HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Notices

4 more years of Gomez?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-20-2012, 05:18 PM
  #76
GoHomez
Registered User
 
GoHomez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: 8 km from the Globe
Country: Sweden
Posts: 1,153
vCash: 500
Most (if not all) european leagues would require a legally binding contract between Gomez and the team, would Gomez sign in Europe? Maybe.
Huet was a marketable, household name in the Swiss league before his NHL career, I dont think Gomez is as marketable at all in Europe.
Would he be a solid addition in Europe? Yeah, I would think so, finding a team is probably doable, but Montreal would still have to pay a large chunk of his salary.

In short, sending him Hamilton is a lot easier.

If given a chance, maybe he'd still choose playing in Europe if NHL is completely out of the question.
From the Habs perspective it is easier to just demote him, on the other hand, that could potentially look bad around the league. Rangers demoting Redden seems to have worked out for them though.

GoHomez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2012, 05:25 PM
  #77
Frozenice
the random dude
 
Frozenice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,158
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OneSharpMarble View Post
He has played what 30 games with us? Good work coach, put the guy in the pressbox when he doesn't have immediate success on a brand new team with a rookie coach that is fighting for a lottery pick.

You are quite the motivator.
I have no idea why we got him in the first place.

Players like Cole, White, Emelin, Subban and Diaz earned their ice time, why should we give Bourque a free pass.

If Gionta and Moen were playing someone would end up in the pressbox and I can't think of a more deserving candidate. Unless, of course, you think he deserves to be on our energy line.

Next year he'll have a chance to show a new coach that he wants to be a Hab and I hope he makes the most of it.

If he can turn his career around great but if not we're stuck with him. We won't be getting primo pieces back for him.

Frozenice is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2012, 05:27 PM
  #78
Bieber fever
Registered User
 
Bieber fever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Westmount
Posts: 5,102
vCash: 500
how about a contract extension to bring down his cap hit ?





























Bieber fever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2012, 05:30 PM
  #79
OneSharpMarble
Registered User
 
OneSharpMarble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,203
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frozenice View Post
I have no idea why we got him in the first place.

Players like Cole, White, Emelin, Subban and Diaz earned their ice time, why should we give Bourque a free pass.

If Gionta and Moen were playing someone would end up in the pressbox and I can't think of a more deserving candidate. Unless, of course, you think he deserves to be on our energy line.

Next year he'll have a chance to show a new coach that he wants to be a Hab and I hope he makes the most of it.

If he can turn his career around great but if not we're stuck with him. We won't be getting primo pieces back for him.
We got him because like Cammalleri he is slumping hard and Calgary had to move salary to make the trade happen. If Cammalleri can't turn his career around do you think someone will give anything to get his wonderful 6million dollar contract?

He gets a free pass because he deserves a chance to prove himself that doesn't involve a clueless coach with no system.

OneSharpMarble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2012, 05:31 PM
  #80
Frozenice
the random dude
 
Frozenice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,158
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edmontreal View Post
Most (if not all) european leagues would require a legally binding contract between Gomez and the team, would Gomez sign in Europe? Maybe.
Huet was a marketable, household name in the Swiss league before his NHL career, I dont think Gomez is as marketable at all in Europe.
Would he be a solid addition in Europe? Yeah, I would think so, finding a team is probably doable, but Montreal would still have to pay a large chunk of his salary.

In short, sending him Hamilton is a lot easier.

If given a chance, maybe he'd still choose playing in Europe if NHL is completely out of the question.
From the Habs perspective it is easier to just demote him, on the other hand, that could potentially look bad around the league. Rangers demoting Redden seems to have worked out for them though.
I'm not sure of the exact process but I would think it would be up to Gomez and his agent to find a place in Europe that is agreeable to him and the European team and then they would bring the offer to the Habs to okay or reject.

Gomez would do well in Europe, I would think.

Frozenice is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2012, 05:37 PM
  #81
Frozenice
the random dude
 
Frozenice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,158
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OneSharpMarble View Post
We got him because like Cammalleri he is slumping hard and Calgary had to move salary to make the trade happen. If Cammalleri can't turn his career around do you think someone will give anything to get his wonderful 6million dollar contract?

He gets a free pass because he deserves a chance to prove himself that doesn't involve a clueless coach with no system.
Exactly, we traded a salary dump for another salary dump.

Who has done nothing since coming here.

Your assessment of talent and value is hilarious.

I think my value of him is spot on.

Frozenice is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2012, 09:29 PM
  #82
Whitesnake
Habs of steel
 
Whitesnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Lorraine, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 47,168
vCash: 500
Buying him out will be just another mistake on top of plenty of others INCLUDING going for him in the first place. You just hope that Gauthier and Co aren't the ones that are going to make that decision. Yet, if the new guy does it, it will be a mistake no matter how new the guy is.

