23 Comments

  1. not sure about this… that’s a lot of cap space for 2 crappy picks.. there’s an advantage in that franco can now keep all his players and had to give minimal value.. hmm…

  3. Not sure about this either. I am thinking of actually proposing a rule where we cannot trade cash. The NHL no longer allows trades where cash trades hands in a deal. I think we should consider this for next year as a rule change.

  4. approve

    this isn’t the nhl, and i’m sick and tired of not being able to do anything for cap space – about 19 different proposals got rejected on monday and honestly, it has to change. if someone has no picks, why do they need to reserve 7 million in room for empty space?

    the amount is high but i’m approving out of principle.

  5. Giulio…while I appreciate that you have cap problems…you put yourself in that position on your own…no-one forced you to re-sign all your expensive guys…so don`t get annoyed because we don`t want to accomodate you…be annoyed at yourself and don`t forget that you finished 2nd last year…so you already got your prize…you will have to earn it again this year.

  6. i’d like to see you leave zetterberg unsigned just once… my expensive guys are also my core, which i needed to invest in to get to 2nd place. now i’m trying unload quality players for cheap guys with less talent and no one wants to budge. if everyone would focus less on mediocrity and a bit more on competing we wouldn’t have 4 year tankers in this league. i’m not interested in gutting my team, but i am offering people good players on the cheap because of my situation.

  8. joe and i paid the most out of everyone and it would be a fair assumption that i’ll be among the top payers again this year

  9. We can always assign a fixed monetary value to picks based on their rank so that it doesn’t get out of hand. Example, 1st round picks are worth 1M, 2nd are worth 750K, and so on. Just a thought…

  10. Cap space has to be managed and it is very difficult. What did Chicago get for Brian Campbell? Oh yes, Rostislav Olesz. Even trade from quality perspective? Not at all, but it had to be done for Chicago to work with the cap. We all are in the same boat and it makes the pool more interesting by having the hard cap as we do. It allows for player movement. Like I said at teh draft, it would suck if someone can get a young player for 500K like Stamkos and keep him for the 15 years and never think about trading him if we decided to keep on increasing the cap each year. By having it the way we do, it allows for guys like Stamkos to be traded or force a GM to keep him at a high cap hit and maneuveur his time around it.

  12. all that to say, i’m sure everyone in the league knows stastny is available, and everyone in their right mind would keep him if he was on their team. help a brother out! i’m not trying to trade a fourth liner here!

  13. Veto, the picks are to late. I agree with Cam we should have a fixed amount for the picks so this way there are no arguments.

  17. It can’t be that bad if a 43 went for $2.5M the 46th went for about the same which means the 66th was probably overvalued by $500k or so (even at $1M overvalued we are talking 2% of the total cap–NS lol)– we are talking peanuts in the grand scheme of things– the issue is that frank is able to retain his high priced guys which is what everyone seems to be bothered by– if a deal is not blantantly unfair there should be no basis to have it vetoed– there have been a lot worse deals that have gone through than this one

  19. like Cam said its legal in our rules…still don’t like it. I think we’ll have to discuss it at the next meeting, but as it stands now, i won’t veto it

  23. Ok – I think this will go through.

    However, for those that didn’t like it but approved it (not that you have to necessarily answer this because you don’t even have to provide your reasoning in order to vote) – can you elaborate why?

    Especially given that one of the arguments was that the trade was “our rules allowed it to happen” – our rules allow any trade to happen, but they also allow a veto which has been used on more than one occasion…so why is this different?

Comments are closed.