Bill Meltzer: Meltzer's Musings: Friday Hockey Fix, Results Roundup

Bill Meltzer: Meltzer's Musings: Friday Hockey Fix, Results Roundup
- bmeltzer

Bill, Thank you for all the hard work!!

Boooyah...2nd!!!

Bill,
did you get a chance to go to the Philadelphia Sports Induction, (Lindros)?

Thanks Bill!

Its been a pleasure to watch this series, and of course I was very excited to get a glimpse of Laughton. What did you asses from his limited ice time? I thought he had good puck handling and possesion in the corners, finished checks and in the 3rd he had a great center pass after wheeling from the corner to someone above the dot who couldnt get a great shot after a pretty good play from Scott.

How do you ese his stock for the WJC team? Do you think he is a lock is someone elses stock climbing?

I wasn't very impressed with Koekkook (spelling) but I did like the play from Ceci. I hope the Russian player who took the puck to the side of the face from the Ceci shot is okay, any status on him?

Bill Meltzer: Meltzer's Musings: Friday Hockey Fix, Results Roundup
- bmeltzer

Hey Bill and word on what Luke Schenn has been up to.. I almost forgot he was on the team...

Boooyah...2nd!!!

Bill,
did you get a chance to go to the Philadelphia Sports Induction, (Lindros)?
- phi1671

Wasn't there, but it would have been cool to cover it.

Hey Bill and word on what Luke Schenn has been up to.. I almost forgot he was on the team...
- jak521

He's been working out in Canada with some other players, last I heard. A lot of defensive defensemen have been in the same boat. Teams in Europe really aren't clamoring for them unless the insurance is inexpensive.

OK, here is a proposal that would seem to satisfy both NHL and PA. I'm curious about your thoughts, especially MJL since you know a lot about the current CBA.

Since the PA wants to implement revenue sharing, large market teams are opposed to sharing revenue but would want to be able to spend more money on players, and Bettman wants a competitive product, why not explore this:

1. Teams can sell "cap space credits" to other teams, let's say 2 million dollars for $1m of cap space. The ratio could be changed depending upon the economics (say $2 mil / $500k).
2. All teams must spend to floor.
3. Teams cannot buy more than $5 million in cap space above ceiling, or some reasonable number.

The numbers can be tweaked as appropriate. But with more cash influx, the smaller market teams could potentially spend above the floor or at least break even financially. And really there is no correlation between spending and winning, as evidenced by cup winners over last 10 years.

And for PA, let's face it the Flyers, Rangers etc would drool over chance to go above cap. Since revenue split affects the floor and ceiling amounts, there is no guarantee that the actual payout would really be 50% anyway. In other words, if all teams spent to floor it would be lower. Since teams would have to spend to floor, but 10-15 teams would go over ceiling, the actual payout would likely be >50%.

The mechanics could be handled very easily. When cap for the following year is announced, each team submits cap adjustment proposal (on June 15 for example). They will either be buyers or sellers. The total available space from sellers is then allocated proportionately to buyers until each buyer and seller reach their proposal, or the total available credits run out. This becomes your cap for the entire hockey year.

It's actually an easy math problem to balance supply and demand and since this would be done before july 1, each team would know their cap prior to FA and throughout the year.

You could implement this Day 1 AND implement the 50/50 split right away as well, if you mandate that all current contracts are honored and teams must either trade players or buy cap space credits to become compliant. For example, if the cap was 62 million per team, the Flyers are 4 million over, so they could trade/release players or spend 8 million as an example to buy space.

With this 50/50 split is in year 1 and contracts still honored.

What do you guy think about this idea?

Thanks Bill!

Its been a pleasure to watch this series, and of course I was very excited to get a glimpse of Laughton. What did you asses from his limited ice time? I thought he had good puck handling and possesion in the corners, finished checks and in the 3rd he had a great center pass after wheeling from the corner to someone above the dot who couldnt get a great shot after a pretty good play from Scott.

How do you ese his stock for the WJC team? Do you think he is a lock is someone elses stock climbing?

