Thankfully, you seem to understand.
- Not_Yan

I do. RW has clearly stated multiple times throughout this practice that he knows that certain players that he chooses will be protected (i.e. Matt Murray). However, since he doesn't have a crystal ball, and since this is only to pass time and not an actual GM assembling an actual team, he is using the condition that the rosters, as they stand now, will not change (i.e. the expansion draft was happening right now). People seem to be legitimately angry and defensive about some of these unprotected picks (Codi Ceci being another one) where, again, he is just having some fun with a small exercise. He is putting himself in the position of the GM of every NHL team as well as the GM of Las Vegas, putting his bias aside (for 30 of 31 teams), and trying to see how the draft would unfold if he wore all of those hats.

In the end, it's just for fun. If you agree or disagree, fine, but people need to stop taking this so seriously and recognize why he made some of the picks that he did.

Sure, who do expose then Nestrasil or Nordstrom ?
- belcherbd

Nordstrom. Easily.

Agreed. It's a tough situation if nobody wants him or his salary. I think a deal could have been done with Dallas, but Ruth didn't want to take back one of their ugly salaries. I think he's right for waiting and seeing how the season goes.

I still think Dallas is a good possibility, they just need to eat some salary of Niemi for us to take him. If their season starts falling apart because of goal tending, they'll be desperate.
- madmike71

I don't think Dallas would be happy with over $16M of their cap tied up in 3 goalies, and I don't see any team interested in Niemi or Lehtonen at their cap hits (Lehtonen has a NTC, which he's probably waive if asked).

I think that Pittsburgh, to move MAF to Dallas, would have to take back Niemi and eat a bit of MAF's salary to have the numbers even out ($850K), which thankfully only extends for one year past Lehtonen's deal. Also, there are 2 possibilities to consider with trading MAF:

1) MAF has a NMC, and it's his right to refuse a trade if he doesn't like the team/situation the trade would put him in.

2) 29 other teams know that Pittsburgh must move MAF, and the other teams that needed to jettison a goalie have already done so, limiting the number of suitors. It may be that Pittsburgh would have to make it "worth" the other team trading for him, possibly by including a pick or prospect along with eating some salary.

Sadly, it may be a more realistic option to trade Murray, even though that's not preferred.

Hockeybuzz should draft Ryan Wilson too be the blogger for Las Vegas. A up start franchise who will prob jump all over analytics, seems like a perfect fit. Maybe we can get a blogger who actually has an original thought once in awhile.

@jaydogg's bit about cost controlled players.

SThat's a really ticky tack argument that ignores relativity. The fact that RFA's can only negotiate with one team really does bring down their cost from what they would have gotten on a free market. Basically, the team with the rights just needs to give them the cheapest possible short term deal that the player will take before deciding its more worth it to hold out (very low threshold), or entice them with just enough dollars that they agree to a very team friendly long term contract. Examples:

Tarasenko is currently making 7.5 mil. Yes, isolated he is being paid like a top tier player, but he is arguably a top three wing in the NHL. He would make Patrick Kane money on the open market.

Aleksander Barkov is currently making 5.9 mil. He signed that this offseason where he is now officially tracking as a premier two way center in this league. That's worth several mil more than ~6 mil.

Aaron Ekblad is making 7.5 mil long term in a league where PK Subban and his 9 mil contract has set the UFA market price for #1 d men. That's a nice price tag for a guy that should be as good as Subban within the next two years.

Corey Schneider is making 6 mil a year. Lolz.

You can't just look at cap hits and say "Well this guy is being paid handsomely so he's not cost controlled." Everything is relative.

So yes. I would say that Monahan and McKinnon were certainly cost controlled. A 21 year old 1C who scores 30 goals and 60 points is gonna get 7.5 mil + on the free market. McKinnon is even younger and better, but the terrible situation in Colorado has hampered him. He still has the potential to be almost as good as Sidney Crosby and teams would trip over themselves to purchase a franchise center for no additional assets.

If it wasn't for restricted free agency, you would really start to see massive contracts go out to young top end talent as mediocre teams would try to acquire quick fix franchise corner stones that will be there for a decade through free agency instead of the grooling draft and development process which can take years and is a crap shoot.
- Victoro311

The problem with your argument is that it's based around an incorrect fact and the rest is all assumptions.

