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.

Waiver period begins Saturday(9/25)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-25-2010, 08:38 AM
  #76
AlMo
Registered User
 
AlMo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Toronto
Country: Portugal
Posts: 9,327
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by alphaqup View Post


Post of the thread right here, folks.



I'm just going to say that there is no reasonable explanation as to why the team should be stuck with a player and leave it at that.
Why is that post so funny to you? No reasonable explanation? How about a contract? I'm all for the team being able to send the player down to the minors but the cap hit should still apply imo. If management gives out ridiculous contracts, they should not get off the hook. If this is the case, get rid of the salary cap and go back to the way it was.

AlMo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-25-2010, 08:42 AM
  #77
Hawkaholic
Registered User
 
Hawkaholic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: London, Ont.
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,466
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlMo View Post
Why is that post so funny to you? No reasonable explanation? How about a contract? I'm all for the team being able to send the player down to the minors but the cap hit should still apply imo. If management gives out ridiculous contracts, they should not get off the hook. If this is the case, get rid of the salary cap and go back to the way it was.
It wasn't a ridiculous contract. Huet was one of the better goalies when the Hawks signed him. The only reason the contract looks ridiculous is because Huet is ridiculously bad now. Why shouldn't teams be able to demote players if they aren't earning their salary.

That's like saying a boss can't fire an employee because he hired him.

Hawkaholic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-25-2010, 08:58 AM
  #78
Towelie*
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 8,385
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkaholic View Post
It wasn't a ridiculous contract. Huet was one of the better goalies when the Hawks signed him. The only reason the contract looks ridiculous is because Huet is ridiculously bad now. Why shouldn't teams be able to demote players if they aren't earning their salary.

That's like saying a boss can't fire an employee because he hired him.
You completely missed his point. At the time that contract was a terrible one to give out and I said that to my Blackhawks friend at the time.

Dumping contracts in the AHL and elsewhere is just a way of circumventing the cap. Personally, I don't mind because the Canucks are a rich team and it benefits them, but from a 'fairness' standpoint, I don't think it should be allowed.

Towelie* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-25-2010, 09:19 AM
  #79
mcphllp
Dion @ 6.5=Discount
 
mcphllp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,066
vCash: 500
Redden on waivers at noon

http://twitter.com/NYP_Brooksie

mcphllp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-25-2010, 09:21 AM
  #80
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 32,374
vCash: 500
Quote:
Wade Redden to be placed on waivers at noon today, #NYRangers announce.
https://twitter.com/StapeNewsday/status/25501440851

RangerBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-25-2010, 09:21 AM
  #81
Jumbo*
TARGET: ACQUIRED
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 16,720
vCash: 500
LATER REDDEN!! AHhahahaHHAAHAHAHHAhhHAHAH

Jumbo* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-25-2010, 09:27 AM
  #82
VAThrasher
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Richmond, VA
Country: United States
Posts: 475
vCash: 500
I know it's an idealistic view of things - trust me, I know business is business, but unless Rolston was dogging it in NJ, it seems really cold that they would go out and sign 17, knowing they were potentially going to have to "bury" a pretty good player and a pretty good guy in the minors, potentially forcing him to end his excellent career that way.

VAThrasher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-25-2010, 09:34 AM
  #83
njdevil26
Registered User
 
njdevil26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Clark, NJ
Country: Italy
Posts: 7,750
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VAThrasher View Post
I know it's an idealistic view of things - trust me, I know business is business, but unless Rolston was dogging it in NJ, it seems really cold that they would go out and sign 17, knowing they were potentially going to have to "bury" a pretty good player and a pretty good guy in the minors, potentially forcing him to end his excellent career that way.
Rolston has limited skating ability (yeah sometimes he can be fast... but only in straight lines. Not much agility.) He got that contract for being a good center in Minny and posting 30+ goals per year. (Obviously having Gaborik as his linemate helped).

But then the problem came where Rolston did not live up to expectations at all. His injury didn't help. It really set him back. Now he's getting 15-20 goals without set linemates on a STACKED team. Besides the need to get rid of him for cap purposes.... the Devils also don't need him. at all. The potential top three lines are Parise-Zajac-Kovalchuk, Elias-Arnott-Langenbrunner, Zubrus-Josefson-Clarkson.

You DON'T put a 5 mil player on the fourth line. There's no place for him.

