State of the Cap: What would you do?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    State of the Cap: What would you do?

    According to Capgeek, the B's have $2.7M left to spend. 

    Still to be signed are Blake Wheeler and Mark Stuart.

    Last year, Stuart's cap hit was $1.3M.  Considering the money that was thrown at stay-at-home FA defensemen, he's in for a decent raise.  Let's even offer him 3yr/$6.6M, a cap hit of $2.2M.

    It's safe to say that Wheeler isn't going to sign for $500K. 

    The other view is to sign Wheeler first.  He's coming off his rookie deal of a base of $850K.  While few of us are very impressed by him, he did score some goals.  Guys with similar stats are making $3M+.  Well, that in itself removes the present possibility of the B's signing Wheeler. 

    What to do?

    Trade a working part of the team is one option.  Savard or Thomas free up enough space.  The problem is, throwing away players to keep Blake Wheeler doesn't seem like the best way to manage the assets.


    Trade Wheeler is another one.  If they did that, however, and signed Stuart for slightly below the above number, the could call up a one of the Providence kids and the problem is solved.

    Seems to me the option is to keep Stuart and a working part of the current NHL team or keep Wheeler and trade a working part and Stuart.

    I think if I had the choice, I'd move Wheeler.

    What would you do?
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Mutant211. Show Mutant211's posts

    Re: State of the Cap: What would you do?

    Ideally, I'd bury Ryder and his $4M price tag in Providence.  Not realistic, but neither is the thought of me calling the shots for the Bruins.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from bim09. Show bim09's posts

    Re: State of the Cap: What would you do?

    I think the answer revolves around these 4 players:
    Savard
    Stuart
    Wheeler
    Seguin

    They may want to trade Savard and Wheeler, take back less salary and sign Stewy because he's a toughness leader.  That wouldn't be a bad idea. Though, I think there's a better return for Stuart than there is for Wheeler.  So, I guess it depends on what the mgmt wants going forward.

    Wheeler's a young speedy winger with size and skill that might become another Versteeg or better.  They say it takes the tall guys longer to develop.  Stewy's a shutdown D with a physical presence and can be a leader on the ice.

    Seguin's going to be our Joe Sakic in 3 years so that would be the reason they trade Savard.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from RMiller87. Show RMiller87's posts

    Re: State of the Cap: What would you do?

    I would move Savard.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from bogie6. Show bogie6's posts

    Re: State of the Cap: What would you do?

    When you look at the options, moving Stuart with Kamfer/Bartkowsky/Alexandrov/Penner/Bodnarchuck/McQuaid in the wings seems reasonable. Moving Savard has greater implications since Seguin may need a first year on the wing as did Bergeron. Wheeler is frustrating since he has skills you want,speed/size, but his second year was not so hot, and yet his 3rd could be a breakout if paired with Kreji and Horton. Do not think CHIA will trade Wheeler, and he seems to like both Hunwick and McQuaid, so Stuart looks to be the best opportunity with least negative impact.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Espo72. Show Espo72's posts

    Re: State of the Cap: What would you do?

    With Sturm on LTIR ($3.5M) we can afford to sign both (we also need to sign Campbell) and let it ride to see if Sturm actually comes back. With injuries during the year, we may not have to deal anyone.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: State of the Cap: What would you do?

    Bogie, the problem with that logic is that only one of the guys on your list can play a role similar to Stuart's (McQuaid).  The rest of those players are smaller guys who rely on quickness and leverage, and who balance their size liabilities with some offensive skills.  Most of those guys are also very late round picks or college FAs - the exceptions are Alexandrov and McQuaid, both 2nd rounders.  If the logic is "who can the Bruins replace with a prospect most easily" then the answer is Wheeler.  I'm not convinced that Colborne, Caron, Sauve, Hamill, Marchand and even Knight are ready to play, but I'd bet a dollar that the best of them is more ready to contribute than the best of that list of D.

    What would I do?  Wait.  The RFA leverage drops every day no one steps up with an offer.  If someone steps up, match if the offer is under $2.5 and figure out who to move after the fact.  If that means sending Ryder down, then that's what that means.

