Player Discussion Tryamkin

[Fatass]

Edler-Myers
Hughes-Tryamkin
Benn-Rafferty

That defense is f***ing atrocious

Rathbone and OJ instead of Benn and Rafferty. Maybe do away with Myers (somehow?) and play Rafferty there?

 

[jonnygf40]

Hughes Tanev
Edler Myers
Tryamkin Rafferty

 

[Peter10]

Methinks with everything going on some rules are going to be changed ....

Why would they start to change rules for a few weeks of hockey? I dont think there is any chance this will be completed in anyway but even if they were to restart, there is nothing that would justify specific rules. They would just stick with what they have and try to get it done. The only thing that could change are the salary cap calculations but then again, that would not help in signing Tryamkin for this year.

 

[ChilliBilly]

Why would they start to change rules for a few weeks of hockey? I dont think there is any chance this will be completed in anyway but even if they were to restart, there is nothing that would justify specific rules. They would just stick with what they have and try to get it done. The only thing that could change are the salary cap calculations but then again, that would not help in signing Tryamkin for this year.

I think they will allow some buyouts to help finances ... because the salary cap is going to be destroyed by what has happened. Massive income losses to team owners, the building owners and probably a lot of the players.

 

[Peter10]

I think they will allow some buyouts to help finances ... because the salary cap is going to be destroyed by what has happened. Massive income losses to team owners, the building owners and probably a lot of the players.

But this will not change anything for this year and Tryamkin not being eligible to play for the Canucks in 19-20.

Also, not sure what it means for the salary cap. All the losses this year will be re-covered with escrow and next years cap is only dependant on the expectations for the cap. If they believe they can play again in october, the cap wont be much different from this years and I guess no buyouts.

 

[ChilliBilly]

But this will not change anything for this year and Tryamkin not being eligible to play for the Canucks in 19-20.

Also, not sure what it means for the salary cap. All the losses this year will be re-covered with escrow and next years cap is only dependant on the expectations for the cap. If they believe they can play again in october, the cap wont be much different from this years and I guess no buyouts.

yes, but this year is not close to being resolved ...and I know there is almost no chance of Tryamkin playing in 19-20. though what happens if the playoffs get delayed, and the Canucks are still playing in July .... crazy i know, but......

 

[tyhee]

But this will not change anything for this year and Tryamkin not being eligible to play for the Canucks in 19-20.

Also, not sure what it means for the salary cap. All the losses this year will be re-covered with escrow and next years cap is only dependant on the expectations for the cap. If they believe they can play again in october, the cap wont be much different from this years and I guess no buyouts.

Peter, perhaps you or someone else familiar with the whole of the CBA can save me some time looking at things I hadn't every considered before.

I haven't ever looked at Article 50 of the CBA carefully. Just now I looked very briefly at Article 50.5(b)(iii) with respect to upper and lower limits on players' compensation.

If the league doesn't make up all the games this season, then presumably HRR will be down. The subsquent year's limits are initially based on the HRR for the season just completed so if the teams lose substantial revenue (for example from TV contracts they don't get all the money for because of lost games, gate receipts either lost or for which money is owed to the ticket purchasers because they've paid for games that weren't held and lost merchandise sales) then at least the initial upper and lower limits, subject to further agreement between owners and players, would be expected to go down.

Of course, if that's the case it would create such havoc that one would expect some sort of agreement between the owners and players, but is there a provision in the CBA to provide for an adjustment if the parties don't come to an agreement?

Also, in the event that the escrow collected isn't sufficient to cover a shortfall in the players' portion of HRR in any year, how is that handled?

Thanks.

 

[VanJack]

Rathbone and OJ instead of Benn and Rafferty. Maybe do away with Myers (somehow?) and play Rafferty there?

If Rathbone and Rafferty ever arrive in the lineup at the same time, they'll be fun to watch. They might be a trainwreck defensively, but having three d-men like those two plus Hughes, that can drive offense all over the ice, would be blast to watch. They'd either be scoring on the offensive end or fishing the puck out of their own net. Wouldn't be dull though.

