carpandean

http://www.cbssports.com/nhl/eye-on-hockey/24461180/photo-sabres-call-on-emergency-backup-goalie-after-ryan-miller-trade What a moment for a former high school goalie.

That escalated quickly.

Having read the CBA, it's not clear that this is correct. CapGeek seems to think that it is, but I'm not convinced. The CBA itself says that when such a player retires or defects early, then the difference between the total salary spent and the total cap hit incurred is calculated as the cap to be recaptured. So, for example, if he retires one year early, then the difference is $39M - 9($4M) = $3M. On this, both CapGeek and I agree. Where we differ is how this is split once he is traded. They say that the Sabres would incur a $10M penalty because they spent $18M, but had a cap hit total of $8M (2 x $4M), while the other team would incur no penalty at all. In fact, they would have a -$7M difference (salary to cap), but wouldn't actually receive a credit. However, that's not the spirit of the rule. By ending the contract one year early, the actual cap hit should have been $39M/9 = $4.33M. So, the Sabres should have had a total of 2 x $4.33M = $8.67M. Thus, they should be penalized $8.67M - $8M = $0.67M, because that's the benefit that they got by having that year on the contract, but not realized. Likewise, the other team should have had a total cap hit of 7 x $4.33M = $30.33M, but actually incurred a total of $28M, so they should be penalized $2.33M. Now, maybe the rule is only designed to screw the team that signed the contract, but that doesn't make much sense to me.

I agree, but you said that he has "three cheap years remaining on his contract." If you consider $4M to be cheap and don't expect his talent to drop off too quickly after age 34 (3 years from now), then doesn't he have a lot more than three cheap years left?

I'm curious about this comment. He has a $4M cap hit for 8 more seasons after this one. Are you referring to the the three $1M seasons starting in 2019-20? I'd say that by 2018-19, that $3M salary will be "cheap" and the four seasons at $4M will be considered cheaper each year as the cap goes up.

The even number thing became relatively irrelevant under last year's conference restructuring. The EC has 16 teams, while the WC has 14 teams. The NHL is willing, in at least the short-run, to go with an unbalanced structure. Obviously, adding two teams to get to 16 (8 and 8) and 16 (8 and 8) seems like the long-run plan, but there's no reason to believe that they wouldn't go with 15 (7 and 8) in the WC for a couple of years until they find another city to expand into.

KC or LV would certainly help to avoid having to restructure the conferences again.

Well. once they trade away Miller and Moulson, that will be a solution without a problem.

Anyone else catch the discussion this morning about what could happen if the NHL does expand into Seattle for the 2015-16 season, as recent articles have suggested could happen? An expansion team usually gets either the 1st overall pick or a decided advantage in the lottery. That could mean that Seattle may have the best chance at McDavid.

- Former 30 goal scorer - 6'2", 214lbs - 6G, 3A, 9P in his last 7GP Not a tough sell ... on paper, anyway.

True free-market capitalism is a seldom (if ever) achieved ideal (not in the sense of what any of us might want, but rather what definition capitalism would suggest) form of capitalism. Several, less-pure (i.e., including degrees of state regulation and market control) versions are still recognized as being capitalist without being free market.

Couldn't the same thing (perhaps, even more strongly) have been said in the late 1800's/early 1900's?

Empirical analysis helps you figure out how things are (or often were) being done; game theory and, more generally, modeling help you figure out how things should be done. Empirics gives values for the parameters of a model. You need both to make decisions. Anyone who favors one and diminishes the other has missed the point.

I don't believe that is a sustainable solution. The rules didn't change after 2006-07. Instead, little-by-little, the old-school refs let players get away with stuff that they called consistently right out of the lockout. Any solution has to be more conspicuously out of the refs' hands.

Some might say that the shooting percentage is the only thing that they haven't "put together", and they've got too many talented scorers for that to continue. I could see this being a 6-5 game.

Sounds like the premise for a series of porno movies.

Less probable, perhaps, but without the nationalistic impact. Last I checked, there isn't a war (cold or otherwise) between Latvia and Canada.

Anyone else read that in Viper's (Tom Skeritt's) voice?

Untouchable* * I use this word like I use "prove" when talking about statistics. It's not 100% certain, but it would take something really unusual (unlikely) to make it not true.

I seem to remember something like "Hey Grosek, you Smehlik like Zhitnik!" Actually, I don't remember "Grosek" being the name there, but I can't remember who it was. Edit: google shows "Hasek" or (even better) "Peca-head" as player it is directed towards.

http://www.youtube.c...bed/7iVoYUVL3L4

You don't score, until you score.

According to their respective league's pages: Dal Colle - 6'2", 171 lbs Reinhart - 6'1", 183 lbs McDavid - 6'0", 185 lbs Now, Ritchie, on the other hand: Ritchie - 6'3", 229 lbs is a big boy.

In which case, we wouldn't touch him with a ten-foot pole, since the compensation would include our "McDavid" lottery pick.

Updated for the Olympic break. Tank Nation chart certainly looks better than it did at the start of the week. Also, after flat-lining for a bit, they've started going down again. I had to move my lower limit down again.