The latest on the Flames, Blues, Kings, Blue Jackets and Canucks in your NHL rumor mill.
Latest Flames speculation.
Rival clubs are showing some interest in Flames defensemen Dennis Wideman and Kris Russell.
SPORTSNET: Elliotte Friedman reports Calgary Flames GM Brad Treliving “holds some sway” over the trade market for defensemen. Dennis Wideman’s played well for the Flames, but he’s carrying a $5.25 million annual cap hit and a full no-movement clause. Kris Russell would love to stay and the Flames want to keep him, but it could come down to the cost of re-signing him.
TSN.CA: Bob McKenzie believes Treliving wants to improve his struggling club but won’t make a panic deal. He believes there’s some interest in Wideman but also cited his contract as a sticking point. He claims teams are interested in Russell but the Flames would like to re-sign him. Pierre LeBrun reports the Buffalo Sabres have spoken to the Flames (among other teams) as they would like to add a top-four defenseman, but there’s nothing imminent right now.
SPECTOR’S NOTE: This is a prime example of how the marginal increase in this season’s salary cap is adversely affecting the NHL trade market. Even with teams having the ability to pick up part of a player’s cap hit, there simply aren’t enough sufficient cap space willing to make moves right now. Wideman’s no-movement clause also gives him full control of this situation, as he won’t waive it to go to just any club. Unless Treliving is willing to part with Russell for a return that can genuinely help the Flames, it’s unlikely he’ll make a deal. He won’t make a panic trade.
Latest Blues Clues.
TSN: Darren Dreger notes the injury-ravaged St. Louis Blues are bringing in veteran forwards Martin Havlat and Dainius Zubrus on professional tryout offers. He claims there’s teams calling the Blues offering up forwards. Their primary target is Carl Gunnarsson, but the Blues don’t want to give up on him just yet, especially with Kevin Shattenkirk still sidelined.
SPECTOR’S NOTE: Those offers can’t be that good if they’re going the PTO route. Perhaps when Shattenkirk returns to action, they’ll listen to offers for Gunnarsson.
Updates on the Kings, Blue Jackets and Canucks.
SPORTSNET: Elliotte Friedman claims the Los Angeles Kings are among the teams seeking a defenseman or two as they aren’t happy with their mix.
SPECTOR’S NOTE: ESPN’s Pierre LeBrun claims the Kings have in fact found stability on their blueline, citing comments from assistant GM Rob Blake claiming their situation has sorted itself out. After dropping their first three games, the Kings have won six straight.
Friedman wondered what the Vancouver Canucks will do with Yannick Weber, who’s seen limited action this season. He also noted Columbus Blue Jackets winger Cam Atkinson has his fans around the league, but his $3.5 million annual salary makes him difficult to move. Friedman also has a theory that the Blue Jackets will take this season to evaluate Ryan Johansen’s performance under new coach John Tortorella before deciding if they’ll re-sign him next summer or trade him.
SPECTOR’S NOTE: I don’t think the Canucks are in any hurry to move Weber right now. They’ll likely want to see how things play out over the next month or two. I also doubt the Jackets will rush to make any trades until they’ve had time to evaluate the club’s performance under Tortorella. Currently, they’re 2-1-0 under their new coach. As for Johansen, they won’t be making any evaluations until his current health issue (fatigue) is resolved.
Ehh people calling the Blues about Gunnarsson and the best Nonis could do is hold salary on Gunnarsson and get Polak…thanks again Dave.
He says you’re welcome.
He left the Leafs in about the same state of affairs as did Rutherford with Carolina.
shticky i would agree 100% except for the fact that no one on the leafs (including gunnner) hits besides polak. prob only trade nonis could make from position of weakness both figuratively and literally.
same crappy team but with someone that will battle hard & nasty when needed at least
The NHL should reward those handful of financially stable teams (that are contributing towards keeping teams like FLA afloat) with a soft cap. It could be $10 M more than the hard cap ceiling, & for those teams that choose to use the extra cap space be subject to a simple tax %.
In other words if their management is unable to build a team properly (or too impatient to wait) allow them to toss money around like drunken sailors. Yeah, that’ll guarantee parity.
well george on the flip side
your suggesting that if you city can’t support even a minimum requirement to operate a business, then lets make all good operating businesses pay the others expense, while at the same time water down players/success
Additionally, if those same managers could manage a business budget to begin with, then you wouldn’t be talking about bad cap management and therefore in my mind your point is invalid
Also, parity come from those same teams that greg smith is referring to. Remove the cap and bye bye all southern teams….again would leave you with another invalid argument.
