Some NHL GMs still have a major player to get under contract (Los Angeles Kings), while others are already dealing with injuries and the cap space that brings (Boston Bruins). For the most part though, managers are able to sit back at this point and ask themselves a simple question:
"Well, how'd we do?"
Managers around the league suddenly found that they had a bolstered checkbook, either brought on by new ownership or the significant raise in the salary cap floor. And the shortage of free agents didn't exactly make for a buyer's market.
That certainly didn't keep some squads from spending however.
So how did they do?
In all aspects of managing the cap—that's what I am going to try and determine by looking at several different aspects of the offseason.
If the team filled a need, that's a plus. If they overspent to do it, then maybe not so much. Are they considering the players they need to sign to contracts in the future while shelling out these deals? Or is there a win-now attitude that could pay off?
It's a tough thing to quantify, but I'm going to try.
What constitutes an A for the Oilers doesn't mean that the same moves would mean an A in Boston. I'm trying to consider the long-term plan of each team here, and identify how well they improved upon weaknesses from the year before.
Picking up an All-Star netminder doesn't mean the same thing to Vancouver as it would to say, the Panthers.
So let's get started.
As always, I'd love to hear from you in the comments down below if you agree or disagree, or just want to talk about what led to a particular grade. It's just like high school all over again, but I am not taking calls from any parents.
The grading scale is as follows: 100-90 is an A, 89-80 is a B, 79-70 is a C, 69-60 is a D, 59 and below is a fail.