    I guess what I'm saying is that there are "working parts" I'd be willing to move, bury, etc. if necessary to keep both guys at reasonable prices. I assume NAS is referring to Armstrong when he says that guys with similar stats are getting $3M.  Obviously, that's for more than goals and assists.  Wheeler's 'intangibles' probably detract from what he'd earn for goals and assists.  I'm guessing the total cost for both players is around $4.5M - so add Campbell and round up to $5.5.  Shedding around $4M would be ideal in that scenario, leaving a bit of room for call-ups.

    The longer they wait, the more likely it is that the Bruins can find a taker for Ference (veteran D at league average salary), Ryder (one year risk for possible goal-scoring - if someone buys the "contract year" argument), Hunwick - or Savard or Thomas, though those are more than cap moves in my mind.  You also wait to see how negotiations with Bergeron and Chara go.  It's possible that Bergeron could still be the guy to go....
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Raskman. Show Raskman's posts

    Re: State of the Cap: What would you do?

    Without a doubt I would bury Ryder in the minors.  JJ would have something to say about it, but that is the easiest solution.  Hell, when he's on waivers someone might grab him and make everything better.

    Secondly, I would move TT.  That would be near impossible though.  There are very few teams that still have interest. 
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from scooter244. Show scooter244's posts

    Re: State of the Cap: What would you do?

    In a recent interview, PC stated he didn't need to make any moves and could still sign everybody he needed to.  From WEEI.com

    If we keep all things as is, we’ll be tight but we’ll be fine. The [salary] cap went up to [$59.6 million], with the union electing the escalator. There’s a performance cushion that the union elected also, so we’re fine that way
    .

    This was in reference to trading Thomas.  I'm assuming that by "we'll be fine" he means signing those three players. 
    I don't pretend to understand the intricacies of the salary cap, but he must be using the LTIR and Bonus cushion is some creative manner to get it done. 
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from bogie6. Show bogie6's posts

    Re: State of the Cap: What would you do?

    Not a bad alternative BB, so let's stir the pot as Chia sees it. He has 2.7, so he can match Stuart or Wheeler, but not both, so work the Savard/Ryder trade scene because he will also need approx 2.0 to tie up both Campbell and McQuaid. So far he seems to want to hang on to Ference although he could keep both Stuart and McQuaid if he trades Ference for draft picks. Maybe he can get picks for Ryder[ best possible move]. So let the offers float in
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from NumbaFouwer. Show NumbaFouwer's posts

    Re: State of the Cap: What would you do?

    In Response to Re: State of the Cap: What would you do?:
    In a recent interview, PC stated he didn't need to make any moves and could still sign everybody he needed to.  From WEEI.com If we keep all things as is, we’ll be tight but we’ll be fine. The [salary] cap went up to [$59.6 million], with the union electing the escalator. There’s a performance cushion that the union elected also, so we’re fine that way . This was in reference to trading Thomas.  I'm assuming that by "we'll be fine" he means signing those three players.  I don't pretend to understand the intricacies of the salary cap, but he must be using the LTIR and Bonus cushion is some creative manner to get it done
    Posted by scooter244


    Exactly. And the CBA is subject to multiple interpetations, especially with "spirit of the law" being a factor.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: State of the Cap: What would you do?

    In Response to Re: State of the Cap: What would you do?:
    In Response to Re: State of the Cap: What would you do? : Exactly. And the CBA is subject to multiple interpetations, especially with "spirit of the law" being a factor.
    Posted by NumbaFouwer


    I've seen this written here a few times and don't understand.  Which part(s) of the CBA does this refer to?
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from felixwas. Show felixwas's posts

    Re: State of the Cap: What would you do?

