HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Philadelphia Flyers
Notices

Briere refused to waive his NMC around the Trade Deadline?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-14-2013, 08:16 PM
  #51
CTU2fan
Registered User
 
CTU2fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,130
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1865 View Post
That's a ludicrous comparison. For starters, I don't earn millions of dollars a year to play hockey. If I did, I'd be much happier to move anywhere.

Secondly, I don't work in an industry where you can be expected to move across the country at a day's notice. Briere does, it's a hazard of the job.
Except it's not, because his contract says it's not. More than likely he took less money in exchange for the security of the NMC (because that's how that works). It sucks because teams at or near the cap are stuck; either give the NMC/NTC or offer a bit more money and burn up more cap space. But that's the way it is.

If this is true then either the trade (St. Louis? Boston?) was someplace Danny didn't want to go, or Danny is figuring on a buyout, banking that money and signing wherever. Too bad because I was hoping they could move him regardless of what they got just to save the amnesty.

CTU2fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-14-2013, 08:27 PM
  #52
Coppy
Good Luck Richie!
 
Coppy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 891
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1865 View Post
That's a ludicrous comparison. For starters, I don't earn millions of dollars a year to play hockey. If I did, I'd be much happier to move anywhere.

Secondly, I don't work in an industry where you can be expected to move across the country at a day's notice. Briere does, it's a hazard of the job.
Which is why players get little clauses put in their contracts that says a team just can't send them anywhere at any time they want. You know, like a NMC.

So again, why should Briere waive it so he can be sent somewhere he doesn't want to go, and possibly be stuck there for another 2 years? He has absolutely nothing to gain.

Coppy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-14-2013, 08:39 PM
  #53
hckyplayer8
He's Gone!
 
hckyplayer8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Chicken Capital,PA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,838
vCash: 500
You hear that?

That's the sound of air rushing out of every person who thought there was zero chance he was faking the injury.

hckyplayer8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-14-2013, 08:42 PM
  #54
StevensCakeBakerBacker
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Country:
Posts: 1,239
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coppy View Post
Which is why players get little clauses put in their contracts that says a team just can't send them anywhere at any time they want. You know, like a NMC.

So again, why should Briere waive it so he can be sent somewhere he doesn't want to go, and possibly be stuck there for another 2 years? He has absolutely nothing to gain.
I get ya, but I'm sick of this Briere & family BS. You're a professional, act like one...

The guy doesn't have the fire to compete, if he did he would want to be with a contender; or, if family means that much (which is good) than leave the sport and be with them full-time.

This is one of the reasons why I hate guaranteed contracts.

StevensCakeBakerBacker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-14-2013, 08:46 PM
  #55
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 11,727
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyershockey View Post
Yet pretty much every single NTC that a Flyer has brings the possibility of disaster. Briere has been a mess. It's clear that the team probably wants to walk away at this point, but any trade has been vetoed by Briere. Btw, Bill Clement is supposedly the source that said he used his NMC.
Briere has been a mess? Because it has been rumored that he was asked to waive and didn't? Even if he has declined to waive, I wouldn't call it a mess. The vast majority of his career here he has been a huge part of this team both on and off the ice.

Quote:
I don't really have that big of a problem with a NTC on a contract for a guy if he's in the prime of his career, but most of these NTC's keep guys around until after they start to decline, if not completely past their NHL usefulness. Briere is one example, but Pronger and Hartnell are others. Do you really think Pronger would be a great option for a number one dman at 40+, or that Hartnell will be worth the money he'll be paid at 35 or 36? Both contracts had/have the potential to be huge detriments to the team.
I think you are missing a large part of what I am saying. I am not saying that I want these players to stick around until the end of their careers and that they will be worth the money when they are older. What I am saying is that these NTCs have had very little affect on the Flyers to this point. There is speculation that Briere declined to waive his NTC. It is certainly possible that that is true, but that doesn't mean the Flyers shouldn't have given him one. He was pretty much the #1 UFA that year. The Flyers desparately needed to add to their team. If he wanted a NTC, he was going to get it anywhere. If you let him walk over a NTC, this team loses out on their best playoff performer over the course of the time since he signed, a hell of a regular season player up until last year, and a pretty good off ice presence as well.

As far as Pronger goes...you are going to tell me that a future hall of famer, captain, and #1 defenseman is undeserving of a NTC??? Yes, he was older, all the more reason he would be asking for it (and would get it). I am not sure you understand how a contract negotiation works. Players want NTCs. Teams like them too because it usually cuts down on the money.

