HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Notices

Proposed "Redden" rule

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-17-2012, 03:45 PM
  #76
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 he would have. LOOK AT WHAT REDDEN GOT!

Holik was a much better player than Redden. If he wouldn't have gotten the same dollar-for-dollar deal, he'd of gotten a very similar deal.

Keep that head in the sand.


you literally believe a player who averaged 50 points in his 3 years prior to signing with the rangers would have gotten a 5 year 9 million per contract post lockout

this is freaking gold.

t3hg00se is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 03:46 PM
  #77
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,745
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
The penalty imposed is having to eat MILLIONS of dollars. I fail to see why anything more needs to be imposed that isn't just a dollar amount. Perhaps make the team pay double the contract in a quasi-luxury tax system.

THe NHL needs to stop stripping advantages away from rich teams. Sooner or later rich teams will have all of their profits going to the league and even the poorest of the poor will be able to spend the same amount of money. The NHL hates success.
Hates success???

Let me ask you a question. Do you think the Rangers are a rich franchise because they are run well, or because they have the luxury of being in the biggest market in North America?

Bleed Ranger Blue is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 03:46 PM
  #78
CM PUNK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,270
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregNYR19 View Post
thats a management error and the GM and owners signed the contract...they should be penalized somehow. the rangers circumvented the cap by burying redden in the minors and got lucky they were able to do that
how was it circumventing the cap when the cba flat out says that players in the minors don't count against the cap? they even create the entire re-entry waiver process to account for those players being called back up. this was not a hidden loophole that the rangers exposed. the rangers followed the rules

CM PUNK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 03:50 PM
  #79
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,745
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CM PUNK View Post
how was it circumventing the cap when the cba flat out says that players in the minors don't count against the cap? they even create the entire re-entry waiver process to account for those players being called back up. this was not a hidden loophole that the rangers exposed. the rangers followed the rules
I agree with this. Its not circumvention, it was just a stupid thing to have in the CBA as it is. Being in an amazing market gives the Rangers the right to throw around stupid multi-year deals like theyre casino chips?

Bleed Ranger Blue is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 03:59 PM
  #80
CM PUNK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,270
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
I agree with this. Its not circumvention, it was just a stupid thing to have in the CBA as it is. Being in an amazing market gives the Rangers the right to throw around stupid multi-year deals like theyre casino chips?
i agree...just cause the rangers weren't cheating that doesn't mean it wasn't unfair or a bad idea that should be modified

CM PUNK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 04:01 PM
  #81
egelband
Registered User
 
egelband's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: north finchley
Country: United States
Posts: 1,921
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by broadwayblue View Post
Who forced the Rangers to give a player in serious decline a 6 year 39M contract? You do stupid things you should pay the price for it.
i would say that paying wade redden 39 million dollars is enough punishment. not sure there's a need for punitive treatment to an organization that basically went 'make a wish' on a loser.

egelband is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 04:01 PM
  #82
Fitzy
All Is Well
 
Fitzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 19,901
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
Sure he would have. LOOK AT WHAT REDDEN GOT!

Holik was a much better player than Redden. If he wouldn't have gotten the same dollar-for-dollar deal, he'd of gotten a very similar deal.

Keep that head in the sand.
Redden when he was on his game was one of the top 10 defensemen in the league. He and Chara were an amazing pairing and Ottawa chose to extend Redden over Zdeno.

Holik was never a better anything that Redden. He was a top 3rd line center ala Steve Rucchin or Matt Cullen or Michael Peca. Redden was a top pairing defenseman.

Fitzy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 04:06 PM
  #83
Bird Law
Daisy's back.
 
Bird Law's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Country Roads
Country: United States
Posts: 72,229
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Bird Law
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antithesis View Post
Redden when he was on his game was one of the top 10 defensemen in the league. He and Chara were an amazing pairing and Ottawa chose to extend Redden over Zdeno.

Holik was never a better anything that Redden. He was a top 3rd line center ala Steve Rucchin or Matt Cullen or Michael Peca. Redden was a top pairing defenseman.
Holik, at the time of his contract, was not on some huge downswing in his career. Redden was far, far removed from being a top 10 d-man and obviously on the downswing. No one knew how QUICK he would slide, but he did.

