HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Vancouver Canucks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Expressen: Sedins ask for $63 million over 12 years each - Sedin Contract Talks Here

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-12-2009, 10:01 AM
  #251
LeftCoast
Registered User
 
LeftCoast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,741
vCash: 500
RE: the Botchford article,

What is missed in this analysis is that if Gillis had employed the "Dave Nonis" strategy (or if Nonis had completed his European trip before getting sacked) that "big fat contract" probably would have been a 4 year extension at about $5M per.

The Sedins having demonstrated that they can elevate their game in the stretch drive and into the playoffs, now have a market value of over $6M. The only way to hit that "Dave Nonis' cap number now is with the additional risk of a front loaded sunset (8 - 10 year) contract.

LeftCoast is offline  
Old
06-12-2009, 10:10 AM
  #252
Barney Gumble
Registered User
 
Barney Gumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 19,815
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftCoast View Post
What is missed in this analysis is that if Gillis had employed the "Dave Nonis" strategy (or if Nonis had completed his European trip before getting sacked) that "big fat contract" probably would have been a 4 year extension at about $5M per.
That "Nonis strategy" also gave us a three year anchor @ $6 million per year.

(as well as handing out "no trade clauses" like they were candy).


Last edited by Barney Gumble: 06-12-2009 at 10:42 AM.
Barney Gumble is offline  
Old
06-12-2009, 10:19 AM
  #253
Ernie
Registered User
 
Ernie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,045
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftCoast View Post
RE: the Botchford article,

What is missed in this analysis is that if Gillis had employed the "Dave Nonis" strategy (or if Nonis had completed his European trip before getting sacked) that "big fat contract" probably would have been a 4 year extension at about $5M per.

The Sedins having demonstrated that they can elevate their game in the stretch drive and into the playoffs, now have a market value of over $6M. The only way to hit that "Dave Nonis' cap number now is with the additional risk of a front loaded sunset (8 - 10 year) contract.
That's absolute nonsense.

There's no way that coming off a non-playoff year, that there was much of an argument for the twins to take less in order to win.

In addition, given the huge cap increase last year, there was much much more salary room last year both for the Canucks and the rest of the league. This year, the cap is staying the same. Teams are going to have to still give raises to their RFA's in order to hold on to them. It's the UFA's that are going to have to bite the bullet here.

The twins contract demands will be the same this year as they were last, or maybe even less. There just aren't a lot of teams out there willing to drop $14m in a summer where they're just desperate to hold on to the players they have.

Ernie is offline  
Old
06-12-2009, 10:31 AM
  #254
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernie View Post
That's absolute nonsense.

There's no way that coming off a non-playoff year, that there was much of an argument for the twins to take less in order to win.

In addition, given the huge cap increase last year, there was much much more salary room last year both for the Canucks and the rest of the league. This year, the cap is staying the same. Teams are going to have to still give raises to their RFA's in order to hold on to them. It's the UFA's that are going to have to bite the bullet here.

The twins contract demands will be the same this year as they were last, or maybe even less. There just aren't a lot of teams out there willing to drop $14m in a summer where they're just desperate to hold on to the players they have.
The problem is not this coming season as the cap will being staying virtually the same.

The concern is 2010-11 when the cap drops - depending upon which "inside source" you believe it could drop as much as $10 million ($46 million) or even to $41 million. Of course Gary Bettman says everything is fine and sunny in BettmanWorld.

And Luongo is UFA 01 July 2010.

There are just so many $5 million plus contracts that can be absorbed.

Wetcoaster is offline  
Old
06-12-2009, 10:44 AM
  #255
Barney Gumble
Registered User
 
Barney Gumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 19,815
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
The problem is not this coming season as the cap will being staying virtually the same.
The thing is, at the time of the suggestion "lower extension" the Sedins would've signed - the economic environment wasn't (to my knowledge) anywhere near this bleak (ie., where there is a decreasing cap environment). It is a bit much to expect them to sign for $5 million where one might reasonably expect the cap to stay at the least flat (or increase in the future) IMHO.

Barney Gumble is offline  
Old
06-12-2009, 10:45 AM
  #256
Biggest Canuck Fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Kelowna, BC
Posts: 10,448
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Biggest Canuck Fan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
The problem is not this coming season as the cap will being staying virtually the same.

