Why wouldn't Vegas stick with their new starter Thompson?

Because the guy has played 20 games at the NHL level in his career. That's a huge amount of responsibility to drop on a rookie. He and Vej probably set up a 1A 1B if Thompson looks good, or Thompson does 30 games as the backup this season

Because the guy has played 20 games at the NHL level in his career. That's a huge amount of responsibility to drop on a rookie. He and Vej probably set up a 1A 1B if Thompson looks good, or Thompson does 30 games as the backup this season

I would run Thompson/brossoit but I'm not certain how long brossoit is out for.

A bargain third probably wouldn’t hurt, knowing lehner out for the year, maybe catch lightning in a bottle or split the season 3 ways playing the hot tender. Crazy where this team got too, as far as cap goes and not being in the league for very long.

The hot start to the franchise made their eyes bigger than their wallets.

This league desperately needs a soft cap. It would benefit both the rich and poor teams.

Brossoit was also garbage last season, 0.895 across 24 games. His GAA was low, which I read as the team was playing to protect him, but he just wasn't making the stops.

He would have to go back to AZ otherwise they wouldn't have any NHL level trendy, not that they couldn't find someone, but still.

I’m kind of worried about my jets all ready, not sure a soft cap would change much for them, would be interesting to see benefit or get worse for jets and sens as far as canadian teams go.

He wouldn't need to go to Arizona because they wouldn't make the trade. Lehner was hot garbage Thompson was a wall. Wouldn't hurt to give him a shot and address later if need be.

Jets would certainly benefit. Being near the bottom value wise they would take in money from the luxury tax. Maybe build an airport....

Seriously though, if teams with the money paid twice what they were over the cap into a pool that was distributed from the bottom up to the middle of teams revenue wise how is that a bad thing?

Teams like Yotes would be able to spend right to the cap. Panthers could actually make money.

Because then the small market teams end up as feeder organizations to the big guys, just like in baseball. The Dodgers and the Yankees are perpetual favorites for the world series because they have enough money to buy any player they choose. Small market teams would not be able to hold onto their talent because they wouldn't be able to compete financially.

Possibly just scared they turn into a once in a generation contender, hoping management gives there head a shake and starts to understand that the squad can’t get old and got to trade high once and while. Take some notes from the tb rays or Oakland A’s, minimal ufas coming and some of your own established players going to want out before there team control is up. So keep building for a few year run, then sell relatively high and do it again. Kind of off topic, but we will see how it goes.

In the last 20 years the Yankees and didn't hers have won one championship each. In the NHL there are plenty of teams that aren't able to compete financially because they can't afford the real money. Some teams already gain advantage with a hard cap due to state income tax.

90% of the league struggles with the salary cap while the other 10% struggle to make a profit. Some teams can't even keep the players they drafted and developed.

You are one bad shot away from Hutchinson as the starter on a team that thinks they are a cup contender

There is already revenue sharing in place to help small market teams, if that needs to be increased then we can address that problem by increasing revenue sharing.

The Dodgers and Yankees haven't had back to back seasons below .500 since the last 80s early 90s, when they miss the post season, it's not because they were bad, but rather they had a single off year, or the division they were in was hugely strong.

Soft cap destroys parity, and parity is one of the reasons I watch hockey over the other sports. The soft cap benefits big market teams much more than small market, giving them a further competitive advantage.

Parity? Hockey innately has that. Profit sharing is absolute bull****. NHL teams shouldn't be on privatized welfare. If teams are to pay money out they should get something in return. The game was far better when no one knew or cared what their favourite players made. Ive actually seen fans hoping players don't do TOO well in their contract year so they can afford them under the cap. More money doesn't mean more better... ask rangers fans.

Because parity goes out the window when you change from everybody playing with the same starting hand to a pay to play model. The owners and the league have decided that revenue sharing is best for the league as a whole.

The teams that are in big trouble with the cap you notice are the teams who played too fast and loose with big money, big term contracts and are getting burned by them now. If you guys hadn't given Tavares and Marner 11 million per you'd be able to afford a good goalie and a less injury prone defense this season. Matthews deserves his contract as he is a transcendent talent. Marner may be the best winger in the league, but he isn't on Matthews level, and neither is Tavares.

We would be beyond idiotic to give up our first at all, but this is firing squad bad lol.