beerme1 Posted June 17, 2016 Report Posted June 17, 2016 Yeah, how did we not jump on that train? We have 4 3rds ffs Got us Ehrhoff Perhaps GMTM is not interested. Quote
WildCard Posted June 17, 2016 Report Posted June 17, 2016 Cam Ward will make $3.5 mill this year and $3.1 mill next...What is the significance of this?Perhaps GMTM is not interested.Perhaps. I have no idea why he wouldn't be, unless he has something else cooking up, or he's familiar with what Goligoski wants and won't give him that contract Quote
Brawndo Posted June 17, 2016 Report Posted June 17, 2016 (edited) Renaud Lavoie @renlavoietva 54m 54 minutes ago NHLPA will agree to exercise the escalator clause (5%) but wants to make sure everybody's on board before making it official. Cap will rise by approximately 3 million per NBC http://nhl.nbcsports.com/2016/06/16/report-players-likely-to-vote-to-bump-up-2016-17-salary-cap/ Edited June 17, 2016 by BRAWNDO Quote
jsb Posted June 17, 2016 Report Posted June 17, 2016 It's his rights. Which means they can talk to him, before they supposedly couldn't. It will be interesting to see what his contract looks like but if I'm not mistaken they can also offer him 8 years now instead of 7 also which I'm guessing would be GMTM's breaking point if true. I'd like the guy but not at his age for 8 years. Quote
tom webster Posted June 17, 2016 Report Posted June 17, 2016 It will be interesting to see what his contract looks like but if I'm not mistaken they can also offer him 8 years now instead of 7 also which I'm guessing would be GMTM's breaking point if true. I'd like the guy but not at his age for 8 years. That is another rule that has been reported in conflicting ways. It is my understanding that acquiring a player's rights at this point does not allow you to offer the max term. Honestly I haven't been paying as close attention as in the past so maybe one of the more in tune posters can clarify. Quote
TrueBlueGED Posted June 17, 2016 Report Posted June 17, 2016 What is the significance of this? Perhaps. I have no idea why he wouldn't be, unless he has something else cooking up, or he's familiar with what Goligoski wants and won't give him that contract Don't forget he played for Bylsma. If Bylsma wasn't a fan, I'm sure that was communicates to Murray. Quote
LGR4GM Posted June 17, 2016 Report Posted June 17, 2016 Renaud Lavoie @renlavoietva 54m 54 minutes ago NHLPA will agree to exercise the escalator clause (5%) but wants to make sure everybody's on board before making it official. Cap will rise by approximately 3 million per NBC http://nhl.nbcsports.com/2016/06/16/report-players-likely-to-vote-to-bump-up-2016-17-salary-cap/ What happens if the revenue doesn't grow to match that 5%? Quote
dudacek Posted June 17, 2016 Report Posted June 17, 2016 The NHL keeps the money held in escrow. Players get 95 cents for every dollar their contract says is owed. Quote
rakish Posted June 17, 2016 Report Posted June 17, 2016 I am surprised that's how the players will vote, I thought for sure it would go the other way Quote
Eleven Posted June 17, 2016 Report Posted June 17, 2016 WGR is reporting that Kyle Okposo will hit free agency. Quote
nfreeman Posted June 17, 2016 Report Posted June 17, 2016 I am surprised that's how the players will vote, I thought for sure it would go the other way Why? Not trying to argue, just curious -- I know there is a school of thought that supports this, but I haven't seen a good explanation of why they would do so. Quote
rakish Posted June 17, 2016 Report Posted June 17, 2016 Why? Not trying to argue, just curious -- I know there is a school of thought that supports this, but I haven't seen a good explanation of why they would do so. I thought that players that have contracts would vote no, because it could cost them money. Players that didn't have contracts would vote yes, since each team will have 3 million more to spend on them. I figure there's more players with contracts than players without contracts, my thinking was nothing deeper than this. I think where I'm wrong is that the entire Chicago team votes yes, since they can't win at 70 million, but might win at 73. Quote
