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

Brad Richards News Part II

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-10-2011, 08:43 PM
  #51
azrok22
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 9,431
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYR Boyler87 View Post
Even if the economy hadn't tanked, there was NO way the cap was going to continue to increase at that same percentage every year. Everyone knew that after the lockout the cap would rise. The strong Canadian dollar helped during the recession as well as the 6 Canadian teams account for a pretty significant portion of the leagues revenue.
That might discount the increase in the cap directly after the lockout (sort of self-correcting if the revenue numbers were fudged), but it really doesn't explain why the cap was still increasing by ~$6m three years after the lockout ended. The Canadian dollar was one cause, but on the whole, NHL revenue was booming prior to the 2009-2010 season (note: salary cap figures are calculated based on the prior year's revenue).

azrok22 is offline  
Old
05-10-2011, 08:44 PM
  #52
NYR Viper
Moderator
 
NYR Viper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 28,357
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfgaze View Post
You don't even need the cap to go up 5-7 million to feel comfortable at the end of the contract. You just don't give out any NMC's in the latter years. Dolan's piggybank runs deep, I don't care if a veteran player has to be well compensated to play in the minors if his play warrants it. Plus there' nothing saying there won't be some degree of cap-exempt buyouts stipulated in the next CBA agreement. If you look at how the Rangers are constructed, and the age of key young players, it's safe to say we will not be spending a ton of cap dollars on key elements of this team for the next several years. Our most experienced/developed young players are not at a level where they will command high end contracts, some are already signed to favorable contracts (most notably Staal). Stepan & McDonagh will come on the cheap for the next several years, both will be key players. Sauer will not be a highly paid defensemen for the near future and some of our most promising young prospects outside the NHL, will not likely see any significant time for another year or so, and they will be retained for minimal cap space in the following years. Rangers lack of reliance on multiple veteran players at this stage of the organization, bodes extremely well for cap space & management in the coming years. For all these years we've been operating with these inefficient contracts, I don't think people stop to think about how much cap space we're going to have when the dead weight cap hits finally absolve themselves. Rangers depth on the ice is growing very quickly, and our cap distribution in the coming years will allow for more depth and team competitiveness than we've seen in a long time.
I totally understand your thinking. I have actually thought it out like that as well considering the large amount of talent the Rangers have coming up through the system. However, with that redundancy comes the ability to make trades. Who is to say that a Richards contract would hinder the Rangers ability to take some of those younger players and bring in a player who may be available from somewhere else. Say Brent Burns, or Bobby Ryan, or whoever.

I want Richards to be a Ranger. Let me just put that out there. I just dont want to see him overpaid with the thinking that we should assume the cap will continue to go up and that the Rangers can just bury him if need be. Thats not a good way to think when giving away a multi-million dollar contract. Summer cap still counts. And who is to say that in the next CBA, there isnt something in there that says that players HAVE to be bought out instead of stashed in the minors?

I think a 4-5 year deal is fine. But everyone has to realize, including Richards and Sather, that at 35, 36 and 37, Brad is not going to be worth a 7 million dollar contract most likely. So, by that way of thinking, if he is worth 7.5 next season, 7.5 the next, and then 6, 5, and 4 then his average cap hit should be 6 million/season. Hell, frontload it like crazy, I dont really care. Anything close to, or over 7 million/year is going to be a problem unless it is shorter than 4 years.

NYR Viper is online now  
Old
05-10-2011, 08:54 PM
  #53
beastly115
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 10,424
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nyr2k2 View Post
I'm coming around on Richards. Just no NMC, please. Our ability to pay guys tons of money to play in Hartford is our biggest competitive advantage. We negate that with the NMC.
This.

I think Sather learned his lesson regarding NMC's with Drury. Richards can have a NMC for the first 3 years, and a limited NTC for the last 3-4.

beastly115 is offline  
Old
05-10-2011, 08:56 PM
  #54
NYR Viper
Moderator
 
NYR Viper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 28,357
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by azrok22 View Post
That might discount the increase in the cap directly after the lockout (sort of self-correcting if the revenue numbers were fudged), but it really doesn't explain why the cap was still increasing by ~$6m three years after the lockout ended. The Canadian dollar was one cause, but on the whole, NHL revenue was booming prior to the 2009-2010 season (note: salary cap figures are calculated based on the prior year's revenue).
Because the league, directly after the lockout, took off a lot faster than even they anticipated. It took them a few years to level off.

