2022/2023 NHL/Wild Offseason-Season-Postseason Thread

JoeMX1825 wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Ripjiggen wrote:</div>
Wild have to eat years of Parise & Suter caphits because they can’t get out of thier contracts, yet Montreal isn’t having any issues with Shae Weber or Cory Price’s huge contracts…

Different scenario but I hear ya.
It’s the path that the great BG chose.

yeah, I know there’s some differences, but there appears to be solutions to get around the issues. I know Russo hates discussing it, but I think it warrants a new story comparing Parise & Suter to Weber, Price and Evander Kane contracts and how those teams don’t seem to have any penalties…

The question would be more fitting for BG than Russo.

CaptainMusky wrote:

Wasnt Vegas like $10M OVER the cap during the playoffs because Stone came back?

I beleive Vegas was $14 million over the cap this year, Tampa was $18 million over the year Kucherov came back for the playoffs…

my point being, other teams always seem to find a way out of cap situations except the Wild…Maybe we’ll win a “Good Rule Follower” award by the NHL for eating so much capspace for 3+ years..

Ripjiggen wrote:

The question would be more fitting for BG than Russo.

GMBG refuses to talk about it anymore, Barrero has asked him about it on KFAN the last few times he’s been on and he deflects it away by saying those moves are done with, we’ll deal with it moving forward…

I’d just like to get the following question answered –

We’re the options other teams use to get around contract/cap issue not available to the Wild because:

A) Parise & Suter had no desire to retire early?
B) They had no desire to play ball with the Wild and do what would be needed for the Wild to not incur cap penalties (unofficially retire but don’t send in the paperwork until the contract is over)

Shea Weber is of similar age to Parise and Suter and also had a similar carried over 14 year contract before the new CBA reduced the limit to 8 years and removed the front loaded cap structure. In year 9 of that deal he played the entire shortened COVID season and in all 4 rounds to the Cup Finals with the Canadiens and then “retired” due to injury that offseason…he sat on the Canadiens LTIR for a year before he (His contract) was traded to Vegas, who then traded him (it) to Arizona a year later…Both trades involved the team unloading the Weber contract to pay the premium to unload it.

So all those BS trades to get out from under that contract vs the Wild eating the caphits…is it because Weber just wanted to be done playing NHL hockey and worked with the Canadiens to get around the caphit vs Parise and Suter didn’t want to hang them up and thus not help the Wild?

Suter won’t retire till his contract is up. I mean he was just top pair D for the team that went to WCF. Zach says he wants to still play at least next year. He did just net 21 goals for a team that didn’t score a lot.

Both Weber and Price have not retired. Not sure why they would, but I don’t think either has any ill will towards their former teams.

I think part of the problem was they were almost impossible to trade at the price they were at. Well Parise anyway. If they did retire early which in Parise case could have been a possibility they would have gotten whacked later on. I don’t think Parise really saw eye to eye with BG and company when he took over.

Who knows if Suter would have sulked if Parise was bought out or not. I tend to think he would have been fine and honestly think it was a misstep to buy him out.
Then again I’m not in that locker room to see and hear of what goes on. I just he will have no problem playing two more seasons. Most likely in a top four role.

Ripjiggen wrote:

Suter won’t retire till his contract is up. I mean he was just top pair D for the team that went to WCF. Zach says he wants to still play at least next year. He did just net 21 goals for a team that didn’t score a lot.

Both Weber and Price have not retired. Not sure why they would, but I don’t think either has any I’ll will towards their former teams.

I think part of the problem was they were almost impossible to trade at the price they were at. Well Parise anyway. If they did retire early which in Parise case could have been a possibility they would have gotten whacked later on. I don’t think Parise really saw eye to eye with BG and company when he took over.

You gotta think GMBG could have traded away their contracts to a team like Arizona, the Wild would retain 50% of both which equals $7.5 x 4 years vs buying them out and eating $5, $12, $14, $14 over those 4 years…It would also cost the Wild likely high draft picks, but it cuts your caphit in 1/2…Regarding the recapture penalties if retired early, both Vegas and Arizona don’t seem to worried about Weber retiring early…

so is it all related to the bad blood between Parise/Suter & GMBG?

You think either player would have accepted a trade to the yotes. Both had NTC. I doubt any team would have taken Parise at half the price. Maybe crazy Lou but he got him for a fraction of that.