 

[Peter10]

Peter, perhaps you or someone else familiar with the whole of the CBA can save me some time looking at things I hadn't every considered before.

I haven't ever looked at Article 50 of the CBA carefully. Just now I looked very briefly at Article 50.5(b)(iii) with respect to upper and lower limits on players' compensation.

If the league doesn't make up all the games this season, then presumably HRR will be down. The subsquent year's limits are initially based on the HRR for the season just completed so if the teams lose substantial revenue (for example from TV contracts they don't get all the money for because of lost games, gate receipts either lost or for which money is owed to the ticket purchasers because they've paid for games that weren't held and lost merchandise sales) then at least the initial upper and lower limits, subject to further agreement between owners and players, would be expected to go down.

Of course, if that's the case it would create such havoc that one would expect some sort of agreement between the owners and players, but is there a provision in the CBA to provide for an adjustment if the parties don't come to an agreement?

Also, in the event that the escrow collected isn't sufficient to cover a shortfall in the players' portion of HRR in any year, how is that handled?

Thanks.

From what I understand, the preliminary HRR for this year is taken for the calculation of the upper and lower limit next year as you said. It also assumes a 5% growth for the next year which can be adjusted if needed. However, there is also a provision that takes care of one-time events in which case the NHL and NHLPA can agree on a different estimate.

(b) "Lower Limit" and "Upper Limit." For each League Year there shall be a
"Lower Limit" and an "Upper Limit" at or between which each Club must have an Averaged
Club Salary. The range between the Lower Limit and Upper Limit shall be known as the "Team
Payroll Range" (the "Payroll Range" or "Range").
(i) The Upper and Lower Limits of the Team Payroll Range shall be
determined in accordance with the following formula:
(Preliminary HRR for the prior League Year multiplied by fifty (50) percent (the
Applicable Percentage), minus [-] Projected Benefits), divided [/] by the number of Clubs
then playing in the NHL (e.g., 30), shall equal [=] the Midpoint of the Payroll Range
(which figure shall be considered the Midpoint only for purposes of calculating the
Adjusted Midpoint; all references to the "Midpoint" thereafter shall mean the "Adjusted
Midpoint"), which shall be adjusted upward by a factor of five (5) percent in each League
Year (yielding the Adjusted Midpoint, which shall then become the Midpoint of the
Payroll Range) unless or until either party to this Agreement proposes a different growth
factor based on actual revenue experience and/or projections, in which case the parties
shall discuss and agree upon a new factor. If a significant (i.e., $20 million or more) onetime
increase or decrease to League-wide revenues (e.g., by reason of the addition or loss
of a national television contract or the scheduled opening of one or more new arenas
which is expected to result in a significant increase in League-wide revenues) is
anticipated in the next League Year, the parties will endeavor to estimate the expected
increase or decrease and incorporate that estimate into the above-stated formula for
calculating the Adjusted Midpoint.

So the current situation will obviously fall into that and you cant really take an aborted season to calculate the limits for a full season. Just taking a guess here but I would suspect they will start with a calculation as if there was a normal season and then go from there to include the various factors that will play into this. The main point will obviously be whether or not they anticipate to operate the 20-21 season on a normal schedule and if the crisis is resolved. Then you need to consider that markets have been hit very hard, a number of people will struggle financially due to loss of jobs which will lead into lesser numbers of people showing up to games, less merchandise being sold, less revenue from advertising and so on. You can be sure that both, the league and the PA, will hire experts to make estimates on how this will turn out and only then the upper and lower limit will be set. I would expect them to be rather conservative in their projection just to avoid enormous escrow payments. The speculation about potential about compliance buyouts that is going on right now is also a bit premature in my opinion. If I remember correctly, the last time it was done, the costs for that counted against the HRR and therefore also cutting into player salaries with the escrow and I am not sure the PA is too keen for that.

 

[Peter10]

yes, but this year is not close to being resolved ...and I know there is almost no chance of Tryamkin playing in 19-20. though what happens if the playoffs get delayed, and the Canucks are still playing in July .... crazy i know, but......

