HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=3)
-   -   brad richards contract (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=93489)

DRL 07-24-2004 09:32 PM

brad richards contract
 
what were the terms of his deal and why all the fuss among gms and fans last year?

Bergeron47 07-24-2004 10:01 PM

All I know is that he's making 2.5 mil this coming season..

Sotnos 07-24-2004 11:32 PM

Basically, some fools felt he was overpaid, and some other fools thought it would cause problems with the re-signings of other guys who had GMs and agents who felt their guys were "far superior" to Richards. :shakehead

Hope that crow tastes good, since Tampa now has the 24 year old Conn Smyth winner locked up for the past season and the next two for under $10 mil.

Anyway, terms of his deal:
'05-'06 salary: $4,350,000
'04-'05 salary: $2,625,000
'03-'04 salary: $2,400,000

Swedish Bolt Fan 07-25-2004 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sotnos
Basically, some fools felt he was overpaid, and some other fools thought it would cause problems with the re-signings of other guys who had GMs and agents who felt their guys were "far superior" to Richards. :shakehead

Hope that crow tastes good, since Tampa now has the 24 year old Conn Smyth winner locked up for the past season and the next two for under $10 mil.

Anyway, terms of his deal:
'05-'06 salary: $4,350,000
'04-'05 salary: $2,625,000
'03-'04 salary: $2,400,000


That contract looks like a real bargain for one of the youngest ever conn smythe winners

Form and Substance 07-25-2004 12:34 AM

Well, in actual terms it isn't. I feel no NHL player is worth his share. None. They are all grossly overpaid. But that's the NHLPA's fault.

NYR469 07-25-2004 12:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leachmeister2000
Well, in actual terms it isn't. I feel no NHL player is worth his share. None. They are all grossly overpaid. But that's the NHLPA's fault.

no thats the owners fault for giving out those big contracts...no one forced the lightning to give him that $$, they made the choice to pay them...

you can't blame a player for taking the $$ that is offered to them

V for Voodoo 07-25-2004 12:52 AM

The real 'fools' are the general managers that fail to use their CBA given leverage to keep player salaries at a minimum. A player coming off his first NHL contract, with no arbitration rights has zero leverage in negotiations other than to threaten a hold-out (which never helps in the longrun), yet Brad Richards somehow parlayed this into a multi-million dollar deal that tops out at four and a half million.

The CBA works heavily in favour of NHL teams (gee, imagine that!) when it comes to negotiating contracts for young players like Brad Richards. Tampa Bay is more than welcome to disregard this and sign Brad Richards to any amount they see fit, this is also their right. However, lest them never complain that the CBA is 'broken' and that players are overpaid. This contract is their contribution to the problem.

Sotnos 07-25-2004 01:01 AM

LOL Love it when small market teams are blamed for the problems of the NHL. I thought only Larry Brooks did that.

Anyway, that contract runs through Richards' first year of eligibility for arbitration, thus he got a higher amount in his last year. Feaster had several reasons for signing Richards to that contract, not the least of which is that he wanted him in camp on time, and I'd say it worked out very nicely for all involved. To even suggest that Tampa is financially irresponsible is laughable and smacks of jealousy. You can't sign your own players because they think they compare to Richards? Not Tampa's problem, sorry.

V for Voodoo 07-25-2004 01:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sotnos
To even suggest that Tampa is financially irresponsible is laughable and smacks of jealousy.

The Richards contract is financially irresponsible (for the simple reasons denoted above), and there is no reason to be jealous. Those that thought it was a bad contract last summer should still think it is a bad contract this summer. Pre or Post Cup victory, little changes on that front.

It did work out very well for Tampa, and good for them, but if Bobby Holik wins the Conn Smythe next year, you won't see me applauding that contract of his.

CrAzYNiNe 07-25-2004 01:32 AM

NO it's completely the GMs fault. When Slather ask Holik how much he wanted, and he said 9 mill, and the answer was yes, that is totally ridiculous. Think of it as a kid in of 18th bday, and his parents ask him what he wants, I would say a Ferrari, **** if my parents get me one, but if I was Holiks son...

Hockeyfan02 07-25-2004 02:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Voodoo
The Richards contract is financially irresponsible (for the simple reasons denoted above), and there is no reason to be jealous. Those that thought it was a bad contract last summer should still think it is a bad contract this summer. Pre or Post Cup victory, little changes on that front.