__________________
"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, 04:13 PM
  #84
HatTrick Swayze
Tomato Potato
 
HatTrick Swayze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 9,248
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
Hates success???

Let me ask you a question. Do you think the Rangers are a rich franchise because they are run well, or because they have the luxury of being in the biggest market in North America?
In my opinion it's irrelevant. The fact is they are one of a handful of teams in the league who profitable and helping to drive real revenue growth. That should mean something in the Cap system.

I'm not arguing for a complete free market system. The Cap is a good thing, and implementing more rules for future contracts is a good thing. But if teams want to be able to stock their AHL teams with veteran leadership they should be able to do so.

__________________
"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 online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 04:25 PM
  #85
Volchenkovs Face
Registered User
 
Volchenkovs Face's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 747
vCash: 610
Quote:
Originally Posted by mschmidt64 View Post
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.
What happens if MDZ (or McD) doesn't sign a deal with the Rangers. I ask cause this whole Redden clause stuff got me looking at capgeek and I saw he still has no new contract listed. With all the what-ifs surrounding the Cap and then the addition of this Clause I was wondering worst case.

Volchenkovs Face is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 05:01 PM
  #86
Tawnos
Moderator
BoH Mod Only
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,276
vCash: 500
I can't believe that I actually agree with SSM in something. He and I almost never agree. And that should tell you something.

People act like the salary cap is this simple and natural thing. It's a complex, arbitrary and artificial device. And because it is all three of those things, discussions of fair and not fair really have no place.

What I do think is wrong is the idea of punishing a team retroactively. These rules should only apply to contracts signed after they settle this thing. After all, they aren't going to be knocking down other existing contracts to 5 years under a new agreement. So a team should be punished for following the rules that were in place?

Tawnos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 05:35 PM
  #87
Vipers31
Moderator
Advanced Stagnostic
 
Vipers31's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Bergisch Gladbach
Country: Germany
Posts: 11,005
vCash: 500
Non-Ranger fan coming in peace. I was interested in hearing reactions on the proposal from here, and I thought some points were deserving of being addressed, so I hope me getting involved won't bother anyone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SupersonicMonkey View Post
Its a TWO WAY MUTUAL AGREEMENT.

Redden didnt uphold his end of it.
This post received some rave reviews, which I can sort of understand due to the negative emotions connected to Redden. But at its core, the statement is purely false. If Redden was not upholding his end, he wouldn't be entitled to a salary in the first place. He obviously is. His end of the agreement was to play hockey for the Rangers organisation. It's not a part of his agreement to play up to the standard that the Rangers coaching staff and front office have in mind for him. He's without any sort of questioning from the Rangers upholding his end of the agreement, which is the reason he's still employed in the organisation.

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.
Indeed they did. For that reason, the next CBA will unquestionably include some instruments that will limit that. Pointing to the fact that it didn't last time doesn't really help, as what has happened is a huge part of the reason for what and how is being done now.


I can understand the generally negative feelings for this proposal as it does favour other organisations a lot more than the Rangers, but I am a little surprised to see a strengthened front office accountability so harshly refused.

Vipers31 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 05:42 PM
  #88
RGY
(Jagr68NYR94Leetch)
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Long Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 8,011
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vipers31 View Post
Non-Ranger fan coming in peace. I was interested in hearing reactions on the proposal from here, and I thought some points were deserving of being addressed, so I hope me getting involved won't bother anyone.


This post received some rave reviews, which I can sort of understand due to the negative emotions connected to Redden. But at its core, the statement is purely false. If Redden was not upholding his end, he wouldn't be entitled to a salary in the first place. He obviously is. His end of the agreement was to play hockey for the Rangers organisation. It's not a part of his agreement to play up to the standard that the Rangers coaching staff and front office have in mind for him. He's without any sort of questioning from the Rangers upholding his end of the agreement, which is the reason he's still employed in the organisation.


