Around The NHL 2016/2017

[Rich]

 

[FrostyWinnipeg]

http://www.tsn.ca/report-coyotes-to-announce-new-arena-deal-1.607560

Sounds like it be @ ASU-Tempe. Maybe replace 40+ old arena.

Edited November 14, 2016 by FrostyWinnipeg

[Ducky]

Seguin with 20 points in 16 games and Scheif with 20 points in 17 games as they sit on top of the points sheet.

[iHeart]

so I just heard via twitter that the Canucks are interested in Evander Kane. oh man, do they even know what they are in for, they must be desperate

[Ducky]

gonna get him on the cheap

[The Unknown Poster]

Makes sense.

[Rich]

A few interesting tidbits in this TSN article.

http://www.tsn.ca/concerns-about-nhl-expansion-draft-emerge-1.609388

There is concerns on both sides (existing teams and Vegas) about "side deals" for pending UFAs, where a team will have a contract ready to go on a UFA but not submit it to the league until after the expansion draft to avoid having to protect that player, and on the Vegas side, them doing similar things in their 48 hour window to talk to UFAs prior to free agency opening as apparently if they sign a UFA in that 48 hour window, that counts as their pick of a player from that team.

The penalty if a team gets caught circumventing the expansion draft rules … a first round draft pick.  Pretty steep penalty if they can prove it.  Would a GM risk it?

Debates continue with GMs on Rule 48 on blindside hits….  This is likely the rule that triggered the penalty for Morrissey’s hit as the player he hit had his head down and could be considered “vulnerable”.

And … possible changes to the shootout, changing the rule that after the first 3 players, you can recycle players who have already taken a shot.  Theory being, the fans want to see the best players shoot, not be forced to play your 3rd / 4th line players or 3rd pairing D-Men.   I like this rule change.

[The Unknown Poster]

That would be a big risk.  Because you'd need the player and agent to be in cahoots with you.  Would be wiser to send a player or pick to Vegas in return for them not picking someone you want to keep, if Vegas was willing to do it.

[HardCoreBlue]

18 hours ago, iHeart said:

so I just heard via twitter that the Canucks are interested in Evander Kane. oh man, do they even know what they are in for, they must be desperate

Makes sense for both teams.

When he is on, EK is a quality on-ice player.

Evander's style of play may free up some of their other offensive players, give them that spark they need.

To quote the President-Elect, what do they have to lose?  

[mbrg]

2 hours ago, Rich said:

A few interesting tidbits in this TSN article.

http://www.tsn.ca/concerns-about-nhl-expansion-draft-emerge-1.609388

 

And … possible changes to the shootout, changing the rule that after the first 3 players, you can recycle players who have already taken a shot.  Theory being, the fans want to see the best players shoot, not be forced to play your 3rd / 4th line players or 3rd pairing D-Men.   I like this rule change.

Garbage.  Total garbage.

What would hockey be if it didn't have moments like these?

 

[FrostyWinnipeg]

Oh I thought they were going to allow the same player to keep shooting.

[The Unknown Poster]

1 minute ago, FrostyWinnipeg said:

Oh I thought they were going to allow the same player to keep shooting.

After the first three I guess you can.  Instinctively I dont like it.  Because the shoot out is stupid anyway.  But if we must have it, there is something to be said for depth in the later rounds.  Plus, it actually forces the coach to have to use some strategy.  If you can use the same player over and over again, then it takes it away.  Make it harder, not easier.  Actually, get rid of it altogether.  Oh but people that dont like hockey like it so it has to stay.

[FrostyWinnipeg]

Big news : NHL says yes we'll go to Olympics if NHLPA extends the CBA.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl-could-take-part-in-pyeongchang-if-cba-is-extended-1.609628

Edited November 16, 2016 by FrostyWinnipeg

[The Unknown Poster]

10 minutes ago, FrostyWinnipeg said:

Big news : NHL says yes we'll go to Olympics if NHLPA extends the CBA.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl-could-take-part-in-pyeongchang-if-cba-is-extended-1.609628

PA wont agree to that.  Which would seem to signal their intent to open the CBA again.  Which is great.  We'll miss a season and the players will capitulate anyway.  Because they are the players, not the owners.  Being a millionaire hockey player is a tough life.

Not sure the threat of players going to the Olympics is really solid.  They break their contracts, get suspended indefinitely...whats the point of that?  Sure, the league wont want to do that (looks bad, risks fan backlash) but if they dont provide a very stiff penalty then whats the point?

[FrostyWinnipeg]

Just send the juniors, Easiest, best solution. Kill the WJHC off for one year.

[JCon]

9 minutes ago, FrostyWinnipeg said:

Just send the juniors, Easiest, best solution. Kill the WJHC off for one year.

I thought sending the juniors would be the best option. I don't agree that we should kill the WJHC that season.

For two reasons:

1) Non-NHL players could still play, including those from the European Elite leagues.

2) The host city for the WJHC is Buffalo in 2018. If we bump them, they'll want to push that to 2019. Which means we won't see the WJHC in Winnipeg until 2020 or 2022. (Provided we win our bid)

[FrostyWinnipeg]

Start the timer.

http://www.tsn.ca/isles-snow-gives-capuano-vote-of-confidence-1.609378

[The Unknown Poster]

There was an interesting dicussion on H&L last night when they talked about the news the NHL would agree to the Olympics in exchange for the PA not opting out of the current CBA.

