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.

Rangers looking to dump some salary

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-03-2009, 07:57 PM
  #76
NYR Sting
Heart and Soul
 
NYR Sting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 9,506
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by projexns View Post
If I'm Dubinsky's agent, the minimum contract request is the dollar-amount associated
with a 2nd-round pick as compensation for signing a RFA. Backes and Bernier received similar 3-year/$7.5 million offers last year based on that minimal compensation. The incumbent teams obviously matched.

Dubinsky can easily ask for four years, taking him to UFA, slightly north of $10 million.
If Dubinsky turns into the player Ranger fans hope, that isn't such a bad deal for the team. The problem is he might not.

But I think Dubinsky will take a slight discount because he's made it very clear how much he likes NYC. He's very into the nightlife and the atmosphere. I think he'll come to a compromise with the team that works for both parties.

NYR Sting is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2009, 09:02 PM
  #77
Rhodes 81
grit those teeth
 
Rhodes 81's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Atlanta
Country: United States
Posts: 12,238
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex28 View Post
To Atlanta - Scott Gomez, Michal Roszival
To NYR - Ron Hainsey, Todd White
let me get this straight

atlanta trades the better players to take on more money

yeah that's deffinately a good move on atl's part

Rhodes 81 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-04-2009, 12:13 AM
  #78
clumping platelets
Registered User
 
clumping platelets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Clumptowaga
Country: United States
Posts: 1,550
vCash: 500
As a Sabres fan, I would love to have Drury back. However, any deal back to Buffalo would require the Rangers to take one of our bad contracts in return.

Drury for Hecht (or Connolly), rights to RFA MacArthur, plus prospect (not a top prospect), and draft choice (not 1st rd)

This would save the Rangers aboot $2 million

clumping platelets is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-04-2009, 12:36 AM
  #79
Enstrom39
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,174
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by azrok22 View Post
Possible, but even if they did change it, it would likely come with current contracts grandfathered in under the old rules, or with a period of time for salary cap free buyouts.

Just look at the last CBA... it included grandfathering in split contracts (see Jagr, Jaromir), and a "free" buyout period where buyouts didn't count against the cap.

Especially with the way the economy is right now, I think you're more likely to see salary cap restrictions eased rather than tightened.

The worst case scenario (for both the NHL and the NHLPA) is a situation where the cap contracts significantly. No one wins if high paid players need to be buried in the minors to avoid breaching the cap, and if the cap goes down I'd be very surprised if a "soft" cap or some other mechanism wasn't implemented to avoid such a scenario.

EDIT:


You say nasty consequences... I say Rangers really have nothing to worry about. I suppose they'd be in a better position with a ton of room to work with (but even that's arguable, no guarantee they'd be able to get better UFAs this offseason or even next), but as I demonstrated, their mistakes are easily fixable within the current CBA, and any speculation about changes is pointless, because they most likely would come with their own loopholes.
We both are free to make assumptions about the CBA future, since there is no evidence one way or the other.

If 10 teams are regularly driving up prices by over paying and then burying their mistakes the other 20 franchises have an incentive not to allow for easy escape clauses in the next CBA.

I think that is fairly likely that the Rangers will need to bury a contract in the minors in 2010 which might provide a significant negative effect the next time they come calling to an UFA with lots of cash. Those guys want to be paid but they also want to play in the NHL. Rangers will then be forced into handing No Movement Clauses along with piles of cash--which would de facto close the "hide your UFA mistakes in the minors" option.

Enstrom39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-04-2009, 01:09 AM
  #80
catters078
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 3,062
vCash: 500
Surely someone like the thrashers could finally step up and trade for Gomez and get a 1st line centre...they would have the bargaining power because of the size of the contract so they wouldnt have to give too much back...

Its about time that franchise got the wallet out and showed Kovalchuk how much they want to become a playoff team

catters078 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-04-2009, 09:00 AM
  #81
Enstrom39
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,174
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by catters078 View Post
Surely someone like the thrashers could finally step up and trade for Gomez and get a 1st line centre...they would have the bargaining power because of the size of the contract so they wouldnt have to give too much back...

