Ongoing NHL Thread Part V minutes for fighting

[Bloody Brian Burke]

He got bigger cheers at Leaf games than most goals. The ultimate Canadian dad.

 

[wingsauce7]

I never realized just how much his kid resembled him.

RIP

 

[thedddd]

Does this mean we won't have a Canadian Cup winner?

North Division Champion May Need To Adopt U.S. Home For Semis, Cup Final

While progress is being made against the spread of the Coronavirus daily, there are still concerns about the restrictions that …

www.prohockeyrumors.com

 

[forty_three]

RIP, Walter Gretzky. Always seemed like such a genuinely decent human.

 

[dash]

I think this is more LTIRetirement than actual retirement, right? I mean, Seabrook will still get his money and the Hawks will use LTIR as cap space.

 

[forty_three]

I think this is more LTIRetirement than actual retirement, right? I mean, Seabrook will still get his money and the Hawks will use LTIR as cap space.

6.875 for three more years. By coming out and saying it, he should be forced to officially retire and the Hawks deal with the cap hit. I mean, I know LTIR (wink wink) is used as it is and some people know they will never play again but if they officially say "Nah, I'm done" that is retirement for cap purposes. I just want the LTIRetirement loophole closed. I know it will never happen.

Also: Holy hell Hawks have 26m on LTIR right now.

 

[dash]

Also: Holy hell Hawks have 26m on LTIR right now.

They've put a rash of guys on LTIR.

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

Wonder if Dach + a 1st starts an Eichel conversation with the Sabres.

 

[forty_three]

Wonder if Dach + a 1st starts an Eichel conversation with the Sabres.

And this is why I want the LTIR loophole dead.

 

[wings-pens2166]

They've put a rash of guys on LTIR.

Oh that’s just scratching the surface of what they’ve done.

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

And this is why I want the LTIR loophole dead.

My gut feeling is whatever solution they come up with will be worse.

The problem aren't the loopholes, the problem is the cap. It's unnecessary as is, and you won't convince me a system like the NBA's isn't better.

 

[forty_three]

My gut feeling is whatever solution they come up with will be worse.

The problem aren't the loopholes, the problem is the cap. It's unnecessary as is, and you won't convince me a system like the NBA's isn't better.

Well, when the owners are the ones with the most input, it's destined to be shit. I don't know anything about the NBAs cap, but I assume it's structured to favor teams with bigger followings or bigger stars, like everything they do.

They should have it peer reviewed by a group of former GMs or GMs in other leagues with the goal of finding how they'd exploit it before ratifying it. Maybe even agents from other sports too.

Maybe they could have teams be able to purchase a compliance buyout for 2m against the cap for 3 years and set the rule that no player can be on LTIR for more than three consecutive years. If someone is on LTIR for 3 years, they lose LTIR status and full cap hit is enforced. That should stop teams giving long term big buck deals they know the player will never finish, while offering some flexibility and planning. And provides an out for a player who legitimately has a career ending injury.

Also stop the trading of LTIR contracts. I realize we benefited from both of these things in recent years, but that doesn't mean I have to like it.

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

Well, when the owners are the ones with the most input, it's destined to be shit. I don't know anything about the NBAs cap, but I assume it's structured to favor teams with bigger followings or bigger stars, like everything they do.

They should have it peer reviewed by a group of former GMs or GMs in other leagues with the goal of finding how they'd exploit it before ratifying it. Maybe even agents from other sports too.

Maybe they could have teams be able to purchase a compliance buyout for 2m against the cap for 3 years and set the rule that no player can be on LTIR for more than three consecutive years. If someone is on LTIR for 3 years, they lose LTIR status and full cap hit is enforced. That should stop teams giving long term big buck deals they know the player will never finish, while offering some flexibility and planning. And provides an out for a player who legitimately has a career ending injury.

Also stop the trading of LTIR contracts. I realize we benefited from both of these things in recent years, but that doesn't mean I have to like it.

Actually quite the opposite - they allow the signing of "supermax" contracts of players that have a lesser cap hit if it's a player you developed, incentivizing stars to stay with their first teams instead of fleeing to create superteams. Some guys will still do that but, for example, Giannis Antetokounmpo has won the last two MVP awards, was destined to become a UFA this summer and decided to sign long-term in Milwaukee and it didn't completely screw up his team's cap structure. In short, teams aren't penalized for being good at their jobs.

