Jump to content
You are a guest user Click to join the site

Ducks Hockey Forum Coyotes Hockey Forum Bruins Hockey Forum Sabres Hockey Forum Flames Hockey Forum Hurricanes Hockey Forum Blackhawks Hockey Forum Avalanche Hockey Forum Blue Jackets Hockey Forum Stars Hockey Forum Red Wings Jackets Hockey Forum Oilers Hockey Forum Panthers Hockey Forum Kings Hockey Forum Wild Hockey Forum Canadiens Hockey Forum Predators Hockey Forum Devils Hockey Forum Islanders Hockey Forum Rangers Hockey Forum Senators Hockey Forum Flyers Hockey Forum Penguins Hockey Forum Sharks Hockey Forum Blues Hockey Forum Lightning Hockey Forum Maple Leafs Hockey Forum Canucks Hockey Forum Golden Knights Hockey Forum Capitals Hockey Forum Jets Hockey Forum

pilldoc

After Weal / Elliot ..are Flyers done with FA?

Recommended Posts

Just now, ruxpin said:

This makes ZERO sense.

 

I disagree. Think of it this way, would you trade MacDonald straight up for Markov? I would, even at Markov's age, and I wouldn't hesitate. But like I said, it really only makes sense to me if MacDonald is eliminated from the equation completely in some manner, otherwise Hakstol will use him inappropriately. If it's a Markov for Morin/Hagg/Sanheim staying in the minors with MacDonald still on the team, then it I agree it makes no sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, AJgoal said:

 

I disagree. Think of it this way, would you trade MacDonald straight up for Markov? I would, even at Markov's age, and I wouldn't hesitate. But like I said, it really only makes sense to me if MacDonald is eliminated from the equation completely in some manner, otherwise Hakstol will use him inappropriately. If it's a Markov for Morin/Hagg/Sanheim staying in the minors with MacDonald still on the team, then it I agree it makes no sense.

It starts with a premise that is very unlikely:  moving Mcdonald.  If Mcdonald moves, you don't want 3 rookies probably, so get a dman. Although you could have accomplished this cheaper if you'd just kept MDZ. 

 

Or plug Manning in. 

 

I fail to see how they're moving Mcdonald. But even assuming a snowball freezes in hell, a tree grows in Brooklyn,  Lindsay Lohan was sober last night and Hextall found a dance partner for Mcdonald, I don't want Markov's knees. It's just a really horrendously dumb signing. 

 

And if it's happening, why wouldn't McDonald's movement come first? What's the delay? It seems the Markov move would be predicated upon the Mcdonald move, not the other way around. So, I'm not really buying this either. 

 

I think it's Markov's agent trying to get the Habs to blink.  It's Montreal or Russia. I don't think there's a door #3. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And by the way, since I was asked and neglected to answer:

 

Even at the money, I'll take Mcdonald over Markov with his knees and at this stage of his career. No way I'm doing this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watched one game with Provorov paired with Hagg. It took Ivan one period to see Hagg was defensively responsible enough to foray offensively. Don't need Markov and Don't want McDonald anywhere but LHV.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ruxpin said:

And by the way, since I was asked and neglected to answer:

 

Even at the money, I'll take Mcdonald over Markov with his knees and at this stage of his career. No way I'm doing this. 

 

Fair enough. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, AJgoal said:

 

Fair enough. 

Lol you're good people, sir. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ruxpin said:

Lol you're good people, sir. 

 

You knock it off with your smarm. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ruxpin said:

And by the way, since I was asked and neglected to answer:

 

Even at the money, I'll take Mcdonald over Markov with his knees and at this stage of his career. No way I'm doing this. 

 

There you go, Rx.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 There is no way that Hextall should sign Danny Markov.  He has got to be at least 45 years old by now.  He didn't play that well when he was here the first time.  Enough with the recycled old players! 

 

Oh, Andrei Markov, not Danny.  Never mind.  :dizzysmiley-1:

 

 

Edited by AlaskaFlyerFan
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, AJgoal said:

 

There you go, Rx.

 

 

I kind of figured this was completely Markov's camp. Either legitimately hoping or trying to leverage Montreal. 