Sorry if I seem a bit pedantic but that was the whole point. It is not "almost no chance" it is "zero chance" of him playing in 19-20. I also dont see a chance of the league playing into July, contracts run out on June 30 and players wont be insured. Just look at how careful players on expiring contracts are to play in the world championships because an injury there would only be covered by the insurance for the current contract. Do you think player will play without a contract? Even if you made an exemption to allow 30 day contracts to play out the season, that would again put players on substantial risks and not even to speak of how salaries, the cap and HRR and what not would be calculated.

 

[CpatainCanuck]

Sorry if I seem a bit pedantic but that was the whole point. It is not "almost no chance" it is "zero chance" of him playing in 19-20. I also dont see a chance of the league playing into July, contracts run out on June 30 and players wont be insured. Just look at how careful players on expiring contracts are to play in the world championships because an injury there would only be covered by the insurance for the current contract. Do you think player will play without a contract? Even if you made an exemption to allow 30 day contracts to play out the season, that would again put players on substantial risks and not even to speak of how salaries, the cap and HRR and what not would be calculated.

I don't really think Playing Insurance is the big hurdle here. You pay for more insurance; pretty simple.

That said I don't think the season's going to start up again.

 

[ChilliBilly]

Sorry if I seem a bit pedantic but that was the whole point. It is not "almost no chance" it is "zero chance" of him playing in 19-20. I also dont see a chance of the league playing into July, contracts run out on June 30 and players wont be insured. Just look at how careful players on expiring contracts are to play in the world championships because an injury there would only be covered by the insurance for the current contract. Do you think player will play without a contract? Even if you made an exemption to allow 30 day contracts to play out the season, that would again put players on substantial risks and not even to speak of how salaries, the cap and HRR and what not would be calculated.

Yes i was talking about 1/1000 chances. However, I believe the league will want to get their revenue however they have to do it, and almost for sure it is going to involve into a very extended season. Players will want to get paid too, and therefor will have to come to some sort of agreement on how they will extend the season, how they will get paid, and what to do about insurance.

 

[Hit the post]

League is largely still gate driven. Unlike the NFL, who can probably get away with playing in empty arenas (their TV revenues are THAT high). In fact, I thought I read somewhere even a blech NFL franchise like the Detroit Lions would play in an empty arena and still make a profit because of TV revenues. That even that won't last forever (eg., come TV renewal contract time).

 

[Peter10]

I don't really think Playing Insurance is the big hurdle here. You pay for more insurance; pretty simple.

That said I don't think the season's going to start up again.

Insurance would be quite expensive (relatively speaking) for such a short contract. Additionally players don't get paid during playoffs, paying the insurance fees would go straight against HRR and further increase the escrow for every player.

 

[zcaptain]

I just don't see the season restarting

To me, it comes down to possible injury to UFA's...…..how long would they be insured for?

Well Tyler Toffoli………..his argument would be he would be signing a 6 year UFA contract X 7 Million

Joe Schmo………..is a fringe player...but he would argue he would sign a 6 year UFA contract too X 7 million (LOL)

Or Joe Thornton who says he would have played 7 more years?

Lots of arguments between those 2...……….meaning all the other players in the same boat.....

Then the RFA's coiming off of ELC's......risking injury at that salary level

so how long is the insurance for, and for how much? …….

Then there is the possible injury argument, because of no summer down time to rehab, or to work on fitness

Then, there is that question as well...………...all rinks are closed, no skating, no team practices(unofficial)

Lots of problems in those area's

What about players signed to the team after July 1st...……….Tryamkin......does the schedule start again in October?

 

[VanJack]

With the KHL and the Gagarin Cup now scuttled, players from that league are eligible to sign with NHL teams as of May 1st, although they wouldn't be eligible to play if the current 2019-29 resumes this spring or summer.

So I guess we'll have an answer about Tryamkin soon enough.....but this whole shutdown makes you wonder what kind of league with KHL will be after hockey resumes. Some teams weren't in the best financial position heading into this crisis.