I'm starting to think someone will take him on the waiver wire for half the price... 2.5 comes of the books for the Devils... Salvador is then traded or waived... and BOOM. Cap problem solved. For this year and next.

njdevil26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-25-2010, 09:38 AM
  #84
brs03
Coo coo ca cha!
 
brs03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Maryland
Country: United States
Posts: 12,216
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VAThrasher View Post
I know it's an idealistic view of things - trust me, I know business is business, but unless Rolston was dogging it in NJ, it seems really cold that they would go out and sign 17, knowing they were potentially going to have to "bury" a pretty good player and a pretty good guy in the minors, potentially forcing him to end his excellent career that way.
Rolston's contract is an over-35, so they can't bury him in the minors (or, rather, can't get any cap relief from doing so). Although I suppose your statement could apply almost equally to Zubrus or any others really.

brs03 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-25-2010, 09:52 AM
  #85
JVR21
G
 
JVR21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: United States
Posts: 7,960
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
Riiiiiiiiiiight. Posts like this make me laugh. If a player is beat out for a spot on the team, than he's waived. Shouldn't matter what his salary is.
You do realize that Redden most certainly deserves a spot on the Rangers, but his salary alone is what brought him to being waived. The same would be the case for Rolston if he didn't have a NMC.

JVR21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-25-2010, 09:53 AM
  #86
njdevil26
Registered User
 
njdevil26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Clark, NJ
Country: Italy
Posts: 7,750
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JVR21 View Post
You do realize that Redden most certainly deserves a spot on the Rangers, but his salary alone is what brought him to being waived. The same would be the case for Rolston if he didn't have a NMC.
Rolston would be great for the Rangers. He provides some more wing depth and gives them a powerful shot from the point.


As for the Rangers though... I think they need a good playmaking center above everything else.

njdevil26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-25-2010, 10:14 AM
  #87
Hawkaholic
Registered User
 
Hawkaholic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: London, Ont.
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,466
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glass Laich Anthem View Post
Dumping contracts in the AHL and elsewhere is just a way of circumventing the cap.
So when someone waives a $850,000 player to the AHL because they are $350,000 over the cap, and call up a $500,000 player is that circumventing the cap?

Chicago is sending a $5,625,000 player to the minors and replacing him with a better goalie that costs only $800,000. I see no difference in the two. I could careless what the player makes, if he isn't deserving of an NHL roster spot, then he should be sent to the minors.

As far as counting it against the cap, why should the team suffer because the really good player they signed all of the sudden became garbage?

Hawkaholic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-25-2010, 10:44 AM
  #88
xECK29x
Moderator
 
xECK29x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Deer Park, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 6,175
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by slapshot723 View Post
Oh I love this day

EDIT- GOOD BYE BRUNO GERVAIS YAYAYAYAYAYADANCINGMONKEYAYAYAYAYAYAY
I really hope he gets this news after the scrimmage today!

xECK29x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-25-2010, 11:02 AM
  #89
SLAPSHOT723
Look out!!!
 
SLAPSHOT723's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Long Island
Posts: 17,982
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rivet52 View Post
Gervais has been the whipping boy of Isles fans for quite some time hasn't he? Many say he's not an NHL D-man. Who is his partner?
He just... sucks.

He does absolutely nothing to help the Islanders. He's not good defensively, barely chips in offensively, doesn't play on the PP, I don't think he even plays on the PK (and if he did then he did a horrible job because our PK last season was terrible).

The only time he was somewhat respectable was when he was paired with Streit. But everyone that plays with Streit plays better.

SLAPSHOT723 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-25-2010, 11:11 AM
  #90
Marky9er
Registered User
 
Marky9er's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Brampton ON
Country: Dominica
Posts: 5,469
vCash: 500
I think Derek Meech will most likely be placed on waivers, possibly Drew Miller.

Marky9er is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-25-2010, 11:12 AM
  #91
Pyke*
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto / Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,616
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkaholic View Post
So when someone waives a $850,000 player to the AHL because they are $350,000 over the cap, and call up a $500,000 player is that circumventing the cap?

Chicago is sending a $5,625,000 player to the minors and replacing him with a better goalie that costs only $800,000. I see no difference in the two. I could careless what the player makes, if he isn't deserving of an NHL roster spot, then he should be sent to the minors.

As far as counting it against the cap, why should the team suffer because the really good player they signed all of the sudden became garbage?
I disagree, because the analysis you're doing is, "Is he worthy of an NHL roster spot at his cap hit" which is a totally different calculation.

Pyke* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-25-2010, 11:16 AM
  #92
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 42,590
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JVR21 View Post
You do realize that Redden most certainly deserves a spot on the Rangers, but his salary alone is what brought him to being waived. The same would be the case for Rolston if he didn't have a NMC.
Exactly. I'm in favor of the salary cap in general, but Redden is a perfect example of the salary cap lowering the on-ice quality in the NHL.

Redden is definitely good enough to be a #4 defenseman in the league still, he's just paid like a superstar #1. But now, he will be out of the league and replaced by a guy not otherwise good enough to play in the big league.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-25-2010, 11:20 AM
  #93
z1co80
The Incredible Hank
 
z1co80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Scotland
Country: Scotland
Posts: 4,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JVR21 View Post
You do realize that Redden most certainly deserves a spot on the Rangers, but his salary alone is what brought him to being waived. The same would be the case for Rolston if he didn't have a NMC.
I am afraid Redden doesnt deserve ****

His declining, lacklustre play got him into this situation so no he doesnt deserve to be on the team. There are guys in the pipeline who can do what he does at far less expense.

