Éditer l'avatar
  • png, jpeg
  • La grandeur minimale recommandée se veut de 800px par 800px
  • Grandeur maximale: 1MB
Glisser l'image pour repositionner
Sauvegarder
Annuler

DragonRaptorHybrid

Sensible Commentary
Membre depuis
25 jui 2016
Équipe favorite
Penguins de Pittsburgh
Deuxième équipe favorite
Coyotes de l'Arizona
Messages dans les forums
871
Messages par jour
0.45
Sujets de discussion
56
Forum: Montreal Canadiens29 aoû à 11 h 24
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>F50marco</b></div><div>and they are literally right up to the cap at that point......... forget trade deadline acquisitions. Forget easy call ups when injuries happen. But more importantly and you agreed with me on this, what about next year? How much is Suzuki getting now? What happens when KK scores 41 points and demands 6M+ again next year?

IF KK signed an offer sheet on July 1st, I'd be wayyyyy more forgiving. The team had cap space, Danault wasn't coming back, etc. etc. After the team signs a bunch of players and training camp starts in a month? That put the team in a bind gong forward that they shouldn't have had to be in and didn't plan for.

The ramifications of this are far deeper than you think. The timing was terrible.</div></div>So what i'm going to say about this whole situation comes from a vaguely different perspective, and it is not particularly meant to be a "well, you're wrong, and here's why" sort of deal. But my take on this whole thing devolves into two related but semi-distinct points:

1) Jesperi Kotkaniemi should really be trying to make as much money as he can, at the end of the day, because the team he plays for is certainly going to try and bilk him out of as much of it as they think they can get away with.
It's that sort of line of thinking, that players need to pay their dues before they can make it big, that led to this current system of restricted free agency, along with this nebulous idea that a team and the players that play for it are one big happy family. Hockey is still a <em>business</em>, at the end of the day, and young players get the short end of the stick for hand-wavy intangible reasons that are frankly kinda dumb. You see the extreme end of this in the NFL, with non-guaranteed contracts and running backs that last, like, a few years before injuries and concussions ruin their careers. NFL players have to make as much money as they can with the short playing window that they have. Hockey players frankly should be doing the same thing, because who knows how long their window of opportunity will last to make it big in the NHL.
On top of that, the pandemic has really made it plainly obvious that sports leagues and sports team owners have a severe disdain for anything that is not <em>making money</em>, up to and including the health and safety of their players. Again, you see the extreme end of this in the NFL, where, last season, an entire <em>fifth</em> (as in, 20%) of the league's players wound up on the COVID-19 injury reserve list. Sports teams very much see their players as commodities as opposed to human beings, and, as much as hockey fans might not like to think it, this extends to the NHL, too. Frankly, I think this means that, conversely, players should have a more detached view of their attachment to a team, as well.
$6.1M is a <em>lot</em> of money, and definitely more than the 2-year, $2.5M AAV contract that had supposedly been extended to Kotkaniemi, per Elliotte Friedman; on top of that, Friedman said on the 31 Thoughts podcast that he's fairly certain that the Hurricanes have already discussed what a long-term contract would look like with Kotkaniemi and his agent, making it look like they've done their due diligence. Arpon Basu's reporting in The Athletic also seems to imply that Kotkaniemi, at one point, thought he would be getting a long-term extension from the Habs, but that that thinking changed. This sorta leads into my second point:

2) I think the relationship between Kotkaniemi and the Habs really badly deteriorated, but that it wasn't <em>just</em> on Kotkaniemi's end, and he thinks the Habs have done <em>him</em> dirty in some number of ways. I think Basu's reporting sums up this situation far better than I can, so I'll just drop a couple of quotes from the article he wrote about it:

<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quote:</div>Last season, Kotkaniemi struggled to find consistency, but it should be noted he didn’t benefit from any consistency either in terms of linemates or role. He was 20, remember, and while some would argue the onus was on him to make the best of his situation – it’s a fair argument – it could just as easily be argued the Canadiens did not put him in a situation to succeed.

