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

Milberry on the FAN said 2005 contract may still in place..

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-02-2005, 11:23 AM
  #1
jdsrangers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 366
vCash: 500
Milberry on the FAN said 2005 contract may still in place..

It makes sense.....


He made it sound that with the Buy out, teams can pick and choose who to keep. If they let all contracts expire there would be too many free agents.

I still believe that quite a few players will be bought out BUT I agree that the NHL needs some stability within the NHL by keeping a core group of players staying in the same cities where they played before losing the 2005 season.

Plus you have to believe that teams that gave up players and draft choices for players that never played a full season should have the right to keep a player.

Example Brian Leecth: the Leafs gave up alot to get him and expected him to play with them for at least 2 seasons on the blueline for them. If he were declared a UFA they would have given up to 2 players and a #1 & #2 for a 3 month rental.

For a Leaf fan, That sucks!
For a Ranger fan its a great trade!

The Leafs should have the choice of whether they want Leech back!

Your thoughts!

jdsrangers is offline  
Old
07-02-2005, 11:50 AM
  #2
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,473
vCash: 500
doesn't make sense...

the season wasn't played and contracts ended at the end of the season - that's it. The flip side is the kid who's making little now coming up on free agency. He just lost a year of earnings and now he's going to miss-out on being a free agent. That ain't fair either.

That's the price the Leafs pay for taking a chance at upgrading to win the Cup. They knew of the pitfalls in place. The gamble didn't work. Oh well.

Fletch is offline  
Old
07-02-2005, 11:51 AM
  #3
Barnaby
Registered User
 
Barnaby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Port Jefferson, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 4,782
vCash: 500
No. Leetch is UFA, and he's earned that right over a long and prosperous career. He's earned the right to make the decision on where he will go next whether it is NYR, Toronto, or Philly. Teams knew the risk taken, when deals were made. They took it, and they lost. Sorry... players shouldn't suffer for a GM's gamble.

Barnaby is offline  
Old
07-02-2005, 12:41 PM
  #4
jdsrangers
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 366
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barnaby
No. Leetch is UFA, and he's earned that right over a long and prosperous career. He's earned the right to make the decision on where he will go next whether it is NYR, Toronto, or Philly. Teams knew the risk taken, when deals were made. They took it, and they lost. Sorry... players shouldn't suffer for a GM's gamble.
Barnaby, It's to Leetch's advantage & the NLPA for the NHL to honor the 2004 contract. He (They) win(s) either way.
Option #1: The Leafs hold his rights and he gets Big Money from his old contract (minus the 24% roll-back).
Option #2: The Leafs buy him out at 60% of his old contract and he is a UFA and can sign with any team except the Leafs. Leechie gets two paydays!! The buyout and his new contract!

If Leetch is just a UFA, how much will he earn as a 37 yr old that is older and rusty. He won't get offered a contract near the money he made before the strike!

I hope the players win this battle because they are giving back alot in the new CBA!

jdsrangers is offline  
Old
07-02-2005, 01:01 PM
  #5
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,473
vCash: 500
I'm sure Leetch would do just fine...

and what owner wants to honor a contract of a guy who may've been hurt during the non-season, or a 38 year old who'e now 39, or 39 going on 40, or a guy like Lapointe who I believe would be UFA this year if last year counted. It goes both ways, obviously.

Fletch is offline  
Old
07-02-2005, 01:04 PM
  #6
Thirty One
portnor, pls
 
Thirty One's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Victoria, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,294
vCash: 420
I wouldn't worry too much about Leetch being a Leaf. He'll be making $4.864 million next season. If the cap was $36 million, that would be about 13% of it. They can't buy out Sundin, and they have to put 18 players together. I would expect Leetch to be bought out.

Thirty One is offline  
Old
07-02-2005, 01:11 PM
  #7
nyrmessier011
Registered User
 
nyrmessier011's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Charlotte/NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 3,358
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to nyrmessier011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barnaby
No. Leetch is UFA, and he's earned that right over a long and prosperous career. He's earned the right to make the decision on where he will go next whether it is NYR, Toronto, or Philly. Teams knew the risk taken, when deals were made. They took it, and they lost. Sorry... players shouldn't suffer for a GM's gamble.
agreed.

nyrmessier011 is offline  
Old
07-02-2005, 02:32 PM
  #8
Brooklyn Ranger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn, of course
Posts: 8,607
vCash: 500
Well, looks like Sather made a large miscalculation when he signed Weekes. I'm sure he wasn't planning to have both Weekes and Dunham under contract for the season after a full year lockout. But hey, it's only money and he can simply cover his mistake by buying out Dunham.

Brooklyn Ranger is offline  
Old
07-02-2005, 02:51 PM
  #9
Mike18
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 41
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooklyn Ranger
Well, looks like Sather made a large miscalculation when he signed Weekes. I'm sure he wasn't planning to have both Weekes and Dunham under contract for the season after a full year lockout. But hey, it's only money and he can simply cover his mistake by buying out Dunham.
Dunham will be bought out, no matter the price, and regardless of whether or not Weekes is a NYR next year. Signing someone to replace the worst starting goaltender in the league (who kept up his awfulness this past season in Europe) is not a "large miscalculation" by any stretch.

Mike18 is offline  
Old
07-02-2005, 03:47 PM
  #10
Brooklyn Ranger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn, of course
Posts: 8,607
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike18
Dunham will be bought out, no matter the price, and regardless of whether or not Weekes is a NYR next year. Signing someone to replace the worst starting goaltender in the league (who kept up his awfulness this past season in Europe) is not a "large miscalculation" by any stretch.
The miscalculation has to do with the fact that Dunham has to be bought out in the first place. Sather made a bet--that contracts would not carry-over after a lockout--and he appears to have lost. And let's not forget who traded for Dunham in the first place. And then as coach misused him. Yeah, it's only money....

Brooklyn Ranger is offline  
Old
07-02-2005, 04:35 PM
  #11
Mike18
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 41
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooklyn Ranger
The miscalculation has to do with the fact that Dunham has to be bought out in the first place. Sather made a bet--that contracts would not carry-over after a lockout--and he appears to have lost. And let's not forget who traded for Dunham in the first place. And then as coach misused him. Yeah, it's only money....
First, when the Rangers traded for Dunham, it was out of necessity. Richter got hurt, and Blackburn was falling apart after having started something like 20 straight games. For the rest of his first year, Dunham played very well. There's no way anyone could have known his skills would just fall apart as they did.

Regardless of whether or not Weekes was signed last summer, Dunham would be bought out as soon as this CBA is signed. There is absolutely no way he will be on the Rangers in October. That's why I don't understand what "bet" Sather made. If he signed Weekes, Dunham would get bought out if necessary. If he didn't sign Weekes, he would still buy out Dunham, and then he'd have to find himself a starting goaltender who's willing to backstop a terrible defensive team. If you think that anyone knew at the time of the Dunham trade that a) an entire season would be missed due to the CBA, b) Dunham would begin playing terribly before the expiration of the CBA, and c) contracts would carry over to the following season following the CBA situation, you're crazy. In fact, all signs point to the CBA getting done within a couple weeks, and we're still not sure part c) of that is true.

Mike18 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 05:49 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.