HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Philadelphia Flyers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Kukkonen waived

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-09-2009, 09:20 AM
  #26
facts
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 885
vCash: 500
Jones isn't helping us if indeed we are attempting to showcase him. He is scared to get hit, coughs up the puck and is dreadful with his first pass. He needs to be moved sooner than later. At this point I would be willing to take a 3rd and be done with it. I think that Parent needs to get here as well!

facts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2009, 09:40 AM
  #27
Opus
Registered User
 
Opus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Kingston
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,920
vCash: 50
What exactly does this move to free up cap space, can anybody with some cap figures chime in?

Opus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2009, 09:42 AM
  #28
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 109,947
vCash: 5792
Quote:
Originally Posted by opus View Post
What exactly does this move to free up cap space, can anybody with some cap figures chime in?
If he's sent to the minors, his number is off the cap. All $800K of it.

GKJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2009, 09:49 AM
  #29
Opus
Registered User
 
Opus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Kingston
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,920
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson 514 View Post
If he's sent to the minors, his number is off the cap. All $800K of it.
Thanks for the reply.

So the big picture remains the same...were still screwed.

Opus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2009, 09:51 AM
  #30
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson 514 View Post
If he's sent to the minors, his number is off the cap. All $800K of it.
No, only the portion of it that remains unpaid. They are still responsible for the fact that they were carrying him on the NHL roster for the first half of the season.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2009, 11:37 AM
  #31
Juicy Couturier*
CannonGoBoom
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Philly Area
Posts: 4,910
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Juicy Couturier*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corduroy View Post
I like the way you think -- can we dump Knuble as well?


Yes lets drop the only veteran offensive forward we have in our everyday lineup. Its not like hes on pace for yet another 25-30 goal season. Experience means nothing anyway, lets bring up some 20 year old rookie with no experience that has potential but wont live up to it this year so when we get into the grind of the playoffs we can fall apart. But hey the quicker we lose in the playoffs the higher the pick...right?

Juicy Couturier* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2009, 11:40 AM
  #32
CantSeeColors
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Country: Seychelles
Posts: 5,472
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JLHockeyKnight View Post
Hm. I wasn't aware you could be un-waived.
After a certain amount of time (I want to say it's either 10, 14, or 30 days) you're automatically "un-waived" if you haven't been sent down or claimed. His first waiving was obviously long enough ago that that time has passed.

CantSeeColors is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2009, 11:42 AM
  #33
shamski7
Registered User
 
shamski7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bucks County, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 3,147
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to shamski7
noon has come and gone. i dont see anything about him being claimed by anyone. no surprise there.

shamski7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2009, 11:50 AM
  #34
JXC
#LaviPondHockeyFail
 
JXC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 13,889
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CannonGoBoom View Post


Yes lets drop the only veteran offensive forward we have in our everyday lineup. Its not like hes on pace for yet another 25-30 goal season. Experience means nothing anyway, lets bring up some 20 year old rookie with no experience that has potential but wont live up to it this year so when we get into the grind of the playoffs we can fall apart. But hey the quicker we lose in the playoffs the higher the pick...right?
That was savage.

I think it has been neat to watch Knuble come along as a penalty killer. I remember the first time Stevens sent him out there, it was "WTF?", including me. He's a big part of it now.

JXC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2009, 12:09 PM
  #35
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CannonGoBoom View Post


Yes lets drop the only veteran offensive forward we have in our everyday lineup. Its not like hes on pace for yet another 25-30 goal season. Experience means nothing anyway, lets bring up some 20 year old rookie with no experience that has potential but wont live up to it this year so when we get into the grind of the playoffs we can fall apart. But hey the quicker we lose in the playoffs the higher the pick...right?
You realize the reason we're moving players is to bring back Briere, not some 20 y/o rookie, right?

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2009, 12:38 PM
  #36
kicksave27
Registered User
 
kicksave27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,249
vCash: 500
I will admit that knuble looks ugly when he attempts to stick handle, and he does knuble pp's every now and then, but the guy is an expert in front of the net scoring dirty goals, which are playoff goals. If you can run out knuble and hartnell on successive power play units, that's a dangerous team.