NYR Viper is online now  
Old
05-10-2011, 09:02 PM
  #55
wolfgaze
Interesting Cat
 
wolfgaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,063
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYR Boyler87 View Post
I totally understand your thinking. I have actually thought it out like that as well considering the large amount of talent the Rangers have coming up through the system. However, with that redundancy comes the ability to make trades. Who is to say that a Richards contract would hinder the Rangers ability to take some of those younger players and bring in a player who may be available from somewhere else. Say Brent Burns, or Bobby Ryan, or whoever.
Well you look at how the league has played out with the current CBA and you listen to some GM's talk about how much more difficult it has been to wheel and deal with the salary cap, and you can quickly become pessimistic about the likelihood of being able to swing a favorable trade for a high end player that carries no baggage. Very few key young players have been shopped or moved in the league without some mitigating circumstances surrounding the player (whether it be character issues or contract problems). You don't see teams trading players that have no issues, that they like, and can afford to retain. I mean fans always talk about being able to trade for high end players, but no one wants to send a Marc Staal the other way, and those are the types of players you usually have to part with if you trading for a Bobby Ryan type or someone on that level. Dion Phaneuf and Phil Kessel would probably be 2 of the highest profile younger players that have been traded in recent years. Not exactly your optimal types of acquisitions to have to give up assets for. Less of a risk to gamble with cap space that can be maneuvered than by rolling the dice on the likelihood of being able to trade for a significant impact player and not hurting your team too much in the process in terms of what's going the other way.


Quote:
I want Richards to be a Ranger. Let me just put that out there. I just dont want to see him overpaid with the thinking that we should assume the cap will continue to go up and that the Rangers can just bury him if need be. Thats not a good way to think when giving away a multi-million dollar contract. Summer cap still counts. And who is to say that in the next CBA, there isnt something in there that says that players HAVE to be bought out instead of stashed in the minors?
If the cap goes down with the next CBA, there most certainly will be some option granted to GM's to address problematic contracts. I don't see the waiver rule changing in the immediate future either.

Quote:
I think a 4-5 year deal is fine. But everyone has to realize, including Richards and Sather, that at 35, 36 and 37, Brad is not going to be worth a 7 million dollar contract most likely. So, by that way of thinking, if he is worth 7.5 next season, 7.5 the next, and then 6, 5, and 4 then his average cap hit should be 6 million/season. Hell, frontload it like crazy, I dont really care. Anything close to, or over 7 million/year is going to be a problem unless it is shorter than 4 years.
As long as he doesn't have a No Movement Clause I am not sweating the difference between $1 mil on the contract range and a year or so on the contract duration. I am not assuming Richards will do X, Y, or Z, but I feel getting him signed is the best course of action for the Rangers at this point in time and carries the least amount of risk vs. potential benefit in terms of all other options.


Last edited by wolfgaze: 05-10-2011 at 09:11 PM.
wolfgaze is offline  
Old
05-10-2011, 10:21 PM
  #56
Machinehead
★★★★
 
Machinehead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New York New York
Country: United States
Posts: 34,121
vCash: 500
If we are gonna do this I want just Richards as far as top fowards go. We have a nice solid chemistry going as it is, so i don't wanna turn the whole team on it's ass and change everything.

Machinehead is offline  
Old
05-10-2011, 11:38 PM
  #57
RangerFan10
Registered User
 
RangerFan10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Long Island/Plattsbu
Country: United States
Posts: 5,327
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to RangerFan10
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYR Boyler87 View Post
Thats all good and great to say because we are hoping that by the end of his contract the cap will go up 5-7 million, but tell me this, are Gomez and Drury still not albatrosses? They were the day they were signed and they are still 4 years into their contracts and the cap has increased every season. Just food for thought.
Gomez and Drury can't hold Richard's jockstrap. Get the comparison out of your head.

RangerFan10 is offline  
Old
05-10-2011, 11:40 PM
  #58
RangerFan10
Registered User
 
RangerFan10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Long Island/Plattsbu
Country: United States
Posts: 5,327
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to RangerFan10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranger de FLA View Post
True, true.

And this is another reason that puts me in the middle with Richards. He obviously he has a few good years in front of him. Taking a completely unbiased view contenders in two-four years. If we sign Richards, we'll obviously be a lot better. A great center makes everyone on the team better. And I'm one of those that fully believe anything's possible in the playoffs which
Richard's doesn't play a physically taxing game. I don't see why he can't play into his late 30's at a highly effective rate. Guys that rely on great vision, great hands and are naturally athletic...barring injury, they have a long shelf life.

RangerFan10 is offline  
Old
05-11-2011, 02:15 AM
  #59
GregNYR19
agitator
 
GregNYR19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Fair Lawn, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 1,059
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to GregNYR19
everyones complaining about his age. please refer to:

selanne, teemu
lidstrom, nikolas
roloson, dwayne
recchi, mark


...3 of which are currently in the playoffs and performing at unexpected levels. im especially enjoying recchi

GregNYR19 is offline  
Old
05-11-2011, 04:10 AM
  #60
Kritikal
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 63
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Kritikal
I'm surprised people haven't mentioned front-loading the contract.. if we give him 7 years (since he wants a retirement contract)...

