Unofficial 2013-2014 Armchair GM Thread

[Kin]

It depends. Generally speaking, when a player signs a bridge contract it's usually for quite a bit less than what that player could get as an UFA. When they sign a deal that eats up a few UFA years then the price goes up, but it's still pretty good value compared to paying for an UFA.

Keep in mind though that our prior understanding of this stuff is based on a system where UFA deals were effectively unlimited and could pay players as much as 13 or so million a year in the first few years. Now with restrictions on UFA deals realistically the difference between a top young RFA and UFA is likely only to be in the 1-2 million range. While that's not nothing I don't think it's going to outweigh a team getting the player they really want.

 

[Jalili]

It depends. Generally speaking, when a player signs a bridge contract it's usually for quite a bit less than what that player could get as an UFA. When they sign a deal that eats up a few UFA years then the price goes up, but it's still pretty good value compared to paying for an UFA.

Keep in mind though that our prior understanding of this stuff is based on a system where UFA deals were effectively unlimited and could pay players as much as 13 or so million a year in the first few years. Now with restrictions on UFA deals realistically the difference between a top young RFA and UFA is likely only to be in the 1-2 million range. While that's not nothing I don't think it's going to outweigh a team getting the player they really want.

That could be the case, really depends on how the new CBA changes things.

 

[TML fan]

Ok well as long as we are leaving fairly important factors aside, just leave aside the fact that Kessel is a UFA in a year, because he's the kind of player it would take.

Well, I left it aside because it's the concept that I think is right. Those are the type of assets Colorado would want, whether it's Toronto or any other team offering them. Kessel, being an upcoming UFA, would be a less attractive option for Colorado.

That's fine. What I'm saying is, those assets are insufficient. It's more to Colorado's benefit to keep the pick than to accept lesser assets than they could get based solely on their contract status.

 

[Chev-boyar-sky]

Ok well as long as we are leaving fairly important factors aside, just leave aside the fact that Kessel is a UFA in a year, because he's the kind of player it would take.

Well, I left it aside because it's the concept that I think is right. Those are the type of assets Colorado would want, whether it's Toronto or any other team offering them. Kessel, being an upcoming UFA, would be a less attractive option for Colorado.

That's fine. What I'm saying is, those assets are insufficient. It's more to Colorado's benefit to keep the pick than to accept lesser assets than they could get based solely on their contract status.

Are you talking about Kadri, Gardiner and Rielly?

I'm sure you know but that's 2 top 10 picks and a #17 that's looking like he will have a shot at being an elite offensive puck moving defenseman. All are contractually under control and Kadri is coming off a close to PPG season, Gardiner one season removed from an impressive 30 pt rookie season and a good playoffs.

That's more than Boston got for Kessel. It may not be enough from Colorado's end (though I think it would be) but they'd sure take a while to mull it over.

 

[TML fan]

Ok well as long as we are leaving fairly important factors aside, just leave aside the fact that Kessel is a UFA in a year, because he's the kind of player it would take.

Well, I left it aside because it's the concept that I think is right. Those are the type of assets Colorado would want, whether it's Toronto or any other team offering them. Kessel, being an upcoming UFA, would be a less attractive option for Colorado.

That's fine. What I'm saying is, those assets are insufficient. It's more to Colorado's benefit to keep the pick than to accept lesser assets than they could get based solely on their contract status.

Are you talking about Kadri, Gardiner and Rielly?

I'm sure you know but that's 2 top 10 picks and a #17 that's looking like he will have a shot at being an elite offensive puck moving defenseman. All are contractually under control and Kadri is coming off a close to PPG season, Gardiner one season removed from an impressive 30 pt rookie season and a good playoffs.

That's more than Boston got for Kessel. It may not be enough from Colorado's end (though I think it would be) but they'd sure take a while to mull it over.

I you read back, it was one of them plus, not all three of them together. Even if it was, it still doesn't make sense to me. Why would Colorado make that trade if they aren't getting back as close to a sure thing as possible? The whole point of even considering trading the 1st overall pick is to make your team significantly better right away. I'm not convinced that all the maybes about Kadri, Gardiner, and Rielly outweigh the maybes about drafting a player and waiting a year or two. They'd also have more control over an 18 year old prospect than they would guys on the tail end of their ELCs.

 

[Highlander]

If they trade, Kadri, Gardiner and Rielly then I am finished as a fan...even if they got Jesus Christ in return.

 

[hockeyfan1]

If they trade, Kadri, Gardiner and Rielly then I am finished as a fan...even if they got Jesus Christ in return.

I'll pray to God they don't. 

 

[hockeyfan1]

...Colorado's benefit to keep the pick...

First of all, why would Colorado not keep their pick?  Any team, regardless of their needs quite possibly, would be foolish to not draft a potential franchise player, since the #1 and #2 picks in the order are usually specially talented.

