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

2012-2013 Lockout Discussion Thread

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-27-2012, 10:24 AM
  #576
fredrikstad
Registered User
 
fredrikstad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Fredrikstad, Norway
Country: Norway
Posts: 1,163
vCash: 495
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy View Post
The Islanders and Devils aren't eligible for revenue sharing under the current NHL program. They play in a market with 2.5 million TV households. The PA has proposed dumping those restrictions. Mr. Lehman Brothers can't pay his loans.



http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/21/sp...investors.html

Jersey generates enough revenue. Their owner just made some bad business deals. It wasn't that long ago Jersey had a big payroll. Will they be eligible for revenue sharing because Mr.Lehman defaulted on his loans? The big market teams won't be in favor of that. The NHL has the $2.5M restriction in there for a reason.

The Islanders are a lost cause.

Both of these jokers have Cablevision giving them millions already for the TV rights. The Devils get something like $25M per.



Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/busines...#ixzz24DB7YY4Z

They be responsible for paying back the principal and interest.
Cablevision,isn't that the Dolans company?

fredrikstad is offline  
Old
08-27-2012, 10:34 AM
  #577
fredrikstad
Registered User
 
fredrikstad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Fredrikstad, Norway
Country: Norway
Posts: 1,163
vCash: 495
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baby Punisher View Post
it's an olive branch, but can the PA & Owners trust Bettman with even more power?
A few writers from Swedish newspapers, belive The NHL is seeking to crush The PA once and for all this time.
Lets hope that's not the case.

fredrikstad is offline  
Old
08-27-2012, 10:39 AM
  #578
WhiskeyDeke
Shut up, Keith.
 
WhiskeyDeke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Va
Country: United States
Posts: 638
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredrikstad View Post
if Columbus manged to develop a superstar.
Columbus couldn't develop a Polaroid...

WhiskeyDeke is offline  
Old
08-27-2012, 11:05 AM
  #579
frankthefrowner
Registered User
 
frankthefrowner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,661
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredrikstad View Post
A few writers from Swedish newspapers, belive The NHL is seeking to crush The PA once and for all this time.
Lets hope that's not the case.
Lol they should have done that before they got Fehr.

frankthefrowner is offline  
Old
08-27-2012, 11:11 AM
  #580
GAGLine
Registered User
 
GAGLine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 9,169
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredrikstad View Post
Remove the draft, and let each organisation develop there own players from theyre fist step on skates.
And then,if they wanna move elsewhere,when they have become a star, those big markets club would have to pay hard cash to to let say Columbus, if Columbus manged to develop a superstar.
The NHL already contributes money toward youth hockey, but the majority of that is in the US I believe, with a smaller portion going to Canadian juniors. Transfer fees help relegate the cost of developing playings in Europe.

The draft is never going away and NHL teams aren't going to pay to develop players that will never sniff the NHL.

GAGLine is offline  
Old
08-27-2012, 11:15 AM
  #581
Inferno
HFB Partner
 
Inferno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Country: United States
Posts: 20,016
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredrikstad View Post
Remove the draft, and let each organisation develop there own players from theyre fist step on skates.
And then,if they wanna move elsewhere,when they have become a star, those big markets club would have to pay hard cash to to let say Columbus, if Columbus manged to develop a superstar.
thats an awful idea.

not to pick on you, but theres a reason Montreal had like 50 billion stanley cups while every other team was lucky to sniff one. the draft was put in to stop pretty much what you said happens...except it was geographically done there.

every young kid will want to go for the big market teams. youre going to get very few Parises and Suters choosing Minnesota, and a whole ton of kids choosing the red wings, the flyers, the rangers, the pens, etc.


the draft is HUGE for competitive balance. a sandwich round could be added to further help. i think the players suggested something like this but, after the first round the 5 or 10 worst teams would get a supplemental draft pick, then the draft continues as always...they can trade/sell/or use that pick as they see fit.

its a fantastic idea.

Inferno is offline  
Old
08-27-2012, 11:47 AM
  #582
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,012
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredrikstad View Post
A few writers from Swedish newspapers, belive The NHL is seeking to crush The PA once and for all this time.
Didn't the players get crushed the last time? I do not seem to remember them really winning any concessions.

True Blue is offline  
Old
08-27-2012, 12:26 PM
  #583
Brian Boyle
portnor, pls
 
Brian Boyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Victoria, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,036
vCash: 659
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue View Post
Didn't the players get crushed the last time? I do not seem to remember them really winning any concessions.
They did get UFA age lowered, and the RFA system opened up.

