[Rumour] Larger Rosters

[P-DAZZLE]

This week, Craig Button did his radio hit in Vancouver and mentioned that it has been discussed or it is a possibility teams will be allowed 25-man roster for the coming season. I haven't heard this mentioned on CP and with all the depth signings it seems worth discussing. I think it is quite possible Treliving is acting with this in mind.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by P-DAZZLE

This week, Craig Button did his radio hit in Vancouver and mentioned that it has been discussed or it is a possibility teams will be allowed 25-man roster for the coming season. I haven't heard this mentioned on CP and with all the depth signings it seems worth discussing. I think it is quite possible Treliving is acting with this in mind.

They’d have to raise the cap. Without rewarding people who’d already be over it/have to sign RFAs.

[Moneyhands23]

Practice roster?

[P-DAZZLE]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

They’d have to raise the cap. Without rewarding people who’d already be over it/have to sign RFAs.

Perhaps it would just be assigned spots with waiver exemptions. Or you have to be cap compliant and those are minimum contract spots. He didn't go into depth, but seemed to present it as likely.

[DoubleK]

Can't do that without raising the cap or the PA agreeing to prorate salaries to allow for the extra players.

Won't happen without the NHLPA's support.

[P-DAZZLE]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

Can't do that without raising the cap or the PA agreeing to prorate salaries to allow for the extra players.

Won't happen without the NHLPA's support.

Can't see the PA not wanting to work with something that gets more guys getting paid, especially because it could set a precedent for the future.

[TheScorpion]

That's basically impossible for a lot of teams without raising the cap.

[GioforPM]

You just have to be careful not to punish GMs who’ve worked hard to be cap compliant, and not to let any extra cap space just allow teams to go out and pay UFAs more money (without signing a bigger roster).

[agulati]

Originally Posted by Moneyhands23

Practice roster?

Yeah maybe something like an extra forward, defenseman and goalie who travels with the team, whose salary doesn’t count against the cap, unless they are assigned to the team. Maybe this doesn’t require waivers either.

Would make sense why teams are signing nhl caliber third goalies (Dell with Toronto, Domingue with Calgary)

[Ring of Fire]

I think the way you do it is base the cap hit for the team on the 23 highest paid players (unless they are buried in the minors or on LTIR). You can carry more players but they would have to be players that you could bury the entire cap in the minors.

[Yrebmi]

Why would the cap have to be raised?
It would be allowing a 25 man roster - not mandating it.

[FlamesAddiction]

I was speculating on this possibility a while ago. With the logistics of recalling players, it makes sense to work something out to this effect.

[TheScorpion]

Originally Posted by Yrebmi

Why would the cap have to be raised?
It would be allowing a 25 man roster - not mandating it.

Because it gives some teams an unfair advantage after an off-season where teams have already made moves with the flexibility afforded by a 23 limit in mind?

[Yrebmi]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

Because it gives some teams an unfair advantage after an off-season where teams have already made moves with the flexibility afforded by a 23 limit in mind?

I am not convinced how unfair it would be though - assuming no GM had more advanced warning than any other.
Teams with lots of space were already the less competitive teams.

There would be a couple teams that are already struggling to be cap compliant who might cry foul.
I do not like the idea of letting those teams off the hook with cap raise.

How much advantage is it to have 2 extra bodies on the bench anyway? A lot of teams already play with a shortened bench late in games.

[stang]

Originally Posted by TheScorpion

Because it gives some teams an unfair advantage after an off-season where teams have already made moves with the flexibility afforded by a 23 limit in mind?

2 lowest paid players don’t count?

[Strange Brew]

If you were already under the cap seems weird you’d rather spend the money on quantity vs. quality. Seems to me the biggest impact is on waiver eligibility which should be easy to deal with through a practice squad concept.

Can’t imagine how this would have affected what the Flames have done? They are already up against it.

[P-DAZZLE]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

If you were already under the cap seems weird you’d rather spend the money on quantity vs. quality. Seems to me the biggest impact is on waiver eligibility which should be easy to deal with through a practice squad concept.

Can’t imagine how this would have affected what the Flames have done? They are already up against it.

The more I think about the more I think it will have to do with just being allowed to carry the players and not have them shuttling between places. It makes no sense to have guys being picked up on waivers when they'd have to travel to another country/region/whatever and probably have to do quarantine and then could be on waivers again right away.

[topfiverecords]

Every team gets three players at league minimum that don’t count towards the cap.

[powderjunkie]

How do you prevent teams from running with a 21 team 'cap' roster?

If you're tight to the cap run only with a healthy scratch D...worst case a forward goes down on game-day you run 7 D, but can easily swap in a guy from the taxi squad the next night...

[JTech780]

I wonder if they would do a taxi squad like in baseball. Allow each team to carry 3 extra players, one has to be a goalie, not count them against the cap until they are recalled from the taxi squad.