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

On the assumption that Brook's sources are accurate

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-03-2005, 03:05 PM
  #1
ATLANTARANGER*
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Atlanta, B&R in NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 3,649
vCash: 500
On the assumption that Brook's sources are accurate

it would appear that we will be in decent shape, cap wise. I also believe that all of the 04-05 contracts will be included, they will not disappear. So in reality we will have more players, Weekes, Dunham, etc under contract. I had an old spread sheet with salaries and I came up with the following:
Dunham $2,736,000, Marshall $456,000, Poti $2,356,000, Rachunek $1,140,000, Strudwick $494,000, Weekes $1,045,000, Balej $451,440, Lundmark $857,280, Ortmeyer $608,000, Pock $893,000, Printon $494,000, Holik $6,726,000, Kasper $3,344,000, Jagr $4,180,000. That is 14 players at $25,780.720. That does not count Tjutin and Kondratiev who both should make the squad as well as Lampman, Moore. That would give us $12,219,280 to sign 9 more players, or $1,357,697.78 on average per player. I would say that we are in fine shape.

I also couldn't resist looking at our friends across the river who signed a boat load of players and see where they will stand. Their post rollback for 26 players under contract is $47,688,000 for the 04-05 season, or $9,688,000 over the cap and if there is a $ for $ tax, that means the new owner gets to folk over $19,376,000 of his own $ as a lux tax.

ATLANTARANGER* is offline  
Old
06-03-2005, 03:14 PM
  #2
klingsor
HFBoards Sponsor
 
klingsor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 14,104
vCash: 500
As for the Devils, I cannot envision a system that would penalize a team for being over the cap based on contracts that were made before the cap.

It just ain't right.

klingsor is offline  
Old
06-03-2005, 03:45 PM
  #3
ATLANTARANGER*
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Atlanta, B&R in NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 3,649
vCash: 500
hey, even stupid Sather & Dolan knew it was coming!

Quote:
Originally Posted by klingsor
As for the Devils, I cannot envision a system that would penalize a team for being over the cap based on contracts that were made before the cap.

It just ain't right.
If we finally saw the light that is no reason for someone else to decide that the offseason was the time to go hog wild. No excuse, poor planning.

ATLANTARANGER* is offline  
Old
06-03-2005, 06:08 PM
  #4
Barnaby
Registered User
 
Barnaby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Port Jefferson, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 4,500
vCash: 500
They will def granfather it in... they can't just tear half the NHL teams apart in the 1 month period before training camp by the time they finally get this settled. If we were in the same spot people would be livid that there must be some sort of system to bring it down a little slower.

Barnaby is offline  
Old
06-03-2005, 06:57 PM
  #5
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,228
vCash: 873
take into consideration that

Quote:
Originally Posted by ATLANTARANGER
it would appear that we will be in decent shape, cap wise. I also believe that all of the 04-05 contracts will be included, they will not disappear. So in reality we will have more players, Weekes, Dunham, etc under contract. I had an old spread sheet with salaries and I came up with the following:
Dunham $2,736,000, Marshall $456,000, Poti $2,356,000, Rachunek $1,140,000, Strudwick $494,000, Weekes $1,045,000, Balej $451,440, Lundmark $857,280, Ortmeyer $608,000, Pock $893,000, Printon $494,000, Holik $6,726,000, Kasper $3,344,000, Jagr $4,180,000. That is 14 players at $25,780.720. That does not count Tjutin and Kondratiev who both should make the squad as well as Lampman, Moore. That would give us $12,219,280 to sign 9 more players, or $1,357,697.78 on average per player. I would say that we are in fine shape.

I also couldn't resist looking at our friends across the river who signed a boat load of players and see where they will stand. Their post rollback for 26 players under contract is $47,688,000 for the 04-05 season, or $9,688,000 over the cap and if there is a $ for $ tax, that means the new owner gets to folk over $19,376,000 of his own $ as a lux tax.

