2017 NHL Offseason

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Tue Aug 01, 2017 2:52 pm

(Also, we're shockingly in on the other big non-signee, Alex Kerfoot from Harvard. Something like half our roster is American with a Boston connection.)

BSF21 · Post by **BSF21** » Tue Aug 01, 2017 2:54 pm

mister d wrote:Chicago will find a way to circumvent UDFA rules, sign him for $5MM and then have to attach Hartman to get his deal off the books in 2019.

Yes, but can we trade back for him afterwards, giving up a younger, better player in return? That's the real question.

sancarlos · Post by **sancarlos** » Tue Aug 01, 2017 3:01 pm

degenerasian wrote:Reports say hes a very poor skater, not good for someone 5'10"

Everything I've read says the opposite. The only knock I've seen is that he's undersized.

Skating

Butcher is quick skater. He has excellent speed in both directions. He also has very good acceleration. Butcher has very good agility and edge work. This allows him to cover a lot of ice. It also makes him tough to beat one-on-one. Butcher will need to add more core strength and improve his balance. This will help him to win battles in the corners and in front of the net.

Dobber's Hockey wrote:Will Butcher is an undersized offensive defenceman with strong mobility, quick feet, a good hockey mind and the ability to lead the rush.

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Tue Aug 01, 2017 3:32 pm

BSF21 wrote:Yes, but can we trade back for him afterwards, giving up a younger, better player in return? That's the real question.

Panarin is a year older. That blew my mind.

sancarlos · Post by **sancarlos** » Thu Aug 03, 2017 6:15 pm

I'm reading this as Matt Duchene letting everybody know he is not planning on playing for the Avalanche this season.

https://twitter.com/adater/status/892898990349369344
ETA: LINK with more detail

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Thu Aug 03, 2017 7:04 pm

I haven't figured out any way to make it work but he would look hot as F filling in for Stepan.

wlu_lax6 · Post by **wlu_lax6** » Thu Aug 10, 2017 11:50 am

So which UFA gets a sniff of the NHL first?
Brooks Laich or 45-year old Jagr? Jagr needs to play in 57 NHL games to pass Gordie Howe for the most ever. His 765 goals are 36 behind Howe for second behind Wayne Gretzky.

My guess...Olympic eligibility for both of them.

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Thu Aug 10, 2017 12:02 pm

I'm not sure Laich wouldn't be a top 4 center on our roster right now. Barf.

degenerasian · Post by **degenerasian** » Wed Aug 16, 2017 1:03 pm

The Edmonton Oilers have signed centre Leon Draisaitl to an eight-year contract extension, through the 2024-25 season, with an average annual value (AAV) of $8.5 million.

sancarlos · Post by **sancarlos** » Wed Aug 16, 2017 8:32 pm

degenerasian wrote:The Edmonton Oilers have signed centre Leon Draisaitl to an eight-year contract extension, through the 2024-25 season, with an average annual value (AAV) of $8.5 million.

I think they will regret that.

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Wed Aug 16, 2017 9:46 pm

I disagree.

sancarlos · Post by **sancarlos** » Thu Aug 17, 2017 12:28 am

mister d wrote:I disagree.

I think Draisaitl's production is in large part a product of his getting to play with McDavid.

BSF21 · Post by **BSF21** » Thu Aug 17, 2017 8:02 am

mister d wrote:I disagree.

Put me in this camp. Had to pay him and the length is meaningless, just like the Oshie deal.

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Thu Aug 17, 2017 8:21 am

sancarlos wrote:I think Draisaitl's production is in large part a product of his getting to play with McDavid.

I'm sure it doesn't hurt, but I think he's way closer to a top compliment that would hurt McDavid to lose than he is to a guy like Kunitz who fell into incredible situations. Point per game 21 year olds are pretty damn hot.

travzilla · Post by **travzilla** » Thu Aug 17, 2017 9:06 am

mister d wrote:
sancarlos wrote:I think Draisaitl's production is in large part a product of his getting to play with McDavid.

I'm sure it doesn't hurt, but I think he's way closer to a top compliment that would hurt McDavid to lose than he is to a guy like Kunitz who fell into incredible situations. Point per game 21 year olds are pretty damn hot.

I think it's a bit of a gamble by the Oilers, as he hasn't proven he can drive production on a line of his own, and that is the contact of someone who can.

I think the bigger indication is this is a sign of league-wide shifting of value to paying stars in their prime (2nd contract) and even less towards paying veterans for past success. Draisaitl will look less like an overpay once Matthews/Marner/Nylander/Laine sign there next deals.

