Edit Avatar
  • png, jpeg
  • Recommended minimum size 800px by 800px
  • Maximum size: 1MB
Drag image to reposition


Member Since
Jul 12, 2018
Favourite Team
Toronto Maple Leafs
2nd Favourite Team
Washington Capitals
Forum Posts
Posts per Day
Forum Threads
Forum: NHL TradesMay 17 at 12:47
Forum: NHL TradesMay 3 at 12:39
Forum: NHL TradesApr 12 at 10:36
Forum: NHL TradesApr 12 at 7:39
Forum: NHL TradesApr 12 at 7:31
I think the Leafs galaxy brained this trade into existence.

I could see an argument that Foligno is a better fit, that he won't bring as much immediate scrutiny, and he will be able to help the team, and the only thing that he will be judged on is helping the team win. Hall on the other hand will be scrutinized quickly if he doesn't start to score, teammates will be asked about him constantly, and after the year they had last year, I think they wanted a quiet addition. So if you pursued Foligno at a lesser cost, and thought it was a better fit for what was actually needed, that would make sense.

However if you could have had Hall for a 2nd, likely add the same 4th to get salary retained a 2nd time, and a warm body, then I think they just talked themselves into Foligno being the better fit and got tunnel vision.

The curious thing to me is that Colorado was in on Foligno for a similar price, but didn't pay more than a 2nd for Hall, but either way, it feels like Toronto really decided they wanted the guy they determined was the best "fit" and overpaid pretty large to get him.

Columbus wins the deal hands down, you will never be able to argue they didnt' get max value. Toronto gets a useful player, the argument isn't that they acquired a player who isn't helpful, or that people won't like, but that was a heavy cost. Overall they have traded away a full drafts worth of picks over the next 2 years, including a 1st.

The thing that will mitigate this is that this is a uncertain draft, and this was a good year to target as a year you really went for it, but given that you can't get this aggressive too often, does Foligno feel like enough of a difference maker to be the net result of one of those big swings?
Forum: NHL TradesMar 15 at 3:19
Forum: NHL TradesMar 13 at 12:35
Forum: NHL TradesMar 13 at 12:15
Forum: NHL TradesJan 23 at 12:34
This trade is hard to evaluate because of how obvious these two teams as trade partners seemed, and how hard it would be for either team to win the deal.

I think Dubois gets overrated quite a bit, he's far closer to being around Kadri level then he is an elite #1, which isn't bad, but he seems to get a lot of brownie points for being big and a center. He seems to generate offense pretty well, but not elite, and he's not great defensively. He draws penalties, mostly through being a bit of a sneaky dirty player, and the fact that retaliation gets called far more consistently then initial infractions, and he's a good center, I just don't know that he ever becomes the player some people think he already is.

Laine is a pure weapon, doesn't seem capable of creating a lot of chances himself, but he finishes at a rate that is just bonkers, and can singlehandedly transform a PP. He has a reputation as being bad defensively, which I find funny because he and Dubois are very similar in that regard, but Dubois seems to be thought of as a two-way center while Laine is considered a liability. Reality is they are both just relatively young players who are weaker than average defensively.

Overall, I think Jarmo wins the deal because of the fact that he managed to get a reasonable prospect back in the deal, and got Winnipeg to hold back salary making it so the Jackets can continue to accrue cap space. With how bad Dubois was playing and him almost forcing his way out, I think Jarmo literally did as well as you could hope. That being said, I think given the apparent "perception" about Laine, Chevy managed to get a young center, which is what he wanted, so he probably did as well as he could have given the market conditions, and it helps that he got the position they felt they needed the most help with (aside from D).

I think Columbus wins the deal overall, but it's hard to really fault Winnipeg here.
Forum: NHL SigningsJan 4 at 12:45
Forum: NHL SigningsNov 4, 2020 at 11:12
Forum: NHL SigningsOct 22, 2020 at 7:09
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>BCAPP</b></div><div>I'd argue most of the league is in cap trouble because of the unexpected flat cap from covid which has given those with cap a very valuable commodity.

We had to dump Johnsson for no value (that's ****ty asset management no matter how you put it) and frankly there was talk of weegar but we can't acquire him now for cap reasons.

Our cap situation isn't terrible but it isn't good. And Marner just makes too much. That and the stupid Kessel retention that's still on the books</div></div>

Marner got too much for an RFA contract, but it's about $1.5M more than he should have gotten for that term. As a UFA he easily gets that deal, and given that the years purchased, he likely delivers strong value on that deal versus a similar UFA (as they would have been signed from 27-33 instead of 22-28). So overall, it still doesn't make his contract "bad" as in they would still get value in a trade for it, and having it is better than not having it. Obviously you would rather have Rantanen at his price, but Marner's contract doesn't do near the damage to Toronto's cap situation that people seem to think.