Brian Boyle is offline  
Old
08-27-2012, 12:58 PM
  #584
Inferno
HFB Partner
 
Inferno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Country: United States
Posts: 20,016
vCash: 500
the system as it is now has a few huge flaws.

1) the cap circumventing deals.
2) horrendous revenue sharing.
3) college kids that can pretty much walk away from the team they are drafted to
4) contracts can be dumped into the minors to save cap space.


they dont have to fix much. they fix those things, and get the split closer to 50-50, we probably dont have another lost season again.

Inferno is offline  
Old
08-27-2012, 01:16 PM
  #585
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,012
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by -31- View Post
They did get UFA age lowered, and the RFA system opened up.
Those were very minor items. The owners got pretty much what they had wanted.

True Blue is offline  
Old
08-27-2012, 01:33 PM
  #586
Bird Law
Daisy's back.
 
Bird Law's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Country Roads
Country: United States
Posts: 72,832
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Bird Law
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inferno View Post
the system as it is now has a few huge flaws.

1) the cap circumventing deals.
2) horrendous revenue sharing.
3) college kids that can pretty much walk away from the team they are drafted to
4) contracts can be dumped into the minors to save cap space.


they dont have to fix much. they fix those things, and get the split closer to 50-50, we probably dont have another lost season again.
How are you fixing #4? Theres no way that gets fixed with any of the solutions I have seen proposed so far (i.e. not allowing the player to be demoted, counting all 1-way deals against the cap, etc.). All of those would be boycotted by the players.

#4 has to stay. Teams have to be able to demote players that suck and replace them with players that don't. As long as the player is getting paid, there should be no problem.

__________________
"Of course giving Sather cap space is like giving teenagers whiskey and car keys." - SBOB
"Watching Sather build a team is like watching a blind man with no fingers trying to put together an elaborate puzzle." - Shadowtron
"Used to be only Twinkies and cockroaches could survive a nuke. I'd add Habs to that. I'm convinced the CH stands for Club du Hypocrisy." - Gee Wally
Bird Law is offline  
Old
08-27-2012, 01:57 PM
  #587
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,811
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
How are you fixing #4? Theres no way that gets fixed with any of the solutions I have seen proposed so far (i.e. not allowing the player to be demoted, counting all 1-way deals against the cap, etc.). All of those would be boycotted by the players.

#4 has to stay. Teams have to be able to demote players that suck and replace them with players that don't. As long as the player is getting paid, there should be no problem.
Easy for you to say as a Ranger fan. Lower revenue teams simply cant do that.

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline  
Old
08-27-2012, 02:16 PM
  #588
Brian Boyle
portnor, pls
 
Brian Boyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Victoria, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,036
vCash: 659
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
How are you fixing #4? Theres no way that gets fixed with any of the solutions I have seen proposed so far (i.e. not allowing the player to be demoted, counting all 1-way deals against the cap, etc.). All of those would be boycotted by the players.
Because as we've learned in the past, if the players want something, they get it.

Brian Boyle is offline  
Old
08-27-2012, 02:34 PM
  #589
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,012
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
Easy for you to say as a Ranger fan. Lower revenue teams simply cant do that.
There is always manueverability. The choice is demote them or get rid of all guaranteed contracts, like the NFL did. Then you can cut players and accelerate the cap hit. And find a way to make it work under the cap. Otherwise, if you a small market team, then suffer from making mistakes on bad contracts, like everyone else does.

The Rangers should not have to be forced to keep a Wade Redden on their books to count against cap. Just like in the NFL, the Redskins need not have been forced to keep paying an Albert Haynesworth. Both leagues have a hard cap. Both have items in place which act to deal with very bad contracts. If you want a hard cap, then it has to work like one of those two scenarios. Otherwise, do what baseball does, and have a soft cap, but a luxury tax.

True Blue is offline  
Old
08-27-2012, 02:44 PM
  #590
Brian Boyle
portnor, pls
 
Brian Boyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Victoria, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,036
vCash: 659
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue View Post
The Rangers should not have to be forced to keep a Wade Redden on their books to count against cap.
Why should they not have to be accountable for the contracts they hand out?

