HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   New York Rangers (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   Proposed "Redden" rule (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1272283)

ChipAyten 10-17-2012 11:52 AM

Proposed "Redden" rule
 
http://snyrangersblog.com/former-ran...t-the-rangers/

Sounds more like big club/market disdain and jealousy. Sports socialism essentially.

Bird Law 10-17-2012 11:53 AM

It's a joke.

broadwayblue 10-17-2012 12:05 PM

Yeah, they'll find a way to make it work. But I actually agree with the rule. Why should teams essentially be allowed to skirt the salary cap by stashing players in the minors?

Bird Law 10-17-2012 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by broadwayblue (Post 55061161)
Yeah, they'll find a way to make it work. But I actually agree with the rule. Why should teams essentially be allowed to skirt the salary cap by stashing players in the minors?

Why should teams be forced to keep non-NHL talent on their rosters and cap?

CM PUNK 10-17-2012 12:07 PM

the guys that get hurt the most by this are the AHL veterans who are legitimately in the ahl not being hidden, this will place a max salary on them to keep them off the books

Vitto79 10-17-2012 12:09 PM

well it should help stop stupid contracts. You would think anyway

they likely agree to a buyout period that does not count on the cap anyways so whatever this Redden thing wont be a big deal

Also if they allow Redden to be dealt and only a portion on the Rangers cap that may work too OR they just buy hiim out whatever is cheaper.

I could see Redden playing as a 6th D on other teams.

broadwayblue 10-17-2012 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonathan. (Post 55061197)
Why should teams be forced to keep non-NHL talent on their rosters and cap?

Who forced the Rangers to give a player in serious decline a 6 year 39M contract? You do stupid things you should pay the price for it.

CM PUNK 10-17-2012 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by broadwayblue (Post 55061297)
Who forced the Rangers to give a player in serious decline a 6 year 39M contract? You do stupid things you should pay the price for it.

touche lol

SupersonicMonkey* 10-17-2012 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by broadwayblue (Post 55061161)
Yeah, they'll find a way to make it work. But I actually agree with the rule. Why should teams essentially be allowed to skirt the salary cap by stashing players in the minors?

Because there is no reason a player that clearly can't live up to his end of the contract and can't hack it in the league anymore, should hold an entire orrganization by its collective balls.

The ****ing players have too much power. Its not "their" league, its not a right to play in it, its a privilege.

And contracts should be considered a two way street. BOTH sides need to hold up their end. Redden played like he didn't give a ****. He cashed in and gave up. WHY should the Rangers be obligated to put up with it?

Non sense.

If a player can't play at an effective level to stay in the league, they shouldn't be there. Plain and simple.

NO team should be punished for this.

It effects guys that are young and ready to play in the league, as well. Why should they be denied a spot because a guy like Redden decided to mail in the rest of his career because he hit the jackpot.

Tawnos 10-17-2012 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by broadwayblue (Post 55061297)
Who forced the Rangers to give a player in serious decline a 6 year 39M contract? You do stupid things you should pay the price for it.

The Redden contract was definitely stupid, but what about the times when it isn't so stupid? For example, a player who is legitimately worth $3m when you signed him for 3 years at age 30 and has a sudden drop off? (which, according to me and a few others, vaguely describes Alex Kotalik). Why should teams be punished for the unpredictable?

The name of the game in regards to the Cap should be about putting the best possible roster on the ice within it's confines. The things that happen off of the big club's roster shouldn't be part of the equation. I understand why the league wants to do it, and my reaction is mostly ambivalent. But if I were forced to choose a side, I would say this kind of thing is a bad idea.

broadwayblue 10-17-2012 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SupersonicMonkey (Post 55061387)
Because there is no reason a player that clearly can't live up to his end of the contract and can't hack it in the league anymore, should hold an entire orrganization by its collective balls.

The ****ing players have too much power. Its not "their" league, its not a right to play in it, its a privilege.

And contracts should be considered a two way street. BOTH sides need to hold up their end. Redden played like he didn't give a ****. He cashed in and gave up. WHY should the Rangers be obligated to put up with it?