The owners proposal was that any player making a million or less would not be affected with the rollback and that any player that makes just over that number would not go lower than 1 million.

additionally, the Cap is not going to be less than 42 million so the Devils, while still over, would only be over by 5+ million

The league may have won in terms of Salary Cap, but the level set will be higher than 38 million.

pld459666 is offline  
Old
06-03-2005, 07:17 PM
  #6
NYR469
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 5,785
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barnaby
They will def granfather it in... they can't just tear half the NHL teams apart in the 1 month period before training camp by the time they finally get this settled. If we were in the same spot people would be livid that there must be some sort of system to bring it down a little slower.
they will not grandfather anything in, bettman has been animate about that. teams will have to get under the cap right away the only question is if the league holds a dispersal draft (which is a bs idea) or if they simply force teams to trade players away for nothing to free up room.

if the devils can't get under the limit with brodeur, stevens, neidermayer, elias, madden and rafalaski then someone has to go...is that fair?? maybe not but its how the cap works.

NYR469 is offline  
Old
06-03-2005, 07:18 PM
  #7
NYR469
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 5,785
vCash: 500
and if 2004-05 contracts expire then 80+% of the league is without a contract, so it is only an issue for a handful of guys

NYR469 is offline  
Old
06-03-2005, 11:19 PM
  #8
Radek27
Registered User
 
Radek27's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 5,149
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Radek27
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666
The owners proposal was that any player making a million or less would not be affected with the rollback and that any player that makes just over that number would not go lower than 1 million.

additionally, the Cap is not going to be less than 42 million so the Devils, while still over, would only be over by 5+ million

The league may have won in terms of Salary Cap, but the level set will be higher than 38 million.
Hold on hold on that can't be right. The cap isn't going to be less than 42? Where do you get that from? Bettman canceled the season because he wouldn't go over 42.5, so now he is gonna settle for 42? Makes no sense. He also said from that time that the number would get worse and worse for the players. I think the cap will be around 35-40 mill.

Radek27 is offline  
Old
06-03-2005, 11:48 PM
  #9
NYRangers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,853
vCash: 500
They already agreed on a cap number. I think they said 38. 100% after.

NYRangers is offline  
Old
06-04-2005, 02:04 AM
  #10
Kovy274Hart
Registered User
 
Kovy274Hart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Shaolin
Country: United States
Posts: 1,498
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Kovy274Hart
The cap is expected to range from between 28 million to 38 million. This will force teams to get to the necessary figures.


As for the Devils, I'm sure they'll cut some of their overpriced guys loose. There will be some cap considerations for many teams.

Kovy274Hart is offline  
Old
06-04-2005, 10:00 AM
  #11
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 16,228
vCash: 873
I've not seen a number of a hard cap

set anywhere.

Last I heard was that the owners were very intrigued with the Floor/Ceiling parameter set by the NHLPA. the concern was the ceiling the players had set (50 million) was to high. They were looking to lower that number significantly.

The floor proposed by the players was 38 million. The logical result would be to lower both numbers evenly between 5-10 million which would put the ceiling smack dab between the 40-45 million.

Maybe the cap is less than my original number of 42 million, but I really don't think that the players will allow that. They are giving in to the cap and linkage, they will get something in return.

pld459666 is offline  
Old
06-04-2005, 11:17 AM
  #12
FLYLine24*
 
FLYLine24*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 29,102
vCash: 500
I think the high end of the cap when its all said and done will be around 35.5-38.5 (depending on if it moves up and down on revenues) Cant see the owners giving any more then that.

FLYLine24* is offline  
Old
06-04-2005, 12:18 PM
  #13
NYR469
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 5,785
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYRangers
They already agreed on a cap number. I think they said 38. 100% after.
just because that is the rumor being reported that doesn't mean it is true. those same sources reported a deal was reached back in feb. until the cba is signed NOTHING is 100% confirmed.

