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

Brooks - Possibly No Cap Hit Buyouts (2010)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-12-2009, 11:43 AM
  #1
NYR89
Registered User
 
NYR89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Seattle, WA
Country: United States
Posts: 3,101
vCash: 500
Brooks - Possibly No Cap Hit Buyouts (2010)

http://www.nypost.com/seven/07122009...tup_178810.htm

I stole this from the Devils board and it's an interesting topic. The GM's are talking about allowing 1 buyout per team and not have any of it count against the cap if it falls a lot.

Bye, bye Wade Redden!


Last edited by FLYLine24: 07-12-2009 at 11:49 AM.
NYR89 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2009, 11:45 AM
  #2
broadwayblue
Registered User
 
broadwayblue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 15,992
vCash: 500
Please let this be true!

broadwayblue is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2009, 11:46 AM
  #3
SomebodySaveKreider
Registered User
 
SomebodySaveKreider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Long Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 2,549
vCash: 500
If this happens I'm gonna run from Oakland to NY naked in celebration

SomebodySaveKreider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2009, 11:50 AM
  #4
UAGoalieGuy
Registered User
 
UAGoalieGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Long Island,New York
Country: United States
Posts: 8,897
vCash: 500
That would be the best thing that could ever happen for the Rangers if its true. Unless Redden has an insane season this year, he would get bought out and the only "bad" contract left on the Rangers books would be Drury, but there would only be two more years left on that deal after next season.

UAGoalieGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2009, 11:54 AM
  #5
broadwayblue
Registered User
 
broadwayblue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 15,992
vCash: 500
Actually this hypothetical amnesty buyout won't take place until 3 summers from now. So Drury's contract will have expired, and Redden will have two years left I believe.

broadwayblue is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2009, 12:02 PM
  #6
UAGoalieGuy
Registered User
 
UAGoalieGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Long Island,New York
Country: United States
Posts: 8,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by broadwayblue View Post
Actually this hypothetical amnesty buyout won't take place until 3 summers from now. So Drury's contract will have expired, and Redden will have two years left I believe.
No, there will be a cap rollback after this upcoming season w/ no cap hit buyouts, according to some NHL GM's:

Quote:
Indeed, several general managers have told Slap Shots they believe a rollback of up to 15 percent plus a round of amnesty buyouts will be necessary at the end of next season in order to accommodate a decrease in the 2010-11 cap that is expected to be meaningful.

UAGoalieGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2009, 12:03 PM
  #7
NYR Viper
Moderator
 
NYR Viper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 29,531
vCash: 500
Really hope Sather could remove the Redden contract. Wow, that would be amazing.

NYR Viper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2009, 12:03 PM
  #8
jniklast
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Country: Germany
Posts: 5,158
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by broadwayblue View Post
Actually this hypothetical amnesty buyout won't take place until 3 summers from now. So Drury's contract will have expired, and Redden will have two years left I believe.
no it says "...plus a round of amnesty buyouts will be necessary at the end of next season in order to accommodate a decrease in the 2010-11 cap that is expected to be meaningful."
so it would be next summer.

jniklast is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2009, 12:04 PM
  #9
FutureGM97
Registered User
 
FutureGM97's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Connecticut, USA
Country: United States
Posts: 6,833
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to FutureGM97
Oh lord what an unbelievable stroke of luck for this team it would be. Glen Sather must be drooling at this prospect.

FutureGM97 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2009, 12:18 PM
  #10
Levitate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 21,533
vCash: 500
There's no way the NHLPA agrees to a 15% salary rollback. There's just no way that will happen.

Levitate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2009, 12:20 PM
  #11
SML
Registered User
 
SML's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 3,756
vCash: 500
I knew this would happen. The league has no interest in actually penalizing their teams. It's not in their best interests. So if the cap went down substantially, there is no benefit in holding teams to deals they have made to the point where they have to cut viable, legit talent in order to come into compliance with a cap they are imposing upon themselves. It's a lose-lose scenario. League owners do not want to pay guys like Redden 6 million dollars a year to play in the AHL. It's safe to say that a majority of teams have at least one deal they would like to take back. Once that becomes the case, it's only a matter of time before they rework it to fit their needs somehow.

SML is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2009, 12:29 PM
  #12
SML
Registered User
 
SML's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 3,756
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Levitate View Post
There's no way the NHLPA agrees to a 15% salary rollback. There's just no way that will happen.
I would imagine have a very "big picture" perspective on the issue. If refusing to roll back means another lockout, they'll agree to it. Alot of the current players went through that lockout. That's a solid year of a short career that they will never get back and cost some of them millions. I doubt those guys will vote for that again. If refusing to roll back means one or two teams financially can't compete, you potentially cost 40-60 players 100% of their salary instead of everyone sacrificing 15%. But if I'm making 500k to play hockey, I'd rather get 425k than nothing. Those are the guys who are going to go against another lockout. The top 10% players are always going to have a place to play, NHL or not. Your third and fourth liners, your 6-7 dmen, they're gonna get nothing. But in a union, everyone's vote is equal. So Colton Orr's opinion means the same as Alex Ovechkin's. If it takes a 15% rollback for everyone to keep their job, I think they agree to it.

