Buppy

Apparently you missed my post after the one you quoted, which detailed why I do not believe the floor is a problem. It has nothing to do with the ability to spend under the floor in real dollars. I just mention that it is possible to do so because, well, it is. It would be stupid to ignore that fact. Right now, 18 teams have salary commitments lower than their total cap amount. 15 of them would still be lower even if they pay all their potential bonuses. But again, the numbers we have suggest that most teams should be able to afford the floor regardless.

I posted this earlier in the thread and you ignored it, I'm sure you'll do it again but anyway... It's the right data, you're just looking at it the wrong way. That is from the 10-11 season. The floor in that season was ~$43M. No information is available on exact cost of player benefits, but it seems to be around $2.5-3M/team. Non-player expenses don't have a floor, but the minimum reasonable amount seems to be around $33M for that year. Add it all up and a team needed around $80M in revenue to break even. 26 teams had that. Jump to next season, and even with the cap as it stands at team would need about $94M. 17 teams were already at that, Atlanta moved and reportedly had around $100M in their first year in Winnipeg. 3 more teams weren't too far off, and likely make the cut just from normal growth and the new TV deal that started last year. Phoenix and the Islanders almost certainly didn't make it, and 7 more teams are on the bubble. But the players already proposed lowering the cap (and thus the floor). Specifics are hard to come by, but increasing the cap by 2% from last year or changing the revenue split to 54% would put the floor at ~$50M, lowering the break-even point to around $90M. Add in a few extra million in potential revenue sharing as the players propose, and I would be surprised if at least 3 of those bubble teams didn't hit that mark. Given that, I'd be surprised if there are fewer than 24 teams that couldn't afford a $50M floor, and not all surprised if as many as 28 teams could. Ergo, I do not see the floor, as per my understanding of the players proposal, to be a problem. And that isn't even considering the proposal to trade cap space, or the ability to spend under the floor in real salary, or skimp on non-player expenses. I could be wrong, but until I see some numbers that say otherwise, I'll stick with my analysis.

If you think Forbes data, attendance reports, other web reports regarding revenue, and math are "propaganda" then we probably should end this debate. I've looked at the numbers available and drew my own conclusion, it just happens to be pretty close to what the players seem to want. You seem to have just made up your mind that both sides are equally "wrong" without any sort of data, evidence, or analysis at all. You say neither side is right, and not even close to fixing the issues but you can't provide any rationale in support of what you think the issues are. You're right that blindly accepting statements from either side is a poor way to form an opinion, but that doesn't mean both sides are equally wrong, or equally far from right. Not really. Edmonton's situation is mostly the result of bonuses. Any bonus money that can potentially be earned counts against the cap, but if they are never earned they are never paid. Back-loading contracts can also lower the actual dollars spent, and then the player could be traded before the salary rises above the cap hit. And you can say it's "obvious" that the floor is a problem, but as of the most recent numbers available to us, it wasn't. 26 teams should have been able to afford the floor in '10-11. One of those that couldn't moved, and reportedly did much better last year. The numbers we have suggest that probably 24-28 teams should be able to afford the floor now, and that's not even counting additional revenue sharing, or other methods to reduce spending.

What evidence do you have that the floor is a problem? How many teams can't afford to spend to the floor? And do you realize that compliance with the floor is based on cap hits, not actual salary, so teams can in fact spend under the floor. Edmonton could end up paying almost $10M less in salary than they have in cap hits. And if you allow trading of cap space, it provides another tool for struggling teams to control spending without just taking money away from the players. (Even better if you let teams trade cap space for cash.) And what evidence do you have that returning to 57% wouldn't work in the future? Do you know the team by team revenue breakdowns for the '15-16 season? If so, you should pass that along to the league and the PA, it would probably help negotiations. Of course there will be no "permanent" solution with a set-duration CBA. Keep in mind that one year isn't a permanent problem either. Worst case scenario it's one problem year. The world wouldn't end and owners wouldn't go bankrupt. Both sides, I'm certain, are willing to move from their initial positions. The owners already have, and while the players haven't yet made a second proposal there have been talks of flexibility, including on that option year you seem to think is the devil. However, I don't blame the players for failing to make a second offer when the owners' second offer seems to be still so far from reasonable or justifiable. I'd want to see the owners show they are willing to be serious first. Instead the owners just want to play games. Try to make it look like they're offering a fair split, but redefining revenue in their favor. What's next, offer 54%, but redefine "percent" to mean 0.85 parts in 100. That's the main reason I'm against the owners. Redefining revenue without any explanation or apparent justification. Doesn't mean I think the owners are 100% to blame, only about 90-95% or so. Until I see some numbers to suggest otherwise, I'll continue to go with what the numbers I do have suggest, which is that the players are far, far closer to being "right" than the owners. All of us are ignorant to some degree. There's information none of us has access to. I admit I might be wrong, and the financials may be worse than I think; worse than past data suggests they would be. You seem pretty certain of yourself though, despite the fact that you don't have any more information than anyone else. Good to know though that you're not insulting everyone who disagrees with you, and only those who hold opinions that aren't the same. Much better.

