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, 06:35 PM
  #101
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,931
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HatTrick Swayze View Post
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.
Again, I agree the Rangers used the rules to their advantage as they are currently constructed and didnt break any rules.

My point it is it makes sense to put forth a rule that would limit this competitive advantage for teams that are fortunate enough to use what I would consider a loophole at this point.

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 06:57 PM
  #102
HatTrick Swayze
Tomato Potato
 
HatTrick Swayze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 9,472
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
Again, I agree the Rangers used the rules to their advantage as they are currently constructed and didnt break any rules.

My point it is it makes sense to put forth a rule that would limit this competitive advantage for teams that are fortunate enough to use what I would consider a loophole at this point.
I see your point. I guess I would still disagree that it is a loophole. The Rangers NHL salary is still within the cap range. The amount of cap dollars they ice in each NHL contest is policed under the same rules as everyone else.

In my opinion, the fact that Redden is not an NHL level player at this point means that the Rangers should be able to assign him as they see fit. If Redden's AHL salary is a loophole, because it puts other teams at a competitive disadvantage, is the Rangers ability to spend millions more than other teams on scouting and development an unjust practice? What about their new state of the art practice facility, should those investments be capped and regulated based on what the worst-off teams can afford?

Personally, I think that's part of the benefit of being a high-earning franchise. At the end of the day, every team has the same spending limit for the on-ice NHL product.

__________________
"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, 07:00 PM
  #103
BlueshirtBlitz
Rich Nash
 
BlueshirtBlitz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: New York
Posts: 18,873
vCash: 500
Redden's getting paid every single dollar he is owed. The Rangers don't owe him anything else. There's literally nothing in the situation that can be considered circumvention. Every other market can do it too.

BlueshirtBlitz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 07:17 PM
  #104
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,931
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueshirtBlitz View Post
Every other market can do it too.
In theory yes, in reality - no.

Other than the advantage of being a team in NYC, the Rangers have done nothing to earn the financial advantage to use this technique.

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 07:49 PM
  #105
RGY
(Jagr68NYR94Leetch)
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Long Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 8,255
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HatTrick Swayze View Post
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.
Very good point and what I'm trying to get at. I never stated the rangers did not make a mistake. Everyone knows they did. But what's different from burying a guy in the minors as opposed to trading him to another NHL club? It happens all the time. You trade guys that did not pan out. Redden still gets to play hockey AND paid to do it. We got lucky with the Gomez trade, but did you really enjoy watching him underperform so severely? Drury too? I mean c'mon don't be so righteous about this.

RGY is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 07:56 PM
  #106
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,931
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGY View Post
Very good point and what I'm trying to get at. I never stated the rangers did not make a mistake. Everyone knows they did. But what's different from burying a guy in the minors as opposed to trading him to another NHL club? It happens all the time. You trade guys that did not pan out. Redden still gets to play hockey AND paid to do it. We got lucky with the Gomez trade, but did you really enjoy watching him underperform so severely? Drury too? I mean c'mon don't be so righteous about this.
Righteous?

My advice to you is to not be so hypocritical and not look at the situation only through Ranger-colored glasses.

Teams that dont play in huge markets have the financial opportunity to procure these deals once in a while - and if it doesnt work, they are completely screwed.

Teams like the Rangers can do it every season, and if it doesnt work out, screw it, they can throw the guy in the minors and try it again....all because they operate in the NYC market. How is that fair?

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 08:06 PM
  #107
RGY
(Jagr68NYR94Leetch)
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Long Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 8,255
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
Righteous?

My advice to you is to not be so hypocritical and not look at the situation only through Ranger-colored glasses.

Teams that dont play in huge markets have the financial opportunity to procure these deals once in a while - and if it doesnt work, they are completely screwed.

Teams like the Rangers can do it every season, and if it doesnt work out, screw it, they can throw the guy in the minors and try it again....all because they operate in the NYC market. How is that fair?
I'm being hypocritical because I'm looking at this through ranger-colored glasses? Oh no no. I'm looking at this from a business standpoint. You pay someone to perform a job which comes with expectations. If they do not perform, you make a change. In society, normally, a man or woman gets terminated and/or fired. In hockey, you get to keep your job. Or if your Drury, you get bought out, however, you still get a hefty payday. I should feel bad for redden? He signed a contract with an organization and did not perform his duties properly. The rangers can't just fire him. They could buy him out but even that would have been not worth paying. So they decide to let him continue to get paid, however, the DEMOTE him.

