Rebuild. Such an easy word to say. But (frank) the Leafs. One of a few teams that can ice the absolute pooptiest team and still sell out. Why not just (frank)ing do it properly? they aren't gonna lose any money. Take 3 years have a team that is around the middle of the pack when it comes to cap. Lose. Sell out. Ugh.
- weirdoh

I don't know. There seems to be some problem with the TO conducting a proper rebuild, as though the Leafs should be able to reinvent the wheel.

What can be said? They won't do it the right way because they don't want to 'look like a rebuilding team'. Because 'the fans don't deserve to watch a team that is going to be a loser'. More of 'July 1 is our draft' kind of mentality? Tank it up, draft high, and accumulate talent. I think there are enough fans in TO to appreciate the strategy.

I don't know. There seems to be some problem with the TO conducting a proper rebuild, as though the Leafs should be able to reinvent the wheel.

What can be said? They won't do it the right way because they don't want to 'look like a rebuilding team'. Because 'the fans don't deserve to watch a team that is going to be a loser'. More of 'July 1 is our draft' kind of mentality? Tank it up, draft high, and accumulate talent. I think there are enough fans in TO to appreciate the strategy.
- Johnny Wrath

I think Canadian franchises are more well equipped for a rebuild in fact. Fans here understand when it is necessary often before owners do, and by the time ownership gets around to it, fans have been anticipating it for 2-3 years. Flames are a great example of that, we expected ownership to rebuild years before they finally did...

I think Canadian franchises are more well equipped for a rebuild in fact. Fans here understand when it is necessary often before owners do, and by the time ownership gets around to it, fans have been anticipating it for 2-3 years. Flames are a great example of that, we expected ownership to rebuild years before they finally did...
- rmull905

It's also a matter of championing certain players. As long as Calgary had Iggy, they should have been trying to win in theory. Even if his C is Craig Conroy.

Yeah Stanley Cups are incredibly OVERATED.



- classic321

Yeah, in which Richards had not much to do with

Its confusing though since it was Philly who signed him to that contract and played time there as well. So would they both get hit with a recapture penalty?
- ImThatGuy

I have no idea, I assume Philly does get some of it, since I do remember how that was brought up with Lou trade to the Panthers that both are on the hook for recaptures

I would be mildly shocked if somebody claimed Richards. Kings have obviously been trying to trade him for awhile (I don't get why they didn't give him a compliance buyout when they had the chance, and I bet they regret not doing it now) but that contract is toxic. Also, at this point, the NHLPA cap escalator may be the only thing keeping the cap rising, and it may not be authorized this year, so deals like Richards are even more toxic than they were already.

Geez, who could have predicted all these 10+ year deals would have such horrible outcomes?

It's also a matter of championing certain players. As long as Calgary had Iggy, they should have been trying to win in theory. Even if his C is Craig Conroy.
- Johnny Wrath

Fans here disagreed, in his last couple of seasons, he was not himself and fans could tell. Factoring in that they could never really get that #1 centre, and having languished with middle of the road picks that didn't pan out, and a goalie everyone suspected would retire without playing the last year of his deal, Iggy should have been dealt a season or two before he was sent to Pittsburgh.

Ownership here held that deal up, they wanted him to retire a forever-Flame, and because they were blinded by that want, they didn't capitalize on his market value when it was at its peak.

Yeah, in which Richards had not much to do with
- twpguy

Yeah this is the thing, it's true that Richards and Carter were the missing pieces for LA's first Cup but they were also a far more complete team. I'm hard pressed to see, given the overall bad management patterns of Philadelphia how they could have built a real contender even if they'd kept those guys.

Everyone always seems to forget that Carter was traded to Columbus first, too. If he hadn't been a whiny female dog about getting traded there, and stayed there, this wouldn't be a conversation.

In any case, they were very wise about getting out of those contracts.

Fans here disagreed, in his last couple of seasons, he was not himself and fans could tell. Factoring in that they could never really get that #1 centre, and having languished with middle of the road picks that didn't pan out, and a goalie everyone suspected would retire without playing the last year of his deal, Iggy should have been dealt a season or two before he was sent to Pittsburgh.

Ownership here held that deal up, they wanted him to retire a forever-Flame, and because they were blinded by that want, they didn't capitalize on his market value when it was at its peak.
- rmull905

FINALLY someone agrees with my theory about how the Flames actually operate. Everyone blames the delayed rebuild on Feaster and sometimes King but I don't understand how Murray Edwards escapes the blame. I mean, it was actually reported that he gave the final greenlight to trade Iggy. The man is far more involved than people realize, I think, and if you don't think the decision to start a rebuild - which involves, in Calgary's case, probably losing money for awhile - isn't one that is reluctantly approved by him I don't think you realize how most sports teams operate. Think about how much money Calgary lost the first time they rebuilt in the 90s, I have a hard time believing that wasn't a factor in the delayed decision. Hell, just look at the Dome nowadays and how many empty seats there are compared to the mid-2000s.

Funny he gets brought up in a Richards discussion because one rumor said that, before the Richards deal, the Kings were willing to offer the same package (Simmonds, Schenn and a 2nd) for him. If only...

The waiver was in hopes that someone would pick him up. They won't put him in the minors. If they did they would call someone up and they would be at a similar cost.

I think LA will most likely be offered a trade so they have to take back some bad salary.




on another note, this one still bothers me:
Jan 1, 2014 Traded to Toronto by Carolina for John-Michael Liles and Dennis Robertson
Jul 3, 2014 Signed as a free agent by Carolina

Can you guess who? Wow, If toronto keeps making deals like this we will be doing great. Yes it did free up cap space, but I'm sure someone would have offered a 7th round pick for him in the year 2028 or something.

