What's funny is that I go back and forth on this one.

Most of the people posting in this particular board are "have" teams (Toronto, Boston, Montreal) so a soft cap is extremely beneficial to us, and makes a lot of sense.

I have some friends who cheer for "have-not" teams, and prior to the cap, they were basically feeder teams. Draft a player, build them up, and watch them walk into Free Agency to a team that can afford them. Perhaps trade them while they're an RFA because you can't afford them then.

Poorer teams reap the rewards of the soft cap system in financial payouts, but the truth is they can never compete in that type of system financially - not on a larger scale (maybe they can keep one guy, but not two) - and all the while, because it's a soft-cap system, teams that can exceed the cap, raise the stakes and the salaries of everyone, causing the "have-not" teams to have even less.
- Monkeypunk

If the soft cap was like 20% above, I agree but if it's 5%-10% over, it'd be a nice balance and everybody would win.

The teams with money usually spend it unwisely anyway and in many cases would end up being eaten up with a bad "Lucic contract".

But, all the broke ass teams would get that extra money which could help them become more competitive, maybe keep or sign a player they wouldn't be able to normally get.

Marner will miss training camp and wont be signed when season starts
- Sandro

Sandro bolded this, so it must be true.

That kind of pissed me off last time, not going to lie. It wasn't a part of the CBA in which those contracts were signed. Teams got reckless and were gifted compliance buyouts after the fact.
- RickJames77

If it goes to a vote - most teams have a sh!t contract or three, my guess is it gets passed. Its easier to pass than the notion of a luxury tax where teams that rake money will have a clear financial advantage over the have nots.

What's funny is that I go back and forth on this one.

Most of the people posting in this particular board are "have" teams (Toronto, Boston, Montreal) so a soft cap is extremely beneficial to us, and makes a lot of sense.

I have some friends who cheer for "have-not" teams, and prior to the cap, they were basically feeder teams. Draft a player, build them up, and watch them walk into Free Agency to a team that can afford them. Perhaps trade them while they're an RFA because you can't afford them then.

Poorer teams reap the rewards of the soft cap system in financial payouts, but the truth is they can never compete in that type of system financially - not on a larger scale (maybe they can keep one guy, but not two) - and all the while, because it's a soft-cap system, teams that can exceed the cap, raise the stakes and the salaries of everyone, causing the "have-not" teams to have even less.
- Monkeypunk

If the league didn't have 10 teams losing money every year none of this matters.

Not that this is a soft cap situation, but the same can be said for football leagues across the world. I root for a "have-not" team in the premier league and it can be tough at times. These last few transfer windows in particular
- RickJames77

Scottish Premier League.

Celtic have won the last 8 years in a row.

The last time a team other than Rangers or Celtic won a championship was 1985.

What's the franking point in even watching?

Not that this is a soft cap situation, but the same can be said for football leagues across the world. I root for a "have-not" team in the premier league and it can be tough at times. These last few transfer windows in particular
- RickJames77

Soccer is completely different because they don't have a draft or a cap at all.

It's just about who can generate the most money from sponsors, fans and who can cheat the Financial Fair Play rules the most effectively.

What they need is to have a Champions League for just the big spending teams and categorize teams by how much money they spend and allow teams to be promoted and relegated to that league.

If the soft cap was like 20% above, I agree but if it's 5%-10% over, it'd be a nice balance and everybody would win.

The teams with money usually spend it unwisely anyway and in many cases would end up being eaten up with a bad "Lucic contract".

But, all the broke ass teams would get that extra money which could help them become more competitive, maybe keep or sign a player they wouldn't be able to normally get.
- JohnFergusonJr

With no cap the Rangers spent the most money and still sucked very year.

If it goes to a vote - most teams have a sh!t contract or three, my guess is it gets passed. Its easier to pass than the notion of a luxury tax where teams that rake money will have a clear financial advantage over the have nots.
- winsix

True - I was sour because a lot of teams benefited from it and the Bruins really didn't have a bad contract at the time. Considering Chiarelli was our GM that was very surprising

Scottish Premier League.

Celtic have won the last 8 years in a row.

The last time a team other than Rangers or Celtic won a championship was 1985.

What's the franking point in even watching?
- Atomic Wedgie

European soccer fans are infatuated with derbies. They live for the crosstown rivalry games. The rest of the season is a drunken joke.

Scottish Premier League.

Celtic have won the last 8 years in a row.

The last time a team other than Rangers or Celtic won a championship was 1985.

What's the franking point in even watching?
- Atomic Wedgie

Agreed.

The more competitive every team can be, the better.

If the league didn't have 10 teams losing money every year none of this matters.
- aminnes

You know, there was a time when Edmonton, Calgary, Vancouver and Ottawa were losing money, and the other teams in the league (mostly US ones) gave them money to keep the franchises afloat.

With no cap the Rangers spent the most money and still sucked very year.
- aminnes

I've been laughing about this all day in Ek's thread.

We need a cap because without it, the Rangers and Leafs would dominate, even though the Rangers won once in 65 years and the Leafs didn't win past 1967 until the salary cap was brought in.

