Spending to the cap ceiling isn't all that bad unless you get plenty of injuries through the season, kind of what the flyers went thru last year on defense..

Fair enough. As it stands now, do they have a cap problem? Using your definition, I'd say no, since they can get under the cap without losing a significant asset.
- jmatchett383

I don't think they have one now.

This is the thing, the Flyers seem to want to spend up to the cap all the time, and then make whatever moves they have to in order to do what they want. Other teams "save" some cap space for emergencies (or because they can't afford to spend to the cap all the time). A byproduct of this strategy is the moves that cost the team significant assets. The Flyers roll the dice, or take the calculated gamble that injuries, or other developments will occur and allow them to do what they want without losing significant assets. Doesn't always work out that way. But that's how they roll.

The only way to protect against this is to not spend up to the cap all the time, and save some room for unexpected surprises - either players that all of a sudden become available, or needs that all of a sudden pop up due to injuries, or whatever. The Flyers seem to equate not spending to the cap all the time with not trying hard enough. I don't think you'll ever see them save cap space if they think they can spend it to get better. So I think what we'll see is the team continue to spend everything they can. They'll make whatever moves are needed to allow them to stay compliant and make the moves they think they should to better the tam. Weather or not this results in cap mismanagement will depend on what moves they have to make to stay compliant, and what those moves cost them in terms of assets.

I don't think they have one now.

This is the thing, the Flyers seem to want to spend up to the cap all the time, and then make whatever moves they have to in order to do what they want. Other teams "save" some cap space for emergencies (or because they can't afford to spend to the cap all the time). A byproduct of this strategy is the moves that cost the team significant assets. The Flyers roll the dice, or take the calculated gamble that injuries, or other developments will occur and allow them to do what they want without losing significant assets. Doesn't always work out that way. But that's how they roll.

The only way to protect against this is to not spend up to the cap all the time, and save some room for unexpected surprises - either players that all of a sudden become available, or needs that all of a sudden pop up due to injuries, or whatever. The Flyers seem to equate not spending to the cap all the time with not trying hard enough. I don't think you'll ever see them save cap space if they think they can spend it to get better. So I think what we'll see is the team continue to spend everything they can. They'll make whatever moves are needed to allow them to stay compliant and make the moves they think they should to better the tam. Weather or not this results in cap mismanagement will depend on what moves they have to make to stay compliant, and what those moves cost them in terms of assets.
- BringBack25

That's exactly how I view it. They don't have a cap problem, but they put themselves into a very tight corner that may hinder them down the line later in the season. But they, right now, are fine.

I don't think they have one now.

This is the thing, the Flyers seem to want to spend up to the cap all the time, and then make whatever moves they have to in order to do what they want. Other teams "save" some cap space for emergencies (or because they can't afford to spend to the cap all the time). A byproduct of this strategy is the moves that cost the team significant assets. The Flyers roll the dice, or take the calculated gamble that injuries, or other developments will occur and allow them to do what they want without losing significant assets. Doesn't always work out that way. But that's how they roll.

The only way to protect against this is to not spend up to the cap all the time, and save some room for unexpected surprises - either players that all of a sudden become available, or needs that all of a sudden pop up due to injuries, or whatever. The Flyers seem to equate not spending to the cap all the time with not trying hard enough. I don't think you'll ever see them save cap space if they think they can spend it to get better. So I think what we'll see is the team continue to spend everything they can. They'll make whatever moves are needed to allow them to stay compliant and make the moves they think they should to better the tam. Weather or not this results in cap mismanagement will depend on what moves they have to make to stay compliant, and what those moves cost them in terms of assets.
- BringBack25

While a agree with most of what you said, IMO the Flyers do have to take some things into consideration. First is Pronger and the way his injury and contract effect the team. Second and most important, I think that if they are going to spend to the cap, then don't give out so many NMC or NTC's. That way if you do need to make a move with assets, your not limited to the assets you have to choose from.

I don't know what you're talking about with half of this.. its not even what I was talking about. Please re-read my last post.



Of course every team is limited by the cap. Who ever said it doesn't exist for them? Huh?