Lawless said players hate the current CBA because of the high escrow.  But Hustler rightly pointed out what other option is there?  They have an agreement that the league and players split revenue 50-50 so the high escrow is because the players are signing contracts for salary that is greater than 50% of league revenue and thus, have to give some of that money back.  Hustler asked what other option is there?  Lawless said he had no idea but that the players want an entirely new system where they get their money.

So I'd expect a pretty tough negotiation next time.  And just remember when the PA claimed the owners were greedy when they made more than 50% of revenue, the players are going to want more next time.  Not sure how you argue 50/50 isnt fair...

My only question is this: if every off-season the league and players agree on the cap and every season they determine the players took more than their share of league revenue, doesnt it stand to reason the cap is too high?  Players are paying 15% escrow and only getting around 3% back.  So every year they are paid 12% more than their share.  Wouldn't dropping the cap by 12%, rolling back salaries by 12% lower escrow?  And if every year, the league takes the escrow money, why does the cap keep rising?

[mbrg]

1 hour ago, The Unknown Poster said:

There was an interesting dicussion on H&L last night when they talked about the news the NHL would agree to the Olympics in exchange for the PA not opting out of the current CBA.

Lawless said players hate the current CBA because of the high escrow.  But Hustler rightly pointed out what other option is there?  They have an agreement that the league and players split revenue 50-50 so the high escrow is because the players are signing contracts for salary that is greater than 50% of league revenue and thus, have to give some of that money back.  Hustler asked what other option is there?  Lawless said he had no idea but that the players want an entirely new system where they get their money.

So I'd expect a pretty tough negotiation next time.  And just remember when the PA claimed the owners were greedy when they made more than 50% of revenue, the players are going to want more next time.  Not sure how you argue 50/50 isnt fair...

My only question is this: if every off-season the league and players agree on the cap and every season they determine the players took more than their share of league revenue, doesnt it stand to reason the cap is too high?  Players are paying 15% escrow and only getting around 3% back.  So every year they are paid 12% more than their share.  Wouldn't dropping the cap by 12%, rolling back salaries by 12% lower escrow?  And if every year, the league takes the escrow money, why does the cap keep rising?

Are those the actual percentages involved or are you using these as an example?

Unless there are extenuating circumstances that are difficult to forecast, the margin of error shouldn't be that high.  That's crazy.  When I see numbers that don't make sense I drill down find the reason for it.  There is a cause.  If it's not a one-off, your model is wrong and you need to change it.

Watching this unending cycle of teams handing out terrible contracts and then locking out players to change the CBA because they aren't capable of controlling their own actions is tiresome.

[The Unknown Poster]

I believe they said escrow this year is 15.5% and they might get back 3% or something like that.  If I recall, the escrow started off much smaller.  Wouldnt it make more sense to shrink the cap?

I guess you have to err on over-paying the players and clawing back via escrow than under-paying.  But it still doesnt make sense to me that the predicted revenue can be so much lower that you are clawing back 12% of salaries AND raising the cap.

[JCon]

6 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

I believe they said escrow this year is 15.5% and they might get back 3% or something like that.  If I recall, the escrow started off much smaller.  Wouldnt it make more sense to shrink the cap?

I guess you have to err on over-paying the players and clawing back via escrow than under-paying.  But it still doesnt make sense to me that the predicted revenue can be so much lower that you are clawing back 12% of salaries AND raising the cap.

But the NHLPA has the opportunity, each year, to hold the salary cap, thus keeping the escrow down. Each year, they take the chance that revenues will greatly exceed the previous year and each year it does not.

[The Unknown Poster]

Yeah Im not sure what they think they will accomplish by going to war again.  NHL wont change the split from 50-50.  Might be a lot of newer players full of piss & vinegar thinking they will draw a line in the sand but they will lose a year of salary, have the cap lowered and wages rolled back and end up accepting it. 

[JCon]

32 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Yeah Im not sure what they think they will accomplish by going to war again.  NHL wont change the split from 50-50.  Might be a lot of newer players full of piss & vinegar thinking they will draw a line in the sand but they will lose a year of salary, have the cap lowered and wages rolled back and end up accepting it. 

Owners need new rules to protect them from themselves.

[bustamente]

Do some of these players playing in certain markets ever look at the sparse crowd of some of these places they play in, NHL is still and always will be a ticket driven league as there tv contracts are minuscule compared to the other league's.

[The Unknown Poster]

I can understand their feeling in that if they sign a contract for $5 million, why is 15% being taken off and given back to the owners?  But there is a very simple answer to it.  The players want a free market  system where rich teams are free to over-pay players.  They think they want that.  But when the league collapses and teams go bankrupt, they wont like it very much.  It will be fun watching the players go on strike (or get locked out) and claim they deserve more than 50% of revenue.

Its pretty clear that salaries rise faster then league revenue.  And the players want the owners to take that on.  They want to share all the money but have the owners carry the debt.  Doesnt work that way.  If the players dig their heels in and risk and entire season, I think the league will crush them.