Shea Weber Career in Jeopardy, Ren Lavoie and Elliotte Friedman Report

[GHT120]

Just now, Fanpuck33 said:

 

Huh? 

In a short-term situation a team can hope that the player sees getting the "A" as a vote of confidence ... the team hoping that it gives the player's own confidence a boost and hence their play

[Fanpuck33]

9 minutes ago, GHT120 said:

In a short-term situation a team can hope that the player sees getting the "A" as a vote of confidence ... the team hoping that it gives the player's own confidence a boost and hence their play

 

That wasn't the part I am confused about. I don't understand what you meant by "expect your option, but I can't exclude mine."

[GHT120]

1 minute ago, Fanpuck33 said:

 

That wasn't the part I am confused about. I don't understand what you meant by "expect your option, but I can't exclude mine."

Apologies ... what I meant was that it is likely JA got the "A" is because he is part of the long-term plans ... but it could have been to try to help JA's game.

[DON]

Will Weber be actually with the team as a cheerleder, or sitting home "recuperating" on a Kelowna golf course in the fall?

[GHT120]

10 minutes ago, DON said:

Will Weber be actually with the team as a cheerleder, or sitting home "recuperating" on a Kelowna golf course in the fall?

Usually LTIR players don't hang around the team ... but Shea may be a different cat ... could also depend on whether he has any hope about every playing again ... rehabbing can be done anywhere, but it could possibly be an excuse for him to hang around ... but if I had to bet, I don't see him around the team.

[Fanpuck33]

14 minutes ago, GHT120 said:

Apologies ... what I meant was that it is likely JA got the "A" is because he is part of the long-term plans ... but it could have been to try to help JA's game.

 

Both of those are your ideas, so I'm not sure what opinion of mine you were "expecting" (still not sure what that means in the context). I just brought up the idea that Anderson is in the mix for a letter next season. Anyone who wore one last season is obviously at least in the discussion.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

This may sound nasty, sorry;. but I don’t want Weber to return at this point. The probability of him being highly effective at age 37 after catastrophic injuries is low, and his contract is an absolute millstone, one of the worst in hockey. As much as Weber the man deserves better than what has happened to him, as sad as it is on a human level, in pure hockey terms, it is a lucky break for the Montreal Canadiens because it gets us out from under that boat anchor of a contract, right at the time when it was really starting to become a problem.

[GHT120]

12 minutes ago, Fanpuck33 said:

Both of those are your ideas, so I'm not sure what opinion of mine you were "expecting" (still not sure what that means in the context). I just brought up the idea that Anderson is in the mix for a letter next season. Anyone who wore one last season is obviously at least in the discussion.

I was expecting that your post about why Anderson got a letter was correct, but that mine was a possibility

[Sir_Boagalott]

5 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

This may sound nasty, sorry;. but I don’t want Weber to return at this point. The probability of him being highly effective at age 37 after catastrophic injuries is low, and his contract is an absolute millstone, one of the worst in hockey. As much as Weber the man deserves better than what has happened to him, as sad as it is on a human level, in pure hockey terms, it is a lucky break for the Montreal Canadiens because it gets us out from under that boat anchor of a contract, right at the time when it was really starting to become a problem.

 

I agrree.  It sucks for him personally as a player, and because he is injured he'll still get his money, but his contract was always going to be a problem. 

 

Are there any rules about players on LTIR and being allowed to be around the team, like in the locker room or behind the bench?  Others have commented about him becoming a Coach, which is a decent idea, but I dont think he'd be officially allowed to until his contract is up.  He's already being paid to play, so I dont believe he'd be able to be paid to Coach - that would probably be considered as double dipping.  As long as there arent any rules preventing it would it be possible for him to just follow the team around and be an unofficial team "helper"?

[GHT120]

12 minutes ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

This may sound nasty, sorry;. but I don’t want Weber to return at this point. The probability of him being highly effective at age 37 after catastrophic injuries is low, and his contract is an absolute millstone, one of the worst in hockey. As much as Weber the man deserves better than what has happened to him, as sad as it is on a human level, in pure hockey terms, it is a lucky break for the Montreal Canadiens because it gets us out from under that boat anchor of a contract, right at the time when it was really starting to become a problem.