Starting with the incorrect fact, RFAs are not limited to only negotiating with 1 team, they are free to negotiate with every team in the league just as UFAs are, their negotiations are different because the team their talking to needs to give up compensation if they decide to sign try to sign the player through an offer-sheet but as we've seen recently with players like Saad & Hamilton, those negotiations and the threat of an offer-sheet can be enough some times to facilitate a move to get the money the RFA wants. In reality RFAs have the exact same negotiating rights that an UFA would have but their situation is more difficult because of the added compensation that goes with an offer-sheet but the ability to negotiate freely with all 30 teams still exists.

As for the remainder, it all impossible to prove because it's all built on assumption, very rarely do players of that age/skill move so it's impossible to predict what their market would be, the only hard facts are that very few players in the NHL get paid 7.5M+ so when saying everything is relative there needs to be something to tie the relativity to and the only available data suggest that those players should not be the highest paid players in the league and most the the numbers being used as assumptions place them among the highest paid players in the game.

Yes Taranseko is arguably a top 3 wing in the league but with the exception of 1 contract(Kane) the top wings in the league make between 8M-8.5M per season which is where Taranseko should fall. So saying he is cost-controlled because they got him at 500k-1M less than the going rate for a player of his skill is technically correct but very nit-picky at that difference.

Barkov I agree signed a team friendly deal but there are still only 13 centers in the league making 7M+ so I don't know how you quantify a top 2-way center being worth several million more than 5.9M when the top overall centers in the game are only priced at 2M more than Barkov's 5.9M. Unless someone views Barkov as 1 of the top 5-6 centers in the game he shouldn't be valued at several M more than his 5.9M.

Ekblad's deal is a little unusual because it doesn't kick in until 2017-2018 but if it kicked in next season he would be the 5th highest paid defenseman in the league, sure there is 1 outlying contract in Subban's that breaks the mold but that 1 contract doesn't necessarily mean every player signed after that contract will break the mold and be out of line with what the rest of the top players are being paid.

I think the mistake you are making is that your looking at the outliers in Toews, Kane and Subban and making the assumption that because 1 team jumped the gun and overpaid that every team is now willing to overpay to land players. There will always be a few deals out there that break the mold for 1 reason or another but I just can't see how paying a player what can be definitely judged as far market value can be deemed as cost-controlled because of the assumption that someone MAY have paid more when that assumption can never be quantified or proven.

Hockeybuzz should draft Ryan Wilson too be the blogger for Las Vegas. A up start franchise who will prob jump all over analytics, seems like a perfect fit. Maybe we can get a blogger who actually has an original thought once in awhile.
- Grinder47

Sorry, James Tanner already covers Arizona.

Agree to disagree. The only guy whose signed a UFA contract lately was stamkos and he clearly took a below market deal. Before that Parise at 7.5 but he got a massive term of 13 years to lower the cap hit. and he was only a 31 goal69 point guy. Monahan had 27 goals and 63 pts last year. And he's still developing so I think the Parise contract is a good indicator that a guy like Monahan would get 9-10 on the open market.
- sditulli

We'll definitely agree to disagree that 27g-63pts indicates that Monahan should be the 6th highest paid player in the league just because he's still developing, still developing players don't get paid as a top 5-6 player, fully developed players who have developed to be the elite of the league are the ones that get paid like top 5 players.

I don't think Dallas would be happy with over $16M of their cap tied up in 3 goalies, and I don't see any team interested in Niemi or Lehtonen at their cap hits (Lehtonen has a NTC, which he's probably waive if asked).

I think that Pittsburgh, to move MAF to Dallas, would have to take back Niemi and eat a bit of MAF's salary to have the numbers even out ($850K), which thankfully only extends for one year past Lehtonen's deal. Also, there are 2 possibilities to consider with trading MAF:

1) MAF has a NMC, and it's his right to refuse a trade if he doesn't like the team/situation the trade would put him in.

2) 29 other teams know that Pittsburgh must move MAF, and the other teams that needed to jettison a goalie have already done so, limiting the number of suitors. It may be that Pittsburgh would have to make it "worth" the other team trading for him, possibly by including a pick or prospect along with eating some salary.