Did you even read the link you posted? I don't think the cap number they give for 14-15 is accurate, as it appears that is based on the $70.2 cap number already set. If based on last season's cap number, the caps for the next three years would be: $65.6, $68.2, and $72.3. If they continued as is, and the cap increased by the same average it has over the past 7 seasons the caps would be: $70.2, $76.4, and $83.2. If it grew at the average revenue growth rate (reportedly 7.1%) it would be $68.9, $73.8, and $79. I've also read that the players are flexible on the 4th year. I've seen that the players proposed a luxury tax. I've seen a proposed $69M cap for next year. I've seen that players would revert to 57% if revenue growth was 10% or more, and that it would only be 57% of any growth in excess of 10%... I've seen a lot of info, likely some of it true and some false, but never anything even close to what you say it is. Where exactly did you get that information? And I never said the players' proposal solves all the issues. The two main issues are failure teams that likely couldn't turn a profit with a $20M floor, and owners that can't control their own spending. No proposal from the players can fix those issues. Nor did I say the players proposal actually solves the revenue split issue. We don't have revenue breakdowns for the most recent season, so I can't say for sure. Nor can you say for sure that the players aren't giving enough. I can say that given the numbers we do have, I'd be surprised if what the players propose wouldn't work. I freely admit that my opinion is based largely on using past growth to estimate revenues now. Yours appears to be based on your desire to place equal blame on players. You want to just state that the cap floor is a huge problem, and that players don't want it lowered, despite the facts that you don't have a single number to support the claim and that the players are willing to lower the floor immediately (as well as limiting future growth). You want to say the players aren't willing to budge at all when you don't have the first clue as to how much more the players may be willing to concede. But you want to call everyone else uninformed and ignorant.

The NHL is not in trouble, some teams are in trouble, and most of those wouldn't be if the owners were smarter.. And the players are willing to make concessions. They are willing to lower their share of the revenue. They're reportedly even flexible on the one option year. The players want to increase revenue sharing. They proposed allowing cap space to be traded, which would allow teams struggling to reach the floor to spend less and gain assets for doing so. How are they not trying to address the issues? The players don't want to accept another salary rollback, and they shouldn't. League revenues will likely be around $3.5 billion, and as of now there's about $1.75B in salary commitments with almost all teams having full rosters. So it seems we're pretty close to a 50/50 split right now. It's not the players fault that the wrong teams are spending money. Buffalo is and has been hemorrhaging money but they have the highest salary payroll in the league. $20M this year for Myers and Ehrhoff. $6M for Leino. Minnesota, San Jose, Tampa Bay are no better. Middle of the pack in revenue but trying to spend at the top while teams that can afford it like the Wings, Leafs, Rangers, Canadiens, and Flyers can't get enough players worth spending anything on. You want to call people uninformed and ignorant, but it seems you have no idea what the players are proposing and haven't looked at any of the numbers available. I think you just want to blame the players regardless of any facts.

This doesn't seem to be a meaningful step to me. I'm not sure how they're getting the numbers they are, but if a $70.2M cap is based off 57% players' share, and the only thing that changes is the %, then 51.6% (per TSN) should give a cap of around $64M. $58M would equate to around 46%. They are either reducing the estimated revenue or, more likely, reducing what is considered "Hockey Related Revenue" (which already seems to be less than what owners actually make). And if the cap numbers proposed are fixed, then if revenues grow faster than expected, the players lose out on even more. Overall, it looks just as ridiculous as the first offer, IMO.

