HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk Trade rumors, transactions, and free agent talk. Rumors must contain the word RUMOR in post title. Proposals must contain the word PROPOSAL in post title.

Brad Richards

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-20-2013, 10:04 PM
  #51
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,181
vCash: 873
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Schuler View Post
Richards will not be bought out. His slump is a micro event - look at things in a macro sense. That said, he is on the down slope of his career and the production has already outpaced his contract. That said, an amnesty buyout seems rather aggressive in the off season. If he doesn't rebound next season, then a buyout seems likely (the Rangers will need to resign most of the core and supporting parts after next season).

If the Rangers did buy him out, he's unlikely to see the same contract length or value, especially as everyone can see he is slumping. Then again, a team could convince themselves that it was the system, not the player.

My vote would be Calgary - they seem both desperate and silly enough to do it.
During the season I had the same thought, Richards will get the shortened season, the PO's, the 2013-14 season and next years PO's.

However, his play has deteriorated so much that buying him out this summer would be best for both Richards and the team.

It's painfully obvious that he's not working out here.

Let him go to a team that plays a system better suited for his current skill set.

He's a goner this summer.

HAS TO BE, he's been that bad

pld459666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-20-2013, 10:06 PM
  #52
Number1RedWingsFan52
Registered User
 
Number1RedWingsFan52's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Winter Haven Florida
Country: United States
Posts: 5,952
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogi1Kenobi View Post
He wanted out because of the uncertainty of the ownership in Dallas at the time, not because he hated the team. His best seasons were in Dallas.
Yeah that's true, Still dont see him back in Dallas he will want to play for a Contender and Dallas is far from that right now.

Number1RedWingsFan52 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-20-2013, 10:06 PM
  #53
Leafs87
Mr. Steal Your Job
 
Leafs87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Richmond Hill
Country: Romania
Posts: 4,497
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BPD View Post
No, he did not. That "good year" was an 11 point drop from the prior year - in 10 MORE games, no less. His PPG dropped .27 from 1.07 (approx) to .80

This season? Down to .74 - and as someone who watched a TON of Rangers hockey, I'm still not even sure how in all hell he got to 34 points.

Sorry, but you're talking about a .33 point per game drop in 3 years. The guy is in decline - and rapidly. This isn't what we paid for.

For what it's worth, I think the Rangers hold onto him next year, but for purely fiscal reasons.
Players usually do decline at that age, but I'm assuming sather was fully aware of this. He knew he wasn't getting prime Richards, which was the concern of most fans who's team was in on Richards. To give up on him that easily would definitely not be viewed positively

Leafs87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-20-2013, 10:10 PM
  #54
Ogi1Kenobi
Registered User
 
Ogi1Kenobi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,197
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Number1RedWingsFan52 View Post
Yeah that's true, Still dont see him back in Dallas he will want to play for a Contender and Dallas is far from that right now.
A player who sucks as bad as Richards does not have a choice on which teams offer him a contract. Don't expect contending teams opening up their wallets and lining up for his services. Calgary, Toronto or TB, none of those teams are contenders. Unless he signs a 1-2 mil./1 year contract with Boston or Chicago, I can't see a lot of contenders offering him 4 mil.+ (think Gomez and Redden).


Last edited by Ogi1Kenobi: 05-20-2013 at 10:15 PM.
Ogi1Kenobi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-20-2013, 10:12 PM
  #55
DPyro
Registered User
 
DPyro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,308
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nmbr_24 View Post
I just have to ask, does everyone realize he has been reduced to a 4th liner?
And? What line was Joffrey Lupul on before he was traded to Toronto?

DPyro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-20-2013, 10:17 PM
  #56
FishManSam
Bobs Yummy Burgers!
 
FishManSam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: I Bet You Hate T.O
Country: Croatia
Posts: 4,913
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marlo Stanfield View Post
ZERO chance Toronto signs Richards. Why would they sign him after he spurned them and may want a sizable contract again? (Think 3.5-4.0 mil AAV).

My money is on Washington (to possibly replace Ribiero) or Chicago (roll the dice and try to fill their #2C void temporarily)
I'd have no problem giving him 3.5-4 AAV...

