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

Jagr Contract Question...

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-02-2005, 05:35 PM
  #1
klingsor
HFBoards Sponsor
 
klingsor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 14,178
vCash: 500
Jagr Contract Question...

Would a kindly moderator please delete if it's already been asked and answered.

My numbers might be off but as I understand it he was due $11 million this year (with Washington paying approzimately $6 million).

QUESTION #1
If there is a 24 percent rollback on existing contracts, would Washington still kick in the $6 million or just 76 percent of the $6 million?

QUESTION #2
If Washington indeed has to kick in the whole amount, that would mean the Rangers would only be paying approximately $2 million a year for the balance of his contract. If that's true, is he tradeable to a cheap owner who would love to reach the minimum (say $24 million), but only have to pay S16-18 million in payroll. We could even kick in the $2 million or so a year, and the team that gets him would have to pay him zilch.

Hey, if I got this thing all screwed up, please let me know and I'll delete the thread.

Thanks

klingsor is offline  
Old
06-02-2005, 05:45 PM
  #2
FLYLine24
The Mac Truck
 
FLYLine24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 31,538
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by klingsor
Would a kindly moderator please delete if it's already been asked and answered.

My numbers might be off but as I understand it he was due $11 million this year (with Washington paying approzimately $6 million).

QUESTION #1
If there is a 24 percent rollback on existing contracts, would Washington still kick in the $6 million or just 76 percent of the $6 million?

QUESTION #2
If Washington indeed has to kick in the whole amount, that would mean the Rangers would only be paying approximately $2 million a year for the balance of his contract. If that's true, is he tradeable to a cheap owner who would love to reach the minimum (say $24 million), but only have to pay S16-18 million in payroll. We could even kick in the $2 million or so a year, and the team that gets him would have to pay him zilch.

Hey, if I got this thing all screwed up, please let me know and I'll delete the thread.

Thanks
From my understanding, (Larry said this) The Rangers offered him a sub deal when they got him, it was:

No trade clause if he agrees to pay cut (1 million per season). So hes only worth 10 million a season now.

Even if the 24% does or doesnt effect how much Wsh pays, i am under the assumption that the full 10 (or 11) million dollars still would count under the NYR payroll, not WSH at all. (even though WSH is still paying...but this wouldnt be good for the Rangers payroll under a 38 million cap)


Last edited by FLYLine24: 06-02-2005 at 05:56 PM.
FLYLine24 is offline  
Old
06-02-2005, 05:51 PM
  #3
klingsor
HFBoards Sponsor
 
klingsor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 14,178
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLYLine4LIFE
From my understanding, (Larry said this) The Rangers gave offered him a sub deal when they got him it was:

No trade clause if he agrees to pay cut (1 million per season). So hes only worth 10 million a season now.

Even if the 24% does or doesnt effect how much Wsh pays, i am under the assumption that the full 10 (or 11) million dollars still would count under the NYR payroll, not WSH at all. (that would be important under the Salary Cap)
I understand that.

The reason for trading him would be to get his $11 (or approximately $8) off our cap, to give us more flexibility in the future.

He might be attractive to a team under the cap.

Of course, I'd hope for young players and/or draft choices in return.

klingsor is offline  
Old
06-02-2005, 05:53 PM
  #4
NYRangers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,853
vCash: 500
Actually thats a good question. Legally, I would be sure the term of the deal is "....Washingotn will pay X million dollars each year" and not ...."Washington will pay 50% of Jagrs contract each year." I'm no lawyer, but I'm sure the Rangers can force Washington to pay the 6 mil.

NYRangers is offline  
Old
06-02-2005, 06:29 PM
  #5
Barnaby
Registered User
 
Barnaby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Port Jefferson, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 4,624
vCash: 500
They knew of the pending lockout so I'm sure it's all been figured out. That would be very interesting though. Even if there was no rollback and WSH paid 6 of the 10, we could pick up half of the rest, that leaves 2 million. You could trade him to a team like Pittsburgh who is nowhere near the cap limit. They could have that top flight scorer to play with Malkin. We could get back pick(s)/prospect(s). He'd probably love to go back there... he didn't even want to leave if I remember correctly.

Malkin-Jagr
Lemeiux-Recchi

Those would be two top notch scoring lines if Mario stays healthy...

