HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk Trade rumors, transactions, and free agent talk. Rumors must contain the word RUMOR in post title. Proposals must contain the word PROPOSAL in post title.

Sedins reportedly want 63M-12 year deal... similar to Zetterberg's deal

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-18-2009, 11:00 AM
  #51
NOTENOUGHBREWER
Registered User
 
NOTENOUGHBREWER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 8,673
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuckfan in TO View Post
if the CBA changes, the rules will apply to new contracts, not contracts negotiated under older rules. Otherwise, the club - or the player - would have grounds to dismiss the contract entirely as the rules that they were negotiated under have changed.

We saw the same thing when this new CBA first came into affect, it needed to be brought in with consideration of deals done under a previous CBA - such as the Washington/New York trade with Jagr and part of his contract being paid by Washington, which was not allowed in the new CBA... they also had provisions for one-time buyouts without cap implications, as the league adjusted to a new CBA.

Basically it's not realistic to assume that the deals you sign now, under the current rules provided, should be penalized because the league then changes the rules... I can't imagine that being allowed in any professional business.
The NHL and NHLPA agreed to the rollback of salary when the current CBA was brought into play. Considering its the richer influential teams giving out these deals I doubt they make any changes, but its within the realm of possibility and I think is a risk GM's are willing to take.

NOTENOUGHBREWER is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2009, 11:02 AM
  #52
mnwildfan79
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 625
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by grabo84 View Post
Agreed 100%. This is one of the biggest flaws with the CBA.

That said, a deal like this for the Sedin's is a bargain any way you look at it.
It's only a bargain if they actually retire before their contract is up.

Unless the NHL's revenues take off in the next 5-10 year and the salary cap skyrockets there is no way a 5.75 cap hit is going to be a good deal for a 39 year old Sedin.

At that point you'll really see teams "selling" their cap space because these guys will be paid a lot less than their cap hit.

mnwildfan79 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2009, 11:07 AM
  #53
Bitterman
Registered User
 
Bitterman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 438
vCash: 500
I'm sure the Islanders aren't regretting signing Rick Dipietro to a 15 year deal in 2006.

Injuries & fading play are a part of hockey but you'd have to think getting insurance to cover these deals would become a problem at some point. Until the new CBA can put in term limits on contracts ala the NBA one can only hope a few teams choke on those phat contracts in the meantime.

Bitterman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2009, 11:08 AM
  #54
IslesBeBack*
NHL Free Agent
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 5,151
vCash: 500
They are insane. They want 63 million dollars EACH?

First off, you have a serious risk - one won't play without the other. What if one of them goes down? Is it reasonable to suggest the other's production will drop significantly?

Huge pass. Let them cash in elsewhere, they aren't prolific hockey players. It's not as if Vancouver took the world by storm with the Sedins. They will never lead a team anywhere - and those contracts are insane for those type(s) of player(s).

Nah.

IslesBeBack* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2009, 11:10 AM
  #55
NHLcrazy
Registered User
 
NHLcrazy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Qc city
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,872
vCash: 500
And I bet they want the same team to sign them both...

Anything more than 6 years is absurd in my mind.

NHLcrazy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2009, 11:10 AM
  #56
ItsAllPartOfThePlan
Registered User
 
ItsAllPartOfThePlan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,109
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatientlyWaiting View Post
They are insane. They want 63 million dollars EACH?

First off, you have a serious risk - one won't play without the other. What if one of them goes down? Is it reasonable to suggest the other's production will drop significantly?

Huge pass. Let them cash in elsewhere, they aren't prolific hockey players. It's not as if Vancouver took the world by storm with the Sedins. They will never lead a team anywhere - and those contracts are insane for those type(s) of player(s).

Nah.
I think the Sedins have missed a grand total of 4 combined games since the lockout. They are very durable players. This isn't Dipietro, Gaborik etc... we are talking about here

ItsAllPartOfThePlan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2009, 11:12 AM
  #57
Ajackalit
Registered User
 
Ajackalit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,963
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mnwildfan79 View Post
It's only a bargain if they actually retire before their contract is up.

Unless the NHL's revenues take off in the next 5-10 year and the salary cap skyrockets there is no way a 5.75 cap hit is going to be a good deal for a 39 year old Sedin.

At that point you'll really see teams "selling" their cap space because these guys will be paid a lot less than their cap hit.
That's why you front load the deal so the money over the last 4 years is low enough that there is a disincentive to keep playing.....ie $1-2mm per year.

