and full of talent. Should be in the thick of things for a while.

Yep, and as I’ve mentioned before Yzerman and company did a masterful job of preparing for this very situation. They knew they had their stars in place and that their greatest need going forward was going to be a cheap supporting cast to fill in the roster spots behind them, and in some cases to replace some of our higher-priced complementary players as they eventually become sacrifices to the cap. So over the last few drafts they’ve mostly stayed away from boom/bust prospects and longterm projects, and as a result our farm system is stocked with guys who may not have super high ceilings, but who at the same time have floors as solid NHL contributors and possess the hockey IQs and two-way games to allow them to be successful early in their careers. And we’ve seen that with the likes of Cirelli, Joseph, Cernak (acquired via trade) and even Brett Howden who we traded to the Rangers as part of the McDonagh deal. And there’s plenty more where those guys came from.

 

[COHawk]

He was a compliance buyout so he has zero effect with regard to the cap.

Ah thanks for clearing it up. I do see now that Cap Friendly lists his buyout as $0.

 

[DistantThunderRep]

Except he wasn't. His contract was smaller. He was a center. He was still pacing almost 50 points instead of 20 (in fact he still is this year, after being signed again). He was the 7th most played forward on your team before you traded him. The year before? 2nd most, behind Stamkos.

You also keep ignoring that this was in a time where there was a lot more available cap space around the league, and you're falsely assuming that because you did something once, you'll forever be able to do it again and again and again, with no care about what has changed since then, including your own GM.


Ok, so now you're buying out your assistant captain, and putting dead cap space on the book in your two biggest cap crunch years. You have about 2.7m in dead cap, and save about 3 million from that contract next year, which isn't enough.


Lol, you're not "moving" Coburn and Girardi. They are UFAs and you don't have enough to sign them. Their absence was already counted in the limited cap space you had.

You assume that you'll be able to move Miller easily, and that's all you'll have to do. You assume that that is the target for your GM, who is brand new, but won't do anything different and will command the exact same respect and trust as a hockey legend. You assume that teams will happily give up value and no salary back, in a rushed trade before July 1st, to take on a significant contract with a 4-year term and NTC that you deem replaceable (and is apparently playing 4th line at over 5 mil?), with every GM in the league knowing the situation you are in. You assume that trading a guy that just signed a 5-year "discounted" contract to play on a contender in a "tax-free state" in his first year before his NTC kicks in will no have effects or consequences, even as you're about to ask your best player to take a heavily discounted bridge deal, which he already had no reason to want to do.


There's been talk about a lot of players who have NTCs. Callahan, Killorn, Palat, Johnson, Miller if you can't find an deal before July 1st. Pretty much everybody on your team has one, so take your pick.


Stralman plays the single most time on ice per game on your team, and is a crucial anchor to your PK. His absence (and the absence of half of your D) will push everybody up into roles that are different and less comfortable for them. To blow it off like you'll just have a weak bottom pairing and nothing else will change is incredibly arrogant.


Drafting well and having a good support group to mask deficiencies can help, but to think you have a forever pipeline of effective NHL talent ready to walk into important roles en masse and not feel any effects as a team, especially as that support group is changing? Again, incredibly arrogant. Also again, just because something has happened for your team in the past, that has put you in the nice position you are in, does not mean that that same thing will happen forever. You don't have a prospect pool 10 times better than anyone else in the rest of the league, sorry.


As I have pointed out, the current league environment is not the same as it was back then, and your star players have not all taken bridges. Stamkos and Hedman both took 5 year deals that bought UFA years and took them to UFA. Kucherov took the bridge, and has publicly talked about how much he regrets it, and if he had the opportunity again, he would sit out. So that's 3 stars, and 3 players that either didn't or wouldn't take a bridge, all on your team influencing Point, who unlike those stars, has broken out with a career year unlikely to be beaten in future years, before his contract is due. The issue still exists that you can't afford Point on even a bridge before making moves.


Over a very short period of time. I really hope all your hopes aren't based on your rookie playing 11 games at under 17 minutes a night.

You don't have the money to bring back any of the 3 defensemen.


You know why kicking the problem down the road doesn't work forever? The cap doesn't rise that fast, and the cap was designed to limit scenarios exactly like this.

You've used up your bridges and RFA years and won nothing, and now you have most of your team on their UFA contracts, with NTCs kicking in, with nobody wanting to willingly leave this supposed "tax-free haven" contender that they supposedly signed massive discounts for.

And all you keep doing is moving these big contracts further down the lineup, giving new massive contracts to the next guy, while expecting to easily move the previous guy as you diminish their value.