 

My other thought was it was a complete fabrication. It just didn't make any sense to me from the Flyers side (not sure that was clear in my posts. LOL) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, AJgoal said:

 

There you go, Rx.

 

 

 

13 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

I kind of figured this was completely Markov's camp. Either legitimately hoping or trying to leverage Montreal. 

 

My other thought was it was a complete fabrication. It just didn't make any sense to me from the Flyers side (not sure that was clear in my posts. LOL) 

 

 

Well I guess we can now put the Markov to Flyers out pasture ....Thank God that rumor is now history .....

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ruxpin said:

And by the way, since I was asked and neglected to answer:

 

Even at the money, I'll take Mcdonald over Markov with his knees and at this stage of his career. No way I'm doing this. 

 

I would take Markov on a 2 year deal he can still play and help he has only missed 2 games from 2015-16 to 2011-12.

 

He missed 19 games last year but it wasn't due to his knee from everything i have seen. He would be a great guy for Ivan to play with...unlike Streit he knows how to play defense.

 

However someone as mentioned like Read/Mcdud/Weise/Raffl would have to be moved out to make it work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, there should be a NHL Dump List.

 

Say the Flyers don't want Read, they can cut him from the club and he goes on a dump list. The Flyers are required to pay him his salary but the cap hit doesn't count... and they are never allowed to bring him back. Let's say he has 2 years left and he goes unclaimed for that time, he gets paid by the Flyers for the duration, then becomes a free agent.

 

Say the Golden Knights want to have a veteran depth player, and are willing to take on Read. He has 2 years remaining. VGK could take Read at HALF his cap hit but would have to pay full salary. The Flyers are then off the hook for salary. And VGK cannot put him back on that list... when you pick up a player from the Dump List, he's yours until the contract ends, he's traded, or retires. I guess he could be waived too, and normal waiver rules would apply.

 

Is this just way too logical or am I missing something? It's almost exactly like waivers except players never get reassigned to minor clubs and provide a constant pool of NHL-ready talent on an as-needed basis. Teams don't need to play the waiver game.

 

And maybe there is a limit of one dumped player per team per season.

 

It's a slow Tuesday.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, OccamsRazor said:

 

I would take Markov on a 2 year deal he can still play and help he has only missed 2 games from 2015-16 to 2011-12.

 

He missed 19 games last year but it wasn't due to his knee from everything i have seen. He would be a great guy for Ivan to play with...unlike Streit he knows how to play defense.

 

However someone as mentioned like Read/Mcdud/Weise/Raffl would have to be moved out to make it work.

I don't know.  He's be 40 by the time a 2-year term was over.   There are far better ways to spend money.  This was never a thing.  We might as well be talking about the Flyers and Doughty or something equally fantastic but at least entertaining. 

 

The guy is asking for $6mil.    I'll take a 30-year old McDonalds on a $5M on a bottom-two pairing every single day over a 38-year old Markov at $6M on a first pair.   It's not even a discussion for me.  The whole thing is ludicrous to me.  

 

I mean, I wouldn't blink if we got rid of any one of the players you mentioned.  Raffl is kind of serviceable in a utility infielder kind of way, but it'd be fine to me to open up that roster spot to someone else.     

 

I know that you and others are talking about Markov on the first pair, but there's no way I'm putting him there.   He moved up to first pair with Weber some, but he was most often on 2nd pair with Petry.  He's not a top pair at this point in his career.  I know he was +18 last year, but he played with Weber and Petry and with Price behind him.  Ellwirth is no Price.

 

So, if we're not talking first pair, we're talking down roster and not with Provorov.   At which point Markov is an even more overpriced down-roster defenseman than McDud and is also horrible asset management.  Because you could have kept MDZ at $2M or $2.5M or simply insert Manning. 

 

Lastly, McDud isn't going anywhere.  He's not going anywhere.  If anyone actually wanted him he wouldn't still be here.  More, for this to work, McDud would need to move before the Markov signing.  Not for Cap reasons.  We'd have time to get back under (not even sure we'd be over until we signed whatever else of the roster we need to).  Just because you don't make that move unless you're certain you're not stuck with both hits.

 

But finances and Cap and roster space aside.   I'll stick with the 30 year old for now. I think after this year a buyout is plausible, or a move at the deadline with eating salary.