Whitesnake is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2012, 09:36 PM
  #83
MM425
Registered User
 
MM425's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,591
vCash: 500
They will do whatever makes most financial sense to make the contract "go away".

He'll be playing in either Hamilton or Europe next year methinks.

MM425 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2012, 09:46 PM
  #84
Shadyone33
Registered User
 
Shadyone33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,198
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by natey2k4 View Post
If we buy him out, I give up caring.

That's like letting a murderer out of prison earlier and handing him a gun.
Winner, winner...Chicken dinner. Bury him with the ECHL, forget the Dogs.

Shadyone33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2012, 09:53 PM
  #85
Kimota
Nation of Poutine
 
Kimota's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: La Vieille Capitale
Country: France
Posts: 21,655
vCash: 500
Brisebois is pratically insane, I don't believe a word of this.

Kimota is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2012, 11:26 PM
  #86
Ozymandias
#firetherrien
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,441
vCash: 500
compliance buyout for the new CBA
*cross fingers*

Ozymandias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2012, 11:28 PM
  #87
Maliki2
Registered User
 
Maliki2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Saint Albans, VT
Country: United States
Posts: 10,227
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VAN-HAB View Post
I would like to take this opportunity and say:

**** you BG!
How dare you insult a great ex Hab player!

So sick of hearing this ****. BG created this ****storm and insurted his faith in PG. This whole team sucks and it starts with BG! Congrats!

Maliki2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2012, 08:05 AM
  #88
Blind Gardien
Global Moderator
nexus of the crisis
 
Blind Gardien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Four Winds Bar
Country: France
Posts: 19,369
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agnostic View Post
Who exactly is motivated to create the amnesty situation? I think this is a notion created by hopeful people who want there to be an eraser for the Gainey/Gauthier mess. It made sense in the context of a one-time salary rollback, but doing it a second time would essentially undermine the salary cap . Managers would operate differently if they knew the league were going to burn their bad contracts every now and again. Don't see it happening to be honest.
It's not a notion we created. It has happened in the past. If the changes to the CBA are big enough that existing salary structures don't fit anymore, then there is almost a requirement for it. Say for example if they lower the player percentage and hence lower the salary cap. Teams which have signed up to a $70M salary cap and are suddenly looking instead at a new one of $60M will need some kind of mechanism to achieve compliance.

And in that scenario, compliance buyouts ought to be more attractive to the PA than a rollback across the board. A few players have to pound the pavement, but they get to do so with millions of dollars of buyout money in their pocket. And the existing contract standards and comparables for the vast majority of players don't have to go through a couple of years of re-inflation to get back to the present values.

Also, even without that, the players do receive a fixed percentage of the overall league revenue atm. So if Gomez and a few of his albatrossic buddies are sucking up millions and millions of that money, then the rest of the league gets less. If they were instead to be bought out with no cap ramifications, then all the rest of the players would get more.

And managers... well, they never change, they will always want the quickest fixes possible, so of course would not object to this opportunity. Maybe a few teams who have their ships in perfect order would object on the basis of their rivals having a bit of an advantage, but again this is all going to come months after the free agent period anyway, so it's not like teams will be able to quickly re-invest their savings into any significant competitive advantages in the short-term.

I could see the amnesty/compliance buyouts coming. Or they might just offer a new buyout window under something like the existing rules when the new CBA comes into play - where you don't get a total free pass on the cap hit of bought out players. But a second opportunity to do it, given the uncertainty that is likely to surround the upcoming June 15th window.

Personally, I don't see any need for big CBA changes, and I don't see why they shouldn't just essentially extend the existing CBA and then forego all this stuff. But I don't get any solid sense either whether either side is pushing for big changes or not. It's all too murky to do anything but speculate wildly atm.

Blind Gardien is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2012, 08:36 AM
  #89
MTL-rules
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 6,210
vCash: 500
If Gomez wants to play in the NHL next year, he should ****ing void his contract, because I hope Molson is not cheap enough to buy him out.

AHL or Europe, that's it. No more Gomez on the salary cap.

MTL-rules is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2012, 10:25 AM
  #90
Ozymandias
#firetherrien
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,441
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blind Gardien View Post
It's not a notion we created. It has happened in the past. If the changes to the CBA are big enough that existing salary structures don't fit anymore, then there is almost a requirement for it. Say for example if they lower the player percentage and hence lower the salary cap. Teams which have signed up to a $70M salary cap and are suddenly looking instead at a new one of $60M will need some kind of mechanism to achieve compliance.