I wish someone would pay me to operate a bad business…while I can sit on my butt and complain
no the better idea is put another team in chicago and toronto. they already have a builtin advantage over LA and NY, why reward them further
lets not get things twisted
NHL = original 6 no cap no rules
everyone else can go to khl and messup their leagues
thx bettman
Or a soft cap for signing homegrown players. Could be argued that its not fair that teams like Chicago are penalized for developing quality talent. And they’re forced to trade players to teams like Atlanta (Byfuglien) and Columbus (Saad) that don’t.
YES
i have a real problem with that overall issue.
1. force teams to rebuild to compete, which takes up to 10 years
2. by the 10 year mark, you can’t afford the players so you have to trade;; therefore minimizing your quality.
Infinite loop of stupidity.
ya sign me up
the stupidity is your own assbackwards, because there was no cap before 2005. and The leafs had not won for 40 years, even then. the problem isnt the cap. the problem is the owners have no real incentive to win. They sell out whether they win or lose….Assbackwards is right…..youre the perfect leaf fan because you cant see what the real problem is…..
How did the leafs get into this topic?
im not talking about the leafs winning the cup
i watch the games for battles, competition, heart, goaltending, defense and fair play.
cap + expansion + rebuilds equals waterdown hockey thats my point. not an attack on you or defense of leaf inept to win.
What about the Blues who traded Kris Russell, now apparently a top 4 defenseman, to Calgary for a 5th round draft choice?
And the Blues traded Dennis Wideman to the Bruins for Brad Boyes.
Sure wish we had those players back in the St. Louis lineup!
A soft cap for rich teams and homegrown players. Toronto fans want to bend all the rules in their favour no matter how they word it. Why not tattoo a Leafs logo on all peewee hockey players so you can say you already tagged them before they can be drafted. How about building a wall at centre ice so that no one can skate to the Leaf’s end? Ridiculous.
Homegrown players would be a great idea for Nashville and Carolina, don’t you think?
Or Tampa and Florida – and don’t forget Arizona! These are the kinds of suggestions you see when a team just passed a decade of utter futility at the draft. Not counting the 2013-2015 drafts since it’s too early to pass judgement, just take a gander at the Leafs’ record through the first 4 rounds from 2005 to 2102. With the possible exception of Rielley there hasn’t been one that even remotely resembles a potential franchise pick, other than maybe Raask and they didn’t keep him around long enough to find out. And it’s not just the picks, it’s all those rounds without a pick. Now some are suggesting a tweak of the cap system to compensate for management futility:
2005: Tuukka Rask G 21st; Phil Oreskovic D 82nd (3rd r – 2nd r pick); Alex Berry RW 153rd (5th r – no 4th r pick); 2006: Jiri Tlusty LW 13th; Nikolay Kulemin LW 44th; James Reimer G 99th (4th r – no 3rd r pick); Korbinian Holzer D 111th; 2007: no 1st or 2nd r picks (draft schmaft??); Dale Mitchell RW 74th; Matt Frattin RW 99th; Ben Winnett LW 104th; 2008: Luke Schenn D 5th; Jimmy Hayes RW 60th; Mikhail Stefanovich C 98th – no 3rd r pick; 2009: Nazem Kadri C 7th; Kenny Ryan RW 50th; Jesse Blacker D 58th; Jamie Devane LW 68th; 2010: Brad Ross LW 43rd (no 1st r pick); Greg McKegg C 62nd; Sondre Olden RW 79th; Petter Granberg D 116th; 2011: Tyler Biggs RW 22nd; Joshua Leivo LW 86th – no 2nd r pick; Tom Nilsson D 100th; 2012:
Morgan Rielly D 5th; Matt Finn D 35th; no 3rd or 4th r picks
why give the leafs another advantage they can exploit? they have the biggest market all to themselves, NY has 3 teams within 12 miles and they compete.
heres a thoght put another team in toronto, then the leafs will actually have to work to get better instead of 50 years of being a bottom feeder
Lyle, not to nitpick on wording, but I can’t let them get away with pulling wool over people eye’s either…
This should read: “This is a prime example of how the marginal increase in this season’s OWNER GREEDINESS is adversely affecting the NHL trade market.
so the issue is:
the salary cap if a failure and people come up with reasonable suggestion to fix it and others say ya benefits the leafs, although no one said leafs?