The concern is 2010-11 when the cap drops - depending upon which "inside source" you believe it could drop as much as $10 million ($46 million) or even to $41 million. Of course Gary Bettman says everything is fine and sunny in BettmanWorld.

And Luongo is UFA 01 July 2010.

There are just so many $5 million plus contracts that can be absorbed.
I think it is also important to note that should the coyotes move to Hamilton the drop in revenue will be lessened greatly! The influx of compensation via relocation fee, as well as having blackberry as a major sponsor.

Balsillee (sp?) could generate alot of money for the league making the cap stay hogher than anticipated.

Biggest Canuck Fan is offline  
Old
06-12-2009, 10:53 AM
  #257
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biggest Canuck Fan View Post
I think it is also important to note that should the coyotes move to Hamilton the drop in revenue will be lessened greatly! The influx of compensation via relocation fee, as well as having blackberry as a major sponsor.

Balsillee (sp?) could generate alot of money for the league making the cap stay hogher than anticipated.
Coyotes to Hamilton? Really?

Wetcoaster is offline  
Old
06-12-2009, 10:58 AM
  #258
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 46,400
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by dhabums View Post
It's assumptions like this that make your opinions so incredibly well respected.

I work near a hospital. I am practically a doctor.
I have this big thing growing out of my head. What should I do?

__________________
http://www.vancitynitetours.com
y2kcanucks is offline  
Old
06-12-2009, 11:02 AM
  #259
Ajackalit
Registered User
 
Ajackalit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,963
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
The problem is not this coming season as the cap will being staying virtually the same.

The concern is 2010-11 when the cap drops - depending upon which "inside source" you believe it could drop as much as $10 million ($46 million) or even to $41 million. Of course Gary Bettman says everything is fine and sunny in BettmanWorld.

And Luongo is UFA 01 July 2010.

There are just so many $5 million plus contracts that can be absorbed.
I suspect there are more than a few GMs that actually buy Bettman's bs and will overpay in the UFA market this summer; not to mention the GMs that are desperate or looking to make their mark.....

Until cap deflation is a reality, things will be business as usual for a lot of teams. Hell, just look at what the Flames did at the trade deadline.

Ajackalit is offline  
Old
06-12-2009, 11:05 AM
  #260
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 46,400
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by pitseleh View Post
This article isn't attributed to anyone, but it's pretty interesting:



http://www.canada.com/Canucks+Sedins...529/story.html

EDIT: Found a similar article on The Province's website which was written by Botchford.



http://communities.canada.com/thepro...ig-reward.aspx
This is great news! It means he will do what's best for the team, not what's best for any individual player. We don't necessarily need the Sedins for the team to be successful. In a cap world, it just means we have more resources to allocate to other players. In fact, the worst thing this organization could do would be hand out long-term contracts to the Twins that are worth $6M+

y2kcanucks is offline  
Old
06-12-2009, 11:07 AM
  #261
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 46,400
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
The problem is not this coming season as the cap will being staying virtually the same.

The concern is 2010-11 when the cap drops - depending upon which "inside source" you believe it could drop as much as $10 million ($46 million) or even to $41 million. Of course Gary Bettman says everything is fine and sunny in BettmanWorld.

And Luongo is UFA 01 July 2010.

There are just so many $5 million plus contracts that can be absorbed.
I pretty much can guarantee it won't drop that much. The more research I do, the more I think it's likely that if it does drop it'll be somewhere closer to the $50M mark.

The NHLPA has a clause where they can introduce an artificial inflator of about 5% in which to raise the cap above projected league revenues. It would likely mean dipping into the escrow fund at the end of the season if league revenues fail to reach their targets; however, it would also mean a higher cap and keeping most players away from buy-outs and playing in the minors.

y2kcanucks is offline  
Old
06-12-2009, 11:31 AM
  #262
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
I pretty much can guarantee it won't drop that much. The more research I do, the more I think it's likely that if it does drop it'll be somewhere closer to the $50M mark.

The NHLPA has a clause where they can introduce an artificial inflator of about 5% in which to raise the cap above projected league revenues. It would likely mean dipping into the escrow fund at the end of the season if league revenues fail to reach their targets; however, it would also mean a higher cap and keeping most players away from buy-outs and playing in the minors.
The bulk of the league's revenues come from ticket sales and in a number of markets those prices are plummeting. Here is what Adrian Dater (writes for the Denver Post on hockey) has to say on the Versus.com website.
Quote:
The Tampa Bay Lightning is already selling some season tickets for next year as low as $239. That’s 41 NHL hockey games at an average price of $5.82 a night. That’s a decrease of 80 percent on what the Lightning charges now for the same seats (last seven rows, across the upper bowl).