In many ways I agree ... and would even be OK if (however unlikely) Shea retired ... carries a small cap-hit for habs (and totally screws Nashville) but would eliminate having to play the LTIR game for four more seasons after this ... as I understand it, Habs have to be close to the ceiling before putting Weber on LTIR to maximize cap benefits, but being that close also could mean that roster flexibility would be constrained in-season

[Fanpuck33]

1 hour ago, GHT120 said:

I was expecting that your post about why Anderson got a letter was correct, but that mine was a possibility

 

Huh, that is how that word can be used. I guess at some point my brain kind of combined the two meanings of the word. (i.e. I expect you are right vs. I expect my guests to arrive soon.) I started applying the anticipatory nature of the second use to the first use. So rather than using it to mean that I think something is true, I use it to mean that I anticipate something to be true in the future. So I was having trouble figuring out how the word was being applied to something that already happened, haha.

 

Ok, my grammar tangent is finished.

[Habs Fan in Edmonton]

1 hour ago, The Chicoutimi Cucumber said:

This may sound nasty, sorry;. but I don’t want Weber to return at this point. The probability of him being highly effective at age 37 after catastrophic injuries is low, and his contract is an absolute millstone, one of the worst in hockey. As much as Weber the man deserves better than what has happened to him, as sad as it is on a human level, in pure hockey terms, it is a lucky break for the Montreal Canadiens because it gets us out from under that boat anchor of a contract, right at the time when it was really starting to become a problem.

 

It is not nasty, you are thinking like a GM. If Shea Weber is not playing at 100% then the cap hit badly hurts the Habs. It sounds unlikely that he will be 100% again as much as I would like that to see that happen.  I can't argue the logic in your post. 

[Sir_Boagalott]

2 hours ago, GHT120 said:

In many ways I agree ... and would even be OK if (however unlikely) Shea retired ... carries a small cap-hit for habs (and totally screws Nashville) but would eliminate having to play the LTIR game for four more seasons after this ... as I understand it, Habs have to be close to the ceiling before putting Weber on LTIR to maximize cap benefits, but being that close also could mean that roster flexibility would be constrained in-season

 

I dont believe your interpretation is entirely correct.  My understanding of what I've seen @dlbalr say numerous times is this:  a team doesnt get Cap relief per say, its more like they technically get an overage.  ex:  if the cap is 70mil, and a team is at the cap,  if a 7.5 mil player is injured for the year, then their cap hit is not 62.5, its still 70.  For them to get cap relief they'd need to spend over 70 mil, and they could spend up to 77.5 mil. 

 

Either way, its basically the same difference, they'd have 7.5mil to play with, but a team has to spend the $ to get anything.

 

For a player to get LTIR they just need to say that they want to play, show up and a team Dr does a physical and they fail it, then they're put on LTIR.  I can't see Weber actually saying that he is retiring in that sense, he'll do the physicals and fail them ever year. 

[GHT120]

9 minutes ago, Sir_Boagalott said:

 

I dont believe your interpretation is entirely correct.  My understanding of what I've seen @dlbalr say numerous times is this:  a team doesnt get Cap relief per say, its more like they technically get an overage.  ex:  if the cap is 70mil, and a team is at the cap,  if a 7.5 mil player is injured for the year, then their cap hit is not 62.5, its still 70.  For them to get cap relief they'd need to spend over 70 mil, and they could spend up to 77.5 mil. 

 

Either way, its basically the same difference, they'd have 7.5mil to play with, but a team has to spend the $ to get anything.

 

For a player to get LTIR they just need to say that they want to play, show up a physical and fail it, then they're put on LTIR.  I can't see Weber actually saying that he is retiring in that sense, he'll do the physicals and fail them ever year. 