You probably lose somebody you're not expecting, or multiple people. You probably have difficulty moving out players and getting no salary back, and probably get pennies on the dollar to get the type of trades you want, or have to add value yourselves. You probably don't get Point signed to the bridge you want. You probably have rookies struggle next year, without nearly as much support and over bigger sample sizes.

No, you're not going to lose Kucherov, and you probably won't lose Point, but the navigation of the cap won't be the walk in the park you're pretending it will be, and Tampa will feel the effects next year, and the year after that when they have to do it again, and probably for a few years.

You talk about how if something happens in the past it doesn't mean it happens for us now. Yet you're whole argument is based on using the past to fit your narrative and try to prove us wrong now. Can't have it both ways.

You believe what you want, we believe what we want based on team data collected over years. We will see who ends up being right about The Lightning. 7.5 times out of 10, it's the lightning fans.

 

[The Macho King]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Vinny on the books until 2026/27?

Compliance buyout - doesn't count on the cap.

 

[CupsOverCash]

Except he wasn't. His contract was smaller. He was a center. He was still pacing almost 50 points instead of 20 (in fact he still is this year, after being signed again). He was the 7th most played forward on your team before you traded him. The year before? 2nd most, behind Stamkos.

You also keep ignoring that this was in a time where there was a lot more available cap space around the league, and you're falsely assuming that because you did something once, you'll forever be able to do it again and again and again, with no care about what has changed since then, including your own GM.


Ok, so now you're buying out your assistant captain, and putting dead cap space on the book in your two biggest cap crunch years. You have about 2.7m in dead cap, and save about 3 million from that contract next year, which isn't enough.


Lol, you're not "moving" Coburn and Girardi. They are UFAs and you don't have enough to sign them. Their absence was already counted in the limited cap space you had.

You assume that you'll be able to move Miller easily, and that's all you'll have to do. You assume that that is the target for your GM, who is brand new, but won't do anything different and will command the exact same respect and trust as a hockey legend. You assume that teams will happily give up value and no salary back, in a rushed trade before July 1st, to take on a significant contract with a 4-year term and NTC that you deem replaceable (and is apparently playing 4th line at over 5 mil?), with every GM in the league knowing the situation you are in. You assume that trading a guy that just signed a 5-year "discounted" contract to play on a contender in a "tax-free state" in his first year before his NTC kicks in will no have effects or consequences, even as you're about to ask your best player to take a heavily discounted bridge deal, which he already had no reason to want to do.


There's been talk about a lot of players who have NTCs. Callahan, Killorn, Palat, Johnson, Miller if you can't find an deal before July 1st. Pretty much everybody on your team has one, so take your pick.


Stralman plays the single most time on ice per game on your team, and is a crucial anchor to your PK. His absence (and the absence of half of your D) will push everybody up into roles that are different and less comfortable for them. To blow it off like you'll just have a weak bottom pairing and nothing else will change is incredibly arrogant.


Drafting well and having a good support group to mask deficiencies can help, but to think you have a forever pipeline of effective NHL talent ready to walk into important roles en masse and not feel any effects as a team, especially as that support group is changing? Again, incredibly arrogant. Also again, just because something has happened for your team in the past, that has put you in the nice position you are in, does not mean that that same thing will happen forever. You don't have a prospect pool 10 times better than anyone else in the rest of the league, sorry.


As I have pointed out, the current league environment is not the same as it was back then, and your star players have not all taken bridges. Stamkos and Hedman both took 5 year deals that bought UFA years and took them to UFA. Kucherov took the bridge, and has publicly talked about how much he regrets it, and if he had the opportunity again, he would sit out. So that's 3 stars, and 3 players that either didn't or wouldn't take a bridge, all on your team influencing Point, who unlike those stars, has broken out with a career year unlikely to be beaten in future years, before his contract is due. The issue still exists that you can't afford Point on even a bridge before making moves.


Over a very short period of time. I really hope all your hopes aren't based on your rookie playing 11 games at under 17 minutes a night.

You don't have the money to bring back any of the 3 defensemen.


You know why kicking the problem down the road doesn't work forever? The cap doesn't rise that fast, and the cap was designed to limit scenarios exactly like this.

You've used up your bridges and RFA years and won nothing, and now you have most of your team on their UFA contracts, with NTCs kicking in, with nobody wanting to willingly leave this supposed "tax-free haven" contender that they supposedly signed massive discounts for.

And all you keep doing is moving these big contracts further down the lineup, giving new massive contracts to the next guy, while expecting to easily move the previous guy as you diminish their value.