Sadly, it may be a more realistic option to trade Murray, even though that's not preferred.
- jmatchett383

That's actually not completely true. MAF has a limited NTC/NMC that allows him to supply a list of teams he won't accept a trade to but that list is submitted before the season begins so if the team, say Dallas, wasn't on his list he submitted at the beginning of the season he would have no ability to refuse a trade if he didn't want to go to that team. I believe the list is 12 teams so the only way MAF would have any say in the deal is if Dallas was 1 of the 12 teams on that original list, the other 18 teams are fair game and he has no control.

That's actually not completely true. MAF has a limited NTC/NMC that allows him to supply a list of teams he won't accept a trade to but that list is submitted before the season begins so if the team, say Dallas, wasn't on his list he submitted at the beginning of the season he would have no ability to refuse a trade if he didn't want to go to that team. I believe the list is 12 teams so the only way MAF would have any say in the deal is if Dallas was 1 of the 12 teams on that original list, the other 18 teams are fair game and he has no control.
- jaydogg1974

Good point...but if he really wants to hamstring them, he could list division rivals and teams with cap issues (i.e. Philly, NYR, NYI, Chicago, etc.). Or, he could also list teams that are already set in goal and/or can't afford to have a player taking up a protection slot.

I don't think he will, but he could. Either way, 12 teams severely limits the amount of suitors.

Hockeybuzz should draft Ryan Wilson too be the blogger for Las Vegas. A up start franchise who will prob jump all over analytics, seems like a perfect fit. Maybe we can get a blogger who actually has an original thought once in awhile.
- Grinder47

Much rather trade you and your garbage opinions to Las Vegas.

Good point...but if he really wants to hamstring them, he could list division rivals and teams with cap issues (i.e. Philly, NYR, NYI, Chicago, etc.). Or, he could also list teams that are already set in goal and/or can't afford to have a player taking up a protection slot.

I don't think he will, but he could. Either way, 12 teams severely limits the amount of suitors.
- jmatchett383

Twelve teams he can refuse to be traded to, that still leaves 17. (Pittsburgh obviously doesn't count). Calgary was the best fit for Fleury, a team in need of a transition goalie.

Now the situation is, wait and see just how good Murray is. This will play itself out, the problem is it is not going to end well for either the Pens or Fleury though.

Twelve teams he can refuse to be traded to, that still leaves 17. (Pittsburgh obviously doesn't count). Calgary was the best fit for Fleury, a team in need of a transition goalie.

Now the situation is, wait and see just how good Murray is. This will play itself out, the problem is it is not going to end well for either the Pens or Fleury though.
- Thunderbolt

This isn't going to be a popular opinion but I think the fans are going to be the ones that things don't end well for, this is all 100% gut feeling on my part and has absolutely nothing else backing it up but my bold prediction is that the fans get let down when GMJR and management decide to move Murray at seasons end for a king's ransom and they hold on to Fleury to bridge the gap until Jarry or Gustavsson is ready to be the #1.

Before everyone flips out about how retarded that prediction is, I'm openly admitting that it probably has a .00001% chance of coming true hence it being a bold prediction.

This isn't going to be a popular opinion but I think the fans are going to be the ones that things don't end well for, this is all 100% gut feeling on my part and has absolutely nothing else backing it up but my bold prediction is that the fans get let down when GMJR and management decide to move Murray at seasons end for a king's ransom and they hold on to Fleury to bridge the gap until Jarry or Gustavsson is ready to be the #1.

Before everyone flips out about how retarded that prediction is, I'm openly admitting that it probably has a .00001% chance of coming true hence it being a bold prediction.
- jaydogg1974

I think it's plausible Murray will be traded. But if they wait, his value will depreciate because everyone will know that Pittsburgh is in a pickle.

I think it's plausible Murray will be traded. But if they wait, his value will depreciate because everyone will know that Pittsburgh is in a pickle.
- jmatchett383

MMMMMMMMM... Pittsburgh Pickle

The problem with your argument is that it's based around an incorrect fact and the rest is all assumptions.