 

I'm tired of AARP members on the Flyers roster.  I have zero interest.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, brelic said:

You know, there should be a NHL Dump List.

 

Say the Flyers don't want Read, they can cut him from the club and he goes on a dump list. The Flyers are required to pay him his salary but the cap hit doesn't count... and they are never allowed to bring him back. Let's say he has 2 years left and he goes unclaimed for that time, he gets paid by the Flyers for the duration, then becomes a free agent.

 

Say the Golden Knights want to have a veteran depth player, and are willing to take on Read. He has 2 years remaining. VGK could take Read at HALF his cap hit but would have to pay full salary. The Flyers are then off the hook for salary. And VGK cannot put him back on that list... when you pick up a player from the Dump List, he's yours until the contract ends, he's traded, or retires. I guess he could be waived too, and normal waiver rules would apply.

 

Is this just way too logical or am I missing something? It's almost exactly like waivers except players never get reassigned to minor clubs and provide a constant pool of NHL-ready talent on an as-needed basis. Teams don't need to play the waiver game.

 

And maybe there is a limit of one dumped player per team per season.

 

It's a slow Tuesday.

 

 

 

Interesting idea / concept.  Would need to think about this more...... I'm sure someone would find a way to circumvent this process and abuse the system.    Also  I think it would hurt some smaller teams than larger.  For example with the majority owner being Comcast, they could suck up the salary no problem, however, take a struggling club like the Panthers...could they reasonably do so??  Also what type of limit would you have?  Max number of players you could dump?  Based on your scenario the Flyer could dump Read and McDud and anyone else they seem fit.  They just pay there salaries but no cap hit.   I'm sure someone would balk about this .....   Interesting idea though ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, brelic said:

You know, there should be a NHL Dump List.

 

Say the Flyers don't want Read, they can cut him from the club and he goes on a dump list. The Flyers are required to pay him his salary but the cap hit doesn't count... and they are never allowed to bring him back. Let's say he has 2 years left and he goes unclaimed for that time, he gets paid by the Flyers for the duration, then becomes a free agent.

 

Say the Golden Knights want to have a veteran depth player, and are willing to take on Read. He has 2 years remaining. VGK could take Read at HALF his cap hit but would have to pay full salary. The Flyers are then off the hook for salary. And VGK cannot put him back on that list... when you pick up a player from the Dump List, he's yours until the contract ends, he's traded, or retires. I guess he could be waived too, and normal waiver rules would apply.

 

Is this just way too logical or am I missing something? It's almost exactly like waivers except players never get reassigned to minor clubs and provide a constant pool of NHL-ready talent on an as-needed basis. Teams don't need to play the waiver game.

 

And maybe there is a limit of one dumped player per team per season.

 

It's a slow Tuesday.

 

 

I think the only part you're missing is the part where the NHLPA would have an aneurysm because it would destroy careers.   For the sake of your example, pretend the Flyers sent Read to that dump  list.   VDK has to pick up the Flyers ridiculous salary or they can go get another player where they can negotiate dollars and term on their own.  So Read sits for two years.  After two years, he can go to free agency but now he has two years of not playing.  Isn't going to happen.  His career is done.  I don't think the NHLPA could possibly allow such a thing.

 

They could do similar now--similar, not exact--by sending Read (player X, not specifically Read) to the AHL.  He can be grabbed on the way down if someone really wants his $ and term, or he can sit and play down there until he's a free agent or someone works something out to get him.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, pilldoc said:

They just pay there salaries but no cap hit.   I'm sure someone would balk about this

 

That's the other part of this.  It really is Cap circumvention.  Why bother even having a cap at that point? Because it's only the big market teams that could afford to pay a bunch of players not to play and keep signing people until some random combination works--back to pretty much what we had pre-lockout.    Yeah, not only would the NHLPA balk, I think about 1/3 of the owners would, too.

Edited by ruxpin
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ruxpin

 

Great point about the NHLPA.  I totally forgot about their part in all of this.  Appreciate the effort that @brelic came up with. Nothing wrong with trying to think outside the box, but in this instance I just don't see how this works.  Too many questions need to be answered .......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, pilldoc said:

@ruxpin

 

Great point about the NHLPA.  I totally forgot about their part in all of this.  Appreciate the effort that @brelic came up with. Nothing wrong with trying to think outside the box, but in this instance I just don't see how this works.  Too many questions need to be answered .......