88.8% I believe. Also note that the floor isn't just for parity. The players (in total) are guaranteed an exact percentage of all league HRR. The floor ensures each team contributes their fair share.

While you can keep repeating that the floor is a problem, that just doesn't seem to be true. We don't have all the numbers, but looking at the recent history, I'd be surprised if there aren't 24-28 teams that could afford the floor under the players' proposal. Some teams are always going to lose money. Every sport has some every year for the most part. We shouldn't be worried about Phoenix or the Islanders. The bubble teams generally are teams that haven't performed well on the ice for at least several years. Many have never been good. Many are in small markets Most still should be able to turn marginal profit, or least keep the losses small. We shouldn't be overly worried over a few perennial losers in dubious markets suffering financially. The players have no say in how those teams are run or where they're located, they shouldn't have to suffer because of them. I don't think baseball is a very good comparison. Even the "poor" teams make more than all but a few NHL teams, and most make substantially more than even the top NHL team. The tax threshold in baseball is $178M, and only a few teams have ever had to pay tax. The Yankees have payed the vast majority (95% according to Wikipedia). Only a few teams even come close, more than half the teams spend less than half the threshold. It's closer to an example of having no cap at all. I'd be all for removing the cap altogether, and letting the owners sink or swim on the merits of their own business acumen, and I'm sure the union would as well. But history says NHL owners can't be trusted to control themselves. Again, the players shouldn't be blamed for that.