Starting with the incorrect fact, RFAs are not limited to only negotiating with 1 team, they are free to negotiate with every team in the league just as UFAs are, their negotiations are different because the team their talking to needs to give up compensation if they decide to sign try to sign the player through an offer-sheet but as we've seen recently with players like Saad & Hamilton, those negotiations and the threat of an offer-sheet can be enough some times to facilitate a move to get the money the RFA wants. In reality RFAs have the exact same negotiating rights that an UFA would have but their situation is more difficult because of the added compensation that goes with an offer-sheet but the ability to negotiate freely with all 30 teams still exists.

As for the remainder, it all impossible to prove because it's all built on assumption, very rarely do players of that age/skill move so it's impossible to predict what their market would be, the only hard facts are that very few players in the NHL get paid 7.5M+ so when saying everything is relative there needs to be something to tie the relativity to and the only available data suggest that those players should not be the highest paid players in the league and most the the numbers being used as assumptions place them among the highest paid players in the game.

Yes Taranseko is arguably a top 3 wing in the league but with the exception of 1 contract(Kane) the top wings in the league make between 8M-8.5M per season which is where Taranseko should fall. So saying he is cost-controlled because they got him at 500k-1M less than the going rate for a player of his skill is technically correct but very nit-picky at that difference.

Barkov I agree signed a team friendly deal but there are still only 13 centers in the league making 7M+ so I don't know how you quantify a top 2-way center being worth several million more than 5.9M when the top overall centers in the game are only priced at 2M more than Barkov's 5.9M. Unless someone views Barkov as 1 of the top 5-6 centers in the game he shouldn't be valued at several M more than his 5.9M.

Ekblad's deal is a little unusual because it doesn't kick in until 2017-2018 but if it kicked in next season he would be the 5th highest paid defenseman in the league, sure there is 1 outlying contract in Subban's that breaks the mold but that 1 contract doesn't necessarily mean every player signed after that contract will break the mold and be out of line with what the rest of the top players are being paid.

I think the mistake you are making is that your looking at the outliers in Toews, Kane and Subban and making the assumption that because 1 team jumped the gun and overpaid that every team is now willing to overpay to land players. There will always be a few deals out there that break the mold for 1 reason or another but I just can't see how paying a player what can be definitely judged as far market value can be deemed as cost-controlled because of the assumption that someone MAY have paid more when that assumption can never be quantified or proven.
- jaydogg1974

I think you are being naive on what top talent would costs on the open market in their prime. We really don't have any comps. You have Kane a little bit, but he wasn't even UFA. UFA to top bidder would have been closer to 12-14. Yes you can't win a championship paying that, but you can field a competitive team. Parise is about the last guy who was near elite to sign UFA. 13 years at 7.5. $25 million signing bonus. Last 5 years of that contract could be worthless so you can almost call it an 8 year contract at 98. He was also 28 when he signed and not 23. Teams would pay up to land a top guy in his prime. Won't build you a championship team, but you could get your 2-3 leaders signed and then build a cheap team around them that would compete for the playoffs and keep attendance up.

I think it's plausible Murray will be traded. But if they wait, his value will depreciate because everyone will know that Pittsburgh is in a pickle.
- jmatchett383

Pickles are disgusting.

The problem with your argument is that it's based around an incorrect fact and the rest is all assumptions.

Starting with the incorrect fact, RFAs are not limited to only negotiating with 1 team, they are free to negotiate with every team in the league just as UFAs are, their negotiations are different because the team their talking to needs to give up compensation if they decide to sign try to sign the player through an offer-sheet but as we've seen recently with players like Saad & Hamilton, those negotiations and the threat of an offer-sheet can be enough some times to facilitate a move to get the money the RFA wants. In reality RFAs have the exact same negotiating rights that an UFA would have but their situation is more difficult because of the added compensation that goes with an offer-sheet but the ability to negotiate freely with all 30 teams still exists.

As for the remainder, it all impossible to prove because it's all built on assumption, very rarely do players of that age/skill move so it's impossible to predict what their market would be, the only hard facts are that very few players in the NHL get paid 7.5M+ so when saying everything is relative there needs to be something to tie the relativity to and the only available data suggest that those players should not be the highest paid players in the league and most the the numbers being used as assumptions place them among the highest paid players in the game.