Yeah this is the thing, it's true that Richards and Carter were the missing pieces for LA's first Cup but they were also a far more complete team. I'm hard pressed to see, given the overall bad management patterns of Philadelphia how they could have built a real contender even if they'd kept those guys.

Everyone always seems to forget that Carter was traded to Columbus first, too. If he hadn't been a whiny female dog about getting traded there, and stayed there, this wouldn't be a conversation.

In any case, they were very wise about getting out of those contracts.
- S Kaspar Rollins

Was it his whining or because he had that broken leg injury that had him out for while? or both?

This is not the Philadelphia Flyer Mike Richards. This is a shadow of his former self. Over five million a year for six more years. no way in hell anyone picks him up

I have no idea, I assume Philly does get some of it, since I do remember how that was brought up with Lou trade to the Panthers that both are on the hook for recaptures
- DDM-Coga

It could be because Philly dealt him before the new contract was actually valid?

Hmm... well that's horsepoop.
- BINGO!

Not at all.

Part of the reason the kings have had so much depth was using cap circumventing contracts.

Seems like evening out to me.

Fans here disagreed, in his last couple of seasons, he was not himself and fans could tell. Factoring in that they could never really get that #1 centre, and having languished with middle of the road picks that didn't pan out, and a goalie everyone suspected would retire without playing the last year of his deal, Iggy should have been dealt a season or two before he was sent to Pittsburgh.

Ownership here held that deal up, they wanted him to retire a forever-Flame, and because they were blinded by that want, they didn't capitalize on his market value when it was at its peak.
- rmull905

That trade was super political. They had Feaster come in and do it, then in Dec 2013 they 'relieved him of duties'. Iggy got screwed by the Penguins by playing him out of position on the wrong line; Calgary got screwed because they waited way too long to turn the page and address a position on their team that wasn't #1RW.

What was the least team that won the Stanley Cup with their best player being a RW?

This is not the Philadelphia Flyer Mike Richards. This is a shadow of his former self. Over five million a year for six more years. no way in hell anyone picks him up
- Mikeleelop

His body is just worn out i think. between his hard style of play in philly and all the drugs he was rumored to be doing

That trade was super political. They had Feaster come in and do it, then in Dec 2013 they 'relieved him of duties'. Iggy got screwed by the Penguins by playing him out of position on the wrong line; Calgary got screwed because they waited way too long to turn the page and address a position on their team that wasn't #1RW.

What was the least team that won the Stanley Cup with their best player being a RW?
- Johnny Wrath

I personally wouldn't say this, but some may argue the Blackhawks with Patrick Kane.

Was it his whining or because he had that broken leg injury that had him out for while? or both?
- arichardson22

After he got traded in June he avoided pretty much all contact with the Blue Jackets until like late July IIRC, to the point where they had to send someone from the team to find him. (I think the Flyers traded him in a window where his NTC was inactive). He never developed any real chemistry there and was evidently a cancer with a bad contract so they cut bait early.

It could be because Philly dealt him before the new contract was actually valid?
- SmielmaN

Teams are exposed to the penalty if actual $ paid was greater than the cap hit during the term the player was with the team.

I think there are about 15 contracts or so out there that could potentially have cap penalties.

I personally wouldn't say this, but some may argue the Blackhawks with Patrick Kane.
- arichardson22

Put it this way, I think the Blackhawks MIGHT win 2 Cups without Kane but they definitely wouldn't without Toews. Legitimate top line center is always better. Hell, the Hawks no. 2 center was Michal Handzus not too long ago

Richards and Callahan are the most overrated players in the NHL

I personally wouldn't say this, but some may argue the Blackhawks with Patrick Kane.
- arichardson22

Duncan Keith, yo.

That trade was super political. They had Feaster come in and do it, then in Dec 2013 they 'relieved him of duties'. Iggy got screwed by the Penguins by playing him out of position on the wrong line; Calgary got screwed because they waited way too long to turn the page and address a position on their team that wasn't #1RW.

What was the least team that won the Stanley Cup with their best player being a RW?
- Johnny Wrath

Feaster was brought in when the team was still in their delusional not-rebuilding phase, after they waited about a year and a half too long to can Darryl. He proceeded to do some "competitive" short term moves that ranged from okay to absolutely terrible (Wideman, though admittedly he's not playing bad this year, still a terrible contract). He also followed up maybe the best Flames draft in like 30 years (2011) with what looks like one of the alltime worst Flames 1st rounders (Janko). He was not a good GM, though I strongly agree that the decision to rebuild 2 years too late was not his alone.

Duncan Keith, yo.
- Johnny Wrath

Every Cup winning team needs, at minimum, an elite top line center, a top 10 d and a decent goalie (or at least one that's decent enough to paper over with the rest of the team). Remove any one and you aren't winning a Cup.

If you have more elite or slightly below elite players obviously your chances go up but those are the basic required elements.

Every Cup winning team needs, at minimum, an elite top line center, a top 10 d and a decent goalie (or at least one that's decent enough to paper over with the rest of the team). Remove any one and you aren't winning a Cup.
- S Kaspar Rollins

Precisely. Boston, LA, Chicago (although it was 2 goalies), and NY Rangers are basically it. Anaheim is close. Colorado is tentatively close. The East looks pretty bad as far as having the substantive pieces.