View Single Post
Old
10-18-2012, 03:52 PM
  #134
mschmidt64
Registered User
 
mschmidt64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 844
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
Stupider than hiring Jerry Jones to teach NHL owners a class on "Creative Income Generating?"
Well, I was being facetious, but the man knows only how to make money and not at all how to run a successful on-the-field team.

Quote:
If you've been reading my posts, you would see that keeping Wade Redden on NHL ice is definitely not my counter proposal to this whole thing.

My entire point is that teams that are dumb enough to sign a Wade Redden to 6 years in the first place should incur some sort of cap penalty for their troubles if they decide to dump him.
Incurring a cap penalty to dump him could prevent him from being dumped. It depends on what kind of penalty you are talking about.

The NFL's system of accelerating the signing bonus works wonderfully. But in the NHL the contracts are completely guaranteed, so I don't know how you can arrive at a number to penalize. Are we gonna say there is a 10% cap penalty for all dumped players and go with that?

It could work, but then it's really the same advantage to the rich teams. They can still afford to take the risks. It's the same in the NFL, the rich teams can afford big signing bonuses.

In any case, it has to be structured to allow a team to get out from those deals.

Quote:
And, for the ones that can do it, it invites dumb free agent decisions (like Redden).
I think you are overstating how much it invites it. How many times have we seen an NHL team dump a 6.5 million contract into the minors?

It's more likely that they eat it and keep him in the majors. But I'm saying that's the problem. There should be a way out.

Quote:
I cant help but think people are up in arms about this because they're scared its going to retroactively hurt the Rangers - even though its been reported that the rule would be applied for all contracts GOING FORWARD. That makes me fine with it. Primarily because it will make the Rangers think twice before ever making such a stupid move again.
It's not just hockey, look at basketball. I cannot stand that system where a team gets stuck with an underperforming player and then can't get rid of him. It's gotta find a trade partner to take on the bad contract, that's ridiculous IMO.

I understand it's not fair to the player to not get his money, but that's why I'm saying the contract should be allowed to be bought out. What I don't understand is why, since the player is no longer on the team, the fully guaranteed contract has to stay on the cap.

The cap relief should be available if the player is gone. Like I said, that promotes getting in new and better players, which is just good for the sport.

The player still gets his money, so he hasn't been wronged either. I don't see the downside.

mschmidt64 is offline   Reply With Quote