Dan Spiegel:
- spiegs13[VIDEO REACTION] Righting A Wrong: Crouse, Bolland Traded To Arizona

There once was a man named Dan Spiegel
He made his living online, barely legal
On twitter I'm blocked
Because Dan was mocked
I bet he drives a Regal

video reaction to barkov not being named the no1 center in the NHL?

So the NHLPA is ok with an organisation taking jobs away from its members by circumventing the league rules? Isn't there 'something' in there 'somewhere' 'suggesting' an organisation supplies a fit & proper roster that 'should' be as competitive as 'possible'?

Trading for a contract that has the actual player pointing his bum to the ground on another continent is just outrageous. It's the height of amateurism for a 'pro' (cough cough spew your guts up), organisation to allow that to happen. Detroit signed that contract & its Detroits for the long run in my opinion. If Dats was still playing in the NHL then ok - but not even being in the country should close all doors that lead to a trade for that contract.

Yotes could put together a decent team, but doing what they are (not talking about tanking either cause we ALL know don't we ), is just kicking poop in everyone that loves the sports mouth!
- Aussiepenguin

There is no one who would argue with any validity that the legitimacy of the NHL was hampered one bit by the tank jobs we've seen from Arizona, Toronto, and Buffalo the past few years. No one would argue with any validity that the Pens, Hawks, or Kings have tainted Cups because some teams decided to accelerate their rebuild by intentionally becoming worse. "Man, I'm happy the Pens won the Cup, but that joy is hampered because the Leafs tanked for Matthews." No one says or feels this way at all.

Some teams are going to be crap regardless of tanking. Arizona, Toronto, and Buffalo were all going to be crap the years they tanked. Why shouldn't they be allowed to be absolute crap (intentionally) so they can get better faster by trading away bad contracts, and compiling picks and prospects?

There once was a man named Dan Spiegel
He made his living online, barely legal
On twitter I'm blocked
Because Dan was mocked
I bet he drives a Regal
- eichiefs9

Ranger fans feast on dweebs like this both home AND away, wherever "away" is on any given year.

Ranger fans feast on dweebs like this both home AND away, wherever "away" is on any given year.
- PanthersGoal

For some reason freetranslation.com isn't translating this into a coherent sentence.

Please elaborate?

Someday's you're the bird and someday's you're the statue.

There once was a man named Dan Spiegel
He made his living online, barely legal
On twitter I'm blocked
Because Dan was mocked
I bet he drives a Regal
- eichiefs9

Unless there is a fairly large trade in the works where a big contract is added, this is a pretty gross overpayment. Unless that space is needed now, they would have been better off waiting and watching the price for unloading Bolland drop each year. They got nothing back for a lottery pick besides cap space, which is fine if they need it soon - not so much if they don't.
- BOSS_TWEED

Need it for Huberdeau extension.

Wow. It's great to actually see a Panthers fan on the youtubes. Nice to meet you! I thought I was the only one.

There is no one who would argue with any validity that the legitimacy of the NHL was hampered one bit by the tank jobs we've seen from Arizona, Toronto, and Buffalo the past few years. No one would argue with any validity that the Pens, Hawks, or Kings have tainted Cups because some teams decided to accelerate their rebuild by intentionally becoming worse. "Man, I'm happy the Pens won the Cup, but that joy is hampered because the Leafs tanked for Matthews." No one says or feels this way at all.

Some teams are going to be crap regardless of tanking. Arizona, Toronto, and Buffalo were all going to be crap the years they tanked. Why shouldn't they be allowed to be absolute crap (intentionally) so they can get better faster by trading away bad contracts, and compiling picks and prospects?
- Only_A_Ladd

You've missed my point a little.

I understand that teams will tank & the way Toronto is doing it is basically very smart - get decent players on short contracts & sell them at the deadline.

What I'm talking about is an organisation purposely short changing itself by 'buying' contracts for the reasons of reaching the cap floor - not even having any player that might help the team through the year. It's a clear act that in my opinion circumvents the regulations. They are in no way attempting to field any team that will have any chance of being competitive - doesn't the rules of any competition say a team in its competition should make every effort to be as competitive as possible?

If they made a conscious effort of icing a team then they could very well be competitive, even if it were the same as the Leafs.

It's just another thing that stinks unfortunately, & the fact that Detroit could trade a player's contract when the player isn't even in the country is absurd.

Playing bad to tank is 1 thing. Trading for contracts to reach the cap floor is a completely different beast.

You've missed my point a little.

I understand that teams will tank & the way Toronto is doing it is basically very smart - get decent players on short contracts & sell them at the deadline.

What I'm talking about is an organisation purposely short changing itself by 'buying' contracts for the reasons of reaching the cap floor - not even having any player that might help the team through the year. It's a clear act that in my opinion circumvents the regulations. They are in no way attempting to field any team that will have any chance of being competitive - doesn't the rules of any competition say a team in its competition should make every effort to be as competitive as possible?