Yes Taranseko is arguably a top 3 wing in the league but with the exception of 1 contract(Kane) the top wings in the league make between 8M-8.5M per season which is where Taranseko should fall. So saying he is cost-controlled because they got him at 500k-1M less than the going rate for a player of his skill is technically correct but very nit-picky at that difference.

Barkov I agree signed a team friendly deal but there are still only 13 centers in the league making 7M+ so I don't know how you quantify a top 2-way center being worth several million more than 5.9M when the top overall centers in the game are only priced at 2M more than Barkov's 5.9M. Unless someone views Barkov as 1 of the top 5-6 centers in the game he shouldn't be valued at several M more than his 5.9M.

Ekblad's deal is a little unusual because it doesn't kick in until 2017-2018 but if it kicked in next season he would be the 5th highest paid defenseman in the league, sure there is 1 outlying contract in Subban's that breaks the mold but that 1 contract doesn't necessarily mean every player signed after that contract will break the mold and be out of line with what the rest of the top players are being paid.

I think the mistake you are making is that your looking at the outliers in Toews, Kane and Subban and making the assumption that because 1 team jumped the gun and overpaid that every team is now willing to overpay to land players. There will always be a few deals out there that break the mold for 1 reason or another but I just can't see how paying a player what can be definitely judged as far market value can be deemed as cost-controlled because of the assumption that someone MAY have paid more when that assumption can never be quantified or proven.
- jaydogg1974

I'm not going to argue your first point into the ground as I am admittedly unfamiliar with the way RFA negotiations work. I was under the impression that teams submitted offer sheets and then the RFA chose to sign or not sign and that was the extent of the negotiations.

Your next point is wrong. Benn is being paid 9.5 mil a year and Ovechkin 9.538. Also ahve to remember Kessel's true cap hit is 8 mil. That's the range Tarasenko should be in if all things were held equal. Gotta remember that Benn, Kane, and Kessel all signed their extensions following bridge deals and were therefore close to if not right up against UFA so they had to be paid closer to market value. Ovechkin is a generational talent and plays by different rules so he got paid like a super star immediately. One could argue that his contract is actually team friendly for who he is.

Another example I'd throw out there is Hall, who's right there on the tier of elite wingers with Ovechkin, Tarasenko, and Benn. He's being paid 6 million. Argue with me with a straight face that open market Hall wouldn't at least get 8 mil. Yes, that's an assumption, but I'd put money on it.

The reason I am looking at the outliers here is because those outliers (Kane, Toews, Benn, Subban) are the closest evidence we have to a franchise corner stone being paid fair market price. All those guys were insanely close to UFA status, and the closer you are to UFA status, the more negotiation power you have because teams want to sign you to term if you're part of their core. Otherwise, the player could take the team to arbitration, get a good short term contract since he's a stud, and then just walk and seriously cash in.

To further illustrate my point, Jacob Voracek who's a good top line winger but not in same weight class as the previous guys, is getting paid Tarasenko money. Again, I'd argue its because he was a year away from becoming a UFA, so Philly had to pay him to keep him.

The problem with any argument going either way is that franchise level guys never ever hit the open market. The only example may be Steven Stamkos, who admittedly took a team friendly contract, but its still worth 8.5 mil AAV. The sample size is very very small.

My argument lies in two observations: what franchise caliber guys get as they near UFA status, and what non-franchise caliber guys get after hitting UFA status. If the franchise caliber RFA guys who are 26 years old are getting paid top tier contracts in the league and non-franchise caliber UFA guys like Lccic, 32 year old Backes, Kesler, etc are being paid the same amount and the franchise caliber RFA guys who are still far out from UFA, can it not be logically assumed that if a 23 year old franchise level player hit the open market they'd get paid top tier contracts if teams are already willing to give lesser players 6 mil AAV?

Pickles are disgusting.
- j.boyd919

Pickles are disgusting.
- j.boyd919

I'm not going to argue your first point into the ground as I am admittedly unfamiliar with the way RFA negotiations work. I was under the impression that teams submitted offer sheets and then the RFA chose to sign or not sign and that was the extent of the negotiations.