And that, folks, is just one example of how scared some teams are about their businesses going forward in this “Grapes of Wrath, the Sequel” economy we’re in.
...
How low can it go? A handful of NHL team executives told Versus.com they’re expecting a 2010-11 number around $44-$46 million, down from the current $56.7 million.
http://www.versus.com/nw/article/vie...cleWrapper.tpl

And in Colorado? Remember this was one of the stronger revenue teams in the past decade:
Quote:
The Colorado Avalanche’s average “premium ticket” price this season, according to Team Marketing Report, is $119.33. The Avs define a premium ticket as any in the lower bowl of the Pepsi Center. For next season, existing season-ticket holders are being offered the chance to buy available lower-bowl seats for $1,010 – an average of $24.63 over 41 games. A loss of nearly $100 per head in the best seats of the house means to the salary cap…well, just cue up The Boss one more time.
So once the ticket price packages are set across the league that will give a much clearer picture... assuming that they will even be all bought at the lowered prices.

In Vancouver we have slightly skewed vision because you will not be able to buy a nosebleed ticket for under $6.00 per game. In Vancouver it is about $40.00 more for such a perch.

In the old NHL (pre-cap) this would not be problem for the Canucks but now because their salaries are tied to league revenues (and league revenues are tied to ticket sales), not only will the canucks not be able to use their revenues to build a team, they will be ending money to other teams to support payrolls that the team revenues do not justify.

BTW thanks Gary.

Wetcoaster is offline  
Old
06-12-2009, 11:52 AM
  #263
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 46,400
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
The bulk of the league's revenues come from ticket sales and in a number of markets those prices are plummeting. Here is what Adrian Dater (writes for the Denver Post on hockey) has to say on the Versus.com website.

http://www.versus.com/nw/article/vie...cleWrapper.tpl

And in Colorado? Remember this was one of the stronger revenue teams in the past decade:


So once the ticket price packages are set across the league that will give a much clearer picture... assuming that they will even be all bought at the lowered prices.

In Vancouver we have slightly skewed vision because you will not be able to buy a nosebleed ticket for under $6.00 per game. In Vancouver it is about $40.00 more for such a perch.

In the old NHL (pre-cap) this would not be problem for the Canucks but now because their salaries are tied to league revenues (and league revenues are tied to ticket sales), not only will the canucks not be able to use their revenues to build a team, they will be ending money to other teams to support payrolls that the team revenues do not justify.

BTW thanks Gary.
Well we'll see just how dark and gloomy next season is, but with the Canadian dollar slightly recovering, the revenues from Canadian teams may not be as weak as initially predicted a couple of months back. I know it won't be nearly enough to offset the massive failures of the sunbelt teams, but I don't think we'll see a cap of $44-46M next year.

Either way though, it'll be interesting to see what measures teams take over the next 365 days leading up to the summer of 2010.

Another solution, one that Gary B won't ever go for, would be to move these revenue black holes to better markets. Get rid of Phoenix, Tampa Bay, Nashville and Atlanta, and move them to Seattle/Portland, Hamilton, Winnipeg, Quebec City.

y2kcanucks is offline  
Old
06-12-2009, 11:58 AM
  #264
FruityPants3*
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,201
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
This is great news! It means he will do what's best for the team, not what's best for any individual player.
Wow! Awesome! This indeed confirms that Gillis' current job is General Manager of an NHL team and not NHL agent. Wahoo. Ring the alarms!

FruityPants3* is offline  
Old
06-12-2009, 12:04 PM
  #265
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
Well we'll see just how dark and gloomy next season is, but with the Canadian dollar slightly recovering, the revenues from Canadian teams may not be as weak as initially predicted a couple of months back. I know it won't be nearly enough to offset the massive failures of the sunbelt teams, but I don't think we'll see a cap of $44-46M next year.

Either way though, it'll be interesting to see what measures teams take over the next 365 days leading up to the summer of 2010.

Another solution, one that Gary B won't ever go for, would be to move these revenue black holes to better markets. Get rid of Phoenix, Tampa Bay, Nashville and Atlanta, and move them to Seattle/Portland, Hamilton, Winnipeg, Quebec City.
The Canadian teams are already carrying more than their fair share of load.

