HFBoards

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

Proposed "Redden" rule

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-18-2012, 11:02 AM
  #126
eco's bones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Elmira NY
Country: United States
Posts: 12,272
vCash: 500
Really I don't get what the hangup is about Redden being buried in the minors. He's getting paid--and he is no longer an NHL quality player. He's a lucky man as far as I'm concerned. To me it's just a big so what.

eco's bones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-18-2012, 11:14 AM
  #127
CM PUNK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,268
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eco's bones View Post
Really I don't get what the hangup is about Redden being buried in the minors. He's getting paid--and he is no longer an NHL quality player. He's a lucky man as far as I'm concerned. To me it's just a big so what.
the big deal is he will count against the rangers cap as dead space

CM PUNK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-18-2012, 01:46 PM
  #128
mschmidt64
Registered User
 
mschmidt64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 828
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
This entire post should be entitled "What I think a rich team like the Rangers should be able to do"
So then increase revenue sharing a bit and teach the other owners how to get creative in terms of generating income. Hire Jerry Jones to teach a class or something.

Don't expect me to feel sorry because some teams have more money than others. That's the way of the world and there's nothing wrong with it.

Your entire argument against it boils down to "The rich teams can take more risks."

Ultimately, that's not a tremendous advantage. Because if all those risks pan out for them, well, soon enough they will be over the cap, having to pay all those talented players. Then they'll have to let them go, then they can be scooped up by other teams.

In a supply and demand system where there is a cap in place, the big teams can't monopolize all the talent. It's impossible because the best players are going to go where they can get the most money, and any one team is prevented from handing out too many superstar deals.

So if a rich team is taking more risks, that means they are busting on those risks. If they were hitting on all the risks, they'd run out of cap room to keep signing risky contracts. Because they can still only afford to keep the same amount of talent, in dollars, on their roster as a poor team. So why should I feel bad for a poor team that the Rangers sign ten Bobby Holiks? It's not getting the Rangers anywhere by having bad FA signings.

It's a very minimal edge we're talking about, and one I am not concerned about in the slightest.

Your counter proposal would force a team to keep Wade Redden on the ice instead of maybe bringing up a Dylan McIlrath, simply because there's no way to get rid of Redden.

That is beyond stupid.

Let me say that again.... it is BEYOND STUPID.

The NHL needs to get the best players on the ice to create the best possible product. That is how the league will grow. The NHL can grow it's brand by introducing exciting new young players and having a fast, energetic style of hockey to market to consumers. It does not acomplish that goal by forcing the Rangers to keep Wade Redden on the ice, or the Canadiens to keep a Scott Gomez getting regular minutes. It cannot accomplish that goal of promoting the best possible on-ice product by forcing teams to employ bad players because of some punitive notion that they should have to be stuck with him.

Teams need to be able to get rid of bad players somehow. It's what is best for the sport, and the NFL's model of doing things proves it.

So I frankly don't care at all that the rich teams have a cash advantage. That's what the salary cap is there to prevent abuse of.


Last edited by mschmidt64: 10-18-2012 at 01:57 PM.
mschmidt64 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-18-2012, 02:15 PM
  #129
Kovalev27
BEST IN THE WORLD
 
Kovalev27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 961
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eco's bones View Post
Really I don't get what the hangup is about Redden being buried in the minors. He's getting paid--and he is no longer an NHL quality player. He's a lucky man as far as I'm concerned. To me it's just a big so what.
agreed

its not like he's a star player and the rangers are holding him back. he's an ahler at best.

in any other sport his contract would be terminated.

and if he were signed to 1mil a year and waived no one would care. its just the amount he's making and that really shouldn't factor in.

rangers have made him captain and have treated him well all things considered. he's lucky

Kovalev27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-18-2012, 02:29 PM
  #130
mschmidt64
Registered User
 
mschmidt64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 828
vCash: 500
Redden is getting 6.5 million a year to play hockey, and what's more, he's not even generating any revenue for the team that signed him because he's playing in the AHL, which I doubt is very profitable for any major league team.

If he'd like to get out of that situation, I think he should be able to walk away from his contract and go sign with another NHL team, and then the Rangers would be off the hook. But I'm not sure the CBA allows Redden to negotiate his release.