If they made a conscious effort of icing a team then they could very well be competitive, even if it were the same as the Leafs.

It's just another thing that stinks unfortunately, & the fact that Detroit could trade a player's contract when the player isn't even in the country is absurd.

Playing bad to tank is 1 thing. Trading for contracts to reach the cap floor is a completely different beast.
- Aussiepenguin

Yotes are closer to the cap ceiling than they are to the floor.

What they are doing is selling cap space to buy better prospects.

Smart move to utilize excess cap space as an asset to expedite a rebuild.

Yotes are closer to the cap ceiling than they are to the floor.

What they are doing is selling cap space to buy better prospects.

Smart move to utilize excess cap space as an asset to expedite a rebuild.
- Tumbleweed

So they trade 2 picks & an actual player for 1 pick that was 4 picks higher & a cap dump that will never play? (Granted Dats contract probably has better advanced stats than Joe ).

I'll ask you this.

If the Yotes actually had a fair dinkum go & tried to put a 'legitimate' team together, would they be competitive?

If you supported the team would you be happy with their tactics of buying contracts that will never play (there are other ways of getting prospects for a rebuild - ex: Toronto)?

So they trade 2 picks & an actual player for 1 pick that was 4 picks higher & a cap dump that will never play? (Granted Dats contract probably has better advanced stats than Joe ).

I'll ask you this.

If the Yotes actually had a fair dinkum go & tried to put a 'legitimate' team together, would they be competitive?

If you supported the team would you be happy with their tactics of buying contracts that will never play (there are other ways of getting prospects for a rebuild - ex: Toronto)?
- Aussiepenguin

Vitale is an ahl player - a dump.

I am a fan of both teams. I am happy with crouse and chychrun over the other picks.

Toronto buys junk contracts with no use, including some that never play: horton, greening, cowen, michalek, laich, torres. Same tactics

Vitale is an ahl player - a dump.

I am a fan of both teams. I am happy with crouse and chychrun over the other picks.

Toronto buys junk contracts with no use, including some that never play: horton, greening, cowen, michalek, laich, torres. Same tactics
- Tumbleweed

Toronto also has contracts they trade for assets at the deadline which is smart as it allows a 'team' to compete beforehand. Babcock will probably keep his young guns down again this year & follow what he did last year with maybe Matthews opening the season with his tryout. It gives them experience playing with better players & being competitive - learning the game from guys that have been in it (just because players aren't stars doesn't mean they don't know the game).

If you look at the Oil how have they been going throwing all their youth in thinking the talent will explode with wins? The Yotes have a couple of old heads around then what? (3 Contracts that will never see the locker room or talk to the youn guns). Who will teach the young guys that are coming through, show them on the ice? The smartest thing the Yotes have done was trade Vermette for a 1st then resign him - great strategy. Signing a player when the youth are ready will do what? That will 'start' the learning process, so how many years after the start will they be competitive - 3, 4, 5? If they start the process now giving the youth extra years before they are solid nhlers then the team is competative a lot quicker.

They are up in cap now but 2 of their 'phantom' contracts are up this year?? They needed another for the next few hence Dats. So hypothetically, their Domis & Duclairs & others rocket in development & are ripping up the NHL. Is having contracts like Dats & others still advantageous or anchors for competing - or don't they want to compete?

Toronto also has contracts they trade for assets at the deadline which is smart as it allows a 'team' to compete beforehand. Babcock will probably keep his young guns down again this year & follow what he did last year with maybe Matthews opening the season with his tryout. It gives them experience playing with better players & being competitive - learning the game from guys that have been in it (just because players aren't stars doesn't mean they don't know the game).

If you look at the Oil how have they been going throwing all their youth in thinking the talent will explode with wins? The Yotes have a couple of old heads around then what? (3 Contracts that will never see the locker room or talk to the youn guns). Who will teach the young guys that are coming through, show them on the ice? The smartest thing the Yotes have done was trade Vermette for a 1st then resign him - great strategy. Signing a player when the youth are ready will do what? That will 'start' the learning process, so how many years after the start will they be competitive - 3, 4, 5? If they start the process now giving the youth extra years before they are solid nhlers then the team is competative a lot quicker.

They are up in cap now but 2 of their 'phantom' contracts are up this year?? They needed another for the next few hence Dats. So hypothetically, their Domis & Duclairs & others rocket in development & are ripping up the NHL. Is having contracts like Dats & others still advantageous or anchors for competing - or don't they want to compete?
- Aussiepenguin

I'm too drunk to respond to this message

You've missed my point a little.

I understand that teams will tank & the way Toronto is doing it is basically very smart - get decent players on short contracts & sell them at the deadline.

What I'm talking about is an organisation purposely short changing itself by 'buying' contracts for the reasons of reaching the cap floor - not even having any player that might help the team through the year. It's a clear act that in my opinion circumvents the regulations. They are in no way attempting to field any team that will have any chance of being competitive - doesn't the rules of any competition say a team in its competition should make every effort to be as competitive as possible?