Its about time that franchise got the wallet out and showed Kovalchuk how much they want to become a playoff team
It is not as simple as that unfortunately. The owners have been in court for 3 years. Why would they want to lose even more money until the court decides who owns the teams? They have their own budget and it is only about $45 million. How are you going to take on Gomez and then turn around pay Kovalchuk $9-10 million per year and still get in under $45 million?

Enstrom39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-04-2009, 10:39 AM
  #82
wereback
Registered User
 
wereback's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 620
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by potvins4cups View Post
They could look to dump salary all day and all week but no other team especially in this economic time will be willing to just take those ridiculous contracts handed to gomez, drury, redden off of the rangers hands. this is why i crack up when i hear and read all these media people and sports writers who say that the rangers need to make changes and they need to go out and get a sniper. how will this happen if the rangers have $42,097,000 tied up on only 10 players while some of their younger players are rfa's like dubinsky, callahan, korpikoski, sjostrom. these four will command close to $1 million each. so that will put them close to $46 million with another 8-10 players needed to be signed or brought up from their system to fill out their roster. so can someone please explain to me how the rangers will sign a sniper and fit him under the cap?

One word....Grachev....learn the name now....


Last edited by wereback: 05-04-2009 at 10:52 AM.
wereback is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-04-2009, 10:44 AM
  #83
GAGLine
HFBoards Sponsor
 
GAGLine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 9,710
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Falconer View Post
We both are free to make assumptions about the CBA future, since there is no evidence one way or the other.

If 10 teams are regularly driving up prices by over paying and then burying their mistakes the other 20 franchises have an incentive not to allow for easy escape clauses in the next CBA.

I think that is fairly likely that the Rangers will need to bury a contract in the minors in 2010 which might provide a significant negative effect the next time they come calling to an UFA with lots of cash. Those guys want to be paid but they also want to play in the NHL. Rangers will then be forced into handing No Movement Clauses along with piles of cash--which would de facto close the "hide your UFA mistakes in the minors" option.
In 2010, buying out Drury becomes a viable option. He will only have 2 years left on his contract (@8 mil and 5 mil). The Rangers would save nearly 6 million against the cap in 2010 if they were to buy him out.

Also, if the cap does go down signficantly in 2010, the NHL may institute a free buyout period, similar to when the current CBA came into effect, whereby those buyouts would not count against the cap.

Yes, this would help teams that are up against the cap and could be seen as unfair to teams that did a better job of managing their cap, but I think that's a better alternative for all involved rather than sticking a bunch of high-priced, NHL-caliber players in the AHL.

If the Rangers are smart this summer, they should be fine in 2010, whatever happens.

GAGLine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-04-2009, 10:51 AM
  #84
Alex28*
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 3,989
vCash: 500
Something like this could possibly work out. They could remain competitive while dumping albatross contracts if they roll 4 lines.

Sign Cammalleri @ 5.4 million

Gomez for Horcoff, 3rd

Roszival for Higgins

Zherdev, 3rd for Hickey

Higgins Horcoff Cammalleri
Avery Dubinsky Callahan
Antropov Anisimov Grachev
Korpikoski Drury Betts

Redden Staal
Gilroy Girardi
Morris/Mara Hickey

Roll top 3 lines for 16 minutes each, 4th line for 13 minutes, preference to the one that ends up producing the most. Drury is more comfortable as a support player and could be moved up for clutch situations and given top PP/PK time.

Alex28* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-04-2009, 10:55 AM
  #85
Northern Neighbour
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,729
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GAGLine View Post
In 2010, buying out Drury becomes a viable option. He will only have 2 years left on his contract (@8 mil and 5 mil). The Rangers would save nearly 6 million against the cap in 2010 if they were to buy him out.

Also, if the cap does go down signficantly in 2010, the NHL may institute a free buyout period, similar to when the current CBA came into effect, whereby those buyouts would not count against the cap.

