HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Notices

Umberger

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-17-2004, 02:02 PM
  #76
BigE
Registered User
 
BigE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: San Francisco, CA
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,476
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwikid
You mean like when they traded Leetch's rights to Edmonton and then resigned him?
That's a loop-hole, they can't be fined for that. It's one of the things on the NHL's agenda to fix in this up-coming CBA.

It's known as the Compensatory Free Agent loop-hole and subjects a team losing a big money free agent to a compensatory draft pick. There are a lot of factors such as the players current salary, his UFA signing salary, points in the previous three seasons, and awards received in the previous three seasons. All of which are given point values (10 pts for first team all-star etc.). The point values then allow the league to break up all of these CFA's into percentiles in which the team losing their rights receives a draft pick according to their percentile. The top 5% is a pick no earlier than 11th overall, the top 5-10% (Leetch, Hatcher etc.) is a pick following the 52nd overall selection...etc. etc.

The final position of the pick is determined by Bettman.

BigE is offline  
Old
03-17-2004, 02:24 PM
  #77
BigE
Registered User
 
BigE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: San Francisco, CA
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,476
vCash: 500
Don't get me wrong here and I think, maybe, some of you have. I'm not saying that Umberger doesn't deserve to be payed that amount of money because from all accounts I think that he's going to be a great player. I believe that this entire discussion as to whether he'll be signed, or not, will all be over in a matter of time.

However, I'm just defending the stance of NHL GM's in that every young player thinks he's going to be a star and thinks he's going to make it. Money is on a tight string in Vancouver. It was Burke's choice in whether he wanted to pay the kid that much and he probably figured that he could get the kid for less if Umberger hired an agent, thus forfeiting his year at OSU. He's got two of the best forwards in the league playing for less than 6 million a year. He's going to try and get the best bang for his buck out of all of his players and that's what has made him successful in Vancouver.

This entire argument is based on assumption in that some think the offer was low. The fact is no one really knows what the offer is or was and that makes this kind of ridiculous.

Umberger has the power to take all of this discussion and toss it aside by proving that his attitude is what he says it is. Hard work will solve any problem and this might just be what he needs to have a great start to his career. Nothing like a little motivation.

As far as draft picks go...just because the salary cap states the maximum wage at $1.185.000 for a kid drafted in 2002 doesn't mean he HAS to be paid in that amount. It's just a maximum figure, regardless of whether his peers are being paid that or not. It takes a lot of guts to admit that you made a mistake or to admit that you can't afford to pay a player that amount. Perhaps that is what Brian did and by trading him he salvaged the best of an ugly situation.

BigE is offline  
Old
03-17-2004, 02:38 PM
  #78
L.I.RangerFan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Enemy Land - Long Is
Country: United States
Posts: 600
vCash: 500
This was just posted at Rangers website

http://www.newyorkrangers.com/pressb...es.asp?id=1160

L.I.RangerFan is offline  
Old
03-17-2004, 02:54 PM
  #79
Park #2
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 667
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by in the hall
interesting point.. didnt even think of that
Different situation... That move is still legal at this point. It's the Neil Smith Rule.

Park #2 is offline  
Old
03-17-2004, 04:07 PM
  #80
kiwikid
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 16
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Park #2
Different situation... That move is still legal at this point. It's the Neil Smith Rule.
So you're saying that the Canucks are barred from signing him if he becomes a free agent?

kiwikid is offline  
Old
03-17-2004, 05:11 PM
  #81
Park #2
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 667
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwikid
So you're saying that the Canucks are barred from signing him if he becomes a free agent?
No, not at all. He would become an unrestricted free agent.

Park #2 is offline  
Old
03-17-2004, 05:39 PM
  #82
kiwikid
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 16
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Park #2
No, not at all. He would become an unrestricted free agent.
So if the Rangers pkged him why would they

kiwikid is offline  
Old
03-18-2004, 06:25 AM
  #83
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,255
vCash: 500
It does seem as though...

Umberger's going along with the Rangers' little plan, which is a step in the right direction. Hopefully he gets his skating legs quickly and impresses Sather enough to sign him prior to Hartford starting the playoffs.

Fletch is offline  
Old
03-18-2004, 11:47 AM
  #84
Park #2
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 667
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwikid
So if the Rangers pkged him why would they
I don't understand what this means.

