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

Proposed "Redden" rule

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-17-2012, 12:27 PM
  #26
Bird Law
Daisy's back.
 
Bird Law's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Country Roads
Country: United States
Posts: 72,819
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Bird Law
I am fine with buyouts counting against the cap, but the hit should be vastly reduced. Perhaps 1/10th of the contract counts against the cap or something.

__________________
"Of course giving Sather cap space is like giving teenagers whiskey and car keys." - SBOB
"Watching Sather build a team is like watching a blind man with no fingers trying to put together an elaborate puzzle." - Shadowtron
"Used to be only Twinkies and cockroaches could survive a nuke. I'd add Habs to that. I'm convinced the CH stands for Club du Hypocrisy." - Gee Wally
Bird Law is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 12:27 PM
  #27
Bird Law
Daisy's back.
 
Bird Law's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Country Roads
Country: United States
Posts: 72,819
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Bird Law
Quote:
Originally Posted by t3hg00se View Post
It's market driven, that doesn't mean it was an intelligent move. A team shouldn't be able to take a chance on a player and hand a bad contract (every fan knew it was an awful contract for the start) just because they can stash it if it doesn't work out.

With a rule like this in place, you wouldn't have seen Redden get offers as large as he did.
Sure you would have. This "logic" was spewed by the small market teams when the cap was put in place. "Well, with the cap you won't see such huge contracts!"

Take a wild guess how that worked out.

Bird Law is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 12:28 PM
  #28
Bird Law
Daisy's back.
 
Bird Law's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Country Roads
Country: United States
Posts: 72,819
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Bird Law
Quote:
Originally Posted by SupersonicMonkey View Post
Are you that shallow minded?

Its a TWO WAY MUTUAL AGREEMENT.

Redden didnt uphold his end of it.

NO roster position should be guaranteed.
Bingo. And because he lost his roster spot, his contract should be off the books until he earns it back (or retires, or is released, or etc.).

Bird Law is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 12:30 PM
  #29
t3hg00se
Registered User
 
t3hg00se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,392
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to t3hg00se
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
Sure you would have. This "logic" was spewed by the small market teams when the cap was put in place. "Well, with the cap you won't see such huge contracts!"

Take a wild guess how that worked out.
If you seriously think Redden would have gotten money identical to what he did without Sather knowing he could erase his mistake you're off your rocker.

t3hg00se is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 12:30 PM
  #30
SupersonicMonkey*
DROP THE PUCK
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 15,193
vCash: 500
What is the issue here?

These guys get paid regardless. Beauty of guaranteed contracts. The MONEY is guaranteed.

WHY should their spot on an NHL roster ALSO be guaranteed?

Jonathan and I are the only two that see how ridiculous notion is? Come on.

SupersonicMonkey* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 12:31 PM
  #31
broadwayblue
Registered User
 
broadwayblue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 15,647
vCash: 500
And where is it stated a player has to dress? This whole notion about there not being competition isn't really accurate. Do players feel successful by sitting in the press box? They want to play, and if Redden is on the squad and he's being outplayed by a rookie, the rookie will dress.

broadwayblue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 12:31 PM
  #32
Bird Law
Daisy's back.
 
Bird Law's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Country Roads
Country: United States
Posts: 72,819
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Bird Law
Quote:
Originally Posted by t3hg00se View Post
If you seriously think Redden would have gotten money identical to what he did without Sather knowing he could erase his mistake you're off your rocker.
If you seriously think that new rules would prevent GMs from spending like that clearly you've been asleep since the last lockout. The evidence is all out there. Teams still spent like crazy.

But let's not let facts get in the way. Without them, I'm sure you have a great argument.

Bird Law is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 12:32 PM
  #33
CM PUNK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,283
vCash: 500
spot on nhl roster isn't guaranteed. cap hit is guaranteed but rangers can keep redden in hartford if they want

CM PUNK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 12:32 PM
  #34
Bird Law
Daisy's back.
 
Bird Law's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Country Roads
Country: United States
Posts: 72,819
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Bird Law
Quote:
Originally Posted by broadwayblue View Post
And where is it stated a player has to dress? This whole notion about there not being competition isn't really accurate. Do players feel successful by sitting in the press box? They want to play, and if Redden is on the squad and he's being outplayed by a rookie, the rookie will dress.
And by him being on the squad than he is taking a roster spot from someone in the AHL more deserving. Him simply existing in any way on the team (money wise or spot wise) is reducing the ability to have players that can play better make the team.

