HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Torts not impressed by Reds,indicates changes on D looming

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-21-2009, 12:47 PM
  #51
jas
Unsatisfied
 
jas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 13,220
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose_Jr. View Post
WADE REDDEN BUYOUT FROM CAPGEEK.COM
2010-2011: $1,916,667
2011-2012: $1,916,667
2012-2013: $3,416,667
2013-2014: $3,416,667
2014-2015: $1,916,667
2015-2016: $1,916,667
2016-2017: $1,916,667
2017-2018: $1,916,667
Wow, that looks even better. Even in the worst years, you're essentially gaining $2.5 million in cap space for two years.

jas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2009, 12:54 PM
  #52
Carl Hagelins Flow
Flow Status: AMAZING
 
Carl Hagelins Flow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Long Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 4,233
vCash: 500
It makes me cringe to know that we'd still be paying Redden off for the next decade.

Carl Hagelins Flow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2009, 01:02 PM
  #53
NYRamonte10
Registered User
 
NYRamonte10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 152
vCash: 500
He's even for the season. this means he has been on the ice for as many goals for our team as he has against our team. For a team that can't score for its life, that's good. Fact is, aside from Gilroy (who also got sent down?) he has the best +/- for D men. While not nearly up to his contract, I thought Redden has played pretty solidly all year. Sure he's not always into the game, but come on. Is he really an AHL player? No. I think it's BS that his big contract may be the reason he gets sent down. He accepted what he was offered, why should he get demoted because the Rangers gave him too much money? I'm a Redden Sympathizer for sure.

Ok he is -1. Rozsival is even. And everyone complains about him too. No they aren't logging the same minutes as the other guys, but still. Look at MDZ's +/- it is horrendous. Oh yea he's 19 blah who cares it doesn't really matter. I'm not trying to say Redden is better or worse than anyone, I'm just saying he doesn't deserve to get sent down to the AHL, by any means.


Last edited by NYRamonte10: 12-21-2009 at 01:08 PM.
NYRamonte10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2009, 01:15 PM
  #54
NikC
Registered User
 
NikC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 3,597
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyBurd View Post
Redden is in a no win situation. He simply doesn't have what is being asked of him. The best he can do is play decent. And he can't do that if he has to do the other things that Torts apparently wants from him.

They want him to play like he used to play or to evolve and play just as well in some other capacity. And it's completely outlandish. Redden has enough left to be a solid 3rd pairing defenceman. He can step up to the top four on a team like this if need be if you don't ask him to do anything exceptional and live with him not making any impact plays and accept the occasional breakdowns. I just keep wondering more and more if Tortorella knows what he wants form his own players. When he says he does things on "gut instincts"... he really really does a lot of things on gut instincts.

Totally agree. We've seen the best this guy has to offer, which is OK
for 3m, not double that. He's getting gamebreaker money, and he hasn't shown that ability since prior to the lockout.

This is a case of prevention versus a cure. He should have never been signed. Sather HAS to take half the responsibility here.
Also, i don't see how this one game is make or break it either, unless Brooks knows something we don't? Redden will eventually play poorly again, it's just a matter of time.

NikC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2009, 01:21 PM
  #55
Choice
Registered User
 
Choice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: nyc
Country: Lithuania
Posts: 3,459
vCash: 500
No way one game is the make or break. I don't see Redden being sent down until the offseason, when the cap spce can be used to sign an FA.

Choice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2009, 01:24 PM
  #56
NikC
Registered User
 
NikC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 3,597
vCash: 500
well, we can at least be thankful this situation seems to be moving in the right direction. give Torts' some credit.

NikC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2009, 01:25 PM
  #57
WhipNash27
Quattro!!
 
WhipNash27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Westchester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 15,596
vCash: 500
Players should have the ability to buy themselves out, with the team's approval, for no cap hit. That'd be nice.