It should. There should be a way out.

The proposal I made of having to pay players their contracts, minus whatever they get in their next contract, but then not counting any of it against the salary cap, that is the best solution for all sides.

If a cheap NHL team doesn't want to pay a player that's not on it's roster, well, it can just keep him then.

mschmidt64 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-18-2012, 02:34 PM
  #131
HatTrick Swayze
Tomato Potato
 
HatTrick Swayze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 9,241
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
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 Rangers didnt earn this right by being some sort of model franchise. They backed into it by playing in a city with 8M people.
Honest question - why should it matter how the Rangers became one of the league's biggest earners? At the end of the day, they are, period. At the end of the day, the amount of visibility they bring to the sport and the amount of money they have and will increasingly contribute in revenue sharing benefits all teams.

With that luxury comes the ability to pay for world class travel accommodations, practice facilities, medical treatments, and scouting & development programs. Those are all significant advantages the Rangers have over smaller market teams. Should they be capped and regulated based on what the worst-off teams can afford?

If we are talking strictly about competitive balance on the ice, what really matters is the amount of cap dollars teams can spend in their NHL lineups. And in that instance, the rules are the same for all.

__________________
"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
10-18-2012, 02:37 PM
  #132
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,722
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mschmidt64 View Post
So then increase revenue sharing a bit and teach the other owners how to get creative in terms of generating income. Hire Jerry Jones to teach a class or something.
.....

Your counter proposal would force a team to keep Wade Redden on the ice instead of maybe bringing up a Dylan McIlrath, simply because there's no way to get rid of Redden.

That is beyond stupid.

Let me say that again.... it is BEYOND STUPID.
Stupider than hiring Jerry Jones to teach NHL owners a class on "Creative Income Generating?"

If you've been reading my posts, you would see that keeping Wade Redden on NHL ice is definitely not my counter proposal to this whole thing.

My entire point is that teams that are dumb enough to sign a Wade Redden to 6 years in the first place should incur some sort of cap penalty for their troubles if they decide to dump him. Having the wildcard of "Well, we can dump him in the minors if things dont work out" is a tool that few teams possess. And, for the ones that can do it, it invites dumb free agent decisions (like Redden).

I cant help but think people are up in arms about this because they're scared its going to retroactively hurt the Rangers - even though its been reported that the rule would be applied for all contracts GOING FORWARD. That makes me fine with it. Primarily because it will make the Rangers think twice before ever making such a stupid move again.

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-18-2012, 02:41 PM
  #133
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,722
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HatTrick Swayze View Post
Honest question - why should it matter how the Rangers became one of the league's biggest earners? At the end of the day, they are, period. At the end of the day, the amount of visibility they bring to the sport and the amount of money they have and will increasingly contribute in revenue sharing benefits all teams.

With that luxury comes the ability to pay for world class travel accommodations, practice facilities, medical treatments, and scouting & development programs. Those are all significant advantages the Rangers have over smaller market teams. Should they be capped and regulated based on what the worst-off teams can afford?

If we are talking strictly about competitive balance on the ice, what really matters is the amount of cap dollars teams can spend in their NHL lineups. And in that instance, the rules are the same for all.
I am talking about the on-ice product. The rest is apples and oranges.

Since the NHL became a cap leagued 7 years ago, I think its silly that fortunate teams like the Rangers can play roulette with their free agent contracts. It doesnt benefit anyone, including the Rangers.

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-18-2012, 02:52 PM
  #134
mschmidt64
Registered User
 
mschmidt64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 828
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
Stupider than hiring Jerry Jones to teach NHL owners a class on "Creative Income Generating?"
Well, I was being facetious, but the man knows only how to make money and not at all how to run a successful on-the-field team.

Quote:
If you've been reading my posts, you would see that keeping Wade Redden on NHL ice is definitely not my counter proposal to this whole thing.

My entire point is that teams that are dumb enough to sign a Wade Redden to 6 years in the first place should incur some sort of cap penalty for their troubles if they decide to dump him.
Incurring a cap penalty to dump him could prevent him from being dumped. It depends on what kind of penalty you are talking about.