And in that scenario, compliance buyouts ought to be more attractive to the PA than a rollback across the board. A few players have to pound the pavement, but they get to do so with millions of dollars of buyout money in their pocket. And the existing contract standards and comparables for the vast majority of players don't have to go through a couple of years of re-inflation to get back to the present values.

Also, even without that, the players do receive a fixed percentage of the overall league revenue atm. So if Gomez and a few of his albatrossic buddies are sucking up millions and millions of that money, then the rest of the league gets less. If they were instead to be bought out with no cap ramifications, then all the rest of the players would get more.

And managers... well, they never change, they will always want the quickest fixes possible, so of course would not object to this opportunity. Maybe a few teams who have their ships in perfect order would object on the basis of their rivals having a bit of an advantage, but again this is all going to come months after the free agent period anyway, so it's not like teams will be able to quickly re-invest their savings into any significant competitive advantages in the short-term.

I could see the amnesty/compliance buyouts coming. Or they might just offer a new buyout window under something like the existing rules when the new CBA comes into play - where you don't get a total free pass on the cap hit of bought out players. But a second opportunity to do it, given the uncertainty that is likely to surround the upcoming June 15th window.

Personally, I don't see any need for big CBA changes, and I don't see why they shouldn't just essentially extend the existing CBA and then forego all this stuff. But I don't get any solid sense either whether either side is pushing for big changes or not. It's all too murky to do anything but speculate wildly atm.
I don't think they can't do without both if there changing revenue %. The league will never bring down the cap without a rollback or some other form of leveling effect, as the new cap would need to fit with % of player salaries, and compliance buyouts just won't do the trick, as there wouldn't be enough players bought out to reach the player % of total revenues. You said a 'few players to pave the way with buyouts', but I don't think you fully appreciate the amounts it would represent to cut out 9 mil out of the max team cap, and the fact that prior compliance buyouts weren't in a continuing system, hence, weren't cap deductible per se (no extended penalties).

And what happens if the CBA is signed AFTER most players have signed on the market after July 1st on the present forecasted 69 mil cap? Only a rollback can be applied then IMO. The only true measure remains the rollback, especially if we're talking 69 to 60 which represents 270 million in player salary for a single season.

But even with a rollback, players will ask for compliance buyouts, so will teams, as this will leave more money on the market, while also including money already paid for in the buyouts which will appear in total player compensations, but not on the cap. But that has to happen before July 1st.

Thing is though, players lost too much in the last negociations and now have Donald Fehr. Because the NHL players have the highest % in total revenues vs other major sports, people assume that the league has a strong argument, but I'm not sure about that, as the NHL (players and owners) is making a lot less money than the MLB and NFL, and the 50% the NBA receive is because the league was in financial trouble, which the NHL isn't. Players were the ones making the biggest concessions last time around, it has helped the league and owners prosper, much more than the players did. 7 years later, players are making about 400 million more than they previously did before the cap, but owners on the other hand, have raised a measily 400 mil of total revenues into around 1,4 billion in total revenues this year. In 7 years, players have gained 400 and the league, 1 billion. IMO, there won't be any cut back on the cap, nor will there be any rollback, they might agree on a lower per year increase on the cap (less than the present 5%), so that they could gradually cut down the player % from its present 57%, closer to the desired 50%, and less quickly so the players might agree to something around 52-54%.

Another avenue they could use to lower player revenue % is by gradually upgrading the margin between cap floor and cap ceiling so as to 'lower' expenses (player %) all the while increasing the ceiling every year to accomodate the increase in revenues.

IMO, compliance buyouts will become automatic if the cap structure is changed in the slighest, but not because of a change in player revenue % per se. Unless there's no market to unload the players also.

Ozymandias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2012, 11:31 AM
  #91
Boris Le Tigre
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
 
Boris Le Tigre's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: More Toast !
Country: Vatican City State
Posts: 5,387
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
compliance buyout for the new CBA
*cross fingers*
Sorry to disappoint but the talking heads on Satelite Hot Stove where saying this is unlikely... They can't see Donald Fehr conceding that in the CB process...

But who knows what will be left on the table when the dust settles from the CB process...

Just wouldn't count on it.

Boris Le Tigre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2012, 11:43 AM
  #92
Bullsmith
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,116
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edmontreal View Post
Most (if not all) european leagues would require a legally binding contract between Gomez and the team, would Gomez sign in Europe? Maybe.
Huet was a marketable, household name in the Swiss league before his NHL career, I dont think Gomez is as marketable at all in Europe.
Would he be a solid addition in Europe? Yeah, I would think so, finding a team is probably doable, but Montreal would still have to pay a large chunk of his salary.