I really don't care what the bigger market teams can pay a player. Because the more money they give him, the more of a risk they are taking with it not working out. Smaller market teams take on smaller risks. They don't have to come across such issues with players, ever really. And even so, that smaller market team that splurged that one time and bought up a big ticket free agent, would have had the same flexibility. And with the cap now, it is not as if you can just outbid every team in free agency and stack your entire roster. It has to be managed better. You make it seem like Redden isn't getting paid. That's what it sounds like. But he is. And the rangers did not break any rules. They did not go over the cap when they signed redden. They sent redden down so they can use the cap space to pay a person who will be worth that money.

I'll even meet you to some degree on the penalization. You have to distribute 10% of the demoted contract per year to revenue sharing. This way they don;t get away with what they're doing scott free.

RGY is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 08:12 PM
  #108
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,931
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGY View Post
I'm being hypocritical because I'm looking at this through ranger-colored glasses? Oh no no. I'm looking at this from a business standpoint. You pay someone to perform a job which comes with expectations. If they do not perform, you make a change. In society, normally, a man or woman gets terminated and/or fired. In hockey, you get to keep your job. Or if your Drury, you get bought out, however, you still get a hefty payday. I should feel bad for redden? He signed a contract with an organization and did not perform his duties properly. The rangers can't just fire him. They could buy him out but even that would have been not worth paying. So they decide to let him continue to get paid, however, the DEMOTE him.

I really don't care what the bigger market teams can pay a player. Because the more money they give him, the more of a risk they are taking with it not working out. Smaller market teams take on smaller risks. They don't have to come across such issues with players, ever really. And even so, that smaller market team that splurged that one time and bought up a big ticket free agent, would have had the same flexibility. And with the cap now, it is not as if you can just outbid every team in free agency and stack your entire roster. It has to be managed better. You make it seem like Redden isn't getting paid. That's what it sounds like. But he is. And the rangers did not break any rules. They did not go over the cap when they signed redden. They sent redden down so they can use the cap space to pay a person who will be worth that money.

I'll even meet you to some degree on the penalization. You have to distribute 10% of the demoted contract per year to revenue sharing. This way they don;t get away with what they're doing scott free.
This has nothing to do with Redden in particular, or paying him, or anything like that.

You finally talked yourself into the real issue down at the bottom...that bigger market teams should get skinned in some way from a cap perspective so that this doesnt continue to be a competitive advantage.

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 09:36 PM
  #109
ChrisKreider20
Oh Hai Guise
 
ChrisKreider20's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,324
vCash: 500
This entire situation is a massive contradiction.
First the owners say they want to maximize returns, so they implement revenue sharing. I don't care how much you grow sales, you need to grow profit, and having a bunch of teams losing money there does not solve this. To combat these cities that can't support a hockey team, they force the owners in cities that can support a hockey to subsidize the ones that can't.

Then to add insult to injury, you tell the owners how they can spend their own cash, and force the ones who can't afford it to spend up to a certain threshold. It's just dumb - if you're going to make changes that affect the performance of teams, you grandfather them in.

If you really want to maximize profitability, put in all the checks and balances that they're proposing, but cut revenue sharing and drop the crappy teams. Otherwise, shut your mouth.

This isn't the type of situation where support should be needed. There are good investments and bad investments. This isn't even an issue of socialism - socialism involves people and providing for people's basic needs. By allowing cities that can't support teams to have them, you are not only empire building, but you are hurting the business environment. Even if the league is smaller and more Canadian, you'll still have the big & moderate American markets, and guess what? The game will be more competitive due to both the propensity to spend and higher quality of players. This would allow for a greater cap because teams would bring in more profit.

The NHL annoys me so much.

ChrisKreider20 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 10:53 PM
  #110
Brooklyn Ranger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn, of course
Posts: 7,885
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 agree--it's great to be able to use a loop-hole, but it amazes me that people are complaining because the loop-hole has been/will be closed.

I also think everyone has overlooked one fact: Redden's salary will count against the cap (if the new CBA has this clause and I think it will) not because he's in the minors but because he's guaranteed to receive his full NHL salary regardless of where he plays. If his contract had been written as a two-way contract, limiting his AHL salary under $105,000, then his salary won't count against the cap in the new CBA.

Changing this rule won't hurt marginal NHL players, as long as they agree to a two way contract (please remember that for waiver purposes it's the length of time since the first professional contract and the number of games played in the NHL). Teams, however, will be less likely to sign a marginal player (Bickel, etc.) to a one-way contract if waiving them results in a continuing cap hit for the life of their contract. Marginal players with 3-5 years of professional experience are going to have to ask themselves if the dream of playing in the NHL is worth a much lower salary if they end up in the AHL.