Am i missing something or are you all truely leaf haters? lol
If your all for parity how about the NHL should just give toronto the cup out of mercy and go root for the walt disney mighty ducks, they suck too at the moment
i’m not a leaf hater at all, I just dont like how they always use their financial advantage over everyone else, a financial advantage they dont deserve.they only have it because the league hasnt put a 2nd team in Toronto as they should. they put 3 in NY, they put 2 in LA, Why doesnt the self proclaimed hockey capital of the world have 2 teams then…… its because their owners want no competition, thats why. The Leafs owners have no real incentive to get better, they already sell out every game because there are 15 million fans to draw from in a hockey crazed city, if there was a 2nd team they would actually have to work to get better, or lose fans to the other team. them they wouldnt be a joke of a franchise thats won nothing for 50 years. The people of Toronto deserve better. instead they’re held hostage by greedy owners, who because of no competition are guaranteed to make millions of profits every year while robbing the fans…..thats not leaf hate, thats just the truth. why would any hockey fan want another way to let those owners have ways to cheat the fans.
think about it there are millions of Totonto fans who have never seen the maple leafs win a stanley cup, and likely never see one, why because as the only team in town the owners have no incentive to build one. if you dont go to games to protest they’ve got millions of fans to take your place… so why would they care if you stop going…… when i was a kid the Rangers treated us fans like we didnt matter, high priced tickets and a lousy product…..then the Islanders were formed and i said to myself “screw MSG”
The Islanders may suck for awhile, but at least I’ll know they are trying to build a team and thats what they did. I got to watch a dynasty team from scratch because i wasnt gonna let greedy owners with no incentive to get better rob me.
bill im realistic as you are:
to answer some questions from a different perspective.
why no 2nd team in toronto. who cares they probably support 10 in USA
50 year drought = expansion. 1 out of 30 odds. now add rebuilds and caps
you want to know why toronto sucks.\
1. no defense system or players or coaching or support
2. media
3. 2nd line / rate players
4. no drafting of stars
thats why
not money or inept management…its fan / media pressure & stupidty listening to it, Unlike shanahans approach
bill i must add that i agree with your point of a “sound business model..maximize profit minimize expense…cup be damned and I have had it explained rationally many times (as yu have done), but I can assure you that each and every owner that once given a team worth spending on to make a run….usually tries and does the reverse when its not worthwhile.
isnt toronto rumored to be where all FA signings go, if there was no cap?
wasnt that your initial point about leafs monetary advantages?
so they don;t want to win because somehow that enhances profits but giving clarkson 5 million over 8 years is not a waste of money.
it’s an attempt to win; futile yes; nevertheless still an attempt
Sounds like some might resent the Leafs a little more than they let on…punish a team that probably generates the 2nd or third most revenue in the league for their futility ya that should teach them. Why stop there? Not like the Flyeers have multiple cups in the past 30 years Philly is a pretty big market lets throw a team in there too…. nah you dont sound like you resent them at all…lol
That’s the most nervous-sounding “LOL” I’ve seen in a while. What, exactly, did bill neftleberg say about greedy Leafs owners that isn’t true? Why do you think there isn’t a 2nd team in Toronto? Or Montreal for that matter?
George point to an owner in the NHL thats not greedy. Is it Melnyk? Snider? Jaccobs? Any number of the hedge funds that are majority owners in weaker markets? Its a billion dollar industry and its a business…of course they are greedy.
i back schticky on this one.
just because you arent smart enough to see the truth shticky doesnt mean its any less true. building a winner takes time and commitment, but some ownership groups only care about keeping seats full and revenues up.The wont risk empty seats to truly rebuild. you call that leaf hate but its not, its recognition of the facts. The Rangers in the 7 years prior to the salary cap had payrolls averaging $90M and made the playoffs not one of those years. All their ownership cared about was keeping the seats filled and tickets sold, not buildong a winner. the problem is not the salary cap,the problem is motivating owners to want to win and not just sell tickets
Your argument makes no sense bill… if a team truely didnt care about winning why on earth would they spend 90 millio on a roster? If you say it was just to put butts in the seats you dont think winning accomplishes the same thing possibly for less money? The Rangers were bad because the were poorly run not because they didnt care if they won, the example you give of the Rangers your logic is as flawed as puttting a second team in a big market to punish another one for not winning championships.
Easy on the smarts comments bill..lol if you are not smart enough to realize that an owner of any businessis in the business to make money….not sure that the Rangers were spending 90 million dollars pre cap just because they were idiots that didnt care about winning. If they didnt care about winning why were they spending that much on a roster? They didnt win because they were not particularly run well. If what you are saying is true dont you think there were cheaper ways to accomplish losing thus making more money?
Winning would put as many butts in in the seats regardless if they spent less or not. People were not filling the seats because the Rangers were spending 90 mill on a roster.
yes bill but if you attempt rebuild, you might mnot get fans, which equals no money, which means no team, which equals no expansion teams and parity…
leafs tried a balancing act and some times it works and sometimes it doesn’t…only in the era of new nhl and cap system, have all owners now accepted the rebuild to success model, but guess what it produces the same results.
your either good, lucky or both and maybe just maybe you win the cup. if not yur 2nd place , cap or not.
Why not just have a franchise player exemption. Like the NFL, you appoint ONE player as your franchise player. Make it so that player’s salary doesn’t count against the cap.