HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New Jersey Devils
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

News from Around the League - Part XXXIII - The "No, you go first" edition

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-16-2012, 10:32 PM
  #401
Bleedred
BLOW JETS BLOW!
 
Bleedred's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Seminole Florida
Country: United States
Posts: 33,412
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by glenwo2 View Post
Just get SOMETHING done, dammit!

We only have Marty(and Moose) for 2 more years and that's pretty much it.

I'd like it NOT to end up being his Last year(next year) that we see him play.
Marty will play until he's 75!

Of course with all the alimony right?

Bleedred is offline  
Old
10-16-2012, 10:43 PM
  #402
Saugus
Ecrasez l'infame!
 
Saugus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 97,441
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Saugus
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feed Me A Stray Cat View Post
Except rich teams are penalized for doing so. They will cannibalize themselves if they continually trade assets for cap space.
That's the same argument for why a salary cap is theoretically unnecessary, but it doesn't work in practice. You'll end up with teams with multiple bloated contracts who keep trading away younger assets for aging stars and the flavour of the week, getting severe diminishing returns on their investments.

That's not a better NHL than the parity of today. It adds unnecessary complexity to the cap calculations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elias026 View Post
just wanted to share if anyone didnt see this yet.

@tpanotchCSN: Flyers player rep Braydon Coburn: "I'm hopeful this proposal signals a willingness from the NHL to begin serious negotiations."
I don't like the attitude that statement betrays. The time for grandstanding is long past. Now is the time to negotiate properly and work out a solution, and that requires both sides shifting their positions somewhat. The players have not exactly tried to meet the owners halfway yet.

Saugus is offline  
Old
10-16-2012, 10:43 PM
  #403
Devils Trap
Cory's Better
 
Devils Trap's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Jersey
Country:
Posts: 23,567
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Devils Trap
Bob McKenzie ‏@TSNBobMcKenzie
The floor for this season would be $43.9M and cap would be $59.9M altho in Year 1 teams could still spend to $70.2M but only in Year 1.

Devils Trap is offline  
Old
10-16-2012, 10:45 PM
  #404
Bleedred
BLOW JETS BLOW!
 
Bleedred's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Seminole Florida
Country: United States
Posts: 33,412
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devils Trap View Post
Bob McKenzie ‏@TSNBobMcKenzie
The floor for this season would be $43.9M and cap would be $59.9M altho in Year 1 teams could still spend to $70.2M but only in Year 1.
Eh. And what would the cap be next year? $60 million like proposed? Also will there be a rollback in everybody's cap hit? How does this work?

Bleedred is offline  
Old
10-16-2012, 10:46 PM
  #405
manilaNJ
Optimism: Unwavering
 
manilaNJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 5,607
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devils Trap View Post
Bob McKenzie ‏@TSNBobMcKenzie
The floor for this season would be $43.9M and cap would be $59.9M altho in Year 1 teams could still spend to $70.2M but only in Year 1.
If this becomes reality... I'm taking the day off of work at the trade deadline, because it's going to be a trade sideshow. Watching GMs scramble to make room will be entertaining as hell.

manilaNJ is offline  
Old
10-16-2012, 10:48 PM
  #406
Bleedred
BLOW JETS BLOW!
 
Bleedred's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Seminole Florida
Country: United States
Posts: 33,412
vCash: 500
If that's the case I really don't want Zubrus given the same amount on next contract that he got on this one like some people think he should get. We need to worry about locking up Zajac, and Clarkson who will most definitely get raises.

Bleedred is offline  
Old
10-16-2012, 10:50 PM
  #407
Devils Trap
Cory's Better
 
Devils Trap's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Jersey
Country:
Posts: 23,567
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Devils Trap
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleedred View Post
If that's the case I really don't want Zubrus given the same amount on next contract that he got on this one like some people think he should get. We need to worry about locking up Zajac, and Clarkson who will most definitely get raises.
If the cap goes down, these ridiculous contracts wont be here

Devils Trap is offline  
Old
10-16-2012, 10:51 PM
  #408
Devils Trap
Cory's Better
 
Devils Trap's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Jersey
Country:
Posts: 23,567
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Devils Trap
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleedred View Post
Eh. And what would the cap be next year? $60 million like proposed? Also will there be a rollback in everybody's cap hit? How does this work?
No rollback according to what I saw on twitter. Just this one season to sort your team out

Devils Trap is offline  
Old
10-16-2012, 11:03 PM
  #409
Bleedred
BLOW JETS BLOW!
 
Bleedred's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Seminole Florida
Country: United States
Posts: 33,412
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devils Trap View Post
If the cap goes down, these ridiculous contracts wont be here
What you think we can keep Zajac, and Clarkson for? $5 a year for Trav, $4 a year for Dave?

Bleedred is offline  
Old
10-16-2012, 11:08 PM
  #410
CerebralGenesis
Registered User
 
CerebralGenesis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 23,563
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleedred View Post
What you think we can keep Zajac, and Clarkson for? $5 a year for Trav, $4 a year for Dave?
IF UFA age goes up, I don't care because there won't be competition...unless they Parise themselves for a 1 year deal.