Brooklyn Ranger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 11:11 PM
  #111
satrabyk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,869
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
Why should teams be forced to keep non-NHL talent on their rosters and cap?
BEcause they should have been smarter to not sign these non-NHL talents to such crazy contracts. Here owners are in defecit and were paying an AHLer 7 million and its not against the cap, thats crazy. I agree completely with this rule and GMs will think twice before they go and spend money on guys and maybe do there Homework, ya sather that means not watching Drury score 1 goal to tie it up and sign him to a contract..


Last edited by satrabyk: 10-17-2012 at 11:17 PM.
satrabyk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 11:12 PM
  #112
mschmidt64
Registered User
 
mschmidt64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 830
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?
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...9&postcount=44

mschmidt64 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 11:16 PM
  #113
satrabyk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,869
vCash: 500
I like most of the leagues implemented rules for exp the crazy long term contracts and the front and back loaded contracts, but the league has to look in the mirror ask why we are forcing hockey were it is not profiting. Does it benefit the game as a whole? Does it increase interest in America as a whole to than increase profits in other areas like televesion. I dont think so, i think team like Philly, Pit, Nyr can generate televesion interests and sell the game. So why do we need to cling to non-profiting teams. Saying that rule changes still should be imlemented because there are teams that are not losing, but are not making a great deal, and this is were it is important.

satrabyk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 11:18 PM
  #114
mschmidt64
Registered User
 
mschmidt64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 830
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
Again, I agree the Rangers used the rules to their advantage as they are currently constructed and didnt break any rules.

My point it is it makes sense to put forth a rule that would limit this competitive advantage for teams that are fortunate enough to use what I would consider a loophole at this point.
Disagree completely. Teams shouldn't have to be stuck with bad contracts and players who can no longer play at a high level.

It's bad policy for the league to promote a standard where players who are actually not among the best in the world anymore are still forced onto the ice because of a bad financial decision. It decreases the quality of the competition for no good reason other than attempting to punish the team for handing out the bad contract.

If you say it's not fair to the player that the team can simply dump him and not pay the contract that both parties agreed to, well, then make it so he still gets his money.

But you have to allow teams to clear off bad players and bring up the good ones. That is the entire essense of competition and fielding the best possible team.

That's what the AHL stashing allows teams to do.

I think an even better idea would be to allow a team to buy-out the player contract for no salary cap hit. That way they can cut the player loose, and he can go play wherever he wants, but he still gets the money from the contract he signed.

The team is punished because they still have to pay the contract even though the player is gone, but the quality of the on-ice product is preserved by freeing up the cap space for that team to go sign someone else (or extend a player).

And you can set it up so that if the player does sign elsewhere, whatever he gets on the new contract is deducted from what the old team owes him.

There's no reason not to do something like that. No reason at all.

mschmidt64 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-18-2012, 12:04 AM
  #115
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 18,572
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SupersonicMonkey View Post
Sorry but no.

This sounds like unabashed pro-player non sense.

You still have to EARN your place on a roster REGARDLESS of your contract.

Plain amd simple.

What you are suggesting is eliminating any competition for roster positions.
Who gave him a 1-way deal? $6m NHL, $105K minors if you don't want the risk. Lots of teams are going to be shafted over the next 10 years. Almost all of them did something stupid.

I don't think Redden is going to be the last guy that this affects. If you think Rangers have problems with a few years of Redden - Bryz and his 10 years might be unescapable. If Malhotra plays but cut next year because his eye is holding him back at NHL level, the Canucks still have to wear the $2.5m.

Going to be interesting times ahead. (You might get away with Redden since he's in the AHL before this CBA started, not enough fine print out yet, let alone usual exemptions).


Last edited by me2: 10-18-2012 at 12:12 AM.
me2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-18-2012, 12:13 AM
  #116
Kershaw
 
Kershaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Country:
Posts: 25,519
vCash: 500
Fully expect an amnesty clause as well if this ruling does go down. Amnesty Redden and voila, what's the problem?

Kershaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-18-2012, 01:32 AM
  #117
Brooklyn Ranger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn, of course
Posts: 7,885
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by me2 View Post
Who gave him a 1-way deal? $6m NHL, $105K minors if you don't want the risk. Lots of teams are going to be shafted over the next 10 years. Almost all of them did something stupid.