Yes, it's a CBA with a set term. Any proposal by either side will be temporary. Yes, the players proposal reverts back to the current rules in the 4th year, but to say that it won't work you'd have to know what the league financials will look like in 4 years. 57% should have worked in 10-11 (albeit, it doesn't leave a ton of profit), there's no reason to assume that it wouldn't work in 2015-16, especially when you consider that, according to the Forbes data, non-player costs have been rising slower than revenue. It should become easier for teams to afford to devote a higher percentage of revenue to player payroll. The owners say 57% is too high, and the union is willing to concede on that (for 3 years at least). The numbers available to us strongly suggest that even 57% should work, so I'd have to see the recent numbers to believe the owners proposal is even in the same realm as reasonable. You can't just look at "18 teams losing money" and conclude that the deal is untenable. You have to try to determine why they are losing money. You say 18 teams "aren't able" to make money, but that doesn't appear to be true. It's true that they didn't, but not that they weren't able to under the current rules. Explaining why I say 57% should work is a little tedious, so feel free to skip this part if you want to take my word for it. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- First, I'll expand on my earlier post regarding the "midpoint". That is intended to match the "Players' share", and is what all teams, on average, have to spend. It's derived from total "Hockey Related Revenue (HRR)" using the "Applicable Percentage" (This is supposed to be what teams can afford to spend on players. Variable, but we don't need to go in to that. It's 57% whenever HRR is $2.7B or more.). "Total League-wide Player Compensation (TLPC)" is the sum of all salaries and bonuses paid to all NHL players, and can not be more or less than the calculated players' share. (Since the initial players' share is estimated, they periodically recalculate using actual season HRR, and an escrow account to correct any discrepancies.) The players' share (and in turn, the salary cap) is calculated as follows: HRR from the prior season multiplied by the Applicable Percentage. From that subtract estimated cost of preliminary player benefits (Pensions, insurance, etc. No idea what the actual values are, but it seems when the CBA was written they expected it to be less than $81M. The example in the CBA was $66M.) and then multiply by an estimated growth factor (5% growth by default, though the league and players can agree on a different amount). The result is the Players' share. Divide that by 30 to get the "Adjusted midpoint". Add or subtract $8M to get the salary cap or floor. (The cap and floor really aren't that meaningful, since cap spending is determined by average salary rather than actual, so it is possible to spend over or under the cap/floor. But I'll go by those numbers anyway.) Non-player expenses in 2010-11 worked out to about 39% of revenue, league-wide. This number has been dropping, as revenues are increasing faster than these costs. However, I decided to use 40%, to adjust for skew. So with 57% and 40%, we cover our expenses and we're left with 3% for profit. Of course, percentages alone mean nothing. We have to look at actual numbers. The cap for 10-11 was $59.4M, midpoint $51.4M, and floor $43.4M. There is no cap/floor/midpoint for non-players, but 21 teams spent between $33.2M and $43.1M. Average was $40.2M. There's some skewing from the top spending teams, but $33.2 seems a good figure to call a floor. We'll call $40.2 the midpoint, and $47.2 the cap (5 teams spent over that cap, and 2 spent under the floor.). From the Forbes revenue figures (which is after revenue sharing and 'Stadium Debt Service', whatever that is): Taking 57% of each teams revenue for players: 10 teams could afford to spend to the cap 7 more could afford between the midpoint and cap 10 more could afford between the floor and midpoint Only 3 could not afford the floor. In aggregate, $13.9 below where they need to be. The sum of all teams spending 57% (without going above or below the cap/floor) is $46.9M over the players share, meaning teams on average have to spend about $1.5M less than they can technically afford to. Taking 40% for non-players: 7 teams could afford the cap 4 more the midpoint 11 more the floor 8 teams can't quite make the floor, but 5 of them could if taking from the 3% profit pool. However, adjusting player spending to get the correct share, the 5 teams above can afford the floor without touching profits. The other 3 teams (same 3 that couldn't afford players) just suck. Good thing one of them already moved. Aggregate $18M under. In short, you had three problem teams, two now. The other 27 could all make a profit if they actually budgeted properly. Granted, teams won't be perfect in predicting revenue, and sometimes more spending may be required in order meet revenue expectations. So there's maybe another 7 teams at risk, though all are historically low revenue earners, and so should be budgeting as such to at least minimize any losses. It's worth noting that Forbes revenue numbers don't jive with what the cap figures suggest the HRR was for that year. However, since we don't know the actual HRR, and it doesn't appear to be all that big a difference anyway (dirty estimate suggests around $4M/team average, I didn't bother trying to work it out. Probably pushed St.Louis out of the bubble, but not a substantial difference, big picture. It's also worth noting that changing to 54% doesn't change much either, it just doubles the size of the profit pool/safety net. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So in conclusion, in almost all cases, teams losing money are doing so because they are spending more than they should. Basically, it took only $76M in HRR for a team to break even. (For 11-12, that would be around $83M, and ~$91M with a cap of $70.2. With a $68.5 (going to 54% players share) cap it would be around $90M. 18 teams were at that in 10-11, several more close enough that they might be now.) With Atlanta moving to Winnipeg, it eliminated one problem team. Last season, they reportedly had around $100M in revenue and that was probably in the top 15. I'd guess around 24 teams should have the revenue to turn a profit. Also, the players' proposal calls for a greater increase in revenue sharing. Reportedly around $50M more than the owners' proposal. That equates to over $3M more per eligible team. Maybe enough to make a few more teams profitable. IMO, nothing short of relocation will help Phoenix or the Islanders, so nothing should done, except maybe make NY eligible for profit sharing. If their owners are willing to keep losing money, let them stay, but don't try to work the deal in order to compensate for them. But I am curious what you think really needs to be done. How you think a luxury tax system would work and why it would be better. Seems to me just another way for teams to dig themselves a deeper hole, and makes it more possible for even the top earners to lose money. Prior to the cap, the Wings, Rangers, Flyers, Stars, and Avs were all among the top earners and all losing money. Boston barely making anything (though they're still not making much profit...). I don't think it would work.

Different opinions do not mean both are wrong. The players proposal does address the problem with the cap maybe being too high. And whether you want to admit it or not, it is a concession. They are willing to give up some of what they currently have. (And it seems we have some different information. From what I understand, the players offer was 3 years at 54%, then a 4th option year at 57%. As a starting point, it looks very generous to me.) I'm sure both sides are willing to give some from their initial offer, the only question in my mind is whether the owners are willing to go to something at least reasonable. Though if you have some argument as to why the players should concede anything to "solve" a problem with owners spending more than they can afford (and more than the current CBA says they have to), please share.