CerebralGenesis is offline  
Old
10-16-2012, 11:45 PM
  #411
AsherDoodle
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 28
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feed Me A Stray Cat View Post
Absolutely absurd. How can you retroactively go back and penalize teams for moves that were technically legal at the time.
This is the financial penalty Dreger was alluding to:

Bob McKenzie ‏@TSNBobMcKenzie
Any existing deal in excess of 5 yrs would carry cap hit in every year of contract, even if player were to retire with year(s) left.

https://twitter.com/TSNBobMcKenzie/s...14946461818881

AsherDoodle is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 05:10 AM
  #412
njdevsfn95
Help Vas, Sprite.
 
njdevsfn95's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 29,423
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by AsherDoodle View Post
Dreger also said on TSN Insider Trading that some teams want a financial penalty levied against teams that have given out front loaded mega deals.

http://iphone.tsn.ca/mobile/2012/10/...ing_101612.mp4
A retroactive penalty, eh?

Quote:
Originally Posted by AsherDoodle View Post
This is the financial penalty Dreger was alluding to:

Bob McKenzie ‏@TSNBobMcKenzie
Any existing deal in excess of 5 yrs would carry cap hit in every year of contract, even if player were to retire with year(s) left.

https://twitter.com/TSNBobMcKenzie/s...14946461818881
Meh, these players will still be traded and THEN retire. The trading team loses the cap hit and the acquiring team gets a cap hit and doesnt have to pay.

EDIT: after reading twitter, apparently they already caught this loophole.

This is a shocking development...the NHL actively trying to close loopholes?

Also, I have a feeling the PA is going to come back with something completely different.


Last edited by njdevsfn95: 10-17-2012 at 05:19 AM.
njdevsfn95 is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 05:52 AM
  #413
Ilkka Pikachu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Country: Portugal
Posts: 4,334
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by njdevsfn95 View Post
A retroactive penalty, eh?



Meh, these players will still be traded and THEN retire. The trading team loses the cap hit and the acquiring team gets a cap hit and doesnt have to pay.

EDIT: after reading twitter, apparently they already caught this loophole.

This is a shocking development...the NHL actively trying to close loopholes?

Also, I have a feeling the PA is going to come back with something completely different.
The worse part is that there is actually a good chance that it happens.

Ilkka Pikachu is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 08:17 AM
  #414
Feed Me A Stray Cat
Registered User
 
Feed Me A Stray Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Boston, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 11,588
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Feed Me A Stray Cat
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saugus View Post
That's the same argument for why a salary cap is theoretically unnecessary, but it doesn't work in practice. You'll end up with teams with multiple bloated contracts who keep trading away younger assets for aging stars and the flavour of the week, getting severe diminishing returns on their investments.

That's not a better NHL than the parity of today. It adds unnecessary complexity to the cap calculations.
But it's not the same argument. If we had no cap, teams with money could sign free agents to ridiculous contracts at a whim with no downside. That's not the case with this proposal. Rich teams who exceed will get penalized by trading away assets, while poorer teams who wouldn't reach the cap anyway get helped. This actually levels the playing field more than the status quo does.

And personally, the idea of rich teams getting "diminishing returns on their investments" sounds great to me. I hope they feel the pain for stupid management. All the while poorer teams will benefit from collecting picks and cheap players.

Feed Me A Stray Cat is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 08:19 AM
  #415
Feed Me A Stray Cat
Registered User
 
Feed Me A Stray Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Boston, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 11,588
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Feed Me A Stray Cat
Quote:
Originally Posted by AsherDoodle View Post
This is the financial penalty Dreger was alluding to:

Bob McKenzie ‏@TSNBobMcKenzie
Any existing deal in excess of 5 yrs would carry cap hit in every year of contract, even if player were to retire with year(s) left.

https://twitter.com/TSNBobMcKenzie/s...14946461818881
Eh, guess I'm fine with that. We might run into problems with Kovy, but then again, about 15 teams are going to run into problems with this.

Feed Me A Stray Cat is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 08:28 AM
  #416
CerebralGenesis
Registered User
 
CerebralGenesis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 23,563
vCash: 500
Ya I'm not sure what i think about the cap hit lasting the whole way no matter but I'm indifferent.

If the pa doesn't respond under this framework, ill create a twitter and bombard their greedy *****.

CerebralGenesis is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 08:43 AM
  #417
MartyOwns
NYRB!!!2013********33333
 
MartyOwns's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 10,362
vCash: 500
it doesnt matter what these terms are, they are just framework. we'll see how the PA responds

MartyOwns is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 09:05 AM
  #418
NJDevs26
Moderator
Status quo
 
NJDevs26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 22,974
vCash: 500
Apparently the NHL has made public its entire proposal. Interesting, obviously a PR move, but now they can't be accused of hiding anything either.