I don't think Redden is going to be the last guy that this affects. If you think Rangers have problems with a few years of Redden - Bryz and his 10 years might be unescapable. If Malhotra plays but cut next year because his eye is holding him back at NHL level, the Canucks still have to wear the $2.5m.

Going to be interesting times ahead. (You might get away with Redden since he's in the AHL before this CBA started, not enough fine print out yet, let alone usual exemptions).
Redden is currently on the NHL roster--the only way (if this particular proposal makes it into the new CBA as is) Redden's contract is not going to count is if there is an amnesty buyout that allows the Rangers to cut ties with him altogether or the proposal to allow teams to trade a player and continue to pay part of his salary (although I doubt that any team would take a chance on him for anything more than a $1 million cap hit which is more than would be allowed) also makes it into the CBA.

Honestly, the have-nots in the league are trying very hard to close this loop-hole and if they have their way, at least part Redden's salary will be counting against the Rangers' cap (if and) when the season starts.

Brooklyn Ranger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-18-2012, 06:21 AM
  #118
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,865
vCash: 500
If the rules change,give teams an opportunity to shed a bad contract or two. The NHL will have expanded revenue sharing. The Rangers will be kicking more money into the pool. Those teams want the Rangers money. The owners proposal(its just a proposal and not the actual CBA)doesn't address ordinary course buyouts either. The NHL and PA did discuss buyouts in their summer negotiating sessions and committees. MLB is the only sport which doesn't have buyouts. They have no cap. The NFL contracts are not guaranteed. The NBA has a stretch provision in their CBA. Similar to the NHL buyout system. So the NHL needs some system of giving teams an opportunity to shed contracts. The NHL proposal doesn't address that topic. Everything is negotiable.

The $105,000 number puts a cap on minor league salaries. A veteran AHL player won't be able to get $300,000 AHL because his NHL salary will count against the cap. That's not going to work. A cap within the cap. Fehr won't go for that.

RangerBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-18-2012, 08:04 AM
  #119
SupersonicMonkey*
DROP THE PUCK
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 15,193
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HatTrick Swayze View Post
I see your point. I guess I would still disagree that it is a loophole. The Rangers NHL salary is still within the cap range. The amount of cap dollars they ice in each NHL contest is policed under the same rules as everyone else.

In my opinion, the fact that Redden is not an NHL level player at this point means that the Rangers should be able to assign him as they see fit. If Redden's AHL salary is a loophole, because it puts other teams at a competitive disadvantage, is the Rangers ability to spend millions more than other teams on scouting and development an unjust practice? What about their new state of the art practice facility, should those investments be capped and regulated based on what the worst-off teams can afford?

Personally, I think that's part of the benefit of being a high-earning franchise. At the end of the day, every team has the same spending limit for the on-ice NHL product.
Exactly.

And the Rangers and big market clubs are not the only clubs throwing money at players. Something some people refuse to acknowledge becaue it doesn't suit their agenda. Minnesota threw 100 million each at Parise and Suter. Nashville matched the 100 million offer sheet for Weber. Are Minnisota and Nashville big market clubs?

The Rangers don't play with any advantage. The big market clubs will have to hand out more in revenue sharing. So Minnesota and Nashville can spend however they want AND get charity from big market clubs? Who has the advantage? The big market clubs are being castrated.

Players who sign contracts, and can not play at a level to stay in the league, don't deserve to stay in the league. Plain and simple. The money is guaranteed. THATS the team's punishment. Getting sent down, thats the player's punishment. NO roster position should be guaranteed. The players have enough with guaranteed money. Continue to earn your right to stay in the league.

Players in the AHL should NOT, in any way shape or form, count against any NHL team's cap. Thats preposterous.

Furthermore, not every player in the AHL will ever play in the NHL. Not every player that is there, is because their affiliated NHL organization has the intent to promote them. A lot of those players are simply AHL veterans. Earning money to support their families. WHY should those contracts above 105k count against an NHL salary cap? Thats sheer lunacy.

Salary cap for the NHL. SEPARATE salary cap for the AHL.

THATS how it should work. And THAT will determine who or what contracts NHL clubs can stick in the AHL.

But the NHL and AHL caps should NOT be one and the same. Thats beyond idiotic.

The league really wants to castrate teams that are able to financially support themselves.

Draft better. Put a quality product on your ice. Fill your arena with fans who give two *****. Instill a culture of "we give a ****". And maybe you'll be able to support yourself.