Hartnell signed a pretty cap friendly deal for a guy who scored 35+ goals. You are probably right, in six years he won't be as good. But that would be true if he didn't have the NTC as well. There is no guarantee he would get traded regardless of the presence of a NTC. And there is no guarantee he won't get traded because he has one. You seem to have a problem with the length of contracts, not the NTCs.

Quote:
I'm not even going to get into the Bryz debate. Bryz isn't even worth his cap hit now, what's convinces you he'll be worth it at 35-39? The amnesty buyouts are the only saving grace
No arguments with Bryz. I think most people will agree that is a bad contract. The NMC, the length, the money. All bad. The other contracts you have an issue with...couldn't agree less.

Briere: signed him coming off a 95 point season after the worst year in Flyers franchise history. Top UFA on the market. That guy is going to get a NTC anywhere.

Pronger: Hall of fame defender. Captain written all over him. Steps in immediately as the #1 defender on the team. You think if he hit UFA that year he wasn't getting a NTC?

Hartnell: Scores 35+ the year he signs the extension. Played pretty much his entire career in Orange Black. Fan favorite. Showed great chemistry with your best offensive player. Yeah, Homer could have hard-balled him and maybe not given him the NTC, but again, by doing that you risk either paying him more or not paying him at all. It's a trade off.

Quote:
Oh and you better hope Coburn turns his game around for next year. That's a big price tag for a guy that looked lost for most of the season. Add in the NTC and that's an immovable piece if he doesn't improve.
Coburn has a modified NTC. I highly doubt, even if it were a full NMC, that the Flyers would have trouble dealing him. His play this year has been bad, for sure, but like most things around here...cough...NTCs...cough...it is being greatly overblown. He is a top 4 defender on a reasonable deal. He's not even 30. When are you planning on giving up on him? Next year? I think they'll be able to trade a 29 year old defender on a reasonable hit with a modified NTC. You could be right though...he might immovable.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-14-2013, 09:01 PM
  #56
flyershockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,339
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
Briere has been a mess? Because it has been rumored that he was asked to waive and didn't? Even if he has declined to waive, I wouldn't call it a mess. The vast majority of his career here he has been a huge part of this team both on and off the ice.



I think you are missing a large part of what I am saying. I am not saying that I want these players to stick around until the end of their careers and that they will be worth the money when they are older. What I am saying is that these NTCs have had very little affect on the Flyers to this point. There is speculation that Briere declined to waive his NTC. It is certainly possible that that is true, but that doesn't mean the Flyers shouldn't have given him one. He was pretty much the #1 UFA that year. The Flyers desparately needed to add to their team. If he wanted a NTC, he was going to get it anywhere. If you let him walk over a NTC, this team loses out on their best playoff performer over the course of the time since he signed, a hell of a regular season player up until last year, and a pretty good off ice presence as well.

As far as Pronger goes...you are going to tell me that a future hall of famer, captain, and #1 defenseman is undeserving of a NTC??? Yes, he was older, all the more reason he would be asking for it (and would get it). I am not sure you understand how a contract negotiation works. Players want NTCs. Teams like them too because it usually cuts down on the money.

Hartnell signed a pretty cap friendly deal for a guy who scored 35+ goals. You are probably right, in six years he won't be as good. But that would be true if he didn't have the NTC as well. There is no guarantee he would get traded regardless of the presence of a NTC. And there is no guarantee he won't get traded because he has one. You seem to have a problem with the length of contracts, not the NTCs.



No arguments with Bryz. I think most people will agree that is a bad contract. The NMC, the length, the money. All bad. The other contracts you have an issue with...couldn't agree less.

Briere: signed him coming off a 95 point season after the worst year in Flyers franchise history. Top UFA on the market. That guy is going to get a NTC anywhere.

Pronger: Hall of fame defender. Captain written all over him. Steps in immediately as the #1 defender on the team. You think if he hit UFA that year he wasn't getting a NTC?

Hartnell: Scores 35+ the year he signs the extension. Played pretty much his entire career in Orange Black. Fan favorite. Showed great chemistry with your best offensive player. Yeah, Homer could have hard-balled him and maybe not given him the NTC, but again, by doing that you risk either paying him more or not paying him at all. It's a trade off.