Yes, this would help teams that are up against the cap and could be seen as unfair to teams that did a better job of managing their cap, but I think that's a better alternative for all involved rather than sticking a bunch of high-priced, NHL-caliber players in the AHL.

If the Rangers are smart this summer, they should be fine in 2010, whatever happens.
I don't see bolded part happening at all since the CBA would still be in effect. It's not as if a whole new system was being introduced. Teams would also have been warned for a good 18 months about the potential for a cap decrease in 2010-11, so teams that do not plan accordingly will have to suffer the consequences.

In addition, for such a change to be accepted, the majority of teams would have to vote for it and the NHLPA would have to agree, as this suggestion would require a change to the CBA. The majority of teams, however, likely will not vote in favour of this, as it would allow poorly-managed teams, like the Rangers, to walk away from the bad contracts they gave out.

It's wishful thinking by any teams or fans to believe that the NHL would allow another reprieve period just because the cap went down. Give out poor contracts and suffer the consequences. This is one of the consequences of the CBA.

Northern Neighbour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-04-2009, 11:22 AM
  #86
rockinghockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 6,846
vCash: 500
If I was Edmonton I would do that trade in a heart beat. Drury is a bit more but it is gone in 3 years and I think Drury would be a better player with Hemmer also.

rockinghockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-04-2009, 03:45 PM
  #87
azrok22
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 9,454
vCash: 500
Quote:
I don't see bolded part happening at all since the CBA would still be in effect. It's not as if a whole new system was being introduced. Teams would also have been warned for a good 18 months about the potential for a cap decrease in 2010-11, so teams that do not plan accordingly will have to suffer the consequences.

In addition, for such a change to be accepted, the majority of teams would have to vote for it and the NHLPA would have to agree, as this suggestion would require a change to the CBA. The majority of teams, however, likely will not vote in favour of this, as it would allow poorly-managed teams, like the Rangers, to walk away from the bad contracts they gave out.

It's wishful thinking by any teams or fans to believe that the NHL would allow another reprieve period just because the cap went down. Give out poor contracts and suffer the consequences. This is one of the consequences of the CBA.
I agree somewhat but let me explain where I think the two of you are off... I think one of two situations happens:

1) CBA stays how it is (regarding the so-called "loopholes"... if the cap goes down, salaries are removable via waivers

2) CBA is amended to close the "loopholes"... in such event, I think that salary cap exempt buyouts are "very" likely

azrok22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-04-2009, 04:00 PM
  #88
GAGLine
HFBoards Sponsor
 
GAGLine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 9,710
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Neighbour View Post
I don't see bolded part happening at all since the CBA would still be in effect. It's not as if a whole new system was being introduced. Teams would also have been warned for a good 18 months about the potential for a cap decrease in 2010-11, so teams that do not plan accordingly will have to suffer the consequences.

In addition, for such a change to be accepted, the majority of teams would have to vote for it and the NHLPA would have to agree, as this suggestion would require a change to the CBA. The majority of teams, however, likely will not vote in favour of this, as it would allow poorly-managed teams, like the Rangers, to walk away from the bad contracts they gave out.

It's wishful thinking by any teams or fans to believe that the NHL would allow another reprieve period just because the cap went down. Give out poor contracts and suffer the consequences. This is one of the consequences of the CBA.
Perhaps, but I think the NHLPA would be in favor of it. The players would get a significant amount of money and become UFAs. That's got to be better than rotting in the AHL.

Either way, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. Maybe the cap won't go down much, or at all, and it will be a non-issue.

GAGLine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-04-2009, 05:21 PM
  #89
Yase
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Country: Angola
Posts: 143
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GongShowHockeyNYR View Post
Yup. You are 100% correct. Seriously if it weren't for job opportunity, why would you go to Manhattan, the only places to go there are Dave and Buster's, and Applebee's.
Good point. If they don't go to New York, where could they go? Chicago? LA? DC? Boston? Who would want to live in any of those boring dumps?

Yase 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 11:53 PM.

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.