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

2012-13 Lockout Discussion Part IV (UPDATE: "The Union took a step backward")

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-16-2012, 11:50 PM
  #426
Fire Sather
new Niclas Wallin?
 
Fire Sather's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 20,509
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Fire Sather
Yeah if a deal gets done say even 10/25.. 11/2, can't see how you can start in a week

Fire Sather is online now  
Old
10-17-2012, 12:03 AM
  #427
UAGoalieGuy
Registered User
 
UAGoalieGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Long Island,New York
Country: United States
Posts: 8,711
vCash: 500
I wonder if one of Asham or Rupp would get bought out if they have compliance buyouts.

UAGoalieGuy is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 12:09 AM
  #428
BrooklynRangersFan
Change is good.
 
BrooklynRangersFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brooklyn of course
Country: United States
Posts: 10,562
vCash: 500
Quote:
TSNBobMcKenzie Oct 16, 11:51pm via Twitter for BlackBerry®

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.
That may be a problematic feature for a LOT of teams... Did Brian Burke insist on it?

From a Rangers' perspective - if Bobby Mac is correct and of course this clause stands as-is - it would not be particularly problematic during this CBA as Richards's deal goes from $7MM to $1MM in real dollars in 7th year (and who knows what happens by then in terms of cap, value of contracts for trade purposes, etc.). Still, a potentially thorny issue that will need to be ironed out...

BrooklynRangersFan is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 12:13 AM
  #429
HatTrick Swayze
Tomato Potato
 
HatTrick Swayze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 9,581
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooklynRangersFan View Post
That may be a problematic feature for a LOT of teams... Did Brian Burke insist on it?

From a Rangers' perspective - if Bobby Mac is correct and of course this clause stands as-is - it would not be particularly problematic during this CBA as Richards's deal goes from $7MM to $1MM in real dollars in 7th year (and who knows what happens by then in terms of cap, value of contracts for trade purposes, etc.). Still, a potentially thorny issue that will need to be ironed out...
Wouldn't they still be able to buy him out based on his real dollars at the end? Instead of retiring (full hit) they would just buy him out.

__________________
"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  
Old
10-17-2012, 12:35 AM
  #430
3rd Guy High
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 750
vCash: 500
Nevermind. Found my answer.


Last edited by 3rd Guy High: 10-17-2012 at 12:41 AM.
3rd Guy High is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 12:37 AM
  #431
iamitter
Thornton's Hen
 
iamitter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 3,392
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HatTrick Swayze View Post
Wouldn't they still be able to buy him out based on his real dollars at the end? Instead of retiring (full hit) they would just buy him out.
He'd have a cap hit of 6 mil instead of 6.666 the three years where he would be playing and then 333,333 for the 3 years after.

Essentially, we'd be best all start hoping Richards pulls a Selanne

iamitter is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 12:39 AM
  #432
Florida Ranger
Bring back Torts!
 
Florida Ranger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Tampa, FLA
Country: United States
Posts: 6,002
vCash: 500
Wait, so if a player was to retire with years left on his contract, it'd still be counted towards the cap? What?

Florida Ranger is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 01:17 AM
  #433
ChrisKreider20
Oh Hai Guise
 
ChrisKreider20's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,342
vCash: 500
This is where I question the unity of the owners.
Why in the blue **** would any of the owners (especially NYR or any other team currently with a contract like that) want to do that to themselves.
I understand financial control - ie: reducing costs, but why would they want to **** themselves. The owners were exploiting this loophole. It's dumb how they have to save themselves from themselves.

ChrisKreider20 is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 02:26 AM
  #434
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 17,829
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy View Post
Haha, no, nobody is saying that. Who is JSportsnet?

Ola is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 02:46 AM
  #435
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 17,829
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYRFAN218 View Post
I guess that's the NHL's concession for free agency being pushed back a year.
I don't think it's a concession.

Y 1-2 ELC
Y 3-5 No arbitration.
Y 6- Arb.

Ie, in general, I recon that a kid might make 300-900k more in y3 but less in y4 and y5. Slats would save dimes on that.

Ola is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 02:49 AM
  #436
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 17,829
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GaBorat View Post
This is where I question the unity of the owners.
Why in the blue **** would any of the owners (especially NYR or any other team currently with a contract like that) want to do that to themselves.
I understand financial control - ie: reducing costs, but why would they want to **** themselves. The owners were exploiting this loophole. It's dumb how they have to save themselves from themselves.
I don't know that much about the owners, but doesn't this offer scream of some sort of unholy alliance?

It throws punches in all kind of directions.

Ola is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 02:50 AM
  #437
Coach Parker
Stanley Cup Champion
 
Coach Parker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,016
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GaBorat View Post
This is where I question the unity of the owners.
Why in the blue **** would any of the owners (especially NYR or any other team currently with a contract like that) want to do that to themselves.
I understand financial control - ie: reducing costs, but why would they want to **** themselves. The owners were exploiting this loophole. It's dumb how they have to save themselves from themselves.
You think that is messed up, sit tight and watch what unfolds in Philly...

