Just throwing this out there for Bill and everyone......

Assuming a deal gets done before Christmas and the NHL is set to begin in the beginning of the new year, the flyers will need to name a new captain during the abbreviated training camp.

Is a Giroux a lock, or will they go to a veteran like Danny B/Kimmo, or a longshot like Hartnell?

Does Giroux's recent injury and uncertain status for the beginning of the year impact the decision?

Giroux seems like the obvious choice, I'd just hate to put any additional pressure on him to play when you're trying to be careful with his longterm health.

Everyone talks about the 1/16, 2/15, ... playoff system as being "old school" and "traditional" while ignoring that (A) it was only used for two (2) years, (B) it was used in a period of time where there were 21 teams playing 80 games - which allowed for a perfectly balanced schedule where everyone played everyone else 4 times (2H, 2A), and (C) it was replaced by the divisional format that everyone also remembers and loves.
- Irish Blues

I call it old school because it was the system in place when I fell in love with hockey as a young boy. The reason I like it is because any team can play any other team in the playoffs. None of that conference separation nonsense. No eastern conference team in the finals this year? Oh well, suck it.

On the travel issue: I readily admit that's a problem, and I totally get wanting to minimize that - but, for all the complaining about "we have to travel all across the country, they can take bus rides to most of the games" and "____ is closer to ________, they should be together" and all that other stuff, ... well, keep a few of the longstanding rivalries (MTL-BOS, PIT-PHI, NYR-NYI/NJ, DET-CHI, etc.) and scatter the rest of the teams, and then you don't have to argue over whether Columbus should be in the SE with Carolina or the NE with Pittsburgh or the Central as they are, Detroit doesn't have to complain about being in the West, and so on. Plus, then if teams move you don't have to try and adjust divisions to match geographically - they simply move physically and stay put in the same division.

I hear you. I just think it's going to come down to economics.

I call it old school because it was the system in place when I fell in love with hockey as a young boy. The reason I like it is because any team can play any other team in the playoffs. None of that conference separation nonsense. No eastern conference team in the finals this year? Oh well, suck it.
- Scoob

I agree, I don't like the "guaranteed spot" in the Finals for each conference. I get why (to a point), but I'd like to see them do away with it - and the only way to do it is to cross-seed at some point. We could do it after the 2nd round when there's only 4 teams left, but I say do it right off the bat and we can see if "_____ conference is so much stronger" talk during a season really holds up.

I hear you. I just think it's going to come down to economics.
- Scoob

Agreed on this, too.

Just throwing this out there for Bill and everyone......

Assuming a deal gets done before Christmas and the NHL is set to begin in the beginning of the new year, the flyers will need to name a new captain during the abbreviated training camp.

Is a Giroux a lock, or will they go to a veteran like Danny B/Kimmo, or a longshot like Hartnell?

Does Giroux's recent injury and uncertain status for the beginning of the year impact the decision?

Giroux seems like the obvious choice, I'd just hate to put any additional pressure on him to play when you're trying to be careful with his longterm health.
- PhillyLaFleur

Is this a bad sign that there really isn't a clear-cut veteran leader on this team?

Just throwing this out there for Bill and everyone......

Assuming a deal gets done before Christmas and the NHL is set to begin in the beginning of the new year, the flyers will need to name a new captain during the abbreviated training camp.

Is a Giroux a lock, or will they go to a veteran like Danny B/Kimmo, or a longshot like Hartnell?

Does Giroux's recent injury and uncertain status for the beginning of the year impact the decision?

Giroux seems like the obvious choice, I'd just hate to put any additional pressure on him to play when you're trying to be careful with his longterm health.
- PhillyLaFleur

I think Clode will get the C the moment he asks for it. If he doesn't ask, I imagine Danny B or Kimmo will wear it.

Marc Savard is money outside the system though no? He can retire and all his money comes off the cap without the LTIR song and dance every year. For injured guys, I don't think there should be any distinction. Maybe keep it around for retiring players for the reasons mentioned, but as Bill said, if the NHL gets a low salary variance number it sorts itself out without the age restrictions

Edit: Actually, if Savard retires, is he entitled to his remaining contract years, or is he still doing the LTIR thing to keep being paid? I guess I forget the actual nuances or some of these rules. Maybe he's never going to retire and isn't really any different than Pronger is to the Flyers right now. I do agree that also eliminating the effect on the offseason cap essentially solves all problems anyone has
- eayost

No, Savard is not money outside of the system. He is still on the Cap. A player retires, he doesn't get paid.

Colorado made Landeskog Captain...

SO GIVE IT TO COOTER

No, Savard is not money outside of the system. He is still on the Cap. A player retires, he doesn't get paid.
- MJL

And that is where I have the problem... As with the just expired CBA, if a guy signs the contract (@35) plays a game and then takes a puck to the eye he is going to be paid because a team will just LTIR him.. why not let him retire and pay him and let him come off the cap...