It did work out very well for Tampa, and good for them, but if Bobby Holik wins the Conn Smythe next year, you won't see me applauding that contract of his.

The Richards contract is not financially irresponsible as you might think. Now say Richards just signed his one year qualifying offer instead of negotiating. He has his dream season and is now a RFA. After winning the conn smyth and having his 2nd straight 70+ point season and being the leading scorer in the postseason, how much do you think he would be demanding right now. It sure as hell wouldnt be 2.5 million. It would probably be more than the 4.35 he'll be getting in the 3rd year of this deal. Richards has turned this deal into a bargin. Right now, I'm very happy Feaster signed him to that contract.

Street Hawk 07-25-2004 02:43 AM

UFA no, RFA yes....
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by NYR469
no thats the owners fault for giving out those big contracts...no one forced the lightning to give him that $$, they made the choice to pay them...

you can't blame a player for taking the $$ that is offered to them

There is a big difference in how negotiations between a UFA and RFA are done for a team.

With a UFA, such as Holik, who has been used as an example in this thread, he simply needed to ask the teams who called, what's your best offer cause you know that I am getting offers from other clubs. He doesn't even have to put out a number to be met.

But, a RFA such as Richards, the Richards camp has to give a number to the club and the club will counter that offer until an agreement can be made.

So, the statement that players don't in a sense for the owners to pay isn't accurate IMO. The consequence of not getting a RFA signed can be devastating to a club. Not having Gaborik in the lineup becuase he was asking for 6 million per season over 3 years, killed any shot the Wild had to make the playoffs, and thus their 20 million dollar profit from 02-03 took a huge hit in 03-04 thanks to the loss of 8 home playoff games.

Owners should be holding the line tougher than they have been in the past. However, because of stiff competition just to make the playoffs, the borderline teams can't afford to have their top guys out for any portion of camp or the start of the season. No Stuart or Nabokov early killed the Sharks in 02-03. And of course, you're going to be held to the mistakes of other clubs. Had the Wild given in to Gaborik and given him 5 million per year over the 3 years, you can bet that Kovalchuk would be asking for that amount this summer.

Mikos87 07-25-2004 10:46 AM

Richards contract was front loaded which is very smart considering the CBA problem. But, what if there are players that don't want front loaded contracts (young age) so that they don't have to be qualified at a lower amount and head to a nasty arbitration, hold out, trade demands...

Ever think about that?

neelynugs 07-25-2004 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikos87
Richards contract was front loaded which is very smart considering the CBA problem. But, what if there are players that don't want front loaded contracts (young age) so that they don't have to be qualified at a lower amount and head to a nasty arbitration, hold out, trade demands...

Ever think about that?

looks backloaded to me, my friend. he will earn over 4 million in 05-06. i don't know if i'd call it "irresponsible", but then again, i don't think it was a "bargain" by any stretch. richards is getting a lot of dough from TB...

YellHockey* 07-25-2004 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sotnos
LOL Love it when small market teams are blamed for the problems of the NHL. I thought only Larry Brooks did that.

Small market teams aren't being blamed here. A stupid decision by Tampa Bay is being blamed. It wouldn't matter if it was the Rangers or the Lightning who did this contract, it was the contract that was criticized not the market.

Quote:

Anyway, that contract runs through Richards' first year of eligibility for arbitration, thus he got a higher amount in his last year. Feaster had several reasons for signing Richards to that contract, not the least of which is that he wanted him in camp on time, and I'd say it worked out very nicely for all involved. To even suggest that Tampa is financially irresponsible is laughable and smacks of jealousy. You can't sign your own players because they think they compare to Richards? Not Tampa's problem, sorry.
When Lightning ownership is crying that they are losing money, or only breaking even with a Cup win, they have no one to blame but themselves when they give away over $1M a year for two years for no good reason.

And the collective stupidity of the owners is forcing them to look for a whole new system in the next CBA which will could delay the next season until god knows when.

To suggest that Tampa wasn't financially irresponsible strikes me was being a shill or homer for the organization. Sure the last year was reasonable if Richards' career followed the expected progression but it was also the limit of what he could expect from arbitration. Smart organizations give their players more money before they are eligible for arbitration in return for less money when they have arbitration rights. The players get short term money in exchange for long term money. In Richards' case, he got both.