WhipNash27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2009, 01:25 PM
  #58
GAGLine
Registered User
 
GAGLine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 9,347
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdhebner View Post
Does the salary of theplayer who is sent to the minors and stays there count towards the cap? I believe if said player is recalled and claimed on re-call waivers 1/2 of his salary counts towards the cap.
The season is 193 days long this year. Every player's cap hit is divided by 193 and that amount is used up each day the player is on the roster.

So in the case of Wade Redden, his cap hit is 6.5 million, which comes out to roughly $33,679 per day.

Before he can be sent to Hartford, he must be waived. If he is waived, then every other team in the league has an opportunity to claim him. If any do, they assume responsibility for the entirety of his remaining contract.

If he clears waivers, the Rangers then have 30 days or 10 NHL games to send him down to Hartford. If they do not send him down within that timeframe, then he must clear waivers again to be sent down.

Once he is sent down, his $33,679 per day no longer counts against the cap. But he would have to clear re-entry waivers to be brought back up. If he is claimed on re-entry waivers, the claiming team would be responsible for half of his remaining contract and we would be responsible for the other half.

The only two possible scenarios I can see is that we:

1) Waive him and if he clears, keep him on the active roster
2) Waive him and if he clears, send him to Hartford for the rest of the year

If he goes down, I seriously doubt he'll be back up this year. Sather isn't going to run the risk that someone claims him for half price.

GAGLine is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2009, 01:28 PM
  #59
Shake and Bake
 
Shake and Bake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,367
vCash: 500
Truth is, the ideal move would be sending him down to the minors after the season ends or if the Rangers make a trade during this year and need to move dollars.

The D will be better with him for the rest of the year. Sending him down now would look better (because hes playing really bad) than if they send him down to start next year despite picking up his play.

Truth is, who gives a ****...He needs to be in the minors def by the start of next year. He can rot there for 4 years. Im not going to worry about how he affects the Wolfpack players because the Rangers are the team we care about. More important getting his contract off our hands.

No way should they ever put him on re-entry waivers and risk a team claiming him for 3.5. I personally wouldnt claim him for 3.5 for 3-4 more years, but someone may. Who knows.

Dolan paying Redden 20 million to be in Hartford is obviously better than having some team claim him off of re-entry waivers. Why should we give a **** that Dolan still pays him? As long as hes off our cap and team, Im happy.

Its a no brainer to send Redden to the minors. The only question is do you do it now or at the beginning of next year? Either way, during the offseason next year..they are going to build their team +6.5 million bc they know Redden wont be playing for them.

Shake and Bake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2009, 01:35 PM
  #60
Melrose_Jr.
Registered User
 
Melrose_Jr.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Providence, RI
Country: United States
Posts: 10,692
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jas View Post
Wow, that looks even better. Even in the worst years, you're essentially gaining $2.5 million in cap space for two years.
How would you feel if you had a $2M cap hit tied up in Igor Ulanov from the '01/'02 season? I'm thinking you wouldn't be happy.

You also don't know what percentage of the cap those dollar figures will represent in years to come. You're probably better off exposing him on re-entry waivers and just be done with it in 2014.

I still don't see how it's a gain to lose a good defenseman, but still not have enough cap space to make the impact change you're trying to make. The goal for now should just be for Tortorella to put Redden in the best possible position to succeed.

Melrose_Jr. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2009, 01:45 PM
  #61
NikC
Registered User
 
NikC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 3,597
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose_Jr. View Post
How would you feel if you had a $2M cap hit tied up in Igor Ulanov from the '01/'02 season? I'm thinking you wouldn't be happy.

You also don't know what percentage of the cap those dollar figures will represent in years to come. You're probably better off exposing him on re-entry waivers and just be done with it in 2014.

I still don't see how it's a gain to lose a good defenseman, but still not have enough cap space to make the impact change you're trying to make. The goal for now should just be for Tortorella to put Redden in the best possible position to succeed.

a handful of games here and there don't qualify this guy as a "good defense man" imo. At 6.5 he should be a gamebreaker, which he is, but unfortunately it against the team he plays for.

