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

Just say no to the buyouts this year

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-04-2011, 04:17 PM
  #151
beastly115
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 10,424
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerEsq View Post
Gawd, do you even read what I write? Seriously? Maybe English isn't a language you use outside of this forum, I don't know.

I didn't say 25 teams would be interested in him. I said that there are only about 5 teams that he would exclude under all circumstances.

The other 25 teams are not excluded... by BRAD. Now, they may exclude themselves because the TEAM is not interested or because the TEAM does not have the cap space or for some other TEAM reason, but from Brad's point of view, I can't imagine that his list of teams that he would not go to under any circumstances is 28 teams.

Honestly, are you telling me that he has only 2 teams that he would even listen to their offers?

It's really not that hard to understand what I wrote. Is English a language you use on a regular basis?


No one's saying there are only 2 teams. Most people can agree that the following teams will likely pursue Richards:

Dallas, NYR, Tor, TB, Buff, LA, and Car.

Those 7 teams have been rumored to be interested in Richards or he has shown interest in them.

beastly115 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-04-2011, 04:26 PM
  #152
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,511
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfgaze View Post
Wow, talk about baseless speculation that's contrary to everything that's been reported. Got any more wild guesstimates you'd like to throw out there while you're at it?

I want to show where it was reported that his list of acceptable teams is only 2? 4? 15?

Again, this is not who will actually bid on him. Last year for Kovalchuk it came down to NJD and LAK, but it doesn't mean that Kovalchuk excluded all the rest under all circumstances. If, say, the Rangers offered him $2 million more per year than NJD with an extra 2 years on the contract plus a NMC, I would guess he would at least consider it. No? Why not?

Again, focus here. It's not who will bid for his services. Let me repeat this because you don't seem capable of grasping this point: IT'S NOT WHO WILL ACTUALLY BID ON HIS SERVICES, AND WHO HAS THE NEED AND THE CAP SPACE.

All I said was that there are probably no more than 5 teams that he would not accept any any circumstances.

What I mean by that is that if, say, the Islanders offer him $10 a year for 10 years with a NMC, I can see him saying no to them even though it will be the best contract by far offered to him. I can see another couple of teams getting a no regardless of the offer they give.

That's what I am talking about. Please try to focus here and understand basic English. Get a friend who speaks better English or something, I don't know.

It's not about who will bid for his services, it's not even about which teams he prefers... it's about which teams he would exclude even if they offered him a ridiculously large contract, far above anyone else.

Again, if you can't understand what I am writing, please ask a friend to translate this into your native language.

Beacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-04-2011, 04:29 PM
  #153
wolfgaze
Interesting Cat
 
wolfgaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,098
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerEsq View Post
I want to show where it was reported that his list of acceptable teams is only 2? 4? 15?

Again, this is not who will actually bid on him. Last year for Kovalchuk it came down to NJD and LAK, but it doesn't mean that Kovalchuk excluded all the rest under all circumstances. If, say, the Rangers offered him $2 million more per year than NJD with an extra 2 years on the contract plus a NMC, I would guess he would at least consider it. No? Why not?

Again, focus here. It's not who will bid for his services. Let me repeat this because you don't seem capable of grasping this point: IT'S NOT WHO WILL ACTUALLY BID ON HIS SERVICES, AND WHO HAS THE NEED AND THE CAP SPACE.
.
Why are you even bringing this up then? You're trying to say that teams the player has no interest in playing for, and who won't be bidding for his services, are going to affect his signing with teams he wants to play for? It has no relevant place in this conversation. What a waste of time. Come back to the conversation when you actually want to discuss realistic scenarios and not these conjured up "what ifs" that have no practicality whatsoever. And you can go look up the Brad Richards articles yourself. Numerous quotes have been posted from reliable hockey analysts on the subject matter, RangerBoy has posted numerous articles from the Dallas media regarding Richards' intentions, etc etc. It's been going on since last summer. If you haven't been paying attention, that's not my problem.