Brian Boyle is offline  
Old
08-27-2012, 02:57 PM
  #591
Glen Teflon Sather
Like A Boss
 
Glen Teflon Sather's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Bloomfield, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 4,886
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Glen Teflon Sather
Watching the 2005-2006 Finals Game 7 right now on NHL Network, and seeing that "Thank You Fans" ******** on the ice and hearing Bettman get on the mic and thank the fans makes me sick. Little weaseling ****

Glen Teflon Sather is offline  
Old
08-27-2012, 04:05 PM
  #592
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,811
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue View Post
There is always manueverability. The choice is demote them or get rid of all guaranteed contracts, like the NFL did. Then you can cut players and accelerate the cap hit. And find a way to make it work under the cap. Otherwise, if you a small market team, then suffer from making mistakes on bad contracts, like everyone else does.

The Rangers should not have to be forced to keep a Wade Redden on their books to count against cap. Just like in the NFL, the Redskins need not have been forced to keep paying an Albert Haynesworth. Both leagues have a hard cap. Both have items in place which act to deal with very bad contracts. If you want a hard cap, then it has to work like one of those two scenarios. Otherwise, do what baseball does, and have a soft cap, but a luxury tax.
The Rangers were stupid enough to sign Redden. Remind me why they shouldnt be forced to deal with the consequences?

Dont get me wrong, as a fan, Im glad they could bury him. At the same time, I can admit my GM was ****ing stupid for giving him that deal in the first place. Teams should pay some sort of penalty for that - big market, small market, whatever. Stupidity needs to be punished.

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline  
Old
08-27-2012, 04:30 PM
  #593
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,502
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by -31- View Post
Why should they not have to be accountable for the contracts they hand out?
Because there's a difference between accountability to the bottom line and accountability to the roster. It's easy to blur that line, but doesn't really address the point.

Mechanisms have to exist to allow GMs to put the best roster on the ice that he can within limits. Despite whatever economics, a GM has a responsibility to his boss and to the fans to run a successful franchise. It's not responsible to say it's okay for one GM to spend $70m on their roster while another spends $30m. It's also not responsible to say that a GM has to keep a player on his roster who isn't good enough to make the team at the expense of a player who is.

And even though the Rangers can afford it, this whole idea that stupidity isn't being punished by forcing an organization to pay $5m in a season for a guy who does nothing to bring them more money is absurd. It's still $5m. Punishing the team by forcing that salary to hit the cap doesn't punish the GM or the owner so much as it does the fans.

Tawnos is offline  
Old
08-27-2012, 04:31 PM
  #594
Inferno
HFB Partner
 
Inferno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Country: United States
Posts: 20,016
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
The Rangers were stupid enough to sign Redden. Remind me why they shouldnt be forced to deal with the consequences?

Dont get me wrong, as a fan, Im glad they could bury him. At the same time, I can admit my GM was ****ing stupid for giving him that deal in the first place. Teams should pay some sort of penalty for that - big market, small market, whatever. Stupidity needs to be punished.
i agree, and i think the solution to this problem really should be to allow cash to be traded.

think a team like the Islanders, Coyotes, etc wouldnt LOVE to have Wade Redden on their team if he cost 0 dollars in cash but had a 6 million dollar cap hit?

They may actually be willing to trade something of value to get him.

If the Rangers could trade Wade Redden, + the amount of cash his contract is due, this is a significant form of revenue sharing that would benefit the big market teams AND the small market team.

If im the Coyotes, and I can pick up Wade Redden for 0 dollars, I just got closer to the floor without spending a single dollar. I can use my actual cash to develop players internally without having to be forced to spend it on a player just to hit some arbitrary spending floor.

That would be a HUGE win for everyone.

1)Big market team gains cap space by getting rid of a bad contract
2)Small market team can hit cap floor without spending to the actual cap floor
3)NHLPA keeps a vet out of the minor leagues by letting him play in a different market w/o being a victim of the salary cap.


The current system ONLY benefits big market teams...sure, the big market team will lose that cash...but they are paying Redden to play in Hartford 6.5 mil a year ANYWAY...hell, it would open up a roster spot down there for a kid we could potentially develop.

win-win-win

Inferno is offline  
Old
08-27-2012, 04:44 PM
  #595
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,502
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inferno View Post
The current system ONLY benefits big market teams...


The current system only benefits big market teams? By not allowing them to spend whatever they want on their roster? Please, tell me more about how salary cap systems benefit large markets the most.

