JTBF81

Membre depuis
23 jui 2019
Équipe préférée
Lightning de Tampa Bay
Deuxième équipe préférée
Predators de Nashville
Messages dans les forums
225
Messages par jour
0,88
Sujets de discussion
4
Forum: Armchair-GMil y a 14 heures
Forum: Armchair-GMil y a 17 heures
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>TheEarthmaster</b></div><div>Then I really don't understand why you brought up all this stuff about Tampa being gutted and then being bad, because that was never apart of this conversation.

It's not about adapting your opinion to mine, it's adapting your opinion to the information available to you, it's about keeping your opinion informed. So you're willing to believe Bill Daley unabashedly when he spouts off some numbers that were no guarantee even before COVID but when Bettman, who outranks Daley, comes out with a clear direction for the league's plan, suddenly "he's not the only one dictating things right now"? I mean, you're right, he's not, but neither is Bill Daley with the salary cap thing, so why do you not discount that either?

Even if some form of playoffs do happen, all of the same problems with public health and the economy still stand. People may have less money to spend on playoff tickets or people may still be worried about the virus even if the pandemic has passed, and choose not to go. All of those things could lead to demand for the playoffs being less and those events bringing in less money than expected. Especially if they go with a neutral location, like the report that came out today implied. So the cap staying flat or going up is almost certainly going to come down to the generosity of the owners. I'm not an optimist (I think that much is clear at this point), but I think even optimists would be hard pressed to think that some of the most greedy people in the world are going to agree to spend more money when they don't have to.

I think the most likely scenario is that the cap stays flat and there's probably no buyouts. And I think if the cap does go down they will allow CBOs or institute some sort of salary rollback. But this whole thing was never about the cap staying flat or going down. My original comment was in response to that you're sticking with an $84 million cap number, and I just don't see how the NHL can justify any raising of the cap at this point.</div></div>

I'm done with this thread, we can agree to disagree on several points. I'm not going to change my.mind that the season could finish in some form and that *could* still lead to an increased cap. I do believe a flat cap with a cbo is possible and is possibly the most realistic scenario at the moment, but refuse to believe the entire season is lost. You can quote Bettman all you like, until the NHL makes some official announcement I will continue to build lineups for next year with either an 84 or an 81.5 with a cbo. Not really sure why a St. Louis fan is so interested in a Tampa thread that had nothing to do with the Blues, but hey it's cool. Anyway, we could continue this ad nauseam I'm sure, but seeing as how we both have differing views of how this plays out and aren't changing, there's no point.
Forum: Armchair-GMWed at 4:31 pm
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>TheEarthmaster</b></div><div>Ah yes, because I definitely said Tampa was losing people this off season and will be a terrible team now...? What? Someone likes to project a bit I think. I barely even mentioned Tampa in my original comment. All I was saying is that it is likely that the cap will stay flat, POSSIBLY even go down (and there's historical precedent for the cap going down in seasons when revenue was lost, regardless of how much you want stick your fingers in your ears and deny it) just to temper your expectations. But there is no way that it will go to 84 million now. And since you seem to think that will still happen at some point, I tend to stand by my thought that you don't fully grasp how difficult it will be to come up with that number for the cap.

You talk about credible sources, and to be fair to you, yes, Bill Daley, who gave that $84-88 million range, is a more credible source than, idk, Darren Dreger or something, but don't you think that maybe circumstances have changed a bit since he made that announcement with this whole, uh, pandemic? Like, credible sources or not, there is no reason to believe that the cap will be what you say when you're entire belief is based on an announcement that happened before it was ever a thought that the league might miss out on a billion dollars. If GMs conducted business during this shutdown planning on an $84 million cap, we'd be calling them irresponsible and we'd be right.

The cap going down does not necessarily mean there's a nuclear situation that you (incorrectly) think I was describing where every team has to trade away S10million in cap space to other teams, they'll offer CBOs and such, and if the cap goes down too much owners will have to use them, even if they don't have the money. If the cap goes down they should 100% offer CBOs, my point with that though is that that might not help Tampa as much as you think, if they still have to trade someone after their CBO to make the cap work and keep their guys, which is also possible. With CBOs, there will be a bunch of good players who were simply casuality of the CBOs that will have gotten their money, and now just need a spot to play, meaning they will sign on the cheap, like Shattenkirk did last summer. Why would teams give up assets to take a Tampa player if there's a ton of good, cheap free agents that they can get for nothing?

CBOs aren't the only option, the NHL could even go as far as roll back player salary evenly. There's ways around it, and yes these teams won't be gutted (which I never said would happen) but it's definitely, 100% possible that the cap goes down. We can debate on how likely it is (and I think it's decently likely), but that it's a possibility is not an argument.

