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
10-17-2012, 11:13 AM
  #501
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,446
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYR Boyler87 View Post
If the Rangers have to account for Redden in the coming (2) years + take on Brad Richards real cap hit (actual money paid) they will be in a very bad position.
They'll be at right around $59m in real dollars paid for 2013-14 on 17 contracts including Redden. If the Cap is $65m in year two (very likely), they might have to make some moves, but they're not going to be in too big of a hole.

As for this coming season, it's pretty certain the Rangers would be one of the teams using the transition cushion under those circumstances.

Besides which, the NHL did not propose counting real salary instead of AAV.

Tawnos is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 11:13 AM
  #502
Blueshirt Believer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 6,378
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYR Boyler87 View Post
If the Rangers have to account for Redden in the coming (2) years + take on Brad Richards real cap hit (actual money paid) they will be in a very bad position.
Well, I think Redden might be moved to a team trying to make the cap floor(granted, if he can get through waivers, if there are waivers?). That is, of course, if there is no amnesty buyout.

Richards contract may be legit issue, I agree. But that blow can be soften a bit with Gaborik not being resigned or traded.

Blueshirt Believer is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 11:13 AM
  #503
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,804
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooklynRangersFan View Post
I understand what you're saying, BUT no one (including the league) expected them to take it as-is. This is a deal that should be negotiated off of. It is a very good step in the right direction and should be built upon by the PA.
Yes, precisely.

So how would a tersely worded leaked e-mail that found its way into the hands of Bob McKenzie help that endeavor?

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 11:23 AM
  #504
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,446
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliffy1814 View Post
Has anyone seen any clarification or detail around this part of the proposal:

Finally, we propose that to facilitate more trades and create increased flexibility in managing Cap Room, Clubs be allowed to allocate portions of a contract's Cap charge (and related salary obligations) in the context of a Player Trade. This will facilitate additional Player movement and trades between teams as they manage their respective Caps and Payroll Range obligations

Without any guidelines this would allow Rangers to trade Redden to Islanders for instance.
They could pay 95% of his contract and the Islanders could absorb 95% of the cap hit. It helps the Isles get to the floor, obviously helps the Rangers and also helps Redden get back to the NHL.

On the down side, it opens door for sather to make all sorts of crazy deadline deals where he takes on overpaid players using same premise of absorbing money obligations but taking very little in terms of Cap.
A team can't keep more than $3m or 50% of the deal, whichever is less. No team will be charged for Redden's cap any more than $3.5m. The Cap charge retained and salary retained have to match. No team will be paying Redden any more than $2m. So, in effect, Redden might still be untradeable. At the very least, we'd be having to give something up to entice someone. Or maybe there really is a team out there willing to pay Redden $2m to play on their 3rd pair or ride the bench.

Tawnos is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 11:40 AM
  #505
Riche16
Pessimistic-Realist
 
Riche16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: FL
Country: United States
Posts: 3,437
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
Please. It's rhetoric. What goes on in the room has nothing to do with what is said to the media.
Yup. But the fans have every right to make up their mind.

The proposal will tell me more, but this letter doesn't help their position in my mind. I I would say I was more on the side the players through all this, but they're quickly losing ground.

Riche16 is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 11:55 AM
  #506
SupersonicMonkey*
DROP THE PUCK
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 15,193
vCash: 500
In regards to the cap going down and Rangers being in a bind.

They may be.

But if the info leaked is true, teams may be able to trade salary.

SupersonicMonkey* is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 12:01 PM
  #507
Miamipuck
Al Swearengen
 
Miamipuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Take a Wild Guess
Posts: 1,201
vCash: 500
The league bent the players over and aimed for penetration in 04'.
Yeah the players should drop everything and sign this because Bettman said it was a fair deal. Please, I hope the players tell them to stick it, which looks like it's the case.

The first few offers from the owners were borderline ridiculous so they put forth a quasi 50/50 and the sheep come back to the owners corner. Give me a break. The league shouldn't even be in this position if it weren't for the fiscal irresponsibility in the first place. Look at the contracts they were handing out while the lockout was looming.

Sorry I don't think players should subsidize the mess the owners made. Geez they were dancing the veritable jig the last time a CBA agreement was signed.

I love hockey and want to watch it as badly as the next but ..............


Last edited by Miamipuck: 10-17-2012 at 12:41 PM.
Miamipuck is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 12:09 PM
  #508
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,446
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riche16 View Post
Yup. But the fans have every right to make up their mind.

The proposal will tell me more, but this letter doesn't help their position in my mind. I I would say I was more on the side the players through all this, but they're quickly losing ground.
Fans have every right to make up their own mind, but they shouldn't be fooled by rhetoric.

And I hope the NHLPA doesn't give a counter proposal. If they think this represents a good place to start, then they'll negotiate each piece.