What label? Cap Problems? Just because a limitation exist for every team does not mean that teams don't have to find solutions to different things once they approach the cap.


If I'm at an ATM trying to take out $10,000 but I can't because the ATM doesn't allow that much at once, I have a problem. That same problem exist for everyone who tries to use that ATM. Not everyone tries to take out that much at once, so others don't experience this problem too often, or not at all.

So since I cannot take out $10,000 at the ATM, I have a problem, that requires a solution. I'm having an ATM limitation problem, not a problem handling ATMs.

Problem = Something that needs a solution. So when the Flyers can't sign X player because there is a cap in place, that means that the problem is that there IS a cap. Not the Flyers.


I'm not saying the Flyers are a problem, I'm saying the cap presents problems that requires solutions. AKA Cap problems.


If they cannot sign player X because of the cap, it means the team is running into cap problems, not problems managing the cap.
- mikel33

The issue is how do you differentiate between a team that has Cap problems, and a team that doesn't. Because your idea of what a Cap problem is, doesn't do that.
The analogy you offer is badly flawed and here's why. First of all let's equate the 10M to the Upper Limit, and the ATM to the Salary cap. The first flaw is that stated that you have to get the 10M from two different ATM"s. That's incorrect. Every team has 10M (Upper Limit) available to them, and they all get it from the same single ATM (Salary Cap). So that's the first flaw. The "problems that require solutions" as you put it, equates to how to spend that 10M, or to even spend it all. Every team has to make the same decisions. How do they spend the 10M and how much of it do they spend? That is the correct analogy. So the decisions that the Flyers have to make, is no different then any other team. But the Flyers decide to spend all of the 10M. Other teams don't, for various reasons.
Now you have to look at how they spend the 10M, what the final result is. Do the Flyers always get their money's worth with every decision they make? Of course not. Lot's of variables there. The Flyers couldn't control how well Bryzgalov played. Or that Chris Pronger would get injured. ut is that Cap mismanagement? Not in my opinion. Do the Flyers put a quality team on paper on the ice every year? I think they do. Have they done that this year? I think they have. Do they still have Cap flexibility? Yes, they do in my opinion.

The problem is that many want to equate the Flyers with a Cap problem, because after already withdrawing the 10M from the ATM, they decided they want to try and get something else, and try to withdraw 2M more. And it's not available, so they have a Cap problem. Well they don't. They just have to get the best bang for their 10M like every other team does.

That's exactly how I view it. They don't have a cap problem, but they put themselves into a very tight corner that may hinder them down the line later in the season. But they, right now, are fine.
- jmatchett383

And the way I see it, the fact that they are putting themsleves into a tight corner is a problem.

It's like living paycheck to paycheck. Sure right now, you have enough money to get by every week, but you cant save any money... So do you have a problem right now? No, but in 2 weeks when your car breaks down and you need to replace the clutch.... and you dont have money saved up..... now you have a problem. So IMO it was a problem to being with that they don't give themselves enough room to plan for issues.

And the way I see it, the fact that they are putting themsleves into a tight corner is a problem.

It's like living paycheck to paycheck. Sure right now, you have enough money to get by every week, but you cant save any money... So do you have a problem right now? No, but in 2 weeks when your car breaks down and you need to replace the clutch.... and you dont have money saved up..... now you have a problem. So IMO it was a problem to being with that they don't give themselves enough room to plan for issues.
- youarewrong

I agree. I'm just stating that, per the definition that was given, they do not have a cap problem at this current moment. They may have one in the future based on the decisions made now, but per the definition given, they have not yet incurred a situation necessitating a problem. They are simply very tight to the cap right now.

has anybody else noticed...

that kukla's korner has morphed into a DET dominated blog site recently...

has anybody else noticed...

that kukla's korner has morphed into a DET dominated blog site recently...
- isaiah520

Agreed, although not sure how recent this is. Always seemed that way to me.