Coburn has a modified NTC. I highly doubt, even if it were a full NMC, that the Flyers would have trouble dealing him. His play this year has been bad, for sure, but like most things around here...cough...NTCs...cough...it is being greatly overblown. He is a top 4 defender on a reasonable deal. He's not even 30. When are you planning on giving up on him? Next year? I think they'll be able to trade a 29 year old defender on a reasonable hit with a modified NTC. You could be right though...he might immovable.
I guess you could say this, sort of. I don't really have a problem with the NTC (for the right player), or the long term contracts (once again, for the the right player). But, I do dislike that they do both a lot, and especially for contracts that extend guys past their primes. These are the contracts that can cripple a club's cap space. And it's made worse when the player is a detriment to the team like Briere is now, Hartnell could be by the end of his deal, or Pronger could have been for the last couple of years on his deal. There's already very few teams that would be willing to take on mistake contracts, and those are usually the teams that players would veto in a trade. I just think long term contracts with NTC/NMC's, even limited ones, aren't worth the slight cap hit decrease.

flyershockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-14-2013, 09:06 PM
  #57
Wizeman*
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,624
vCash: 500
Briere chose Philadelphia over a host of cities he could have gone to when he was a UFA. The flyers gave him the contract as a reward and NMC /NTC.

You cant bully the guy now just because its no longer working to your benefit. He wants to stay here. The flyers can buy him out if they wish.

Wizeman* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-15-2013, 12:23 AM
  #58
NHLAlert
@nhl_alert
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Uberlandia
Country: Brazil
Posts: 464
vCash: 500
I hear what your saying but him being a professional has nothing to do with his family "bs", I would say that he is one of the best professionals in all of sports. Just about every player in the NHL has a family and I'm sure they mean a lot to them too, so why is it just Briere who is taking the heat here for trying to do whats best for his family,

I hate guaranteed contracts too, which is why I'm happy he will be bough out at the seasons end. I think briere is a great guy but he just doesn't have it anymore. Could be injuries but who knows

Quote:
Originally Posted by StevensCakeBakerBacker View Post
I get ya, but I'm sick of this Briere & family BS. You're a professional, act like one...

The guy doesn't have the fire to compete, if he did he would want to be with a contender; or, if family means that much (which is good) than leave the sport and be with them full-time.

This is one of the reasons why I hate guaranteed contracts.

NHLAlert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-15-2013, 07:24 AM
  #59
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 11,727
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyershockey View Post
I guess you could say this, sort of. I don't really have a problem with the NTC (for the right player), or the long term contracts (once again, for the the right player). But, I do dislike that they do both a lot, and especially for contracts that extend guys past their primes. These are the contracts that can cripple a club's cap space. And it's made worse when the player is a detriment to the team like Briere is now, Hartnell could be by the end of his deal, or Pronger could have been for the last couple of years on his deal. There's already very few teams that would be willing to take on mistake contracts, and those are usually the teams that players would veto in a trade. I just think long term contracts with NTC/NMC's, even limited ones, aren't worth the slight cap hit decrease.
Yes but again the guys getting these contracts, even when they do past their prime, are going to get these contracts anywhere for the most part. If Pronger/Briere/Hartnell were UFAs and you are going to hardball them, you risk losing out. So yes, you get the "benefit" of not dealing with their contracts for th last two or so years of their terms, but you miss out on having them for the first however many years. If you want to run your team that way, fine. But again, then you have to deal with the reality of either paying more for a shorter term or not paying them at all. All three of those scenarios have their benefits and their drawbacks. If these guys weren't signed it would be, "GM X sucks! He can't get anyone to sign here!" If they took a shorter term at a higher rate it would be, "GM X sucks! He is giving out such high cap hit contracts on such a short term!" The outcome you are looking for, shorter contract, lower cap hit, and no NTC (unless it is a guy that is worth it...which apparently Briere, Pronger, and Hartnell are not in your opinion) is very unlikely for a player of the caliber of Briere, Pronger, or Hartnell at the time they signed their deals. Yes, if Briere played like this six years ago, the contract would be unacceptable. If we knew Pronger would not be healthy after a couple years, that would be a much worse contract. Hartnell just signed his deal so you seem to just be worried about what might happen in the future.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizeman View Post
Briere chose Philadelphia over a host of cities he could have gone to when he was a UFA. The flyers gave him the contract as a reward and NMC /NTC.

You cant bully the guy now just because its no longer working to your benefit. He wants to stay here. The flyers can buy him out if they wish.
Exactly.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-15-2013, 07:37 AM
  #60
BringBackStevens
Registered User
 
BringBackStevens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 11,879
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to BringBackStevens
It's funny how many people thought danny would waive. It literally made zero sense for him to do so.

BringBackStevens is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-15-2013, 07:48 AM
  #61
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 11,727
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by BringBackStevens View Post
It's funny how many people thought danny would waive. It literally made zero sense for him to do so.
Aside from Bill Clement's comments, is there anything that has been reported about him not waiving? As far as I have heard it is just speculation a) that he was asked and b) that he waived.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-15-2013, 08:07 AM
  #62
Jack de la Hoya
Registered User
 
Jack de la Hoya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 12,550
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
Aside from Bill Clement's comments, is there anything that has been reported about him not waiving? As far as I have heard it is just speculation a) that he was asked and b) that he waived.
I don't really see either Briere or the team confirming or denying the report. The Clement speculation is probably about as concrete as it is going to get.

