Hes a director so I politely walk away from the conversation instead cause I tried saying hes crazy. I said the same as you about Nylander being expendable.
- Aaron_85

Probably the same type of bumhole that has corporate seasons tickets, goes to a bunch of games for free, spends most of his time hammered in the fancy restaurant inside the arena on the company dime, eating sushi, watching the game in his suit and thinks he knows hockey.

Unless they get hurt, they are gonna put up huge numbers....
(frank)ing cap sucks cock...

(frank) THE CAP!!!
- Cooshie

Need a luxury tax to help the smaller markets out

Unless they get hurt, they are gonna put up huge numbers....
(frank)ing cap sucks cock...

(frank) THE CAP!!!
- Cooshie

NHL should allow for relief from cap for signing your own drafted players.
Like 25% of their salary does not count against the cap.
To be penalized because you drafted and develop players too well is (frank)ED UP IMO.

Leafs with 4 in the top 8 in scoring.

Chicago fans at least had 3 cups before it was a problem
- Aaron_85

It shouldn't really be a problem. The cap is at nearly 80 million dollars. It goes up every single year. The Leafs have 30+ million in cap space next year. Would things be nicer if Marleau and Zaitsev weren't under contract? (frank) yes it would be. Those were mistakes. But the reality is, the Leafs won't have a "cap problem" unless they have 9 forwards signed to huge deals and zero defense. The best players will make money, the ELC will fill the voids at the bottom of the lineup, it's just a matter of spending the money in the right places. Unfortunately for Nylander, the money that's suppose to go to him is better served going to a defender.

Probably the same type of bumhole that has corporate seasons tickets, goes to a bunch of games for free, spends most of his time hammered in the fancy restaurant inside the arena on the company dime, eating sushi, watching the game in his suit and thinks he knows hockey.
- Unholy_Goalie

Lol not that level of director

It shouldn't really be a problem. The cap is at nearly 80 million dollars. It goes up every single year. The Leafs have 30+ million in cap space next year. Would things be nicer if Marleau and Zaitsev weren't under contract? (frank) yes it would be. Those were mistakes. But the reality is, the Leafs won't have a "cap problem" unless they have 9 forwards signed to huge deals and zero defense. The best players will make money, the ELC will fill the voids at the bottom of the lineup, it's just a matter of spending the money in the right places. Unfortunately for Nylander, the money that's suppose to go to him is better served going to a defender.
- Unholy_Goalie

Doesnt mean a cup is guaranteed is what I'm saying. Higher chance? Yes.

I agree on the Nylander part. I like Dubas really playing hardball because clearly his team doesnt need Nylander.

Need a luxury tax to help the smaller markets out
- walshyleafsfan

100% agree with a soft luxury tax system.

Allow teams to go 10% over the cap and charge them a dollar for dollar tax that goes directly to revenue sharing.

So a team could theoretically spend 90 million, pay a 10 million dollar luxury tax and that money goes to Arizona or whomever.

Small market teams would love it, big market teams would love it, players would love it, everybody wins. It's a small advantage that big market teams should be allowed to have given they are the reason the league stays afloat year after year with anywhere from 5 to 10 franchises bleeding money.

Not many teams playing defense at the moment.

An average of 7 goals per game tonight.

Doesnt mean a cup is guaranteed is what I'm saying. Higher chance? Yes.

I agree on the Nylander part. I like Dubas really playing hardball because clearly his team doesnt need Nylander.
- Aaron_85

What doesn't guarantee a Cup?

Dubas has to play hardball because if he caves in on Nylander, Marner and Matthews (frank) him air tight the next year and then they're really screwed.

100% agree with a soft luxury tax system.

Allow teams to go 10% over the cap and charge them a dollar for dollar tax that goes directly to revenue sharing.

So a team could theoretically spend 90 million, pay a 10 million dollar luxury tax and that money goes to Arizona or whomever.

Small market teams would love it, big market teams would love it, players would love it, everybody wins. It's a small advantage that big market teams should be allowed to have given they are the reason the league stays afloat year after year with anywhere from 5 to 10 franchises bleeding money.
- Unholy_Goalie

Except no one would want to play for a small market team.

Not many teams playing defense at the moment.

An average of 7 goals per game tonight.
- walshyleafsfan

how many of those are because of the equipment changes i wonder? that has to be a small part of the increase you'd think. early season play is always sloppy though

Not many teams playing defense at the moment.

An average of 7 goals per game tonight.
- walshyleafsfan

San Jose scored 8, only gave up 2. Columbus scored 5, only gave up 2.