Indeed they did. For that reason, the next CBA will unquestionably include some instruments that will limit that. Pointing to the fact that it didn't last time doesn't really help, as what has happened is a huge part of the reason for what and how is being done now.


I can understand the generally negative feelings for this proposal as it does favour other organisations a lot more than the Rangers, but I am a little surprised to see a strengthened front office accountability so harshly refused.
I ignored the rest of your post after I read the lines in bold. That is entirely inaccurate. The Rangers ONLY RESPONSIBILITY is to pay him the salary he is due UNLESS he is bought out in which he still gets compensation, a large sum at that. In fact a larger sum than most NHLers will make for PLAYING an 82 game season.

There are different degrees of contracts in the NHL, in any sport for that matter. You get paid more for the expected contribution to the organization. Redden got paid higher than many, many defensemen in the NHL. He severely underperformed and got what was coming to him. You're theory is, JUST because he is getting paid money he automatically deserves a roster spot. What team are you a fan of? Because no matter the answer I could probably make a case for a player that was not deserving of a contract or rather playing time under that contract whether it is today or in the last decade. I'm sorry but you earn your paycheck just like you earn your playing time. There were and are players making 60-70% less than what Redden is making and they are far superior players at this point. They deserve the spots.

A great example is Alex Rodriguez right now with the New York Yankees. Now you may not be a baseball fan, but Alex is being benched in a PLAYOFF series, even though I do think he should be playing tonight. However, there is reason for his benching. And to have a player of ARod's caliber being benched, a player who makes $25-30 million per year (far more than Redden), and a player who is above and beyond a far, far more superior player in his sport than Redden is in hockey; just shows how wrong you are.

The Rangers made a miscalculation (and that's the entire brass because there is no way Sather had secret meetings with Redden's agent). No one is saying Redden shouldn't get paid (at least they shouldn't be), they are saying he deserves to be playing elsewhere and since no one wants to trade for Redden, that place is the AHL. With the removal of re-entry waivers it probably will be easier to move him but yet still difficult.

RGY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 05:48 PM
  #89
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,745
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGY View Post
I ignored the rest of your post after I read the lines in bold. That is entirely inaccurate. The Rangers ONLY RESPONSIBILITY is to pay him the salary he is due UNLESS he is bought out in which he still gets compensation, a large sum at that. In fact a larger sum than most NHLers will make for PLAYING an 82 game season.

There are different degrees of contracts in the NHL, in any sport for that matter. You get paid more for the expected contribution to the organization. Redden got paid higher than many, many defensemen in the NHL. He severely underperformed and got what was coming to him. You're theory is, JUST because he is getting paid money he automatically deserves a roster spot. What team are you a fan of? Because no matter the answer I could probably make a case for a player that was not deserving of a contract or rather playing time under that contract whether it is today or in the last decade. I'm sorry but you earn your paycheck just like you earn your playing time. There were and are players making 60-70% less than what Redden is making and they are far superior players at this point. They deserve the spots.

A great example is Alex Rodriguez right now with the New York Yankees. Now you may not be a baseball fan, but Alex is being benched in a PLAYOFF series, even though I do think he should be playing tonight. However, there is reason for his benching. And to have a player of ARod's caliber being benched, a player who makes $25-30 million per year (far more than Redden), and a player who is above and beyond a far, far more superior player in his sport than Redden is in hockey; just shows how wrong you are.

The Rangers made a miscalculation (and that's the entire brass because there is no way Sather had secret meetings with Redden's agent). No one is saying Redden shouldn't get paid (at least they shouldn't be), they are saying he deserves to be playing elsewhere and since no one wants to trade for Redden, that place is the AHL. With the removal of re-entry waivers it probably will be easier to move him but yet still difficult.
Man, this post gives Ranger fans a bad name. I actually cringed when I read it.

Its nowhere near what that poster was saying.

Bleed Ranger Blue is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 05:51 PM
  #90
RGY
(Jagr68NYR94Leetch)
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Long Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 8,011
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
Man, this post gives Ranger fans a bad name. I actually cringed when I read it.