Your next point is wrong. Benn is being paid 9.5 mil a year and Ovechkin 9.538. Also ahve to remember Kessel's true cap hit is 8 mil. That's the range Tarasenko should be in if all things were held equal. Gotta remember that Benn, Kane, and Kessel all signed their extensions following bridge deals and were therefore close to if not right up against UFA so they had to be paid closer to market value. Ovechkin is a generational talent and plays by different rules so he got paid like a super star immediately. One could argue that his contract is actually team friendly for who he is.

Another example I'd throw out there is Hall, who's right there on the tier of elite wingers with Ovechkin, Tarasenko, and Benn. He's being paid 6 million. Argue with me with a straight face that open market Hall wouldn't at least get 8 mil. Yes, that's an assumption, but I'd put money on it.

The reason I am looking at the outliers here is because those outliers (Kane, Toews, Benn, Subban) are the closest evidence we have to a franchise corner stone being paid fair market price. All those guys were insanely close to UFA status, and the closer you are to UFA status, the more negotiation power you have because teams want to sign you to term if you're part of their core. Otherwise, the player could take the team to arbitration, get a good short term contract since he's a stud, and then just walk and seriously cash in.

To further illustrate my point, Jacob Voracek who's a good top line winger but not in same weight class as the previous guys, is getting paid Tarasenko money. Again, I'd argue its because he was a year away from becoming a UFA, so Philly had to pay him to keep him.

The problem with any argument going either way is that franchise level guys never ever hit the open market. The only example may be Steven Stamkos, who admittedly took a team friendly contract, but its still worth 8.5 mil AAV. The sample size is very very small.

My argument lies in two observations: what franchise caliber guys get as they near UFA status, and what non-franchise caliber guys get after hitting UFA status. If the franchise caliber RFA guys who are 26 years old are getting paid top tier contracts in the league and non-franchise caliber UFA guys like Lccic, 32 year old Backes, Kesler, etc are being paid the same amount and the franchise caliber RFA guys who are still far out from UFA, can it not be logically assumed that if a 23 year old franchise level player hit the open market they'd get paid top tier contracts if teams are already willing to give lesser players 6 mil AAV?
- Victoro311

I don't disagree with a lot of what you said but I think where we're differing is that you seem to be listing players like Monahan, Barkov, Saad as franchise cornerstone players where as I don't see those players as being on the same level as franchise cornerstone players yet. I think that in itself my be the hardest part in all of it to justify when looking at players that are solid but still unproven as elite players. I just can't see teams breaking the mold of comparable contracts to sign 22-24yo players on the hope that they will fully develop to elite level cornerstones, that's reserved for the generational talents like Crosby, Ovechkin and McDavid. I think the biggest difference and the biggest flaw in your comparisons is that your comparing what Kane or Benn are getting now as established players to what Monahan. Barkov and Saad are getting as players who are still establishing themselves as elite and not to what Kane/Benn were getting when they were at the same developmental stage as the other guys. Maybe I'm just being naive but knowing that most NHL owner/gms are very savvy business men, I just can't see them not properly valuing players and doing bad business, which is exactly what paying an unproven Monahan the same as a proven Kane would be, they just aren't comparable and even though I think there would be the occasional outlier like the Subban deal, they would be the outliers and not the norm. If they eliminated the RFA years and every player became a UFA after the entry level deals I honestly don't think there would be a huge spike in most young players salaries.

I think you are being naive on what top talent would costs on the open market in their prime. We really don't have any comps. You have Kane a little bit, but he wasn't even UFA. UFA to top bidder would have been closer to 12-14. Yes you can't win a championship paying that, but you can field a competitive team. Parise is about the last guy who was near elite to sign UFA. 13 years at 7.5. $25 million signing bonus. Last 5 years of that contract could be worthless so you can almost call it an 8 year contract at 98. He was also 28 when he signed and not 23. Teams would pay up to land a top guy in his prime. Won't build you a championship team, but you could get your 2-3 leaders signed and then build a cheap team around them that would compete for the playoffs and keep attendance up.
- sditulli

I honestly feel like you actually just proved my point. Sure there would be outliers where a struggling team overpaid for a promising talent in their prime but in general it would be bad business to do so because the overall impact would hurt the chances of being competitive. At the end of the day though the majority of the players wouldn't see significant spikes in their pay rates due to the fact that there's only so much money to go around so filling out a roster would be difficult to do if everyone signed and paid the 50th-60th best players in the league the same rates as the top 5-10 players in the league. Unless the salary cap takes a huge jump similar to what happened in the NBA, there just isn't available funds to pay guys like Monahan 9M-10M a season and still fill out a roster under the cap.