Non sense.

If a player can't play at an effective level to stay in the league, they shouldn't be there. Plain and simple.

NO team should be punished for this.

It effects guys that are young and ready to play in the league, as well. Why should they be denied a spot because a guy like Redden decided to mail in the rest of his career because he hit the jackpot.

So basically what you're saying is that contracts shouldn't be guaranteed. I'm fine with that...but I doubt the players will feel the same.

SupersonicMonkey* 10-17-2012 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by broadwayblue (Post 55061297)
Who forced the Rangers to give a player in serious decline a 6 year 39M contract? You do stupid things you should pay the price for it.

Its a mutual agreement. Why should he be allowed to **** off just because he got big bucks. He doesnt need to live up to the contract?

broadwayblue 10-17-2012 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tawnos (Post 55061411)
The Redden contract was definitely stupid, but what about the times when it isn't so stupid? For example, a player who is legitimately worth $3m when you signed him for 3 years at age 30 and has a sudden drop off? (which, according to me and a few others, vaguely describes Alex Kotalik). Why should teams be punished for the unpredictable?

The name of the game in regards to the Cap should be about putting the best possible roster on the ice within it's confines. The things that happen off of the big club's roster shouldn't be part of the equation. I understand why the league wants to do it, and my reaction is mostly ambivalent. But if I were forced to choose a side, I would say this kind of thing is a bad idea.

Because that's the risk you take when you offer someone a contract. The Rangers were playing by the rules at the time, so they shouldn't be punished for it. But going forward, teams should be more careful about giving longer term deals (in excess of 2 years) to players on the down swing of their careers. The teams can choose to show restraint...they just have a really hard time doing so.

SupersonicMonkey* 10-17-2012 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by broadwayblue (Post 55061455)
So basically what you're saying is that contracts shouldn't be guaranteed. I'm fine with that...but I doubt the players will feel the same.

Who said they aren't guaranteed.

Hes getting his money.

His position on the roster SHOULD NOT be guaranteed.

Thats non sense. Why should anyone have to try then? No young hungry rookie would be allowed to take their spot?

broadwayblue 10-17-2012 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SupersonicMonkey (Post 55061473)
Its a mutual agreement. Why should he be allowed to **** off just because he got big bucks. He doesnt need to live up to the contract?

Who said he just ****** off? The guy was clearly in decline before he ever got his Ranger payday. I'm sure I'm not the only one here who thought it was a ridiculous deal that would likely come back to haunt us. Do you think he really isn't trying and prefers to be in the AHL?

SupersonicMonkey* 10-17-2012 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by broadwayblue (Post 55061509)
Because that's the risk you take when you offer someone a contract. The Rangers were playing by the rules at the time, so they shouldn't be punished for it. But going forward, teams should be more careful about giving longer term deals (in excess of 2 years) to players on the down swing of their careers. The teams can choose to show restraint...they just have a really hard time doing so.

Sorry but no.

This sounds like unabashed pro-player non sense.

You still have to EARN your place on a roster REGARDLESS of your contract.

Plain amd simple.

What you are suggesting is eliminating any competition for roster positions.

Bird Law 10-17-2012 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by broadwayblue (Post 55061297)
Who forced the Rangers to give a player in serious decline a 6 year 39M contract? You do stupid things you should pay the price for it.

It was a market driven contract. They should not be punished for a guy taking a nose dive off the edge of a cliff in terms of talent. That's ludicrous.

This is somehow a league run by the poor.

mschmidt64 10-17-2012 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by broadwayblue (Post 55061297)
Who forced the Rangers to give a player in serious decline a 6 year 39M contract? You do stupid things you should pay the price for it.

There should be a way to get out of those contracts. Sports is an area that is prone to fluctuations in performance moreso than other industries where contracts rule.

The NFL does it the smartest way. The contracts are not guaranteed, but the signing bonuses are.

That way an NFL team can shed a bad decision, pay a penalty through acceleration of the signing bonus, but get out from under the total burden of an underperforming player.

