Steven Stamkos stays in Tampa Bay, 8.5mil x 8yrs

[Thorner]

Hard to argue that, honestly. Ovechkin is a top 5 pure scorer this league has ever seen, not sure Jack will ever hit his level unless this league really changes. Hopefully they do

And they don't even have to go back that far. If the game returned to its 2005/06 after-lockout form? Five 50 goalers that year. Brian Gionta had 48. Eichel in his prime scores 50 that year, probably.

[LGR4GM]

Actually it does. Adding Stamkos is nothing but cap hit. You lose no prospects, picks or roster players. Immediately you make your team better with no subtraction. He, or someone like him (who is not available) instantly transforms your team. It makes you a potential destination for a vet looking for a ring and allows you to manage prospects to either bolster your d or develop them to take the place of cap casualties down the road. I think if your are trying to transform the identity of the franchise a cap hit is the least painful way to do it. I also am not on the Stamkos bandwagon, but I think there is a sound argument for acquiring a player of his ilk.

Transform the team? The hell did we tank for 2 years to get Eichel and Samson for?

 

There is a sound argument, he could give you 40 goals a year but for how long. There is a subtraction, 11 million in cap on a team with Eichel and Reinhart.

 

I feel Sam and Jack suddenly got really underrated in this thread.

[Hoss]

Trading Pavel Datsyuk's contract is going to be a lot harder now that it appears players with expiring contracts after next season with NMC will automatically be one of your team's protected players:

http://nypost.com/2016/06/04/how-nhls-mad-parity-quest-hurts-players-wallets-ambitious-teams/

 

This is very good news for the Stamkos bidding. Could take one team completely out of the chase which would lower the price and make it more likely he comes to your team.

[Thorner]

Trading Pavel Datsyuk's contract is going to be a lot harder now that it appears players with expiring contracts after next season with NMC will automatically be one of your team's protected players:

http://nypost.com/2016/06/04/how-nhls-mad-parity-quest-hurts-players-wallets-ambitious-teams/

 

This is very good news for the Stamkos bidding. Could take one team completely out of the chase which would lower the price and make it more likely he comes to your team.

After next season as in, the 2017-18 season? Or contracts expiring after 2016-17? So all OTHER NMCs are exempt?

 

Edit - just read the article. It seems to make little sense that teams have to protect players they are going to lose in potentially a matter of days. Any contracts ending after the 16/17 season. Weird.

Edited June 5, 2016 by Thorny

[Hoss]

After next season as in, the 2017-18 season? Or contracts expiring after 2016-17? So all OTHER NMCs are exempt?

No. All players with NMC are exempt from being exposed but their teams will still be required to use a slot to protect them according to this report.

[Thorner]

No. All players with NMC are exempt from being exposed but their teams will still be required to use a slot to protect them according to this report.

Ok, so all NMCs must be protected. The only players with free exemptions, not requiring slots to be used for protection, are players with 2 pro seasons played or less. Got it.

 

I suppose it makes sense that NMCs have to be protected, or teams would start giving them out liberally if it meant free exemptions.

[Derrico]

Who are the Sabres with NMC that fit this criteria?

[LGR4GM]

Brian Gionta and Zach Bogosian. Although Brian Gionta's contract will expire next July 1st so not sure he would get protected. 

[sabills]

From what I can tell, Bogo does not have a NMC as of now, it won't kick in until '17-'18.

[Derrico]

Brian Gionta and Zach Bogosian. Although Brian Gionta's contract will expire next July 1st so not sure he would get protected. 

 

 

From what I can tell, Bogo does not have a NMC as of now, it won't kick in until '17-'18.

Thanks.

[Hoss]

Gionta does not have a NMC. He has a limited no-trade clause. His no-movement clause expired after this season.

 

Bogo's no-movement clause expired when he waived it to come to Buffalo.

[Lanny]

Murray stated in an interview on WGR that they did not have anyone with a No Movement Clause, only Limited No Trade.

[Derrico]

Awesome.  It'll give GMTM a lot of flexibility.

[rakish]

 

Bogo's no-movement clause expired when he waived it to come to Buffalo.

 

 

I'm interested in how this plays out.

[Thorner]

Gionta does not have a NMC. He has a limited no-trade clause. His no-movement clause expired after this season.

Bogo's no-movement clause expired when he waived it to come to Buffalo.

So no players that we automatically have to protect. That's good news.

[Hoss]

So no players that we automatically have to protect. That's good news.

Except Stamkos

 

 

;)

[Thorner]

Except Stamkos

;)

:thumbsup:

[Hoss]

Larry Brooks went back on his report that teams will have to protect players with NMC that end after this season...

http://nyp.st/2163v5D

[Thorner]

Larry Brooks went back on his report that teams will have to protect players with NMC that end after this season...

http://nyp.st/2163v5D

You're killing me, Brooksie!

[LGR4GM]

Larry Brooks went back on his report that teams will have to protect players with NMC that end after this season...

http://nyp.st/2163v5D

It didn't make a lot of sense. Say player A's contract expires on july 1 2017 and the expansion draft takes place on June 15th, why the hell should the team with player A protect him when he's an expiring UFA who just happens to have a NMC. As an NHL gm there is no way they would or should agree to that, it doesn't make sense. 

[nfreeman]

It didn't make a lot of sense. Say player A's contract expires on july 1 2017 and the expansion draft takes place on June 15th, why the hell should the team with player A protect him when he's an expiring UFA who just happens to have a NMC. As an NHL gm there is no way they would or should agree to that, it doesn't make sense. 

 

It didn't make any sense at all. 

 

I'll say it again:  Brooksie is a bozo. 

[WildCard]

Pretty good article on why depth matters, not your star players. Looks at the current Cup finalists as examples

 

http://www.tsn.ca/is-the-nhl-still-superstar-driven-1.503383

[Hoss]

Pretty good article on why depth matters, not your star players. Looks at the current Cup finalists as examples

 

http://www.tsn.ca/is-the-nhl-still-superstar-driven-1.503383

Having guys like Sidney Crosby, Evgeni Malkin and Phil Kessel allows a guy like Nick Bonino to be a role player. Crosby has been out of his mind this series and I don't think they'd be riding on the backs of their role players if that wasn't the case.

 

Then look at San Jose. Joe Pavelski was having a historic postseason and they were winning - now there's an APB out for him and they're getting spanked. A guy like Brent Burns suddenly doesn't know how to avoid shot blockers, Joe Thornton still has no idea how to put the puck in the net on his own and Logan Couture isn't finishing.

 

I almost feel like this finals is the exact opposite of showing that role players are what drives teams.

Edited June 8, 2016 by Hoss

[That Aud Smell]

^

 

Interesting topic and debate. 

 

I think that, as per usual, the answer is "both," "all," and somewhere in the middle. 

 

You do need stars, you need role players, you need role players who can resemble a star for a few games, you need a few courageous plugs, and you need all of them to mesh in an elusive and magical (and lucky) way.

[pi2000]

You can't have depth without star players, however, you can have star players without depth, however, you can't have depth without star players.

Edited June 8, 2016 by pi2000