It also has a better RFA structure where teams can match an offer if a player tests the market but don't lose draft picks for signing an RFA player. Results in far more player movement and excitement in the offseason.

 

[forty_three]

Actually quite the opposite - they allow the signing of "supermax" contracts of players that have a lesser cap hit if it's a player you developed, incentivizing stars to stay with their first teams instead of fleeing to create superteams. Some guys will still do that but, for example, Giannis Antetokounmpo has won the last two MVP awards, was destined to become a UFA this summer and decided to sign long-term in Milwaukee and it didn't completely screw up his team's cap structure. In short, teams aren't penalized for being good at their jobs.

It also has a better RFA structure where teams can match an offer if a player tests the market but don't lose draft picks for signing an RFA player. Results in far more player movement and excitement in the offseason.

Like the first half. Not so much the second.

Although if players have reasons to stay in one place, it's not as big an impact in restricted free agency.

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

Like the first half. Not so much the second.

Although if players have reasons to stay in one place, it's not as big an impact in restricted free agency.

The NHL's RFA system is a form of bondage and only looks good when compared to MLB's system.

And beside that it's bad for the league - literally nobody worth a shit moves or signs elsewhere for it to capture the attention of fans in the offseason. They squander a massive annual marketing & publicity opportunity and ways to keep hockey in peoples' conversations.

 

[forty_three]

The NHL's RFA system is a form of bondage and only looks good when compared to MLB's system.

And beside that it's bad for the league - literally nobody worth a shit moves or signs elsewhere for it to capture the attention of fans in the offseason. They squander a massive annual marketing & publicity opportunity and ways to keep hockey in peoples' conversations.

What I like about the current RFA system is that it gives teams that have built solidly through the draft and don't have the resources (or tax loopholes) to bring in top name players the chance to stay competitive. And if players do move, the team they leave gets some sort of return on their investment in said player.

So if a player leaves a team and decides to come back to them eventually, are they able to sign a "supermax" contract with the team that developed them (or at least started the development), or do they need to be in continuous service with that team to get that kind of deal?

 

[gob]

What I like about the current RFA system is that it gives teams that have built solidly through the draft and don't have the resources (or tax loopholes) to bring in top name players the chance to stay competitive. And if players do move, the team they leave gets some sort of return on their investment in said player.

So if a player leaves a team and decides to come back to them eventually, are they able to sign a "supermax" contract with the team that developed them (or at least started the development), or do they need to be in continuous service with that team to get that kind of deal?

I think LeBron was able to sign a supermax during his return to Cleveland

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

What I like about the current RFA system is that it gives teams that have built solidly through the draft and don't have the resources (or tax loopholes) to bring in top name players the chance to stay competitive. And if players do move, the team they leave gets some sort of return on their investment in said player.

So if a player leaves a team and decides to come back to them eventually, are they able to sign a "supermax" contract with the team that developed them (or at least started the development), or do they need to be in continuous service with that team to get that kind of deal?

I guess my retort would be that in an open market teams with RFA's would be able to pay them more because they won't be galaxy-braining themselves into overpaying guys entering their 30s anymore. It's pretty unfair to RFA players who are 10x better than most UFA's that they are restricted in their negotiations by "oh well we control your ass for the next 4 years still so take whatever crumbs we give you, jackass". Players should be able to make what they're worth IMO. So the increase in available money to RFA-status players, along with the better system, would make for a more equitable and fair system that still favours staying with the team you're with.

And no, once they leave they can't come back and then get the benefit of their first franchise but say they're traded, the team that traded for them can still sign them to a higher contract at a lower cap hit than if they leave on the open market - example, Kawhi Leonard was traded from San Antonio to Toronto with 1 year left on his deal. Toronto could and did offer him more money once he hit UFA but he left to join the LA Clippers because he's dumb.

 

[thedddd]

I like the NBA system but wonder if that would work as well with larger rosters? I always thought the model worked well with the inherit smaller rosters, but I could be wrong.

 

[dash]