Agreed.

The more competitive every team can be, the better.
- Scabeh

Agreed - although, that one year my team did actually win was pretty spectacular

You know, there was a time when Edmonton, Calgary, Vancouver and Ottawa were losing money, and the other teams in the league (mostly US ones) gave them money to keep the franchises afloat.
- Atomic Wedgie

At the end of the 90's. Habs were having troubles as well.

Team wasn't performing, wasn't making money and eventually got sold to Mr. Gillet for a bargain of a price.

We couldn't attract any UFAs and kept trading our best players away.... hell kinda like the Expos did before dying in 2004.

Sure the Canadian dollar rising in value helped but the new CBA did wonders for every team.

I've been laughing about this all day in Ek's thread.

We need a cap because without it, the Rangers and Leafs would dominate, even though the Rangers won once in 65 years and the Leafs didn't win past 1967 until the salary cap was brought in.
- Atomic Wedgie

Detroit, did however, kick a lot of ass and at times spent even more than both of them.

With a lower free agency age though, rich teams would definitely dominate. It seemed like the Leafs and Rangers always spent the most money but the best players to spend it on were never UFAs. So they spent it on really old guys instead.

True - I was sour because a lot of teams benefited from it and the Bruins really didn't have a bad contract at the time. Considering Chiarelli was our GM that was very surprising
- RickJames77

I think Backes would be at the top of the list for Boston and Ceci for the Leafs. Teams like LA, Anaheim, Chicago and Vancouver would receive a get out of jail card free. Even the sh!ttiest team in the league would benefit by getting rid of Bobby Ryan. Only issue with that is Melnyk would have to fork over money and the Sens would have to find a way to get to the Cap floor.

You know, there was a time when Edmonton, Calgary, Vancouver and Ottawa were losing money, and the other teams in the league (mostly US ones) gave them money to keep the franchises afloat.
- Atomic Wedgie

Yes we've been over this, somewhere between 5 and 10 million. Woop tee do. And teams like Phoenix Florida have never made money in 20 plus years. It's not the same thing. Canadian teams have had tiny windows of money loss.

So the Gronk Monster flavour is tastes like Red Bull, thought you should know.

So the Gronk Monster flavour is tastes like Red Bull, thought you should know.
- TheMussel

The only time I've consumed an energy drink is while doing a jagerbomb. I've never drank an energy drink on it's own before. Probably a good thing..

Agreed.

The more competitive every team can be, the better.
- Scabeh

Good Lord, you just destroyed that chump in Karine's thread.

Good work.

I think Backes would be at the top of the list for Boston and Ceci for the Leafs. Teams like LA, Anaheim, Chicago and Vancouver would receive a get out of jail card free. Even the sh!ttiest team in the league would benefit by getting rid of Bobby Ryan. Only issue with that is Melnyk would have to fork over money and the Sens would have to find a way to get to the Cap floor.
- winsix

It would 100% be Backes. I was just saying back when the compliance buyouts happened we didn't have one we wanted to buy out until a few years after they were allowed to be used. Is Ceci really worth buying out for a single year? The Leafs are in good shape contract wise...not any bad contracts really after Dubas' maneuvering this off season.

Good Lord, you just destroyed that chump in Karine's thread.

Good work.
- Atomic Wedgie

wtf is capitalist for socialist taxes

new blog everyone

It would 100% be Backes. I was just saying back when the compliance buyouts happened we didn't have one we wanted to buy out until a few years after they were allowed to be used. Is Ceci really worth buying out for a single year? The Leafs are in good shape contract wise...not any bad contracts really after Dubas' maneuvering this off season.
- RickJames77

While fans may have differing opinions on buying out Ceci, if you strictly look at Dubas' actions, you are forced to come to the conclusion that they think he will play on the Leafs this year.

They could have not offered him any kind of deal and forced him to accept the qualifying offer.

They could have frontloaded his contract so that they could trade him for a 7th round pick.

They could have done lots and lots and lots of sneaky things.

Instead, they gave him a contract better than his qualifying offer, with no upfront money.

I love all that Dubas has done this summer, so I'm just going to have to keep the faith on this one.

Ceci is going to be awesome.

The Toronto Maple Leafs announced the signings of six forwards and a defenceman on Wednesday.

Forwards Pontus Aberg, Kenny Agostino, Tyler Gaudet, Kalle Kossila

Here are the details of each signing:

Pontus Aberg: One-year, $700,000 (More details)

Kenny Agostino: Two-year, $1.475 million (More details)

Tyler Gaudet: One-year, $700,000 (More details)

Kalle Kossila: Two-year, 1.4 million (More details)

Nick Shore: One-year, $750,000 (More details)

Garrett Wilson: One-year, $725,000 (More details)

Kevin Gravel: One-year, $700,000 (More details)

https://www.sportsnet.ca/...even-free-agent-signings/
- JohnFergusonJr

well, looks like they were holding on to all these contracts until after the clarkson trade.

almost as if they planned it that way.