I agree. I'm just stating that, per the definition that was given, they do not have a cap problem at this current moment. They may have one in the future based on the decisions made now, but per the definition given, they have not yet incurred a situation necessitating a problem. They are simply very tight to the cap right now.
- jmatchett383

I didn't see the defination, but wouldn't not being able to sign a guy to a NHL contract and instead giving him a PTO contract, then he leaves for another team.... was that not a situation that because of how close they are to the cap and moves that would have had to be made to become cap complinatent.... it stopped a signing...

Agreed, although not sure how recent this is. Always seemed that way to me.
- BringBack25

i hadn't noticed such a glaring bias until recently

I didn't see the defination, but wouldn't not being able to sign a guy to a NHL contract and instead giving him a PTO contract, then he leaves for another team.... was that not a situation that because of how close they are to the cap and moves that would have had to be made to become cap complinatent.... it stopped a signing...
- youarewrong

The definition was, loosely, that you have to lose a significant asset in order to make a move. The most apparent case of this was being forced to trade Upshall+ for Carcillo to ensure that Giroux could play. For the Cleary signing, they did not have to give up a significant asset; rather, they were unable to acquire one, but they did not lose an existing asset.

While a agree with most of what you said, IMO the Flyers do have to take some things into consideration. First is Pronger and the way his injury and contract effect the team. Second and most important, I think that if they are going to spend to the cap, then don't give out so many NMC or NTC's. That way if you do need to make a move with assets, your not limited to the assets you have to choose from.
- youarewrong

I've got an idea. How about drafting well?

OK, probably too much to ask for. How about drafting occasionally well?

Since the 2003 draft which yielded Ricards and Carter, they've chosen a grand total of 3 top six players - two of which were selected 2nd and 8th overall (of course, the jury's still out on the last two drafts) - and one serviceable d-man (Sbisa, whom they quickly moved).

That would go a looong way to alleviating some of their cap issues.

I've got an idea. How about drafting well?

OK, probably too much to ask for. How about drafting occasionally well?

Since the 2003 draft which yielded Ricards and Carter, they've chosen a grand total of 3 top six players - two of which were selected 2nd and 8th overall (of course, the jury's still out on the last two drafts) - and one serviceable d-man (Sbisa, whom they quickly moved).

That would go a looong way to alleviating some of their cap issues.
- 77rams

It's not so much drafting, it's more patience. They need to learn to develop players instead of rushing them.

I've got an idea. How about drafting well?

OK, probably too much to ask for. How about drafting occasionally well?

Since the 2003 draft which yielded Ricards and Carter, they've chosen a grand total of 3 top six players - two of which were selected 2nd and 8th overall (of course, the jury's still out on the last two drafts) - and one serviceable d-man (Sbisa, whom they quickly moved).

That would go a looong way to alleviating some of their cap issues.
- 77rams

Well, in the last 5 years they have had 3 1st rounders, two second rounders, and six third rounders.

Kind of hard to draft well when you don't have the high picks to do so.

If we stretch it back to 7 years, to cover the entire Holmgren era, they have had an additional 2 first rounders, one additional second rounders and two additional thirds.

So in 7 years, that's 5 first rounders, 3 seconds and 8 third round picks.

It's not so much drafting, it's more patience. They need to learn to develop players instead of rushing them.
- jmatchett383

They could've had the patience of a saint, that wouldn't have helped with any of the draft slop they had chosen over the last ten years.

[quote=Jsaquella]Well, in the last 5 years they have had 3 1st rounders, two second rounders, and six third rounders.

You can actually defend their draft history?

Why did they trade away those precious picks? To fill needs. Draft (occasionally) well and perhaps you don't have those needs to fill.

Hell, I'd keep Brad Marsh at age 58 over Gill.
- Jsaquella

has anybody else noticed...

that kukla's korner has morphed into a DET dominated blog site recently...
- isaiah520

it's based out of Detroit and that's how it started

I really, really, really wish the darn season would start already so we can all stop talking about the frankin salary cap!!

[quote=Jsaquella]Well, in the last 5 years they have had 3 1st rounders, two second rounders, and six third rounders.

You can actually defend their draft history?

Why did they trade away those precious picks? To fill needs. Draft (occasionally) well and perhaps you don't have those needs to fill.
- 77rams

I wasn't really fond of the last 2 years of pick the Flyers have made at the time they made them. But Laughton looks like a player. unfortunately a player that we dont necessarrly need.... Giroux, Couturier, Lecavalier, Schenn..... but still going to be a good player.

