Sign_em_up000000

Membre depuis
27 jun 2019
Équipe préférée
Maple Leafs de Toronto
Deuxième équipe préférée
Sharks de San Jose
Localisation
The Hammer
Messages dans les forums
3388
Messages par jour
8,85
Sujets de discussion
43
Forum: Toronto Maple Leafs 4 jui à 17 h 50
Sujet: New cap is set
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>oneX</b></div><div>Essentially, you are asking for a luxury tax system here. I don't mind that but it will make the league full of haves and have nots.

I feel that CBOs are a wet dream in the players' favor and don't do anything for the owners. Players would have to give something up to get CBOs. I'm not sure that would be worth it for the players.</div></div>

Personally, I like the luxury tax system over a cap but my comment was in reference to someone else who was talking about CBO's. It doesn't matter to me if the league gives them out, it was just a thought I had if they do for teams who don't need them but even a team like Arizona it wouldn't make a difference too. You're right if a team got to spend more and won the cup it would be a media hay day about how team x won because they were able to spend more. I think CBO's benefit both sides but you're right the players benefit 100% whereas only some owners benefit from them. It was a bad idea this is why I like bouncing ideas off of you and <a href="/users/Trickster" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">@Trickster</a> you're always straight forward with me! I appreciate the feedback buddy.
Forum: Toronto Maple Leafs 4 jui à 15 h 04
Sujet: New cap is set
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>palhal</b></div><div>You're getting in what the "the League" wants. The league is just an administrator of the rules set out by different parties. First the majority of owners would have to agree to CBOs as it their money not the league . The league has no money as such. It's a non profit entity. CBOs in effect raise the amount of $$$$ the players get instead of the current negotiated 50%. I don't think the players would object to CBOs but the majority of owners might.</div></div>

I get it I was just throwing out an idea that would be based on the premise the league hands out CBO's not stating they will but if they did and teams didn't want to or didn't need to use them it could help create a balance for teams like Toronto who could then spend more. Also, did you pick up on the Dazed and confused reference? Lol
Forum: Armchair-GM 4 jui à 14 h 56
Sujet: Mitch Marner vs Prime Phil Kessel
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>MitchMarnerElite </b></div><div><a href="/users/Sagecoll" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">@Sagecoll</a> <a href="/users/mokumboi" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">@mokumboi</a> <a href="/users/STLBlues17" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">@STLBlues17</a> <a href="/users/bunzy1034" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">@bunzy1034</a> <a href="/users/Caniac2000" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">@Caniac2000</a> @AFOX10900 <a href="/users/Random2152" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">@Random2152</a> <a href="/users/bhavikp27" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">@bhavikp27</a> <a href="/users/exo2769" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">@exo2769</a> <a href="/users/Wadejos123" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">@Wadejos123</a> <a href="/users/SevenLeg" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">@SevenLeg</a> <a href="/users/MaxDomi13" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">@MaxDomi13</a> <a href="/users/Capitalfail67" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">@Capitalfail67</a> <a href="/users/Pens3lieve" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">@Pens3lieve</a> <a href="/users/SlickWilly" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">@SlickWilly</a> <a href="/users/moli92" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">@moli92</a> <a href="/users/ledge_and_dairy" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">@ledge_and_dairy</a> <a href="/users/keep_ups12" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">@keep_ups12</a> <a href="/users/jack_" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">@jack_</a> <a href="/users/pleasebanmeformyowngood" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">@pleasebanmeformyowngood</a> <a href="/users/leafs101" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">@leafs101</a> <a href="/users/justaBoss" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">@justaBoss</a> <a href="/users/leafsfanforsomereason" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">@leafsfanforsomereason</a> <a href="/users/sammyt_51" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">@sammyt_51</a> <a href="/users/Skyraider112" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">@Skyraider112</a> <a href="/users/chloewoj" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">@chloewoj</a> <a href="/users/jslongo" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">@jslongo</a> <a href="/users/richard88" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">@richard88</a> <a href="/users/hockeyfanatic05" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">@hockeyfanatic05</a> <a href="/users/marino4norris" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">@marino4norris</a> <a href="/users/Richard88" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">@Richard88</a> <a href="/users/Silkysmooth42" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">@Silkysmooth42</a> <a href="/users/hanson493" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">@hanson493</a> <a href="/users/mhockey91" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">@mhockey91</a> <a href="/users/Palhal" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">@Palhal</a>
<a href="/users/jesus" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">@jesus</a>
Who'd you guys think was better between Mitch Marner and prime Phil Kessel? (Please vote)</div></div>