You probably lose somebody you're not expecting, or multiple people. You probably have difficulty moving out players and getting no salary back, and probably get pennies on the dollar to get the type of trades you want, or have to add value yourselves. You probably don't get Point signed to the bridge you want. You probably have rookies struggle next year, without nearly as much support and over bigger sample sizes.

No, you're not going to lose Kucherov, and you probably won't lose Point, but the navigation of the cap won't be the walk in the park you're pretending it will be, and Tampa will feel the effects next year, and the year after that when they have to do it again, and probably for a few years.

Well be fine. Watch.

 

[DFC]

Except he wasn't. His contract was smaller. He was a center. He was still pacing almost 50 points instead of 20 (in fact he still is this year, after being signed again). He was the 7th most played forward on your team before you traded him. The year before? 2nd most, behind Stamkos.

This just shows you don't watch the Lightning, nor understand how they work. If you see a bad player's icetime increase, you can bet TB is trying to move them. Ryan Malone and Teddy Purcell were getting top line minutes before the trade deadline, #1 PP Unit time, and both of them wound up healthy scratches as soon as the deadline passed. Brett Connolly is another example. So I wouldn't read too much into Filppula's icetime. He was a little better the year we traded him, but he was making $5m under a lower cap. Callahan has much more value to us right now than Filppula did then.

You also keep ignoring that this was in a time where there was a lot more available cap space around the league, and you're falsely assuming that because you did something once, you'll forever be able to do it again and again and again, with no care about what has changed since then, including your own GM.

Well, six months ago rumors sprang up that we were going to have to trade our hundred point franchise winger, Nikita Kucherov. We laughed at those rumors the way we're laughing at you now, and, within days, if not hours, Kucherov was signed to a team-friendly deal, and the hockey world griped yet again about our tax advantage, which you say doesn't exist.

Ok, so now you're buying out your assistant captain, and putting dead cap space on the book in your two biggest cap crunch years. You have about 2.7m in dead cap, and save about 3 million from that contract next year, which isn't enough.

If we're desperate for money? Yeah, we'll buy him out and save 3m, which is better than not buying him out and paying him 5.8 when we need that money elsewhere.

Or we add whatever sweetener we must to get him off the books entirely, the way we did with Filppula. Either/or, 3m or 5.8m, we're going to save money on Callahan's contract next year.

Lol, you're not "moving" Coburn and Girardi. They are UFAs and you don't have enough to sign them. Their absence was already counted in the limited cap space you had.

I said they "will move," which is different than "moving them." They're going to "move" to another team, via UFA. Or at least they're the most likely candidates. If we can't keep Stralman, we'll probably keep one of them around, likely on a cheaper deal. Coburn took a paycut to stay with the team before. I think Plan A is to keep Stralman though.

You assume that you'll be able to move Miller easily, and that's all you'll have to do. You assume that that is the target for your GM, who is brand new, but won't do anything different and will command the exact same respect and trust as a hockey legend. You assume that teams will happily give up value and no salary back, in a rushed trade before July 1st, to take on a significant contract with a 4-year term and NTC that you deem replaceable (and is apparently playing 4th line at over 5 mil?), with every GM in the league knowing the situation you are in. You assume that trading a guy that just signed a 5-year "discounted" contract to play on a contender in a "tax-free state" in his first year before his NTC kicks in will no have effects or consequences, even as you're about to ask your best player to take a heavily discounted bridge deal, which he already had no reason to want to do.

So now your argument is that JT Miller, a consistent 20 goal, 50-plus point guy, locked up through his prime, is going to be hard to move. Well now you're just being ridiculous. We might have to move him under value, sure, but if we have to do that to keep the rest of the band together, it won't be an issue.

I'm also not sure what consequences you're talking about, since we'd be making the move to lock up the rest of our core. Are we concerned UFAs won't want to sign? We don't have money for UFAs anyway.

You're trying to have it both ways. You tell us we have too many NTCs. We say, yeah, we know, but here's a guy without a NTC, and you try to tell us we won't be able to move him either. So what? Is the TB Lightning just going to no longer exist because it's taboo to move money? Or maybe we just move the money.

There's been talk about a lot of players who have NTCs. Callahan, Killorn, Palat, Johnson, Miller if you can't find an deal before July 1st. Pretty much everybody on your team has one, so take your pick.

Miller goes to the highest bidder before July 1. The moment we signed Gourde, that became clear as day.

I don't think we're going to have much interest in trading either Killorn or Palat. Callahan has a 16 team list. We'll try like hell to trade him. If we can't, we buy him out.