Going back to the Johnsson trade, while that trade is definitely trading at a loss, that wasn't just because of cap alone, they were trading a depressed asset, as he was coming off a down year. But the fact remains, they got positive value, if a team just had the space but didn't have the player to trade to get even some value back, that is actually a weaker position from an asset management standpoint.

I think what you are seeing is the landscape shifting. Before, teams just circumvented the cap, management didn't really have as strong a grasp on it, so they didnt' like to be too "tight" to it, so instead they just came up with ways to get around it. They basically created an RFA market where it was expected that an RFA would get paid well below market value, then stars would get massive length deals that would likely see the player retire, or become another GMs problem, all of which created this middle teir UFA pool for 28-32 year olds had to get paid to make up for the lesser amounts they got as RFAs, and we saw decent players get paid massive contracts with big term. Teams were able to have overpaid 30+ year olds in the middle of their roster by having superstars on front loaded cam circumventing deals and RFAs on massively underpaid deals, and agencies were fine going along with this as long as that mushy middle part of the market was rolling in.

A few years back UFAs started getting squeezed more as more and more teams started avoiding these massive UFA mistakes, which slowly dried up that market, but RFAs and agents started taking note, and RFAs started demanding closer and closer to fair market contracts. Throw in an 8 year cap on contracts, recapture rules, and more front offices having a deeper knowledge of the cap, and the market shifts dramatically. Teams are less afraid of running with less than a 23 man roster, they are more comfortable using waiver rules (also the removal of re-entry waivers had a bigger impact than people realize) to create and accrue cap space over the course of a season.

The landscape today has shifted dramatically. Just this offseason some of the biggest contracts we have seen were for RFAs. Anderson got more money committed to him than any UFA forward, and Matt Murray got the highest AAV of any goalie signed. Neither one of those players is even close in terms of being the most skilled at their position, Anderson has only 22 more points in his career than Hall had in his best season. Pietrangelo got a big contract, but even that isn't far above what recent RFA defensemen have signed (Trouba and Chabot, who aren't close to as good as Pietrangelo).

My point is, that while teams are spending closer to the cap, it doesn't mean they are in trouble. Bad contracts cause trouble, good contracts don't. Just because things are different, if it's happening right accross the market, it doesn't create a competitive disadvantage, in fact, trying to manage the cap the way it used to be would likely cause more of a disadvantage.

We may even be seeing the start of that type of shift. Vancouver and NYI are two teams that seem set on doing it the way it used to be done, overpaying UFAs to add veteran experience in the middle/bottom of the line up, and expecting to squeeze RFAs in order to make it work. So far, both teams have lost a young top 4 D because of not leaving sufficient cap space for their best players. Both teams have taken a step back this off season explicitly because of cap concerns. It will be interesting to see how that shakes out in the coming months.
Forum: NHL SigningsOct 21, 2020 at 8:32
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>BCAPP</b></div><div>I guess this getting into semantics they sold low on Johnsson because they couldn't afford his cap. They're having aess than full roster. You can accurately point out that others have it worse but they are not in great shape.</div></div>

It's not really semantics though. Over half of the teams in the league will be carrying a 22 or fewer player roster. Approximately 91% of all of the leagues cap space is currently in use, and there are some truly awful teams that don't have much cap space.

Arizona, San Jose, Anaheim, and Minnesota are weak teams with little to no cap space.

Winnipeg, Calgary, and Montreal will all have to ice a 21 or 22 player roster to be cap compliant, and none of those teams are better than Toronto with Montreal and Calgary having some very ugly contracts that make their future cap situation not look nearly as clear.

There are some bad teams that won't be spending to the cap like Ottawa, Florida, LA, and New Jersey, but those teams are essentially rebuilding and waiting out some awful contracts (well Florida is just a tire fire).

There are definitely teams with a far better cap scenario than Toronto, but there cap situation is better than at least half of the league, they don't have any terrible contracts, and they have a competitive roster. It's hard to see a rationale where you think their cap situation creates a barrier to being competitive.

Space alone doesn't make a team have a well managed cap as it often means teams just don't have assets. The point is, if you can look at every player on the roster and think "I would rather have that player than just have the cap space they use up" that team doesn't really have a cap problem.
Forum: NHL SigningsOct 21, 2020 at 5:45
Forum: NHL SigningsOct 21, 2020 at 5:13
Forum: NHL SigningsOct 21, 2020 at 3:47
Forum: NHL SigningsOct 19, 2020 at 11:28
Forum: NHL SigningsOct 16, 2020 at 11:46