    In Response to State of the Cap: What would you do?:
    According to Capgeek, the B's have $2.7M left to spend.  Still to be signed are Blake Wheeler and Mark Stuart. Last year, Stuart's cap hit was $1.3M.  Considering the money that was thrown at stay-at-home FA defensemen, he's in for a decent raise.  Let's even offer him 3yr/$6.6M, a cap hit of $2.2M. It's safe to say that Wheeler isn't going to sign for $500K.  The other view is to sign Wheeler first.  He's coming off his rookie deal of a base of $850K.  While few of us are very impressed by him, he did score some goals.  Guys with similar stats are making $3M+.  Well, that in itself removes the present possibility of the B's signing Wheeler.  What to do? Trade a working part of the team is one option.  Savard or Thomas free up enough space.  The problem is, throwing away players to keep Blake Wheeler doesn't seem like the best way to manage the assets. Trade Wheeler is another one.  If they did that, however, and signed Stuart for slightly below the above number, the could call up a one of the Providence kids and the problem is solved. Seems to me the option is to keep Stuart and a working part of the current NHL team or keep Wheeler and trade a working part and Stuart. I think if I had the choice, I'd move Wheeler. What would you do?
    Posted by Not-A-Shot

    I think that in the past couple of days, Fluto wrote that Ryder may be buried in the AHL this season, which would free up his salary, cap-wise. Perhaps that would allow P.C. to sign both Wheeler and Stuart.

    I think it's premature to move Wheeler. During his first three years in the league, Peter McNab (a Wheeler comparable, I think) had seasons of 3, 22 and 24 goals. The gifted Rick Middleton didn't crack the 25-goal mark until his fifth season in the league, and there's no doubt many of the people on these boards would have criticized the young Middleton for being soft, out of shape and an underachiever—the same things we hear about Wheeler. Jason Allison (another Wheeler comparable, I think) played his first games for Washington in 1993-94, but he only scored 10 goals total before his breakout year of 33 goals in Boston in 1997-98.

    I would be more inclined to let Stuart go and gamble on Wheeler's potential, if for no other reason than it seems it would be easier to find a Stuart-like defenseman. 

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from mannyortez3424. Show mannyortez3424's posts

    Re: State of the Cap: What would you do?

    Gotta trade someone and sign Wheeler and Stuart, IMO.  Putting Ryder on waivers is a far better option than letting one of those guys walk so if that isn't considered, it's pathetic...
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: State of the Cap: What would you do?

    In Response to Re: State of the Cap: What would you do?:
    Google is your friend . Spirit of the law regarding a particular in the NHL's CBA. http://www.sportsagentblog.com/2009/08/07/what-exactly-is-the-spirit-of-the-cba/
    Posted by Chowdahkid-


    Thanks for the link.  Unfortunatley, the subject was the spirit of the CBA in relation to LTIR and bonus cushions.  This addresses long term contracts, so the info in the article useless.

    Maybe I'll use Google to find something related to the subject at hand.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from RascalHoudi. Show RascalHoudi's posts

    Re: State of the Cap: What would you do?

    Chia: "Mr. Ryder... I've got a new assignment for you this year.  Player/assistant coach in Providence so that you can start getting some experience for the next phase of your career.  It pays really, really well for the first year"

    Ryder:  "Um, thanks?"

    Chia: "Stewie.  Wheels.  Come here, we gotta talk"
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: State of the Cap: What would you do?

    Aw, c'mon NAS, you're smarter than that.  The mention of "spirit" doesn't refer to particular sections of the CBA.  The implication of the article is that the NHL is looking to see if the low-ball years were negotiated in bad faith, meaning that the player and team discussed retirement rather than the player continuing his career at that price.  In other words, the "spirit of the CBA" here is generic.  So, in the case of LTIR or the Bonus Cushion, it would refer to the player and team agreeing to exploit a loophole in the CBA with the express intent of circumventing the controls it puts on spending.  I have no idea how this would be done with either LTIR or the Bonus Cushion because the language for these tools forestalls most of the tricks you might want to use - independent verification of injuries, prescribed minimums for bonuses etc.

    Simply, I think you needed to specify that you were looking for an explanation of how you could violate the spirit of the CBA with these tools rather than a link re: the general idea.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chowdahkid-. Show Chowdahkid-'s posts

    Re: State of the Cap: What would you do?

    In Response to Re: State of the Cap: What would you do?:
    In Response to Re: State of the Cap: What would you do? : Thanks for the link.  Unfortunatley, the subject was the spirit of the CBA in relation to LTIR and bonus cushions.  This addresses long term contracts, so the info in the article useless. Maybe I'll use Google to find something related to the subject at hand.
    Posted by Not-A-Shot


    Just an example of the general term 'spirit of the law' in this particular case . Do you think 'spirit of the law' is written in regarding every part of the contract ? BAHAHA. Good luck finding it.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: State of the Cap: What would you do?

