Didn't say he's been perfect (see Carle, Matt).

Haven't needed to move Ohlund thus we didn't offer an asset to anyone to do this. Both Philly and Boston made their moves b/c they were in cap hell.
- uf1910

philly and boston didn't need to move those guys either. they could have put them on LTIR, same as TB did with ohlund. Really, they just bundled them as part of another trade.

But the actual cap space they created is better than the LTIR cap space TB has.

Again, it's nit picky, but a signal to me that a GM isn't doing everything they can to max their cap space.

Tough to compete with the Chicago and LA's when they are finding ways to use the cap more efficiently.

I would suspect that Val Filppula, Matt Carle, and Braydon Coburn are more on the trade-bubble than Drouin is, in spite of Drouin's agent's ill-advised press release.

I would suspect that Val Filppula, Matt Carle, and Braydon Coburn are more on the trade-bubble than Drouin is, in spite of Drouin's agent's ill-advised press release.
- TommyRitas

Not gonna move those guys alone, gonna have to add value to go along with all the cap space

I would suspect that Val Filppula, Matt Carle, and Braydon Coburn are more on the trade-bubble than Drouin is, in spite of Drouin's agent's ill-advised press release.
- TommyRitas

Several seasoned TSN insiders disagree with you.

Soooo...

More making poop up! How has he produced better?
Yak 0.49 pts per game ( 1st 2 seasons)
Drouin o.42 points per game.

Yakupov scored 0.49 points per game his 1st 2 seasons on argue able the worst team in the league playing mostly with 3rd liners. Saying he has been given better opportunities to succeed than Drouin in just a bunch of Malarkey made up by people trying to paint a picture.

That's like me saying the main reason Drouin scored more Points in Junior was because he played with Nate Mackinnon, and not Alex Galchenyuck who was on the shelf for half of Yaks Jr career ......except that what I'm saying has more truth to it.

Yak did not have a better opportunity under Dallas Eakins than Drouin.
- Jeropotato

I mentioned number of games played for a reason. You can just add up his Ppg totals and say it's better than Drouin when you're using more games to do so. And again the opportunity would also be the ice time which Yakupov has consistently gotten more of in games. I don't care that Yakupov played with 3rd liners. Who do you think Drouin played with when he was getting 7min a game?

Keep telling me I'm making poop up and ignore the factual stuff I put forth though. Again this all started cause you made some groundless statement that Yakupov was better than Drouin and didn't bother to explain why you think so.

I agree with all...except that he will not sign in TO for ridiculous money....he will sign on TO for a lot less than most think because he wants to be a Leaf.
- Jeropotato

ya no..

it will be 12M per, for 7...

I mentioned number of games played for a reason. You can just add up his Ppg totals and say it's better than Drouin when you're using more games to do so. And again the opportunity would also be the ice time which Yakupov has consistently gotten more of in games. I don't care that Yakupov played with 3rd liners. Who do you think Drouin played with when he was getting 7min a game?

Keep telling me I'm making poop up and ignore the factual stuff I put forth though. Again this all started cause you made some groundless statement that Yakupov was better than Drouin and didn't bother to explain why you think so.
- ehabs9

He struggles with words, you need to add a couple dozen emoticons to get your point across to him

ya no..

it will be 12M per, for 7...
- Xizord

Mckenizie pegged him at 9-11/year

with the year he's having, he's probably put himself in the lower end of that range

ya no..

it will be 12M per, for 7...
- Xizord

dude, didn't you know? everyone from Canada always wants to be a Leaf. Why else would they have picked up a hockey stock to begin with? gosh

Mckenizie pegged him at 9-11/year

with the year he's having, he's probably put himself in the lower end of that range
- Tumbleweed

Hes still gonna get top dollars I would think

HOLY poop!!


- glove_was_stuck

dude, didn't you know? everyone from Canada always wants to be a Leaf. Why else would they have picked up a hockey stock to begin with? gosh
- steponmytoe

Good point, sorry I forgot !

Hes still gonna get top dollars I would think
- obie

9-10 is still top dollar

9-10 is still top dollar
- Tumbleweed

Oh yea, that's what I was saying, no discout

9-10 is still top dollar
- Tumbleweed

My guess is 10.5. This year is hurting though

Alain Vigneault says Emerson Etem has been assigned to AHL for conditioning #NYR

philly and boston didn't need to move those guys either. they could have put them on LTIR, same as TB did with ohlund. Really, they just bundled them as part of another trade.