Stralman plays the single most time on ice per game on your team, and is a crucial anchor to your PK. His absence (and the absence of half of your D) will push everybody up into roles that are different and less comfortable for them. To blow it off like you'll just have a weak bottom pairing and nothing else will change is incredibly arrogant.

Losing Stralman will hurt, but it'll mostly hurt the bottom pairing. Because the top two pairings are still going to have Victor Hedman and Ryan McDonagh. And, if you haven't heard, they're pretty good.

Losing Stralman is a worst case scenario, but it's realistic. I just don't think it's going to take us from a contender to a fringe playoff team, considering we'll have four franchise players under contract.

Drafting well and having a good support group to mask deficiencies can help, but to think you have a forever pipeline of effective NHL talent ready to walk into important roles en masse and not feel any effects as a team, especially as that support group is changing? Again, incredibly arrogant. Also again, just because something has happened for your team in the past, that has put you in the nice position you are in, does not mean that that same thing will happen forever. You don't have a prospect pool 10 times better than anyone else in the rest of the league, sorry.

I'm not sure what you mean by "mask deficiencies." Our star players will be locked in once we sign point. Our complementary players are mostly locked in too. So I'm not exactly sure what you mean. It's not like we need somebody to fill Nikita Kucherov's shoes.

If we're arrogant, it's with good reason. Fans tell us the team is on the verge of falling apart all the time. Meanwhile, we're still #1 in the standings, mainly because of how well we draft and develop. If you want to believe drafting and developing is all luck, go right ahead. We'll just watch our latest franchise players, found in the 2nd and 3rd round, light up the rest of the league, while a couple of our undrafted signees, or minor league trades, put up points like your average 1st rounder.

There are other teams who you can argue draft and develop as well as the Lightning, but it's a select group. If you want to think this team was put together by coincidence, and our prospects are suddenly going to be ineffective, then I don't know what to tell you. Signs from the AHL point to the opposite.

Adam Erne has played well this year, has 8 points in 19 games on the 4th line, and can't even crack our lineup right now. We have an excess of talent, whether you want to believe it or not.

As I have pointed out, the current league environment is not the same as it was back then, and your star players have not all taken bridges. Stamkos and Hedman both took 5 year deals that bought UFA years and took them to UFA. Kucherov took the bridge, and has publicly talked about how much he regrets it, and if he had the opportunity again, he would sit out. So that's 3 stars, and 3 players that either didn't or wouldn't take a bridge, all on your team influencing Point, who unlike those stars, has broken out with a career year unlikely to be beaten in future years, before his contract is due. The issue still exists that you can't afford Point on even a bridge before making moves.

And we have money we can move.

Over a very short period of time. I really hope all your hopes aren't based on your rookie playing 11 games at under 17 minutes a night.

Cernak is playing 17 minutes per night against top lines with Ryan McDonagh. He doesn't have to be Anton Stralman, and he won't be. But he'll be a solid #5/#6, and log time with either McDonagh or Hedman. Hedman almost constantly plays with a #6 defenseman. Meanwhile, Sergachev is improving. Slowly, but if he's our weak link, we're gonna be fine.

You don't have the money to bring back any of the 3 defensemen.

Yet.

Miller, Coburn, Girardi, plus some kind of move to get at least the majority of Callahan's money off the books, plus a higher cap. These are not major, blockbuster transactions. The only one that even requires a partner is Miller.

You know why kicking the problem down the road doesn't work forever? The cap doesn't rise that fast, and the cap was designed to limit scenarios exactly like this.

It's risen fast enough to keep us from losing any major players in the last five years, which is when fans of other teams started telling us our team is doomed because it's too good.

You've used up your bridges and RFA years and won nothing, and now you have most of your team on their UFA contracts, with NTCs kicking in, with nobody wanting to willingly leave this supposed "tax-free haven" contender that they supposedly signed massive discounts for.

It's hard to win a cup. All we can do is put ourselves constantly in a position to contend, which Yzerman always stated was his focus.

And all you keep doing is moving these big contracts further down the lineup, giving new massive contracts to the next guy, while expecting to easily move the previous guy as you diminish their value.

And then we move the guy with diminished value (Filppula, Purcell), or buy him out (Carle), or pay a premium to have an expansion team take him off the books (Garrison).

You're basically saying "Yeah but you can't do that ANYMORE," without even recognizing how often we've been told that in the last five years. The business of the game is constantly changing. Our management has constantly adapted and built a contender. Pardon us for having faith that that will continue, especially when the path forward is blatantly obvious, as often it is.