We picked up 2 dmen when jones went down and kept sisba up, now we get jones back and we look at moving forwards instead of D? Do we really need 8 dmen, now that parent is back?

kicksave27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2009, 12:48 PM
  #37
BerubeBox*
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,086
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
You realize the reason we're moving players is to bring back Briere, not some 20 y/o rookie, right?
But if you moved Knuble you'd probably need to replace him with a player of a similar type. Briere does have more experience than some but I don't see him as a steadying presence. And he sure aint no power forward. We want Briere back in general, but he wouldn't really be replacing anyone. There are much better options than Knuble if we need to move someone.

Ugh, I got drawn into a cap space discussion *spits*.

Now I'm depressed.

BerubeBox* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2009, 12:50 PM
  #38
Get Carter
Registered User
 
Get Carter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Bucks County, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 317
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BerubeBox View Post
But if you moved Knuble you'd probably need to replace him with a player of a similar type. Briere does have more experience than some but I don't see him as a steadying presence. And he sure aint no power forward. We want Briere back in general, but he wouldn't really be replacing anyone. There are much better options than Knuble if we need to move someone.

Ugh, I got drawn into a cap space discussion *spits*.

Now I'm depressed.
Trade Knuble, Sign Shanny?

Get Carter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2009, 01:03 PM
  #39
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BerubeBox View Post
But if you moved Knuble you'd probably need to replace him with a player of a similar type. Briere does have more experience than some but I don't see him as a steadying presence. And he sure aint no power forward. We want Briere back in general, but he wouldn't really be replacing anyone. There are much better options than Knuble if we need to move someone.

Ugh, I got drawn into a cap space discussion *spits*.

Now I'm depressed.
Don't get me wrong, I think they should move Randy Jones for a bag of pucks if necessary. I really want to see Ryan Parent up with this team this season, because I think he has proven that the AHL isn't going to help him much more in his development...he needs to start learning to play at this level ASAP.

I was just noting the silliness of acting like Knuble's roster spot was going to be getting replaced by some 20 y/o rookie in this discussion, as the reason for moving him (or anyone) was so that you could bring back Briere.

In reality, I'd like to move Briere...but that's not going to happen.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2009, 02:26 PM
  #40
CantSeeColors
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Country: Seychelles
Posts: 5,472
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kicksave27 View Post
I will admit that knuble looks ugly when he attempts to stick handle, and he does knuble pp's every now and then, but the guy is an expert in front of the net scoring dirty goals, which are playoff goals. If you can run out knuble and hartnell on successive power play units, that's a dangerous team.

We picked up 2 dmen when jones went down and kept sisba up, now we get jones back and we look at moving forwards instead of D? Do we really need 8 dmen, now that parent is back?
The 2004 playoffs say hi.

CantSeeColors is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2009, 02:29 PM
  #41
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 109,947
vCash: 5792
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
No, only the portion of it that remains unpaid. They are still responsible for the fact that they were carrying him on the NHL roster for the first half of the season.
Well, I didn't go through the math, but that was his base salary. Since we're half way though it would be ~$400K, but I'm not sure if recall waivers works the same.

GKJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2009, 02:32 PM
  #42
mikedifr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 8,359
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaydepps View Post
I really hope he is claimed. I feel bad for the guy. He IS an NHL defenseman. I hope he finds a place where the coach won't hate him.
I do too....I would take him on my team anyday.

Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson 514 View Post
Ridiculous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cmoneyflyguy View Post
he's VASTLY overrated by this board.
Almost as much as knuble is underrated by this board.
Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson 514 View Post
Jones, Alberts and Modry each played their best hockey with the Flyers while playing with Kukkonen. That doesn't mean Kukkonen is great, but the shoe fits.

With Sbisa, everyone's arguably played their worst. That's why he can't get a consistent partner. Again, not saying Sbisa is terrible, but the shoe doesn't fit. And if he's filing in and out of the lineup with Alberts, that's not the responsible thing to do either. And if Kukkonen is claimed, that's not enough salary off the cap.
GKJ I completely agree with you. If Kukkonen is asked to be the one carrying the pair, he isnt going to work as well, but he works perfectly as a stay at home guy covering for other guys like Jones and Modry.