This goes back to the REAL core issue. The league is too big. There are too many incompetent clubs. In markets where not enough people care. The league doesn't play to its strengths. It plays to its weaknesses.

SupersonicMonkey* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-18-2012, 08:20 AM
  #120
NYR Viper
Moderator
 
NYR Viper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 28,541
vCash: 500
I understand the premise of the rule and I can support it somewhat, but IMO, there should be a penalty that the team should be a certain amount that they can go over due to these contracts. For example:

Say the Cap is 60 million.

10% (similar to the summer cap) can be exceeded by a contract still owed to a player no longer playing in the NHL (AHL or any other league). The team will have to pay the full contract + 50% (or some percentage agreed upon) of the cap number (Not actual salary owed which will significantly hurt these backloaded contract holders) on top of their normal amount to the revenue sharing.

After a team surpasses that 10% they will count on the cap as well as having to pay that extra percentage back to revenue sharing.

IMO if teams want to use that loophole they should have to pay more to revenue sharing because they have the money to do so. Helps the smaller market teams make more money and lets the bigger markets spend a little bit more (but not on their NHL roster).

NYR Viper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-18-2012, 08:46 AM
  #121
CM PUNK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,290
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy View Post
The $105,000 number puts a cap on minor league salaries. A veteran AHL player won't be able to get $300,000 AHL because his NHL salary will count against the cap. That's not going to work. A cap within the cap. Fehr won't go for that.
agreed...the point of the rule is to avoid teams burying wade reddens in the ahl, not to prevent them from keeping kris newburys in the ahl. seems to me that the easy solution is to raise that $$ threshold. make it $1 mil instead of $105k and then it won't impact any legit ahlers

CM PUNK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-18-2012, 09:18 AM
  #122
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,931
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mschmidt64 View Post
Disagree completely. Teams shouldn't have to be stuck with bad contracts and players who can no longer play at a high level.

It's bad policy for the league to promote a standard where players who are actually not among the best in the world anymore are still forced onto the ice because of a bad financial decision. It decreases the quality of the competition for no good reason other than attempting to punish the team for handing out the bad contract.

If you say it's not fair to the player that the team can simply dump him and not pay the contract that both parties agreed to, well, then make it so he still gets his money.

But you have to allow teams to clear off bad players and bring up the good ones. That is the entire essense of competition and fielding the best possible team.

That's what the AHL stashing allows teams to do.

I think an even better idea would be to allow a team to buy-out the player contract for no salary cap hit. That way they can cut the player loose, and he can go play wherever he wants, but he still gets the money from the contract he signed.

The team is punished because they still have to pay the contract even though the player is gone, but the quality of the on-ice product is preserved by freeing up the cap space for that team to go sign someone else (or extend a player).

And you can set it up so that if the player does sign elsewhere, whatever he gets on the new contract is deducted from what the old team owes him.

There's no reason not to do something like that. No reason at all.
This entire post should be entitled "What I think a rich team like the Rangers should be able to do"

A handful of teams have the financial flexibility to sweep stupid mistakes under the rug. Financial flexibility that was created not by running the team well or putting a top notch product on the ice, but because they're fortunate to be located in New York, Toronto, etc. Take the blinders off and just try to think about this league wide. In a capped league, certain teams should not be able to sweep mistakes under the rug year after year while the majority of teams get one shot to sign a guy per decade and, if it blows up in their face, they're screwed.

Im actually thrilled the Rangers will need to put some skin in the game when it comes to their free agent signings. It should help prevent disasters like giving Wade Redden 6 years from ever happening again.


Last edited by Bleed Ranger Blue: 10-18-2012 at 09:31 AM.
Bleed Ranger Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-18-2012, 09:33 AM
  #123
CM PUNK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,290
vCash: 500
Quote:
There are still some sticking points. As reported by John Shannon of Rogers Sportsnet, the proposal does have some significant spending curbs included. The biggest one is that all NHL contracts will go against the salary cap, which essentially means the day of burying mistakes in the minors are gone. In other words, a contract such as Wade Redden’s $6.5 million per year deal – which still has two more years to run – would go against the New York Rangers cap. (It would likely only apply to newly signed deals and not ones that have already been signed.)
http://www.thehockeynews.com/article...-optimism.html

CM PUNK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-18-2012, 10:34 AM
  #124
JeremyNYR
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 50
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SupersonicMonkey View Post
Exactly.