But the actual cap space they created is better than the LTIR cap space TB has.

Again, it's nit picky, but a signal to me that a GM isn't doing everything they can to max their cap space.

Tough to compete with the Chicago and LA's when they are finding ways to use the cap more efficiently.
- Tumbleweed

Not quite as simple as you make it. Tampa didn't need to subtract an asset to create "real" cap space vs the LTIR formula b/c we weren't in nearly as desperate of a situation as Boston or Philly. Sure Yzerman could have created the actual space, but in doing so he would have had to subtract an asset to get another team to do this, all the while Bolts weren't at the cap and weren't having trouble fielding a full roster and/or trading players like Boston (Boychuk) did to remain cap compliant. So given this, why would Yzerman want to subtract an asset to create space for a team that didn't need extra space given we have a full roster and players (Drouin) who can't find regular ice time?

Alain Vigneault says Emerson Etem has been assigned to AHL for conditioning #NYR
- Symba007

Good fckg Riddance!!! He sucks

Not gonna move those guys alone, gonna have to add value to go along with all the cap space
- obie

Coburn is pending UFA so if he is moved it is a deadline rental

Agreed on the others

philly and boston didn't need to move those guys either. they could have put them on LTIR, same as TB did with ohlund. Really, they just bundled them as part of another trade.

But the actual cap space they created is better than the LTIR cap space TB has.

Again, it's nit picky, but a signal to me that a GM isn't doing everything they can to max their cap space.

Tough to compete with the Chicago and LA's when they are finding ways to use the cap more efficiently.
- Tumbleweed

(iv) The replacement Player Salary and Bonuses for any Player(s) that replace(s) an unfit-to-play Player may be added to the Club's Averaged Club Salary until such time as the Club's Averaged Club Salary reaches the Upper Limit. A Club may then exceed the Upper Limit due to the addition of replacement Player Salary and Bonuses of Players who have replaced an unfit-to-play Player, provided, however, that when the unfit-to-play Player is once again fit to play (including any period such Player is on a Bona Fide Long-Term Injury/Illness Exception Conditioning Loan to another league), the Club shall be required to once again reduce its Averaged Club Salary to a level at or below the Upper Limit prior to the Player being able to rejoin the Club.

This is why Boston/Philly were in tougher spot than Bolts. Granted none of the players in question are returning so that part is mute, but the rest is the exact reason why Tampa received little to no benefit from moving Ohlund while Boston Philly both did

(iv) The replacement Player Salary and Bonuses for any Player(s) that replace(s) an unfit-to-play Player may be added to the Club's Averaged Club Salary until such time as the Club's Averaged Club Salary reaches the Upper Limit. A Club may then exceed the Upper Limit due to the addition of replacement Player Salary and Bonuses of Players who have replaced an unfit-to-play Player, provided, however, that when the unfit-to-play Player is once again fit to play (including any period such Player is on a Bona Fide Long-Term Injury/Illness Exception Conditioning Loan to another league), the Club shall be required to once again reduce its Averaged Club Salary to a level at or below the Upper Limit prior to the Player being able to rejoin the Club.

This is why Boston/Philly were in tougher spot than Bolts. Granted none of the players in question are returning so that part is mute, but the rest is the exact reason why Tampa received little to no benefit from moving Ohlund while Boston Philly both did
- uf1910

i think we're going down different roads here.

Boston and Philly could have kept Savard and Pronger, put them on LTIR and remained cap compliant. Same as they did last year, same as TB did with Ohlund.

This is how i understand the impact of LTIR from a practical prespective:

Yzerman will only be able to add a contract with about $1.5M remaining on it at the deadline with having Ohlund on LTIR. This is because LTIR space not used is not bankable.

If he traded Ohlund's contract before the start of the year (and not replaced it), he would have been able to add a contract with $3.5M of remaining cap hit on it. Trading the contract would have created bankable space.