 

Oh yeah.   It was certainly an interesting idea.  I'm waiting for him to come back with a "yeah, but..." because it's an interesting thing to discuss.   I'm not saying its a dumb idea; just presenting obstacles.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ruxpin

@pilldoc

 

Yeah, ok, there are loopholes :) But work with me here... haha.

 

Maybe there's a max of ONE player per team on a dump list at any given time. So if MacDud is on there, he's the only one they can put on there until he's claimed or his contract ends.

 

Ok, so teams would use this instead of the compliance buyout, because it's essentially a get-out-of-jail free card (except it's not free at all) for horrible contracts. You just KNOW Oshie will be there in a few years lol.

 

And I get that it hurts smaller teams more because they can't afford to absorb large salary hits.

 

But I disagree that it destroys careers. The reason we are even talking about these issues is that players fail to live up to the value of their contracts. No one told Read to start sucking. But here we are. He's a borderline NHLer on the Flyers - cap hit or not. Hell, he's probably a borderline NHLer anywhere at this point. And the only mechanism to get out of these contracts is a a compliance buyout, which penalizes a team for a player sucking.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, brelic said:

Yeah, ok, there are loopholes :) But work with me here... haha.

 

Nothing wrong with that ....creates interesting discussion .  Like you said ....slow Tuesday! :)

 

7 minutes ago, brelic said:

Maybe there's a max of ONE player per team on a dump list at any given time. So if MacDud is on there, he's the only one they can put on there until he's claimed or his contract ends.

 

Putting a limit will make some people happy :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, brelic said:

But I disagree that it destroys careers. The reason we are even talking about these issues is that players fail to live up to the value of their contracts. No one told Read to start sucking. But here we are. He's a borderline NHLer on the Flyers - cap hit or not. Hell, he's probably a borderline NHLer anywhere at this point. And the only mechanism to get out of these contracts is a a compliance buyout, which penalizes a team for a player sucking

 

I was with you up to here.  The one-per is interesting.  That, in theory, could maybe work.  Enough that maybe it unifies the owners.

 

But sticking with the Read example (poor guy), this is the penalty for signing borderline people to long deals. I mean, 4 years at $3.6M was a bit absurd when it was signed.  Sorry, getting into particulars and this is a theory thing.

 

My thing is, say they bozo him to the dump pile (we have to come up with a politically correct name.  Someplace you're paid but don't actually play hockey.  Maybe we'll call it "Phoenix").     That's two years of his life where the guy doesn't get to play.  At all.  And then when that term is done, there's no one even talking to him.   Now, I think I get the argument that probably no one is talking to him then anyway.  But maybe they do for $1M/$1Y.   They don't if he's been sitting eating bon bons and watching the view.

 

It just sounds like management enforcing its non-compete even though it fired the employee (it's not the same. Just has a similar feel to me).  I don't think this floats through the NHLPA yet.   However, if you go with your 1-per idea and get the owners unified, maybe they get it by NHLPA in trade for something else.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

 I'll take a 30-year old McDonalds on a $5M on a bottom-two pairing every single day over a 38-year old Markov at $6M on a first pair.  

 

What really Markov put up 6 goals 300 assist and was +18 at 38......that is more goals ALONE than Mcdud has ever score in Philly since he has been there.

 

And we have to disagree....and the only way it would happen is they trade Mcdud somewhere. The KHL?

 

However it is pure fantasy at this point....but i had to state my side...40 Markov is better than a 30 year old Mcdud all day!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

 

I was with you up to here.  The one-per is interesting.  That, in theory, could maybe work.  Enough that maybe it unifies the owners.

 

But sticking with the Read example (poor guy), this is the penalty for signing borderline people to long deals. I mean, 4 years at $3.6M was a bit absurd when it was signed.  Sorry, getting into particulars and this is a theory thing.

 

Absolutely! This is the problem I'm trying to solve. It's not even *borderline* players.... Oshie has been signed to a RIDICULOUS deal. He's going on 31 this season, signed until he's 39 years old. I can all but guarantee he does not play out that contract.