Of that list, only the first is an issue that the players need to help resolve. Players shouldn't be punished because some owners can't stick to a proper budget. Contract length has nothing to do with financials, and even the front-loading is more an owner-discipline and parity issue than one of financial viability. And even on the cap level, I'm not so sure it's really that much of a problem. It's hard to say without being privy to last seasons revenue numbers, but going by the latest Forbes data it looks like there were 4-8 teams that might have had a problem even spending to the floor in that season. One of them was Atlanta, and that problem seems to be solved. One is Phoenix, which is just a failure, and the players shouldn't be punished for that. One is the Islanders, who either need to relocate, fold, or at least be made fully eligible for revenue sharing. Then you have some borderline teams: St. Louis, Columbus, Nashville, Florida, and Carolina. With some on-ice success, those teams should be able to be profitable if they properly manage their spending (Though Carolina did win a Cup not that long ago, and it didn't really help them at all...), and that's at the 57% players' share and without any increased revenue sharing. On the other end, 9 teams should have been able to spend at or over the cap and still make a profit. Another 7-8 should have been able to spend at or slightly over the mid-point, and the remaining 5-6 a bit below. In my estimation 20-25 teams should have been able to make a profit had they spent more wisely. For those who aren't aware, the target average team payroll spending is the midpoint. So if half the teams can do that or more, and most of the rest can at least come close, the deal is workable. In fact, if some teams spend over the midpoint, other teams have to spend an equal amount under (or all players lose money from escrow). Looking at the Forbes figures, and doing a little adjusting for the skewing at the top, the non-player expenses look to be around 40% of revenue for an average team, and the actual dollar range ($33M-43M for most teams) is such that lower-revenue teams shouldn't be unduly constrained. 57% for a players' share should work. 54% as proposed by the union (and also the number the owners started with in 05-06) almost certainly would for all but a few "problem" franchises. Of course, the floor as currently set is ~$11M higher now, and it may be unlikely that all teams have increased revenue by enough to offset that (plus other rising costs). That's something we don't the information to judge. However, even if it does make the problem worse, I'd say it's more of a revenue sharing problem than a cap problem. Or they may just need to adjust total revenue calculations to remove the skewing caused by Toronto, Montreal, NY, etc. (though that effectively lowers the players' share anyway...) In any event, I'm still finding very little reason to put any blame on the union. At least not with their initial offer already making concessions. The owners crying for more "save-me-from-myself" concessions, and anchors like Phoenix and the Isles, aren't winning any sympathy from me.

The latest Forbes figures are from the 2010-11 season. According to that, 12 teams showed a profit. Of the 18 that didn't, Atlanta moved. Revenue in the first year in Winnipeg is rumored to be near $100M. 7 more teams posted revenue of $90M or more (3 had $100M or more). The Avs posted a $6.1M profit with just $83M in revenue, and the Oilers posted $17.3M with $96M in revenue, despite carrying nearly $100M in debt. The problem is more one of mis-management than player salaries or even bad markets.

I don't think this is true. I think Holland has been conservative mostly because we haven't had the need to be otherwise. In the last few years, we were handcuffed for a couple by the cap, and once we did get some space the options were limited, and our trade assets have been limited. Most of our best/most-tradeable prospects have been picked in the last few drafts. We don't have a 23yo putting up 76 points to give us the option of trading our stars, nor have Pav and Hank been rumored to have off-ice issues. Holland may not be as 'extreme' as Holmgren or Wilson in San Jose, but that doesn't mean he's the complete opposite either.

I think you're trying to divine a philosophy to fit what happened, as if it's all just part of the master plan. I'd say the reality is far, far simpler. You can't always get what you want. And despite Jagger's claims to the contrary, trying won't necessarily get you what you need either. Given a mulligan for the last couple years, Kenny would likely take a different approach. The better defense, in my opinion, is, "So what?". He made some decisions, passed on some options hoping for better, but it didn't work out. So what? There's nothing particularly bad about maybe not being one of the top contenders for a few years. Much of his job relies on making educated guesses about the future. Sometimes, the guesses will be wrong, or someone else will guess right quicker. So what? It isn't Holland's philosophy that put us in the spot we are now. It's that the rest of the league isn't required to follow it. Some of his critics want to say they still support him: 'not saying he sucks, just that he could do better'... And they've been saying it at every opportunity for the past month and a half. I think if that's really all they wanted to say, they'd be satisfied at having said it innumerable times already, but whatever. There may be a big difference between "sucks" and "could have done better", but there's also a big difference between "could have" and "should have".