Any increase in revenue is most likely to be eaten up in a greater increase in revenue sharing as more US teams drop.

Two of the better sports writers on the business side of the NHL (David Shoalts and James Mirtle) have predicted $44-46 million as the cap for 2010-11 and Lyle Richardson (Spector) has said the same thing.

Switch to Bettman-speak:

We are committed to making sure teams succeed in their home markets. Besides moving those under performing teams does not "grow the game".

Mind you to be fair to Gary he did promise during the lockout that fans would see lower ticket prices - it just took a major recession/depression and couple of years.

Wetcoaster is offline  
Old
06-12-2009, 12:04 PM
  #266
Ajackalit
Registered User
 
Ajackalit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,963
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
I pretty much can guarantee it won't drop that much. The more research I do, the more I think it's likely that if it does drop it'll be somewhere closer to the $50M mark.

The NHLPA has a clause where they can introduce an artificial inflator of about 5% in which to raise the cap above projected league revenues. It would likely mean dipping into the escrow fund at the end of the season if league revenues fail to reach their targets; however, it would also mean a higher cap and keeping most players away from buy-outs and playing in the minors.
you can't do anything of the kind......A 20% revenue haircut is easily within the realm of possibility….just look at revenue declines for some of the biggest companies in the world last quarter:

GE’s revenue was down more than 9% yoy
McDonalds revenue declined 10% yoy
Electronic arts took a 24% revenue haircut…

Were getting damn close to a double digit unemployment rate in the US (and if you look a little closer at the data, it’s actually above 16%); the idea that this isn’t going to seriously impact gate and advertising revenue is comical.

Ajackalit is offline  
Old
06-12-2009, 12:16 PM
  #267
Barney Gumble
Registered User
 
Barney Gumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 19,815
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
Mind you to be fair to Gary he did promise during the lockout that fans would see lower ticket prices
Probably a good part of the reason the cap was rising every year was due to the fact the "big revnue earning teams" were increasing ticket prices every year (rather than due to increased attendance).

Barney Gumble is offline  
Old
06-12-2009, 12:53 PM
  #268
Mr. Canucklehead
Mod Supervisor
Kitimat Canuck
 
Mr. Canucklehead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Kitimat, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,518
vCash: 500
So, the Sedins...

Honestly, if they are pricing themselves into the 6+ million range for a long term, I would be a proponent of bidding them adieu. In the salary cap world, you have to be willing to take a discount for the longer term and if they are unwilling to do that, they will basically handcuff this team from adding any key pieces in the future. Players like Burrows and Kesler, who understand taking discounts to build a quality team, are examples of guys we should strive to keep. But if the Sedins can't do the same, as much as it would and will suck to try and rebuild the offense of this team, can go somewhere else.

~Canucklehead~

Mr. Canucklehead is offline  
Old
06-12-2009, 01:30 PM
  #269
LeftCoast
Registered User
 
LeftCoast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,741
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernie View Post
That's absolute nonsense.

There's no way that coming off a non-playoff year, that there was much of an argument for the twins to take less in order to win.

The twins contract demands will be the same this year as they were last, or maybe even less. There just aren't a lot of teams out there willing to drop $14m in a summer where they're just desperate to hold on to the players they have.
The Sedins would have almost certainly been cheaper to extend last year than this year. They were coming off a season where they were much criticized for fading down the stretch and into the playoffs. Their offensive production had plateaued and even dropped off (they both went from the low 80's to mid 70's in points). There were even some (still) questioning if they were legitimate first line players. I think even they would have admitted they had something to prove. They would not have been facing competitive offers a full year away from free agency.

This year Henrick had a career year in both goals and points while Daniel is only 2 points off his career high. They are coming off an impressive stretch drive and playoff performance where they have pretty much answered all questions about their first line status (except to digger18 and pauser). They are now 3 weeks away from free agency with several teams having the cap space and structure to acquire them.