The problem with your argument is that it's based around an incorrect fact and the rest is all assumptions.

Starting with the incorrect fact, RFAs are not limited to only negotiating with 1 team, they are free to negotiate with every team in the league just as UFAs are, their negotiations are different because the team their talking to needs to give up compensation if they decide to sign try to sign the player through an offer-sheet but as we've seen recently with players like Saad & Hamilton, those negotiations and the threat of an offer-sheet can be enough some times to facilitate a move to get the money the RFA wants. In reality RFAs have the exact same negotiating rights that an UFA would have but their situation is more difficult because of the added compensation that goes with an offer-sheet but the ability to negotiate freely with all 30 teams still exists.

As for the remainder, it all impossible to prove because it's all built on assumption, very rarely do players of that age/skill move so it's impossible to predict what their market would be, the only hard facts are that very few players in the NHL get paid 7.5M+ so when saying everything is relative there needs to be something to tie the relativity to and the only available data suggest that those players should not be the highest paid players in the league and most the the numbers being used as assumptions place them among the highest paid players in the game.

Yes Taranseko is arguably a top 3 wing in the league but with the exception of 1 contract(Kane) the top wings in the league make between 8M-8.5M per season which is where Taranseko should fall. So saying he is cost-controlled because they got him at 500k-1M less than the going rate for a player of his skill is technically correct but very nit-picky at that difference.

Barkov I agree signed a team friendly deal but there are still only 13 centers in the league making 7M+ so I don't know how you quantify a top 2-way center being worth several million more than 5.9M when the top overall centers in the game are only priced at 2M more than Barkov's 5.9M. Unless someone views Barkov as 1 of the top 5-6 centers in the game he shouldn't be valued at several M more than his 5.9M.

Ekblad's deal is a little unusual because it doesn't kick in until 2017-2018 but if it kicked in next season he would be the 5th highest paid defenseman in the league, sure there is 1 outlying contract in Subban's that breaks the mold but that 1 contract doesn't necessarily mean every player signed after that contract will break the mold and be out of line with what the rest of the top players are being paid.

I think the mistake you are making is that your looking at the outliers in Toews, Kane and Subban and making the assumption that because 1 team jumped the gun and overpaid that every team is now willing to overpay to land players. There will always be a few deals out there that break the mold for 1 reason or another but I just can't see how paying a player what can be definitely judged as far market value can be deemed as cost-controlled because of the assumption that someone MAY have paid more when that assumption can never be quantified or proven.
- jaydogg1974

I am going to type a very long post to debate terminology and discuss things as facts even though I admit that they are opinions yet I will state that your opinions stated as facts are wrong. I will then go on to give various examples of my opinions and treat them as facts to counter your opinions which you presented as facts. We will then have a circular argument where neither of us will admit that we are, indeed, talking out of our asses since we are not NHL GMs, and do not know the inner workings of NHL organizations.

Over the course of this incredibly long exchange that goes nowhere, others will respond with equally long posts aimed to dissuade one of us off from the hill that we will die on, and whether or not they make sense, we will do no more than acknowledge that they may have some merit while holding firm to our unwavering stance.

We will seek to take up copious amounts of space to discuss these facts, and when all is said and done, we will not have changed the opinions (“facts”) of each other or anyone else because, really, the issues are far from black and white. While our brains may realize that there are exceptions to rules and that every circumstance has to evaluated independently, we will make blanket statements to prove that we can indeed urinate further than the other person. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!