If you're a small market team who wants to create some competitive balance in the league, you better be prepared to give the big markets something.

Tawnos is offline  
Old
08-27-2012, 05:12 PM
  #596
Zil
Registered User
 
Zil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 3,788
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
The Rangers were stupid enough to sign Redden. Remind me why they shouldnt be forced to deal with the consequences?

Dont get me wrong, as a fan, Im glad they could bury him. At the same time, I can admit my GM was ****ing stupid for giving him that deal in the first place. Teams should pay some sort of penalty for that - big market, small market, whatever. Stupidity needs to be punished.
The point of the system isn't to punish stupidity. It's there to create a reasonable amount of parity. At the end of the day though, the big market teams still generate all the revenue for this league and they deserve an advantage like being able to bury bad contracts in the minors.

Zil is offline  
Old
08-27-2012, 05:23 PM
  #597
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,502
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zil View Post
The point of the system isn't to punish stupidity. It's there to create a reasonable amount of parity. At the end of the day though, the big market teams still generate all the revenue for this league and they deserve an advantage like being able to bury bad contracts in the minors.
Exactly right. Another point: Although the Redden contract was undoubtedly a mistake that was utterly predictable, not every one of those deals is. So the solution is to punish all teams for contracts that turn bad, no matter the circumstances? That seems... unjust?

Tawnos is offline  
Old
08-27-2012, 06:30 PM
  #598
iamitter
Thornton's Hen
 
iamitter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 3,363
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inferno View Post
i agree, and i think the solution to this problem really should be to allow cash to be traded.

think a team like the Islanders, Coyotes, etc wouldnt LOVE to have Wade Redden on their team if he cost 0 dollars in cash but had a 6 million dollar cap hit?

They may actually be willing to trade something of value to get him.

If the Rangers could trade Wade Redden, + the amount of cash his contract is due, this is a significant form of revenue sharing that would benefit the big market teams AND the small market team.

If im the Coyotes, and I can pick up Wade Redden for 0 dollars, I just got closer to the floor without spending a single dollar. I can use my actual cash to develop players internally without having to be forced to spend it on a player just to hit some arbitrary spending floor.

That would be a HUGE win for everyone.

1)Big market team gains cap space by getting rid of a bad contract
2)Small market team can hit cap floor without spending to the actual cap floor
3)NHLPA keeps a vet out of the minor leagues by letting him play in a different market w/o being a victim of the salary cap.


The current system ONLY benefits big market teams...sure, the big market team will lose that cash...but they are paying Redden to play in Hartford 6.5 mil a year ANYWAY...hell, it would open up a roster spot down there for a kid we could potentially develop.

win-win-win
Well, the glitch is that the NHLPA has Redden earning 6.5 mil anyway. They can get another player earning that money in place of Redden so that whatever team was going to get him to get to the floor. If the Yotes don't get Redden in your example, they have to spend money on someone else. And then two players get paid.

iamitter is offline  
Old
08-27-2012, 06:56 PM
  #599
Inferno
HFB Partner
 
Inferno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Country: United States
Posts: 20,016
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post


The current system only benefits big market teams? By not allowing them to spend whatever they want on their roster? Please, tell me more about how salary cap systems benefit large markets the most.

If you're a small market team who wants to create some competitive balance in the league, you better be prepared to give the big markets something.
jesus christ way to cherry pick an entire post and pick out 1 sentence and put it totally out of context.

i write an entire post about sending contracts to the minors, say how the current system of sending contracts to the minors only help big market teams, and you use that sentence as if its about the salary cap instead of somethign else entirely.

way to go. kudos.

just in case you couldnt tell, i bolded, underlined, and italicized it in this post, so as not to confuse you.

Inferno is offline  
Old
08-27-2012, 06:57 PM
  #600
Inferno
HFB Partner
 
Inferno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Country: United States
Posts: 20,016
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamitter View Post
Well, the glitch is that the NHLPA has Redden earning 6.5 mil anyway. They can get another player earning that money in place of Redden so that whatever team was going to get him to get to the floor. If the Yotes don't get Redden in your example, they have to spend money on someone else. And then two players get paid.
perhaps, but its a way of revenue sharing that helps all 3 parties more than it hurts them. if im Wade Redden, Scott Gomez, or any other vet on their way to the minors or already there, this is something i want to see put into the system.

Inferno is offline  
Closed Thread

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 05:13 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.