They would be on the hook for Carter and Richards' cap hits if those two retired early and we are debating right now on the Business Side of Hockey board if they would ALSO be on the hook for the Weber deal because it originated in Philadelphia and Nashville legally couldn't make any changes to it. in 2021 the Flyers could be on the hook for over $13 million in cap space for the retired Carter and Weber, with Weber's hit of $7.8 million going for another four years...and he never plays a game ever in Philly.

Coach Parker is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 03:25 AM
  #438
eco's bones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Elmira NY
Country: United States
Posts: 12,769
vCash: 500
With a Nov. 2 starting date I don't think an 82 game season is realistic unless you extend the regular season through April--maybe into May--which would put the finals sometime in the middle of July. Not enough recovery time if you're regularly playing 4 or 5 times a week. Injuries will have a much larger impact on who does well and who doesn't.

eco's bones is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 03:57 AM
  #439
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 17,829
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by UAGoalieGuy View Post
I wonder if one of Asham or Rupp would get bought out if they have compliance buyouts.
Everyone and I mean everyone believes there will by a amnesty buy-out.

And I certainly hope that I am wrong, but I don't see the point in it against the info that is available today.

Against an amnesty buyout:
1. The cap will start at 70m. Who needs it?

2. The late reports on BDCs (back diving-contracts) are a bit confusing. But from what I can tell, they make all contracts 35+ year contracts, but, if one of these guys is traded and then retires, the team that signed him get the hit. Ie, I've not seen any report that NJD will have Kova's real salary on their cap. NJD will pay for the Kova contract starting like 2020 or later... Minny will not have Suter and Parise's real salary on their caps either...

3. There is only Redden in the AHL. In reality the biggest change from last season to this season will be that Wade Redden will count against our cap...

4. You will be allowed to eat money to dump cap space (Right?! Or do you eat capspace too?). In any way, if we need to trade Redden, we don't have to trade him at 6m but we can trade him at 3m. Or any team can do that with cap problems.

For it:
1. What happens in year two of the CBA? Is the cap also locked that year like in the NBA? If not, can teams then make the cap? Might a buy-out be necessary in Y2? Or Y3? Not enough info is available to tell that now.
2. There are a few powerful owners who have players they would buy out. (But in reality, how many are there? Philly and us? NYI with Ricky D?)
3. There are a few more owners who would save some money on a buyout (Ie, more like 2-3m players who they feel are worthless).

That's about it. I am not sure if there is enough reasons to have a amnesty buy-out, (unless I have misunderstood some things/things haven't been properly reported).


Last edited by Ola: 10-17-2012 at 04:08 AM.
Ola is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 04:51 AM
  #440
Fanned On It
Registered User
 
Fanned On It's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 1,891
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ola View Post
Everyone and I mean everyone believes there will by a amnesty buy-out.

And I certainly hope that I am wrong, but I don't see the point in it against the info that is available today.

Against an amnesty buyout:
1. The cap will start at 70m. Who needs it?

2. The late reports on BDCs (back diving-contracts) are a bit confusing. But from what I can tell, they make all contracts 35+ year contracts, but, if one of these guys is traded and then retires, the team that signed him get the hit. Ie, I've not seen any report that NJD will have Kova's real salary on their cap. NJD will pay for the Kova contract starting like 2020 or later... Minny will not have Suter and Parise's real salary on their caps either...

3. There is only Redden in the AHL. In reality the biggest change from last season to this season will be that Wade Redden will count against our cap...

4. You will be allowed to eat money to dump cap space (Right?! Or do you eat capspace too?). In any way, if we need to trade Redden, we don't have to trade him at 6m but we can trade him at 3m. Or any team can do that with cap problems.

For it:
1. What happens in year two of the CBA? Is the cap also locked that year like in the NBA? If not, can teams then make the cap? Might a buy-out be necessary in Y2? Or Y3? Not enough info is available to tell that now.
2. There are a few powerful owners who have players they would buy out. (But in reality, how many are there? Philly and us? NYI with Ricky D?)
3. There are a few more owners who would save some money on a buyout (Ie, more like 2-3m players who they feel are worthless).

That's about it. I am not sure if there is enough reasons to have a amnesty buy-out, (unless I have misunderstood some things/things haven't been properly reported).
LOL I have no idea what the heck you are talking about. Wish I did though! Hahaha.

Fanned On It is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 05:04 AM
  #441
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
The union is expected to push back on the proposed five-year maximum for new contracts and the delaying of free agency. The proposal also would delay salary arbitration eligibility until after the player's fifth season instead of the fourth, and would impose a maximum yearly variance of 5% within any contract. That provision is aimed at eliminating the lengthy, front-loaded contracts many teams devised to skirt salary cap restrictions in the previous labor agreement.
http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-...,0,82643.story

That is supposed to prevent the crazy 2nd contract. ELCs expire after 2 years. 3 years of no arbitration rights. PA won't go for that. A player like Stepan needs 4 years before being arb eligible. Under the NHL proposal,it would be 5 years.