And the Rangers and big market clubs are not the only clubs throwing money at players. Something some people refuse to acknowledge becaue it doesn't suit their agenda. Minnesota threw 100 million each at Parise and Suter. Nashville matched the 100 million offer sheet for Weber. Are Minnisota and Nashville big market clubs?

The Rangers don't play with any advantage. The big market clubs will have to hand out more in revenue sharing. So Minnesota and Nashville can spend however they want AND get charity from big market clubs? Who has the advantage? The big market clubs are being castrated.

Players who sign contracts, and can not play at a level to stay in the league, don't deserve to stay in the league. Plain and simple. The money is guaranteed. THATS the team's punishment. Getting sent down, thats the player's punishment. NO roster position should be guaranteed. The players have enough with guaranteed money. Continue to earn your right to stay in the league.

Players in the AHL should NOT, in any way shape or form, count against any NHL team's cap. Thats preposterous.

Furthermore, not every player in the AHL will ever play in the NHL. Not every player that is there, is because their affiliated NHL organization has the intent to promote them. A lot of those players are simply AHL veterans. Earning money to support their families. WHY should those contracts above 105k count against an NHL salary cap? Thats sheer lunacy.

Salary cap for the NHL. SEPARATE salary cap for the AHL.

THATS how it should work. And THAT will determine who or what contracts NHL clubs can stick in the AHL.

But the NHL and AHL caps should NOT be one and the same. Thats beyond idiotic.

The league really wants to castrate teams that are able to financially support themselves.

Draft better. Put a quality product on your ice. Fill your arena with fans who give two *****. Instill a culture of "we give a ****". And maybe you'll be able to support yourself.

This goes back to the REAL core issue. The league is too big. There are too many incompetent clubs. In markets where not enough people care. The league doesn't play to its strengths. It plays to its weaknesses.
Great post! I agree with every word you say on this issue.

The power is shifting to the weaker market owners at the expense of the strong market owners (more revenue sharing and greater restrictions beyond the basic salary cap) and the players (giving a greater and greater percentage of revenue to keep a less profitable league running). I can't believe there is talk of further expansion. Continued expansion without first making existing teams healthy and profitable while standing on their own feet is a bubble that will eventually burst.

JeremyNYR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-18-2012, 10:55 AM
  #125
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,931
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SupersonicMonkey View Post
Exactly.

And the Rangers and big market clubs are not the only clubs throwing money at players. Something some people refuse to acknowledge becaue it doesn't suit their agenda. Minnesota threw 100 million each at Parise and Suter. Nashville matched the 100 million offer sheet for Weber. Are Minnisota and Nashville big market clubs?

The Rangers don't play with any advantage. The big market clubs will have to hand out more in revenue sharing. So Minnesota and Nashville can spend however they want AND get charity from big market clubs? Who has the advantage? The big market clubs are being castrated.

Players who sign contracts, and can not play at a level to stay in the league, don't deserve to stay in the league. Plain and simple. The money is guaranteed. THATS the team's punishment. Getting sent down, thats the player's punishment. NO roster position should be guaranteed. The players have enough with guaranteed money. Continue to earn your right to stay in the league.

Players in the AHL should NOT, in any way shape or form, count against any NHL team's cap. Thats preposterous.

Furthermore, not every player in the AHL will ever play in the NHL. Not every player that is there, is because their affiliated NHL organization has the intent to promote them. A lot of those players are simply AHL veterans. Earning money to support their families. WHY should those contracts above 105k count against an NHL salary cap? Thats sheer lunacy.

Salary cap for the NHL. SEPARATE salary cap for the AHL.

THATS how it should work. And THAT will determine who or what contracts NHL clubs can stick in the AHL.

But the NHL and AHL caps should NOT be one and the same. Thats beyond idiotic.

The league really wants to castrate teams that are able to financially support themselves.

Draft better. Put a quality product on your ice. Fill your arena with fans who give two *****. Instill a culture of "we give a ****". And maybe you'll be able to support yourself.

This goes back to the REAL core issue. The league is too big. There are too many incompetent clubs. In markets where not enough people care. The league doesn't play to its strengths. It plays to its weaknesses.
What a naive generalization.

You're acting like every team out there is poor because of their own doing. Theres PLENTY of teams out there that are run better than the Rangers, yet will never have their financial might.

The $ figure should be increased. But if you're throwing $1M+ dollar guys into the minors, you should certainly have to answer to it from a cap perspective.

The Rangers didnt earn this right by being some sort of model franchise. They backed into it by playing in a city with 8M people.

Bleed Ranger Blue 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 07:24 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.