Sotnos 07-25-2004 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Street Hawk
The consequence of not getting a RFA signed can be devastating to a club. Not having Gaborik in the lineup becuase he was asking for 6 million per season over 3 years, killed any shot the Wild had to make the playoffs, and thus their 20 million dollar profit from 02-03 took a huge hit in 03-04 thanks to the loss of 8 home playoff games.

Owners should be holding the line tougher than they have been in the past. However, because of stiff competition just to make the playoffs, the borderline teams can't afford to have their top guys out for any portion of camp or the start of the season.

Yeah, someone gets it! :handclap: The job of the Tampa GM is to get his players under contract at a time that is best for the team, i.e., TAMPA. I think as usual a few of you aren't really looking at the numbers and his play and comprehending just how good Richards is. This is not to mention, the prices for young players were set long before Richards even set foot on NHL ice, so point your fingers elsewhere. :shakehead

As Hockeyfan02 pointed out, if he had given him a one year deal to get it done quickly instead of realizing how badly it could backfire with a good player such as Richards, we would have had a BIG problem.

It's up to GMs of other teams to figure out that there are few players Richards' age who play as many minutes, score as much or have as much responsibility as he does. If these other GMs can't negotiate with guys who THINK they are similar to Richards, it's really not Tampa's problem, they need to brush up on their negotiating skills.

It's a good contract and accomplished what it was meant to do...Tampa couldn't afford the problems that a holdout might cause, and Feaster was smart enough to know what he has.

It is a backloaded contract, the years run backwards on there, sorry that might be confusing. I already explained the balloon payment in the last year. Lecavalier has a similar deal and hits his payday this upcoming season. Funny, I don't remember people crying over Vinny's contract, when we've arguably gotten much less production out of Vinny than we have out of Richards.

Sotnos 07-25-2004 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackRedGold
To suggest that Tampa wasn't financially irresponsible strikes me was being a shill or homer for the organization.

Ooh a comedian, nice one. Tell me, what is more financially irresponsible...having a guy hold out, which wrecks the team's season and causes you to forfeit playoff revenue, or getting a young player locked up at a rate that is affordable to your team, getting him into camp on time and help ensure the team's success, etc.? Note the "affordable to your team part", Feaster's responsibility is NOT to the Sens, Wild etc., it's to Tampa. Some of you need to read Hockeyfan02's post again, because he lays out an important scenario that is obviously being glossed over.

I think it is important to point out who is complaining here...SENS FANS. Again, it is not Tampa's problem if your GM doesn't realize that whoever it is you're concerned about (I'm guessing Havlat) doesn't play as much or have as many points as Richards does. The bar was set several years ago with regards to young players' salaries, don't cry to me about the evil Tampa Bay Lightning, spending money like it was water, ruining an already ruined league. :shakehead

I'm done with this, I don't think I need to repeat myself one hundred more times when it's obvious what's going on here. Thanks for opening a can of worms DRL.

Puck 07-25-2004 12:00 PM

I have to agree with Voodoo and BRG on this one.

Of course Tampa can sign their players to whatever contracts they wish but this contract raised the bar again and it caused problems for other teams in their negotiations with their own players.

Reality is, player agents compare stats and salary levels across the league as arguments to get their side a stronger deal. Nobody blames the players for trying to get what they can, but we can blame owners and management for giving it to them.

Some teams try to be responsible and keep costs down and then they get sideswiped by a GM like Feaster who doesn't follow the gameplan to keep costs down.

Arguments often get confusing here. The same posters who defend their team's GM and player contracts, will turn around in another thread and dump on the same parties for the rising cost of tickets. You can't suck and blow at the same time on this issue.

NYR469 07-25-2004 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Street Hawk
There is a big difference in how negotiations between a UFA and RFA are done for a team.

With a UFA, such as Holik, who has been used as an example in this thread, he simply needed to ask the teams who called, what's your best offer cause you know that I am getting offers from other clubs. He doesn't even have to put out a number to be met.

But, a RFA such as Richards, the Richards camp has to give a number to the club and the club will counter that offer until an agreement can be made.