Ajackalit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2009, 11:16 AM
  #58
eraserhead
Registered User
 
eraserhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,866
vCash: 500
Well, I would not want to sign those guys until they're 40, but it's not like Gillis will likely be around by the time the contract starts looking bad.

eraserhead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2009, 11:19 AM
  #59
TOML
Registered User
 
TOML's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Walnut Grove
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,718
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatientlyWaiting View Post
They are insane. They want 63 million dollars EACH?

First off, you have a serious risk - one won't play without the other. What if one of them goes down? Is it reasonable to suggest the other's production will drop significantly?

Huge pass. Let them cash in elsewhere, they aren't prolific hockey players. It's not as if Vancouver took the world by storm with the Sedins. They will never lead a team anywhere - and those contracts are insane for those type(s) of player(s).

Nah.
I'm starting to agree. The term is too long.

Zetterberg, and Franzen have long terms as well, but both are proven winners. Zetterberg is a playoff workhorse who is at least twice as talented as either Sedin. Franzen has what... 30 goals in his last 30 playoff games? At least they've done something. While the Canucks have been waiting for the Sedins to do something for a decade... And they did. But they still lost in the 2nd round again. So do the Canucks want another 12 years of that?!?


Hmmm... The Swedish article says the Canucks aren't interested in 12yrs, but five.

Also, the Canucks tried to keep them around last August, but the twins didn't sign. They offered a 4yr deal back then. Now it's five.

One has to think that the Sedins might be going.


I think Gillis is looking at teams like the Rangers and shying away from long-term, low-return contracts.

Gomez and Drury were similar players, but cup winners, when they signed their Ranger deals... Now look at their problems. Even though their cap hits are a bit bigger than $5.25mil.

Forget $14mil... Even $10.5mil a season for 50 goals tops = Not worth it. Esp. down the road when we're losing Luongo, Kesler and possibly Hodgson because we've got the twins locked up forever and the cap just went way down.

The Sedins are gone unless they agree to a much shorter term. But they want a longer term. I wonder if Burke is willing to take them on in TO. That move would receive half-hearted support from their fan base.

TOML is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2009, 11:21 AM
  #60
mcphllp
Dion @ 6.5=Discount
 
mcphllp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,066
vCash: 500
Its a bargain. 10.5/year for 2 80 point players?

Id do it.

mcphllp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2009, 11:27 AM
  #61
wilty00
Registered User
 
wilty00's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Kelowna/Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,268
vCash: 1004
This doesn't make any sense to me. These guys have said all along they want to finish their careers in Sweden playing for Modo back home... why would they sign 12 year deals?

wilty00 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2009, 11:29 AM
  #62
KingTut*
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 178
vCash: 500
WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY tooooo Long IMO!!!!

7 years more than it makes any sense. We can't be left handcuffed for such a long time. our trading bargaining chips will be gone....and nobody will take these guys after they have passed their prime in 3-5 years. This backups the Canucks for sure and will let other teams hardball us when the times get tough.

A wasted effort just so we can play economics in the new NHL. No thank you!!!! I'd rather retool, get some fresh talent, and improve in that sense then get handcuffed for such a long time.

Can you imagine what this city will be like on them once they start sucking and have the top $$$ contract? They will surely be media lynched probably even worse so than Naslund ever was. With such a signing, the fans certainly will be accepting a stanley right away and nothing less.

KingTut* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2009, 11:30 AM
  #63
grabo84
Registered User
 
grabo84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Atlantic Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,448
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TOMapleLaughs View Post
The Sedins are gone unless they agree to a much shorter term. But they want a longer term. I wonder if Burke is willing to take them on in TO. That move would receive half-hearted support from their fan base.
I'd be ecstatic if Burke managed to sign them. The haters in leaf land would get over it pretty quickly.

grabo84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2009, 11:30 AM
  #64
ItsAllPartOfThePlan
Registered User
 
ItsAllPartOfThePlan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,109
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by wilty00 View Post
This doesn't make any sense to me. These guys have said all along they want to finish their careers in Sweden playing for Modo back home... why would they sign 12 year deals?
They are doing Vancouver a favor by lowering their cap hit. Van can then buy them out towards the end of their careers at a cheap price.

ItsAllPartOfThePlan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2009, 11:31 AM
  #65
kyle evs48
No words needed
 
kyle evs48's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 29,165
vCash: 500
lolol @ you, Sedins

kyle evs48 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2009, 11:34 AM
  #66
Canucker
Registered User
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Prince Rupert, BC
Posts: 18,354
vCash: 500
First off I think an arrangement will be made that both teams can swallow, likely in the 10 year $50 million range. This "loophole" in the CBA is a risk but its there at the moment and its going to be used one way or another, if you don't at least accept the idea of signing these UFA's to long term deals they can find them elsewhere in most cases. If you say you won't take part in signing player to these types of deals you are going to wind up left out in the cold when free agency comes around and you are trying to sign the Jay Bouwmeesters of the world, unless you are willing to give a significantly higher cap hit on a shorter term.