This group has been together long enough that they should be able to score without getting scored on.

And just because other teams are giving up goals, doesn't mean you want to do the same.

100% agree with a soft luxury tax system.

Allow teams to go 10% over the cap and charge them a dollar for dollar tax that goes directly to revenue sharing.

So a team could theoretically spend 90 million, pay a 10 million dollar luxury tax and that money goes to Arizona or whomever.

Small market teams would love it, big market teams would love it, players would love it, everybody wins. It's a small advantage that big market teams should be allowed to have given they are the reason the league stays afloat year after year with anywhere from 5 to 10 franchises bleeding money.
- Unholy_Goalie

I think the salaries would adjust to reflect the 10% luxury tax increase. Maybe not as much for the mid / lower tier players but the top players.

how many of those are because of the equipment changes i wonder? that has to be a small part of the increase you'd think. early season play is always sloppy though
- daeth

I think that's a bigger factor than people are letting on. Most goalies live and die by their angles and they haven't made the adjustment yet.

I think the salaries would adjust to reflect the 10% luxury tax increase. Maybe not as much for the mid / lower tier players but the top players.
- Cooshie

They probably would but as you said the high end players would be making that coin and considering that's who most people know, buy their jerseys and come to watch play, it would kind of make sense.

It's almost like the NFL with their franchise tag. One guy who doesn't count against the cap. I wouldn't mind that idea either.

100% agree with a soft luxury tax system.

Allow teams to go 10% over the cap and charge them a dollar for dollar tax that goes directly to revenue sharing.

So a team could theoretically spend 90 million, pay a 10 million dollar luxury tax and that money goes to Arizona or whomever.

Small market teams would love it, big market teams would love it, players would love it, everybody wins. It's a small advantage that big market teams should be allowed to have given they are the reason the league stays afloat year after year with anywhere from 5 to 10 franchises bleeding money.
- Unholy_Goalie

Gord Miller talks about it. He makes a good point. The hard cap punishes the Blackhawks and Kings for building a solid team and system of prospects.

Except no one would want to play for a small market team.
- Woderwick

That's not true because a small market team, with more revenue sharing, could build up the funds to sign a player they would otherwise not be able to sign or retain a player they might lose because they can't afford to keep him due to an internal budget.

Gord Miller talks about it. He makes a good point. The hard cap punishes the Blackhawks and Kings for building a solid team and system of prospects.
- Aaron_85

It does and the NHL likes it because the NHL wants parity. That's why they inflate all the point totals by having the shootout, the OT/SO loser point and 3 on 3 OT. It's all to artificially keep teams closer than they really should be.

Zaitsev’s contract is fine if he stays healthy and plays like he did two years ago. So far he’s looked good.

That's not true because a small market team, with revenue sharing, could build up the funds to sign a player they would otherwise not be able to sign or retain a player they might lose because they can't afford to keep him due to an internal budget.
- Unholy_Goalie

correct

unless they do what baseball teams do with the shared revenue and use it to line their pockets instead. melnickel and dime sure would. i think most nhl teams would use the money to try to remain competitive though

They probably would but as you said the high end players would be making that coin and considering that's who most people know, buy their jerseys and come to watch play, it would kind of make sense.

It's almost like the NFL with their franchise tag. One guy who doesn't count against the cap. I wouldn't mind that idea either.
- Unholy_Goalie

I prefer the tag over the luxury tax. Miller likes the idea of a discount on signing your own players but if traded the full amount counts for the new team. It might also slow down and stupid contracts like Clarkson since they become even more untradeable.

It does and the NHL likes it because the NHL wants parity. That's why they inflate all the point totals by having the shootout, the OT/SO loser point and 3 on 3 OT. It's all to artificially keep teams closer than they really should be.
- Unholy_Goalie

Yes I understand the concept. I also understand where the league is coming from since they want a bigger market share in the US.

Zaitsev’s contract is fine if he stays healthy and plays like he did two years ago. So far he’s looked good.
- gravyface

yeah he's earning his money so far this year. 4.5 million isnt a lot anymore. he didn't earn it last year though

correct

unless they do what baseball teams do with the shared revenue and use it to line their pockets instead. melnickel and dime sure would. i think most nhl teams would use the money to try to remain competitive though
- daeth

And that's fine if they do that too. Forcing teams to spend a certain amount when they suck and are bleeding money is kind of stupid but they had to do it because the players needed the guarantee that the money would be spent on them. So the cap floor is there for that reason.