Then the playoffs began and Kotkaniemi was a healthy scratch. When they ended roughly six weeks later in the Stanley Cup Final, Kotkaniemi was again a healthy scratch. He played a bunch of games in between, 19 to be precise, and produced eight points. He didn’t exactly set the world on fire, but he also turned 21 the day before the Canadiens lost in the Final with him watching from the stands in Tampa.

And then, once the playoffs were over, Kotkaniemi heard his general manager say this: “If I don’t have a choice, if I don’t see there’s a fit, then I’m going to have to rely and hope that KK gets the job done. That’s just the reality of being a GM in the National Hockey League. Sometimes, you can’t fill those spots, you have to be careful, and if it’s not there, you hope the young player’s going to take the next step. I don’t know that for sure, but that might have to be the case with KK.”</div>
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quote:</div>The Hurricanes’ motives here are not purely hockey-related, but when they made that offer to Kotkaniemi, they showed more belief in him than the Canadiens had shown in nearly two years. His own GM told the world that the worst-case scenario for his team would be to settle on having Kotkaniemi be its second-line centre this season. So for those who were offended by the fact Kotkaniemi agreed to a contract that was so obviously an attempt to troll the Canadiens – with a base salary of $6,100,015 and a signing bonus of $20 as a way of getting both Kotkaniemi’s and Aho’s jersey numbers in the offer – perhaps Kotkaniemi was in a headspace where trolling the Canadiens was not all that disagreeable to him.</div>

As an aside (and this is more of a point 2a), I'm not particularly willing to extend any goodwill to Marc Bergevin in consideration of this situation, considering how recent events have played out and how he's handled them.
Forum: NHL24 jui à 0 h 58
Forum: NHL24 jui à 0 h 39
Forum: Montreal Canadiens24 jui à 0 h 27
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>sensonfire</b></div><div>You think they'll renounce his rights?

I have a feeling Marc Bergevin is going to double down and sign him to an ELC within 12 months.



Interesting thing is that Chicago was picking right after Montreal at 31.

Did Marc Bergevin do his old club and his old buddy, Stan Bowman, a favour by not making Bowman face the choice of selecting Maillloux?

With all the things going on with the Hawks?




The fact that Mailloux specifically said on twitter he didn't want to be picked and the Habs pick him anyway seems senseless.




Is this some odd power move by Bergevin against Mailloux where the Habs control his NHL rights until he turns 27 and then he busts out?




The Habs put out a bilingual statement on twitter right away after picking him, which indicates to me that Bergevin was planning and plotting to take him for quite a while.




All we can do is speculate until either Mailloux signs his ELC or the Habs renounce his rights.</div></div>i would honestly imagine that the incoming PR hellstorm tomorrow morning might make Bergevin blink. it certainly made the Coyotes blink, after all, after the fallout from the Miller selection came down. then again, this is a 1st-round pick we're talking about, so there might be more truculence involved.

i would not personally try to read any sort of conspiracy out of this whole shebang, considering it <em>just</em> happened. Occam's Razor is also your friend: the simplest explanation is often the right one.
Forum: NHL24 jui à 0 h 19
Forum: Montreal Canadiens23 jui à 23 h 51
Forum: NHL Trades23 jui à 17 h 39
Forum: NHL Trades23 jui à 17 h 16
Forum: Vancouver Canucks23 jui à 12 h 41
Jim Benning <em>says</em> he'll match any offer sheet for Pettersson, but does the accounting really add up? Let's see.

As of today, July 23, 2021, the Vancouver Canucks have $15,174,131 in cap space, according to CapFriendly. Their estimated cap hit includes all of their currently signed players, Micheal Ferland and Jay Beagle (currently listed as on LTIR), Loui Eriksson's remaining cap hit after being buried in the minors, Roberto Luongo's cap recapture penalty, and the $648,780 in bonus overage penalties they incurred this past season.