The NFL's system of accelerating the signing bonus works wonderfully. But in the NHL the contracts are completely guaranteed, so I don't know how you can arrive at a number to penalize. Are we gonna say there is a 10% cap penalty for all dumped players and go with that?

It could work, but then it's really the same advantage to the rich teams. They can still afford to take the risks. It's the same in the NFL, the rich teams can afford big signing bonuses.

In any case, it has to be structured to allow a team to get out from those deals.

Quote:
And, for the ones that can do it, it invites dumb free agent decisions (like Redden).
I think you are overstating how much it invites it. How many times have we seen an NHL team dump a 6.5 million contract into the minors?

It's more likely that they eat it and keep him in the majors. But I'm saying that's the problem. There should be a way out.

Quote:
I cant help but think people are up in arms about this because they're scared its going to retroactively hurt the Rangers - even though its been reported that the rule would be applied for all contracts GOING FORWARD. That makes me fine with it. Primarily because it will make the Rangers think twice before ever making such a stupid move again.
It's not just hockey, look at basketball. I cannot stand that system where a team gets stuck with an underperforming player and then can't get rid of him. It's gotta find a trade partner to take on the bad contract, that's ridiculous IMO.

I understand it's not fair to the player to not get his money, but that's why I'm saying the contract should be allowed to be bought out. What I don't understand is why, since the player is no longer on the team, the fully guaranteed contract has to stay on the cap.

The cap relief should be available if the player is gone. Like I said, that promotes getting in new and better players, which is just good for the sport.

The player still gets his money, so he hasn't been wronged either. I don't see the downside.

mschmidt64 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-19-2012, 09:13 AM
  #135
AceintheSpace*
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 536
vCash: 500
Why the hell should we be punished for something thats entirely legal in the owners' own CBA?

Theres gotta be an amnesty buyout coming in the new CBA. I cant imagine most teams would lobby for it since most dont really need one but still.

We shouldnt be punished for something legal in the old CBA. Thats ****ing absurd.

AceintheSpace* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-19-2012, 01:06 PM
  #136
ChipAyten
NYR-LFC-NYG-NYY
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: New York City
Country: England
Posts: 3,831
vCash: 500
This is just a case of the haves vs the have-nots in reality. I am opposed to the notion of a salary cap. It's like telling a school district in an affluent neighborhood to limit it's spending to keep the playing field level between the Long Island & East NY kids. You shouldn't depreciate the quality of your product because some people can't keep up.

With that said, I don't believe you can have a system where each club is married to each other without a cap. Look at baseball, you get bottom feeder clubs that are perennially at the bottom with no reason to spend and improve. They just leech money because they're all franchises of the same mother company, so if one team goes bankrupt it hurts the 30ish other clubs. In the European model every club is on their own and the tiers sort themselves out in terms of quality. Perhaps it's because it's what I'm used to but I think it's an approach North American hockey should adopt.

ChipAyten is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-20-2012, 11:43 AM
  #137
Kershaw
 
Kershaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Country:
Posts: 25,519
vCash: 50
We only have Redden for one more year, not worried too much about him.

Really worried on how Richards does in 8 more years.

Kershaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-20-2012, 11:53 AM
  #138
Barnaby
Registered User
 
Barnaby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Port Jefferson, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 4,428
vCash: 500
If anything... you have to grandfather it in. The idea was legal in the past CBA, just like these ridiculously long retirement contracts. I'm much less concerned about one more year of Redden than I would be of some of these monster retirement deals going forward.

Also, the Rangers played by the rules. They subjected him to waivers. They are paying his FULL salary. They have paid the price for their mistake. Could the Islanders afford to make that mistake? No. The Rangers can. If that's the biggest advantage they have in a frame work where large amounts of their income is subject to revenue sharing then I find it hard to get too broken up about it.

Barnaby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-20-2012, 03:36 PM
  #139
Mr Atoz*
I hid the Atavachron
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: United States
Posts: 2,915
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vitto79 View Post
well it should help stop stupid contracts. You would think anyway

The Redden debacle is an exception. Stupid contracts are in the eye of the beholder.

Mr Atoz* 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 07:44 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.