NYR469 is offline  
Old
06-05-2005, 10:58 AM
  #14
Trottier
Very Random
 
Trottier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 27,750
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATLANTARANGER
If we finally saw the light that is no reason for someone else to decide that the offseason was the time to go hog wild. No excuse, poor planning.
We'll let Lou know your thoughts.

What a friggin' bizarro world being a hockey fan in Hooterville must be. Constant criticism of a President/GM/franchise that only wins...wins and wins...while simultaneously making delusional pronouncements of success for a perennial non-playoff team.

Amazing that a poster old enough to cite players from the 1960s possesses the blind-homer mentality of a 10 year old. Entertaining though.


Last edited by Trottier: 06-05-2005 at 11:03 AM.
Trottier is offline  
Old
06-05-2005, 11:26 AM
  #15
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,437
vCash: 500
I'm sure...

Lou knew what he was doing, and I'm sure that if he had to get down to a number that there would be trades made and he'll get the better end of the deal, while making his team cheaper.

Fletch is offline  
Old
06-05-2005, 11:43 AM
  #16
Melrose_Jr.
Registered User
 
Melrose_Jr.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Providence, RI
Country: United States
Posts: 10,692
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATLANTARANGER
I also couldn't resist looking at our friends across the river who signed a boat load of players and see where they will stand. .
Come on. Are you suggesting that one of the top teams in the East should have also purged their roster, foregoing a possible Cup run, in order to position themselves for a lockout that might not happen and an unknown financial landscape?

I'd much rather have the problem of getting a great team under the cap than be in "fine shape" in the payroll office and at day 1 of a rebuild on-ice.

Melrose_Jr. is offline  
Old
06-05-2005, 02:44 PM
  #17
Barnaby
Registered User
 
Barnaby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Port Jefferson, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 4,500
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trottier
We'll let Lou know your thoughts.

What a friggin' bizarro world being a hockey fan in Hooterville must be. Constant criticism of a President/GM/franchise that only wins...wins and wins...while simultaneously making delusional pronouncements of success for a perennial non-playoff team.

Amazing that a poster old enough to cite players from the 1960s possesses the blind-homer mentality of a 10 year old. Entertaining though.


The post I've been trying to make for awhile now...

Barnaby is offline  
Old
06-05-2005, 05:55 PM
  #18
Trottier
Very Random
 
Trottier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 27,750
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barnaby


The post I've been trying to make for awhile now...
PS - as you know - I am not here slamming NYR, as I sincerely believe they are beginning to go about things the right way, after several years of indefensible personnel moves. Nor am I bragging about my decidely mediocre team, nor am I a NJD fan. (Though I do admire smart management.)

But let's get real! How many times does one slam success before they realize how petty he looks? Can we at least wait until NJD starts losing before criticizing them? What next? How the Patriots and Spurs are second-rate, lucky and headed for bad times?

The Devils may slip next season, you can never know for sure. But if one is counting on the next CBA to be the ruination of that team, good luck! As if Lou & Co. $pent their way to success the last decade+ or will suddenly be bewildered by how to ice a competitive team under a hardcap.

Trottier is offline  
Old
06-05-2005, 09:18 PM
  #19
NYR469
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 5,785
vCash: 500
in defense of lou though, the devils payroll didn't go up because he went out and signed a bunch of players. it went up because the guys that they already had got raises...

in a few years tb is gonna have to give big raises to lecavalier, richard, st louis, etc and their payroll will go up big time, that doesn't mean the gm spent stupidly

NYR469 is offline  
Old
06-05-2005, 10:51 PM
  #20
Trottier
Very Random
 
Trottier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 27,750
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYR469
in defense of lou though, the devils payroll didn't go up because he went out and signed a bunch of players. it went up because the guys that they already had got raises...

in a few years tb is gonna have to give big raises to lecavalier, richard, st louis, etc and their payroll will go up big time, that doesn't mean the gm spent stupidly
You raise (pardon the pun) a great point, and one that is constantly overlooked by those who want a repressive hardcap in order to "reign in" big spending teams. Sure, several teams have gone out over the years and bought a lot of players. (Not sure there's anything even wrong with that.)