Park #2 is offline  
Old
03-18-2004, 12:07 PM
  #85
kiwikid
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 16
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Park #2
I don't understand what this means.
It means that I don't understand why the Canucks would be able to sign him without being penalyzed but you are saying that if the Rangers traded him in a package with their own number 1 pick to a team that just wanted the low draft choice they would be fined if they turned around and signed him. Then when he was a free agent June 1st offer him more money than anyone else (not a new idea with the Rangers) and an obviously faster track to the NHL.

kiwikid is offline  
Old
03-18-2004, 03:12 PM
  #86
Park #2
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 667
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwikid
It means that I don't understand why the Canucks would be able to sign him without being penalyzed but you are saying that if the Rangers traded him in a package with their own number 1 pick to a team that just wanted the low draft choice they would be fined if they turned around and signed him. Then when he was a free agent June 1st offer him more money than anyone else (not a new idea with the Rangers) and an obviously faster track to the NHL.
I am so confused as to what you are talking about. Please write in a sentence!

If the Rangers traded him, they could sign him back. Of course, the odds are that if they did trade him, he'd sign with Pittsburgh or Columbus after June 1, if not the team they traded him to.

If this doesn't answer your question, I'm still unsure about what you mean.... I'm sorry.

Park #2 is offline  
Old
03-18-2004, 03:22 PM
  #87
in the hall
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 5,009
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Park #2
I am so confused as to what you are talking about. Please write in a sentence!

If the Rangers traded him, they could sign him back. Of course, the odds are that if they did trade him, he'd sign with Pittsburgh or Columbus after June 1, if not the team they traded him to.

If this doesn't answer your question, I'm still unsure about what you mean.... I'm sorry.
i'll give it a shot.... he asked before what would happen if the rangers traded him to edm for a second then signed him (ie: brian leetch)... he was told they would get penalyzed

now hes asking why wouldn't vancouver get penalyzed if they signed him after having traded him

in the hall is offline  
Old
03-18-2004, 03:40 PM
  #88
BigE
Registered User
 
BigE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: San Francisco, CA
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,476
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by in the hall
i'll give it a shot.... he asked before what would happen if the rangers traded him to edm for a second then signed him (ie: brian leetch)... he was told they would get penalyzed

now hes asking why wouldn't vancouver get penalyzed if they signed him after having traded him
To whomever posted the original (thanks for clarifying Hall):

The Leetch-Edmonton trade was different, as I explained above (read the post, it will enlighten you). It's a trade in which an impending NHL player (with a contract that is about to expire) is traded to another team. The team then loses him to Free Agency and gets a compensatory pick as part of losing him. That is a loop-hole.

In Umbergers case, he doesn't have a contract right now. All the Rangers did, by trading for him, was acquire his "rights". If the Rangers do not sign him by June 1st, they lose exclusive rights to sign him. Which means that although they can still pursue him; all 29 other teams will be eligible to do so as well - including, of course, the Canucks.

Now where the NHL might have a greivance is if the Rangers come to an agreement with Umberger but choose to delay the signing of the agreement until after the date of June 1st, so they can receive both Umberger (in the signing) and a 2nd round pick (in losing Umberger's exclusive rights). That could result in a heavy fine or some other sort of punishment for the Rangers.

BigE is offline  
Old
03-18-2004, 04:15 PM
  #89
kiwikid
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 16
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigE
To whomever posted the original (thanks for clarifying Hall):

The Leetch-Edmonton trade was different, as I explained above (read the post, it will enlighten you). It's a trade in which an impending NHL player (with a contract that is about to expire) is traded to another team. The team then loses him to Free Agency and gets a compensatory pick as part of losing him. That is a loop-hole.

In Umbergers case, he doesn't have a contract right now. All the Rangers did, by trading for him, was acquire his "rights". If the Rangers do not sign him by June 1st, they lose exclusive rights to sign him. Which means that although they can still pursue him; all 29 other teams will be eligible to do so as well - including, of course, the Canucks.

Now where the NHL might have a greivance is if the Rangers come to an agreement with Umberger but choose to delay the signing of the agreement until after the date of June 1st, so they can receive both Umberger (in the signing) and a 2nd round pick (in losing Umberger's exclusive rights). That could result in a heavy fine or some other sort of punishment for the Rangers.
Thanks for clarifying as I see your point. I still think it looks like a loophole to me. They will be able to bid for him like anyone else after June 1st. If they don't get him they got a fair pick anyway. It's not like they get outbid that often if they want someone.

kiwikid is offline  
Old
03-18-2004, 05:46 PM
  #90
in the hall
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 5,009
vCash: 500
rj was just interviewed, plan is to stick with the rangers up untill pittsburgh around the end of the weekend then go down to hartford and continue practicing on ice and working out.. hopes to get a contract within two weeks

acknowledges he only has 2 months till free agency but says the organization has been great and hopes to be here

in the hall is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:00 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.