I remember this game well, because I vaguely recall having an interview the next day for a job I did not get.

Went down to the shore (Sea Isle) that weekend and watched Game 4 at the Springfield with a rowdy crowd and Game 5 with friends.

That Game 5 was as depressing as it gets as a Flyers fan.
- johndewar

I couldn't take the tension so I left my brothers place and decided to drive around. I figured by listening to it on the radio it would be less stressful. When I heard them score, I went to turn around and peeled out of intersection to go back to my brothers.

I never saw the cop sitting there and got pulled over. I told him I was just excited that the Flyers had won and he let me go.

And wtf is Ek's post about Carolina not going to LV all about? First I heard that was even a whiff of a rumor that it could happen. All I've heard is that LV is getting an expansion team. Were Carolina to move (and I'm in favor of failing businesses closing up and moving) where would the expansion team go?
- Scoob

Quebec.

Tanking is completely different from rebuilding. Tanking is intentionally trying to lose. The Flyers did not tank, they made the playoffs.

The part about punishing big market teams, is that teams like the Rangers, Toronto, Flyers, could afford to spend more money on player salaries than the current upper limit of the salary cap, and they probably would.
- MJL

Also the rule about burying contracts in AHL. They put the rule in because big market teams like the Rangers and Flyers can spend the money to bury a guy in AHL and just pay him. The Flyers would just put Umberger in AHL for a year instead of a buyout if not for the rule that keeps most of the cap hit on the team.

Tanking is completely different from rebuilding. Tanking is intentionally trying to lose. The Flyers did not tank, they made the playoffs.

The part about punishing big market teams, is that teams like the Rangers, Toronto, Flyers, could afford to spend more money on player salaries than the current upper limit of the salary cap, and they probably would.
- MJL

A soft cap with a luxury tax system could potentially even help revenue sharing with smaller clubs. Using the aggressive spending of bigger markets to redistribute wealth to smaller markets.

However, as you have mentioned earlier. The hard cap has one primary goal - to keep player salaries down. Everything else is just a mirage.

Most of the parity is actually a mirage. I'm convinced the 3 point system is designed to make it seem like there is more parity. The salary cap is about one thing, holding down player salaries.
- MJL

Nail, meet head.

Also the rule about burying contracts in AHL. They put the rule in because big market teams like the Rangers and Flyers can spend the money to bury a guy in AHL and just pay him. The Flyers would just put Umberger in AHL for a year instead of a buyout if not for the rule that keeps most of the cap hit on the team.
- J35Bacher

I think Umberger's NMC does more to prevent that than anything.

A soft cap with a luxury tax system could potentially even help revenue sharing with smaller clubs. Using the aggressive spending of bigger markets to redistribute wealth to smaller markets.

However, as you have mentioned earlier. The hard cap has one primary goal - to keep player salaries down. Everything else is just a mirage.
- ravishingone

The problem with the soft cap and luxury tax is it could skew the 50/50 split.

What you really want is all games to give an equal amount of points. That's the issue with the current system. Some games give are worth 2 points, and some are worth 3.
- MJL

S what about this then:

WIN= 3pts
lose= 0pts.

S what about this then:

WIN= 3pts
lose= 0pts.
- J35Bacher

Why even 3 points then? Just make every game worth one point, like baseball.

Also, I'm okay with this if you get rid of the shootout and institute continuous OT.

I think Umberger's NMC does more to prevent that than anything.
- johndewar

Ok.

Matt Read.

MacDonald.


Those cap hits would just be buried if the big market teams were allowed since they don't mind spending the money.

2 guys I'd love at 18:
Bellows
Kunin

2 guys I'd be willing to move up 5 or 6 spots to get, I'd offer the 18th along with a 2nd and a 3rd to do so:
Jones
Keller

Also, I'd be willing to offer more to move up to the back end of the top 10 if I could get Logan Brown or Nylander

The problem with the soft cap and luxury tax is it could skew the 50/50 split.
- MJL

You're right it certainly could. I just wonder how it could be potentially addressed with a redefining of league generated revenue. Certainly this is hypothetical because I find it highly unlikely the league has any interest in giving up the hard cap.

Somehow the league is going to have to figure out a way to rely less on gate revenue to sustain its economic model. Its TV contracts pale in comparison to the other 3 leagues.

Why even 3 points then? Just make every game worth one point, like baseball.

Also, I'm okay with this if you get rid of the shootout and institute continuous OT.
- jmatchett383

That's fine.

I just would keep it simple. Wins get points. Losses don't.

But I understand the NHL. Give loser points and it keeps everyone closer so it makes teams and markets feel like they are in it.

Not gonna pretend the Flyers missed out on a Cup dynasty over the last 10-years due to the salary cap... we'd just have like 6 AMacs instead of 1.

The smartly managed teams that stay ahead of the competitive curve will win whether there's a cap or not. The Flyers haven't exactly been run by visionaries over that period of time.

