SalarySwishSalarySwish
Avatar

Turbo

Member Since
Aug. 12, 2022
Favourite Team
Chicago Blackhawks
Forum Posts
129
Posts per Day
0.2
Forum: NHLMar. 6 at 12:26 p.m.
Thread: 2023-2024 NHL Discussion Thread #4: Deadline is Approaching
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>CantStopWontStop</b></div><div>Tarasenko has fired 4 agents in 24 months.

He is waiving his ntc for a future contract.

As predicted, he was super cheap to any team who would do that.

I’d predict he’s a panther for 3-4 more years.

Think of it like this:

It’s kinda hard to sign tarasenko if signing him means you have to pay a first round pick. Nobody would do that.

He had to be cheap to get what he wanted. Thus fully using the full ntc. If he’d only waive for 1 team, it’s a take it or leave it situation. Even if there’s no deal in Florida, he gets to be on the absolute premium team to show himself off.</div></div>

Only waiving for a team that's willing to re-sign him makes the most sense. He had roughly the same production last year and, with a NTC, netted roughly a late 1st depending on how much you value Mikkola in that deal. Didn't seem too happy that NYR didn't re-sign him so he probably flexed that NTC more this time round
Forum: NHLFeb. 16 at 3:08 p.m.
Thread: 2023-2024 NHL Discussion Thread #3: After Further Review...
Completely random, but felt like looking up the draft lottery limitation rules and this comes directly from NHL.com:

"No single team will be able to advance in the Draft order by reason of winning a Lottery Draw more than two (2) times in any five (5) year period. This limitation will not affect a Club’s ability to retain its presumptive Draft position in any Draft Lottery, nor would it preclude the possibility of the Club moving down in Draft Order to the extent other Clubs advance by reason of winning the Lottery Draws."

The point being the limitation seems to refer to specifically improving position through the lottery not just winning the lottery in general which seems to me to be what most people think. i.e. if Chicago finishes last and wins the lottery they would still be able to win it next year for 3 straight 1OA because their position didn't advance as a result of winning the lottery. Not exactly sure if this the correct interpretation tho.
Forum: NHLFeb. 7 at 11:41 a.m.
Thread: 2023-2024 NHL Discussion Thread #3: After Further Review...
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>NHLfan10506</b></div><div>Sorry for long post…but this is a huge story.

There has been talk over the last couple of years, since NIL rules were loosened, that eventually NCAA may allow CHL players. Yesterday, <a href="https://www.sportsnet.ca/juniors/article/will-ncaa-coaches-vote-to-allow-chl-players-to-play-u-s-college-hockey/?sn-amp" rel="nofollow noreferrer noopener" target="_blank">32 Thoughts</a> reported that NCAA may vote at end of season in allowing CHLers or not. I do not believe any vote would be binding as NCAA still has to deem CHL as an “amateur league”. But it continues momentum towards what will likely be some path for CHL players to enter NCAA.

But if this moves forward, the impact, both up river and down river, would be significant. First, the NHL entry draft rules will likely be rewritten. Right now, teams own drafting rights for different lengths for players in CHL vs players on NCAA path (2 years vs 4/5 years). It may even spur the ‘change draft age to 19’ idea back to life. Second, the current hierarchy of junior leagues will be reshuffled as the major selling point of USHL and Canadian Junior A leagues has been their amateur status (allowing, as they often say, “the best of both worlds” by offering kids a junior hockey experience that could still be followed by NCAA). Should they lose this differentiator, their ability to recruit NCAA players, especially from Canada (such as Makar, Johnson, etc) will be harmed. USHL will have less of an adjustment. It may end up hurting some teams more than others as they become less appealing destination for players like Power, Celebrini (who probably stay in CHL then go to NCAA).

I imagine CHL owners will respond to block their players from NCAA…which could further impact future Canadian and US player development. One tool they have would be to force players to commit until they age out of juniors (this could walk us backwards from the Shane Wright rule, the exemption allowing a CHL into AHL) or until the age out of their amateur status.

The idea that I have seen that makes the most sense…is NCAA recognizing any u18 junior player as “an amateur” and should they continue past 18th birthday to play in CHL, they would have to preserve their amateur status. CHL now offers standard player agreements to all players that include payment that makes them ineligible for NCAA. They would have to allow “amateur contracts” as an alternative (which will further complicate their own entry draft rules).