What is Kukkonen's salary compared to Alberts? I thought Alberts was much higher in which case I rather have moved him to free up more cap space cause I dont think there is that much of a difference in quality between the two. If they are closer than I think, I guess I am fine with it beings that Alberts is a little more physical and much bigger......However, something needs to be done with Jones as well cause he is just WAY too expensive for a 3rd pairing dman at this point.

mikedifr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2009, 03:35 PM
  #43
phlocky
Registered User
 
phlocky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,143
vCash: 500



I'll say this again, it doesn't matter what anyones pro-rated salary is nor how long they were with the parent club. It ONLY matter what our total active roster YEARLY cap is. Add up the yearly cap hit from all players on the active roster (forget the LTIR ones, it's a long sotry and easier this way). Sending Kukkonen down removes 875k from our cap number, that's all that's important.

5:00 today marked the EXACT midpoint of the season. We have played through 93 days of the season and we have 93 remaining. The Flyers have spent more than 28.35 mil because of our LTIR but with the medical allowances we have EXACTLY 28.35 mil reminaing to be spent for the remainder of the year. Pro-rating everything backwards means that we can have a current ACTIVE roster with a YEARLY cap not excedding 56.7 mil. Tomorrow we will spend more than the maximum but we'll again get a bit back because of LTIR allowances and AGAIN have a maximum YEARLY cap or 56.7 mil.


Last edited by phlocky: 01-09-2009 at 03:42 PM.
phlocky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2009, 04:01 PM
  #44
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by phlocky View Post



I'll say this again, it doesn't matter what anyones pro-rated salary is nor how long they were with the parent club. It ONLY matter what our total active roster YEARLY cap is. Add up the yearly cap hit from all players on the active roster (forget the LTIR ones, it's a long sotry and easier this way). Sending Kukkonen down removes 875k from our cap number, that's all that's important.

5:00 today marked the EXACT midpoint of the season. We have played through 93 days of the season and we have 93 remaining. The Flyers have spent more than 28.35 mil because of our LTIR but with the medical allowances we have EXACTLY 28.35 mil reminaing to be spent for the remainder of the year. Pro-rating everything backwards means that we can have a current ACTIVE roster with a YEARLY cap not excedding 56.7 mil. Tomorrow we will spend more than the maximum but we'll again get a bit back because of LTIR allowances and AGAIN have a maximum YEARLY cap or 56.7 mil.
...but the pro-rated daily cap number does matter. sending Kukkonen down does not remove the 400+K that has already been paid to him, it removes the 400+K they would be paying him the rest of the season. You're right that the grand total is ultimately what matters, but your gross simplification of the salary cap v. the pro-rated nature of salaries is wrong.

For example, if you have 500K in cap space on your Yearly cap total before the deadline, you can add a player who has a yearly salary of 1.5M, because you're only going to be paying the last third of it (or whatever it ends up being from the deadline).

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2009, 04:35 PM
  #45
phlocky
Registered User
 
phlocky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 6,143
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
...but the pro-rated daily cap number does matter. sending Kukkonen down does not remove the 400+K that has already been paid to him, it removes the 400+K they would be paying him the rest of the season. You're right that the grand total is ultimately what matters, but your gross simplification of the salary cap v. the pro-rated nature of salaries is wrong.

For example, if you have 500K in cap space on your Yearly cap total before the deadline, you can add a player who has a yearly salary of 1.5M, because you're only going to be paying the last third of it (or whatever it ends up being from the deadline).
Yes but the fact is that we have not accrued any cap space on any day this year so taking into account Kukks pro-rated salary doesn't make any difference at all. The NHL doesn't care about what we paid yesterday nor to whom we paid it to. The only thing the NHL cares about is how much you have remaining (including any accrued medical allowances) and that the pro-rated salaries of your CURRENT active roster does not exceed the AVERAGE daily amount REMAINING in your "cap account". Again, our "average daily salary cap spending" cannot exceed some $304k which comes out to a year amount of 56.7 mil.