LeftCoast is offline  
Old
06-12-2009, 01:41 PM
  #270
LeftCoast
Registered User
 
LeftCoast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,741
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieMFRoyal View Post
you can't do anything of the kind......A 20% revenue haircut is easily within the realm of possibility….just look at revenue declines for some of the biggest companies in the world last quarter:

GE’s revenue was down more than 9% yoy
McDonalds revenue declined 10% yoy
Electronic arts took a 24% revenue haircut…

Were getting damn close to a double digit unemployment rate in the US (and if you look a little closer at the data, it’s actually above 16%); the idea that this isn’t going to seriously impact gate and advertising revenue is comical.
BTW - the term "haircut" is not generally used to refer a financial loss or drop in revenues. In finance it is used in 2 different ways:

One is as a risk premium when an asset is offered as collateral on a loan or transaction. i.e. if you offer a bond as collateral for a loan it will secure a loan of less than its face value or traded value. The difference is the haircut (the lender takes "a little off the top").

It is also used when an agent, middleman, broker, etc. takes a commission or "a little off the top" of a deal to compensate him for risk.


Last edited by LeftCoast: 06-12-2009 at 01:49 PM.
LeftCoast is offline  
Old
06-12-2009, 01:41 PM
  #271
pitseleh
Registered User
 
pitseleh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,644
vCash: 500
After Shawn Horcoff signed his $5.5 million/year extension last July, Barry brought it up as a comparable for a player that was less productive than either of the Sedins.

Both Gillis and Barry have said that the Sedins performance in the playoffs would have no bearing on their contract value.

pitseleh is offline  
Old
06-12-2009, 01:48 PM
  #272
LeftCoast
Registered User
 
LeftCoast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,741
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pitseleh View Post
After Shawn Horcoff signed his $5.5 million/year extension last July, Barry brought it up as a comparable for a player that was less productive than either of the Sedins.

Both Gillis and Barry have said that the Sedins performance in the playoffs would have no bearing on their contract value.
Yes, and had they been seriously negotiating last summer, Gillis would have pointed to comparables of players that earned less or were more productive.

Finally - even if $5.5M was the accepted comparable, the Sedins, would have to take a bit of a discount to remain together. This is essentially a NTC - something that generally has a financial trade-off.

I'm pretty sure that last summer $5M for 4 years with either a NTC or agreement that they could only be traded together would have sealed the deal.

This year, it will take at least $1M more, or an 8 - 10 year term with an average $5M or less cap hit.

LeftCoast is offline  
Old
06-12-2009, 01:58 PM
  #273
pitseleh
Registered User
 
pitseleh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,644
vCash: 500
Who were said comparables? Certainly not any players that signed deals as potential UFAs. Players like Jason Pominville and Mike Ribeiro got $5 million+ extensions from their current teams after a single season of 70+ point hockey. Shawn Horcoff got $5.5 million on a six year deal after one year over 70 points four years ago. The Sedins have done that for four years. There's absolutely nothing in their negotiating stance to this point to suggest they would have taken a short(er) term deal at $5 million/year last summer or that waiting on a deal has changed their contract demands.

pitseleh is offline  
Old
06-12-2009, 02:02 PM
  #274
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 46,400
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by pitseleh View Post
Who were said comparables? Certainly not any players that signed deals as potential UFAs. Players like Jason Pominville and Mike Ribeiro got $5 million+ extensions from their current teams after a single season of 70+ point hockey. Shawn Horcoff got $5.5 million on a six year deal after one year over 70 points four years ago. The Sedins have done that for four years. There's absolutely nothing in their negotiating stance to this point to suggest they would have taken a short(er) term deal at $5 million/year last summer or that waiting on a deal has changed their contract demands.
Except it's tough to compare either Sedin to either of those players as Buffalo didn't have to sign Pominville's brother to get Pominville. In each of those situations it was 1 player signing for the $5M figure. With the Sedins it's 2 players in a package deal.

y2kcanucks is offline  
Old
06-12-2009, 02:02 PM
  #275
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pitseleh View Post
Who were said comparables? Certainly not any players that signed deals as potential UFAs. Players like Jason Pominville and Mike Ribeiro got $5 million+ extensions from their current teams after a single season of 70+ point hockey. Shawn Horcoff got $5.5 million on a six year deal after two out of four seasons at a PPG. The Sedins have done that for four years. There's absolutely nothing in their negotiating stance to this point to suggest they would have taken a short(er) term deal at $5 million/year last summer or that waiting on a deal has changed their contract demands.
There is however an external factor now to consider - the anticipated dropping of the salary cap for 2010-11. That may have a dampening effect on their demands as GM's have to take that into account.

In terms of Luongo it may well be positive because he can get a greater maximum salary if he signs before 01 July 2010.

Wetcoaster 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 09:12 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.