Last edited by wolfgaze: 05-04-2011 at 04:34 PM.
wolfgaze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-04-2011, 04:31 PM
  #154
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,511
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by alphaqup View Post


No one's saying there are only 2 teams. Most people can agree that the following teams will likely pursue Richards:

Dallas, NYR, Tor, TB, Buff, LA, and Car.

Those 7 teams have been rumored to be interested in Richards or he has shown interest in them.

Ok, another one. I was NOT talking about which TEAM is interested in him. I was talking about which teams BRAD would exclude under all circumstances.

You listed Dallas, NYR, Tor, TB, Buff, LA, and Car. But let's say Detroit or Philly clear the cap space and put in the biggest bid for his services. Are you telling me he would not even look at the proposal?

Again, it's not about who'll actually bid, who has the need or who has the cap space: it's about BRAD and whom he would absolutely exclude. How many times do I have to repeat this? I made it very clear the first time I wrote it, but you and wolf just refuse to read what I write, and put words in my mouth that I never said.

Beacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-04-2011, 04:36 PM
  #155
wolfgaze
Interesting Cat
 
wolfgaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,098
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerEsq View Post

Again, it's not about who'll actually bid, who has the need or who has the cap space: it's about BRAD and whom he would absolutely exclude. How many times do I have to repeat this? I made it very clear the first time I wrote it, but you and wolf just refuse to read what I write, and put words in my mouth that I never said.
Uh, that makes absolutely no sense.... You're not even making a point. In the beginning if your thread you were absolutely against signing Brad Richards and buying anyone out. Then mid-way through, you said you were for signing Richards, but at $35 mil total, not $50 mil, which goes against your argument for not buying anyone out because that would have to transpire to sign him, and now you're somehow telling us that teams that are not bidding for his services are decreasing the likelihood that the Rangers are going to sign him..... Can you just stick to one simple argument that actually makes sense so we can discuss practical and realistic scenarios?

wolfgaze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-04-2011, 04:37 PM
  #156
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,511
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfgaze View Post
Why are you even bringing this up then? You're trying to say that teams the player has no interest in playing for are somehow going to affect his signing with teams he wants to play for? It has no relevant place in this conversation. What a waste of time. Come back to the conversation when you actually want to discuss realistic scenarios and not these conjured up "what ifs" that have no practicality whatsoever.

You can see why I am bringing this up if you read this thread again.

Some people wrote that Brad would exclude certain teams. I said that the number of those teams that he would exclude under all circumstances is probably only about 5 or so.

Then, in the very first post on this, I wrote that there will probably be about a half a dozen teams among the remaining 25 that aren't excluded will submit bids ... and then I added, "of various competitiveness."

This means that if, say, 6 teams that he finds "acceptable" were to submit bids, some will offer very little and some will offer a lot. The point is that there would be enough teams that are acceptable to Brad who actually want to bid for his services that there will likely be at least 1-2 large contracts offered to him.

You can't just rely on outbidding someone with lukewarm interest who offers him $5 over 4 years. You have to figure there will be 1-2 teams that will do something pretty crazy: a lot of money, many years, and/or a NMC.

And you can't rely on a team offering a huge contract to be "unacceptable" to Brad because only a few teams will be so unacceptable that he will not accept their contracts even if they are significantly larger than any other contracts offer to him.

What this means is that to get Brad, we'll need to outbid not just the GM with lukewarm interest, but also the GM with crazy interest.

Ok, maybe Brad will prefer the Rangers to, say, Los Angeles, I don't know. But even then, we'd have to come close to matching what LA offered.

If they offer $8.5 over 6 years, maybe we can get away with $8 over 6 years, but we sure as hell won't be able to offer him $6 over 5 years.