 

So how does the current system help small market teams? They can't afford to dole out $60+ million dollars to players they KNOW will never give them that much value. If you remove the compliance buyout penalty (or substantially reduce it), you might actually help small market teams by making more players available.

 

Or, how about removing compliance buyout options for ANY contract over 4 years. You want to sign a player for 8 years? Well, go ahead, but you'll deal with it for 8 years. A bit like what they were trying to accomplish with the cap recapture, I guess.

 

 

 

16 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

 

My thing is, say they bozo him to the dump pile (we have to come up with a politically correct name.  Someplace you're paid but don't actually play hockey.  Maybe we'll call it "Phoenix").    

 

Haha, LOVE it!

 

16 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

 

That's two years of his life where the guy doesn't get to play.  At all.  And then when that term is done, there's no one even talking to him.   Now, I think I get the argument that probably no one is talking to him then anyway.  But maybe they do for $1M/$1Y.   They don't if he's been sitting eating bon bons and watching the view.

 

Yes, that's a great point. But how much hockey will Read play this year anyway? It's harder when you're talking about a player like MacDud, who makes way too much, and I'm sure the Flyers would love nothing more than to get rid of him, but they play him anyway. He would be hurt by being on the list as a victim of too much money for what he brings - even if he still brings an NHL-level game for most teams as a 5/6/7.

 

Read does too... but I really think he's a fringe player at this point.

 

16 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

 

It just sounds like management enforcing its non-compete even though it fired the employee (it's not the same. Just has a similar feel to me).  I don't think this floats through the NHLPA yet.   However, if you go with your 1-per idea and get the owners unified, maybe they get it by NHLPA in trade for something else.

 

Great point about the non-compete. It does place the players in a kind of purgatory. 

 

I just think there's a better way to deal with things than the way they are now. Compliance buyouts are onerous, contract lengths are too much, and it's hard to *blame* the owners. Any system with rules will be exploited for maximum gain. That's what modern capitalism in America looks like! They're not bad people for exploiting it - they're just maximizing their return under the rules.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@brelic

 

some great points ....  first step is to , again, stop these insane contracts.  Since you mentioned it, Oshie is a perfect example.  I'll even go out on a limb and I'll add Kuznetsov to that list.  Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't there a limit on the contract since the last NHL lockout.  I can't seem to remember the details.  Regardless...great post.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Most Liked Posts in This Topic

    • 6
      Post
      if this is it for free agency, then so be it. I have no qualms if the Flyers don't make the playoffs this year, especially if they're working in a fairly large number of young players into the lineup. With that being said, there's no reason they can't be competitive and if they aren't competitive and if guys are just willing to roll over and give up, then they need to go. As well, the coaching staff HAVE to be committed to letting young guys play, and that means letting them play even after they
    • 4
      Post
      Hidden Content Give reaction or reply to this topic to see the hidden content.   But more to the immediate point, Hextall was asked about his free agency plans. And after Hidden Content Give reaction or reply to this topic to see the hidden content. l and Hidden Content Give reaction or reply to this topic to see the hidden content.
    • 4
      Post
      Did the Flyers really get through the day without signing VandeVelde?  Is he really gone?   #76 Never Forget   .  
    • 3
      Post
    • 3
      Post
      8 years is too long for any player that isn't a franchise stalwart near the beginning of his career. That's a pretty short list at any given time.   That said, we are possibly nearing another lock out year. I wouldn't be shocked to see a bunch of garbage contract signings in the next little while, made by teams who do believe there is a lockout coming and who will then work to build in some sort of loopholes to get rid of said overpaid players following a new CBA.   It's enti
    • 2
      Post
      I was with you up to here.  The one-per is interesting.  That, in theory, could maybe work.  Enough that maybe it unifies the owners.   But sticking with the Read example (poor guy), this is the penalty for signing borderline people to long deals. I mean, 4 years at $3.6M was a bit absurd when it was signed.  Sorry, getting into particulars and this is a theory thing.   My thing is, say they bozo him to the dump pile (we have to come up with a politically correct name.  Somep

Game Room 1

    You don't have permission to chat.
    ×
    ×
    • Create New...