    In Response to Re: State of the Cap: What would you do?:
    Aw, c'mon NAS, you're smarter than that.  The mention of "spirit" doesn't refer to particular sections of the CBA.  The implication of the article is that the NHL is looking to see if the low-ball years were negotiated in bad faith, meaning that the player and team discussed retirement rather than the player continuing his career at that price.  In other words, the "spirit of the CBA" here is generic.  So, in the case of LTIR or the Bonus Cushion, it would refer to the player and team agreeing to exploit a loophole in the CBA with the express intent of circumventing the controls it puts on spending.  I have no idea how this would be done with either LTIR or the Bonus Cushion because the language for these tools forestalls most of the tricks you might want to use - independent verification of injuries, prescribed minimums for bonuses etc. Simply, I think you needed to specify that you were looking for an explanation of how you could violate the spirit of the CBA with these tools rather than a link re: the general idea.
    Posted by Bookboy007


    This is what I'm referring to.  I don't see how there is any room for interpretation for bonus cushions or LTIR, but people here are throwing it out there, so I am looking for clarification.

    I've posted 100 times about the disgrace of the 10 year, front loaded, retire before they're up contracts.  It's of no relation to the subject at hand, so there was nothing useful or related in the link that was provided by Chowdakid.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: State of the Cap: What would you do?

    In Response to Re: State of the Cap: What would you do?:
    In Response to Re: State of the Cap: What would you do? : Just an example of the general term 'spirit of the law' in this particular case . Do you think 'spirit of the law' is written in regarding every part of the contract ? BAHAHA. Good luck finding it.
    Posted by Chowdahkid-


    No, I don't.  I was asking for clarification on a subject that is cropping up here lately.  I wasn't looking for links.  I was wondering exactly what these people are talking about.


     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Raskman. Show Raskman's posts

    Re: State of the Cap: What would you do?

    The league came out with the term "Spirit of the CBA"  when the Wings exploited the loophole and other teams followed.  Legally, they couldn't do anything about it.  It's like they thought they could guilt teams into not using it, but as a GM you need to use every tool at your disposal.  I'm sure that loophole will be closed during the next negotiation.  If you're a GM that can extend your core guys now, why wouldn't you use it?  Could be a huge advantage for the first few years of a new CBA.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: State of the Cap: What would you do?

    Let me see if I can phrase the question in a different way:

    What room is there for interpretation of the rules for bonus cushions and LTIR?
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chowdahkid-. Show Chowdahkid-'s posts

    Re: State of the Cap: What would you do?

    In Response to Re: State of the Cap: What would you do?:
    In Response to Re: State of the Cap: What would you do? : No, I don't.  I was asking for clarification on a subject that is cropping up here lately.  I wasn't looking for links.  I was wondering exactly what these people are talking about.
    Posted by Not-A-Shot


    And I gave you an example of where it was used. You then decided to call it useless. It is a general term used for the CBA when teams are trying to find loopholes around certain clauses in the contract. I think the link was far from being useless.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from NumbaFouwer. Show NumbaFouwer's posts

    Re: State of the Cap: What would you do?

    In Response to Re: State of the Cap: What would you do?:
    In Response to Re: State of the Cap: What would you do? : I've seen this written here a few times and don't understand.  Which part(s) of the CBA does this refer to?
    Posted by Not-A-Shot


    I'm referring to what Bookboy said in his post about it being generic and trying to circumvent what was generally agreed upon when the CBA was formulated. I've heard that term "Spirit of the CBA" or something like it and may have actually read it in the CBA (and no I'm not gonna try to find where I read it in the CBA).

    Plus consider it's only CapGeek.com saying B's cap limit goes down next year. Maybe PC talked to the League about that, and they have a different interpretation than CapGeek.com . . . . PC sure looked happy with his family at the Sox game last night, when NESN highlighted him on the camera. Happy 4th of July.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chowdahkid-. Show Chowdahkid-'s posts

    Re: State of the Cap: What would you do?

    This might help with your question. Don't really think you'll find an answer anywhere on how far can a team bend the rules for bonus cushion for LTIR though.

    http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=533088
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share