Colorado made Landeskog Captain...

SO GIVE IT TO COOTER
- Coburns_Nose

Max Talbot should get it IMHO

Make the max years on a contract based on the age of the player at the time he signs it.

Up to age 24 = 10 years

25 - 30 = 7 years

31 - 35 = 5 years

36 and up = 3 years

Or something along those lines....

Make the max years on a contract based on the age of the player at the time he signs it.

Up to age 24 = 10 years

25 - 30 = 7 years

31 - 35 = 5 years

36 and up = 3 years

Or something along those lines....
- Jimmygrazz

I like this idea

And that is where I have the problem... As with the just expired CBA, if a guy signs the contract (@35) plays a game and then takes a puck to the eye he is going to be paid because a team will just LTIR him.. why not let him retire and pay him and let him come off the cap...
- jak521

Because it is money outside of the system. It doesn't count against the Cap. Whether the player is playing or not, it is still money paid to a player. As an example, at the end of every year, they use Escrow that is with held to assure the revenue split is accurate. If Pronger's money doesn't count against the Cap, then after Escrow is either paid to the players or the League keeps it. The Revenue split is now swung in the players favor by the amount paid to Pronger.

I was digusted by the realignment playoff format initially, now I hate it with every quantum particle of my being. After a season of a division heavy schedule, to play the 1v4,etc would be assinine. I understand the familiarity breeds contempt arguement but i dont buy it. I dont like that the top teams(according to points) have a far greater chance of playing each other in the 1st or 2nd round in this round. Which leads into the likelyhood that the division heavy schedule distorts make up of the conference/league.
I want to see balance from the league, not a league segregated into geogaphic regions.....Balance the Conferences in the best manner possible, seed 1-8. There will always be an unfair travel schedule for the Western teams in this senario, but that didnt impede the Kings from winning the Cup or the Canucks reaching the finals the prior year

Make the max years on a contract based on the age of the player at the time he signs it.

Up to age 24 = 10 years

25 - 30 = 7 years

31 - 35 = 5 years

36 and up = 3 years

Or something along those lines....
- Jimmygrazz

Your ideas intrigue me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

I was digusted by the realignment playoff format initially, now I hate it with every quantum particle of my being. After a season of a division heavy schedule, to play the 1v4,etc would be assinine...........Balance the Conferences in the best manner possible, seed 1-8. There will always be an unfair travel schedule for the Western teams in this senario, but that didnt impede the Kings from winning the Cup or the Canucks reaching the finals the prior year
- KINGKENZO

Im right there with you. It also means that every year, one of these teams: Flyers, Penguins, Rangers, Devils, Capitals..... would probably miss the playoffs even though they had a much better record than most of the teams in the other conferences

Because it is money outside of the system. It doesn't count against the Cap. Whether the player is playing or not, it is still money paid to a player. As an example, at the end of every year, they use Escrow that is with held to assure the revenue split is accurate. If Pronger's money doesn't count against the Cap, then after Escrow is either paid to the players or the League keeps it. The Revenue split is now swung in the players favor by the amount paid to Pronger.
- MJL

I worded it incorrectly.. I understand how it works.. I meant instead of it counting against the off season spending. His contract (unless there is an amnesty clause in the new CBA and he is bought out) WILL count against the cap during the offseason, right? That limits spending in the off-season. So we will have a 4.5 mil bullet EVERY off-season until he ends up retiring IIRC...

I was digusted by the realignment playoff format initially, now I hate it with every quantum particle of my being. After a season of a division heavy schedule, to play the 1v4,etc would be assinine. I understand the familiarity breeds contempt arguement but i dont buy it. I dont like that the top teams(according to points) have a far greater chance of playing each other in the 1st or 2nd round in this round. Which leads into the likelyhood that the division heavy schedule distorts make up of the conference/league.
I want to see balance from the league, not a league segregated into geogaphic regions.....Balance the Conferences in the best manner possible, seed 1-8. There will always be an unfair travel schedule for the Western teams in this senario, but that didnt impede the Kings from winning the Cup or the Canucks reaching the finals the prior year
- KINGKENZO

Im right there with you Kenzo... Not only that, but it would be impossible to see ,say the Flyers and Pens battle for the EC championship... Those games ALWAYS create contempt... even against teams you dont see that often.

What about the conference/division alignment only affecting regular season games?

What I mean is, when it comes time to decide who makes the playoffs they just take the 16 teams with the highest point totals, regardless of their division or conference.

So 1 plays 16 and 2 plays 15 and so forth.

Make the max years on a contract based on the age of the player at the time he signs it.

Up to age 24 = 10 years

25 - 30 = 7 years

31 - 35 = 5 years

36 and up = 3 years

Or something along those lines....
- Jimmygrazz

If you're 30, you can get a 7-year deal to take you to 37 - but if you're a year older, you can only get a 5-year deal to take you to 36. That's not a smooth transition between ages. Besides, if you do it at the age when a player signs, it can (will) be gamed by teams to provide for years that the player would otherwise not be eligible to receive if based on effective age.