This could also ultimately path the way for a few ideas that have often be discussed, but are practically unworkable now due to current rules in both counties. One has been creating a formal link between CHL and USHL. Another, follows the idea that the numerous court battles underway to dismantle NCAA powers will ultimately succeed and there could be an alignment of Usports with US-based schools.

Big changes could come from this. It is a story worth following.</div></div>

Always figured some kind of eligibility penalty for players that stay in the CHL past 18 then go NCAA might work. Shave off a year of NCAA for every 18+ season in CHL. Might make things a little easier on the NHL rights side in that they could just tack on an extra year for the rights holder if the player goes CHL-&gt;NCAA after being drafted. Obviously things would start to get complex and I'd guess any review of post draft rights will see some push from the PA to shave off years that rights are held across the board
Forum: NHLJan. 24 at 3:54 p.m.
Thread: 2023-2024 NHL Discussion Thread #3: After Further Review...
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>BeterChiarelli</b></div><div>I think the comparison is a poor one given that Chiarelli started with the selection of McDavid and the club was effectively thrust into "compete now" mode by their owner. Davidson had a draft leading up to Bedard and the Blackhawks were already comfortably nestled into mediocrity at that point and appear committed to the process for at least the remainder of this season.

Is Chicago starting their rebuild better than Edmonton did? Yes. Does this mean they should be forgiven for squandering two assets that could have been turned into (at minimum) a pair of top-100 selections in the upcoming draft? No.</div></div>

It's ultimately a luxury they feel they can afford to take. Chicago has the most valuable pool of upcoming picks right now and KD values establishing continuity and culture over mid round picks. Not to mention some of Bowman's leftovers have turned out better than expected (mainly Vlasic). They'll have multiple waves of prospects getting shots at the NHL level in the next ~2.5 seasons and they want them stepping into what they feel is the best situation while still rebuilding. Whether or not culture and a stable room outweighs mid round pics, only time will tell
Forum: NHLJan. 24 at 3:39 p.m.
Thread: 2023-2024 NHL Discussion Thread #3: After Further Review...
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>BeterChiarelli</b></div><div>I can't see any other of the 31 NHL teams besides the half dozen that seem to be perpetually basement-bound of late to be remotely capable of offering either Dickenson or Mrazek half of what Chicago just signed them to. It's poor asset management regardless of what the justification is. Chicago, while already astronomically bad by professional sports standards, should have only one goal in mind: surround Bedard with the best talent they can acquire. Maybe the picks returned for Dickenson and Mrazek aren't the "best" players but they could have been moved to acquire such a player. The thought process in Chicago's management has been too linear.

To offer something more anecdotal, look at how much the Oilers suffered under Chiarelli by opting to not accumulate picks and prospects and instead leveraging those assets and their cash into plug-and-play players. Would the Edmonton Oilers have been better off having the likes of Chabot or Joel Eriksson-Ek in their lineup or Griffin Reinhart? What about doubling down on Mikko Koskinen? Milan Lucic? What happens when Bedard and Korchinski are making a combined $20M against the cap and there isn't a steady stream of quality ELC's coming down the pipeline to insulate the roster with cheap talent? The Edmonton Oilers - and even Toronto Maple Leafs - are almost a decade removed from drafting their generational talents and have not yet won Lord Stanley's prize for effectively these same reasons. Be warned.</div></div>

It's a fair point I guess but you're ignoring that KD has already made more 1st and 2nd round picks in 2 years than Chia had in his entire time as EDM's GM. And he already has enough 1sts and 2nds to double Chia's numbers in 2 more years
Forum: NHLJan. 12 at 12:41 p.m.
Thread: 2023-2024 NHL Discussion Thread #3: After Further Review...
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Isles10</b></div><div>My over- and underrated list for each team.