Weber has not retired and Vegas and Yotes should not be worried it would be Nashville on the hook. Doubt they are worried as he is getting paid. He wouldn’t if he retired.

Were their other options for BG. I tend to believe there was but not sure they were very good options either. Being salary capped by two guys at half the cost but giving away draft picks might not be the right option either.

I honestly think he wanted Parise gone that bad after the playoff healthy scratch year that he said the hell with it.

Not sure I agree with it or not but is what it is now.

Suter and Parise are still playing in the NHL… that’s kind of a key difference here. Also Suter had no reason in the world to accept a trade anywhere and there’s no way he would have. He’s making like $10m more from getting bought out. A buyout was best case scenario for both of them… Zach reportedly had a buy-out party

Ripjiggen wrote:

You think either player would have accepted a trade to the yotes. Both had NTC. I doubt any team would have taken Parise at half the price. Maybe crazy Lou but he got him for a fraction of that.

Arizona would have for a price to get to the cap floor and also field a roster spot. I understand they had full NMC’s, but wouldn’t Parise and Suter make MORE money if they weren’t bought out vs being bought out and need another contract (Parise signed for league minimum) and also escape the shame of being bought out?

or

maybe because their contracts were so front loaded, they actually made more money by getting bought out and then signing new deals with Islanders and Stars?

I don’t know…

tswoboda wrote:

Suter and Parise are still playing in the NHL… that’s kind of a key difference here.

That was my first question, DID they had any desire to retire? if not, then the rest is moot…Looks like Shae Weber said “F$#@ it, i’ll play golf for the 5 years left on my contract and just not file the paperwork”

JoeMX1825 wrote:

maybe because their contracts were so front loaded, they actually made more money by getting bought out and then signing new deals with Islanders and Stars?

Correct, they had only $10m left on the deals and got just shy of $7m from the buyout. Suter signed a $15m deal so he’s gaining $12m from getting bought out. Parise isn’t on league minimum, he’s been getting $1.5m each season in NYI so one more year and he’ll be a net positive as well. Maybe a trade would have worked with Zach but after they did him dirty the bubble season he had absolutely no reason to help the team out.

Game 5 of the Stanley Cup Final drew the lowest audience rating in almost 30 years. I’m sure the fact that it was a blowout played a role. Maybe the fact that it was Florida versus Vegas did too. Here is the post about it.

The decisive Game 5 of the Stanley Cup Finals drew the smallest viewing audience in 29 years, Sports Media Watch reported.

Last season, the Tampa Bay Lightning-Colorado Avalance final drew 5.15 million on ABC.

IMO the buyout was the only option. Had BG traded them I am pretty dang confident that they would have found a way to stick it to them by retiring early. THat was a nasty divorce especially in Suter’s case since he hung up on BG.

^^^BG’s agent is that you?

Suter will get bought out next year (first player ever to get bought out twice) Yes he plays 1st pair, but he was basically a safety valve for Heiskenan to skate freely…Dallas fans were ready to ship him back to MN this season, he’d be bought out this offseason if it made any kind of financial sense, just too much of a caphit over 4 years…

Just sucks that we’re the only team to not figue another way out of this mess other than eating the HUGE caphits…

Ripjiggen wrote:

^^^BG’s agent is that you?

Haha its true though. Its revisionist history to keep wondering about it and hypothesizing but this was the only option and they had to do it when they did it.

gim wrote:

Game 5 of the Stanley Cup Final drew the lowest audience rating in almost 30 years. I’m sure the fact that it was a blowout played a role. Maybe the fact that it was Florida versus Vegas did too. Here is the post about it.

The decisive Game 5 of the Stanley Cup Finals drew the smallest viewing audience in 29 years, Sports Media Watch reported.

The Vegas Golden Knights captured the Cup with a blowout 9-3 victory in the best-of-seven series. The 1.4 rating and 2.72 million viewers on the nationwide cable-only broadcast on TNT and TruTV is the lowest since the Vancouver Canucks-New York Rangers series (2.41 mllion) in 1994 on ESPN, the viewership website reported.

Last season, the Tampa Bay Lightning-Colorado Avalance final drew 5.15 million on ABC.

Network over the air tv vs Cable channel is the biggest part when comparing last year to this year…

CaptainMusky wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Ripjiggen wrote:</div>
^^^BG’s agent is that you?

Haha its true though. Its revisionist history to keep wondering about it and hypothesizing but this was the only option and they had to do it when they did it.