You probably lose somebody you're not expecting, or multiple people. You probably have difficulty moving out players and getting no salary back, and probably get pennies on the dollar to get the type of trades you want, or have to add value yourselves. You probably don't get Point signed to the bridge you want. You probably have rookies struggle next year, without nearly as much support and over bigger sample sizes.

I don't think the Point deal will be overly cheap. I just don't think it's going to sink the franchise to have yet another elite player under contract.

We've dealt with struggling rookies for years. They're not in prominent roles. Meanwhile, other rookies excel, and work their way into prominent roles. When you're building your D around Hedman and McDonagh, it's going to be hard to be below average.

Again, our rookies are better than people realize, until suddenly they do realize it, and then nobody understands how we keep finding gems.

No, you're not going to lose Kucherov, and you probably won't lose Point, but the navigation of the cap won't be the walk in the park you're pretending it will be, and Tampa will feel the effects next year, and the year after that when they have to do it again, and probably for a few years.

And we'll still be a contending team, because we'll still have a 100 point winger, two #1 centers, two #1 defensemen, and a top-5 goalie. Those are the guys we're built around, and are building around. If you're saying we're going to lose one of them, then yeah, we'll take a big step back. But we're not talking about that. Meanwhile, Mathieu Joseph is on pace for 20 goals, Yanni Gourde is going to have another 60 point season, and Mitchell Stephens, Boris Katchouk, Alex Volkov, Dominik Masin, and Taylor Raddysh are all trying to figure out how to crack the lineup. We don't need them all to work out. Just a couple.

 

[CupsOverCash]

Miller for sure I'll pass on Killhorn.

Killorn is underrated. He isnt flashy but he is a good hockey player.

 

[Dekes For Days]

If you see a bad player's icetime increase, you can bet TB is trying to move them. So I wouldn't read too much into Filppula's icetime. He was a little better the year we traded him, but he was making $5m under a lower cap. Callahan has much more value to us right now than Filppula did then.

Your narrative doesn't fit reality. His ice time went down in the year he was traded. It was the year before where he was your 2nd most relied on forward.

I find it hard to believe that your team was actively trying to tank, even in the playoffs after the deadline, by playing "bad players" in the most key situations. The year before he was traded, he was your forward with the highest TOI/game in the playoffs (increasing in TOI from the regular season), and 2nd most played overall.

5 mil adjusted for the current cap is still less than Callahan's 5.8 mil. Also, if bad players get increased ice time right before you move them, and Callahan is still a reliable player about to be moved, why is he 19th on your team in TOI/game?

Well, six months ago rumors sprang up that we were going to have to trade our hundred point franchise winger, Nikita Kucherov. We laughed at those rumors the way we're laughing at you now, and, within days, if not hours, Kucherov was signed to a team-friendly deal, and the hockey world griped yet again about our tax advantage, which you say doesn't exist.

Not sure what that has to do with me, or anything I said. You do realize that Kucherov was under contract for this year already, right? At 4.8m. Even if you couldn't afford him later, why would you trade him in a contending year? He would have been an RFA under team control, and you signed him to an extension, so I'm not sure who was saying that you had to trade him right then.

Also, you don't trade your franchise forwards. That's obvious. I'm not saying trade Point, so not sure what your point is or how this applies to me.

It may be how you think you solve all your problems (despite evidence to the contrary), but this cap crunch isn't solved by "Oh we'll just sign them cheaper". I don't think you understand that part. It's not all internal.

If we're desperate for money? Yeah, we'll buy him out and save 3m, which is better than not buying him out and paying him 5.8 when we need that money elsewhere.

Or we add whatever sweetener we must to get him off the books entirely, the way we did with Filppula. Either/or, 3m or 5.8m, we're going to save money on Callahan's contract next year.

Of course saving that 3m is better than not (2m after his replacement), but the savings that offers are limited, and most of your fan base has already written that full 5.8m off the books and started filling it in other ways, as if it's a foregone conclusion. It's not going to be that easy.

I said they "will move," which is different than "moving them." They're going to "move" to another team, via UFA. Or at least they're the most likely candidates. If we can't keep Stralman, we'll probably keep one of them around, likely on a cheaper deal. Coburn took a paycut to stay with the team before. I think Plan A is to keep Stralman though.

You can't afford to keep Stralman. I keep saying this, and you keep ignoring it and repeating that you'll just sign Stralman.

Not sure why you think 3.7m with a full NTC is a paycut for a 3rd pairing D...

So now your argument is that JT Miller, a consistent 20 goal, 50-plus point guy, locked up through his prime, is going to be hard to move. Well now you're just being ridiculous. We might have to move him under value, sure, but if we have to do that to keep the rest of the band together, it won't be an issue.