Wade Redden only has one person to blame and thats Wade Redden.

z1co80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-25-2010, 11:25 AM
  #94
Hawkaholic
Registered User
 
Hawkaholic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: London, Ont.
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,466
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyke View Post
I disagree, because the analysis you're doing is, "Is he worthy of an NHL roster spot at his cap hit" which is a totally different calculation.
No, Huet isn't better than Turco, or Crawford. Therefore, he isn't worthy of an NHL roster spot in Chicago.

Hawkaholic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-25-2010, 11:26 AM
  #95
Czech Trio
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,376
vCash: 500
Stinks for Redden

Czech Trio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-25-2010, 11:32 AM
  #96
JVR21
G
 
JVR21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: United States
Posts: 7,960
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by rangersfan30 View Post
I am afraid Redden doesnt deserve ****

His declining, lacklustre play got him into this situation so no he doesnt deserve to be on the team. There are guys in the pipeline who can do what he does at far less expense.

Wade Redden only has one person to blame and thats Wade Redden.
If you think Wade Redden isn't an NHL defenseman, you're nuts. The argument was that his play alone brought him to being waived, but the fact is that is entirely false. If every player in the NHL was paid the same amount, Redden would 100% still be a Ranger.

JVR21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-25-2010, 11:34 AM
  #97
HookKing
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,312
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkaholic View Post
It wasn't a ridiculous contract. Huet was one of the better goalies when the Hawks signed him. The only reason the contract looks ridiculous is because Huet is ridiculously bad now. Why shouldn't teams be able to demote players if they aren't earning their salary.

That's like saying a boss can't fire an employee because he hired him.
Most employees don't sign contracts and if they did sign one they wouldn't get fired either.

HookKing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-25-2010, 11:37 AM
  #98
Pyke*
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto / Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,616
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkaholic View Post
No, Huet isn't better than Turco, or Crawford. Therefore, he isn't worthy of an NHL roster spot in Chicago.
Again, that's not the calculation you're doing.

Your original statement was "was he worthy of an NHL roster spot", not "was he worthy of an NHL roster spot *on the Chicago Blackhawks*.

The fact remains, by the way, that the purpose of waivers was to address this second issue. In the salary cap era though, good players get sent down because of idiotic GMs signing them to albatross contracts.


EDIT: Re you're an employer being unable to fire someone because they hired them; in some jurisdictions (for example, Quebec), you cannot fire an employee without just cause. This is also common in unionized environments, due to the ability of the employee to file a grievance and go to arbitration. The Huet and Redden situations are unlikely to rise to the level of just cause; since the real problem with both of them is the money they make as opposed to the work they do. However, no such provision exists in the CBA (to my knowledge), so it's a bit of a moot point. I just wanted to point out your analogy has problems.

Pyke* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-25-2010, 11:40 AM
  #99
Hawkaholic
Registered User
 
Hawkaholic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: London, Ont.
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,466
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyke View Post
Again, that's not the calculation you're doing.

Your original statement was "was he worthy of an NHL roster spot", not "was he worthy of an NHL roster spot *on the Chicago Blackhawks*.

The fact remains, by the way, that the purpose of waivers was to address this second issue. In the salary cap era though, good players get sent down because of idiotic GMs signing them to albatross contracts.
If it isn't worthy of a spot in Chicago, where would he be worthy of a spot? Philly? ....that's all I can think of at the moment.

Point is, is that he isn't that great of a goalie, a back up at best right now, and back ups are a dime a dozen.

If players don't want to be sent down, then the should play like they are paid, the onus is on the players just as much as the GM's. If players weren't so greedy, they wouldn't have to worry about being sent down because there would be lots of money to go around.

Hawkaholic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-25-2010, 11:45 AM
  #100
z1co80
The Incredible Hank
 
z1co80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Scotland
Country: Scotland
Posts: 4,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JVR21 View Post
If you think Wade Redden isn't an NHL defenseman, you're nuts. The argument was that his play alone brought him to being waived, but the fact is that is entirely false. If every player in the NHL was paid the same amount, Redden would 100% still be a Ranger.

Your right he probably still has enough in him to be an NHL defenseman but for me he was the Rangers worst Dman last year, he is slow, he gets out muscled easily and honestly just doesnt look interested.

I'd say at best he may be a #5 Dman but honestly i think thats pushing it, for years his play has been declining and i dont see anyway thats going to change. I dont blame Redden for signing the contract that the idiot Sather offered him but even with his NHL career on the line i dont think even Redden himself believed he had what it took to get on the Rangers roster. Listening to an interview with him during the Rangers-Devils pre-season game it really did sound like he didnt really give two *****.

Of course my interpretation of that could be wrong.

z1co80 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 07:22 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.