I wasn't very impressed with Koekkook (spelling) but I did like the play from Ceci. I hope the Russian player who took the puck to the side of the face from the Ceci shot is okay, any status on him?
- justdoit28

I think Laughton has a shot at the WJC, but he isn't a lock by any means. We'll see what happens in December. I did think he played decently last night, especially since he's been serving that 10-game suspension (halfway there) and hadn't played in awhile.

OK, here is a proposal that would seem to satisfy both NHL and PA. I'm curious about your thoughts, especially MJL since you know a lot about the current CBA.

Since the PA wants to implement revenue sharing, large market teams are opposed to sharing revenue but would want to be able to spend more money on players, and Bettman wants a competitive product, why not explore this:

1. Teams can sell "cap space credits" to other teams, let's say 2 million dollars for $1m of cap space. The ratio could be changed depending upon the economics (say $2 mil / $500k).
2. All teams must spend to floor.
3. Teams cannot buy more than $5 million in cap space above ceiling, or some reasonable number.

The numbers can be tweaked as appropriate. But with more cash influx, the smaller market teams could potentially spend above the floor or at least break even financially. And really there is no correlation between spending and winning, as evidenced by cup winners over last 10 years.

And for PA, let's face it the Flyers, Rangers etc would drool over chance to go above cap. Since revenue split affects the floor and ceiling amounts, there is no guarantee that the actual payout would really be 50% anyway. In other words, if all teams spent to floor it would be lower. Since teams would have to spend to floor, but 10-15 teams would go over ceiling, the actual payout would likely be >50%.

The mechanics could be handled very easily. When cap for the following year is announced, each team submits cap adjustment proposal (on June 15 for example). They will either be buyers or sellers. The total available space from sellers is then allocated proportionately to buyers until each buyer and seller reach their proposal, or the total available credits run out. This becomes your cap for the entire hockey year.

It's actually an easy math problem to balance supply and demand and since this would be done before july 1, each team would know their cap prior to FA and throughout the year.

You could implement this Day 1 AND implement the 50/50 split right away as well, if you mandate that all current contracts are honored and teams must either trade players or buy cap space credits to become compliant. For example, if the cap was 62 million per team, the Flyers are 4 million over, so they could trade/release players or spend 8 million as an example to buy space.

With this 50/50 split is in year 1 and contracts still honored.

What do you guy think about this idea?
- TheGreat28

I think it's possible they end up doing something not too far from that.

I think it's possible they end up doing something not too far from that.
- bmeltzer

Thanks Bill. It would seem to be too pragmatic of a "compromise" for two knuckleheads that don't seem to have that word in their vocabulary.

I think Laughton has a shot at the WJC, but he isn't a lock by any means. We'll see what happens in December. I did think he played decently last night, especially since he's been serving that 10-game suspension (halfway there) and hadn't played in awhile.
- bmeltzer

Yeah, especially if the lockout continues he'd be hard pressed to find a spot. More of a chance if the NHL picks up and take some of the players that went back to juniors that otherwise would have had a shot at a roster spot.

Yeah, especially if the lockout continues he'd be hard pressed to find a spot. More of a chance if the NHL picks up and take some of the players that went back to juniors that otherwise would have had a shot at a roster spot.
- ob18

that makes sense. thanks guys!

that makes sense. thanks guys!
- justdoit28

Check this out

LOCKOUT WOULD IMPACT CANADIAN JUNIOR TEAM'S ROSTER

Prendergast wouldn't be surprised if centres Jonathan Huberdeau (Florida), Mark Scheifele (Winnipeg), Ryan Strome (New York Islanders), winger Boone Jenner (Columbus) and defencemen Ryan Murphy (Carolina) and Doug Hamilton (Boston) were summoned to hastily-called NHL camps.

"If that was the case, we'd lose our top three centres and if you throw Nugent-Hopkins in there, we'd lose our top four," he said. "Gulp."

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=408716

If that does happen then I'd say Laughton's chances increase to make the team a little.

OK, here is a proposal that would seem to satisfy both NHL and PA. I'm curious about your thoughts, especially MJL since you know a lot about the current CBA.