Not gonna pretend the Flyers missed out on a Cup dynasty over the last 10-years due to the salary cap... we'd just have like 6 AMacs instead of 1.

The smartly managed teams that stay ahead of the competitive curve will win whether there's a cap or not. The Flyers haven't exactly been run by visionaries over that period of time.
- Tomahawk

Exactly. The Rags spent like drunken sailors prior to the cap and still managed to miss the playoffs during many of those years. I mean, good lord, they paid a checking center 9 million per!!

That's what slightly worries me with Jones. That he becomes a Tom Wilson for us. But if he brings that Wilson physicality with more scoring and less dumb penalties then I'm ok with that. Same goes for Gauthier as in a worry... From what I've read over the last couple of months there is a bit of a question mark or a sense of hesitation with him at 18 for us. I've seen him selected the most out of all the mocks for the last 5+ months probably. I'd love Bellows, and would love it even more if we got him and then did a trade for another 1st and get one of Jones or Tufte for the LW. And if Benson's stock drop slides him into the 2nd, I'm itching on hoping up some spots in the 2nd to get him. And obviously I mean 1 or the other for the additional 1st or Benson in 2nd.
- arichardson22

If this ever happened, Hexy should be knighted

2 guys I'd love at 18:
Bellows
Kunin

2 guys I'd be willing to move up 5 or 6 spots to get, I'd offer the 18th along with a 2nd and a 3rd to do so:
Jones
Keller

Also, I'd be willing to offer more to move up to the back end of the top 10 if I could get Logan Brown or Nylander
- BiggE

I love Bellows, think he may have as much impact as a Nylander or Brown without giving up the prospects, obviously in a perfect world. That being said id have no problem trading up and trying to get brown or nylander, but would probably have nylander slightly ahead of brown.

Not gonna pretend the Flyers missed out on a Cup dynasty over the last 10-years due to the salary cap... we'd just have like 6 AMacs instead of 1.

The smartly managed teams that stay ahead of the competitive curve will win whether there's a cap or not. The Flyers haven't exactly been run by visionaries over that period of time.
- Tomahawk

Homer resembles this remark

That's fine.

I just would keep it simple. Wins get points. Losses don't.

But I understand the NHL. Give loser points and it keeps everyone closer so it makes teams and markets feel like they are in it.
- J35Bacher

I don't think you can have no loser points if you have the shootout. It has nothing to do with the Flyers futility there, simply that you could have a team win every game without a single player registering a goal while another team could get no points with multiple players registering a goal.

I love Bellows, think he may have as much impact as a Nylander or Brown without giving up the prospects, obviously in a perfect world. That being said id have no problem trading up and trying to get brown or nylander, but would probably have nylander slightly ahead of brown.
- sjk540

It's a tough call for me tween Nylander and Brown as I feel they could use another good center even more than a winger

It's a tough call for me tween Nylander and Brown as I feel they could use another good center even more than a winger
- BiggE

im still holding out hope we can add Neilsen to slot in behind G and Coots, at not too much of a cost. so in 3 years when some of the kids are up for raises, he will be off the books. i think with G Coots Neilsen and Cousins down the middle, it will make for a formidable, 4 line lineup you can roll out at all times

It's a tough call for me tween Nylander and Brown as I feel they could use another good center even more than a winger
- BiggE

Brown's size and two-way play is tough to pass up. But on the other hand(s) (pun totally intended), Nylander's puck handling ability and scoring could translate to an elite level

"Punish" big markets. Comical. I love how he blames the league for the mistakes of Rangers management. I guess that hack would be happy if the league allowed more compliance buyouts to protect the "elite" teams from themselves. Such arrogance.
- madmike71

I am not going to say I agree with you, because what you stated is a big can of worms. I am not going to make an assumption on your fandom, but a good deal of Pens fans are only in it since the Crosby era began. To be good they needed to be bad.

While I think it is debatable that big market teams should have an advantage or its in the leagues best interest for them to do so. There is no denying that most of the big market teams spend their way into trouble themselves. The best way to do that is by drafting and developing, which is punishingly obvious to Flyers fans. That is where the debate really heats up because it is somewhat obvious that the popular teams being consistenly good is better for the overall health of the league.

To the hardcore fan however, this is the method I prefer. I like having to actually be better than other teams not only on the ice, but in the front office and scouting dept. Signing the best FA is easy, and kind of dry and I think it will be much more fulfilling to watch the team grow from within.

Not gonna pretend the Flyers missed out on a Cup dynasty over the last 10-years due to the salary cap... we'd just have like 6 AMacs instead of 1.

The smartly managed teams that stay ahead of the competitive curve will win whether there's a cap or not. The Flyers haven't exactly been run by visionaries over that period of time.
- Tomahawk

This is it really...the rules (CBA) have changed throughout the history of the NHL and the teams that stayed ahead of the curve, thought outside the box, and were able to luck out in terms of how they were structured at the time benefited the most

Big market teams still have a financial advantage.

Many teams have an internal cap of their own. Learn to draft, and not give out moronic contracts.