You'll need to move more than Miller, and yes, your new GM may not feel the same as the rest of you fans, it will likely be harder to move him than you think, you may need to take back salary, you'll likely get a worse return if you do trade him than you think, and yes, that would likely have consequences to signing a player like Point, or your future replacements to discounts.

You're trying to have it both ways. You tell us we have too many NTCs. We say, yeah, we know, but here's a guy without a NTC, and you try to tell us we won't be able to move him either. So what? Is the TB Lightning just going to no longer exist because it's taboo to move money? Or maybe we just move the money.

It's not "taboo" to move money; it's just difficult in this current league environment, which you seem to be ignoring. It also is a bit "taboo" to claim people are signing massive discounts to play in Tampa, partly because you're offering assurances and NTCs that they will stay there on a contender in a low-tax state, and then turn around and trade them right before their NTC kicks in, because you want to move on to the next couple guys 1 year into their long-term contract. It's pretty arrogant to think that that won't affect the current or future signings you're trying to make, especially as you're about to ask your best player to take a massive discount and bridge and risk his financial future before a lockout.

Losing Stralman will hurt, but it'll mostly hurt the bottom pairing. Because the top two pairings are still going to have Victor Hedman and Ryan McDonagh. And, if you haven't heard, they're pretty good.

You've named 2 players out of 4... Now what about the other 2 from those pairings.

Are you trying to claim that Stralman plays bottom pairing? Because that's not even remotely true. He's your most relied on overall, at even strength, and shorthanded (by far).

I would also be weary of relying on McDonagh to anchor a pairing all on his own for the foreseeable future. I know you've signed him to an expensive, NTC-filled, long-term contract that hasn't even kicked in yet, and you're all excited about how he hasn't sucked this year so far, but he's had quite a lot of wear and tear over the years.

Losing Stralman is a worst case scenario, but it's realistic. I just don't think it's going to take us from a contender to a fringe playoff team, considering we'll have four franchise players under contract.

Losing Stralman is a likely scenario, and I think you're greatly underestimating the impact he has on your team, or what moving everybody else into unfamiliar roles can do.

I'm not sure what you mean by "mask deficiencies."

As in a lot of your players look better than they actually are, under a system with a lot of supports, because it masks their deficiencies. As your support structure changes, you may start seeing sides of players you may not have been aware of when signing them to massive NTC-laden contracts, or sides of your super-duper-better-than-everyone-else's prospects that you may not like. It's not just your core of "four franchise players" that provides support.

If you want to believe drafting and developing is all luck, go right ahead.

Never said that either, but nice to see you're still continuing with the putting words in people's mouths.

He doesn't have to be Anton Stralman, and he won't be.

Somebody does if you don't expect to take a step back.

Miller, Coburn, Girardi, plus some kind of move to get at least the majority of Callahan's money off the books, plus a higher cap. These are not major, blockbuster transactions. The only one that even requires a partner is Miller.

Again, even if you pull off all of those moves, that's not going to be enough to sign Stralman. That's to have enough space to sign Point and fill out your roster with ELCs.

It's risen fast enough to keep us from losing any major players in the last five years, which is when fans of other teams started telling us our team is doomed because it's too good.

Because you've been getting lucky at opportune times, and pushing all your problems down the road to right now. It's like talking to a broken record...

I don't think the Point deal will be overly cheap. I just don't think it's going to sink the franchise to have yet another elite player under contract.

Where did I say it was going to sink the franchise? It's just not going to be easy, it's not going to be cheap, it's multiple years in a row, and your team is likely going to see struggles and setbacks because of it. Many Tampa fans seem to want to stick their head in the sands and pretend that everything is going to easily go exactly how they want it in their fantasy dream scenario, regardless of how ridiculous or unlikely or unsupported that stance is, and everybody else just "doesn't get" how super awesome your franchise is in every way and how they'll always come out on top forever and always.

 

[Killer Orcas]

Killorn is underrated. He isnt flashy but he is a good hockey player.

I feel he plays a little soft for his size and isn't as consistent as he should be for his contract. If he made a million per less I think he'd be a great 3rd liner who can step up if needed. However he just makes too much for a 3rd liner in my opinion.

 

[CupsOverCash]

I feel he plays a little soft for his size and isn't as consistent as he should be for his contract. If he made a million per less I think he'd be a great 3rd liner who can step up if needed. However he just makes too much for a 3rd liner in my opinion.