Honestly, I don't even care about the cap number at this point, I'm more baffled by your inability to adapt your opinion to the reality, which is that there is no real end in sight for bringing back the league and every day it goes on it gets more and more unlikely that it will come back for this season. Gary Bettman (let me know if he isn't credible enough!) has said multiple times since the league shut down that the NHL's primary objective is to preserve next season over finishing this one, so this whole idea about swapping a few games out of next season to make up for this one is a non starter. That's directly from the commissioner, just playing by your rules here. And I actually agree with you, that it's better to finish the season at the expense of a delayed next season, even if that means the Stanley Cup is awarded on Christmas Day, but the NHL is incompetent and won't do that. Like, come on man, you gotta be able to adjust your viewpoint based on what the world is telling you, not just what you want to happen, especially for things that actually matter (ie, not the 2020-21 salary cap).</div></div>

I never said you were one of those ppl that are assuming they are gone, just that basically every Tampa and any other thread lately mentioning them is assuming it. I am a realist but also an optimist and therefore will not accept that this year is lost when there is plenty of time and plenty of options still being discussed to save it. I know the virus situation all too well living in a state(and country for that matter) with incompetent leadership and management of the virus. That coupled with me having an underlying health problem and having quite a few work friends/colleagues in similar situations has also reinforced the serious nature of the virus. I don't need to adapt my opinion to yours, it is my opinion. I do believe the cap could stay flat with a cbo in place, but do not believe it will go down(and even if it does, not by much). Bettman may have said that, but he is not the only voice dictating things right now. While sure it is possible the NHL takes that route, I believe at least some form of playoffs will occur.
Forum: Armchair-GMWed at 3:17 pm
Forum: Armchair-GMWed at 2:56 pm
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>markmws</b></div><div>I don't think that anyone was stating that they will be a bad team - far from it - but the cap won't go up. Even if the season were to finish (and most pundits (not me and you) who have more knowledge of the situation think that it will not), the NHL will still loose close to a billion dollars. I am a fan of Tampa, but I am also a realist. Most people in the know - again, not you and I - tend to think that the current cap number is the absolute ceiling and that I could even go as low as $80 million. Even with amnesty buyouts, it's going to be tough to keep everyone. I don't want them to loose a player but the math and money do not add up. However, if you see it your way then that is totally fine. Keep believing it. JB is a solid GM and the hope is he can convince people who have NMCs that love playing here to be leave. It'll be an interesting off-season.</div></div>

But he won't have to convince them, outside of maybe Coburn. Most whom I've read that believe the cap will stay flat or go down also are strong proponents of a cbo as well. If this does turn out to be the case, JBB will still have to trade Killorn unfortunately, but then he can buy out one of Gourde or TJ. That should be enough to get Cirelli and Serg done given that they seem to understand how things work here with Rfa's. Cirelli is very similar to TJ, Killorn and Palat in terms of where he us and where they were production wise at the same stage. I believe Cirelli will bridge around 5% of the cap, whatever it is, so 4 25 seems right if the cap is 80-81.5. Cernak is getting 2 max and could even see it around 1.75 on a 2 year deal. Sergachev around 4.5, maybe 4 75 but with the cap situation, Tampa rfas taking a little less and looking at what McAvoy and others took, this is also right in the range. Somewhere in the 10.25 to 10.75 range is what JBB is likely looking at for them. Tampa can have a 21 player roster in this scenario between 80 and 81, amd a 22 can still work with a flat cap and 1 cbo. Losing Killorn, Gourde/TJ and likely Paquette is unfortunate, but Coleman and Goodrow were brought in for that reason and guys like Stephens and Verhaeghe are more than ready for additional time. Also ABB, Volkiv and Joseph are players I think could be up next year as well.
Forum: Armchair-GMWed at 1:18 pm
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>TheEarthmaster</b></div><div>Dude, the whole concept of an 84 million cap was speculation to begin with. That's not a confirmed number, that's just what they thought. It was based on revenue that they are now not getting. But even before that it was a meaningless number- they said it would be 84 last year, and it ended up being 81.5. Now they're saying it will 84 this year, and they're playing ten less games per team and missing the most profitable portion. There's nothing baseless about predicting the cap will go down- there is a formula for the cap: league revenue is split evenly 50/50 between players and owners, which sets a midpoint, and then there's a fixed percentage on either side of that midpoint to set the floor and ceiling. Most teams end up spending to the ceiling, which is why this is a problem. If the midpoint goes down, so does the ceiling. That's outlined in the CBA, which is on this website in full, look it up. There's no disputing that the cap is going down, because the NHL is losing revenue they thought they would get. That's objective fact. The question is whether, considering the circumstances, they'll agree on a different number, arbitrary of the cap formula, but that would require the owners to agree to not split revenue 50/50 and cede more to the players. And then you remember that this is also the league that decided to not play most or all of a season twice over pretty much this exact issue, and you see why the owners agreeing to that is probably not going to happen.

