Landeskog to have knee surgery

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

The total they pay out is still 50 percent of HRR. Salaries don't actually increase, only the distribution changes.

Now, to fix the last part of your post:

‘…knowing they can stuff high-priced guys on LTIR if they can somehow talk them into getting totally unnecessary surgery’. Good luck with that.

Colorado literally just did that with Landeskog. It is a minor procedure for a knee issue that could have waited until the offseason. You think Landeskog isn't in it to win a Cup and will do whatever it takes to do that? Like get it done now to create room for Giroux? Damn right he did.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Colorado literally just did that with Landeskog. It is a minor procedure for a knee issue that could have waited until the offseason. You think Landeskog isn't in it to win a Cup and will do whatever it takes to do that? Like get it done now to create room for Giroux? Damn right he did.

The surgery may also reduce pain/discomfort and make him a more effective player when he returns. Or maybe he'll struggle to get it going again when he comes back. The LTIR play isn't without risk - as we are seeing with VGK right now.

There should definitely be some tweaks to the system. It seems right now like a team is worse off to have minor injuries than major injuries...though it's all very complicated with the relief pool calculations.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

The surgery may also reduce pain/discomfort and make him a more effective player when he returns. Or maybe he'll struggle to get it going again when he comes back. The LTIR play isn't without risk - as we are seeing with VGK right now.



There should definitely be some tweaks to the system. It seems right now like a team is worse off to have minor injuries than major injuries...though it's all very complicated with the relief pool calculations.

VGK is enduring major injuries, and looks like they could miss the playoffs as a result.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

[Strange Brew]

Would having the salary cap apply to the roster iced for each individual playoff game be a decent compromise?

It's a compromise in the first place, since we're talking about 20 players vs. 22 or 23. Every team has a few bad contracts so those guys would be the first to get scratched for a playoff game if needed. You'd also be very tempted to not dress your experienced backup goalie if he makes decent $'s, and just dress a league minimum backup if you're really up against it.

But it would get rid of the scenario where a team ices a $90 million lineup for a playoff game. But still give the team lots of options so that they could be aggressive at the trade deadline.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Would having the salary cap apply to the roster iced for each individual playoff game be a decent compromise?

It's a compromise in the first place, since we're talking about 20 players vs. 22 or 23. Every team has a few bad contracts so those guys would be the first to get scratched for a playoff game if needed. You'd also be very tempted to not dress your experienced backup goalie if he makes decent $'s, and just dress a league minimum backup if you're really up against it.

But it would get rid of the scenario where a team ices a $90 million lineup for a playoff game. But still give the team lots of options so that they could be aggressive at the trade deadline.

I think there are a number of ways to solve it. But it comes down to whether the owners and players think it is a problem that needs to be solve. And my worry/belief is that they do not.

[Sylvanfan]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

I think there are a number of ways to solve it. But it comes down to whether the owners and players think it is a problem that needs to be solve. And my worry/belief is that they do not.

If they could do something like Baseball where they designate their roster of say 25 guys at the beginning of a series, and that roster has to be cap compliant plus say 2 million for the two extra bodies over a regular 23 man roster that might be a decent compromise. If a player get's injured and a team wants to take him off the roster and replace him for the rest of the series they can do so, but not exceed that playoff roster cap.

This way if Vegas decides to inactivate say Dadonov and Reilly Smith to make room for a guy like Stone they could do it come playoffs regardless if the other two were ever on IR, it at least takes something out of their lineup and forces them to replace these guys with league minimum type players. So they got the LTIR space during the season to replace the lost player, but come playoffs they can't just play all the guys who are now suddenly healed.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

VGK is enduring major injuries, and looks like they could miss the playoffs as a result.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

Definitely, but I think it's fair to say they leaned into the idea of a roster that will have guys likely to spend time on LTIR but be ready in the spring.

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Would having the salary cap apply to the roster iced for each individual playoff game be a decent compromise?

It's a compromise in the first place, since we're talking about 20 players vs. 22 or 23. Every team has a few bad contracts so those guys would be the first to get scratched for a playoff game if needed. You'd also be very tempted to not dress your experienced backup goalie if he makes decent $'s, and just dress a league minimum backup if you're really up against it.

But it would get rid of the scenario where a team ices a $90 million lineup for a playoff game. But still give the team lots of options so that they could be aggressive at the trade deadline.

I don't think the players would like anything that 'punishes' guys with bigger contracts. I do think there is an opportunity to manage cap implications of roster spots 21, 22, and 23.