So if you are to ask, "Why should the Rangers be able to escape a bad contract?"

Because it's bad for the sport in general for teams to be stuck with no roster flexibility paying a player who no longer can compete at the level the NHL demands.

Unfortunately, the NHLPA already feels entitled enough -- they will never agree to non-guaranteed contracts without a war that would definitely result in one or more seasons lost. Even though it would be the best thing for the sport, it will never be able to ram through the NFL's way.

But I would like to see some provision, maybe, where a team can cut/buyout a player, STILL have to pay a player part or all of the contract, but can still get out from under the contract and save cap room by having the released player's salary not count against the cap.

This logically makes sense -- you can still only employ players that you can fit under the cap, so it prevents teams from going out and buying championships. But at the same time, if the Rangers want to ditch Redden and free up cap space to give Stepan an extension, they can buy him out and not have the money count against the cap.

That would be a good solution IMO.

Then if Redden signs somewhere else, the Rangers can subtract his new contract value from what they owe him, so he's not officially getting paid twice.

davidy2d 10-17-2012 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SupersonicMonkey (Post 55061387)
Because there is no reason a player that clearly can't live up to his end of the contract and can't hack it in the league anymore, should hold an entire orrganization by its collective balls.

The ****ing players have too much power. Its not "their" league, its not a right to play in it, its a privilege.

And contracts should be considered a two way street. BOTH sides need to hold up their end. Redden played like he didn't give a ****. He cashed in and gave up. WHY should the Rangers be obligated to put up with it?

Non sense.

If a player can't play at an effective level to stay in the league, they shouldn't be there. Plain and simple.

NO team should be punished for this.

It effects guys that are young and ready to play in the league, as well. Why should they be denied a spot because a guy like Redden decided to mail in the rest of his career because he hit the jackpot.

So basically "we shouldn't have to be responsible for our own actions". Gotcha.

broadwayblue 10-17-2012 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SupersonicMonkey (Post 55061515)
Who said they aren't guaranteed.

Hes getting his money.

His position on the roster SHOULD NOT be guaranteed.

Thats non sense. Why should anyone have to try then? No young hungry rookie would be allowed to take their spot?

I said that you are suggesting contracts should not be guaranteed...like in the NFL. It should be a two way street...if a player signs for big bucks and isn't cutting it any more, he's already been overcompensated for what he produced, and should therefore be subject to being cut, forfeiting the remainder of his contract. Again, I'd be fine with that...but the players won't be.

Bird Law 10-17-2012 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SupersonicMonkey (Post 55061579)
Sorry but no.

This sounds like unabashed pro-player non sense.

You still have to EARN your place on a roster REGARDLESS of your contract.

Plain amd simple.

What you are suggesting is eliminating any competition for roster positions.

Exactly. If teams have to pay failures, than there will be reduced competition because competition couldn't be afforded.

SupersonicMonkey* 10-17-2012 12:25 PM

So you cash in for five years. What is the incentive for these guys to put in an effort after that? Until their contract is expiring, their NHL position is guaranteed?

Thats ridiculous.

Bird Law 10-17-2012 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidy2d (Post 55061645)
So basically "we shouldn't have to be responsible for our own actions". Gotcha.

Being responsible for the actions is having to pay the bum his contract. What, do you think Dolan is HAPPY about wasting millions a year on him? He does it because he has to. Not because he wants to.

t3hg00se 10-17-2012 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonathan. (Post 55061633)
It was a market driven contract. They should not be punished for a guy taking a nose dive off the edge of a cliff in terms of talent. That's ludicrous.

This is somehow a league run by the poor.

It's market driven, that doesn't mean it was an intelligent move. A team shouldn't be able to take a chance on a player and hand a bad contract (every fan knew it was an awful contract for the start) just because they can stash it if it doesn't work out.

With a rule like this in place, you wouldn't have seen Redden get offers as large as he did.

SupersonicMonkey* 10-17-2012 12:26 PM

Its a TWO WAY MUTUAL AGREEMENT.

Redden didnt uphold his end of it.

NO roster position should be guaranteed.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:34 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.