Regardless, it's totally wrong to bunch teams like Colorado and NJD with others like Detroit, Toronto and dare I say, the former version of NYR. For Colorado (with the one boffo exception of Kariya and Selanne; Lacroix's biggest mistake in a decade) and the Devils have paid out big bucks to retain their own players.

Put another way: should NJD not have re-signed Stevens and Brodeur last time around? Should Colorado not have re-signed Blake, Roy, Forsberg and Sakic in the summer of '01, coming off a Cup? Of course they should have. Thankfully, they were allowed to.

It will be a crime when under the next CBA, successful franchises, whoever they are - Tampa Bay, Vancouver or NYR, for that matter - are going to be forced to let good players walk in order order to stay under the artificial economic barrier.

Success - good drafting, player development, trading and winning - will not go unpunished. Rest assured.

Trottier is offline  
Old
06-06-2005, 12:03 AM
  #21
Barnaby
Registered User
 
Barnaby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Port Jefferson, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 4,500
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trottier
You raise (pardon the pun) a great point, and one that is constantly overlooked by those who want a repressive hardcap in order to "reign in" big spending teams. Sure, several teams have gone out over the years and bought a lot of players. (Not sure there's anything even wrong with that.)

Regardless, it's totally wrong to bunch teams like Colorado and NJD with others like Detroit, Toronto and dare I say, the former version of NYR. For Colorado (with the one boffo exception of Kariya and Selanne; Lacroix's biggest mistake in a decade) and the Devils have paid out big bucks to retain their own players.

Put another way: should NJD not have re-signed Stevens and Brodeur last time around? Should Colorado not have re-signed Blake, Roy, Forsberg and Sakic in the summer of '01, coming off a Cup? Of course they should have. Thankfully, they were allowed to.

It will be a crime when under the next CBA, successful franchises, whoever they are - Tampa Bay, Vancouver or NYR, for that matter - are going to be forced to let good players walk in order order to stay under the artificial economic barrier.

Success - good drafting, player development, trading and winning - will not go unpunished. Rest assured.
That's my biggest fear. The Rangers will finally build a competative team, just to see it dissolve due to a cap. I understand a cap in terms of competative balance, and in the business aspect of making a profit but it will be a terrible time when teams like ATL and TB break up.

Barnaby is offline  
Old
06-06-2005, 09:12 AM
  #22
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,848
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATLANTARANGER
it would appear that we will be in decent shape, cap wise. I also believe that all of the 04-05 contracts will be included, they will not disappear. So in reality we will have more players, Weekes, Dunham, etc under contract. I had an old spread sheet with salaries and I came up with the following:
Dunham $2,736,000, Marshall $456,000, Poti $2,356,000, Rachunek $1,140,000, Strudwick $494,000, Weekes $1,045,000, Balej $451,440, Lundmark $857,280, Ortmeyer $608,000, Pock $893,000, Printon $494,000, Holik $6,726,000, Kasper $3,344,000, Jagr $4,180,000. That is 14 players at $25,780.720. That does not count Tjutin and Kondratiev who both should make the squad as well as Lampman, Moore. That would give us $12,219,280 to sign 9 more players, or $1,357,697.78 on average per player. I would say that we are in fine shape.

