• For users coming over from tmlfans.ca your username will remain the same but you will need to use the password reset feature (check your spam folder) on the login page in order to set your password. If you encounter issues, email Rick couchmanrick@gmail.com

2020-2021 NHL Thread

herman said:
David Clarkson? It depends a bit on what return is defined as...
It was a comparable cap hit% at signing, but the expectations were not like Eriksson's. Louie put up more points, but also was a roster drag. Clarkson at least had the wherewithal to be ruinously injured (poor guy).
Click to expand...

Clarkson was only around for two years here before he was dealt for cap relief. Eriksson is going to probably play out his entire deal.

So in that context, and this is remarkable to say, I'd rather my GM sign Clarkson.
 
Nik said:
herman said:
David Clarkson? It depends a bit on what return is defined as...
It was a comparable cap hit% at signing, but the expectations were not like Eriksson's. Louie put up more points, but also was a roster drag. Clarkson at least had the wherewithal to be ruinously injured (poor guy).
Click to expand...

Clarkson was only around for two years here before he was dealt for cap relief. Eriksson is going to probably play out his entire deal.

So in that context, and this is remarkable to say, I'd rather my GM sign Clarkson.
Click to expand...

The cap relief was artificial (LTIR) and really only a stroke of luck allowed that trade to happen, but I think I would agree as well. Cap problem off the roster > cap problem on the roster.
 
Bender said:
herman said:
I am laughing at NYI's capsheet, and to a similar, but lesser extent, Vancouver's.
Click to expand...
But Lou is a god and we would've been better off keeping him.
Click to expand...

Meanwhile, the Avalanche would've won the Cup with Dubas GMing Rantanen-MacKinnon-Nylander, while the Leafs would have a top pair of Nikita Zadorov-Nikita Zaitsev
 
Nik said:
The NHL is asking players to take a further 13% salary deferral for the season, which may be why we don't have a firmer idea of when the next season will start:

NY Post: NHL wants Players to defer more money despite recent deal
Click to expand...

I guess a deferral is easier to swallow than asking the players to prorate their salaries if the season wasn't 82 games (even though the MOU seems to make it clear the players and league already agreed that wouldn't happen).

Still, it seems like there's still a lot of negotiating to do here and if the league wants a January 1st start date you'd think training camps would be opening in less than a month so the clock is starting to tick.
 
CarltonTheBear said:
Nik said:
The NHL is asking players to take a further 13% salary deferral for the season, which may be why we don't have a firmer idea of when the next season will start:

NY Post: NHL wants Players to defer more money despite recent deal
Click to expand...

I guess a deferral is easier to swallow than asking the players to prorate their salaries if the season wasn't 82 games (even though the MOU seems to make it clear the players and league already agreed that wouldn't happen).

Still, it seems like there's still a lot of negotiating to do here and if the league wants a January 1st start date you'd think training camps would be opening in less than a month so the clock is starting to tick.
Click to expand...

I can't imagine the league and the players thought we'd be here in November when they agreed to a framework in July.

But I also can't believe that they didn't build into the agreement something that would allow for some flexibility if they still wouldn't be able to cross borders, or play a full 82 game season.

Weird.
 
There are several problems with this in the eyes of the union: "We just made a deal, so why should it be changed?" "In the past, when we've been unhappy with a CBA, we've had to live with it," "Why did this get proposed so late, we didn't need a gun to our heads," "If we agree to this, who's to say it won't happen again," and "They knew this was going to happen all along, didn't they?"
Click to expand...

I don't see the players budging here.

Even if I get where the owners are coming from here, they signed a deal this summer that led to this. If they turn around now and demand for more referrals it just seems like they purposely left that out of the original agreement just to ensure a smooth return to play arrangement. Nobody can act like the current situation we're in right now is a surprise.
 
I don't see the players budging, either, but, ultimately, I'm not sure if it's in their best interest. The players still ultimately only get 50% of HRR. If they defer more of their salaries, they'll end up getting at least some of that money back in the future. If they lose it to escrow, they might never see any of it (at least, based on my understanding of how escrow and such works - I know there are mechanisms in place for players to get some of the escrow payments back, but I believe those only come into play if their total payout after escrow is deducted comes in below the 50% mark), as it's unlikely the league brings in enough revenue this season to cover the difference.