Last edited by Beacon: 05-04-2011 at 04:45 PM.
Beacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-04-2011, 04:39 PM
  #157
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,511
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfgaze View Post
Uh, that makes absolutely no sense....
You do need help. It's amazing how unable you are to read and comprehend basic sentences. I really hope English is not a language you normally use and you are having a hard time here because you are from oversees.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfgaze View Post
In the beginning if your thread you were absolutely against signing Brad Richards and buying anyone out. Then mid-way through, you said you were for signing Richards, but at $35 mil total, not $50 mil
I think I said $30 million. If I said $35, it was too much and I will reverse myself on that. Either way, I think either $30 or $35 is not a number that we can sign him for. He'll get offered much more elsewhere.

Plus, I can see him getting a NTC or even a NMC, especially if he agrees to a lesser contract. If you take less money to go to a team you like, it's stupid not to demand a NTC/NMC.

If we could get Brad for RFA money, I would be for it. But I just don't see it happening. It won't happen. Someone will come in and throw big money and/or NMC at him.

And if not, there's also a chance that a team more talented than us will give him an offer and he'll go to a Cup contender.

If we sign Brad, it will be to a contract everyone here hates. We are not a Cup contender that can sign a guy like Hossa for a single season who just wants to win the Cup and willing to take less money.

So instead, I say, keep the cap hit on 2011-12 and don't shift it off to 2012-13. Who knows what will become available at the end of the 2011-12 season. Trade, a free agent who suddenly had a breakthrough season, Stepan may establish himself as a first liner next year, etc.

And if not, there's always 2013. Like I said, it's not as if we are winning the Cup next year, so why tie yourself up in a long-term contract for a 31 year old looking for his last major pay day.


Last edited by Beacon: 05-04-2011 at 04:59 PM.
Beacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-04-2011, 05:24 PM
  #158
GAGLine
Registered User
 
GAGLine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 9,275
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eco's bones View Post
10 years from now Richards is 41--NHL last year came down hard against teams trying to front load contracts. In order for that contract to fly they'd have to balance such a contract at both ends. That scenario is not going to happen.
That rule wouldn't matter. This deal wouldn't fly simply because his cap hit would be 15 mil, which is more than 20% of the cap. Even if it was possible, the last year of the deal would be calculated separately, but even then, it would have to be a pretty high number.

GAGLine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-04-2011, 05:38 PM
  #159
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,865
vCash: 500
Richards was willing to waive his NMC for one team in February. He has stated on numerous occasions about his desire to play for a team with stable ownership AND a team which is willing to spend the money. Even if the Stars sale is completed before July 1,how much money is Gaglardi or whomever buys the team willing to spend on payroll? The Stars lost $25M this season. They will lose money next season. The lenders spent $47M this season. The upper limit is $59.4M. The cap will approach $63M and Detroit,SJ,Vancouver and Chicago will spend to the upper limit next season. If the Stars spend just above the floor on payroll,they won't compete with those teams.

Quote:
"It just makes everything smoother," Richards said of strong ownership. "You are competing against teams that are going to spend $63 million next year, teams that are in the playoffs now that are Cup contenders and are going to be just as good or better next year. We've got to compete with that. That starts with ownership, and that's why it's on my mind and that's why I'm asking questions."
http://starsblog.dallasnews.com/arch...ly-abou-1.html

RangerBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-04-2011, 05:42 PM
  #160
GAGLine
Registered User
 
GAGLine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 9,275
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerEsq View Post
And if not, there's always 2013. Like I said, it's not as if we are winning the Cup next year, so why tie yourself up in a long-term contract for a 31 year old looking for his last major pay day.
Because:

1) We can afford to

and

2) Even at 31, he's a better offensive player than anyone currently on our team or in our system

You're complaining about us signing a 31 year old and saying we should wait until 2012 or 2013 to sign someone, but guess what? Both Gabby and Hank will be 31 in 2013. Even if we sign Richards for 6 years and he's only good for the first 3 years, that's still 3 years in which we will have a legitimate chance at the cup.

