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

Here's A Thought

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-23-2005, 10:56 PM
  #1
ragfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 523
vCash: 500
Here's A Thought

Since Th Rangers or any other NHL team can't buy out and then resign any players, why don't they try something like this:
I was thinking, why can't the Rangers let Kasparitis go, and then have another, Ranger friendly, cash strapped team (say the Oilers) sign him to a Ranger-agreed contract, and then the Oilers could trade him to teh Rangers for say, money (or future considersations like a 9th round draft pick). Kind of like a Quid Pro-Quo thing in case the Oilers want to do the same with Nedved.
And so on and so forth. Is ther anything in the CBA that forbids such transactions?

ragfan is offline  
Old
07-23-2005, 11:20 PM
  #2
FLYLine24*
 
FLYLine24*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 29,102
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ragfan
Since Th Rangers or any other NHL team can't buy out and then resign any players, why don't they try something like this:
I was thinking, why can't the Rangers let Kasparitis go, and then have another, Ranger friendly, cash strapped team (say the Oilers) sign him to a Ranger-agreed contract, and then the Oilers could trade him to teh Rangers for say, money (or future considersations like a 9th round draft pick). Kind of like a Quid Pro-Quo thing in case the Oilers want to do the same with Nedved.
And so on and so forth. Is ther anything in the CBA that forbids such transactions?
Any player that is bought out cannot go back to that team this season, that means no resigning, no getting traded to, no claiming off waivers etc.

FLYLine24* is offline  
Old
07-23-2005, 11:39 PM
  #3
ragfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 523
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLYLine4LIFE
Any player that is bought out cannot go back to that team this season, that means no resigning, no getting traded to, no claiming off waivers etc.

Thats such *********. Why would the players allow that?

ragfan is offline  
Old
07-23-2005, 11:52 PM
  #4
dedalus
Registered User
 
dedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ragfan
Thats such *********. Why would the players allow that?
It's not ********. It's closing a loophole and a rather obvious one at that. Seriously, if you're going to leave something this blatant open, forget buyout-and-trade schemes; just allow teams to renegotiate contracts.

And the players allowed it because they lost the war. They had no choice.

dedalus is offline  
Old
07-23-2005, 11:56 PM
  #5
ragfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 523
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus
It's not ********. It's closing a loophole and a rather obvious one at that. Seriously, if you're going to leave something this blatant open, forget buyout-and-trade schemes; just allow teams to renegotiate contracts.

And the players allowed it because they lost the war. They had no choice.

But what gives an organization the right to say "you can't work here"? IMO, if a player wants to play somewhere at a lower price, then by all means, the league should allow it to do so. Wouldn't it just mean higher profits for owners to allow restructuring? If so, why would the league by against this?

ragfan is offline  
Old
07-24-2005, 12:06 AM
  #6
dedalus
Registered User
 
dedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
Well remember that this buyout thing is a one-time deal, and the league wants to protect the integrity of it. The league isn't really telling the player "you can't work there." Rather it's telling the team, "Okay you have to make some financial decisions and you have to stick by them. You say you want this contract off you cap, fine, but that comes at the price of losing the player. We're not going to let you lose the cap hit but keep the player. Forstarters, that's not fair to the teams that actually planned for a cap-based league."

Also consider, the NHLPA is not complaining here. Under this buyout their member is guaranteed 2/3 of his contract and is being turned into a UFA at the same time.

dedalus is offline  
Old
07-24-2005, 12:51 AM
  #7
ragfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 523
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus
Well remember that this buyout thing is a one-time deal, and the league wants to protect the integrity of it. The league isn't really telling the player "you can't work there." Rather it's telling the team, "Okay you have to make some financial decisions and you have to stick by them. You say you want this contract off you cap, fine, but that comes at the price of losing the player. We're not going to let you lose the cap hit but keep the player. Forstarters, that's not fair to the teams that actually planned for a cap-based league."

Also consider, the NHLPA is not complaining here. Under this buyout their member is guaranteed 2/3 of his contract and is being turned into a UFA at the same time.

I see your point. But don't you think that teams should have the flexibility should the players consent to restructure contracts? Has restructuring been taken out of the cba?

ragfan 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 04:30 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.