I think if you at the time since Homer has taken over, the draft picks have been pretty darn good, when they had them. They lost 3 over the pronger deal, but, kay sara sarah... or whatever.

I really, really, really wish the darn season would start already so we can all stop talking about the frankin salary cap!!

- BiggE

Yes I can wait until we start picking apart how bad people are in the first month of the season....

Hartnell will be traded by Thanksgiving..... mark my words....

The issue is how do you diffrentiate between a team that has Cap problems, and a team that doesn't. Because your idea of what a Cap problem is, doesn't do that.
The analogy you offer is badly flawed and here's why. First of all let's equate the 10M to the Upper Limit, and the ATM to the Salary cap. The first flaw is that stated that you have to get the 10M from two different ATM"s. That's incorrect. Every team has 10M (Upper Limit) available to them, and they all get it from the same single ATM (Salary Cap). So that's the first flaw. The "problems that require solutions" as you put it, equates to how to spend that 10M, or to even spend it all. Every team has to make the same decisions. How do they spend the 10M and how much of it do they spend? That is the correct analogy. So the decisions that the Flyers have to make, is no different then any other team. But the Flyers decide to spend all of the 10M. Other teams don't, for various reasons.
Now you have to look at how they spend the 10M, what the final result is. Do the Flyers always get their money's worth with every decision they make? Of course not. Lot's of variables there. The Flyers couldn't control how well Bryzgalov played. Or that Chris Pronger would get injured. ut is that Cap mismanagement? Not in my opinion. Do the Flyers put a quality team on paper on the ice every year? I think they do. Have they done that this year? I think they have. Do they still have Cap flexibility? Yes, they do in my opinion.

The problem is that many want to equate the Flyers with a Cap problem, because after already witdrawing the 10M from the ATM, they decided they want to try and get something else, and try to withdraw 2M more. And it's not available, so they have a Cap problem. Well they don't. They jsut have to get the best bang for their 10M like every other team does.
- MJL

No, my analogy is not flawed.. You are defining problem differently than me. To me.. if I attempt to get $10,000 and I can't, I have a problem. I need a solution.

I don't care about all that other stuff.

prob·lem (prblm)
n.
1. A question to be considered, solved, or answered: math problems; the problem of how to arrange transportation.

**The problem of how to get X player when dealing with a salary cap.

[quote=Jsaquella]Well, in the last 5 years they have had 3 1st rounders, two second rounders, and six third rounders.

You can actually defend their draft history?

Why did they trade away those precious picks? To fill needs. Draft (occasionally) well and perhaps you don't have those needs to fill.
- 77rams

Actually they're a pretty solid drafting team over the past decade or so. Considering their track record in the first round, they should never trade another pick unless its for a bona fide star.

The biggest issue they have had is dealing away picks and missing in round two when they have had picks.

They could've had the patience of a saint, that wouldn't have helped with any of the draft slop they had chosen over the last ten years.
- 77rams

They haven't missed on any of their first rounders over the past 10 years:
Jeff Carter
Mike Richards
Steve Downie
Claude Giroux
JvR
Luca Sbisa
Sean Couturier
Scott Laughton (?)
Samuel Morin (?)

But you could argue they were very impatient. Sbisa was brought right into the NHL, and the Flyers were apparently angry with JvR for playing an extra season. Downie would have been brought srraight into the NHL had he not killed Dean McAmmond. Outside of the 1st round, they have drafted:

Bartulis (3)
Kalinski (6)
MAB (3)
Rinaldo (6)
Wellwood (5)
Lauridsen (7)
McGinn (4)
Cousins (3)
Noebels (4)

That's not bad value drafting, as most late round picks (3+) are considered long-shots to ever crack the NHL lineup, let alone to be full-time players. Since the time when they brought Downie straight in and gave Giroux a guaranateed spot as a rookie, they seem to have wisened up. Now, they're letting their young players actually develop, and when they're brought up, they're more prepared for it.