For some reason I didn't get this notification until now but my opinion is Marner that being said it's all depending on what linemates you plan on putting either player with. If you have a playmaker on your top line Kessel makes more sense but if you already have a sniper than Marner makes more sense IMO. Also, <a href="/users/oneX" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">@oneX</a> and <a href="/users/Trickster" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">@Trickster</a> would be great people to add to the convo.
Forum: Toronto Maple Leafs 4 jui à 14 h 48
Sujet: New cap is set
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>leaflet</b></div><div>Kudos for the optimism. But if confirmed, this is bad news for Leafs management.

The generous contracts Leafs gave made sense if anticipating a steep cap increase and inflation in salaries. Now, teams that signed their young stars on bridge deals instead, as I always said Dubas should have done, will have the upper hand in contract negotiations. Bad economy, COVID, stagnant cap, most GMs stuck with no room to overbid: not a good context for agents to ask extravagant salaries.</div></div>

The only reason those teams will have the upper hand is because of COVID and no one could have predicted that at the time of the signings. Would we have gotten them cheaper if we bridged them, yes but if this didn't happen it would have cost us more as they're growing and getting better. Dubas made the right decision.
Forum: Toronto Maple Leafs 4 jui à 14 h 41
Sujet: New cap is set
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>tomato43</b></div><div>I wouldn't call it crippling, but it is definitely a blow to our future chances of winning a cup. An increase of 2.5 - 4.0 Million a year in that span means the huge contracts to the big 3 wouldn't have mattered as much. The circumstances around a global pandemic couldn't be foreseen so i have nothing bad to say about how management has handled the cap so far. I think Dubas and Pridham have done well by avoiding signing bad contracts. I think they could have gotten Marner and Matthews a million or so cheaper each, but big deal.

It sounds like the league will not be handing out CBOs, which is a good thing in my opinion since the leafs have no real 'bad contracts' to buy out. The extra space we would have had with a regular cap increases would have let us possibly go after Hamilton after next year, i don't see how that happens now. I expect Dermott to be penny pinched on a bridge deal. Johnsson or Kap to be traded during the 'offseason' to make a little space for some sort of right side D upgrade. Dermott might be dangled in a trade as well, which i would hate. I pray that Barabanov, Robertson, Lehtonen, Liljegren all work out and can fill out the roster with cheap options.

I think Anderson is gone when his contract ends. We wont have the space to pay him, especially considering he will be 32. Hyman while he has proven to be very useful i don't feel like paying him ~5M when he hits free agency as well. Unless he wants to takes team friendly deal in terms of cap number and length i dont think can be resigned either.

I hope that this stagnation in the cap will be reflected in the UFA signings. I hope management of each team all stand pat and penny pinch the UFA class knowing that the cap be increasing to give them breathing room after giving out big contracts. This might keep the market low enough for us to sign some useful players to cheap deals.</div></div>

Good points, but what if the league handed out CBO's and teams that chose not to use them could instead increase their spending/cap ceiling by a certain %. Just a thought that I realize the league wouldn't do but it would be a lot cooler if they did lol.
Forum: Toronto Maple Leafs 4 jui à 14 h 34
Sujet: New cap is set
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>OldNYIfan</b></div><div>Thought #1: It's what all of us have been planning for, so no surprise.