I also couldn't resist looking at our friends across the river who signed a boat load of players and see where they will stand. Their post rollback for 26 players under contract is $47,688,000 for the 04-05 season, or $9,688,000 over the cap and if there is a $ for $ tax, that means the new owner gets to folk over $19,376,000 of his own $ as a lux tax.
Mike Dunham's contract expires on June 30.Unrestricted free agent.Jason Marshall.Unrestricted free agents.Tom Poti,Karel Rachunek,Kevin Weekes,Josef Balej,Jed Ortmeyer and Jamie Lundmark are group 2 free agents.Bryce Lampman is a group 2

RangerBoy is offline  
Old
06-06-2005, 10:33 AM
  #23
ATLANTARANGER*
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Atlanta, B&R in NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 3,649
vCash: 500
Is it wrong to point out facts?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trottier
We'll let Lou know your thoughts.

What a friggin' bizarro world being a hockey fan in Hooterville must be. Constant criticism of a President/GM/franchise that only wins...wins and wins...while simultaneously making delusional pronouncements of success for a perennial non-playoff team.

Amazing that a poster old enough to cite players from the 1960s possesses the blind-homer mentality of a 10 year old. Entertaining though.
Is it wrong to point out how inopportune his timing was to sign players during the off season when everyone knew a salary cap was coming? How is that delusional?
Is what I posted in any way inaccurate? Would it not have been wiser to restructure some contracts prior to a cap? Would that not be what a smart GM would have done? Now, we all know Milbury was working that angle right? That and trying to figure out where and how he could find some fans. at least our stupid GM was able to figure out a way to acquire a quality player and not foot the whole build like your team did for a stiff like Yashin.

But I digress from you point of contention that I belittled Lou for pointing out his largess of signing people, 26 in total, to or under NHL contracts this summer. Please feel free to name some other organizations that followed that same path and had such a large number of players under contract. Now maybe Lou thought that there would be a season, however, that would have placed him in a very small minority. In fact he may have been the sole NHL GM to under take such a course of action. Now you may say that he had many of those contracts before the lockout and while that maybe be true, but wouldn't a really smart GM have made sure that those contracts would have expired before the lockout like many other NHL GM's apparently did? So how is it that I posted so wrong? I mean even stupid Sather figured that one out! Or is it that he miscalculated the fact that the NHL never had any intention of playing this year? Stop for a moment and ask yourslef why would a GM who is very connected to Bettman go out and do the opposite of what Bettman's plans are? Many of these guys he signed are fillers. Why was there such a need to sign them? It was stupid and it made no sense. Why sign people under the old market conditions? What was not realized is that in any labor conflict it is always negotiated that contracts are reset back to the point in time when the strike/lockout occured. So all these players are and will be under contract. Now, what are you going to do with a minimum of 26 players under contract? Sure, Parise could be sent to Albany, but he will be paid an NHL salary and it will still go against the team cap, unless his agent was stupid enough to sign a two way deal. So the question then is what happens to those players? If you waive them and drop them you still have their salary added to your cap and now you don't have them. You still end up with a lux tax issue. It made no sense considering the environment. So for me to question that issue is not so stupid after all, is it? Watch it Barney, you might shoot yourself! Opps, I forgot, Andy doesn't allow you to have a loaded gun!

ATLANTARANGER* is offline  
Old
06-06-2005, 10:35 AM
  #24
ATLANTARANGER*
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Atlanta, B&R in NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 3,649
vCash: 500
You are making the false assumption that contracts

Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy
Mike Dunham's contract expires on June 30.Unrestricted free agent.Jason Marshall.Unrestricted free agents.Tom Poti,Karel Rachunek,Kevin Weekes,Josef Balej,Jed Ortmeyer and Jamie Lundmark are group 2 free agents.Bryce Lampman is a group 2
will not be rolled back. Remember, labor did not initiate this work stoppage, management did and as a result you can rest assured that Labor will demand that those contracts be rolled back.

ATLANTARANGER* is offline  
Old
06-06-2005, 11:29 AM
  #25
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,848
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATLANTARANGER
will not be rolled back. Remember, labor did not initiate this work stoppage, management did and as a result you can rest assured that Labor will demand that those contracts be rolled back.
The NHL is insisting the contracts should not be rolled back

RangerBoy 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 02:10 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.