Jack de la Hoya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-15-2013, 08:27 AM
  #63
Unstable
Registered User
 
Unstable's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Exiled in NoVA
Country: United States
Posts: 4,075
vCash: 500
I don't get the hate. It's a bad contract, we knew it when we signed him, and it's an issue now, as we knew it would be, but he's been a great player over his career with us. I have no problem with him using the privileges the CBA and his contract give him. And I'll miss him when he's gone (which may indeed be next year).

And I give him a lot of credit for taking G and Couts under his wing.

Unstable is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-15-2013, 08:29 AM
  #64
Krishna
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Krishna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Philadelphia
Country: Canada
Posts: 81,744
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
Aside from Bill Clement's comments, is there anything that has been reported about him not waiving? As far as I have heard it is just speculation a) that he was asked and b) that he waived.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack de la Hoya View Post
I don't really see either Briere or the team confirming or denying the report. The Clement speculation is probably about as concrete as it is going to get.
Briere had an interview in the lockerroom saying he'd do anything to stay in Philadelphia and if the Flyers decide to buy him out, then there's nothing he can do

__________________
Krishna is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-15-2013, 08:44 AM
  #65
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 11,727
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack de la Hoya View Post
I don't really see either Briere or the team confirming or denying the report. The Clement speculation is probably about as concrete as it is going to get.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krishna View Post
Briere had an interview in the lockerroom saying he'd do anything to stay in Philadelphia and if the Flyers decide to buy him out, then there's nothing he can do
Fair enough. I imagine if the injury hadn't occured there would be a more concrete answer to this. I wonder how these types of situations go down. Do they ask the player if he is willing to wiave, then seek trade partners. Or do they get an offer/look for an offer then ask to waive. My guess is the latter in most cases. I think that would make it more likely for the guy to waive.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-15-2013, 09:31 AM
  #66
StevensCakeBakerBacker
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Country:
Posts: 1,239
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NHLAlert View Post
I hear what your saying but him being a professional has nothing to do with his family "bs", I would say that he is one of the best professionals in all of sports. Just about every player in the NHL has a family and I'm sure they mean a lot to them too, so why is it just Briere who is taking the heat here for trying to do whats best for his family,

I hate guaranteed contracts too, which is why I'm happy he will be bough out at the seasons end. I think briere is a great guy but he just doesn't have it anymore. Could be injuries but who knows
I wouldn't say he is one of the best professionals in all of sports, but I do agree that he seems like a good person; just sick and tired of the lazy play. A professional finds a way to get the job done and produce, which lately seems to be the opposite of DB.

Briere takes heat for it because it's all we hear about. Actually, it's not even really Briere taking heat for it (how can anyone hate a person for loving and wanting to be around their kids?), the heat is more directed at posters here that think he wouldn't accept a trade because of family.... Lots of players have a family and accept trades.h

StevensCakeBakerBacker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-15-2013, 01:45 PM
  #67
CTU2fan
Registered User
 
CTU2fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,130
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hckyplayer8 View Post
You hear that?

That's the sound of air rushing out of every person who thought there was zero chance he was faking the injury.
There's no way he was faking the injury. There isn't, wasn't and continues to be no reason for him to fake it. He has an NMC, he can stay or go and the decision is his.

If anything he's got incentive not to have an injury since it's pretty likely he's bought out this summer and coming off an injury can only hurt his value as a UFA this summer.

CTU2fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-17-2013, 05:31 PM
  #68
CREW99AW
Registered User
 
CREW99AW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 27,211
vCash: 500
Briere's one of the players we're discussing on the NYI board.

I've read the article about a possible buyout and how he'd like to stay in Philly because it's where his kids are.

I've a few quick questions..

1.Have there been rumors, about which teams the Flyers gm had been in talks with?


I know there are only 2 amnesty buyouts per team.

2.Are Briere and Bryz, the only two Flyers rumored to be possible amnesty buyouts?

CREW99AW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-17-2013, 05:32 PM
  #69
Jack de la Hoya
Registered User
 
Jack de la Hoya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 12,550
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CREW99AW View Post
Briere's one of the players we're discussing on the NYI board.

I've read the article about a possible buyout and how he'd like to stay in Philly because it's where his kids are.

I've a few quick questions..

1.Have there been rumors, about which teams the Flyers gm had been in talks with?