In short, sending him Hamilton is a lot easier.

If given a chance, maybe he'd still choose playing in Europe if NHL is completely out of the question.
From the Habs perspective it is easier to just demote him, on the other hand, that could potentially look bad around the league. Rangers demoting Redden seems to have worked out for them though.
It's probably easier for all involved if he goes to Europe. Out of sight is out of mind, after all. As long as he's in hamilton he's still in the org, influencing the prospects (not necessarily for ill, but really, is this a role model?). Plus side of having him in Hamilton is he'd probably clear re-entry waivers no problem at all. Or is that the downside?

Bullsmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2012, 11:51 AM
  #93
Ozymandias
#firetherrien
 
Ozymandias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,441
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Humpty Dumpty View Post
Sorry to disappoint but the talking heads on Satelite Hot Stove where saying this is unlikely... They can't see Donald Fehr conceding that in the CB process...

But who knows what will be left on the table when the dust settles from the CB process...

Just wouldn't count on it.
Compliance buyouts aren't a point of concession for any side

Both sides win with this. Players win by having buyouts that have no impact on the cap, so that cap money is still free to be spent while still having the player payed for the buyout. Use your brain instead of trusting every single word the pundits spew out. I think you might've mistaken the roll back with the buyouts. Compliance buyouts are just a consequence of a changing structure, no change to the structure, no compliance buyouts. While the rollback is what Fehr and the players don't want.

But hey, I should stop thinking, right? The almighty pundits have spoken. Stop following the cult of great men and learn to think for yourself.

If there is any change to the cap structure or lineup structure (23 man roster), there will most likely be compliance buyouts involved. Might not be a set number of two like last time. Probably just one per team, because this time around the changes will probably be less drastic.

Ozymandias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2012, 02:54 PM
  #94
Blind Gardien
Global Moderator
nexus of the crisis
 
Blind Gardien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Four Winds Bar
Country: France
Posts: 19,369
vCash: 500
I suspect the pundits are prone to misinterpreting the few fleeting tidbits of news that they do hear about. There really isn't much news about the forthcoming CBA negotiations leaking out at all. We're all being left intentionally in the dark. Which is fair enough. I don't think either side wants this to be as much of a public battle as the last one, but the league also doesn't want any distractions from the playoffs and season either.

So if there is a question asked of a GM at the latest meetings along the lines of "do you expect to see amnesty buyouts" and that GM says "well, I don't know that we'll see those", it's about all that's out there, and yet, it actually doesn't mean much. Just like the time before that when they asked and somebody said "maybe there will some kind of amnesty buyouts", and the pundits leaped to tell us that they were likely. Neither the first case of reported likelihood nor the more recent case of unlikelihood seems to be founded on very much. Mostly because there just isn't anything to found it on, yet. The sides haven't sat down to negotiate. We have no idea what their respective sticking points will be, nor how much of a change might result to the overall CBA framework.

As Ozymandias has elucidated, there is no "concession" on amnesty buyouts. They are win-win in the trenches on both sides. Bought-out players get the same money they would have had they been bought out via the normal process. Non bought-out players get to keep more of their salary (pay less escrow, in effect), and GMs get to foolishly spin that money back out to new players and start the spiral all over again.

If anybody loses, it's maybe some principled-yet-naive observer who wants to see the GMs not get out of their mistakes, in the hopes that that will somehow teach them a new level of fiscal responsibility looking forward. But I think we've seen that that will never happen. No matter how you change the rules, GMs will always take the gambles and push the envelope. That doesn't change whether they are stuck with a buyout cap hit on the Scott Gomez's of the world or not. The lesson has always been that nobody EVER learns.

Blind Gardien is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2012, 03:25 PM
  #95
Frozenice
the random dude
 
Frozenice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,158
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bullsmith View Post
It's probably easier for all involved if he goes to Europe. Out of sight is out of mind, after all. As long as he's in hamilton he's still in the org, influencing the prospects (not necessarily for ill, but really, is this a role model?). Plus side of having him in Hamilton is he'd probably clear re-entry waivers no problem at all. Or is that the downside?
The Habs wouldn't have a reason to put Gomez on re-entry waivers, unless they were doing so for another team to claim him.

As an example, if Montreal sent Gomez down now - that would be putting him on waivers.

At the end of the season, all players with pro contracts are brought back up to the NHL and then the players who aren't staying with the big club for the next season are sent back down/ or assigned elsewhere (KHL, AHL, CHL).

Which would be putting him back on waivers.

If, however, Gomez was sent down (clearing waivers) and then recalled back up during the regular season, that would then be putting Gomez on re-entry waivers.

Frozenice is online now   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 12:54 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.