For starters, I'm surprised more teams don't roll with regular 21 or 22 guy rosters, but maybe there isn't as much benefit to trimming there as you'd think. From a purely practical perspective, it would seem better to me to just have one extra F and D, giving more flexibility for a specific callup. This isn't a fully formed idea, but I kinda wonder if your 3 'cheapest' contracts should carry a $1M hit no matter what. It must be kinda lame for a guy on a $925k ELC to be harder to call up than a $750k journeyman. I'm sure it's quite complicated, but it would be nice if tiny cap differentials didn't have to matter on the fringes of the roster.

[Philly06Cup]

Kucherov had a real injury. Stone has a real injury. Doughty/Brown have real injuries. Landeskog has a real injury. The Kane situation is the only gray one.



So much bellyaching about fictional narratives and a problem that barely exists.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Philly06Cup

Kucherov had a real injury. Stone has a real injury. Doughty/Brown have real injuries. Landeskog has a real injury. The Kane situation is the only gray one.



So much bellyaching about fictional narratives and a problem that barely exists.

Yep. They are legit injuries that the team did not ask for. Once the players are on IR some of the teams may be able to delay the return of the players to fit with the salary cap but that's a byproduct of the CBA.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Philly06Cup

Kucherov had a real injury. Stone has a real injury. Doughty/Brown have real injuries. Landeskog has a real injury. The Kane situation is the only gray one.



So much bellyaching about fictional narratives and a problem that barely exists.

Broken collarbone repaired surgically?

https://www.nhl.com/news/blackhawks-...rgery/c-754960

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by Philly06Cup

So much bellyaching about fictional narratives and a problem that barely exists.

"Injuries were real, therefore no problems with the system" is a non-sequitur and an invalid argument.

https://web.archive.org/web/20210611...eams/lightning

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

"Injuries were real, therefore no problems with the system" is a non-sequitur and an invalid argument.

That's not the argument being made. Try: ‘Injuries were real, recovery times were as expected, therefore no violation of the rules and no conspiracy to do so.’

[GordonBlue]

In a way we should be glad players are getting their health taken of during the season.

Maybe it's the beginning of the end for "suck it up & play through it"

Another theme is the playoffs being a war of attrition. Maybe if more players were healthy heading into the playoffs, it would be better hockey and remove some of the luck in having inferior teams go far because other teams are just too beat up.

[Stampede2TheCup]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

In a way we should be glad players are getting their health taken of during the season.

Maybe it's the beginning of the end for "suck it up & play through it"

Another theme is the playoffs being a war of attrition. Maybe if more players were healthy heading into the playoffs, it would be better hockey and remove some of the luck in having inferior teams go far because other teams are just too beat up.

Even if it’s just a shift in the balance I think it would be a good thing. I understand it’s a tough sport and competitive business, but I feel like players often sacrifice so much of their health and future for such little team gain from it. Riding Monahan like a rented mule probably wasn’t a net positive for either the player or the team.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

In a way we should be glad players are getting their health taken of during the season.

Maybe it's the beginning of the end for "suck it up & play through it"

Another theme is the playoffs being a war of attrition. Maybe if more players were healthy heading into the playoffs, it would be better hockey and remove some of the luck in having inferior teams go far because other teams are just too beat up.

So much this. I know 82gp is a real badge of honour, but I think there are a lot of good reasons to embrace 'load management' - including getting young guys cups of coffee in non-emergency scenarios.

The cap precludes that idea right now, but it would be interesting if they could look at changing some cap rules at the fringes a bit (some sort of STIR or basing things around an 80 game expectation or something).

Or just do the sensible thing and make a 76 game reg season.

[bax]

Did anybody actually read the article? It says Landeskog is expected to be back before the end of the regular season.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

That's not the argument being made. Try: ‘Injuries were real, recovery times were as expected, therefore no violation of the rules and no conspiracy to do so.’

Recovery times can easily be stretched...as far as I know nobody said fake injuries. Guys are being held out longer for cap reasons 100%

Guarantee that if Vegas makes a move or gets another injury Martinez will be in the lineup the second it happens.

It's within the rules currently, they should change so teams have to be cap compliant in the playoffs not just the regular season IMO.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by bax

Did anybody actually read the article? It says Landeskog is expected to be back before the end of the regular season.

Well he won't be if they don't have cap space, unless somebody else goes down

[GioforPM]

“Knee surgery” is a huge basket of items now. My buddy had knee surgery recently and he’s 100% within a couple weeks. Others I imagine are a lot longer rehab.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by bax

Did anybody actually read the article? It says Landeskog is expected to be back before the end of the regular season.

But he won't be, guaranteed. Nobody is going to force him to return before the playoffs even if he is healthy before. The NHL could care less right now about teams using this loophole.