2022-2023 NHL trades and signings

[bustaheims]

The guys that score goals - one of the main components of how you win games - are getting paid well? Oh my stars.

I think his comment was misinterpreted from reading the interview.
He agrees the "star" players should get paid...just that they're getting paid too much of the total and then the middle of the road players are being pushed lower and lower because of it. That's the way I read it. I don't necessarily agree with it.

It's sort of the argument that a CEO of a company gets paid too much, therefore the workers don't get paid enough. I at least think that's what he was trying to gripe about.

He also then acknowledges that it's the market and there's not much he can do about it.

https://www.thescore.com/nhl/news/2409625

If that's the argument he's trying to make, he's failing is his analogy. The star players are more equivalent to your top performing sales people.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

The guys that score goals - one of the main components of how you win games - are getting paid well? Oh my stars.

I think his comment was misinterpreted from reading the interview.
He agrees the "star" players should get paid...just that they're getting paid too much of the total and then the middle of the road players are being pushed lower and lower because of it. That's the way I read it. I don't necessarily agree with it.

It's sort of the argument that a CEO of a company gets paid too much, therefore the workers don't get paid enough. I at least think that's what he was trying to gripe about.

He also then acknowledges that it's the market and there's not much he can do about it.

https://www.thescore.com/nhl/news/2409625

If that's the argument he's trying to make, he's failing is his analogy. The star players are more equivalent to your top performing sales people.

Yes I agree. It was my analogy and I originally thought "sales people" as the comparison but decided to not use it as a big chunk of a top sales person's earnings in many industries is based on commissions and bonuses. Now, if they wanted to say every player makes 1 to 2 million dollars and the rest of your potential earnings was based on performance bonuses, it would be more similar to the commercial world. (But yes, the CEO comparison was a poor one, but one that people gripe about).

 

[herman]

https://twitter.com/wyshynski/status/1564982615064678401
Why hasn't Evan Rodrigues signed yet?

His agent, Darren Ferris--

Ah, say no more.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

"The unfortunate part of this year in general is that the marketplace has shifted because of the cap," one NHL agent said. "You have a weird situation where you have 16 or 17 teams that want to lose and you've got the rest that want to win. The cap has incentivized losing in a way: 'Hey, if I'm not going to make the playoffs, I could do better by selling my cap space.'"

It's weird that a quote like this could get published when it's so very easily untrue. It might even be tough to name just 6 or 7 teams that "want to lose".

 

[bustaheims]

"The unfortunate part of this year in general is that the marketplace has shifted because of the cap," one NHL agent said. "You have a weird situation where you have 16 or 17 teams that want to lose and you've got the rest that want to win. The cap has incentivized losing in a way: 'Hey, if I'm not going to make the playoffs, I could do better by selling my cap space.'"

It's weird that a quote like this could get published when it's so very easily untrue. It might even be tough to name just 6 or 7 teams that "want to lose".

Yeah. That's a huge exaggeration. I count 2 that are trying to lose - Chicago and Arizona - and maybe a 3rd that didn't do much to improve on a last place finish in Montreal. There's a couple others that aren't necessarily trying to win (I'm looking at you, Winnipeg), but they're not trying to lose, either.

 

[Kin]

"The unfortunate part of this year in general is that the marketplace has shifted because of the cap," one NHL agent said. "You have a weird situation where you have 16 or 17 teams that want to lose and you've got the rest that want to win. The cap has incentivized losing in a way: 'Hey, if I'm not going to make the playoffs, I could do better by selling my cap space.'"

It's weird that a quote like this could get published when it's so very easily untrue. It might even be tough to name just 6 or 7 teams that "want to lose".

Yeah. That's a huge exaggeration. I count 2 that are trying to lose - Chicago and Arizona - and maybe a 3rd that didn't do much to improve on a last place finish in Montreal. There's a couple others that aren't necessarily trying to win (I'm looking at you, Winnipeg), but they're not trying to lose, either.

I think there's a big difference between wanting to lose and actively trying to lose and I think it's tough to argue against the idea that the system, as currently structured, incentivizes the bottom 3rd of the league that to lose with very little reward for being a middling as opposed to bad team.