This is another failed reclamation project by Sather. His game is gone. He's ok @ around 3m. His price tag is absurd. He has to be the biggest bust seen Holik in a NYR uniform.

NikC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2009, 01:46 PM
  #62
GAGLine
Registered User
 
GAGLine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 9,347
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BleedsBlueforNYR View Post
The thing that worries me more is that even if theoretically (best case scenario) he gets sent to Hartford to rot, how the hell do you fit a 6.5mil cap hit on a 10mil capped AHL team? He has a one-way contract.
The AHL doesn't have a cap or a roster limit. There are only limitations regarding the percentage of non-developmental players that suit up for each game.

GAGLine is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2009, 01:50 PM
  #63
zestystrat
Registered User
 
zestystrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: NYC > Atlanta
Country: United States
Posts: 621
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose_Jr. View Post
How would you feel if you had a $2M cap hit tied up in Igor Ulanov from the '01/'02 season? I'm thinking you wouldn't be happy.

You also don't know what percentage of the cap those dollar figures will represent in years to come. You're probably better off exposing him on re-entry waivers and just be done with it in 2014.

I still don't see how it's a gain to lose a good defenseman, but still not have enough cap space to make the impact change you're trying to make. The goal for now should just be for Tortorella to put Redden in the best possible position to succeed.
I agree. A buyout does not look all that appealing.

Unless a trip to the AHL helps us with a deal or the playoffs are out of reach, I think his mins should be cut and stay up in the bigs. I'm high on our youth but don't think anyone in Hartford is going to be better.

Like you said Melrose, fingers crossed for an amnesty buyout......

zestystrat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2009, 02:20 PM
  #64
Salz
Registered User
 
Salz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,235
vCash: 500
How realistic is an amnesty buyout?

Salz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2009, 02:23 PM
  #65
FanHabtic
Registered User
 
FanHabtic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,853
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Salz View Post
How realistic is an amnesty buyout?
I've never heard of an amnesty buyout. Where did this come from?

FanHabtic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2009, 02:24 PM
  #66
Barbara Underhill
Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuke
 
Barbara Underhill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Montana
Country: United States
Posts: 13,204
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Salz View Post
How realistic is an amnesty buyout?
I think it's possible they allow those, but it may be like a 50/50 chance right now... It isn't a guarantee as far as I know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FanHabtic View Post
I've never heard of an amnesty buyout. Where did this come from?
Something the league has been tossing around I believe, heard a little about it at the start of the season.

Barbara Underhill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2009, 02:25 PM
  #67
Shake and Bake
 
Shake and Bake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,367
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by zestystrat View Post
I agree. A buyout does not look all that appealing.

Unless a trip to the AHL helps us with a deal or the playoffs are out of reach, I think his mins should be cut and stay up in the bigs. I'm high on our youth but don't think anyone in Hartford is going to be better.

Like you said Melrose, fingers crossed for an amnesty buyout......
You can just use an amnesty buyout on Drury.

Send Redden to the minors.

Shake and Bake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2009, 02:26 PM
  #68
LamoTheKid
Registered User
 
LamoTheKid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 1,411
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Failure By Design View Post
I think it's possible they allow those, but it may be like a 50/50 chance right now... It isn't a guarantee as far as I know.



Something the league has been tossing around I believe, heard a little about it at the start of the season.
Any links to back that up? AFAIK, this is fan speculation/wishful thinking (not a shot at you, just in general).

LamoTheKid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2009, 02:32 PM
  #69
Barbara Underhill
Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuke
 
Barbara Underhill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Montana
Country: United States
Posts: 13,204
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LamoTheKid View Post
Any links to back that up? AFAIK, this is fan speculation/wishful thinking (not a shot at you, just in general).
No links, and yeah it is possible it was all speculation I just remember seeing it at the beginning of the season or during the off season.