Its nowhere near what that poster was saying.
How? Do tell BRB, I'd love to hear how it makes you "cringe" because I spoke the truth. I responded to what he was stating in response to another poster's remark.

Redden does not deserve to play for the rangers. Plain and simple. He does not deserve a roster spot.

RGY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 05:51 PM
  #91
HatTrick Swayze
Tomato Potato
 
HatTrick Swayze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 9,248
vCash: 500
Any way you slice it, the Redden deal was a risk the Rangers should not have taken.

However, the fact is that hockey is a physical game and players' abilities can disappear in the blink of an eye. Wade Redden was declining before the Rangers' picked him up, but his play fell off an absolute cliff his second year with the team.

When you sign hockey players in their mid-30s, that will happen. The unintended (or perhaps not so unintended) consequence of this rule is that either:

A. Numerous teams are going to feel the brunt of this rule by signing a 32-33 y/o UFA whose play rapidly deteriorates, resulting in millions of dead cap space across the league or...

B. The market for UFAs past 32ish is going to fall off a major, major cliff. And with contracts capped at 5-8 years there are going to be more players than ever that need to renegotiate in their mid-late 30s.

HatTrick Swayze is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 05:55 PM
  #92
Vipers31
Moderator
Advanced Stagnostic
 
Vipers31's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Bergisch Gladbach
Country: Germany
Posts: 11,005
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGY View Post
The Rangers made a miscalculation (and that's the entire brass because there is no way Sather had secret meetings with Redden's agent). No one is saying Redden shouldn't get paid (at least they shouldn't be), they are saying he deserves to be playing elsewhere and since no one wants to trade for Redden, that place is the AHL.
To cut things a little short - I hope you don't mind - all I was actually saying is the part I bolded from your last paragraph. I wasn't referring to a guaranteed roster spot (when I mention the "Rangers organisation", that certainly included all of their affiliates), but the post I quoted stated he was not holding up his part of the deal, which necessarily would result in him not deserving to be paid.

Vipers31 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 05:57 PM
  #93
RGY
(Jagr68NYR94Leetch)
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Long Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 8,011
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vipers31 View Post
To cut things a little short - I hope you don't mind - all I was actually saying is the part I bolded from your last paragraph. I wasn't referring to a guaranteed roster spot, but the post I quoted stated he was not holding up his part of the deal, which necessarily would result in him not deserving to be paid.
If that's the case then I apologize because I read the quote of the poster you were quoting as stating he did not deserve a roster spot; and then you were responding to that. I'll go back and read through again, but I did not realize he was referring to being paid.

RGY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 05:58 PM
  #94
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,745
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGY View Post
How? Do tell BRB, I'd love to hear how it makes you "cringe" because I spoke the truth. I responded to what he was stating in response to another poster's remark.

Redden does not deserve to play for the rangers. Plain and simple. He does not deserve a roster spot.
His entire point is that this is an agreement between the organization and Redden. The notion that this is all on Redden and no penalty should fall on the Rangers, who gave them that stupid contract to begin with, is cringe worthy. Redden was clearly declining when that deal was handed over by Sather. Who is the Ranger's front office or you to define what level of play Redden should meet for the next 6 years just because he signed a piece of paper? Its not like Redden mailed it in. The Rangers were stupid to sign a player clearly on the decline.

Bleed Ranger Blue is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 06:02 PM
  #95
Vipers31
Moderator
Advanced Stagnostic
 
Vipers31's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Bergisch Gladbach
Country: Germany
Posts: 11,005
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGY View Post
If that's the case then I apologize because I read the quote of the poster you were quoting as stating he did not deserve a roster spot; and then you were responding to that. I'll go back and read through again, but I did not realize he was referring to being paid.
Oh, no worries. And it wasn't verbatim about "being paid", but he referred to the contract as a "mutual agreement" and Redden not holding his end. When one side doesn't honor his end of a contract, there's no claim for the other party's obligation, so in effect, the Rangers wouldn't have to pay him. With that line of thinking and several agreements from others, I just thought it was important to point out what his end of that mutual agreement is, and that the Rangers wouldn't for a second dream of questioning that he's always held it.