 

[L K]

"The unfortunate part of this year in general is that the marketplace has shifted because of the cap," one NHL agent said. "You have a weird situation where you have 16 or 17 teams that want to lose and you've got the rest that want to win. The cap has incentivized losing in a way: 'Hey, if I'm not going to make the playoffs, I could do better by selling my cap space.'"

It's weird that a quote like this could get published when it's so very easily untrue. It might even be tough to name just 6 or 7 teams that "want to lose".

I'm going to go out on a limb and just assume the quote is from some guy named Wlan Aalsh.

 

[Arn]

The guys that score goals - one of the main components of how you win games - are getting paid well? Oh my stars.

I think his comment was misinterpreted from reading the interview.
He agrees the "star" players should get paid...just that they're getting paid too much of the total and then the middle of the road players are being pushed lower and lower because of it. That's the way I read it. I don't necessarily agree with it.

It's sort of the argument that a CEO of a company gets paid too much, therefore the workers don't get paid enough. I at least think that's what he was trying to gripe about.

He also then acknowledges that it's the market and there's not much he can do about it.

https://www.thescore.com/nhl/news/2409625

And whose fault is it that there has to be a squeeze on some players to let others get paid what they deserve? Wouldn?t be the team owners who wanted a hard salary cap per chance?

 

[OldTimeHockey]

The guys that score goals - one of the main components of how you win games - are getting paid well? Oh my stars.

I think his comment was misinterpreted from reading the interview.
He agrees the "star" players should get paid...just that they're getting paid too much of the total and then the middle of the road players are being pushed lower and lower because of it. That's the way I read it. I don't necessarily agree with it.

It's sort of the argument that a CEO of a company gets paid too much, therefore the workers don't get paid enough. I at least think that's what he was trying to gripe about.

He also then acknowledges that it's the market and there's not much he can do about it.

https://www.thescore.com/nhl/news/2409625

And whose fault is it that there has to be a squeeze on some players to let others get paid what they deserve? Wouldn?t be the team owners who wanted a hard salary cap per chance?

Well I think that players within the PA as well as team management has caused the divide that he is speaking of. They're getting rid of the middle class. Again though, I don't know that I necessarily agree. Players like Hyman are still getting paid. I'd think that they're in that middle class.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

https://twitter.com/frank_seravalli/status/1565086052624244736

The Wild shed some salary, moving out $2.25mil which brings their cap space up to $5mil-ish.

D-d-d-dominos??? I always thought Minny was one of the teams Kerfoot would have made a lot of sense on.

 

[Zee]

Holy crap it's September. Hockey soon.

 

[herman]

D-d-d-dominos??? I always thought Minny was one of the teams Kerfoot would have made a lot of sense on.

I thought Anaheim (low actual salary fits their budget), with its dearth of veteran forwards. Having a utility player like Kerfoot who is both old and young at the same time would help bridge their players. Closer to home for him as well.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

D-d-d-dominos??? I always thought Minny was one of the teams Kerfoot would have made a lot of sense on.

I thought Anaheim (low actual salary fits their budget), with its dearth of veteran forwards. Having a utility player like Kerfoot who is both old and young at the same time would help bridge their players. Closer to home for him as well.

Minny, back to Colorado, or Winnipeg (although the NTC might come into play there) were the 3 I could see going after him.

 

[herman]

D-d-d-dominos??? I always thought Minny was one of the teams Kerfoot would have made a lot of sense on.

I thought Anaheim (low actual salary fits their budget), with its dearth of veteran forwards. Having a utility player like Kerfoot who is both old and young at the same time would help bridge their players. Closer to home for him as well.

Minny, back to Colorado, or Winnipeg (although the NTC might come into play there) were the 3 I could see going after him.

I can see those first two choices as they're more competitive. COL replacing the loss of Kadri with Kerfoot is funny.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

I can see those first two choices as they're more competitive. COL replacing the loss of Kadri with Kerfoot is funny.

You know there'd be like a 70% chance of Kerfoot putting up 70 points or something stupid there too.

 

[Kin]

Well I think that players within the PA as well as team management has caused the divide that he is speaking of. They're getting rid of the middle class.

