Game 79: Sabres @ Maple Leafs. 7:00pm. another day, another loss ?

[Tigger]

I don't see many players signing a two way deal.

Well no, I was being half facetious but that's part of the reason why.

 

[Kin]

I understand that to a point but where it gets murky for me is comparing that contract to other players. Like I said before it seems like there would have to be 'types' of contracts singled out.

No, because it'd be a simple calculation. If you sign a guy, he counts against your cap. You wouldn't be looking for specific instances because every contract would be treated as the same.

 

[sneakyray]

I don't see many players signing a two way deal.

Well no, I was being half facetious but that's part of the reason why.

but would we have thought players would sign for a contract where the last few years are at 25% or less of market value?

 

[Deebo]

I understand that to a point but where it gets murky for me is comparing that contract to other players. Like I said before it seems like there would have to be 'types' of contracts singled out.

No, because it'd be a simple calculation. If you sign a guy, he counts against your cap. You wouldn't be looking for specific instances because every contract would be treated as the same.

So even players on entry level deals playing the AHL would count?

 

[Kin]

I think we all know instinctively that players like Finger and Redden are being 'buried' but I can't help but think there could be instances of some players, signed to large (or semi-large) contracts, who legitimately do not make their respective teams. Is someone from the NHL going to step in and tell those teams that they have to count those players against their NHL cap? Will there be some kind of guidelines as to what type of players qualify?

This is the case. If you signed player X to a 3 year/9 million dollar deal then that would be nine million dollars off your cap over the next three years. Even if that player didn't make your team by virtue of skill the idea would be that it was the team's bad luck and they'd have 3 million less to work with.

 

[ZBBM]

Well that's just awesome.

 

[Tigger]

I understand that to a point but where it gets murky for me is comparing that contract to other players. Like I said before it seems like there would have to be 'types' of contracts singled out.

No, because it'd be a simple calculation. If you sign a guy, he counts against your cap. You wouldn't be looking for specific instances because every contract would be treated as the same.

Isn't that a whole new cap system though? You'd have to include, potentially, 50 contracts?

 

[Kin]

So even players on entry level deals playing the AHL would count?

Well, I suppose contracts with built in AHL pay scales would be treated differently. I just meant one way guaranteed contracts.

 

[Kin]

Isn't that a whole new cap system though? You'd have to include, potentially, 50 contracts?

Yeah, I misspoke slightly there. I suppose there'd still be two way and entry level deals that wouldn't count against the cap but deals like Reddens, your one way guaranteed deals, would all count against the cap for the duration.

 

[sneakyray]

why can't they do an nfl style deal where not the whole contract is guaranteed?

 

[riff raff]

I think we all know instinctively that players like Finger and Redden are being 'buried' but I can't help but think there could be instances of some players, signed to large (or semi-large) contracts, who legitimately do not make their respective teams. Is someone from the NHL going to step in and tell those teams that they have to count those players against their NHL cap? Will there be some kind of guidelines as to what type of players qualify?

This is the case. If you signed player X to a 3 year/9 million dollar deal then that would be nine million dollars off your cap over the next three years. Even if that player didn't make your team by virtue of skill the idea would be that it was the team's bad luck and they'd have 3 million less to work with.

I get what you are saying. There are certain thresholds (length/amount) that indicate that a contract is an "NHL contract".

However, given that some of the yahoos running teams can't operate fax machines or count the number of call-ups allowed, I would guess that the league will have to spell it out carefully and clearly.

 

[Deebo]

why can't they do an nfl style deal where not the whole contract is guaranteed?

Because that would have to be collectively bargained.

 

[Kin]

why can't they do an nfl style deal where not the whole contract is guaranteed?

Non-guaranteed contracts would be  very, very contentious for the PA. The league could try to go that way but that could very well turn these negotiations as ugly or uglier than 04-05.

 

[Stronger Than All]

beating the Sabres is good and all, especially if we're screwing them for the playoffs.    But the Lighting, Ilses, and Wild better win their games!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Deebo]

I think we all know instinctively that players like Finger and Redden are being 'buried' but I can't help but think there could be instances of some players, signed to large (or semi-large) contracts, who legitimately do not make their respective teams. Is someone from the NHL going to step in and tell those teams that they have to count those players against their NHL cap? Will there be some kind of guidelines as to what type of players qualify?

This is the case. If you signed player X to a 3 year/9 million dollar deal then that would be nine million dollars off your cap over the next three years. Even if that player didn't make your team by virtue of skill the idea would be that it was the team's bad luck and they'd have 3 million less to work with.

I get what you are saying. There are certain thresholds (length/amount) that indicate that a contract is an "NHL contract".

No, one way deals would count, period.

 

[Tigger]

I don't see many players signing a two way deal.

Well no, I was being half facetious but that's part of the reason why.

but would we have thought players would sign for a contract where the last few years are at 25% or less of market value?

Sure but given how the cap functions it's not surprising and tons less risk ( unless they brought in another 'factor' of some sort )

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

beating the Sabres is good and all, especially if we're screwing them for the playoffs.    But the Lighting, Ilses, and Wild better win their games!!!!!!!!!!

Lightning and Isles lost, and Minny is trailing 3-2 after 2.

 

[drummond]

beating the Sabres is good and all, especially if we're screwing them for the playoffs.    But the Lighting, Ilses, and Wild better win their games!!!!!!!!!!

Lightning and Isles lost, and Minny is trailing 3-2 after 2.

Not good

 

[barney_rebel]

We rule man...

 

[Deebo]

beating the Sabres is good and all, especially if we're screwing them for the playoffs.    But the Lighting, Ilses, and Wild better win their games!!!!!!!!!!

Lightning and Isles lost, and Minny is trailing 3-2 after 2.

The lightning won.