Thought #2: The inclusion of what sounds to me like pure speculation about following years (why would anyone in charge even be thinking about that right now?) makes me suspicious of the whole story.</div></div>

My take on thought #2 is the league generates so much profit each year and with the season being put on hold those profits are non-existent so the league is trying to project where they think they'll be at especially with small market teams having a hard enough time being able to spend to the floor. Look at Arizona a team that hemorrhages money every year, sure they just got an owner who was willing to invest money into the team while understanding he'd be losing money but I can't see how his outlook hasn't changed after this especially with so many people out of work and most people with less expendable cash flow to spend and teams not being able to fill their stadiums. That's just my take tho and I could be out to lunch on this one.
Forum: Toronto Maple Leafs 4 jui à 14 h 22
Sujet: New cap is set
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Trickster</b></div><div>Heard on the fan 590 that the cap is going to be 81.5 million for the new season and same for 2021-22... followed by 2022-12 cap to be 82.5 million

Thoughts?

<a href="/users/palhal" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">@palhal</a> <a href="/users/jamiepo" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">@jamiepo</a> <a href="/users/onex" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">@onex</a> <a href="/users/Sign_em_up000000" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">@Sign_em_up000000</a> <a href="/users/jack_" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">@jack_</a> <a href="/users/PleaseBanMeForMyOwnGood" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">@PleaseBanMeForMyOwnGood</a> <a href="/users/tomato43" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">@tomato43</a> <a href="/users/SammyT_51" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">@SammyT_51</a> <a href="/users/Random2152" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">@Random2152</a> <a href="/users/oldnyifan" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">@oldnyifan</a>

Anyone else please feel free to share your thoughts too.</div></div>

I expected the cap to be stagnant for the next few years. It hurts what we can do but it makes sense considering smaller market teams will have trouble spending to the floor and because teams won't be able to fill their stadiums. The new t.v. deal will help the league replenish some of the lost profits from COVID19 but it won't come close to the NBA's t.v deal because Americans don't like hockey as much as basketball. All that said I don't expect big changes to the roster aside from players like Johnsson/Kapanen/Kerfoot one or more becoming cap casualties but I trust our FO to fill the void as best as they can with cheaper options which was already going to happen at some point anyways. I can't see Andersen and more likely than before even Rielly but only time will tell how our management handles the upcoming situation. I will say we're pretty lucky we don't have any albatross contracts on our hands or we'd be really screwed.
Forum: Armchair-GM 4 jui à 14 h 01
Forum: Armchair-GM 4 jui à 13 h 53
Sujet: Lehner
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>DiehardRedWingsFan58</b></div><div>Your Lehner signing is way too low. Try more like 6x7 or 7x7 to sign Lehner there will be a major bidding war on him.</div></div>

Nobody is giving Lehner that kind of a contract especially with the cap not rising to the previous projections. Lehner is a good goalie but he's had alcohol and drug abuse problems and though I'm truly glad he got help and got better he could always fall off the wagon at any time which is something teams will have to keep in mind. Most teams can't afford to give him the kind of contract you're suggesting and the teams that can are mostly bottom feeders for the foreseeable future and wouldn't want to give him that kind of contract if they aren't going anywhere while he's still in his prime.
Forum: Armchair-GM24 jun à 19 h 06
Sujet: take Smith to get Georgiev
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>oneX</b></div><div>Lehner and Markstrom are similar in age to Andersen. Out of the three, Markstrom gets a similar deal to what Andersen is making now while the other two are in for raises which I'm not sure the Leafs can afford.