My still-preferred plan (based on player's age when the contract starts):
-- Under 36: the greater of 3 years or 36 - player's age
-- 36-38: 2 years
-- 39+: 1 year

Coupled with:
-- If the contract is 3 years or more and not entry-level or is a 2-year, maximum length allowed contract, all years must be 1-way.
-- Otherwise, any (or all) years of the contract can be 2-way.

I worded it incorrectly.. I understand how it works.. I meant instead of it counting against the off season spending. His contract (unless there is an amnesty clause in the new CBA and he is bought out) WILL count against the cap during the offseason, right? That limits spending in the off-season. So we will have a 4.5 mil bullet EVERY off-season until he ends up retiring IIRC...
- jak521

Edit: re-worded, since you clarified what you meant.

I'm not opposed to this, but I would further invoke that "if you put a player on LTIR for this purpose, he's ineligible to play for some portion (all?) of the following season." Otherwise, it's possible (likely) teams can (will) game this. BTW, since Pronger suffered an injury due to hockey, he (and any other player in a similar situation) won't be eligible to be bought out even under an amnesty provision.

Because if you're a low-revenue team and you have one of these guys, the player no longer counting against the cap forces you to spend more to hit the cap floor. Guys counting against the cap despite being on LTIR isn't causing problems, because those guys can have their cap hits virtually replaced in full due to the LTIR exception.

BTW, LTIR is not what allows the player to get paid until the end of his contract due to injury. The fact that he was injured in a hockey-related event does.
- Irish Blues

I understand that.. LTIR is just to reduce the total cap hit for a player who is not being used due to injury.

" Guys counting against the cap despite being on LTIR isn't causing problems, because those guys can have their cap hits virtually replaced in full due to the LTIR exception."

Not sure I follow.. Going into last season I remember Prongers cap hit counting again the team, as well as Schenns bonus.. We went from next to no cap space to like 5 million.

Im right there with you Kenzo... Not only that, but it would be impossible to see ,say the Flyers and Pens battle for the EC championship... Those games ALWAYS create contempt... even against teams you dont see that often.
- jak521

Exactly.... Flyers Pens Rags. assuming 2of3 make the second round than 2 of 3 are out by the the ECF, never able to match up. In a Division round format, you can throw everything out the window, its a completely different animal. I love the contempt that was revived for the Canadiens, Sabres and Bruins in the recent years.........sorry about the sad-sack SE

Edit: re-worded, since you clarified what you meant.

I'm not opposed to this, but I would further invoke that "if you put a player on LTIR for this purpose, he's ineligible to play for some portion (all?) of the following season." Otherwise, it's possible (likely) teams can (will) game this. BTW, since Pronger suffered an injury due to hockey, he (and any other player in a similar situation) won't be eligible to be bought out even under an amnesty provision.
- Irish Blues

No doubt about it.

Heres my thinking.

Pronger doesnt wanna retire bec he wants to get paid.. the Flyers dont want him to retire because then he (frank)s up the cap.

Why not with forced retirement (injury or hockey related issues) allow the player to be paid over the course of his contract, and not charge the team with a Cap hit. If the player were to attempt a comeback during his contract length, the cap hit must be reinstated. If he were to try a comeback AFTER his contract expired, his rights would be retained by the team he retired from for however many years he was out, unless that team forfeit those rights. This way a guy cant retire at 25 in CBJ, and hop in UFA with any team he wants. Or something along these lines. I completely agree teams will game the system.

Speaking of gaming the system.. If teams try to circumvent the cap (and there needs to be a strict, active panel to investigate contracts like that) teams should be punished... draft picks & cash...

Exactly.... Flyers Pens Rags. assuming 2of3 make the second round than 2 of 3 are out by the the ECF, never able to match up. In a Division round format, you can throw everything out the window, its a completely different animal. I love the contempt that was revived for the Canadiens, Sabres and Bruins in the recent years.........sorry about the sad-sack SE
- KINGKENZO

Exactly what I was thinking when I typed that up...

I understand that.. LTIR is just to reduce the total cap hit for a player who is not being used due to injury.

" Guys counting against the cap despite being on LTIR isn't causing problems, because those guys can have their cap hits virtually replaced in full due to the LTIR exception."

Not sure I follow.. Going into last season I remember Prongers cap hit counting again the team, as well as Schenns bonus.. We went from next to no cap space to like 5 million.
- jak521

See my revised comment, I noted that you had clarified your remarks and responded to those instead.

Re: Pronger/Schenn, I don't recall all the particulars but part of that was the fact that Schenn had bonuses that had to become unachievable for him to fit into what cap space the Flyers had (which is why he started the season in the AHL), even after considering Pronger was on LTIR. Once that happened, the Flyers made a couple other moves and opened up all of the extra cap space.