Vipers31 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 06:04 PM
  #96
ck20
Registered User
 
ck20's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: NY
Posts: 1,126
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
Why should teams be forced to keep non-NHL talent on their rosters and cap?
Why should your boss be forced to keep you if they suddenly feel you're not useful to the business?

ck20 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 06:05 PM
  #97
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,745
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vipers31 View Post
Oh, no worries. And it wasn't verbatim about "being paid", but he referred to the contract as a "mutual agreement" and Redden not holding his end. When one side doesn't honor his end of a contract, there's no claim for the other party's obligation, so in effect, the Rangers wouldn't have to pay him. With that line of thinking and several agreements from others, I just thought it was important to point out what his end of that mutual agreement is, and that the Rangers wouldn't for a second dream of questioning that he's always held it.
Spot on. Redden heading to the minors is the Rangers admitting they made a huge mistake signing him.

Now, somebody needs to explain where the Rangers have earned the right to bury their mistakes like that?

Bleed Ranger Blue is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 06:06 PM
  #98
ImIdaho
Choo-Choo-Choose me!
 
ImIdaho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 4,151
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
His entire point is that this is an agreement between the organization and Redden. The notion that this is all on Redden and no penalty should fall on the Rangers, who gave them that stupid contract to begin with, is cringe worthy. Redden was clearly declining when that deal was handed over by Sather. Who is the Ranger's front office or you to define what level of play Redden should meet for the next 6 years just because he signed a piece of paper? Its not like Redden mailed it in. The Rangers were stupid to sign a player clearly on the decline.
Redden wasn't the first and he won't be the last player do get such a paycheck and under perform. Same holds true for other sports as well.

Redden should also get some blame because he could have done anything to void his contract, asked diligently to play for another league, and he didn't. Four years that he was complacent and didn't argue that he was playing for the AHL, and we know why.

That the Rangers should be at 100% fault for a player who doesn't care where his career stands today I find troubling.

ImIdaho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 06:08 PM
  #99
HatTrick Swayze
Tomato Potato
 
HatTrick Swayze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 9,248
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
Spot on. Redden heading to the minors is the Rangers admitting they made a huge mistake signing him.

Now, somebody needs to explain where the Rangers have earned the right to bury their mistakes like that?
Where have they not earned the right? There was (is) no rule against it. They are still honoring the contract and paying him. He wasn't good enough to play in NY, so they sent him to Hartford.

HatTrick Swayze is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 06:16 PM
  #100
Vipers31
Moderator
Advanced Stagnostic
 
Vipers31's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Bergisch Gladbach
Country: Germany
Posts: 11,005
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by htk30 View Post
Why should your boss be forced to keep you if they suddenly feel you're not useful to the business?
I would actually defend Jonathan on that (although I'm sure it wouldn't be required). It's not really a comparable situation to that extent. It was always a possibility for Redden to get moved to one of the Rangers' affiliates, as that's part of his contract. So he did agree to that, and there's no obligation for the Rangers to play him on their NHL team - and this part in return is unquestioned by Redden.

Obviously, in effect this rule would likely move Redden back on the Rangers roster, from all I know. But while it's called the "Redden" rule here, it's not really a rule designed for the Redden scenario only. It doesn't intend to guarantee players roster spots. If a player is actually and actively detrimental to a team's success, they can find a way to absorb the cap hit and play the better players. But it installs an instrument to keep GMs more accountable, which I feel is a tool that would be welcomed on many markets, looking beyond the NHL, and maybe even beyond sports.

I'm not saying this refers to Redden, as I simply don't know enough about his level of play these days, but if there's a player that's clearly NHL caliber, but has been awarded with an outrageous contract by a club that could easily afford it without having to think twice, that guy would be forced to the AHL without any wrong on his side. Asking front offices working with blank cheques to not just gamble away with these contracts knowing that they can safely be storaged in the AHL if things fall through seems to be a rather universally agreeable idea to me.

Vipers31 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 09:46 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.