GAGLine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-04-2011, 06:06 PM
  #161
vipernsx
Flatus Expeller
 
vipernsx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 6,521
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerEsq View Post
No, but I am not sure the terms will be the same (Heat signed a 6 year contract as a 26 year old, not 31 year old). The second issue is that it's always better to acquire someone when you know your actual need. There's absolutely no guarantee that our need when the kids mature will be a center, nor that Brad will still be any good.

What if our need is a first line winger to replace Gaborik, and now we are stuck with a major, unmovable contract we gave Richards? You don't lock yourself into a long-term, super-expensive contract when you don't even know your needs, and you don't know how the 30+ year old player will hold up in his later years.
Is the team going to have a legit #1 center next year? - Answer NO

How about the year after that? - Answer NO

There is NO ONE in the system who is an elite#1 center and if Richards signs a 5 year contract and we draft one this year, it will take him that long to mature, so we're good.

You talk in gibberish, lay off the huffing, it's not working for you.

There is a need NOW, there is an opportunity to fill that need, there is no reason not to fill it. Letting the opportunity pass by would be counterproductive.

The more time that passes, the less cap significant his contract becomes.

You say we're not winning the cup next year. Why can't we? I say with Richards and a couple other tweaks, we've got the pieces to do it. Maybe you weren't around when the Rangers dumped KisioDrury and imported MessierRichards, because you know what, that team almost went all the way the next year and there's a hell of a lot of similarities between these two teams.


Last edited by vipernsx: 05-04-2011 at 06:12 PM.
vipernsx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-04-2011, 09:56 PM
  #162
beastly115
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 10,424
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerEsq View Post
Ok, another one. I was NOT talking about which TEAM is interested in him. I was talking about which teams BRAD would exclude under all circumstances.

You listed Dallas, NYR, Tor, TB, Buff, LA, and Car. But let's say Detroit or Philly clear the cap space and put in the biggest bid for his services. Are you telling me he would not even look at the proposal?

Again, it's not about who'll actually bid, who has the need or who has the cap space: it's about BRAD and whom he would absolutely exclude. How many times do I have to repeat this? I made it very clear the first time I wrote it, but you and wolf just refuse to read what I write, and put words in my mouth that I never said.
What you're saying has nothing to do with anything. Why are you trying to make up scenerios that have no plausible way of ever happening? Does Philly need any more centers? Don't they already have like 6?

It doesn't ****ing matter which teams automatically get excluded regardless of what they offer. All that matters is which teams are going to be bidding for him and you can ask any Philly fan. Or hell, any hockey fan with half a brain. Philly will not be in the Richards sweepstakes come July 1st.



Not to mention you obviously haven't read any of the articles RB has posted. Using that as evidence, we can conclude that Richards 1) only waived his NTC for the NYR in feb 2) wants somewhere with stable ownership and 3) can compete. Pretty sure you can eliminate more than your 5 based on that criteria alone.

beastly115 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2011, 03:30 AM
  #163
eco's bones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Elmira NY
Country: United States
Posts: 12,572
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by alphaqup View Post
What you're saying has nothing to do with anything. Why are you trying to make up scenerios that have no plausible way of ever happening? Does Philly need any more centers? Don't they already have like 6?

It doesn't ****ing matter which teams automatically get excluded regardless of what they offer. All that matters is which teams are going to be bidding for him and you can ask any Philly fan. Or hell, any hockey fan with half a brain. Philly will not be in the Richards sweepstakes come July 1st.



Not to mention you obviously haven't read any of the articles RB has posted. Using that as evidence, we can conclude that Richards 1) only waived his NTC for the NYR in feb 2) wants somewhere with stable ownership and 3) can compete. Pretty sure you can eliminate more than your 5 based on that criteria alone.
The Flyers have $59 million already spent on 18 players for next year. His idea that they could shed cap space is totally unrealistic. I don't know if I'd say the Flyers were in cap hell but they're pretty close. They have Carcillo, Nodl and Powe as RFA's--Boucher as a UFA. Not big ticket items but I don't see them letting them all go either. And the years after--Van Riemsdyk and Versteeg are RFA's--Coburn, Carle, Leighton and Betts UFA's. The Flyers only hope to grab someone like Richards is to trade for him. I don't think that's happening either. Dallas is probably going to want either Giroux or Van Riemsdyk back for starters and the Flyers would have to work out the details of a contract with Richards beforehand or risk losing him.