Bird Law is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 12:33 PM
  #35
SupersonicMonkey*
DROP THE PUCK
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 15,193
vCash: 500
Because if the contact counts against the cap NO team is going to put that player in the minors.

The roster spot is a guarantee.

Stupid stupid stupid rule.

No position should ever be guaranteed. This is KHL level bull crap.

SupersonicMonkey* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 12:33 PM
  #36
Bird Law
Daisy's back.
 
Bird Law's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Country Roads
Country: United States
Posts: 72,819
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Bird Law
Quote:
Originally Posted by CM PUNK View Post
spot on nhl roster isn't guaranteed. cap hit is guaranteed but rangers can keep redden in hartford if they want
By making the cap hit guaranteed you essentially guarantee a roster spot since the Rangers would play him over someone like Bickel or Eminger. So while it's not guaranteed in writing, it is basically guaranteed in terms of simple logic.

Bird Law is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 12:34 PM
  #37
HatTrick Swayze
Tomato Potato
 
HatTrick Swayze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 9,337
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CM PUNK View Post
the guys that get hurt the most by this are the AHL veterans who are legitimately in the ahl not being hidden, this will place a max salary on them to keep them off the books
Definitely. You are going to see a lot less deals (at the very least less $) given to "career AHLers" like Newbury. Which will impact both NHL depth and the AHL product.

Most GMs are gonna be hesitant to give guys like Voros, Rissmiller, etc a $1M+ contract if they know it will be on their books regardless of AHL/NHL. Some might consider that a good thing, I think about how for all the players who don't work out it is possible to find a John Mitchell, who for all his flaws is a serviceable NHLer that helped us out last year.

You are going to see more and more players go overseas to the mid-tier leagues to get better deals. Which then takes away opportunities from the CHL/NCAA undrafted and unsigned players whp previously had an opportunity to at least play pro hockey somewhere. One of my good buddies played out his ELC and signed in Germany this year after he didn't get any AHL/NHL offers that came close. That opportunity might not be there for future players.

__________________
"Here we can see the agression of american people. They love fighting and guns. when they wont win they try to kill us all." -HalfOfFame
HatTrick Swayze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 12:34 PM
  #38
CM PUNK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,283
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
If you seriously think that new rules would prevent GMs from spending like that clearly you've been asleep since the last lockout. The evidence is all out there. Teams still spent like crazy.

But let's not let facts get in the way. Without them, I'm sure you have a great argument.
they did spend like crazy but they also did that spending knowing that certain loopholes existed to let them out of those contracts if they didn't work out

and its only a matter of time before teams find the new loopholes

CM PUNK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 12:34 PM
  #39
davidy2d
Heater Clap Bombs
 
davidy2d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 1,895
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
Being responsible for the actions is having to pay the bum his contract. What, do you think Dolan is HAPPY about wasting millions a year on him? He does it because he has to. Not because he wants to.
And part of that responsibility is owning up to cap circumvention strategies. I'm sure Rangers fans would have no problem if Crosby retired tomorrow and the Pens had his cap hit on the books until 2025 but when it relates to their own team it's absurd.

davidy2d is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 12:34 PM
  #40
Bird Law
Daisy's back.
 
Bird Law's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Country Roads
Country: United States
Posts: 72,819
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Bird Law
I am fine with guys counting against the cap if there was a luxury tax system in place where teams could spend over the cap a certain amount (let's say 10M). Then that is paid dollar-for-dollar to the poor baby wittle teams like the Fishies and the like.

Bird Law is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 12:35 PM
  #41
HatTrick Swayze
Tomato Potato
 
HatTrick Swayze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 9,337
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by t3hg00se View Post
If you seriously think Redden would have gotten money identical to what he did without Sather knowing he could erase his mistake you're off your rocker.
Maybe in hindsight. At the time it was widely reported that at least 1 or 2 other teams were in on the bidding. One of which was Columbus, who I'm sure is not in the position to be paying an AHLer $6.5M.

HatTrick Swayze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 12:35 PM
  #42
Bird Law
Daisy's back.
 
Bird Law's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Country Roads
Country: United States
Posts: 72,819
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Bird Law
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidy2d View Post
And part of that responsibility is owning up to cap circumvention strategies. I'm sure Rangers fans would have no problem if Crosby retired tomorrow and the Pens had his cap hit on the books until 2025 but when it relates to their own team it's absurd.
Actually I would have a problem with that because it simply wouldn't be fair to have a contract on the books like that.