I'm not entirely sold on Georgie but trading for a younger goalie such as him may be necessary.</div></div>

I agree getting younger in net is a priority or at least it should be for our FO. My thinking was a succession plan having a young goalie like Georgiev or whoever and a more established one to take the reins the first year then platoon the second season and take a step back the third year or be traded if they're still playing well. The way I was looking at it is say both of <a href="/users/Trickster" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">@Trickster</a>'s deals happened and we traded the two seconds to Seattle to take Smith off our hands then we're still up a solid young d prospect and AJ is a cap casualty. Our goaltending is improved (assuming Lehner or whoever signs a 3 year $15 million deal) then the financial implications of improving our goaltending is minimal and we have a nice young d prospect as I said. It's an easy sell to the fans and Dubas doesn't have to worry about the goaltending for the next 3 years unless it goes horribly wrong. Also, no one gave Lehner term last offseason and with a flat cap it seems unlikely he'd get a raise and term on his next deal he may have to choose one.
Forum: Armchair-GM24 jun à 18 h 56
Sujet: take Smith to get Georgiev
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Trickster</b></div><div>It's just planning ahead.
The truth is, we have a delima with our goaltending.

Andersen is right now a question mark due his year.
Hes only getting worse over time now, and he is 30.

Guess what age Andersen was when we got him? 25.
His sample size back then was bigger though.

Georgiev is only a bit younger, and that has its advantages.


Am I sold on Georgiev... not 100%.
Do want want to sign a 30ish year old goalie to 4 or 5 year deal? Less so.

I know Jarry had a year, but if you eliminate that 1 really good month... he was average to slightly above average.
Are you sold on Jarry?

Markstrom's cap hit might what Andersen is right now but hes 30 man, I cant get over that.

Lehner is slightly younger but hes looking for term deal now after taking 1 year show me deal with Chicago.
I was very impressed with him too, but again his cap hit might be too steep a price.


Going younger just makes too much sense for a multitude of reasons.</div></div>

I fully get and support planning ahead especially with our goaltending. I've been having a conversation with my buddy who loves the leafs but doesn't follow hockey that much and his response when I asked him what the leafs should do with Andersen was keep him the fans need a goalie they can get behind he's the best goalie we've had since Eddy the Eagle. I tried to explain to him Freddy is on a contract year and the ramifications of extending him but he didn't care.

I know Andersen was 25 when we got him but we were rebuilding not competing for a cup or at least in a position to like the FO sold to the fanbase. I agree we need to get younger in net and we shouldn't wait but if we had a succession plan in place where Georgiev or whatever young goalie is brought in and a more experienced goalie to help share the workload and put a goalie in every night that would give the team confidence to play in front of I think it would be an easier sell to people like my buddy.

Im not sold on Jarry continuing his level of play but I did a ACGM trading something like goat, sparks and a 4th and got roasted saying I was giving up too much lol. We need to get younger at some point in time but if Dubas turns the crease over to a young kid he needs to be sure it's his guy.

You're right Lehner will want term but no one gave him term last offseason and with the cap flat I'm not sure anyone will now especially if he wants a raise. My thinking was we offer him a 3 year $15 million deal and I think he would take it that way he's the guy next year the second year is a platoon and the third year he takes a reduced role or is traded to save cap if he's still producing and if not then we look elsewhere.
Forum: Armchair-GM16 jun à 21 h 59
Sujet: take Smith to get Georgiev
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Trickster</b></div><div>So you want to extend Andersen?
Hes 30, not sure I'd be on board with that, have to consider what the extension will be like... and the cap hit.
If Bettman keeps the cap at 81.5 million for the next few years trying to fit Andersen on his deal is gonna cost us assets.

Yes I am speeding up the process by 1 year in these trades.
Not sure I like the UFA options in the summer of 2021.

Georgiev, the word unproven might be inaccurate.
I'd say he has not established himself as a starter yet but could on his way to doing.

Is there a goalie you have in mind to replace Andersen with?</div></div>

I agree on all points but I thought the last time we talked you weren't that high on Georgiev? I don't see Andersen with us beyond his current contract unless he doesn't want or can't get a raise which seems unlikely. Are you sold on this kid or you just playing around with the idea?