It hasn't popped up much in recent talks, but I remember some of the early November meetings have some rumblings of retroactively going after backdiving deals.
If that were the case, it'd be insane not to make an exception for Kovalchuk's.
This is why I don't like the fact that Lou isn't in the room. Who the **** else is going to care about fairness to the Devils and fight that point? The rest of the league including some hypocrite owners with cap-busting contracts of their own wanted our heads on a platter as it is.
Well, the upside is that whenever they shake hands and agree that the numbers are about right... nothing is set in stone.
If I remember right... they played out the beginning of the 95 season without a full CBA written up at the time.
Should there be something about retroactive punishments agreed to, an exception could still be written in for previously punished/arbitrated contracts.
I think the NHL would feel like those teams need to be "punished" to bring back fairness. Those long term deals unjustly enrich teams in regards to the cap in the short term and carry no long term cap penalties, other teams who couldn't afford to do that carry a competitive disadvantage.
Creating a rule to properly account for those super long term, cap manipulative deal brings balance and fairness back to those deals. I believe it would be looked at as a proper correction, and not a penalty.
Except that teams wouldn't have signed deals that long if they knew there was going to be a 'correction' so it is in fact a penalty, and one given after the fact.
Except that teams wouldn't have signed deals that long if they knew there was going to be a 'correction' so it is in fact a penalty, and one given after the fact.
What's the penalty? To treat make sure all contracts are treated fairly?
Everyone knows the CBA can change how cap hits are accounted for. If salaries count in the AHL, that's a huge change for Wade Redden, but it isn't a "penalty" it's something to bring equality back.
The NHL told these teams it hates those deals, it didn't want the GMs signing them. The NHL said they would account for those type of deals in the next CBA. I don't think the GMs can be shocked that their cap manipulating contracts will be un-manipulated.
Urbom needs to work on his positional game. He's great offensively and defensively while in transition. Oddly enough, Corrente was the complete polar opposite. Very good positional game, terrible in transition. These two should have a defensive baby
Urbom needs to work on his positional game. He's great offensively and defensively while in transition. Oddly enough, Corrente was the complete polar opposite. Very good positional game, terrible in transition. These two should have a defensive baby
Lou needs to keep Ur-Bomb in Jersey, he's solid brah
Yeah but I feel like we could field a D in a few years of all home grown guys...
Too far down the road to tell. Volchenkov is on board for 3 or 4 more. By the time his contract is up, Greene could be gone. Fayne is pending FA, I believe Larsson and Urbom will both be approaching UFA status. And plenty of players around the league will hit the market.
I wouldn't mind trading Urbom cause I feel he has a little value, and might be more expendable than Gelinas. Just wait it out a little, and bring him up if we need a call up. Gelinas could take over for Zidlicky eventually.
It's not use in keeping that extra D man. I'm confident with Urbom on a bottom pairing if a D man goes down long term.
I really don't want too much youth, and inexperience on the blue line. Some people want Burlon, Urbom, Gelinas, Larsson, Merrill, and Scarlett as our 6 defensemen, and that to me sounds like a disaster with no vets or experience. At this rate though aside from Larsson who is already up it might be a while before even one of them crack the lineup.
I wouldn't mind trading Urbom cause I feel he has a little value, and might be more expendable than Gelinas. Just wait it out a little, and bring him up if we need a call up. Gelinas could take over for Zidlicky eventually.
It's not use in keeping that extra D man. I'm confident with Urbom on a bottom pairing if a D man goes down long term.
I really don't want too much youth, and inexperience on the blue line. Some people want Burlon, Urbom, Gelinas, Larsson, Merrill, and Scarlett as our 6 defensemen, and that to me sounds like a disaster with no vets or experience. At this rate though aside from Larsson who is already up it might be a while before any of them crack the lineup.
By the time all those guys are ready, Larsson and Fayne will already be veterans and we may stil have Greene and Volchenkov.
There's no need in trading defensive prospects like Urbom, Gelinas, Burlon, or Merrill because either (A) they all pan out and you can get more value for a proven NHL-er or (B) one or two don't pan out and you're thankful you didn't trade the good ones.
What we need to trade is an NHL D-man because we have 8 capable players. Get a forward in some kind of trade. Save the prospects for later and see what we have before making a deal.
By the time all those guys are ready, Larsson and Fayne will already be veterans and we may stil have Greene and Volchenkov.
There's no need in trading defensive prospects like Urbom, Gelinas, Burlon, or Merrill because either (A) they all pan out and you can get more value for a proven NHL-er or (B) one or two don't pan out and you're thankful you didn't trade the good ones.
What we need to trade is an NHL D-man because we have 8 capable players. Get a forward in some kind of trade. Save the prospects for later and see what we have before making a deal.
How about trade a prospect D man for a prospect forward? I want one of the NHL guys gone too, but maybe we can do better if we add Urbom or somebody in that trade.
However I don't want something too big with the cap uncertainty, and uncertainty of what it will cost to keep Zajac, and Clarkson. I figure Tallinder, and a 3rd or 4th round draft pick can get us something a little more than a Ponikarovsky being we got Ponikarovsky for Joe AHL, and a 3rd or was it 4th round pick?
I would hope that in such a scenario they extend the deadline by a year so that the Devils aren't forced into missing out on two consecutive first round picks. It would also be interesting to see how they handled the picks that have already been traded (NYR and LAK's first round picks for example)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feed Me A Stray Cat
Not sure how they can justify retroactively applying that to deals signed before the new CBA.
My answer to these two are the same: Never assume the league has any common sense, and definitely never expect them to apply it. They'll find some way to screw us over.
I remember Jay Leach constantly giving me headaches, and high blood pressure regularly when he was with us in 08/09 or whatever year that was with Sutter. One game he caused a couple goals against, and Sutter blamed someone else for it like Mike Mottau or Colin White in the post game presser. He was like ''Well what can you really ask of Leachy?''
I remember Jay Leach constantly giving me headaches, and high blood pressure regularly when he was with us in 08/09 or whatever year that was with Sutter. One game he caused a couple goals against, and Sutter blamed someone else for it like Mike Mottau or Colin White in the post game presser. He was like ''Well what can you really ask of Leachy?''
Here's something I been thinking about. I wonder if we lose a whole season what the chances are Chico retiring, and Dano or someone else taking over for him? He's getting up there. Would be sad if we lost him to the lockout too.
Here's something I been thinking about. I wonder if we lose a whole season what the chances are Chico retiring, and Dano or someone else taking over for him? He's getting up there. Would be sad if we lost him to the lockout too.
That's what you call a silver lining. Chico can be pretty bad, couple that with Steve and it's pretty bad.
