View Single Post
10-17-2012, 10:53 PM
Brooklyn Ranger
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn, of course
Posts: 8,240
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Vipers31 View Post
Non-Ranger fan coming in peace. I was interested in hearing reactions on the proposal from here, and I thought some points were deserving of being addressed, so I hope me getting involved won't bother anyone.

This post received some rave reviews, which I can sort of understand due to the negative emotions connected to Redden. But at its core, the statement is purely false. If Redden was not upholding his end, he wouldn't be entitled to a salary in the first place. He obviously is. His end of the agreement was to play hockey for the Rangers organisation. It's not a part of his agreement to play up to the standard that the Rangers coaching staff and front office have in mind for him. He's without any sort of questioning from the Rangers upholding his end of the agreement, which is the reason he's still employed in the organisation.

Indeed they did. For that reason, the next CBA will unquestionably include some instruments that will limit that. Pointing to the fact that it didn't last time doesn't really help, as what has happened is a huge part of the reason for what and how is being done now.

I can understand the generally negative feelings for this proposal as it does favour other organisations a lot more than the Rangers, but I am a little surprised to see a strengthened front office accountability so harshly refused.
I agree--it's great to be able to use a loop-hole, but it amazes me that people are complaining because the loop-hole has been/will be closed.

I also think everyone has overlooked one fact: Redden's salary will count against the cap (if the new CBA has this clause and I think it will) not because he's in the minors but because he's guaranteed to receive his full NHL salary regardless of where he plays. If his contract had been written as a two-way contract, limiting his AHL salary under $105,000, then his salary won't count against the cap in the new CBA.

Changing this rule won't hurt marginal NHL players, as long as they agree to a two way contract (please remember that for waiver purposes it's the length of time since the first professional contract and the number of games played in the NHL). Teams, however, will be less likely to sign a marginal player (Bickel, etc.) to a one-way contract if waiving them results in a continuing cap hit for the life of their contract. Marginal players with 3-5 years of professional experience are going to have to ask themselves if the dream of playing in the NHL is worth a much lower salary if they end up in the AHL.

Brooklyn Ranger is offline   Reply With Quote