Seth Jones has all the makings of a potential Chris Printer type and since the Avs sported among the worst in the defence department, he would fit in.

Nathan McKinnon, should he be first choice by way of draft order, would also help them bolster their offence, in some sort of way.


I don't expect the Leafs to make any sort of trade in attempting to obtain any of or either of the two.

 

[mc]

...Colorado's benefit to keep the pick...

First of all, why would Colorado not keep their pick?  Any team, regardless of their needs quite possibly, would be foolish to not draft a potential franchise player, since the #1 and #2 picks in the order are usually specially talented.

Seth Jones has all the makings of a potential Chris Printer type and since the Avs sported among the worst in the defence department, he would fit in.

Nathan McKinnon, should he be first choice by way of draft order, would also help them bolster their offence, in some sort of way.


I don't expect the Leafs to make any sort of trade in attempting to obtain any of or either of the two.

I like Chris Printer...

 

[brothert]

If they trade, Kadri, Gardiner and Rielly then I am finished as a fan...even if they got Jesus Christ in return.

I dunno, I think I pull the trigger on the Jesus Christ trade.  At this point in my life I believe it's going to take Jesus Christ to help the leafs win the cup.

 

[hockeyfan1]

...Colorado's benefit to keep the pick...

First of all, why would Colorado not keep their pick?  Any team, regardless of their needs quite possibly, would be foolish to not draft a potential franchise player, since the #1 and #2 picks in the order are usually specially talented.

Seth Jones has all the makings of a potential Chris Printer type and since the Avs sported among the worst in the defence department, he would fit in.

Nathan McKinnon, should he be first choice by way of draft order, would also help them bolster their offence, in some sort of way.


I don't expect the Leafs to make any sort of trade in attempting to obtain any of or either of the two.

I like Chris Printer...

LOL!!  My Playbook's keyboards had other ideas!! 

I meant...Chris Pronger. 

 

[Jalili]

Ok well as long as we are leaving fairly important factors aside, just leave aside the fact that Kessel is a UFA in a year, because he's the kind of player it would take.

Well, I left it aside because it's the concept that I think is right. Those are the type of assets Colorado would want, whether it's Toronto or any other team offering them. Kessel, being an upcoming UFA, would be a less attractive option for Colorado.

That's fine. What I'm saying is, those assets are insufficient. It's more to Colorado's benefit to keep the pick than to accept lesser assets than they could get based solely on their contract status.

See, I actually thought we were talking about a deal that would include all 3 of them. Sort of like the rumour back in 09 of TB trading the #2 pick for Schenn/Kaberle/Toronto's 1st.

 

[princedpw]

Only Toronto gives up top-2 picks.

 

[Britishbulldog]

@mr grieves, hap_leaf:

You are paying Komisarek an unnecessary 3+ million.  It took me a while to figure out how to get rid of him for 0 cost off the lineup:  Notice the "other" collection of players on cap geek calculator, which includes buyouts to Tucker and Armstrong.  Scroll down in the other column so that you can see Komisarek there (I used the mac scrolling gesture when hovering over "other" items to scroll).  A square for Komi should appear.  You can click on one of his buttons to bring him back up instead of burying him.  After doing that, trade him and we will be zeroed out in your final cost ....

yes, it did take me a while to figure out how to do that .... might as well share ...

Actually what Matt did was he added a check box with the words 'Buried Contracts' in green at the top beside where you select the team and Cap amount right beside the button 'Apply'.  Uncheck the box and voila, the buried contracts don't count.

princedpw, you are right and I am wrong.  When you 'uncheck' the box 'buried contracts' it does NOT remove the current buried contracts of a team, only future ones that we demote.

To actually get an idea of the cap space you have you need to recall a buried player and then trade him.

 

[Britishbulldog]

I read that this year, even with all the promotions, free-bees, discounts, etc, the NHL still will be making around $2.4 Billion in just 48 games.  That is pro-rated to $4.1 Billion. 

That is $68.33 MIL Cap limit per team pro-rated. 

Next year is already set at $64.3 MIL.  When does the 2014/2015 cap hit get set?

OK, So I seem to not know how to calculate the cap and floor of the NHL salary based on revenue.  $2.4 Billion over 48 games does get pro-rated to $4.1 over 82 games BUT I simply to $4,100 MILLION, divided it by 50% to get the player's share and divided that by 30 teams which gave me $68.33 MIL cap.

It is more complicated then that. James Mirtle wrote: - The basics of how the cap and floor will be calculated is that they will be 15 per cent above and 15 per cent below the midpoint. I?ve written in the past about calculating the midpoint, and according to Bill Daly, the new CBA keeps the same formula.