I know there are only 2 amnesty buyouts per team.

2.Are Briere and Bryz, the only two Flyers rumored to be possible amnesty buyouts?
Boston was the team that seemed the most interested back before the injury--and, yes, they are the only two realistic buy-out targets.

Jack de la Hoya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-17-2013, 05:58 PM
  #70
CREW99AW
Registered User
 
CREW99AW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 27,211
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack de la Hoya View Post
Boston was the team that seemed the most interested back before the injury--and, yes, they are the only two realistic buy-out targets.
Alright. Thanks. I appreciate the feedback

CREW99AW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-17-2013, 06:07 PM
  #71
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
AICMAM
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Alexandria
Country: Liberia
Posts: 34,218
vCash: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unstable View Post
I don't get the hate. It's a bad contract, we knew it when we signed him, and it's an issue now, as we knew it would be, but he's been a great player over his career with us. I have no problem with him using the privileges the CBA and his contract give him. And I'll miss him when he's gone (which may indeed be next year).

And I give him a lot of credit for taking G and Couts under his wing.
Yeah, I agree completely. It's not like this should have blindsided us; it was a matter of "when" that contract would bite the team, not "if." And for most of his time here, he's been a major part of the team. Even while he's been less-than-useful here, I would wager his veteran presence has had value.

He has an option to control his own fate in terms of trades. The Flyers have the option to buy him out. Realistically, neither side should be offended if the other exercises their option.

My question is, does he just retire when he's bought out, and join Lappy as Assistant Director of Player Development?

__________________
Down in the basement, I've got a Craftsman lathe. Show it to the children when they misbehave.
Beef Invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-17-2013, 06:08 PM
  #72
Prongo
Beer
 
Prongo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 12,692
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CREW99AW View Post
Alright. Thanks. I appreciate the feedback
Phoenix, Nashville, Montreal, and Boston were the teams linked to him. Dreger mentioned the Montreal rumor. The other rumors came from other sources.

Prongo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-17-2013, 06:15 PM
  #73
Curufinwe
Registered User
 
Curufinwe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 5,240
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
Yeah, I agree completely. It's not like this should have blindsided us; it was a matter of "when" that contract would bite the team, not "if." And for most of his time here, he's been a major part of the team. Even while he's been less-than-useful here, I would wager his veteran presence has had value.

He has an option to control his own fate in terms of trades. The Flyers have the option to buy him out. Realistically, neither side should be offended if the other exercises their option.

My question is, does he just retire when he's bought out, and join Lappy as Assistant Director of Player Development?
I don't think so. I think there are teams out there that would give him a two year deal worth $3m or more per season.

Curufinwe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-17-2013, 06:39 PM
  #74
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
AICMAM
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Alexandria
Country: Liberia
Posts: 34,218
vCash: 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curufinwe View Post
I don't think so. I think there are teams out there that would give him a two year deal worth $3m or more per season.
That could certainly happen, but does he want to uproot his family for a 2 year deal? Or is he content enough in Philly to take a job with the org? He seems pretty dead set on staying here, so I think it's a valid possibility worth considering.

Beef Invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-30-2013, 12:09 PM
  #75
Prongo
Beer
 
Prongo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 12,692
vCash: 500
http://www.csnphilly.com/hockey-phil...s-remain-flyer

Quote:
The league’s salary cap goes down to $64.3 million next year, from $70.4 million this season. Right now, the Flyers have exactly $0 free under the cap; something’s got to give.

Briere, though he knows there’s a very big chance to the contrary, doesn’t want the casualty to be him.

“I hope not,” he said, at Sunday’s team break-up day. “At this point, it’s out of my control. We’ll see what happens, but I certainly hope I’ll still be here.”......

As of Sunday, Briere said he had not been approached by general manager Paul Holmgren about the possibility of waiving his no-movement clause. While so much focus has been on whether the Flyers might use one of their two amnesties on him, it’s entirely possible they could attempt to trade him to a team with cap space and a need for leadership. There are more than a few of those.

Briere didn’t say he’d refuse to be traded; he just made it very clear he’d prefer to stay in Philadelphia.

“I’ve said it all along: My family’s here, my kids are here,” Briere said. “This is my first choice, this is where I want to be. But I understand it’s a business, so we’ll see happens with that. My first goal is to be here.”
I said it before, try and trade him first to save one of the buyouts. If he refuses to go, then buy him out. You don't know until you try, so we should try to see what teams would like his veteran presence at the cost of his contract. Buffalo rings a bell. Florida/Edmonton and similar teams like that seem like somewhat good fits. Maybe even Nashivlle.

Prongo 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 01:45 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.