Topics in this edition of the PHR Mailbag include the Jeremy Swayman contract drama, handicapping the Metropolitan Division, and much more.  If your question doesn’t appear here, check back next weekend for part two.

wreckage: Everyone knows and even Edmonton fans admit, they need to upgrade on Nurse as their 3D but it’s impossible at his contract, especially with his NMC. And now some certain ESPN guy is saying Seth Jones to EDM makes sense, despite the fact the time Caleb was there was tumultuous with their mother’s claims on the old Twitterverse. Does any of that rumor make sense? Even in the slightest?

First, let me say that I’m blissfully unaware of those claims from the Twitterverse which allows me to actually ponder the idea on its merits.  Before getting into that, I’ll note that only six players remain from Caleb’s tenure with Edmonton with a different head coach, GM, president, and much more.  The culture is different, the team is mostly different; if there were concerns before, those same concerns might not be around anymore.

On the surface, the idea of a swap with Darnell Nurse and Jones makes a lot of sense in theory if there’s a desire to make a change there.  Nurse’s contract ($9.25MM through 2029-30) makes it incredibly difficult to swap him for an upgrade as a lot of teams will view the price tag as a negative.  With Jones making similar money ($9.5MM through 2029-30), the cap charge isn’t the issue.  It’s one overpaid blueliner for another.  If both teams think that they’re better off with the other overpaid player, a swap would make sense.  I don’t think it’ll happen though.  I’d say Chicago says no given the left-defense organizational depth they have, making Nurse a bit redundant compared to the right side where they’re much thinner.  But value-wise, it’s not a bad framework for a swap.

gowings2008: Is it crazy to think the Leafs are primed for a step back this year? There are so many question marks. Can Matthews, Nylander, and Marner repeat career years? Will Tavares continue to decline and how fast? Will Chris Tanev’s body hold up? Are they getting Florida OEL or Vancouver OEL? Are Knies and McMann legit? Do they even have an NHL fourth line? Is Woll really the answer with just 34 career starts? I really think if just a couple of these things don’t bounce in the Leafs’ direction, they’ll be on the outside looking in come playoff time. The Atlantic is no walk in the park, especially this year.

It’s not crazy to think that Toronto could take a significant step back this season.  We know of them being a top regular season team under former coach Sheldon Keefe but will things be different under Craig Berube?  They’re now built with an eye on being more effective in the playoffs.  Will the uncertainty around Mitch Marner’s final year of his contract turn into a distraction?  I don’t think so but it could.  I’m not as worried about the defense and some of the other forwards that you mentioned but there is one giant wild card.

The goaltending isn’t just a question about Joseph Woll but also Anthony Stolarz.  Neither player has even been a 1B option in the NHL.  They each made career highs in starts last season, making 23 and 24 combined.  There are 82 games in the regular season.  How will they hold up under the bigger workload?  And with oft-injured Matt Murray and Dennis Hildeby as the in-house options to turn to if injuries or general fatigue arise, they’re taking a risk.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t mind the approach they’re taking.  There’s upside to both Woll and Stolarz and if they even provide average goaltending, they’ll be fine.  But if they falter, they could very well be in trouble.

But that said, I don’t see much reason to think they won’t be a top-three team in the Atlantic this season.  While they have questions, no doubt, so do a lot of other teams not named Florida.  In that case, I’d back the team with the track record of winning a lot of regular season games to continue doing so.

Johnny Z: So did Neely make the $64M contract offer to Jeremy Swayman and his agent sat on it and did not tell his client? Does Swayman take this offer and fires his agent? Will Neely take the offer off the table? Will Swayman end up on the trade block? What a mess!

First, let me say that this has turned into a bit of a bizarre situation.  With the various reporting that’s out there, I get the sense that the $64MM might not have been offered but $62MM or $63MM might have been.  So while Swayman’s agent is technically correct from a semantics perspective, the last offer compared to Cam Neely’s stated number is pretty close and probably wasn’t going to be the difference-maker in getting something done or not.

Enough time has passed since this was revealed so if the offer was going to be taken, it would have been taken by now.  It sure seems like there’s still a pretty sizable gap to bridge which, evidently, is going to take some time.  I don’t think we’re at the point of a more ‘nuclear option’ being an agent change, an offer revocation, or a trade demand.  By all accounts, Swayman’s desire is to be in Boston and the Bruins clearly want him as their long-term starter which is why shorter-term agreements haven’t been discussed in much detail yet.

There are various pressure points that help to spur things, be it a trade (the deadline) or a contract (arbitration hearing, training camp, etc).  The next one is the start of the regular season early next week where things get more complicated cap-wise as his cap charge for 2024-25 would be higher than his overall AAV (as long as it’s a multi-year deal).  Daily Faceoff’s Frank Seravalli explains that more in detail if you’re interested.  Assuming something isn’t done by then, then there might be a waiting game to see if the leverage shifts.  If Boston starts strong without him, that might lower Swayman’s price while if they falter, the Bruins might decide they have to go a bit higher to close a contract.  Things took a turn for the worse this week with the public comments but I expect a deal will still get done…eventually.

rule78.1: How long do you think it will take for the NHL/NHLPA to address LTIR? Because someone within the Vegas organization has found all the holes and is taking full advantage of them.

For those who haven’t seen it, the latest LTIR situation saw Vegas remove the cap hit of Robin Lehner.  Technically, Vegas was within their rights to attempt to terminate his contract because he didn’t (or couldn’t) report for his physical.  I think in the end, the Golden Knights were prepared to do so, the NHLPA fully intended to grieve and this time, instead of just doing it and waiting to see the outcome of the hearing (like the Flyers are doing with Ryan Johansen, for example), they just worked out the compromise here.

One of the few things we know about this is that there’s a lot we don’t know.  As ESPN’s Emily Kaplan relayed earlier this week, there was a specific reason why Lehner was unable to attend, one of a sensitive nature.  Due to that, the NHL and NHLPA agreed that this is an “unprecedented and highly unique” case.  So is this circumvention?  I can definitely see the argument that it is but given how rarely in-season grievances involve restoring a cap charge, I think they might have just done the settlement early instead of reaching it in November or December or whenever the hearing would have happened.

As to your question, it’s a CBA matter since it’s related to salary cap accounting.  It’s not something that can unilaterally be changed beforehand.  The NHL has been doing its due diligence in terms of speaking to owners, presidents, and GMs to get a sense of the appetite for change.  How many want to make a change and how big of one do they want?  I think more want to change something than don’t but the extent of the change is up in the air.

The next CBA starts in 2026-27 and while both the NHL and NHLPA would probably like to have an agreement done before then, it’s unlikely any significant cap changes (including LTIR) would come into play until the new document is in effect.  So for the next two years, the status quo is probably going to continue to be in place.

Read more