FishManSam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-20-2013, 10:50 PM
  #57
LEAFANFORLIFE23
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,707
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogi1Kenobi View Post
A player who sucks as bad as Richards does not have a choice on which teams offer him a contract. Don't expect contending teams opening up their wallets and lining up for his services. Calgary, Toronto or TB, none of those teams are contenders. Unless he signs a 1-2 mil./1 year contract with Boston or Chicago, I can't see a lot of contenders offering him 4 mil.+ (think Gomez and Redden).
He'd make Toronto real close to a contender. We already got the 1st line talent on wing in Kessel, Lupul and JVR, we got the #2 and #3 centers covered in Kadri, and McClement.

We got the offensive Minded D in Phaneuf Gardiner we got Rielly coming and dispite his meltdown Reimer is a talented goalie.

Lupul Richards Kessel,

JVR Kadri, Ryder

Kuelmin McClement Komarov

? ? ?

Phaneuf ?

Gardiner Gunnar

Franson Fraser

Reimer

?

Now granted I added Ryder cause don't think Kuelmin will be in our top 6 and there are a few ? but other then who plays with Dion none of them are massive the core is there adding a couple parts could make us a contender we aren't far off

LEAFANFORLIFE23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-20-2013, 10:54 PM
  #58
CM Lundqvist
Best In The World
 
CM Lundqvist's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 8,537
vCash: 500
Yeah he's been craptastically terriawful.

He's gone. Brassard and Stepan have locked up the top-2 center spots and Richards is not a bottom-6 center.

I think part of it is the lack of conditioning, but his smarts are just not there and that's what's gotten him by all these years. Doesn't help that Tortarella kills his confidence by throwing him under the bus.

CM Lundqvist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-20-2013, 10:57 PM
  #59
Kershaw
 
Kershaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Country:
Posts: 25,519
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by LEAFANFORLIFE23 View Post
He'd make Toronto real close to a contender. We already got the 1st line talent on wing in Kessel, Lupul and JVR, we got the #2 and #3 centers covered in Kadri, and McClement.

We got the offensive Minded D in Phaneuf Gardiner we got Rielly coming and dispite his meltdown Reimer is a talented goalie.

Lupul Richards Kessel,

JVR Kadri, Ryder

Kuelmin McClement Komarov

? ? ?

Phaneuf ?

Gardiner Gunnar

Franson Fraser

Reimer

?

Now granted I added Ryder cause don't think Kuelmin will be in our top 6 and there are a few ? but other then who plays with Dion none of them are massive the core is there adding a couple parts could make us a contender we aren't far off
BUYER BEWARE.

This is what we thought as well.

Kershaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-20-2013, 11:01 PM
  #60
dubey
~manlets~
 
dubey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,561
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kershaw View Post
BUYER BEWARE.

This is what we thought as well.
Sometimes I think you need to illustrate it in NHL13 terms to get a point across

Brad Richards pre-UFA = 85
Brad Richards now = 65

dubey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-20-2013, 11:08 PM
  #61
ThisYearsModel
Registered User
 
ThisYearsModel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Country: United States
Posts: 6,890
vCash: 500
Hard to fathom Richards' fall off this season. It has been a plunge off a cliff. His legs appear to be gone. Passes end up behind teammates or in their skates. He regularly kills the Rangers power plays at the point, and Tortorella keeps putting him out there.

He is a Torts guy, and seeing as Torts is not getting fired (unfortunately), I believe Richards will be back next season and bought out the following Summer unless he returns to form. I don't think Sather has the onions to buy him out this early, even though he is a 4th line center that is being paid over $6MM per.

ThisYearsModel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-21-2013, 12:31 AM
  #62
Ih8theislanders
Full-kit ****ers
 
Ih8theislanders's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bronx,NY
Country: United States
Posts: 13,447
vCash: 500
I honestly would want him to return next year (as long as we're cap compliant), don't think he will just because of potential injury. I'm not excusing his play this year, as he's been absolutely dreadful as of late. But still, he played at a 60 point pace this year. I think people are overreacting. Due to the potential cap punishments, he likely has to go after next season anyway, but why not squeeze as much out of him as you can and hope he returns to form?




Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHudlinator View Post
Its to punish teams for their retarded contracts, its a perfect rule.
But a team willing to acquire a well-know awful contract should just get the benefits?

Ih8theislanders is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-21-2013, 01:46 AM
  #63
Adirondack Flames
Registered User
 
Adirondack Flames's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 8,667
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ih8theislanders View Post
But a team willing to acquire a well-know awful contract should just get the benefits?
But isn't that why they made the other team eat salary in the first place to make it so its not bad for them? Rewards to smart management, penalties to bad seems about right to me.

Adirondack Flames is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-21-2013, 02:00 AM
  #64
B A T M A N
Risen
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Gotham
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,433
vCash: 500
It's so fun watching Rangers sign these big name players, and time after time it blows up in their faces. And do they learn from their mistakes? Oh no, they have to repeat them, over and over. It's highly entertaining.

B A T M A N is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-21-2013, 02:45 AM
  #65
Eskimo44
Registered User
 
Eskimo44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 5,405
vCash: 500
I have a hard time seeing NY buy him out in the first season they can, it makes far more sense IMO to give him one more season in the very least. Especially considering....

2011-12 richards scored 66 points, this season he had a pace of 61 over 82 games. His advanced stats show a player used in a very offensive role with 60% offensive zone starts and average competition (Rangers seemed to not match forwards too much other than zone starts). He outshot the competiton. 2011-2012 saw similar advanced stats although less offensive zonestarts and slightly tougher competition, and he outshot the competiton by a little less. Going only by stats it seems he's very much the same player that put the Rangers over the top last regular season.

Eskimo44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-21-2013, 02:58 AM
  #66
Eskimo44
Registered User
 
Eskimo44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 5,405
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ih8theislanders View Post
But a team willing to acquire a well-know awful contract should just get the benefits?
The acquiring team isn't getting the benifits. The value of these deals and the reason they "circumvented the cap" is because they provided peak seasons of play at a discount. This means that the early years of the deal are the most valuable since a disproportinal amount of the value of the contract will be "earned" from a team standpoint (and usually the players standpoint too) in the peak seasons. These contracts provide peak seasons at a discount due to retirement seasons/ below peak seasons lowering the cap hit. The acquiring team in getting the remainder of the deal is now faced with the opposite effect as they are getting years where the player will most likely perform equal/under their paygrade. This rule tries to equalize things a bit by making retirment season/ below peak cost what they should have even through a deferral. Basically the true benifit of the deal would have been most likely reaped at the time of the deal, it's usally why they are dealt in the first place. Basically the rule makes the signing team assume some risk for the seasons they were apparently confident enough to give him a contract for. Sure in the process they take away some of the risk from the acquiring team, but this facilitates a buyout free solution since it may make the contract tradable. The NHL would prefer there be less buyouts, it's money to the players that doesn't come from regular salaries meaning an increase in revenue for the players. The acquiring team of course has some risk in the player underperforming/declining. If the player doesn't retire and is a 5 million dollar 3rd liner then the team acquiring him will either have to take the hit to the cap or buy the player out.

I don't see the issue from a competition standpoint either, in terms of making things unfair. The acquiring team had no role in the development of the rules pertaining to said player, in this case Richards, therefore no inherent advantage is gained over other teams as they all would have theoriticaly had a chance to acquire said player under the same provisions.

I'm not sure if i recall correctly but doesn't the acquiring team get penalized too if the player retires? I'm too lazy to look it up and i'm sure someone on here knows.


Last edited by Eskimo44: 05-21-2013 at 03:08 AM.
Eskimo44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-21-2013, 03:56 AM
  #67
Bourne Endeavor
Moderator
( _)>⌐■-■ (⌐■_■)
 
Bourne Endeavor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,963
vCash: 13357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafs87 View Post
I kind of get what your saying but neither of those players sign a 9 year deal. BTW you can also add trading Gaborik. I guess at the end of the day a player will not complain after taking deals like Richard and getting paid a huge chunk while not even being on the team anymore. I just have a bad feeling about the possible richards buyout for the rangers
He should play better if it bothered him. New York is in this to be a consistently competitive team, not concern themselves with a woefully underperforming player's feelings. They had no means of anticipating he would fall to such an extent, nor another options being available (Brassard). The Rangers reputation will be fine regardless of what they do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eskimo44 View Post
I'm not sure if i recall correctly but doesn't the acquiring team get penalized too if the player retires? I'm too lazy to look it up and i'm sure someone on here knows.
Yes. It works out whatever cap dips over the newly allotted amount is added, then divided between the two teams. Luongo, for instance, would cost us and whomever we trade him to approximately two million apiece. And that's if he retires with three years left I believe.