Not quite as simple as you make it. Tampa didn't need to subtract an asset to create "real" cap space vs the LTIR formula b/c we weren't in nearly as desperate of a situation as Boston or Philly. Sure Yzerman could have created the actual space, but in doing so he would have had to subtract an asset to get another team to do this, all the while Bolts weren't at the cap and weren't having trouble fielding a full roster and/or trading players like Boston (Boychuk) did to remain cap compliant. So given this, why would Yzerman want to subtract an asset to create space for a team that didn't need extra space given we have a full roster and players (Drouin) who can't find regular ice time?
- uf1910

http://www.broadstreethoc...jured-reserve-is-not-good

i think we're going down different roads here.

Boston and Philly could have kept Savard and Pronger, put them on LTIR and remained cap compliant. Same as they did last year, same as TB did with Ohlund.

This is how i understand the impact of LTIR from a practical prespective:

Yzerman will only be able to add a contract with about $1.5M remaining on it at the deadline with having Ohlund on LTIR. This is because LTIR space not used is not bankable.

If he traded Ohlund's contract before the start of the year (and not replaced it), he would have been able to add a contract with $3.5M of remaining cap hit on it. Trading the contract would have created bankable space.
- Tumbleweed

LTIR applies if/when a team reaches the upper limit (which the Bolts were not at) and the "replacement" player(s) are subtracted from the injured player's salary that can be added to the upper limit provided said team is at upper limit. That is how I understand it and believe we are on same page with your $1.5 number for Ohlund.

Again I ask, a team that wasn't at the cap with a roster full of players who can't find enough ice time for young players already on the roster needed additional space for what? Extra cap space isn't "bankable" either if we are using bankable in terms of using in following seasons. If you meant for the current season again I ask why this would matter when the Bolts didn't need additional cap space to make any needed acquisitions as evidenced by the fact we had no issue trading for Coburn and his $4.5M cap hit.

I get that Boston nor Philly had to move Savard or Pronger, but you are kidding yourself if you think it didn't benefit them to do that. Consequently you are also kidding yourself if you are assuming that including them in their respective deals wasn't a form of negative value for the acquiring teams, meaning both Boston and Philly had to either accept lesser returning value than if the LTIR players weren't included or had to give up more value to offset the negative value they were trading away. So again I ask how their situations are comparable to the Bolts since the Bolts weren't hamstrung to make additional acquisitions (Coburn) and consequently didn't have to make negative deals (Boychuk) to maintain a competitive team and remain cap compliant. And assuming you can make the case they are comparable I also ask why the Bolts should have done a move like this given Yzerman was able to make moves to improve team.

http://www.broadstreethockey.com/2014/10/15/6951103/why-long-term-injured-reserve-is-not-good
- Tumbleweed

I will repeat...

We did not need the additional space that moving Ohlund would have provided.

LTIR applies if/when a team reaches the upper limit (which the Bolts were not at) and the "replacement" player(s) are subtracted from the injured player's salary that can be added to the upper limit provided said team is at upper limit. That is how I understand it and believe we are on same page with your $1.5 number for Ohlund.

Again I ask, a team that wasn't at the cap with a roster full of players who can't find enough ice time for young players already on the roster needed additional space for what? Extra cap space isn't "bankable" either if we are using bankable in terms of using in following seasons. If you meant for the current season again I ask why this would matter when the Bolts didn't need additional cap space to make any needed acquisitions as evidenced by the fact we had no issue trading for Coburn and his $4.5M cap hit.

I get that Boston nor Philly had to move Savard or Pronger, but you are kidding yourself if you think it didn't benefit them to do that. Consequently you are also kidding yourself if you are assuming that including them in their respective deals wasn't a form of negative value for the acquiring teams, meaning both Boston and Philly had to either accept lesser returning value than if the LTIR players weren't included or had to give up more value to offset the negative value they were trading away. So again I ask how their situations are comparable to the Bolts since the Bolts weren't hamstrung to make additional acquisitions (Coburn) and consequently didn't have to make negative deals (Boychuk) to maintain a competitive team and remain cap compliant. And assuming you can make the case they are comparable I also ask why the Bolts should have done a move like this given Yzerman was able to make moves to improve team.
- uf1910

I'm basing it on this:

https://www.hockeyscap.com/teams/lightning

On the daily tracker, they have $3.5M of Ohlunds $3.6M as LTIR relief. That tells me TB was right up against the cap.

I disagree philly/bos had to accept lesser returns. My understanding is both of those contracts are insured. Even if they weren't - both have minimal actual salary left on them. AZ and Florida acquired those contracts to their benefit - in order to ensure they exceed the cap floor.