Let's say... the Seattle Kraken put in an offer sheet for Elias Pettersson of 5 years at $8,221,463 (the maximum they can offer sheet for and only have to pony up a 1st, a 2nd, and a 3rd, before it becomes 2 1sts, instead). This contract, incidentally, would probably bring Pettersson right up to UFA status. If the Canucks match it, that leaves them with $6,952,668 in cap space.

But! The Canucks have 17 roster players signed. If they get Pettersson and Quinn Hughes signed, that only puts them at 19, and they would ideally like to be able to have 23 players on their roster. If they want to skimp <em>super-hard</em>, they could sign 4 players at league-minimum salary, $750,000. But that's now an extra $3,000,000 that gets subtracted away from your remaining cap space. Meaning! That, if the Canucks matched this hypothetical offer sheet, that would realistically leave them with $3,952,668 to hand over to Hughes (who is, realistically, worth more than $3,952,668/year). This is also to say nothing of signing Jason Dickinson, whom Benning ponied up a 3rd-round pick for and would ideally not alienate by only giving him a league-minimum contract.

I don't really see this ending well if Jim Benning tries to match such an offer sheet. Ostensibly, Quinn Hughes is a 10.2(c) player, meaning that he's stuck between a rock and a hard place if the Canucks try to offer him a bridge deal that's under $4M/year. Still, Benning shouldn't be alienating the linchpin of the Canucks' defense like that. Hughes is clearly worth at least $8M/year, if Miro Heiskanen and Thomas Chabot's contracts are anything to go by. Possible outcomes:

1) Hughes takes a bridge deal of sub-$4M/year for, I dunno, 1 or 2 years, and then demands $10M+ on his next contract (a.k.a. the "P.K. Subban special"). I guess it works in the short term, but that's just kicking the can down the road.

2) Benning plays hardball with Hughes' camp, and he ends up sitting out until just before the deadline to be able to play at all for the season (a.k.a. the "William Nylander special"). Hughes' cap hit goes down for this year but then balloons next year, thus also kicking the can down the road.

3) Benning has to scramble to dump any and all contracts that would get in the way of signing Hughes to a fair contract. He may or may not find any takers, <em>or</em> he has to pay a hilariously exorbitant price to dump said contracts (this is where I think the Coyotes should maneuver back into the 1st round this year by taking Loui Eriksson's contract off of their hands in exchange for the 9th overall pick).

Either way, things are already bad for Benning and Friends, and an offer sheet would, imo, speed up the process.
Forum: NHL Trades22 jui à 18 h 11
Forum: NHL Trades18 jui à 12 h 06
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>capfriendlyaccount</b></div><div>Didn't cost him too much. Net loss of a conditional 2nd and 3rd to clear up 11 mil. That's a lot less than I would have expected.</div></div>let's take a look at the list of scenarios under which Lou could have gotten rid of Ladd's contract, in order of desirability:
1) trade Ladd to the Coyotes, get draft picks back
2) trade Ladd to the Coyotes, get no draft picks back
3) trade Ladd to the Coyotes and sweeten the deal with draft picks, get draft picks back
4) trade Ladd to the Coyotes and sweeten the deal with draft picks, get no draft picks back
5) buy out Ladd

1) didn't happen because Ladd has no trade value. 2) didn't happen because Ladd's contract is too onerous for that, and he isn't just some AHL tweener schmuck. you'd think 3) would have been the idea, but, apparently, it didn't happen. 4) is what actually happened, and, well, 5) is a terrible option for Ladd's contract.

sure, Lou didn't burn a 1st-round pick (and i doubt Bill Armstrong would've gotten a 1st out of Lou, anyway), but asset management 101 says "having to burn extra assets to rid yourself of a toxic one is a bad situation to find yourself in." you can see that what happened was next to the worst-case scenario for dumping Ladd's contract. this is a Pyrrhic victory, at best, for the Islanders. "draft picks are magic beans" blah blah blah that's the sunk cost fallacy; Lou still burned <em>three picks</em> to get rid of Ladd's contract.
Forum: Site Discussion 7 jui à 17 h 39
Forum: NHL Signings18 jun à 23 h 40