8, 7, 7, 7, 6, 5, 4 = ~6.3M cap hit... quite manageable, and it's not cap circumvention as it doesn't extend past his 40th birthday. Worst-case scenario, we would move him ala Roszival during the last year or two of his contract. Thought?

Kritikal is offline  
Old
05-11-2011, 07:57 AM
  #61
LetsGoBlueshirts
Registered User
 
LetsGoBlueshirts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: New Joisey
Country: United States
Posts: 499
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kritikal View Post
I'm surprised people haven't mentioned front-loading the contract.. if we give him 7 years (since he wants a retirement contract)...

8, 7, 7, 7, 6, 5, 4 = ~6.3M cap hit... quite manageable, and it's not cap circumvention as it doesn't extend past his 40th birthday. Worst-case scenario, we would move him ala Roszival during the last year or two of his contract. Thought?
I'd be ok with that. Sather seems to always structure his contracts like that so he can possibly move the play to a lower budget team, Roszival is the perfect example, I believe his contract was 7, 6, 4, 3.

LetsGoBlueshirts is offline  
Old
05-11-2011, 07:59 AM
  #62
Shadowtron
Registered User
 
Shadowtron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 5,522
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ragshockey88 View Post
everyones complaining about his age. please refer to:

selanne, teemu
lidstrom, nikolas
roloson, dwayne
recchi, mark


...3 of which are currently in the playoffs and performing at unexpected levels. im especially enjoying recchi
I don't think a handful of players who defy age should ease anyone's apprehension about a player of advancing years signing long term for this team. For the players you mentioned, there are many more who hit the proverbial wall in their mid-30's and become a shell of their former selves. I get your point, but I still think the team should enter into this potential deal with caution. 30 isn't the new 60 or anything LOL, but you never know with certain players.

Shadowtron is offline  
Old
05-11-2011, 08:03 AM
  #63
mcsauer2738
Registered User
 
mcsauer2738's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,057
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kritikal View Post
I'm surprised people haven't mentioned front-loading the contract.. if we give him 7 years (since he wants a retirement contract)...

8, 7, 7, 7, 6, 5, 4 = ~6.3M cap hit... quite manageable, and it's not cap circumvention as it doesn't extend past his 40th birthday. Worst-case scenario, we would move him ala Roszival during the last year or two of his contract. Thought?
Great post.

mcsauer2738 is offline  
Old
05-11-2011, 09:43 AM
  #64
xxxZENxxx
Registered User
 
xxxZENxxx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 439
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kritikal View Post
I'm surprised people haven't mentioned front-loading the contract.. if we give him 7 years (since he wants a retirement contract)...

8, 7, 7, 7, 6, 5, 4 = ~6.3M cap hit... quite manageable, and it's not cap circumvention as it doesn't extend past his 40th birthday. Worst-case scenario, we would move him ala Roszival during the last year or two of his contract. Thought?
If BR indeed wants to come here and he is open to sacrificing in order for the rest of the team to get better, then I can definitely see this occurring in order to make it happen. My only worry is that we would have to make the contract significantly longer (i.e. 6+ years) in order for the contract to work. There must be absolutely no NMC on that deal in the last few seasons or we will regret it in several years.

xxxZENxxx is offline  
Old
05-11-2011, 10:16 AM
  #65
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,848
vCash: 500
The Upper Limit has increased because the Canadian dollar has gone up. It closed yesterday above $1.04. The Canadian teams are cash cows. The NHLPA keeps exercising their 5% escalator which is applied to the midpoint and then add $8M. That is the upper limit. The cap would have gone down in the summer of 09 without the 5%. It increased by $100,000. It would have been flat to a modest increase this season without the 5%.

RangerBoy is offline  
Old
05-11-2011, 04:08 PM
  #66
McMonster
Registered User
 
McMonster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 3,289
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ragshockey88 View Post
everyones complaining about his age. please refer to:

selanne, teemu
lidstrom, nikolas
roloson, dwayne
recchi, mark


...3 of which are currently in the playoffs and performing at unexpected levels. im especially enjoying recchi
Big deal. Thats 4 out of the countless players in this league who have declined dramatically during their mid thirties. Teemu Selanne still playing at a high level has nothing to do Brad Richards.

McMonster is offline  
Old
05-11-2011, 04:16 PM
  #67
azrok22
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 9,431
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dsteppp View Post
Big deal. Thats 4 out of the countless players in this league who have declined dramatically during their mid thirties. Teemu Selanne still playing at a high level has nothing to do Brad Richards.
I agree completely, but the converse is also true.