So, the statement that players don't in a sense for the owners to pay isn't accurate IMO. The consequence of not getting a RFA signed can be devastating to a club. Not having Gaborik in the lineup becuase he was asking for 6 million per season over 3 years, killed any shot the Wild had to make the playoffs, and thus their 20 million dollar profit from 02-03 took a huge hit in 03-04 thanks to the loss of 8 home playoff games.

Owners should be holding the line tougher than they have been in the past. However, because of stiff competition just to make the playoffs, the borderline teams can't afford to have their top guys out for any portion of camp or the start of the season. No Stuart or Nabokov early killed the Sharks in 02-03. And of course, you're going to be held to the mistakes of other clubs. Had the Wild given in to Gaborik and given him 5 million per year over the 3 years, you can bet that Kovalchuk would be asking for that amount this summer.

the thing that you are ignoring is the fact that those RFAs are making demands based on what they feel is fair market value and that market value is determined by how much $$ similar players are given...and that market is set by how much the owners decide they want to pay a player...

if the rangers overpay for a player, that is the rangers' (ie owner) fault, NOT the player that was smart enough to accept the $$...if in turn that overpayment results in raising the market value and forces another team to pay more $$ to sign their guy, it is still the fault of an owner. not necessarily the fault of the owner of the team signing the guy, but you can trace it back to the owner that drove up the prices...

i completely understand that teams have to pay that $$ because they can't afford to lose those players and i was NOT saying the lightning overpayed for richards...but reality is that the owners set the market...

the problem is that the owners aren't independent and a few crazy owners can ruin things for the other teams, so you can't simply say that owners can just control themselves...

but it is still the fault of the owners, as a whole, for setting those prices, NOT the players for taking the $$ that is offered...do you really expect players to turn down more $$ because they aren't worth what a team is offering them??

a cap is basically to protect the owners from themselves/other owners

NYR469 07-25-2004 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sotnos
Yeah, someone gets it! :handclap: The job of the Tampa GM is to get his players under contract at a time that is best for the team, i.e., TAMPA. I think as usual a few of you aren't really looking at the numbers and his play and comprehending just how good Richards is. This is not to mention, the prices for young players were set long before Richards even set foot on NHL ice, so point your fingers elsewhere. :shakehead

yes those prices were set long before richards and what those prices were set at can be blamed on the teams that gave out those contracts that can be used as comparisons, not richards for asking for 'market value'

Hockeyfan02 07-25-2004 12:21 PM

Richards contract isnt financially irresponsible as others here have said. Last summer Richards was only wanting a two year deal, where Feaster wanted to lock him up more long term. At the end of that two year deal, Richards is arbitration eligible and would be demanding a LOT with his stats, playing time, and now a cup and conn smyth trophy. He could easily be demanding 6 or 7 million in that, if not more. And I doubt he would be awarded 4.325 million. Also, if its a two year deal his contract would expire at the same time as Lecavalier and Khabibulin. I doubt Feaster would want to deal with those 3 in the same summer.

Sorry Feaster doesnt work in a "gameplan with the other gms" or thinks about the other teams in these kinds of deals. When Feaster made this deal he was thinking about the Tampa Bay Lightning, not the Ottawa Senators or Minnesota Wild or any other NHL team. He has his own gameplan to work with and this contract fit the Lightning's salary structure and game plan. This isnt a deal that wrecks an already wrecked financial system. And this isnt the first big contract given to a young player. And please a contract like Richards doesnt cause the Lightning to not break even or just break even. There are factors with the taxes from the city for those troubles, not this contract.

Puck 07-25-2004 12:26 PM

The NHL was starting to use the CBA clauses to its own advantage. They were lowballing players in their 4th and 5th contract years with no salary arbitration rights, in order to keep their costs down. They were handing players in this group minimal qualifying offers OR slightly better front-end loaded deals for longer term contracts.

Things were going well and then Feaster raised the bar for this age group with the Richards deal. Of course the bar had already been raised in some instances with huge bonuses being agreed to in order to sign rookies and circumvent the rookie cap under the current CBA. Slowly but surely, the bar keeps getting raised. All the time.

The deal made life easier for Feaster in this case and life got tougher for all the other GMs lowballing their own 4th and 5th year players. It's hard to tow the line as a GM and try to keep your own player salary demands in line when your counterparts on other teams are caving in.

jstreim 07-25-2004 12:52 PM

To all who think that Brad Richards' contract was financially irresponsible:Let's have a look at the production (reg. season and playoffs) of a few players signed this off-season compared to salary. I'll leave blatently overpaid players (Holik, etc) off the list.