Bourne Endeavor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-21-2013, 04:04 AM
  #68
Nac Mac Feegle
wee & free
 
Nac Mac Feegle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,194
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kris Chreider View Post
I don't know how many of you watched Richards this year. He is almost as slow as Ryane Clowe. Almost. Kreider and Asham have looked better than him, on the 4th line, no less.
It's bad when Brad Richards is the one dragging down the play on the 4th line.

I wouldn't have Richards on my team for league minimum at the way he played this year. The guy dragged down EVERYONE on the team he played with this season. Nearly every time he was on the ice he single-handedly killed offensive opportunities.

As far as I'm concerned, his career is over. Let him wander off to pasture.

Nac Mac Feegle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-21-2013, 05:37 AM
  #69
crt
Registered User
 
crt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Country: Antarctica
Posts: 380
vCash: 500

crt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-21-2013, 05:58 AM
  #70
nmbr_24
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 9,371
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DPyro View Post
And? What line was Joffrey Lupul on before he was traded to Toronto?
What does that have to do with asking if people realize the situation that is happening with Richards right now? Nothing whatsoever.

Richards is a former first line center and Conn Smyth trophy winner who is disappearing to the degree that he has been relegated to the 4th line.

Maybe he becomes a first line center again, but all I did was ask if people were aware of the situation that is going on right now since there were several people penciling him in as their top line center.

nmbr_24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-21-2013, 06:02 AM
  #71
416Leafer
Registered User
 
416Leafer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,586
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kris Chreider View Post
If we trade him and he decides to retire before his contract is over, we're on the hook for the caphit for the remainder of his contract. It's a stupid rule that needs to be changed, trades are made by two teams willingly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHudlinator View Post
Its to punish teams for their retarded contracts, its a perfect rule.
I like the rule. I cant remember ever hearing of a player retiring when they still had a contract and that contract still had 3-4M+ per year left on it.

But if you sign a player to a contract that dives at the end to the league minimum, the team should have been signing this with the full intention and full hope of that player playing out all years of the contract, otherwise its cap circumvention.

Its a brilliant rule, because the teams cant really complain. What are they gonna say, that they thought the player would retire before then? Cause then theyd get hit with a cap circumvention fine/loss of draft picks.

416Leafer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-21-2013, 06:07 AM
  #72
legendinblue
LEAFS SUCK
 
legendinblue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 6,077
vCash: 50
He's been embarrassing. If Torts can't get him going, who can?

legendinblue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-21-2013, 06:16 AM
  #73
WTFMAN99
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,551
vCash: 500
I'd be willing to sign Richards to a 2 year 6 million dollar deal (3m cap hit) in Toronto if he gets bought out.

WTFMAN99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-21-2013, 07:24 AM
  #74
PensBandwagonerNo272
the march
 
PensBandwagonerNo272's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Halifax, NS
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,736
vCash: 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kris Chreider View Post
If we trade him and he decides to retire before his contract is over, we're on the hook for the caphit for the remainder of his contract. It's a stupid rule that needs to be changed, trades are made by two teams willingly.
That rule is awesome, actually.

PensBandwagonerNo272 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-21-2013, 07:30 AM
  #75
veedubn1
Registered User
 
veedubn1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,625
vCash: 500
I'd stay far away from Richards if I was Nonis. I understand that some players coast during the regular season and don't give 100%... but the playoffs are different. If he's truly just going through the motions in the 2nd round of the playoffs... he's done.

DiPietro, Bryz, Luongo and now Richards. Seems to me that half of these "mega contracts" that people signed trying to cirumvent the cap (I know DiPietro's deal was signed a long time ago... but it's still hurting the NYI) are starting to bite a few teams in the butt.

veedubn1 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 02:58 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.