I believe I've read that the amount of the cap overage (i.e., how far over the cap they can spend) is determined by the teams' cap hit when the LTIR is involved ... ***IF*** that is correct, building on your example and assuming this is all done immediately before the season begins (i.e., when the team must become cap compliant), if the teams' cap total was at $70 million when the player is placed on LTIR they could spend up to $77.5 in total ... but if their cap hit was at $66M then they would only be allowed to spend up to $73.5M in total, not $77.5 ... LTIR cannot be "banked".

 

Perhaps @dlbair could clarify for us when he has moment.

[Sir_Boagalott]

4 minutes ago, GHT120 said:

I believe I've read that the amount of the cap overage (i.e., how far over the cap they can spend) is determined by the teams' cap hit when the LTIR is involved ... ***IF*** that is correct, building on your example and assuming this is all done immediately before the season begins (i.e., when the team must become cap compliant), if the teams' cap total was at $70 million when the player is placed on LTIR they could spend up to $77.5 in total ... but if their cap hit was at $66M then they would only be allowed to spend up to $73.5M in total, not $77.5 ... LTIR cannot be "banked".

 

Perhaps @dlbair could clarify for us when he has moment.

 

Keep in mind too that Weber is an extremely simple example due to him missing the entire year.  ex:  if an 8 mil player is injured for 1/4 of the season then a team would only get 25% so $2 mil.   My examples use simple to follow math, while most injuries would be way more complicated trying to calculate it.  

 

In your example, I believe you are technically right in the wording of it.  However, in that situation the team is 4 mil under the 70 mil cap.  In that scenario I'm pretty sure they'd get to spend the $4mil that they are under the cap.  It would seem crazy if they wouldnt be allowed to get to cap max because a player is injured. 

 

However, that could be due to players missing a few weeks and returning, if the player is replaced and then the injured guy comes back then that increases their cap. 

[GHT120]

25 minutes ago, Sir_Boagalott said:

 

Keep in mind too that Weber is an extremely simple example due to him missing the entire year.  ex:  if an 8 mil player is injured for 1/4 of the season then a team would only get 25% so $2 mil.   My examples use simple to follow math, while most injuries would be way more complicated trying to calculate it.  

 

In your example, I believe you are technically right in the wording of it.  However, in that situation the team is 4 mil under the 70 mil cap.  In that scenario I'm pretty sure they'd get to spend the $4mil that they are under the cap.  It would seem crazy if they wouldnt be allowed to get to cap max because a player is injured. 

 

However, that could be due to players missing a few weeks and returning, if the player is replaced and then the injured guy comes back then that increases their cap. 

Went full season because that is what Weber faces ... in-season LTIRs are rare ... if our $7.5 million dollar player gets hurt after a third of the season, $2.5 million worth of his cap-hit used up, and is placed on LTIR the team potentially has $5 million of LTIR cap advantage ... but, if that player returns before the and of the season the full  $5 million goes back on the cap ... so risky to use LTIR during he season unless it is a season ending injury.

[dlbalr]

5 hours ago, GHT120 said:

I believe I've read that the amount of the cap overage (i.e., how far over the cap they can spend) is determined by the teams' cap hit when the LTIR is involved ... ***IF*** that is correct, building on your example and assuming this is all done immediately before the season begins (i.e., when the team must become cap compliant), if the teams' cap total was at $70 million when the player is placed on LTIR they could spend up to $77.5 in total ... but if their cap hit was at $66M then they would only be allowed to spend up to $73.5M in total, not $77.5 ... LTIR cannot be "banked".

 

Perhaps @dlbair could clarify for us when he has moment.

 

On an $81.5M cap, if the Habs were at $70M and placed Weber on LTIR, they'd get no relief.  You're correct in that the timing of the placement matters.  If the Habs are at $80M at the time of the placement, Montreal's cap ceiling with LTIR would be $87.58M.  If they place him at $81M, it'd be $88.58M.  They want to get as close to the cap at the time they put him on there as a result.

 

I find this is a good read for LTIR purposes if you want to see the different scenarios: https://couchguysports.com/the-nhl-ltir-explained/