Compliance buyouts are nice but it still means real money has to be spent, even if it doesn't count against the cap, so owners have to be in a financial position to do that, and not all teams are. That also floods the market with free agents, some of whom will be very good and will sign for cheap (think Kevin Shattenkirk) and that will hurt teams like Tampa who need to trade guys who are already limited by people's contract clauses.

If you believe there's going to be any completion of the season you don't grasp how serious of a situation we're in right now. We'll be lucky if we get playoffs. It won't even be up to the league to decide to complete the season, it will be up to whether the governments will allow mass gatherings. Toronto just banned any public events until June 30th. Other cities will be doing the same, sooner or later. Not until July or August *at best* and then you're cutting into next season too, which means revenue lost in that season, which means you're trading revenue in one cap year for revenue in another, which solves nothing. And that's saying nothing of the economic impact COVID is having. Even if the season does resume, is there going to be the same amount of people who can afford to go to games? Are people going to still be cautious and avoid those public gatherings even if they are permitted to happen- especially if we just suppress an outbreak and not eliminate the virus? There is a ludicriously narrow path to an 84 million cap. I would think a pandemic would be enough further notice.</div></div>

It's fine, believe what you want, 84 to 88 was what was said by the NHL for next year's cap. It wasn't confirmed of course but it's the only hard #'s that have been posted. I grasp the situation just fine thanks, yes the cap situation is different now than a few weeks ago but 1. The season can still be finished(at least an expanded or regular playoffs) and 2. nothing but ppl spouting the cba and assuming the cap is plummeting has been posted, and not even by credible members of the league. The regular season games may or may not be played but the league has already asked teams about arena availability well into July so the plan is still very much to finish this season. The draft and free agency have already been postponed, if the start of next season has to be delayed a handful of weeks(which I doubt) then so be it. Better to finish this season and sacrifice a few games from a whole new season rather than just scrap this season entirely. The cap could stay flat but the league will not have it go down as they know that many teams, not just Tampa, are tight with the cap and in order to be as balanced as possi le would either provide a cbo or some other means of cap relief. In either case, my original point stands, Tampa won't be getting gutted and losing all of these players that so many ppl that don't know Tampa and how they get things done assume will happen. Tampa has guys that buy in to the team's structure and philosophy, not ridiculously overpaid contracts that put them in cap hell. Tampa trades Killorn, uses the compliance buy out on one of Gourde or TJ and makes one more small move at that point and the rfa's remain very much with Tampa. Tampa will be a top 5 team for several more years with smart cap management and good trades. I do find it pretty funny though seeing all these fans of other teams thinking Tampa is losing such and such to OS for sure and will be a terrible team now lol.
Forum: Armchair-GMTue at 7:09 pm
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>TheEarthmaster</b></div><div>There's a lot of questions, but whether or not the salary cap goes up to 84 million isn't one of them. It's not. At best it is staying flat, maybe even goes down. Really depends on whether or not playoffs happen, which I would put at unlikely, but even then, most of the teams missed five to seven home games, the NHL is a gate revenue league, and the cap is directly tied to revenue. A true salary cap for this year will probably come in at the ~60 million mark. They probably won't let that happen and will artificially set it because that murders every single team, even Ottawa, but I can't see them justifying a raise then either, because most NHL teams border on the brink of profitability anyway (including the Bolts!) and don't have the money unless they have benevolent owners. And considering how long it took everyone to pay their arena workers (and some who still aren't), not sure the owners are in a benevolent mood.</div></div>

There's been nothing but baseless speculation that the cap is going down or staying the same. All these ppl saying it's a definite are just assuming. It may stay flat or go up to less than 84 but it won't be coming down. The season could still be completed and it's not like the whole season or even half was lost, if the reg season games aren't completed it was like 12-15%. If the cap does stay flat than a compliance buy out bbn is also very much anticipated so teams in tougher cap spots will also be fine. I still believe in a 84 million cap until further notice, and set Tampa's or anyone else's lineup accordingly.
Forum: Armchair-GMTue at 12:11 pm
Forum: Armchair-GMSat at 10:29 pm
Forum: Armchair-GMFri at 1:24 pm
Forum: Armchair-GM21 mar à 21 h 28
Forum: Armchair-GM20 mar à 13 h 28
Forum: Armchair-GM20 mar à 13 h 06
Forum: Armchair-GM19 mar à 21 h 40
Forum: Armchair-GM19 mar à 20 h 00