It will come down to a handful of teams maybe but I'd have to think the Rangers are the frontrunners at this point. Good chance to be in the mix--L.A., Buffalo, Tampa Bay.

eco's bones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2011, 12:21 PM
  #164
Beacon
Sent to HF Minors
 
Beacon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 8,511
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eco's bones View Post
His idea that they could shed cap space is totally unrealistic.
That was not my idea. I never said that the Flyers would bid on him. Again, please re-read what I wrote in case you just skimmed it.

What I said was this: it's unrealistic to expect that any team giving Brad a mega-contract will be one that he (BRAD) excludes under all circumstances because he'll likely exclude only about 5 teams.

That doesn't mean that only 5 teams exclude him. Try to understand this: (Brad ---> Teams) and not (Brad <--- Teams). You see how the arrow is going the different way?

Again, focus here. Don't skim, focus. The point was not that he will get 25 contract offers. The point is that whatever contract offers he gets, it's unlikely that they will come from teams that he (BRAD!) would never want to play for under any circumstances.

Why is this not clear? :sigh:

Beacon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2011, 12:33 PM
  #165
wolfgaze
Interesting Cat
 
wolfgaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,098
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerEsq View Post
What I said was this: it's unrealistic to expect that any team giving Brad a mega-contract will be one that he (BRAD) excludes under all circumstances because he'll likely exclude only about 5 teams.
Why don't you pay any attention to what anyone else is informing you of on this subject matter? It's pretty obvious you haven't read any of the media surrounding Brad Richards for the past year.... He's absolutely NOT open to signing with 25 potential teams depending on who makes their "mega-offer"... You keep conjuring up these wild scenarios with no basis other than personal speculation, some of which is contrary to everything that's being said out of the player's camp and by hockey analysts in the know.... That's why no one is on the same page with what you're saying.


Last edited by wolfgaze: 05-05-2011 at 12:41 PM.
wolfgaze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2011, 06:19 PM
  #166
NHRangerfan
enfoonts
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: New Hampshire
Country: United States
Posts: 3,091
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerEsq View Post
The point is that we are only going to waive all these guys to sign Brad. And that's a mistake in and of itself. If one guy is worth dumping to save money, it's Wolski because the savings would be big, but the cap dead space will be limited.

That will be enough space cleared to sign Brad. Keep Drury and Avery, this way there will be enough space to sign a secondary player in addition to Brad in the summer of 2012. If you are going for it, go for it. Go all out in the 2012-13 season.

But honestly, I think it would be better to wait another year when guys like Kreider, Thomas, etc are playing for us as full-on contributors.
Since you know Kreider, Thomas, etc will be "full-on contributors", can you also let me know who will win the SC this year I'd like to lay some money down in Vegas.

NHRangerfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2011, 09:52 AM
  #167
pzilla3
Registered User
 
pzilla3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 276
vCash: 500
Buying out Wolski doesn't make sense to me, he still has a crazy skill set. Taking a flyer on him for another season is worth it.

Either try to trade Avery or send him down. When you can simply bury a guy in the minors, taking a cap hit from a buyout is nonsensical. He's a useful NHL forward at 1M tops. Which is what I said during Avery Fest right before he signed with Dallas.

A Drury buyout makes sense at this point but people talking about him not caring and just collecting a paycheck must be watching a different player. The guy still works as hard as he possibly can, the skills may be eroded but talking about him just collecting a check is preposterous.

pzilla3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2011, 10:39 AM
  #168
CM PUNK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,290
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pzilla3 View Post
Buying out Wolski doesn't make sense to me, he still has a crazy skill set. Taking a flyer on him for another season is worth it.