Overrated
Anaheim: Trevor Zegras
Arizona: Lawson Crouse
Boston: Brandon Carlo
Buffalo: Owen Power
Calgary: Elias Lindholm
Carolina: Andrei Svechnikov
Chicago: Connor Murphy
Colorado: Bowen Byram
Columbus: Patrik Laine
Dallas: Esa Lindell
Detroit: Ben Chiarot
Edmonton: Darnell Nurse
Florida: Brandon Montour
Los Angeles: Pierre-Luc Dubois
Minnesota: Marcus Foligno
Montréal: Nick Suzuki
Nashville: Luke Schenn
New Jersey: Timo Meier
N.Y. Islanders: Jean-Gabriel Pageau
N.Y. Rangers: Jacob Trouba
Ottawa: Josh Norris
Philadelphia: Scott Laughton
Pittsburgh: Ryan Graves
San Jose: Mario Ferraro
Seattle: Yanni Gourde
St. Louis: Jordan Binnington
Tampa Bay: Mikhail Sergachev
Toronto: John Tavares
Vancouver: Thatcher Demko
Vegas: Ivan Barbashev
Washington: Alexander Ovechkin
Winnipeg: Brenden Dillon

Underrated
Anaheim: Adam Henrique
Arizona: J.J. Moser
Boston: Matt Grzelcyk
Buffalo: J.J. Peterka
Calgary: Blake Coleman
Carolina: Brady Skjei
Chicago: Jason Dickinson
Colorado: Artturi Lehkonen
Columbus: Johnny Gaudreau
Dallas: Thomas Harley
Detroit: Daniel Sprong
Edmonton: Warren Foegele
Florida: Evan Rodrigues
Los Angeles: Trevor Moore
Minnesota: Jonas Brodin
Montréal: Mike Matheson
Nashville: Gustav Nyquist
New Jersey: Alexander Holtz
N.Y. Islanders: Noah Dobson
N.Y. Rangers: Erik Gustafsson
Ottawa: Mathieu Joseph
Philadelphia: Morgan Frost
Pittsburgh: Marcus Pettersson
San Jose: Fabian Zetterlund
Seattle: Will Borgen
St. Louis: Pavel Buchnevich
Tampa Bay: Mikey Eyssimont
Toronto: Timothy Liljegren
Vancouver: Nils Höglander
Vegas: Michael Amadio
Washington: Dylan Strome
Winnipeg: Cole Perfetti</div></div>

Hard to argue with Dickinson, but Alex Vlasic has been one of the better shutdown D-men in the league with a plus rating on a terrible team and it seems like nobody knows who he is. I'll always go to bat for Kurashev too
Forum: NHL SigningsJan. 12 at 12:33 p.m.
Thread: Chicago Blackhawks signed Nick Foligno (2 Years / $4,500,000 AAV)
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>HockeyScotty</b></div><div>I understand Chicago wanting to keep Foligno, I don't understand the AAV however. I get it that Chicago is rebuilding and likely not a cap team but it is so far above his market value. I feel like they could hit the cap floor in other ways to help their young players have talent around them to develop.</div></div>

In the next 2 years they have 8ish million in dead cap coming off the books with only Vlasic and maybe Reichel due for big raises plus AA, Beau, Hall and Zaitsev all making over 4million expiring. Plus the cap likely going up 6-8 million over the next 2 years, They're going to be near the cap floor for a few years even with massive overpays
Forum: NHLJan. 9 at 12:44 p.m.
Thread: 2023-2024 NHL Discussion Thread #2: Early Overreactions
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>NHLfan10506</b></div><div>Eric Lindros, Bryan Berard...(Kobe Bryant, Eli Manning)...

CHL players can sign at age 18 and still play juniors, whereas NCAA players, or NCAA-bound players, are not allowed to sign a pro contract (otherwise they give up their amateur status and would be barred from NCAA). The league could also say CHL players cannot sign until they are playing professionally. CHL players could also refuse to sign. Their rights are only held for two years, until age 20.

If NHL extended rights for NCAA players until age 23-24....that would not be fair to NCAA players. If anything, it should be reduced to 3 years.

The real issue to fix is how CHL players can sign a professional contract at age 18....but are barred from playing professionally in AHL for two seasons while under contract.

So much of the league 'system' are policies that date back to when CHL players made up 75% of the league. Now they make up 40% of league and those rules are outdated.</div></div>

The slide rule kind of addresses this already, does it not? It's not uncommon for an 18 year old's ELC to last 5 years because of slides, it's really just a way for teams to get cash via signing bonuses in their top prospects pockets to allow them to focus on their development more. Not really the leagues problem if the NCAA bars this from happening with their players. Can't imagine there'd be much appetite to change this from the league and the PA would absolutely push back against this. They're more likely to pressure the CHL into a more favorable player loan agreement to allow more junior age players in the AHL.