Tawnos is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 12:38 PM
  #509
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,781
vCash: 500
John Shannon,Nick Kypreos and Doug MacLean covered some of the topics on HockeyCentral. The 5 year contract limit. The NHL just wants a number. The NHL will take 7 or 8. Just give them a number. They didn't think free agency was a big deal. The NHL would keep it at 7 or 27 to get a deal. They didn't think the PA would go for the one way contracts in the AHL counting on the cap. It takes space away from those teams. Only the players playing in the AHL under one way contracts would care about that. Kyper said they are getting paid their one way salary so what's the big deal.

RangerBoy is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 12:41 PM
  #510
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,781
vCash: 500
You think Torts wants Redden on the team?

RangerBoy is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 12:44 PM
  #511
BBKers
Registered User
 
BBKers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: South Koster, Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 5,662
vCash: 500
Send a message via Skype™ to BBKers
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy View Post
You think Torts wants Redden on the team?
Ummmm, not really sure about his enthusiasm there, no...

BBKers is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 12:47 PM
  #512
ltrangerfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 931
vCash: 500
Owner gave their best offer before more games are cancelled.

I believe the Nov 2 date is really the last shot for a full season.

If the PA holds relatively firm (countering with a maneuver or two to show how reasonable they are) I look forward to the Mid Nov talks, then the mid December negotiation and possibly a final first week in Jan face to face (the best shot to get a deal done) before a seaon cancel meeting.

Until proven wrong I continue to believe that Oct is too early for a settlement. Both sides aren't nearly ready.

We'll see later this week.

ltrangerfan is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 12:51 PM
  #513
HatTrick Swayze
Tomato Potato
 
HatTrick Swayze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 9,297
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy View Post
They didn't think the PA would go for the one way contracts in the AHL counting on the cap. It takes space away from those teams. Only the players playing in the AHL under one way contracts would care about that. Kyper said they are getting paid their one way salary so what's the big deal.
There is no way the PA should support it at all. Less cap space going to NHLers, and the AHLers on one-way deals will have less opportunities in the future.

However at the end of the day given the relatively low dollar impact to current players and the low numbers of teams truly affected, I think the PA will throw the NHL a bone on this in exchange for something else.

__________________
"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 offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 12:54 PM
  #514
HatTrick Swayze
Tomato Potato
 
HatTrick Swayze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 9,297
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ltrangerfan View Post
Owner gave their best offer before more games are cancelled.

I believe the Nov 2 date is really the last shot for a full season.

If the PA holds relatively firm (countering with a maneuver or two to show how reasonable they are) I look forward to the Mid Nov talks, then the mid December negotiation and possibly a final first week in Jan face to face (the best shot to get a deal done) before a seaon cancel meeting.

Until proven wrong I continue to believe that Oct is too early for a settlement. Both sides aren't nearly ready.

We'll see later this week.
See, I hate to be negative nancy here, but I think this may be the biggest choke point of the negotiations. Start cutting games, 100% for good, and the numbers really begin working against the players. Resisting a 12.3% paycut to prove a point doesn't seem too smart when you are getting 25-50-100% of your salary cut this year via lost games.

The NHL seems to have put a lot of weight on this offer. If the PA refuses to work within its framework I could see it getting (more) ugly quick.

HatTrick Swayze is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 12:56 PM
  #515
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,781
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HatTrick Swayze View Post
There is no way the PA should support it at all. Less cap space going to NHLers, and the AHLers on one-way deals will have less opportunities in the future.

However at the end of the day given the relatively low dollar impact to current players and the low numbers of teams truly affected, I think the PA will throw the NHL a bone on this in exchange for something else.
Teams will be reluctant to give a long term contract knowing they are stuck with it. The NHL proposal doesn't include anything about buyouts. Right now they are 2/3 for most of the players. No buyouts in the future. So you're stuck with the contract. You can't buy it put or shed the money in the AHL.

RangerBoy is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 01:03 PM
  #516
HatTrick Swayze
Tomato Potato
 
HatTrick Swayze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 9,297
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy View Post
Teams will be reluctant to give a long term contract knowing they are stuck with it. The NHL proposal doesn't include anything about buyouts. Right now they are 2/3 for most of the players. No buyouts in the future. So you're stuck with the contract. You can't buy it put or shed the money in the AHL.
Yup. Seems like an iron-fisted way of scaring the "big spending teams" (which apparently now include the Wild and Preds but I digress) into really cutting back on UFA deals. Not surprising that the NHL wants to do this, but the PA should be concerned.

Not to mention - will it even work to deter owners? Or will we just have more and more teams with dead cap space (and a weaker on-ice product).

HatTrick Swayze is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 01:17 PM
  #517
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,781
vCash: 500
The NHL projects $3.468B for 12-13. 5% growth. Up from $3.303B. $95M in benefits. There is no 5% bump in the NHL proposal which is added to the midpoint. That's $62,633,333. $54,633,333 midpoint. Add $8M. 13-14 cap. The NHL proposal doesn't use the 5%. The NHL shouldn't give them the 5% bump option. Inflationary.

$3.303B

50%

$95M

30 teams

Midpoint of $51,883,333

Add $8M

$59.9M upper limit.

The NHL had proposed adding $4M instead of the $8M in July.