Either try to trade Avery or send him down. When you can simply bury a guy in the minors, taking a cap hit from a buyout is nonsensical. He's a useful NHL forward at 1M tops. Which is what I said during Avery Fest right before he signed with Dallas.

A Drury buyout makes sense at this point but people talking about him not caring and just collecting a paycheck must be watching a different player. The guy still works as hard as he possibly can, the skills may be eroded but talking about him just collecting a check is preposterous.
buying out wolski makes the most sense out of anything imaginable...$3.8 mil for a lazy, shootout specialist who shows up and tries once a month during games and isn't that good in shootouts anymore. replacing him with a guy actually worth $4 mil is a no brainer

there is a reason the avs and yotes both gave up on him

CM PUNK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2011, 10:59 AM
  #169
pzilla3
Registered User
 
pzilla3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CM PUNK View Post
buying out wolski makes the most sense out of anything imaginable...$3.8 mil for a lazy, shootout specialist who shows up and tries once a month during games and isn't that good in shootouts anymore. replacing him with a guy actually worth $4 mil is a no brainer

there is a reason the avs and yotes both gave up on him
Who exactly are you going to replace him with? Gagne isn't a fix. Tanguay is probably the best option available this summer. Wolski is the kind of guy that could regain form with one solid summer and the right motivation. I'd take a one year flyer on him anytime, especially if Kreider isn't signing.

pzilla3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2011, 11:36 AM
  #170
CM PUNK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,290
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pzilla3 View Post
Who exactly are you going to replace him with? Gagne isn't a fix. Tanguay is probably the best option available this summer. Wolski is the kind of guy that could regain form with one solid summer and the right motivation. I'd take a one year flyer on him anytime, especially if Kreider isn't signing.
if drury doesn't retire, then buying out drury & wolski = $$ needed for richards

CM PUNK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2011, 04:19 PM
  #171
pzilla3
Registered User
 
pzilla3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CM PUNK View Post
if drury doesn't retire, then buying out drury & wolski = $$ needed for richards
Needed for Richards, as in we without a doubt are signing him? News to me. Seems like making a solid amount of space (Drury) and figuring out if you can actually sign your target player would be the way to go. (No NTC/NMC for Wolski).

Besides the 3 named you've got Christensen and Boogard to shuffle around after the fact.

There's no need to ditch Wolski before the fact.

pzilla3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2011, 04:42 PM
  #172
CM PUNK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,290
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pzilla3 View Post
Needed for Richards, as in we without a doubt are signing him? News to me. Seems like making a solid amount of space (Drury) and figuring out if you can actually sign your target player would be the way to go. (No NTC/NMC for Wolski).

Besides the 3 named you've got Christensen and Boogard to shuffle around after the fact.

There's no need to ditch Wolski before the fact.
there is a need to buy him out before the fact because the buyout window is june 15-30. it will cost more to do it after the fact.

i think you are missing the point where losing him would be addition by subtraction...guy is a waste of potential

CM PUNK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2011, 04:53 PM
  #173
pzilla3
Registered User
 
pzilla3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CM PUNK View Post
there is a need to buy him out before the fact because the buyout window is june 15-30. it will cost more to do it after the fact.

i think you are missing the point where losing him would be addition by subtraction...guy is a waste of potential
I think you're missing the fact that he's a 25 year old RFA who still has excellent upside. Worse case scenario: He spends a year in Hartford and disappears. (Again, no NTC/NMC)

pzilla3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2011, 05:41 PM
  #174
Lone Ranger
Registered User
 
Lone Ranger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 106
vCash: 500
I'd buy out Drury and Avery, and hold on to Wolski for one more year.

Lone Ranger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2011, 10:51 PM
  #175
gotmonte
Registered User
 
gotmonte's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: New York
Country: Italy
Posts: 1,545
vCash: 500
Joni and Brad to Broadway!

gotmonte 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 02:09 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.