0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
Wow, just back from the Stones in Seattle and see I left a bit of a bomb. I'm all in favour of simplicity so best of 2 is fine guys. Just didn't really understand why it was such a tough sell. Glad Rob gave it a fair shake....seemed reasonable to me as a way of keeping the numbers right rather than bumping the salary cap all out of proportion. But there are other ways to do that, like lowering the multiplier (OCD aside). That's something I'd like to ask about actually. I know we're not super aligned to actual NHL numbers but I don't want to totally decouple either. So what would it look like to try and fit into actual NHL salary cap numbers? If $25k per point is 8% high after blocked shots are added (based on a salary cap of NHL +$6m), what would the multiplier have to be to reduce our salary cap to the actual NHL number? Could we do that instead of padding our cap room? Like I think somewhere around $21k per point might work with blocked shots and a true NHL cap.
From my discussion with Rob it sounds like we will set the value for the cap and not change it moving forward. Do you have a reason why you think the salary cap should go down? As a team that is close to the salary cap I see this as a double whammy to the teams that are currently spending close to the cap. We are raising extension values across the board and now you want to lower the cap as well? I think with the extension values increasing in a year or two you are going to see alot of the excess salary cap space used up and Free agency will see more players.I would be very opposed to lowering the salary cap. With extension values going up we have a chance to look at our roster and make the decision not to resign certain players as we can't afford them anymore. If you lower the cap value then teams like myself will have to trade away players because we can't fit them in under the new cap value. So players we signed/resigned under the current rules will now be impacted by a change that I don't really see a reason for. This would result in a handful of teams in the league (Yours included) who would benefit while a majority of the teams would be in cap hell.
I think what he's getting at is taking the $25k per point // $95m Cap and scaling the $/pt to whatever gets you to the same number as the NHL's cap. So effectively it's not a real change to the cap since it's all relative. The problem is that current contracts are not scaled to that, so it would cause some issues. And, like I said, there's no sense scaling ourselves to look like the league when the league will change and leave us behind anyway.
I just saw the No Filter Tour in MA. They were great!
From my discussion with Rob it sounds like we will set the value for the cap and not change it moving forward.
I understand what he proposed. In my eyes he is proposing something that would benefit his team greatly due to his cap space that is available. I guess I'm looking for a reason or goal for scaling it back. What problem is he trying to solve with the proposal?
I guess I'm looking for a reason or goal for scaling it back. What problem is he trying to solve with the proposal?
Wow, just back from the Stones in Seattle
Man that's sick Slacky. You're were in my neck of the woods.How was it / were they?Thought about it... But the ticket price coupled with not being a huge huge huge fan was the deal breaker.
I took my 9 year old for his first concert. I figure how many of his peers will be able to say they've seen the Stones?! It was my first time seeing them too and I've been a lifelong fan. We kinda had nosebleeds, but the sound was amazing and they were on their games. Great night.