 

[tradervik]

With the KHL and the Gagarin Cup now scuttled, players from that league are eligible to sign with NHL teams as of May 1st, although they wouldn't be eligible to play if the current 2019-29 resumes this spring or summer.

So I guess we'll have an answer about Tryamkin soon enough.....but this whole shutdown makes you wonder what kind of league with KHL will be after hockey resumes. Some teams weren't in the best financial position heading into this crisis.

Strongly doubt any players will be signed until the league puts out some guidance on the cap.

Edit: should add the obvious exception is players who sign entry level contracts

 

[VanJack]

If the NHL and the NHLPA do embrace 'compliance buyouts' with no cap hits, and if the Canucks do sign Tryamkin, would you consider Tyler Myers as one of your buyouts?

I know Benning would never do it. But seems to me that Tryamkin could bring a lot of the same elements to the game as Myers at a fraction of the cap-hit and term.

If by some miracle the Canucks shed the contracts of both Eriksson and Myers, with no cap implications, it would be a game-changer for the franchise.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

If the NHL and the NHLPA do embrace 'compliance buyouts' with no cap hits, and if the Canucks do sign Tryamkin, would you consider Tyler Myers as one of your buyouts?

I know Benning would never do it. But seems to me that Tryamkin could bring a lot of the same elements to the game as Myers at a fraction of the cap-hit and term.

If by some miracle the Canucks shed the contracts of both Eriksson and Myers, with no cap implications, it would be a game-changer for the franchise.

Does this scenario also mean that the Canucks re-sign Tanev? Otherwise there's no way we let both Tanev and Myers go - our top 4 would be a disaster and arguably one of the worst in the league, even with Tryamkin.

 

[Peter10]

While I think we go way off topic since this the Tryamkin thread, I feel people just see the possibility of compliance buyouts and think the Canucks would be magically fine after that. Yes, it would be great news to get rid of the Eriksson contract and maybe one more but before it comes to that, a lot would have to happen.

First of all, we don't know yet what the cap will be next season, indications from a few days ago ( think it was Daly) are that the league and PA could agree on an artificial salary cap which is roughly equal to what we had this year. I doubt that in that scenario compliance buyouts would be implemented. Now if it comes to the point that the league will have to implement those buyouts, it means that the cap will be significantly lower than it is now which of course means the Canucks would be still in cap trouble. Having a 84m payroll with Eriksson in a 81.5m cap world isnt worse than a 78m payroll without Eriksson in a 75.5m cap.

 

[VanJack]

I seriously wonder about the KHL, coming out of this COVID-19 lock-down. As other posters have pointed out, the league probably doesn't generate big television revenues. It's a 'gate-driven' league, which already had some teams teetering economically, even before this crisis.

Predicting in the off-season (whenever that is) that Russian players and their agents will be showing even more interest in the NHL. Frankly, in light of all these events, I'd be more than surprised if Tryamkin and Canucks can't come to an agreement on a contract.

And unless Benning has some sort of trade or heaven-forbid another UFA signing up his sleeve, they're going to need him. Can't see how they can re-sign Tanev.....less than 50/50 they qualify Stecher; and if the last 10 games or so were any indication, Edler's game is slipping fast. And although he had a decent first season with the Canucks, Myers game is big question mark going forward as he gets older and the league gets faster.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

 

[TryamkinPleaseReturn]

You're justifying my username my friend, nice update!

 

[canuckking1]

Tryamkin is slightly better than oscar fantenberg I don't get what the excitement is about. Hope a team that likes his size is willing to give up something of value for him maybe a puljujarvi?

 

[F A N]

Tryamkin is slightly better than oscar fantenberg I don't get what the excitement is about. Hope a team that likes his size is willing to give up something of value for him maybe a puljujarvi?

Tryamkin's size, strength, and reach really can allow him to to be effective. I remember him separating quite a few players from the puck and just pushing guys down. Brad Richardson got hurt because he wanted to avoid being hit by Tryamkin. Basically there's potential there and we didn't get enough opportunity to see it play out.