RangerBoy is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 01:25 PM
  #518
Cliffy1814
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 624
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy View Post
Teams will be reluctant to give a long term contract knowing they are stuck with it. The NHL proposal doesn't include anything about buyouts. Right now they are 2/3 for most of the players. No buyouts in the future. So you're stuck with the contract. You can't buy it put or shed the money in the AHL.
Kind of how it should be though no?

Cliffy1814 is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 01:28 PM
  #519
CM PUNK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,278
vCash: 500
Larry Brooks ‏@NYP_Brooksie
To point re free agency by @mirtle and using @capgeek info, 268 roster contracts set to expire after12/13, 215 more to expire after13/14
Expand Reply Retweet Favorite

that's roughly 70% of the players that will have their contracts expire in the next 2 years. seems to me that most of the concerns and questions about punishing teams for contracts signed under the old cba could be eliminated by applying the 'transition rules' to years 1 and 2.

CM PUNK is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 01:29 PM
  #520
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 17,492
vCash: 500
RB, do you think the NHL has much against the 5% bump?

The 5% only hurts the league through owners getting to pay money they would paid anyway a little earlier. Nobody gets paid a cent more due to it, at the end of the day. The offer did not cover the five percent bump, shouldn't we be able to assume in big parts that what is not covered is still in the CBA?

If so, don't be suprised to see the cap at 63m instead of 59m.

Ola is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 01:31 PM
  #521
Riche16
Pessimistic-Realist
 
Riche16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: FL
Country: United States
Posts: 3,437
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
Fans have every right to make up their own mind, but they shouldn't be fooled by rhetoric.

And I hope the NHLPA doesn't give a counter proposal. If they think this represents a good place to start, then they'll negotiate each piece.
That's why I said I'm waiting for their proposal.

I'm not saying the NHLPA should take this and run, and that the owners aren't to blame. What I'm saying is that after one side finally makes a big push, coming out and saying "It's not close, these are our positions..." and one of those is "we conceeded last time and shouldn't be asked to this time." is crap. Posturing or rhetoric or whatever.

The clock is ticking. This crap doesn't help move things along. But I guess after another round of lost games both sides will dig in further, wanting to have something to show for the loss and then we can talk about how to avoid losing '13-'14.

Riche16 is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 01:31 PM
  #522
Cliffy1814
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 624
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy View Post
Teams will be reluctant to give a long term contract knowing they are stuck with it. The NHL proposal doesn't include anything about buyouts. Right now they are 2/3 for most of the players. No buyouts in the future. So you're stuck with the contract. You can't buy it put or shed the money in the AHL.
the PA should negotiate to a higher dollar figure.

i.e. One way contracts in excess of $ ??? Count against the cap while those below that figure would not.
The league would likely go for that. They are not trying to squeeze and extra $2m off the cap , they are trying to close the Redden loophole.

Once again, this seems to be something there could be movement on.

Cliffy1814 is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 01:37 PM
  #523
Cliffy1814
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 624
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riche16 View Post
That's why I said I'm waiting for their proposal.

I'm not saying the NHLPA should take this and run, and that the owners aren't to blame. What I'm saying is that after one side finally makes a big push, coming out and saying "It's not close, these are our positions..." and one of those is "we conceeded last time and shouldn't be asked to this time." is crap. Posturing or rhetoric or whatever.

The clock is ticking. This crap doesn't help move things along. But I guess after another round of lost games both sides will dig in further, wanting to have something to show for the loss and then we can talk about how to avoid losing '13-'14.
Great point. The ticking time bomb is the damage to HRR that will be caused by losing games. Both the obvious (lost ticket revenue) and the less tangible (angry fan base).

If the end game for the league was 50% of the complete revnue pie (1.8B for argument sake), if we wind up with a smaller pie, they will want a larger piece.

The ball is in NHLPA court now. If they allow games to be lost, they will see a reduction short term in actual $$. (52% of HRR associated with a 54 game schedule is less than 50% of a 82 game schedule). If they are willing to accept that for sunnier days on the back end so be it.

Seems like a huge risk to take though.

Cliffy1814 is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 01:46 PM
  #524
CM PUNK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,278
vCash: 500
i think its a big mistake by the nhl to keep the $16 mil gap between the cap and floor. under the old cba the floor rose at a faster rate than the cap and when looking at the teams that the system is built to protect the floor is more important than the cap.

that gap should be percentage based so they go up or down at the same rates...it might widen the gap between teams i'm sure teams spending to the floor would rather have the lower floor than tighter gap

CM PUNK is offline  
Old
10-17-2012, 01:50 PM
  #525
Fitzy
All Is Well
 
Fitzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 19,917
vCash: 50
Salary can now be kept in trades, so they can dish Redden to a cap floor team, and there will be teams who need to get to the cap floor. the NYR should be able to hold onto 3 mil a year of the 5 mil per Redden makes on the last 2 years of his contract.

The team in question with poor finances gets a 6.5 mil cap hit for 2 million dollars in real salary. Shouldn't be impossible to pull off. I'm sure Wade would waive his NTC to play NHL hockey again as well.

Fitzy 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 11:32 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.