Derrico Posted June 17, 2016 Report Posted June 17, 2016 It will be interesting to see what his contract looks like but if I'm not mistaken they can also offer him 8 years now instead of 7 also which I'm guessing would be GMTM's breaking point if true. I'd like the guy but not at his age for 8 years. That is another rule that has been reported in conflicting ways. It is my understanding that acquiring a player's rights at this point does not allow you to offer the max term. Honestly I haven't been paying as close attention as in the past so maybe one of the more in tune posters can clarify. Ya, I'm almost positive you must acquire the players rights prior to the previous trade deadline in order to offer the 8 year deal. Quote
TrueBlueGED Posted June 17, 2016 Report Posted June 17, 2016 Cam Ward will make $3.5 mill this year and $3.1 mill next... Some are speculating it was to meet the goalie requirement in the expansion draft...but man for a budget team with ownership problems that's close to actually making the playoffs, that's a lot of cash to sink into a bad player. Quote
Thorner Posted June 17, 2016 Report Posted June 17, 2016 That is another rule that has been reported in conflicting ways. It is my understanding that acquiring a player's rights at this point does not allow you to offer the max term. Honestly I haven't been paying as close attention as in the past so maybe one of the more in tune posters can clarify. That is, I believe, correct. Can only offer 8 years if the player was an active part of your roster the previous season. Not sure the cutoff, though. Ya, I'm almost positive you must acquire the players rights prior to the previous trade deadline in order to offer the 8 year deal. There we go, I think that's it. Quote
Hoss Posted June 17, 2016 Author Report Posted June 17, 2016 WGR is reporting that Kyle Okposo will hit free agency. Garth Snow said "we wish him the best of luck." Quote
ct fab Posted June 17, 2016 Report Posted June 17, 2016 I like Okposo a lot but not at $7m for 5+ years, like he's probably going to get, If you're going to pay $7m for him, ante up another $4m per for Stamkos. Getting Stamkos, Vesey and a LHD like Fowler makes this team a playoff team and a dangerous playoff team in that. Quote
darksabre Posted June 17, 2016 Report Posted June 17, 2016 I would really like Okposo here for the right price. At 28 and capable of somewhere around 50 pts a season, he would be a nice replacement for Gionta who is a UFA after this coming season. Our lack of depth at RW is also a concern. I would like someone there who could make one of our multitude of "centers" expendable. Quote
Derrico Posted June 17, 2016 Report Posted June 17, 2016 With the cap not going up very much I wonder what Free Agency is going to look like. I think teams may be slowly learning that overpaying in FA is not how to build your team. Although maybe I'm wrong and they won't be able to help themselves. Quote
beerme1 Posted June 17, 2016 Report Posted June 17, 2016 With the cap not going up very much I wonder what Free Agency is going to look like. I think teams may be slowly learning that overpaying in FA is not how to build your team. Although maybe I'm wrong and they won't be able to help themselves. LOL the silly season will be on as it always is. They really can't help themselves and it's true of any sport. Quote
TrueBlueGED Posted June 17, 2016 Report Posted June 17, 2016 I really like Okposo, but I'm worried about the term he'll want. I don't go above 5 years, and ideally 4. Quote
Derrico Posted June 17, 2016 Report Posted June 17, 2016 LOL the silly season will be on as it always is. They really can't help themselves and it's true of any sport. I don't remember too many silly deals thrown out last offseason but I may be have missed one or two. Quote
darksabre Posted June 17, 2016 Report Posted June 17, 2016 I really like Okposo, but I'm worried about the term he'll want. I don't go above 5 years, and ideally 4. The good thing is that we don't have too many players under contract when the important ones come up at the end of 2017-18. 4 years would be ideal, but I don't think 5 years kills us. Quote
ct fab Posted June 17, 2016 Report Posted June 17, 2016 The cap was supposed t stay the same or go down before the players agreed to throw in the 5% equity thing. This is going to help cap strapped teams a little and hurt the Sabres who were $25m (now $28m) under the cap Quote
LGR4GM Posted June 17, 2016 Report Posted June 17, 2016 The cap was supposed t stay the same or go down before the players agreed to throw in the 5% equity thing. This is going to help cap strapped teams a little and hurt the Sabres who were $25m (now $28m) under the capDef going to help some Ca teams. Us being more under the cap doesn't matter. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.