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Thu Aug 17, 2017 9:36 am

Yup, there's going to be a growing gap between old school GMs who won't pay young players up front because they don't have to and the progressive ones who see its better to start the contract earlier in RFA to save a little on the early UFA years and, more importantly, avoid the later ones altogether. The Rangers are particularly bad at this, probably both because they manage their cap like shit and because they seem to lack the confidence to pay a guy before he's explicitly proven his number. Like there's no reason right now to not figure out if a guy like Miller or Skjei would go long term at a slightly lower than UFA price.

Post by **brian** » Tue Aug 22, 2017 11:11 am

As expected, reports that AHL is going to officially add 31st team for 2018-19 soon. With some shuffling and reshuffling of affiliations, looks like it's going to be the Colorado Eagles (based in suburban Fort Collins) making the jump to the AHL and becoming the Avalanche's AHL affiliate.

Kind of underwhelming, but there it is.

sancarlos · Post by **sancarlos** » Tue Aug 22, 2017 7:28 pm

brian wrote:As expected, reports that AHL is going to officially add 31st team for 2018-19 soon. With some shuffling and reshuffling of affiliations, looks like it's going to be the Colorado Eagles (based in suburban Fort Collins) making the jump to the AHL and becoming the Avalanche's AHL affiliate.

Kind of underwhelming, but there it is.

I love Fort Collins, but it is not a very big city, and they'll have to compete with Colorado State sports for people's/sponsor's dollars, so that surprises me. Colorado Springs is twice the size of Fort Collins, so that would've seemed a more likely option.

wlu_lax6 · Post by **wlu_lax6** » Wed Aug 30, 2017 12:51 pm

Does Doan make the Canadian Olympic squad?

travzilla · Post by **travzilla** » Wed Aug 30, 2017 1:15 pm

wlu_lax6 wrote:Does Doan make the Canadian Olympic squad?

Easily if he wants to. Iginla too, though I could still see someone signing him in training camp or early in the season.

wlu_lax6 · Post by **wlu_lax6** » Wed Aug 30, 2017 1:40 pm

travzilla wrote:
wlu_lax6 wrote:Does Doan make the Canadian Olympic squad?

Easily if he wants to. Iginla too, though I could still see someone signing him in training camp or early in the season.

Reason I posted this is he announced his retirement, so I don't see him getting signed.

degenerasian · Post by **degenerasian** » Wed Sep 06, 2017 4:51 pm

NHL mucks around with more rule changes

1. A failed offside challenge will result in a two-minute penalty against the club asking for the review.

2. Incorrect goaltender interference reviews stay the same — the loss of your timeout.

3. Teams are no longer able to call timeout after icing the puck.

Post by **brian** » Wed Sep 06, 2017 4:54 pm

All seem reasonable to me. Not sure why a failed goaltender interference review isn't a penalty either, but I guess "player safety" factors in there somewhere (which if so, eh...I can live with it).

rass · Post by **rass** » Wed Sep 06, 2017 4:56 pm

I think the rule isn't as black and white as offsides, but who knows.

govmentchedda · Post by **govmentchedda** » Wed Sep 06, 2017 5:00 pm

I like the 2 minute penalty for an incorrect offsides. Some of those calls are ticky tack as fuck, and frankly even after video review, wrong.

rass · Post by **rass** » Wed Sep 06, 2017 5:02 pm

govmentchedda wrote:I like the 2 minute penalty for an incorrect offsides. Some of those calls are ticky tack as fuck, and frankly even after video review, wrong.

Woo!

degenerasian · Post by **degenerasian** » Wed Sep 06, 2017 6:38 pm

The biggest issue with the goalie interference challenge is they're forcing the refs who made the on-ice call to admit they were wrong during the process. It inevitably leads to bias.

They go to Toronto for goal reviews.

wlu_lax6 · Post by **wlu_lax6** » Thu Sep 07, 2017 8:15 am

degenerasian wrote:NHL mucks around with more rule changes

1. A failed offside challenge will result in a two-minute penalty against the club asking for the review.

2. Incorrect goaltender interference reviews stay the same — the loss of your timeout.

3. Teams are no longer able to call timeout after icing the puck.

I like 3, I just hope that they don't let teams drag getting back to the dot for the faceoff. The Penguins used this trick and confused substitutions a few times against the Caps in the playoffs last year with no foul, etc. It let a tired team rest a bit more.

sancarlos · Post by **sancarlos** » Thu Sep 07, 2017 10:47 am

wlu_lax6 wrote:
degenerasian wrote:NHL mucks around with more rule changes

1. A failed offside challenge will result in a two-minute penalty against the club asking for the review.

2. Incorrect goaltender interference reviews stay the same — the loss of your timeout.

3. Teams are no longer able to call timeout after icing the puck.

I like 3, I just hope that they don't let teams drag getting back to the dot for the faceoff. The Penguins used this trick and confused substitutions a few times against the Caps in the playoffs last year with no foul, etc. It let a tired team rest a bit more.