Nice that you're so out of touch that you think people are THAT biased. Great argument.

Bird Law is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 12:35 PM
  #43
broadwayblue
Registered User
 
broadwayblue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 15,647
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by t3hg00se View Post
It's market driven, that doesn't mean it was an intelligent move. A team shouldn't be able to take a chance on a player and hand a bad contract (every fan knew it was an awful contract for the start) just because they can stash it if it doesn't work out.

With a rule like this in place, you wouldn't have seen Redden get offers as large as he did.
Exactly. Teams would have to decide whether to overpay for a guy to try and win now, knowing that doing so might very likely come at a great cost a couple years down the line. Again, the teams are the ones who offer the contract terms and are under no obligation to be stupid.

broadwayblue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 12:35 PM
  #44
mschmidt64
Registered User
 
mschmidt64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 828
vCash: 500
Teams should be able to shed the cap hit if the player isn't on the team. That's the whole point of a cap... so you can't just buy up all the best players.

If the player isn't on the team, there is no reason to be counting his salary against the cap.

If you still want to guarantee the contract, fine. But a rich team like the Rangers SHOULD be able to buy out their mistakes and save the cap room.

Player still gets his money cause he's bought out. So he can't complain. Rangers get their cap room back so now they can go out and give more money to Stepan or McDonagh in an extension.

I don't see why this idea doesn't get more traction. Players should love it.

NHL teams who don't want to double-pay have the option of not buying out their bad contracts, so it doesn't even effect them.

mschmidt64 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 12:36 PM
  #45
Bird Law
Daisy's back.
 
Bird Law's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Country Roads
Country: United States
Posts: 72,819
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Bird Law
Quote:
Originally Posted by HatTrick Swayze View Post
Maybe in hindsight. At the time it was widely reported that at least 1 or 2 other teams were in on the bidding. One of which was Columbus, who I'm sure is not in the position to be paying an AHLer $6.5M.
And Dallas. With their financial position, no way could they put a loser like that in the minors. Two cash strapped teams bid up the price VERY high.

Bird Law is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 12:37 PM
  #46
Bird Law
Daisy's back.
 
Bird Law's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Country Roads
Country: United States
Posts: 72,819
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Bird Law
Quote:
Originally Posted by broadwayblue View Post
Exactly. Teams would have to decide whether to overpay for a guy to try and win now, knowing that doing so might very likely come at a great cost a couple years down the line. Again, the teams are the ones who offer the contract terms and are under no obligation to be stupid.
You and goose need to take your heads out of the sand. The cap did not reduce wild spending like everyone claimed it would. Far from it. Now you use that same ludicrous "logic" here. After it's already been proven to be ********. Sorry, but that argument won't fly.

Bird Law is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 12:37 PM
  #47
broadwayblue
Registered User
 
broadwayblue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 15,647
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
I am fine with guys counting against the cap if there was a luxury tax system in place where teams could spend over the cap a certain amount (let's say 10M). Then that is paid dollar-for-dollar to the poor baby wittle teams like the Fishies and the like.
I'm fine with that. If owners want to exceed the cap they should pay a hefty tax.

broadwayblue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 12:38 PM
  #48
broadwayblue
Registered User
 
broadwayblue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 15,647
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
You and goose need to take your heads out of the sand. The cap did not reduce wild spending like everyone claimed it would. Far from it. Now you use that same ludicrous "logic" here. After it's already been proven to be ********. Sorry, but that argument won't fly.
Again...who is making the teams offer these ridiculous contracts?

broadwayblue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 12:39 PM
  #49
Bird Law
Daisy's back.
 
Bird Law's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Country Roads
Country: United States
Posts: 72,819
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Bird Law
Quote:
Originally Posted by broadwayblue View Post
Again...who is making the teams offer these ridiculous contracts?
If the market is driving these contracts up than the contracts are not really ridiculous. They are market price.

Bird Law is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 12:40 PM
  #50
Bird Law
Daisy's back.
 
Bird Law's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Country Roads
Country: United States
Posts: 72,819
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Bird Law
Quote:
Originally Posted by broadwayblue View Post
I'm fine with that. If owners want to exceed the cap they should pay a hefty tax.
That is the only way a cap should exist. It would grant the rich teams flexibility that they deserve for being successful.

Bird Law 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 10:47 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.