He plays 3rd line for us now but he has slotted up in our top six for much of his career and has been a .5 career player which isn’t bad. He’s producing that now on the 3rd line as well. He does a lot of things that doesn’t get noticed on the score sheet. Last year scored nearly 50 points and is being paid 4.45 av which is fine for what has produced and how he has played. He doesn’t score as much as I would like but he does a lot of other good things too. He’s definitely not as tough as you would like for a guy his size nor is he a great skater but he plays his role very well and is productive in the playoffs too.

 

[Leonardo87]

5 mil adjusted for the current cap is still less than Callahan's 5.8 mil. Also, if bad players get increased ice time right before you move them, and Callahan is still a reliable player about to be moved, why is he 19th on your team in TOI/game?

Three reasons..

1.) Tampa's depth
2.) They are not looking to move Callahan,
3.) Callahan is a shutdown forward, and will see his ice time increase protecting leads, Tampa has done a lot of chasing this year and have had a lot of those comeback wins.

 

[CupsOverCash]

Your narrative doesn't fit reality. His ice time went down in the year he was traded. It was the year before where he was your 2nd most relied on forward.

I find it hard to believe that your team was actively trying to tank, even in the playoffs after the deadline, by playing "bad players" in the most key situations. The year before he was traded, he was your forward with the highest TOI/game in the playoffs (increasing in TOI from the regular season), and 2nd most played overall.

5 mil adjusted for the current cap is still less than Callahan's 5.8 mil. Also, if bad players get increased ice time right before you move them, and Callahan is still a reliable player about to be moved, why is he 19th on your team in TOI/game?


Not sure what that has to do with me, or anything I said. You do realize that Kucherov was under contract for this year already, right? At 4.8m. Even if you couldn't afford him later, why would you trade him in a contending year? He would have been an RFA under team control, and you signed him to an extension, so I'm not sure who was saying that you had to trade him right then.

Also, you don't trade your franchise forwards. That's obvious. I'm not saying trade Point, so not sure what your point is or how this applies to me.

It may be how you think you solve all your problems (despite evidence to the contrary), but this cap crunch isn't solved by "Oh we'll just sign them cheaper". I don't think you understand that part. It's not all internal.


Of course saving that 3m is better than not (2m after his replacement), but the savings that offers are limited, and most of your fan base has already written that full 5.8m off the books and started filling it in other ways, as if it's a foregone conclusion. It's not going to be that easy.


You can't afford to keep Stralman. I keep saying this, and you keep ignoring it and repeating that you'll just sign Stralman.

Not sure why you think 3.7m with a full NTC is a paycut for a 3rd pairing D...


You'll need to move more than Miller, and yes, your new GM may not feel the same as the rest of you fans, it will likely be harder to move him than you think, you may need to take back salary, you'll likely get a worse return if you do trade him than you think, and yes, that would likely have consequences to signing a player like Point, or your future replacements to discounts.


It's not "taboo" to move money; it's just difficult in this current league environment, which you seem to be ignoring. It also is a bit "taboo" to claim people are signing massive discounts to play in Tampa, partly because you're offering assurances and NTCs that they will stay there on a contender in a low-tax state, and then turn around and trade them right before their NTC kicks in, because you want to move on to the next couple guys 1 year into their long-term contract. It's pretty arrogant to think that that won't affect the current or future signings you're trying to make, especially as you're about to ask your best player to take a massive discount and bridge and risk his financial future before a lockout.


You've named 2 players out of 4... Now what about the other 2 from those pairings.

Are you trying to claim that Stralman plays bottom pairing? Because that's not even remotely true. He's your most relied on overall, at even strength, and shorthanded (by far).

I would also be weary of relying on McDonagh to anchor a pairing all on his own for the foreseeable future. I know you've signed him to an expensive, NTC-filled, long-term contract that hasn't even kicked in yet, and you're all excited about how he hasn't sucked this year so far, but he's had quite a lot of wear and tear over the years.


Losing Stralman is a likely scenario, and I think you're greatly underestimating the impact he has on your team, or what moving everybody else into unfamiliar roles can do.


As in a lot of your players look better than they actually are, under a system with a lot of supports, because it masks their deficiencies. As your support structure changes, you may start seeing sides of players you may not have been aware of when signing them to massive NTC-laden contracts, or sides of your super-duper-better-than-everyone-else's prospects that you may not like. It's not just your core of "four franchise players" that provides support.


Never said that either, but nice to see you're still continuing with the putting words in people's mouths.


Somebody does if you don't expect to take a step back.


Again, even if you pull off all of those moves, that's not going to be enough to sign Stralman. That's to have enough space to sign Point and fill out your roster with ELCs.


Because you've been getting lucky at opportune times, and pushing all your problems down the road to right now. It's like talking to a broken record...