Yeah, ditto on this. Lots of times I see coaches get a pseudo-timeout by questioning the referees or sending out the wrong players or using other delaying tactics.

rass · Post by **rass** » Thu Sep 07, 2017 10:50 am

wlu_lax6 wrote:
degenerasian wrote:NHL mucks around with more rule changes

1. A failed offside challenge will result in a two-minute penalty against the club asking for the review.

2. Incorrect goaltender interference reviews stay the same — the loss of your timeout.

3. Teams are no longer able to call timeout after icing the puck.

I like 3, I just hope that they don't let teams drag getting back to the dot for the faceoff. The Penguins used this trick and confused substitutions a few times against the Caps in the playoffs last year with no foul, etc. It let a tired team rest a bit more.

Woo!

degenerasian · Post by **degenerasian** » Tue Sep 12, 2017 8:05 pm

Seattle announces plans for a new arena. Flames immediately threaten to leave. Announcement made at charity event.

https://mobile.twitter.com/ericfrancis.

degenerasian · Post by **degenerasian** » Wed Sep 13, 2017 12:55 pm

So this is the deal supposedly the Flames walked away from, took it's ball and went home

http://www.metronews.ca/news/calgary/20 ... urces.html

Sources have told Metro the latest deal on the table involved a 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 model, where the City of Calgary would provide 1/3 of the upfront cost for the new arena, 1/3 would be recouped through a ticket surcharge and 1/3 would come from the Calgary Flames ownership.

Early cost estimates for a new arena were $500 million, but those familiar with the situation said some city officials believed the final tab would be higher - in the range of $600 million.

Where talks broke down, according to sources, was in how the city might recoup its initial investment, either through property taxes or a revenue sharing model. It was hoped the city could get back its initial investment over the next 30 years through a lease or rental arrangement with the Flames.

Information provided to Metro indicated those were the areas the two sides couldn’t agree upon.

CSEC was apparently looking for property tax exemption and wouldn’t flex on models for the city to recoup its investment, including possible revenue sharing options.

How does that sound?

sancarlos · Post by **sancarlos** » Wed Sep 13, 2017 1:01 pm

It must be frustrating that those billionaires won't pony it all up themselves. So, you are left with the prospect of maybe losing your team or having to increase taxes to keep the team. I'm guessing the citizenry won't want to increase taxes for this purpose.

Not sure Seattle would support a hockey team. Or, Kansas City. And, it appears the NHL won't let them move a team to the east.

degenerasian · Post by **degenerasian** » Wed Sep 13, 2017 1:10 pm

I'm not totally against public money as for a city like Calgary, the Flames are a great community benefit and the new Arena would be used for almost everything.

There is a middle somewhere.

City Council says they will release the details soon. They must feel they are correct.

Lucas Meyer @meyer_lucas
BREAKING: Calgary City Council votes 8-4 to release arena negotiation discussions

There is also a municipal election next month so the Flames are trying to turn this into an election issue against an unpopular mayor.

degenerasian · Post by **degenerasian** » Thu Sep 14, 2017 10:55 am

Arena discussion

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKevIAz9mjY[/youtube]

sancarlos · Post by **sancarlos** » Thu Sep 14, 2017 4:41 pm

Anybody want to be an NHL goalie?

https://twitter.com/SportsCenter/status ... 6687755267

Post by **brian** » Thu Sep 14, 2017 6:22 pm

Pretty sure I've mentioned this before but the emergency goalie for our ECHL team in Las Vegas was a 55-year-old guy whose "day" job was as a Neil Diamond impersonator in Strip showrooms. One of my favorite Las Vegas things ever.

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Thu Sep 14, 2017 9:25 pm

The pic day shot of Stepan was quite the dagger.

degenerasian · Post by **degenerasian** » Fri Sep 15, 2017 10:13 am

City of Calgary proposal for a new building. You guys are the experts, is this fair?

Post by **brian** » Fri Sep 15, 2017 10:17 am

Why can't your owner, who is worth $2.5B, pay $500M for an arena he would control all the revenues in?

In these situations I'm fine if the local government donates land (which comes at a cost to taxpayers of course, though not a considerable one usually) or infrastructure and that's reflected in the proposal, but not paying for the arena which they then turn over to a billionaire.

If they're going to invest hundreds of millions in taxpayer money they're better off calling his bluff and if he does go to Seattle use that money to redevelop the land into office space/mixed-use retail which actually does have a proven record of generating tax revenue for a community.