Barnaby is offline  
Old
06-02-2005, 09:09 PM
  #6
NYR469
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 5,785
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by klingsor
Would a kindly moderator please delete if it's already been asked and answered.

My numbers might be off but as I understand it he was due $11 million this year (with Washington paying approzimately $6 million).

QUESTION #1
If there is a 24 percent rollback on existing contracts, would Washington still kick in the $6 million or just 76 percent of the $6 million?

QUESTION #2
If Washington indeed has to kick in the whole amount, that would mean the Rangers would only be paying approximately $2 million a year for the balance of his contract. If that's true, is he tradeable to a cheap owner who would love to reach the minimum (say $24 million), but only have to pay S16-18 million in payroll. We could even kick in the $2 million or so a year, and the team that gets him would have to pay him zilch.

Hey, if I got this thing all screwed up, please let me know and I'll delete the thread.

Thanks
#1--it depends on how the deal with washington was worded. washington is paying $4.5 of the $11 mil. if the deal says they would pay 40% then what they owe would drop with the rollback. if it says they would pay $4.5 mil then that won't change as the contract drops.

#2--he won't be more tradeable because while nothing is definite all indications are that regardless of how much $$ the rangers actually pay jagr all $11 mil will count against the payroll and the cap. so it makes him more affordable in terms of real $$, but not in terms of cap $$.

NYR469 is offline  
Old
06-02-2005, 09:11 PM
  #7
NYR469
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 5,785
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLYLine4LIFE
From my understanding, (Larry said this) The Rangers offered him a sub deal when they got him, it was:

No trade clause if he agrees to pay cut (1 million per season). So hes only worth 10 million a season now.
he didn't take a pay cut, he agreed to defer $1 mil/year but he will get paid that $$ after the contract is over (nice like retirement fund i guess)...

so without the rollback the rangers were paying $5.5 mil/year and the caps were paying $4.5 mil/year and then the rangers owe him the extra $1 mil down the road.

NYR469 is offline  
Old
06-02-2005, 09:12 PM
  #8
NYR469
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 5,785
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYRangers
Actually thats a good question. Legally, I would be sure the term of the deal is "....Washingotn will pay X million dollars each year" and not ...."Washington will pay 50% of Jagrs contract each year." I'm no lawyer, but I'm sure the Rangers can force Washington to pay the 6 mil.
in a normal year that would probably be true, and neither team knew about the 24% rollback but knowing that the lockout and cap were coming i'm sure both teams put language in to protect themselves

NYR469 is offline  
Old
06-03-2005, 01:53 AM
  #9
ddheyman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Cliffside Park, NJ
Posts: 374
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by klingsor
My numbers might be off but as I understand it he was due $11 million this year (with Washington paying approzimately $6 million).

QUESTION #1
If there is a 24 percent rollback on existing contracts, would Washington still kick in the $6 million or just 76 percent of the $6 million?

QUESTION #2
If Washington indeed has to kick in the whole amount, that would mean the Rangers would only be paying approximately $2 million a year for the balance of his contract. If that's true, is he tradeable to a cheap owner who would love to reach the minimum (say $24 million), but only have to pay S16-18 million in payroll. We could even kick in the $2 million or so a year, and the team that gets him would have to pay him zilch.
Long time no post ... I think the cancellation caused me to wander the desert many months ... the prospect of a season has me coming back.

See Brook's article in todays NYPOST (http://www.nypost.com/sports/rangers/24754.htm).

But basically, first contract rolled back (so from $11M to 8.36M). Then the trade called for each team to pay half, so the Rangers have to pay $4.18M.

Lastly, and most importantly (as I don't care how much Cablevision pays, just how it affects the team and the cap), according to Brooks (and we all know how reliable he is), how much each team pays for each player will affect their own cap (similar to "dead money" in the NFL cap). So in this case as the rangers are paying $4.18M of Jagr's contract, it would count as $4.18M against the cap. Similarly, as the Caps are paying $4.18M of his contract, it will also count $4.18M against the Caps cap.

Doesn't look like that horrible of a contract from a cap perspective anymore??? May god strike me down for saying it, but I can handle Jagr on the cap for $4.18M, maybe Sather made a good deal for that one ... .

ddheyman is offline  
Old
06-03-2005, 01:56 AM
  #10
Barnaby
Registered User
 
Barnaby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Port Jefferson, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 4,624
vCash: 500
Better yet, we have an opportunity to deal one of the best offensive players in the game at a reasonable price to hopefully bring in some more youth...