Kronwall has been playing 20+ minutes for years, as well as being a primary penalty killer. He has played alongside Lidstrom at times. He's no stranger to top-line opposition, and has proven himself more than capable in that role. If he struggles, it will be due to the lack of a true top-pair partner; not his own shortcomings. You should have the same worry regarding Suter.

Datsyuk and Zetterberg are centers who play Selke defense, and even considering that, no. 20-odd goals and 70 points (playing ~80 games) is below what I think we should expect. Datsyuk has scored 196 points in 206 games (.95 ppg) the last three seasons. His points were down in the injury-plagued 09-10 season, and goals were down last year, but I would expect him to get back to high-20s - low-30s goals, and stay close to or over a point/game for at least a couple more years. Hank has 219 points in 236 games (.93 ppg). His goals have been down for three years, and he had a horrid start last year. I don't know if he can get his goals back up, but I think he can do better than his point totals last year. Maybe not for the duration of his contract, but it is less than what you'd need to offer Kane, and at least he had aproven track record to base it on. I'm not all that happy with his numbers since he signed his deal. I never expected him to be "worth" it in the later years, but I was hoping the early years would make up for it. Considering all the intangibles I can't complain too much though, so long as he doesn't degrade too much further too fast. ~$6.7M for 68 points (.83 ppg) for a winger who doesn't play Selke defense is overpaid. Not by a huge amount, but still overpaid. And you're banking on a big IF, in that he needs to continue to improve just to get to that point. And you have to give up a bunch of draft picks to get him. I still don't think we could get him for the compensation you think we could. Who knows what those picks could become. Edmonton gave up a chance at Tyler Myers, Justin Schultz, and a 3rd rounder (nothing special so far) for the right to overpay an underperforming Penner for a few years. I wouldn't have a problem paying Kane that amount if we didn't have to give up anything for him. Good enough chance that he will improve. But there's too big a risk that he won't improve to justify paying that and giving up the picks.

At 21, his first full season, Little scored 31 goals and 51 points. The next season he scored 13g, 34p. The next 18g, 48p. 24g, 46p last year. Similar amount of games each year. At 23, in his 2nd year, Vanek scored 43g, 84p. In the five years since, he's averages 32.4g, 63p. Again, no major time lost to skew the averages. Thus far, neither player has matched their early production. Little's goal scoring regressed substantially, just starting to rebound 3 years later. Vanek's point totals regressed substantially, and given his age now he may never match those totals again. Both players regressed during that 23-26 age range. Kane follows that path, you should expect him to average ~45 points for the next few years. Bobby Ryan is another example, though he's mostly just stagnated. 31g, 57p in 64 games as a 21yo rookie (40g, 73p pace for 82 games). Fairly similar the next two years, then a down year this one, where he scored the same 31g, 57p but in 82 games instead of 64. Again, he's in your magic age bracket. What most players do doesn't mean Kane is certain to improve. He might, and I'd love to have him. But even if he does score ~68 points next year, paying him $6.5-7M is still overpayment (unless 50 of those points are goals). Especially considering he's not a center nor particularly good defensively. And you have to give up a bunch of draft picks for that right. And that's making the assumption that you could even get him that cheap. The Jets would know better than anyone his potential for further improvement, and how much it would hurt their team to lose him. If they think there's a reasonable chance he can live up to a deal like that, they'd match. There's a reason few offer sheets are made. It's not some code of honor between GMs. It's the RFA rules.

Well, again, that doesn't change the RFA rules. Furthermore, "most likely" is not a guarantee. Many players never live up to their early promise, or take several years to do so. Vanek and Little, as I mentioned previously. Some players peak late. We have several examples on the Wings. To justify paying Kane what you'd need to in order for the Jets to not match, he would have to improve considerably starting next year. IF, and it's a big if, you could get him for around $6M, and IF that first rounder doesn't end up a high pick, and IF he doesn't regress, it could be worth it. More likely you'd be giving up at least two 1sts, a 2nd and 3rd, and paying him far more than he's worth, maybe more than he'll ever be worth. If you want great young talent, the best bet is to draft it yourself. You can't do that by giving away all your picks. Also, you'd likely be able to package those picks with players to get a bigger return than Kane + whatever you could get for the players alone.