Mark Recchi: 03-04 stats: 100GP 30G 51A 81Pts 04-05 Salary: $3 million. Not really overpayed.
Keith Primeau: 03-04 stats: 72GP 16G 22A 38Pts 04-05 Salary: $4.5 Million:eek: Team Captain or not, no 3rd line center should make this kind of money.

Joe Nieuwendyk: 03-04 stats: 73GP 28G 28A 56Pts 04-05 Salary: $3 million. Pointswise, he's a bit pricey, but he brings more to the table than just point production.

Brendan Shanahan: 03-04 Stats: 94GP 26G 33A 59Pts 04-05 Salary: $4 million. His production has steadily decreased for the past 5 seasons and he's still able to make $4 million.

Craig Conroy: 03-04 Stats: 89 GP 14G 50A 64Pts on Iginla's line. 04-05 Salary: $3.15 million. He's good defensively but still an average 2nd line center at best, and after a subpar season, he still rakes in over $3 million.:shakehead

Brian Rolston: 03-04 Stats: 89GP 20G 29A 49Pts 04-05 Salary: $3.2 million. Same situation as conroy, except he's closer to a 3rd liner. Higher salary that Conroy as well.

Gary Roberts: 03-04 Stats: 85GP 32G 24A 56Pts 04-05 Salary: $3.75 million. He brings very little to the table for what he's making.

Richards: 03-04 stats: 105GP 38G 67A 105Pts 04-05 Salary: $2,625,000.00
When Feaster signed him to that contract, he went on the basis that Richards has slowly improved each season he has played, and by the time the 3rd season of his contract comes around, he would be "worth" the money, and by today's market standards, he's worth the $4.3 million now (after the conn smyth and all). Financially irresponsible indeed.

Rob Paxon 07-25-2004 01:05 PM

Face it folks, it wasn't a bad deal for the player they locked up and there are countless examples of real overspending. Before you cry about setting precedent, realize that once a precedent is set, it takes another team to match that bar for another player. Blame that team.

Puck 07-25-2004 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jstreim
To all who think that Brad Richards' contract was financially irresponsible:Let's have a look at the production (reg. season and playoffs) of a few players signed this off-season compared to salary. I'll leave blatently overpaid players (Holik, etc) off the list.

Mark Recchi: 03-04 stats: 100GP 30G 51A 81Pts 04-05 Salary: $3 million. Not really overpayed.
Keith Primeau: 03-04 stats: 72GP 16G 22A 38Pts 04-05 Salary: $4.5 Million:eek: Team Captain or not, no 3rd line center should make this kind of money.

Joe Nieuwendyk: 03-04 stats: 73GP 28G 28A 56Pts 04-05 Salary: $3 million. Pointswise, he's a bit pricey, but he brings more to the table than just point production.

Brendan Shanahan: 03-04 Stats: 94GP 26G 33A 59Pts 04-05 Salary: $4 million. His production has steadily decreased for the past 5 seasons and he's still able to make $4 million.

Craig Conroy: 03-04 Stats: 89 GP 14G 50A 64Pts on Iginla's line. 04-05 Salary: $3.15 million. He's good defensively but still an average 2nd line center at best, and after a subpar season, he still rakes in over $3 million.:shakehead

Brian Rolston: 03-04 Stats: 89GP 20G 29A 49Pts 04-05 Salary: $3.2 million. Same situation as conroy, except he's closer to a 3rd liner. Higher salary that Conroy as well.

Gary Roberts: 03-04 Stats: 85GP 32G 24A 56Pts 04-05 Salary: $3.75 million. He brings very little to the table for what he's making.

Richards: 03-04 stats: 105GP 38G 67A 105Pts 04-05 Salary: $2,625,000.00
When Feaster signed him to that contract, he went on the basis that Richards has slowly improved each season he has played, and by the time the 3rd season of his contract comes around, he would be "worth" the money, and by today's market standards, he's worth the $4.3 million now (after the conn smyth and all). Financially irresponsible indeed.

You are quoting unrestricted free agents and Richards was a restricted free agent with no salary arbitration rights.

Apples and oranges.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:04 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.