Barbara Underhill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2009, 02:33 PM
  #70
Melrose_Jr.
Registered User
 
Melrose_Jr.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Providence, RI
Country: United States
Posts: 10,692
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LamoTheKid View Post
Any links to back that up? AFAIK, this is fan speculation/wishful thinking (not a shot at you, just in general).
Brooks, 7/12/09: http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/more_...eM7hSglkLsTIOL

Melrose_Jr. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2009, 02:42 PM
  #71
OverTheCap
Registered User
 
OverTheCap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 9,781
vCash: 500
When the amnesty buyout was being discussed, it was speculated that next season's cap would go down about $10 million due to the economy.

Considering the cap is supposed to go up $1 million next season, I doubt the amnesty buyout will be enforced.

OverTheCap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2009, 02:42 PM
  #72
beastly115
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 10,424
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
Rozsival has been playing outstanding hockey lately. Its a shame the bias is so strong that most people either cant see it, or just refuse to accept it.

Redden was playing quite well earlier in the season.

These guys are not given long leashes because of their contracts, and thats the way it should be.

Roszival, while not getting a healthy scratch did receive some benchings and reduced ice time (remember the debacle in Washington?) earlier in the season. He has responded.

Redden has been pretty bad since his return from injury. Now he needs to step it up.
Lately is the key word. Redden has had MANY more good games this season than Rozsival has. And as far as bias is concerned, I hate them both equally. And when was Rozsival shown the press box? I don't remember it but I'll gladly stand corrected.

beastly115 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2009, 02:45 PM
  #73
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 5,001
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose_Jr. View Post
That's what worries me about demoting him to Hartford. Rissmiller proved that you can only tolerate a poisonous attitude for so long. Using the 'Pack as dumping ground for the disgruntled and underachieving flies in the face of using it as a development tool for your prospects.
I'm wondering if his pride allows him to even report to Hartford... of course there is then incentive of $6.5m that he would lose during a suspension. I'm almost certain he demands a trade if he is sent down, it's just a matter of finding a willing partner. I've learned from this league that there is no such thing as untradeable. Avery, McCabe, Gomez... there is always a way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose_Jr. View Post
WADE REDDEN BUYOUT FROM CAPGEEK.COM
2010-2011: $1,916,667
2011-2012: $1,916,667
2012-2013: $3,416,667
2013-2014: $3,416,667
2014-2015: $1,916,667
2015-2016: $1,916,667
2016-2017: $1,916,667
2017-2018: $1,916,667
I don't understand those two years at $3.4m. Why does the cap hit change just there? I see it with all the proposed buyouts, and I just don't understand the finer details. Does anyone know why it's like that instead of just the actual payment like the other 6 years?

DutchShamrock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2009, 02:54 PM
  #74
GAGLine
Registered User
 
GAGLine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 9,347
vCash: 500
I think at this point an amnesty buyout is unlikely. Bettman has already said that the current projection for the 2010 cap is about where it is now. The biggest factor in determining next year's cap # is the Canadian dollar, which is pretty strong right now. If it tanks in the next 6 months, the cap could drop a lot.

If the cap doesn't drop significantly, I don't see there being amnesty buyouts.

GAGLine is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-21-2009, 03:04 PM
  #75
Melrose_Jr.
Registered User
 
Melrose_Jr.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Providence, RI
Country: United States
Posts: 10,692
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DutchShamrock View Post
I don't understand those two years at $3.4m. Why does the cap hit change just there? I see it with all the proposed buyouts, and I just don't understand the finer details. Does anyone know why it's like that instead of just the actual payment like the other 6 years?
Here's how it's calculated: http://capgeek.com/buyout_calculator...LCULATE+BUYOUT

You deduct the "actual amount saved" from the cap hit. Since the contract is frontloaded, you're saving less in terms of actual payroll, but still deducting it from the full cap hit.

Melrose_Jr. is offline   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 08:20 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.