I get why they're holding firm - it's very late in the game for the owners to bring this forward, and is definitely dirty pool/bad faith - but they might want to do the math here before rejecting it outright. Cooler heads need to prevail, and they need to take an objective look at things, rather than the initial emotional reaction. They might be shooting themselves in their collective feet (or, maybe they have, and I'm interpreting things wrong, I honestly don't know), or missing an opportunity to get something in return from the BoG.
 
bustaheims said:
I don't see the players budging, either, but, ultimately, I'm not sure if it's in their best interest. The players still ultimately only get 50% of HRR. If they defer more of their salaries, they'll end up getting at least some of that money back in the future. If they lose it to escrow, they might never see any of it (at least, based on my understanding of how escrow and such works - I know there are mechanisms in place for players to get some of the escrow payments back, but I believe those only come into play if their total payout after escrow is deducted comes in below the 50% mark), as it's unlikely the league brings in enough revenue this season to cover the difference.
Click to expand...

The MOU that was signed in the summer put a 20% cap on escrow for this coming season, and considering the revenues are going to be laughable escrow will surely be a full 20% (they actually probably got a pretty good deal there). So 20% of their salaries are already kaput basically and they've already agreed to defer 10% as well.
 
At some point the players best interests are served by rejecting the BOG's attempts to negotiate in bad faith as opposed to taking the "Well, it's better than nothing" position that lead to them losing two lockouts decisively.

If the BOG was serious about the necessity of this, they'd have come to the players with that "something in return" as part of the proposal, not as something for the players to potentially try and hammer out in a counter-proposal.
 
giphy.gif
 
CarltonTheBear said:
bustaheims said:
I don't see the players budging, either, but, ultimately, I'm not sure if it's in their best interest. The players still ultimately only get 50% of HRR. If they defer more of their salaries, they'll end up getting at least some of that money back in the future. If they lose it to escrow, they might never see any of it (at least, based on my understanding of how escrow and such works - I know there are mechanisms in place for players to get some of the escrow payments back, but I believe those only come into play if their total payout after escrow is deducted comes in below the 50% mark), as it's unlikely the league brings in enough revenue this season to cover the difference.
Click to expand...

The MOU that was signed in the summer put a 20% cap on escrow for this coming season, and considering the revenues are going to be laughable escrow will surely be a full 20% (they actually probably got a pretty good deal there). So 20% of their salaries are already kaput basically and they've already agreed to defer 10% as well.
Click to expand...

From what I understand, if what the total of salaries end up being more the 50% of revenues in a given year and escrow isn't enough to cover the overage then it's carried forward and future escrow amounts are applied to this balance. The players will end up with 50% of revenues no matter what.
 
Nik said:
Admittedly, it's not as exciting as heatmaps.
Click to expand...

I think the owners were banking on a significantly different landscape (i.e. fans in the stands) that was always going to be a pipe dream given how it has been handled primarily with thoughts and prayers.
 
Deebo said:
From what I understand, if what the total of salaries end up being more the 50% of revenues in a given year and escrow isn't enough to cover the overage then it's carried forward and future escrow amounts are applied to this balance. The players will end up with 50% of revenues no matter what.
Click to expand...

Ah, gotcha. Quick glance at the MOU seems to confirm. That makes more sense.
 
herman said:
Nik said:
Admittedly, it's not as exciting as heatmaps.
Click to expand...

I think the owners were banking on a significantly different landscape (i.e. fans in the stands) that was always going to be a pipe dream given how it has been handled primarily with thoughts and prayers.
Click to expand...

Indeed. That was their bet. They bet wrong and now are asking players to cover their losses.
 
Sounds like Kekalainen is playing some hardball with Dubois:

https://www.tsn.ca/columbus-blue-jackets-jarmo-kekalainen-sure-pierre-luc-dubois-will-sign-before-camp-1.1553877
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

About Us

This website is NOT associated with the Toronto Maple Leafs or the NHL.


It is operated by Rick Couchman and Jeff Lewis.
Back
Top