If they made a conscious effort of icing a team then they could very well be competitive, even if it were the same as the Leafs.

It's just another thing that stinks unfortunately, & the fact that Detroit could trade a player's contract when the player isn't even in the country is absurd.

Playing bad to tank is 1 thing. Trading for contracts to reach the cap floor is a completely different beast.
- Aussiepenguin

How does taking on a bad contract circumvent the regulations? There are no "rules of competition". That doesn't exist. That's a subjective expectation you have that isn't required of all teams in the NHL as a rule. I understand AZ isn't putting its best foot forward and doing all it can to win this year, but is that really, from an organizational standpoint, a sound way to run the club and manage your prospects? If AZ (or anyone else) perpetually took on bad contracts as they cycled-out their prospects, then yes: you have a problem with that particular club as a shill and it is bad for the team. But as of now, there are no clubs that exhibit this trait as a business practice.

I'm too drunk to respond to this message
- Tumbleweed

If only half the posters on this site exercised the same discretion as you.

How does taking on a bad contract circumvent the regulations? There are no "rules of competition". That doesn't exist. That's a subjective expectation you have that isn't required of all teams in the NHL as a rule. I understand AZ isn't putting its best foot forward and doing all it can to win this year, but is that really, from an organizational standpoint, a sound way to run the club and manage your prospects? If AZ (or anyone else) perpetually took on bad contracts as they cycled-out their prospects, then yes: you have a problem with that particular club as a shill and it is bad for the team. But as of now, there are no clubs that exhibit this trait as a business practice.
- Only_A_Ladd

Wasn't/isn't there a rule you can't trade a player on IR?

An organisation taking on contracts where there is no chance that player will play a game (or worse, even be in the same country of the competition), is in my mind counter productive in establishing & nurturing talent. I understand they received prospects in return even though the Dats trade looked worse for the Yotes than the others in my opinion, but they are still taking on contracts that have no assistance to their talent - if Bolland goes to Arizona & is involved with the development then ok, but will he? I seriously doubt Dats will be on a plane anytime soon & Pronger (which is another argument again) is too busy in his NHL role??

If they took on any contracts as an effort to attain cap compliance then it shouldn't be allowed. The cap is there to provide teams a financial target that hopefully should make them competative. It's there for a reason, & if teams will try & attain compliance in a backhanded way, that's circumvention in my books.

Wasn't/isn't there a rule you can't trade a player on IR?

An organisation taking on contracts where there is no chance that player will play a game (or worse, even be in the same country of the competition), is in my mind counter productive in establishing & nurturing talent. I understand they received prospects in return even though the Dats trade looked worse for the Yotes than the others in my opinion, but they are still taking on contracts that have no assistance to their talent - if Bolland goes to Arizona & is involved with the development then ok, but will he? I seriously doubt Dats will be on a plane anytime soon & Pronger (which is another argument again) is too busy in his NHL role??

If they took on any contracts as an effort to attain cap compliance then it shouldn't be allowed. The cap is there to provide teams a financial target that hopefully should make them competative. It's there for a reason, & if teams will try & attain compliance in a backhanded way, that's circumvention in my books.
- Aussiepenguin

Understood. The practice would have to be policed on a case-by-case basis unless a bright-line rule could be laid down by the league. Since it is based on cap compliance, I'm assuming the league already has the power to restrict trading for bad contracts. How it would be done would be the catch.

Wow. It's great to actually see a Panthers fan on the youtubes. Nice to meet you! I thought I was the only one.
- PapaSquat

You've been on the site for a year. Calm down.

Understood. The practice would have to be policed on a case-by-case basis unless a bright-line rule could be laid down by the league. Since it is based on cap compliance, I'm assuming the league already has the power to restrict trading for bad contracts. How it would be done would be the catch.
- Only_A_Ladd

Enforcing the no trade on IR would help. Or limiting a team that can trade for players that won't play is another option - if you have Pronger on the books (as you traded for him), you can't trade for another cap dump that will never play for you.

If you have players in the organisation that went on LTIR or IR while contracted that doesn't interfere with the 1 other you can buy from another team - you just can't stock up on the contracts.

F**k off!

I don't like the trade either but I get it. He potentially could be Jagr replacement next yr. I would have rather see them give up a d prospect instead like matheson
- harveykline

That's why you're not a Panther fan, nor an NHL GM. You'd rather trade away a potential top 2 Dman, then a 2nd/3rd line player..

That's why you're not a Panther fan, nor an NHL GM. You'd rather trade away a potential top 2 Dman, then a 2nd/3rd line player..
- pantherfan12

Yes I am and no I'm not. Just my opinion

That's why you're not a Panther fan, nor an NHL GM. You'd rather trade away a potential top 2 Dman, then a 2nd/3rd line player..
- pantherfan12

Any way you'd consider posting somewhere else?