NJDevs26 is online now  
Old
10-17-2012, 09:07 AM
  #419
Zajacs Bowl Cut
Nova Nation
 
Zajacs Bowl Cut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Southampton, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 38,160
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Zajacs Bowl Cut Send a message via Yahoo to Zajacs Bowl Cut
wait

so if a player TRADES someone with a deal longer than 5 years and then he retires down teh road, the ORIGINAL team is on the hook for that cap hit?

I absolutely hate that.

Zajacs Bowl Cut is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 09:09 AM
  #420
GM17*
ALL HAIL LORD FISH
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Halifax
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,939
vCash: 500
PA will lose all support if they take long on this

GM17* is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 09:11 AM
  #421
Saugus
Ecrasez l'infame!
 
Saugus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 97,441
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Saugus
Quote:
Originally Posted by AsherDoodle View Post
This is the financial penalty Dreger was alluding to:

Bob McKenzie ‏@TSNBobMcKenzie
Any existing deal in excess of 5 yrs would carry cap hit in every year of contract, even if player were to retire with year(s) left.

https://twitter.com/TSNBobMcKenzie/s...14946461818881
This could create some bizarre situations. Say Luongo is traded, and then he retires after a few years with his new club for whatever reason. By the rule as proposed, Vancouver would end up back on the hook for his cap hit. Total madness.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Feed Me A Stray Cat View Post
But it's not the same argument. If we had no cap, teams with money could sign free agents to ridiculous contracts at a whim with no downside. That's not the case with this proposal. Rich teams who exceed will get penalized by trading away assets, while poorer teams who wouldn't reach the cap anyway get helped. This actually levels the playing field more than the status quo does.

And personally, the idea of rich teams getting "diminishing returns on their investments" sounds great to me. I hope they feel the pain for stupid management. All the while poorer teams will benefit from collecting picks and cheap players.
That's in theory. But what actually happened when there was no cap? Teams like the Rangers and Leafs traded away their picks and prospects for aging superstars, and overpaid mediocre players in UFA, distorting the market for everyone, and rarely seeing any success come of it. That's essentially the same effect that would occur if you allow teams to trade cap space.

I'd rather have the flat cap NHL with parity, than an NHL with a distorted labour market and teams allowed to spend different amounts of money. It's needlessly introducing more loopholes into an already flawed system where they are ostensibly trying to close the loopholes.

Saugus is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 09:29 AM
  #422
glenwo2
PATTY'S BETTER!!!
 
glenwo2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: New Jersey(No Fanz!)
Country: United States
Posts: 21,510
vCash: 500
What about Kovy?

StrayCat brought it up briefly but I think if this comes to pass, the Devils and Lou are going to be CONTINUOUSLY Penalized every year(after Kovy's 5th year of the deal, am I right?) then. Unless I'm looking at this wrong....

glenwo2 is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 09:31 AM
  #423
MartyOwns
NYRB!!!2013********33333
 
MartyOwns's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 10,362
vCash: 500
im sure there will be some grandfathering in

MartyOwns is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 09:33 AM
  #424
manilaNJ
Optimism: Unwavering
 
manilaNJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 5,607
vCash: 500
NHL proposal to save 82-game season

NHL released everything they submitted to the NHLPA yesterday.
They say it's the full proposal, I doubt that, but it covers most of the ground.

Probably the most interesting part:

Quote:
• In the context of Player Trades, participating Clubs will be permitted to allocate Cap charges and related salary payment obligations between them, subject to specified parameters. Specifically, Clubs may agree to retain, for each of the remaining years of the Player's SPC, no more than the lesser of: (i) $3 million of a particular SPC's Cap charge or (ii) 50 percent of the SPC's AAV ("Retained Salary Transaction"). In any Retained Salary Transaction, salary obligations as between Clubs would be allocated on the same percentage basis as Cap charges are being allocated. So, for instance, if an assigning Club agrees to retain 30% of an SPC's Cap charge over the balance of its term, it will also retain an obligation to reimburse the acquiring Club 30% of the Player's contractual compensation in each of the remaining years of the contract. A Club may not have more than two (2) contracts as to which Cap charges have been allocated between Clubs in a Player Trade, and no more than $5 million in allocated Cap charges in the aggregate in any one season.

manilaNJ is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 09:36 AM
  #425
I Hate Tie DOMI
Registered User
 
I Hate Tie DOMI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Port Colborne, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,522
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saugus View Post
This could create some bizarre situations. Say Luongo is traded, and then he retires after a few years with his new club for whatever reason. By the rule as proposed, Vancouver would end up back on the hook for his cap hit. Total madness.

I think this is there to create incentive for the team handing out those long term deals to take responsibility for it and not just trade away mistakes like the Rangers with Gomez, Luongo possible being traded, etc. However, if this does go through that means the trade market for these individuals should open up if the team getting them isn't on the hook for anything but there current salary and cap hit.

I Hate Tie DOMI 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 08:49 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.