RangerBoy is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 06:01 AM
  #442
wolfgaze
Interesting Cat
 
wolfgaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 12,166
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach Parker View Post
You think that is messed up, sit tight and watch what unfolds in Philly...

They would be on the hook for Carter and Richards' cap hits if those two retired early and we are debating right now on the Business Side of Hockey board if they would ALSO be on the hook for the Weber deal because it originated in Philadelphia and Nashville legally couldn't make any changes to it. in 2021 the Flyers could be on the hook for over $13 million in cap space for the retired Carter and Weber, with Weber's hit of $7.8 million going for another four years...and he never plays a game ever in Philly.
Huh?

Why would Philly be incurring cap hits for these players???

wolfgaze is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 07:02 AM
  #443
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfgaze View Post
Huh?

Why would Philly be incurring cap hits for these players???
Quote:
Sorry I lied. Important note on back-diving contracts (BDC). If player traded, then later in deal retires, original club on hook for cap hit
https://twitter.com/TSNBobMcKenzie/s...18696119259136

Philly signed Richards and Carter to those long term deals.

RangerBoy is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 07:03 AM
  #444
TheRedViper
Registered User
 
TheRedViper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Niagara
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,292
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfgaze View Post
Huh?

Why would Philly be incurring cap hits for these players???
In the NHL offer it mentioned that if a player with a lengthy contract retires, the team is on the hook for the cap hit for the duration of the contract (35+ rules applied to all of the long contracts already signed). They've also included said that any players on long contracts that get traded and then retire, the SIGNING team is on the hook for the hit, not the team that traded for the player.

TheRedViper is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 07:10 AM
  #445
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,900
vCash: 500
The $70.2M transition cap is for 1 year.

Quote:
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.
https://twitter.com/TSNBobMcKenzie/s...08635774939138

The cap drops in year 2 and those teams still have the bad contracts on the books. The system changed. If they want the complete or a portion of the 1 way contract to count,give teams a chance to dump those contracts. The system changed. The NHL has proposed a 6 year CBA.


Last edited by RangerBoy: 10-17-2012 at 07:18 AM.
RangerBoy is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 07:16 AM
  #446
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ola View Post
Haha, no, nobody is saying that. Who is JSportsnet?
What?

Quote:
NHL intends on calculating lost salary in getting to 50-50 and will pay the players back over time.
Quote:
The payback to the players would occur over the balance of their contracts.
https://twitter.com/DarrenDreger

Dreger tweeted the same thing John Shannon tweeted.

RangerBoy is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 07:19 AM
  #447
BBKers
Registered User
 
BBKers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: South Koster, Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 5,824
vCash: 500
Send a message via Skype™ to BBKers
Quote:
Originally Posted by rangers1024 View Post
In the NHL offer it mentioned that if a player with a lengthy contract retires, the team is on the hook for the cap hit for the duration of the contract (35+ rules applied to all of the long contracts already signed). They've also included said that any players on long contracts that get traded and then retire, the SIGNING team is on the hook for the hit, not the team that traded for the player.
So if Gomez retires now... we would get to eat up his little $7,357,143 cap hit this year and next. Add Reddens $6.5 M for two more years as well ---- and well, yeah


Last edited by BBKers: 10-17-2012 at 07:24 AM.
BBKers is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 07:24 AM
  #448
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Items not addressed in NHL offer: minimum salary, buyout formulae, possibility of player amnesty. Will be interesting to see them addressed.
Quote:
I do think part of this is strategy: leave plenty of room for negotiation to try and get this done
https://twitter.com/FriedgeHNIC/stat...24757920346112

Quote:
While the focus continues to be on revenue percentage, the larger issue is what defines hockey related revenue (HRR). Sources confirm the players are not willing to accept how HRR is defined in Tuesday’s proposal. The players have made it clear they want the definitions of HRR to remain the same as it was in the previous agreement.

The players are fine with splitting the revenue right down the middle but that still largely depends on how we’re defining HRR.
http://www.truehockey.com/articles/F...A-Blueprint-01

The NHL says the definition is the same but the PA says its different.

$60M cap.

RangerBoy is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 07:25 AM
  #449
turcotte8
Registered User
 
turcotte8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,872
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBKers View Post
So if Gomez retires now... we get to eat up his little $7,357,143 cap hit this year. Add Reddens $6.5 M for two more years as well ---- and well, yeah
Gomez wasn't a "long" contract. I would think it applies to those 10+ year cap circumventing deals.

turcotte8 is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 07:28 AM
  #450
TheRedViper
Registered User
 
TheRedViper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Niagara
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,292
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by turcotte8 View Post
Gomez wasn't a "long" contract. I would think it applies to those 10+ year cap circumventing deals.
It would apply to every contract in excess of their proposed 5 year term limit

TheRedViper 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 08:25 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.