Ok, I've been thinking about htis and I think I know where the confusion has occured. Now I don't know exactly who the Flyers have on their active roster but I'm betting that once Briere comes back we would have a YEARLY total of around 60.7 mil. This is where some are saying that we need to trim around 4 mil. Holmgren is saying that we only need to trim 2 mil but that this is "pro-rated" salary. In this case removing Kukkonen WOULD only remove 437k off the 2 mil we need to trim. If you want to try and look at it this way then be my guest but I guarrentee you that at the end of the day our total active roster cap hit cannot, and WILL NOT exceed 56.7 mil (yearly number).

phlocky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2009, 05:09 PM
  #46
mm6492
Registered User
 
mm6492's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 8,518
vCash: 500
I am confused


I'll let you experts take car of this

mm6492 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2009, 05:12 PM
  #47
Cmoneyflyguy
Registered User
 
Cmoneyflyguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Wayne, Pa
Country: United States
Posts: 2,140
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CannonGoBoom View Post


Yes lets drop the only veteran offensive forward we have in our everyday lineup. Its not like hes on pace for yet another 25-30 goal season. Experience means nothing anyway, lets bring up some 20 year old rookie with no experience that has potential but wont live up to it this year so when we get into the grind of the playoffs we can fall apart. But hey the quicker we lose in the playoffs the higher the pick...right?

Cmoneyflyguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2009, 05:28 PM
  #48
CanadianFlyer88
Moderator
Knublin' PPs
 
CanadianFlyer88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Van City
Posts: 14,019
vCash: 955
So, Kukks cleared waivers, but will remain with the Flyers..... meaning his cap hit is still on the books.

CanadianFlyer88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2009, 05:30 PM
  #49
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by phlocky View Post
Yes but the fact is that we have not accrued any cap space on any day this year so taking into account Kukks pro-rated salary doesn't make any difference at all. The NHL doesn't care about what we paid yesterday nor to whom we paid it to. The only thing the NHL cares about is how much you have remaining (including any accrued medical allowances) and that the pro-rated salaries of your CURRENT active roster does not exceed the AVERAGE daily amount REMAINING in your "cap account". Again, our "average daily salary cap spending" cannot exceed some $304k which comes out to a year amount of 56.7 mil.

Ok, I've been thinking about htis and I think I know where the confusion has occured. Now I don't know exactly who the Flyers have on their active roster but I'm betting that once Briere comes back we would have a YEARLY total of around 60.7 mil. This is where some are saying that we need to trim around 4 mil. Holmgren is saying that we only need to trim 2 mil but that this is "pro-rated" salary. In this case removing Kukkonen WOULD only remove 437k off the 2 mil we need to trim. If you want to try and look at it this way then be my guest but I guarrentee you that at the end of the day our total active roster cap hit cannot, and WILL NOT exceed 56.7 mil (yearly number).
Honestly...you're confusing this WAY more than you need to. Yes, the salary cap is very complicated, but it is specifically calculated on a day-to-day pro-rated basis.

And, no, you cannot guarantee that our active roster salary will not exceed 56.7M as a yearly number. In our case it's difficult to go above that number because we have very little salary cap flexibility (because we haven't been carrying any cap cushion), but with trades it is easy to assume a contract that pushes you past that number, but is legal simply because of the pro-rated nature of how the salary cap figure is calculated.

The Flyers are no responsible for the yearly value of Powe or Nodl or Kalinski's contract, they're responsible for the number of days they spend with the Flyers. The pro-rated...daily value of their contracts.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2009, 05:48 PM
  #50
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 109,947
vCash: 5792
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanadianFlyer88 View Post
So, Kukks cleared waivers, but will remain with the Flyers..... meaning his cap hit is still on the books.
...


So why did they waive him? The only thing I can think of is because sending down other guys will clear space and use him as a 7th defenseman up front. I know Stevens says he likes rolling 4 lines (even though that's a blatant lie), but this is the hand he is dealt. I guess they also don't want to get burn with recall waivers.

GKJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:24 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.