Considering that it's owners and GMs who have the only definitive say in who gets paid what it's not the Players or PA who are doing anything. Any team can absolutely unilaterally take a stand that they won't pay any players 9+ million regardless of how good the player is and there is no mechanism by which a player can force the team to do so.

The reality is that NHL teams value the scarcity of talent at top much more than they do the glut in the middle. An owner can lament the effect that has on team building but it's absolutely a market they themselves create.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

https://twitter.com/CapFriendly/status/1565420240343007232

Identical to the bridge deal that Sorokin signed last year (oddly enough, exactly a year ago today actually).

 

[OldTimeHockey]

Well I think that players within the PA as well as team management has caused the divide that he is speaking of. They're getting rid of the middle class.

Considering that it's owners and GMs who have the only definitive say in who gets paid what it's not the Players or PA who are doing anything. Any team can absolutely unilaterally take a stand that they won't pay any players 9+ million regardless of how good the player is and there is no mechanism by which a player can force the team to do so.

The reality is that NHL teams value the scarcity of talent at top much more than they do the glut in the middle. An owner can lament the effect that has on team building but it's absolutely a market they themselves create.

Sure a team can take a stand. It'd be suicide. But they can.

While I think that players don't play as great of a part in the salaries and the divide between the top and the bottom as management does, I do believe that they have to take some responsibility. Of course you want to get paid.....and you're not going to turn down more money...but if it causes your team to fill the roster with 750k players, have you not helped contribute to the problem?

 

[Kin]

Sure a team can take a stand. It'd be suicide. But they can.

Right. It would be suicide because it would go contrary to the way the market actually values players. Teams know that if they lose a Zach Hyman not only are players roughly as valuable as him available every year but that it's also very possible that you might be able to get a fairly comparable guy at a lower cost. Conversely, if you were to lose Auston Matthews not only are there no players available who are comparable but the guys a step behind him are also rarely available. The NHL is a pyramid of talent and scarcity drives value which drives cost. That's just sort of the basics of any closed economy.

It would be different if anyone were actually arguing that the middle line guys were underpaid relative to the value they contribute because, if that were true, that would be a Moneyball-esque opportunity for someone and a competitive advantage for who could harness it. But the argument seems less that and more that the disparity seems unjust or bad for, like, team spirit. Which might very well be true but when it comes to market-based Capitalism that's a feature, not a bug.

While I think that players don't play as great of a part in the salaries and the divide between the top and the bottom as management does, I do believe that they have to take some responsibility. Of course you want to get paid.....and you're not going to turn down more money...but if it causes your team to fill the roster with 750k players, have you not helped contribute to the problem?

No. First of all the entire basis for the discussion that necessitates some guys at the bottom making less because of what the guys at the top make is the system that owners shut down the league to implement and players fought against. You can't ascribe responsibility to the players for the natural market conditions that come out of a system the owners unilaterally wanted and were willing to do serious damage to the players' careers if they didn't get it.

But even on a more practical sense the argument doesn't hold up. If Connor McDavid says "I want to help the team and take less. I'll sign my next deal for 9 million a year." it doesn't actually change the value of other players. In that scenario it doesn't mean it would make sense to give Evander Kane 8 million a year or a minimum player 3.5. All it would mean is that the Oilers could afford other middle class players who would still be valued by the market conditions that exist. You could say "Well, if McDavid takes less then all other superstars would have to take less which would mean more money for players on the bottom" but we've already seen that doesn't hold up via Tampa. Kucherov's deal, Stamkos' deal, Hedman's deal...none of them prevented teams from offering more money to players who aren't as good as those three.

But again, even if that weren't true, "elite superstars could, if they wanted to, decide that player salaries should reflect some sort of notion of egalitarian comraderie rather than how the people who actually offer contracts value talent" is not a particularly compelling case that they're responsible for the system that exists.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

First of all the entire basis for the discussion that necessitates some guys at the bottom making less because of what the guys at the top make is the system that owners shut down the league to implement and players fought against. You can't ascribe responsibility to the players for the natural market conditions that come out of a system the owners unilaterally wanted and were willing to do serious damage to the players' careers if they didn't get it.

That's a good point. I've never really thought of it that way.