Yeah, unless we somehow land Doan, I doubt anything happens until TC/preseason, other than maybe adding one of the vets like Hannan, Kubina, or Rozsival. Probably want to get a better idea of what Brunner and Nyquist can do before we do any more tinkering with the forwards. Don't know much about Gilroy. The Hockey News makes him sound a little Lebda-ish, but I've also heard he has some potential. I think we really need another PKer on defense, so he doesn't sound like a good fit.

And my point is, regardless of what we "need" or how much we like Kane, the rules regarding RFAs make it next to impossible to sign one at anything reasonable. I'd be all for trying to trade for his rights, but the offer sheet process just doesn't work. Kane is not a sure thing, has not proven he's worth $6.5M+, no more than Vanek. No more than Bryan Little. He put up 31 as a 21 year old, and regressed after. Kane could do the same, and at the cap hit you're offering he'd be way overpaid even if he just stagnates. You'd be making him one of the top 25 paid forwards and right now he produces like Franzen. It's unlikely the cap will keep going up the way it has, so he would need to improve significantly to be worth that kind of money. The strategy might put the Jets in a bad spot for next summer, when they have Bogosian, Wheeler, Little, and several others to re-sign. Or it might not. Or it could backfire and leave us with a very expensive young underachiever and out a handful of picks that would likely be worth more.

What does that have to do with anything? Vanek was 23 when he got his offer sheet, just turned 28 this year. If anything, that's an argument for not giving a long-term offer to Kane. I'd rather not give up a bunch of picks and pay a guy $6.5-7M to produce like Franzen. Assuming we could even get him that cheap anyway.

Offer sheets just don't work. Penner only "worked" because the Ducks didn't have cap space, and he ended up underachieving in Edmonton. They traded him for less than they gave up in compensation. The revenue numbers you posted are from the last year in Atlanta. Numbers for the first year in Winnepeg haven't been made public, but reports suggest it's near $100M. They have plenty of cap space. They could match a long term offer for $6M, which Kane hasn't earned yet. They likely would match a short-term offer for that amount. To get him, you'd likely need to go into the next compensation bracket or even the top. The Vanek deal was the equivalent of almost $10M/yr with today's cap. He scored 43g/84p as a 22/23 year old, and has never got back to a point/game since, and scored less than 30g two of the last three years. We get that you really like Kane, but liking someone a lot doesn't change the RFA rules.

Re-read the post you quoted for my response.

Maybe not "best possible" if you have the luxury of hindsight to base your decisions on, but we were in damn good position coming into this offseason. I doubt you or anyone else would be complaining about the "plan" had we landed Suter and Parise, or even just Suter. Thing is, if you don't know beforeheand how everything will work out, you can't make a plan to account for every contingency. Any plan, or set of plans, can still fail. Especially when the rules are designed against you, and 29 other teams competing against you. Some things are just out of your control. Maybe if he'd known beforehand that none of Ehrhoff, Bieksa, Pitkanen, or Wisniewski would actually make it to free agency he would have been willing to trade for their rights. But on the other hand, maybe he'd have done that and not have been able to sign them anyway, wasting a pick. Or maybe had we signed one, we wouldn't have signed White or traded for Quincey, leaving us still in a very similar situation. Maybe we trade Flip, Smith, and a 1st for Burns...and don't sign White, and without Jurco and Ouellet in the system we don't give up a 1st for Quincey, then Burns doesn't re-sign and our defense now is Kronwall, Ericsson, and Kindl. Or maybe we do add one of them and everything works out great. Point is, having plans doesn't mean they will work. Furthermore, you're ignoring what he has done, acting like his failure to make a move to your satisfaction is the same as not doing anything at all. He re-signed Kronwall and Ericsson. Added White and Quincey. Held on to Smith when he might easily have traded him. Avoided "just because" cap spending so we'd be in position to go after Suter, and would have been even without the big cap increase and/or if Nick had decided to play another season. Suter was a good plan. Unfortunately, it didn't work. Life goes on. Off-season isn't even over yet, nor do we know yet how the team will come together or how the younger guys will perform. For that matter, I still don't see what's so catastrophic about maybe having a down year or two. Philly went from 95-100+ point seasons to a league worst 56 (worst record since the lockout), right back to 95-100+ and playing in the finals a few years later.