Just trying to get to 241pages. Rossi talk was boring me.

JoeMX1825 wrote:

Network over the air tv vs Cable channel is the biggest part when comparing last year to this year…

I thought that too. But I can’t help wonder if the fact that it was the Panthers versus the Knights played a role too. I like hockey just as much as the next guy, but watching the Bolts-Avs last June was a heck of a lot more entertaining than the Panthers-Knights this time around.

Gim Im sure that played a role, but the game were really not even that close so that was part of it Im sure. It should have drawn some interest since neither team had won it before, but they are both small markets. I watched when I could but missed the last 2 or 3 games because I was in Canada. FLA ran out of gas. I think had they not had to go through the Bruins in round 1 they probably had the better team top to bottom and in net, but you could tell they were gassed. THe Stanley Cup is the toughest trophy to get in any sport and I will die on that hill.

gim wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>JoeMX1825 wrote:</div>
Network over the air tv vs Cable channel is the biggest part when comparing last year to this year…

I thought that too. But I can’t help wonder if the fact that it was the Panthers versus the Knights played a role too. I like hockey just as much as the next guy, but watching the Bolts-Avs last June was a heck of a lot more entertaining than the Panthers-Knights this time around.

oh for sure the teams involved had an impact…same with them not being very close games…

CaptainMusky wrote:

Gim Im sure that played a role, but the game were really not even that close so that was part of it Im sure. It should have drawn some interest since neither team had won it before, but they are both small markets. I watched when I could but missed the last 2 or 3 games because I was in Canada. FLA ran out of gas. I think had they not had to go through the Bruins in round 1 they probably had the better team top to bottom and in net, but you could tell they were gassed. THe Stanley Cup is the toughest trophy to get in any sport and I will die on that hill.

injuries cought up to them as well, they have like 5 key guys that likely won’t be ready for next season due to needed surgeries…

Losing Gudas was HUGE and not just because of his beard.

draft is only 8 days away, I THINK the Wild are going to try and move up to the low teens and nab one of the top 2nd tier centers or remaining 1st tier wing prospects (quality over quantity) It will be interesting to see if any of Addison/Gustafsson/Duhaime/Foligno get moved…

I do think Gustafsson could get moved if the right offer came along and negotiations are going nowhere…if the staff truly beleives Wallstedt is the future, you can’t sign Gus to more than 3 years without blocking Wallstedt’s development. If he and his agent are totally against that and want to play the arbitration game getting him to UFA status, you gotta sell high…we can find another 2-3 year stop gap goalie….

I dont think there is much chance that a Gus deal is longer than 3 years. Its either going to be 1 or 3.

CaptainMusky wrote:

I dont think there is much chance that a Gus deal is longer than 3 years. Its either going to be 1 or 3.

you would think it should be that easy, its gotta be the aav then that’s the holdup…they really must be fighting over pennies, I can’t see how Gus can argue for a high number with his low career game count…it’s been well established that the number should be $3.5 aav, Gus can’t argue for more than Ottenger’s $4 and if GMBG is offering $3 then split the difference…surprised it hasn’t got done yet…

I am not surprised as I don’t think there is a huge rush to get it done. Still plenty of time.

Ripjiggen wrote:

I am not surprised as I don’t think there is a huge rush to get it done.

Right it will get done. There isnt a hurry he is under team control yet this year. The only real risk is an offer sheet, but I just dont see teams doing that since he has such a small sample size. He has admitted that his playoffs were subpar so to think he would get Otter type deal after he blew up in the playoffs that year is a huge stretch.

And there is a new contract buyout in Vancouver.

Ripjiggen wrote:

And there is a new contract buyout in Vancouver.

yeah OEL, that’s the biggest for sure since the Suter-Parise one… What’s funny is that because Arizona is taking on a small portion of the salary, it eats up 1 of their 3 retained salary slots for the next 8 years!

the quicker it gets done the better…I’m sure GMBG would like to know his bank account balance with more players signed when Free Agency opens up in less than 2 weeks, especially when we’re likely pinching every penny possible to get everyone signed…

it would sure be cool to get an insiders look at NHL contract negotiations…why do they take so long? how fast is the back & forth? what do the agents arguments sound like for more money? what’s the GM’s counter argument? how personal do they get in regards to teammate comparisons or reasons for a bad statistical season? is it cordial? are there ever yelling matches and hang ups?

They could use fake names and $ numbers to protect the agent/gm/player…