Barnaby is offline  
Old
06-03-2005, 05:50 AM
  #11
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 17,619
vCash: 500
what I don't understand is

why would the caps pay more now than they were paying when the contract was 11 million??

The Rangers were paying Jagr 7 million a year with Washington picking up 20 million of the contract broken down over 5 years is 4 million a year. With a 24% rollback they should be paying just over 3 million, yet they are going to be paying 4.18?? What am I missing.

Jagr was traded to the Rangers in the 3rd year of the contract, the 20 million was probably to pay for the remaining games he had the year he got dealt and 4 million per over the next 4 years. The Rangers should be paying 5.32 million per year under the rollback.

pld459666 is offline  
Old
06-03-2005, 06:13 AM
  #12
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 32,472
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pld459666
why would the caps pay more now than they were paying when the contract was 11 million??

The Rangers were paying Jagr 7 million a year with Washington picking up 20 million of the contract broken down over 5 years is 4 million a year. With a 24% rollback they should be paying just over 3 million, yet they are going to be paying 4.18?? What am I missing.

Jagr was traded to the Rangers in the 3rd year of the contract, the 20 million was probably to pay for the remaining games he had the year he got dealt and 4 million per over the next 4 years. The Rangers should be paying 5.32 million per year under the rollback.
The Rangers picked the entire remaining amount of 2003-04 salary

It was never confirmed just how much of the Jagr money the Capitals are responsible for paying?

It appears to be a 50/50 split

RangerBoy is offline  
Old
06-03-2005, 07:51 AM
  #13
pld459666
Registered User
 
pld459666's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 17,619
vCash: 500
for some

Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerBoy
The Rangers picked the entire remaining amount of 2003-04 salary

It was never confirmed just how much of the Jagr money the Capitals are responsible for paying?

It appears to be a 50/50 split
reason 20 million is pretty clear in my head. It's not a number that I just threw out there. It's a number that I read somewhere, I just can't place a finger on where.

I do know that the Rangers were on the hook for 7 million last year so that would tell me that the Caps picked up 4 million.

Under the proposed roll back, the Caps payout increases while the Rangers drop?? I don't understand the logic behind that.

http://www.outsidethegarden.com/salaries.asp

It stats that the Jagr contract has 1 million deferred and 4 million paid annually by the Caps.

I don't see this even split being a likely scenario.

pld459666 is offline  
Old
06-03-2005, 08:27 AM
  #14
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,647
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by klingsor
The reason for trading him would be to get his $11 (or approximately $8) off our cap, to give us more flexibility in the future.
That is exactly why he is untradeable. He will count the full $11m against whatever cap system is in place. Any other team would not touch him with a 10 ft. pole. NO ONE except Sather, knowing that economic changes are coming, would have traded to place such an albatross around the teams' collective neck (as far as financial flexibility goes).

True Blue is offline  
Old
06-03-2005, 08:47 AM
  #15
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,473
vCash: 500
According to the Post today...

Jagr's contract (which is about $8.4 million post-rollback) will count half to the Rangers and half to Washington. So $4.2 million tied-up to one player, that being Jagr, isn't that bad.

Fletch is offline  
Old
06-03-2005, 08:55 AM
  #16
klingsor
HFBoards Sponsor
 
klingsor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 14,178
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch
Jagr's contract (which is about $8.4 million post-rollback) will count half to the Rangers and half to Washington. So $4.2 million tied-up to one player, that being Jagr, isn't that bad.
Hope that's how it's gonna work.

Maybe it's a sign we're gonna start to get lucky. That'd be a welcome change.

klingsor is offline  
Old
06-03-2005, 08:58 AM
  #17
bigblue21
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Country: United States
Posts: 289
vCash: 500
4.2 million definitely isn't bad for a player of Jagr's caliber. You might even go so far as to say it's below market value.

bigblue21 is offline  
Old
06-03-2005, 09:43 AM
  #18
ATLANTARANGER*
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Atlanta, B&R in NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 3,649
vCash: 500
I think you need to read brook's article

Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
That is exactly why he is untradeable. He will count the full $11m against whatever cap system is in place. Any other team would not touch him with a 10 ft. pole. NO ONE except Sather, knowing that economic changes are coming, would have traded to place such an albatross around the teams' collective neck (as far as financial flexibility goes).
He clearly states that it is not just jagr, but all contracts where the team that trades the player and agrees to pay a portion goes against their cap allocation. That would be consistant with what was agreed between teams before a cap. In addition, I would also read that to mean that the deferred money is still counted towards the cap, though not paid until a later date. The deferred money was in exchange for a no trade, so trading him would cost $ just for him to agree to a trade. If you were able to get him to agree, could you imagine acquiring for say $2-3M per year? That would be attractive to a team. We could get young players and/or picks. Damn that Sather is a lucky SOB!

ATLANTARANGER* is offline  
Old
06-03-2005, 09:44 AM
  #19
ATLANTARANGER*
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Atlanta, B&R in NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 3,649
vCash: 500
Maybe its the 1st of a trifecta

Quote:
Originally Posted by klingsor
Hope that's how it's gonna work.

Maybe it's a sign we're gonna start to get lucky. That'd be a welcome change.
jagr contract, crosby, kessel!

ATLANTARANGER* is offline  
Old
06-03-2005, 09:47 AM
  #20
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,647
vCash: 500
When I see it, I'll believe it

Quote:
Originally Posted by ATLANTARANGER
He clearly states that it is not just jagr, but all contracts where the team that trades the player and agrees to pay a portion goes against their cap allocation.
Currently there is no system where a players' contract counts against the cap for more than one team. Not in the NBA, not in the NFL. Until anything is done to the contrary, I do not believe that there will be a system to the contrary. It's not like Brooks hasn't reported 100% reality all the time.

True Blue is offline  
Old
06-03-2005, 10:57 AM
  #21
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 32,472
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
Currently there is no system where a players' contract counts against the cap for more than one team. Not in the NBA, not in the NFL. Until anything is done to the contrary, I do not believe that there will be a system to the contrary. It's not like Brooks hasn't reported 100% reality all the time.
That's because the NBA and NFL don't allow money to be transfered in trades.Have you ever heard of any trade where David Stern or Paul Tagliabue had to approve of any cash in a trade?

The MLB allows teams to share money.It's called money in and money out.Alex Rodriguez is making $21 million this season.The Yankees are paying $15 million and Texas is paying $6 million.The Yankees pay a tax on the $15 million,not $21 million

Have you heard of Bud Selig and Gary Bettman needing to approve a trade because there is cash involved?YES

RangerBoy is offline  
Old
06-03-2005, 11:07 AM
  #22
ATLANTARANGER*
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Atlanta, B&R in NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 3,649
vCash: 500
Really?

Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
Currently there is no system where a players' contract counts against the cap for more than one team. Not in the NBA, not in the NFL. Until anything is done to the contrary, I do not believe that there will be a system to the contrary. It's not like Brooks hasn't reported 100% reality all the time.
Like I said, I think you need to read the article because he specifically mentions the NFL cap and how teams share the contract on traded players.

ATLANTARANGER* is offline  
Old
06-03-2005, 12:18 PM
  #23
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,647
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATLANTARANGER
Like I said, I think you need to read the article because he specifically mentions the NFL cap and how teams share the contract on traded players.
Can't read the post online because I am not going to bother to register just so that I can recieve more spam. However, in the NFL, teams DO NOT share contracts on traded players. The team recieving the player takes on the full value of the contract, as far as it counting against the cap. The team trading the player takes a hit against the cap ONLY in that year, and that is for the prorated amount of the signing bonus. If you want to look at that as sharing, that is fine. However, the reality is quite different.

True Blue is offline  
Old
06-03-2005, 04:20 PM
  #24
ECL
Very slippery slope
 
ECL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Middle America
Country: United States
Posts: 79,894
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to ECL
Quote:
Originally Posted by njranger21
4.2 million definitely isn't bad for a player of Jagr's caliber. You might even go so far as to say it's below market value.
I hope that was sarcastic, haha. It's WAY below market value for a player like him. Honestly, if it comes out to him counting around 4 million per team for the cap, we can trade him for a VERY good return.

ECL is online now  
Old
06-04-2005, 11:38 AM
  #25
NYFAN
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 361
vCash: 500
He's not going anywhere.

NYFAN 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 09:28 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.