Chris Drury/etc. not playing at a high level anymore has nothing to do with Brad Richards.

azrok22 is offline  
Old
05-11-2011, 05:02 PM
  #68
beastly115
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 10,424
vCash: 500
This thread is so

31 isn't even that old. His age is being way overblown.

beastly115 is offline  
Old
05-11-2011, 05:09 PM
  #69
New York RKY
Moderator
Let's Go Rangers!
 
New York RKY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Dirty Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 12,020
vCash: 500
How far into the ground can we really beat this issue?

We get it. We have those people who fully oppose this signing because they either want a complete youth movement or because they fear he may be too old and that his skills will decline like Drury and we'd be stuck with his contract.

And we have those people who feel that Richards is a far tier above the Drury's and Gomez's and his skills won't decline that rapidly. They also feel like Richards is exactly what we need (aka killing 2 birds with 1 stone).

I just think we aren't even in mid-May and to have this thread be on part 3 already is kinda amazing.

__________________
New York RKY is offline  
Old
05-11-2011, 05:33 PM
  #70
broadwayblue
Registered User
 
broadwayblue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 15,651
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by alphaqup View Post
This thread is so

31 isn't even that old. His age is being way overblown.
True, 31 isn't that old. But he's 31 and he hasn't played a game for the Rangers YET. I don't think there is anyone here who would be opposed to signing him for a 3 year deal. Most would even be ok with 4 years. That brings him to age 35...big difference. AND almost everyone agrees that a 4 year deal isn't going to bring Richards to NY. So we're talking about his performance at age 36 or more likely 37 if it's a 6 year deal as is widely discussed. Now if he'll agree sign without a NMC (at least for the last 2 or 3 years) that's a different story. But the last thing this team needs is another 6.5M player stuck on the roster who can't come close to justifying that salary. And the risk of that happening is pretty good when you're talking about players over 35.

broadwayblue is online now  
Old
05-11-2011, 06:32 PM
  #71
Bluenote13
Believe In Henke
 
Bluenote13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BKLYN, NYC
Posts: 23,657
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by alphaqup View Post
This thread is so

31 isn't even that old. His age is being way overblown.
Some say its not about age but also the concussion.

How old was Marc Savard?

Bluenote13 is offline  
Old
05-11-2011, 06:38 PM
  #72
azrok22
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 9,431
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluenote13 View Post
Some say its not about age but also the concussion.

How old was Marc Savard?


Brad Richards has suffered one concussion in more than 10 NHL seasons. Marc Savard has suffered at least five concussions (January 2001, March 2002, January 2004, December 2010, December 2010 -- and those are only the reported concussions!). Clearly, Richards is comparable.

Know who else has suffered one concussion? Gaborik and Derek Stepan. Better send them a memo to pack up their bags and call it a career.



EDIT: Note the most important thing about Savard -- he had 9 successful NHL seasons after his first concussion, including five seasons at more than a point per game pace (including both his 97 and 96 point seasons).

azrok22 is offline  
Old
05-11-2011, 06:41 PM
  #73
Bluenote13
Believe In Henke
 
Bluenote13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BKLYN, NYC
Posts: 23,657
vCash: 500
Keep shaking your head shaky, fact is everyone is different, two concussions can kill a players career.

Its still a cause for concern if you are signing him for many years. The potential is there since he already has one reported concussion.

Bluenote13 is offline  
Old
05-11-2011, 06:49 PM
  #74
azrok22
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 9,431
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluenote13 View Post
Keep shaking your head shaky, fact is everyone is different, two concussions can kill a players career.

Its still a cause for concern if you are signing him for many years. The potential is there since he already has one reported concussion.
It's pretty safe to say that this was Richards first concussion. He has missed notable games only more than two games only three times in his career -- March 2009 (broken wrist), April 2009 (broken hand), and March of 2011 (concussion). If he has suffered unreported concussions, then he's a true ironman.

Comparing his concussion "history" to Savard's is embarrassing.

EDIT: You're right that two concussions can kill a career. One concussion can kill a career. So could being struck by lightning. Or developing cancer (ie: Lemieux). Or being hit by a car. Or a heart condition.

I maintain that comparing Richards' health history to Savard's is simply embarrassing.

azrok22 is offline  
Old
05-11-2011, 06:53 PM
  #75
Bluenote13
Believe In Henke
 
Bluenote13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: BKLYN, NYC
Posts: 23,657
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by azrok22 View Post
It's pretty safe to say that this was Richards first concussion. He has missed notable games only more than two games only three times in his career -- March 2009 (broken wrist), April 2009 (broken hand), and March of 2011 (concussion). If he has suffered unreported concussions, then he's a true ironman.

Comparing his concussion "history" to Savard's is embarrassing.
I never compared them, you did slick. I said age has nothing to do with it.

And he's not an ironman to me if he has had unreported concussions, I look at him as more of a liability if that were the case.

Bluenote13 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 09:20 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.