I honestly feel like you actually just proved my point. Sure there would be outliers where a struggling team overpaid for a promising talent in their prime but in general it would be bad business to do so because the overall impact would hurt the chances of being competitive. At the end of the day though the majority of the players wouldn't see significant spikes in their pay rates due to the fact that there's only so much money to go around so filling out a roster would be difficult to do if everyone signed and paid the 50th-60th best players in the league the same rates as the top 5-10 players in the league. Unless the salary cap takes a huge jump similar to what happened in the NBA, there just isn't available funds to pay guys like Monahan 9M-10M a season and still fill out a roster under the cap.
- jaydogg1974

You would have to completely change the collective bargaining to figure what these guys would really get paid. If the draft only get player control for 3 years, but we had the same cap then yes overall salaries wouldn't increase as much. You would see high potential young guys especially ones already performing seeing significant raises. You would also see pay cuts to guys who signed big UFA contracts - Nisky, Lucic, backes, etc since teams have a bigger UFA pool to play in and more money tied up in other guys. So your right it wouldn't change overall pay but the distribution of pay would change a lot. It would mean less money for older players and more money to younger players.

If there was some strange Monahan loophole where he was the only 23 year old UFA free agent on the market then he could get paid serious money. I could make a pretty good argument that he would be more valuable than stamkos. Actually stamkos had 64 pts last year versus monahan's 63 pts. One guy has a leg injury and other injuries and is entering what is typically post-peak performance while the other guy is entering his prime and is 21 years old.

Monahan may be a fringy 1C right now, but has current performance as low-end 1C with potential to be a top ten center. Teams would overpay for that if he was the only one available as a UFA. 9-10/year wouldn't be out of the question. So yes at 6.3 a year he is cost controlled.

I don't think Dallas would be happy with over $16M of their cap tied up in 3 goalies, and I don't see any team interested in Niemi or Lehtonen at their cap hits (Lehtonen has a NTC, which he's probably waive if asked).

I think that Pittsburgh, to move MAF to Dallas, would have to take back Niemi and eat a bit of MAF's salary to have the numbers even out ($850K), which thankfully only extends for one year past Lehtonen's deal. Also, there are 2 possibilities to consider with trading MAF:

1) MAF has a NMC, and it's his right to refuse a trade if he doesn't like the team/situation the trade would put him in.

2) 29 other teams know that Pittsburgh must move MAF, and the other teams that needed to jettison a goalie have already done so, limiting the number of suitors. It may be that Pittsburgh would have to make it "worth" the other team trading for him, possibly by including a pick or prospect along with eating some salary.

Sadly, it may be a more realistic option to trade Murray, even though that's not preferred.
- jmatchett383

I don't think Dallas will be happy with goal tending cutting their legs out again this year either. Dallas has more to lose than the Pens.

If I'm Rutherford, I'd tell Dallas, we'll take back Niemi as long as they eat 1.5mil of his cap hit for the remaining 2 years. The Pens need a competent backup anyway. Why should the Penguins eat salary if we're giving them the better player? If Dallas try's to play hardball I'd tell them we're willing to buy him out after the season at the cost of under 2 mil 'til 20-21.

Dallas currently has 8 mil in cap space. They can afford to eat salary. They won't like it, but they also can't possibly let their goal tending ruin their season either.

I have no idea what direction the Penguins will ultimately pursue, but I'm 100% confident they won't lose Murray to expansion. He may be traded, but he won't go for nothing.

Twelve teams he can refuse to be traded to, that still leaves 17. (Pittsburgh obviously doesn't count). Calgary was the best fit for Fleury, a team in need of a transition goalie.

Now the situation is, wait and see just how good Murray is. This will play itself out, the problem is it is not going to end well for either the Pens or Fleury though.
- Thunderbolt

He can remove all the obvious teams to be traded to - Dallas etc. He can put us in a situation where we trade Fleury for a different goalie without a nmc clause. We will still have options, but not really a good trade partner. fwiw their are 20 goalies paid over 4.5 million per year. Fleury can put us in a spot where our only real choice is to flip him for another highly paid goalie who we would be able to expose to the expansion draft. Fleury's better than a lot of those guys so a deal should be possible goiong that route. But as far as the NTC i'd block all the most obvious trade partners if I were fleury. Not necessarily because i'm refusing to be traded, but so I gain some control over the process.