Canucker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2009, 11:35 AM
  #67
KingTut*
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 178
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsAllPartOfThePlan View Post
They are doing Vancouver a favor by lowering their cap hit. Van can then buy them out towards the end of their careers at a cheap price.
Buyout????? like in tens of millions of dollars owed????

Regardless of their market value or if we get them at a bargain or not, do we really want to be handcuffed this long and have no room or bargaining leverage when it comes to other trades or building the team in case it goes nowhere as a contender? These are NOT, I repeat, NOT a pair of Ovechkins or Crosbys we have here.

KingTut* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2009, 11:39 AM
  #68
KingTut*
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 178
vCash: 500
Signing these kind of deals IMO should only be with franchise elite players, not for loophole economic reasons. Doing so, we will be left stuck with the same ol same ol no matter which way you look at it and then be handcuffed with their collective impact on our payroll (not to mention lack lustre system of play). They will be untradable and leave us in similar fashion as Markus Naslund did.
Let the dunces in the league sign them to this sort of deal.

Let's RECYCLE the Sedins for some new personnel in 2 years time if we don't win a cup or at least get to another final.

KingTut* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2009, 11:40 AM
  #69
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Here is one to structure such a deal...

8-8-8-8-8-8-7-4-1-1-1-1

I have no idea if the NHL is going to allow a tail of four $1M seasons (does anybody have an existing contract example that does it?) We know the NHL will allow for a tail of 2 years, because several contracts have that. Then we're looking at something like....

8-8-8-8-8-7-7-3-2-2-1-1

If you structure it "just" like Zetterberg's you have something like...

7-7-7-6-6-6-6-6-6-4-1-1

In that case, you'll be paying them $6M at the age of 38. I'm fairly confident that would be a strong anti-incentive for them to retire.

Lots of other ways to skin this cat, they all depend on ownership's ability and willingness to spend a lot more than the salary cap allows.

Other thing to keep in mind, is Luongo is up next. If you set a precedent with the Sedins, the numbers for Luongo are going to be staggering. Remember, this is a guy who sucked up 15% of the salary cap when he signed his last contract.

  Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2009, 11:40 AM
  #70
TOML
Registered User
 
TOML's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Walnut Grove
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,718
vCash: 500
LA could sign the Sedins for that and trade for Heatley and they'd have a pretty solid team until they have to start trading more of their youth away.

TOML is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2009, 11:40 AM
  #71
DeveinedPgBc
Registered User
 
DeveinedPgBc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: left of hell pg bc
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,365
vCash: 500
Quote:
These are NOT, I repeat, NOT a pair of Ovechkins or Crosbys we have here.
and if they were, they would cost us a cap hit of about 16-18 mil a year if we were to sign those players.i think it is a decent deal (if only for the first 5-8 years) and they can walk after that.this enables the canucks to get some help for them too.

DeveinedPgBc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2009, 11:42 AM
  #72
Canucker
Registered User
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Prince Rupert, BC
Posts: 18,354
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingtut View Post
Buyout????? like in tens of millions of dollars owed????

Regardless of their market value or if we get them at a bargain or not, do we really want to be handcuffed this long and have no room or bargaining leverage when it comes to other trades or building the team in case it goes nowhere as a contender? These are NOT, I repeat, NOT a pair of Ovechkins or Crosbys we have here.
And they aren't going to be paid like them either, Crosby's cap hit is like $8.7 million and Ovechkin's in like $9.5.

Canucker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2009, 11:43 AM
  #73
TOML
Registered User
 
TOML's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Walnut Grove
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,718
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by grabo84 View Post
I'd be ecstatic if Burke managed to sign them. The haters in leaf land would get over it pretty quickly.
Short term, maybe. But what about 12 years?

Perhaps Burke will give them $8mil ea. for a short term, though...

TOML is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2009, 11:43 AM
  #74
KingTut*
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 178
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by fosterchild420 View Post
and if they were, they would cost us a cap hit of about 16-18 mil a year if we were to sign those players.i think it is a decent deal (if only for the first 5-8 years) and they can walk after that.this enables the canucks to get some help for them too.

Don't the owners want to spend with discipline. I believe salaries and terms were blown out of wack with such business tactics in the past.

here we go again......

KingTut* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2009, 11:45 AM
  #75
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingtut View Post
here we go again......
Yep. The lockout season has effectively accomplished nothing, as the NHL front office has allowed a tremendous loophole for teams with cash to burn.

We're (almost) right back where we were...

  Reply With Quote
Reply

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 08:31 PM.

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.