So I went to see the formula for calculating the midpoint and it turns out to be this:

So, for example, to get the cap figure, this is a sample calculation:

Midpoint: ($3.3-billion (revenues) x .57) - $90-million in (player) benefits / 30 teams = $59.7-million

Inflator: 59.7-million x 1.05 = $62.7-million

Cap: $62.7-million + $8-million = estimated $70- to $71-million

The $70.3-million figure is slightly lower than what I?ve come up with here likely as a result of the league working with a number just under $3.3-billion.

So, with all that under consideration, James Mirtle shows in the chart that if the revenue hits $4 to $4.1 Billion the cap would actually be around $73.1 MIL (see his guess of revenue for 2017-18)

That is quite a jump if the league sees that kind of revenue.

 

[Britishbulldog]

Another interesting thing I didn't realize with this new CBA is that you could  trade for a player and immediately buy him out.

Can anyone confirm or deny this May 2nd, 2013 blog?

If it is true then outrageous opportunities could present itself with the 2 amnesty buyouts the Leafs have.  One should still be used on Komisarek because like Wilson, Carlyle is not willing to put Komisarek in the line up.  The other amnesty buyout could be used by Nonis in a trade like Liles to Vancouver for Bieska and Luongo and then buyout Luongo so he can sign with Florida.  Vancouver could buyout Booth and Ballard themselves and set themselves up with cap space for some time.

I don't know about this loophole.  It would really benefit the rich teams like Toronto if true.

 

[princedpw]

@mr grieves, hap_leaf:

You are paying Komisarek an unnecessary 3+ million.  It took me a while to figure out how to get rid of him for 0 cost off the lineup:  Notice the "other" collection of players on cap geek calculator, which includes buyouts to Tucker and Armstrong.  Scroll down in the other column so that you can see Komisarek there (I used the mac scrolling gesture when hovering over "other" items to scroll).  A square for Komi should appear.  You can click on one of his buttons to bring him back up instead of burying him.  After doing that, trade him and we will be zeroed out in your final cost ....

yes, it did take me a while to figure out how to do that .... might as well share ...

Actually what Matt did was he added a check box with the words 'Buried Contracts' in green at the top beside where you select the team and Cap amount right beside the button 'Apply'.  Uncheck the box and voila, the buried contracts don't count.

princedpw, you are right and I am wrong.  When you 'uncheck' the box 'buried contracts' it does NOT remove the current buried contracts of a team, only future ones that we demote.

To actually get an idea of the cap space you have you need to recall a buried player and then trade him.

Yeah, seems like a bug in capgeek to me ...

 

[princedpw]

Another interesting thing I didn't realize with this new CBA is that you could  trade for a player and immediately buy him out.

Can anyone confirm or deny this May 2nd, 2013 blog?

If it is true then outrageous opportunities could present itself with the 2 amnesty buyouts the Leafs have.  One should still be used on Komisarek because like Wilson, Carlyle is not willing to put Komisarek in the line up.  The other amnesty buyout could be used by Nonis in a trade like Liles to Vancouver for Bieska and Luongo and then buyout Luongo so he can sign with Florida.  Vancouver could buyout Booth and Ballard themselves and set themselves up with cap space for some time.

I don't know about this loophole.  It would really benefit the rich teams like Toronto if true.

Even if this is true according to letter of the law, I could imagine the league stepping in if Toronto did this in some significant and gratuitous way (eg, Dipietro and islanders first for Komisarek).  When Toronto is involved, the league seems intent on screwing us.

 

[Chev-boyar-sky]

Another interesting thing I didn't realize with this new CBA is that you could  trade for a player and immediately buy him out.

Can anyone confirm or deny this May 2nd, 2013 blog?

If it is true then outrageous opportunities could present itself with the 2 amnesty buyouts the Leafs have.  One should still be used on Komisarek because like Wilson, Carlyle is not willing to put Komisarek in the line up.  The other amnesty buyout could be used by Nonis in a trade like Liles to Vancouver for Bieska and Luongo and then buyout Luongo so he can sign with Florida.  Vancouver could buyout Booth and Ballard themselves and set themselves up with cap space for some time.

I don't know about this loophole.  It would really benefit the rich teams like Toronto if true.

Not sure about the ability to trade for players that teams intend to buyout, though I can't see why it should be illegal as it still honours the contract that the player signed.

Why Nonis would trade Liles for Luongo and Bieksa is beyond me. Isn't that about 5 times the buyout of Liles just to pick up Bieksa and help Vancouver out of a Cap mess? If Luongo is moved, the only way the Leafs should take him on as a buyout candidate is if they're picking up a young and talented cap friendly player or a valuable pick.

 

[skrackle]

The Islanders are apparently willing to give up some picks/prospects to a team that would take the DiPietro contract off their hands.

It would come down to exactly what the components of the deal would be, but it might be a situation that the Leafs can take advantage of.