Where did I say it was going to sink the franchise? It's just not going to be easy, it's not going to be cheap, it's multiple years in a row, and your team is likely going to see struggles and setbacks because of it. Many Tampa fans seem to want to stick their head in the sands and pretend that everything is going to easily go exactly how they want it in their fantasy dream scenario, regardless of how ridiculous or unlikely or unsupported that stance is, and everybody else just "doesn't get" how super awesome your franchise is in every way and how they'll always come out on top forever and always.

Dont know why you are being so difficult. We know there is a cap crunch. We just arent as worried about it as you are. We know we could lose Stralman. Guess what? Hes not playing right now and our team hasnt skipped a beat. Why? We have two number 1 D to put out there 50 mins a game. Ok so we might lose Stralman. Who else do you think we are going to lose? All of our best players are locked up long term. We have already said that we can sign Point next year with a simple buyout of Callahans last year. Done Point is signed. This is with a fail in trying to trade Miller which I dont know why you think is going to be so difficult. Hes a good player who is signed at exactly where he should be paid and has term. He could have gotten at least a mil more on open market. A team will want him. Guy with size and skill and is pretty fast for a guy his size. Ive seen him dominate at times this year. A team will want him. Ok but if a team doesnt then we buy out Callahan.

Now the next year Killorn has his no trade clause to limited. We can move him. Hes a guy who is definitely more movable than people think. Hes been a career .5 player and has produced well in playoffs. Use that and whatever is left to bridge Sergachev (who is good but really hasnt shown he deserves a huge payraise yet) and sign Vasi long term. Boom were done. All of our core signed and we have good prospects to come fill in whoever leaves. We may take a step back but were not going to stop being contenders. We have all of our core who have taken us far into the playoffs including our Norris winner and will have our goalie signed long term too. We arent going away anytime soon.

 

[LightningStrikes]

Not worried. Buyout / trade Callahan ($5.8M) for futures, maybe trade one of Miller ($5.25M) or Palat ($5.3M) somewhere, don't re-sign Girardi ($3.0M), let Martel walk ($0.7M). Done.

 

[These Are The Days]

Not worried. Buyout / trade Callahan ($5.8M) for futures, maybe trade one of Miller ($5.25M) or Palat ($5.3M) somewhere, don't re-sign Girardi ($3.0M), let Martel walk ($0.7M). Done.

Lol when HF Boards is FAR more worried about this than we are.


The panic button done got thrown away a LONG time ago.

Stamkos
Hedman
Kucherov
Johnson
Palat
Vasilevskiy
Killorn
McDonagh

All taken care of right now


We literally have to sign Point and Stralman with $20 million coming off the books with a Miller+Callahan trade, Stralman/Girardi/Coburn UFA and +$3.5 million in added cap

HF Boards..... What part of "This is fine" isn't clear?


It's the fire isn't it? I told that damn dog to take care of it 3 years ago

 

[CupsOverCash]

Lol when HF Boards is FAR more worried about this than we are.


The panic button done got thrown away a LONG time ago.

Stamkos
Hedman
Kucherov
Johnson
Palat
Vasilevskiy
Killorn
McDonagh

All taken care of right now


We literally have to sign Point and Stralman with $20 million coming off the books with a Miller+Callahan trade, Stralman/Girardi/Coburn UFA and +$3.5 million in added cap

HF Boards..... What part of "This is fine" isn't clear?


It's the fire isn't it? I told that damn dog to take care of it 3 years ago

Apparently we need to be

 

[Dekes For Days]

Dont know why you are being so difficult.

Pointing out fallacies and inconsistencies in logic being used here isn't "being difficult" just because you don't like the reality of the situation.

We have already said that we can sign Point next year with a simple buyout of Callahans last year. Done Point is signed.

You've said it, repeatedly. You haven't backed it up, and it's not true, but you've certainly said it. I've also yet to see a good reason why Point would sign a bridge or a significant discount, especially as you actively screw over recent players who did that to stay with the team. And no, complimentary players taking bridge deals years ago before breaking out isn't a reason.

The whole plan seems to revolve around unrealistic best case scenarios in every possible area, so forgive me for having my doubts. If you want to go ahead and think your team is better than everybody else at everything and you have it all figured out forever, that's your right, but that's not going to stop me from pointing out why it's a stretch and unlikely to play out that way.

 

[LightningStrikes]

Oh boy.

@Dekes For Days I name you Lightning GM. Don't worry, it's just a game of make-believe. What is your plan for the off-season from a Lightning GM point of view? Where do you see actual risks? How will you handle them? Please explain.