Since the PA wants to implement revenue sharing, large market teams are opposed to sharing revenue but would want to be able to spend more money on players, and Bettman wants a competitive product, why not explore this:

1. Teams can sell "cap space credits" to other teams, let's say 2 million dollars for $1m of cap space. The ratio could be changed depending upon the economics (say $2 mil / $500k).
2. All teams must spend to floor.
3. Teams cannot buy more than $5 million in cap space above ceiling, or some reasonable number.

The numbers can be tweaked as appropriate. But with more cash influx, the smaller market teams could potentially spend above the floor or at least break even financially. And really there is no correlation between spending and winning, as evidenced by cup winners over last 10 years.

And for PA, let's face it the Flyers, Rangers etc would drool over chance to go above cap. Since revenue split affects the floor and ceiling amounts, there is no guarantee that the actual payout would really be 50% anyway. In other words, if all teams spent to floor it would be lower. Since teams would have to spend to floor, but 10-15 teams would go over ceiling, the actual payout would likely be >50%.

The mechanics could be handled very easily. When cap for the following year is announced, each team submits cap adjustment proposal (on June 15 for example). They will either be buyers or sellers. The total available space from sellers is then allocated proportionately to buyers until each buyer and seller reach their proposal, or the total available credits run out. This becomes your cap for the entire hockey year.

It's actually an easy math problem to balance supply and demand and since this would be done before july 1, each team would know their cap prior to FA and throughout the year.

You could implement this Day 1 AND implement the 50/50 split right away as well, if you mandate that all current contracts are honored and teams must either trade players or buy cap space credits to become compliant. For example, if the cap was 62 million per team, the Flyers are 4 million over, so they could trade/release players or spend 8 million as an example to buy space.

With this 50/50 split is in year 1 and contracts still honored.

What do you guy think about this idea?
- TheGreat28

I think it's a great way of sharing revenue. And teams actually get something for their buck.

Todd Cordell ‏@ToddCordell
This should be interesting. RT @reporterchris Gary Bettman will address the media in five minutes.

Todd Cordell ‏@ToddCordell
This should be interesting. RT @reporterchris Gary Bettman will address the media in five minutes.
- BulliesPhan87

My gut tells me that that is bad news. Be prepared for the rhetoric to start flying. From both sides.

My gut tells me that that is bad news. Be prepared for the rhetoric to start flying. From both sides.
- MJL

Well, it sounds like recent talks have been substantial, but they're saying the talks today 'ended badly'. Sounds like posturing, but I don't care as long as they stay committed to the negotiations.

My gut tells me that that is bad news. Be prepared for the rhetoric to start flying. From both sides.
- MJL

Renaud P Lavoie ‏@RenLavoieRDS

The NHL is putting 211 million in the make whole. Will be interesting to see how the NHLPA will react.

Michael Russo ‏@Russostrib

Sources: #NHL perplexed #NHLPA did not inform players they are willing to go 50/50 and "Make Whole" every cent + interest by Year 3

Michael Russo ‏@Russostrib

Sources: #NHL offering 50/50, willing to honor all contracts plus interest #mnwild http://www.startribune.co...orts/blogs/178216921.html …

Pierre LeBrun ‏@Real_ESPNLeBrun

Told NHL willing to guarantee $211 million as part of Make Whole to players... NHLPA doesn't agree with league's model or $$...not good day

Pierre LeBrun ‏@Real_ESPNLeBrun

Both sides still far apart on player contracts issues. NHL still wants same changes. NHLPA says no way; feels 50-50 HRR is a huge concession

Pretty nasty hit from Halifax player Darcy Ashley on Gatineau player Rock Régimbald along the half wall.

Ended up as a boarding call.

1 - 0 Halifax on the power play Stefan Fournier (MacKinnon, Drouin)

Dale Arnold ‏@DaleEArnold

So Donald Fehr didn't include full information in memo to players because he knew it would be leaked? Hmmm... who did he think would leak it

Chris Johnston ‏@reporterchris

Donald Fehr will speak at 8:30.