SML is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2009, 12:33 PM
  #13
broadwayblue
Registered User
 
broadwayblue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 15,992
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SML View Post
I knew this would happen. The league has no interest in actually penalizing their teams. It's not in their best interests. So if the cap went down substantially, there is no benefit in holding teams to deals they have made to the point where they have to cut viable, legit talent in order to come into compliance with a cap they are imposing upon themselves. It's a lose-lose scenario. League owners do not want to pay guys like Redden 6 million dollars a year to play in the AHL. It's safe to say that a majority of teams have at least one deal they would like to take back. Once that becomes the case, it's only a matter of time before they rework it to fit their needs somehow.
I agree. Why would they want to penalize teams for following the rules? I mean sure, if they were only allowed to give out 1 year contracts it wouldn't be a problem if the cap went down...you just re-sign players accordingly. But when the cap is XX million and teams spend that amount, how can you realistically screw them over by dropping that figure substantially the following year? It doesn't make any sense. I would rather see a future CBA state that the cap amount CAN'T go down, but rather the amount of decrease can be carried over to future years and applied towards increases. Basically worst case results in a cap freeze from one year to the next...and cap increases only occur after carry over losses have been satisfied.

broadwayblue is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2009, 12:35 PM
  #14
broadwayblue
Registered User
 
broadwayblue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 15,992
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by UAGoalieGuy View Post
No, there will be a cap rollback after this upcoming season w/ no cap hit buyouts, according to some NHL GM's:
Thanks. I stand corrected. Glad to be wrong on this one! One more year of Redden...I can live with that!

I can see it now...the here comes Kovalchuk posts in 3...2...1

broadwayblue is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2009, 12:40 PM
  #15
broadwayblue
Registered User
 
broadwayblue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 15,992
vCash: 500
One other question. Brooks centers this article around the Flyers and Pronger's contract screw up. Exactly how would this amnesty help the Flyers? Would they really buy out his contract during year 1? Last time I believe there was a rule that stated you couldn't re-sign a player for a year after you bought him out. So assuming the flyers went this route they would essentially be cancelling the extension they just signed, thus getting one year from Pronger for all those picks and players? Does that seem right?

broadwayblue is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2009, 12:42 PM
  #16
Blueblood 2
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 874
vCash: 500
The union might not agree to a roll back but the amnesty buyout would be to their advantage, no? The player gets paid and there is more money/jobs for other union employees.

Blueblood 2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2009, 12:44 PM
  #17
glees68
la di da di
 
glees68's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Pittsburgh
Country: United States
Posts: 689
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to glees68
Yes Redden is overpaid, but he and Rosi both shutdown Ovie when Staal and Girardi couldn't. They were also the best 2 defensemen on the team the 2nd half of the year.

glees68 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2009, 12:47 PM
  #18
FLYLine24
The Mac Truck
 
FLYLine24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 31,144
vCash: 500
I think they should just get rid of the cap. All problems solved!



FLYLine24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2009, 12:48 PM
  #19
WhipNash27
Quattro!!
 
WhipNash27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Westchester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 16,009
vCash: 500
Plus, if the Rangers still would want Redden, they can buy him out and resign him at a lower price. He gets buyout money plus his new salary.

WhipNash27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2009, 12:49 PM
  #20
broadwayblue
Registered User
 
broadwayblue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 15,992
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DubiSnacks17 View Post
Plus, if the Rangers still would want Redden, they can buy him out and resign him at a lower price. He gets buyout money plus his new salary.
Not if they specifically disallow that like they did last time. Seems fair that they won't let you eat your cake and have it too.

broadwayblue is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2009, 12:52 PM
  #21
SomebodySaveKreider
Registered User
 
SomebodySaveKreider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Long Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 2,549
vCash: 500
I think things could get AWFULLY interesting next off season

SomebodySaveKreider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2009, 12:56 PM
  #22
King of cool
The winning hat
 
King of cool's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Under your skin
Country: France
Posts: 2,001
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DubiSnacks17 View Post
Plus, if the Rangers still would want Redden, they can buy him out and resign him at a lower price. He gets buyout money plus his new salary.
A player whose contract is bought out by a team can not sign another contract with that same team for a period of at least one year.

King of cool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2009, 01:21 PM
  #23
ECL
Very slippery slope
 
ECL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Middle America
Country: United States
Posts: 78,733
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to ECL
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLYLine24 View Post
I think they should just get rid of the cap. All problems solved!


They need to get rid of the hard cap.

If we want to spend 80M a year, we should be able to. Just have to pay another 30M or whatever over the league cap into a fund for the poooooooooooor teams.

__________________
"Of course giving Sather cap space is like giving teenagers whiskey and car keys." - SBOB
"Watching Sather build a team is like watching a blind man with no fingers trying to put together an elaborate puzzle." - Shadowtron
I still think there should be a section of people at MSG behind the visiting bench, in curly wigs, and dark rimmed glasses, calling themselves the Pidtophiles. - Zamboner
ECL is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2009, 01:24 PM
  #24
HeaveHo94
PSN: NYC_RANGERS_94
 
HeaveHo94's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NY NEW YORK
Country: United States
Posts: 2,335
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DubiSnacks17 View Post
Plus, if the Rangers still would want Redden, they can buy him out and resign him at a lower price. He gets buyout money plus his new salary.
Like the NFL...

HeaveHo94 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2009, 01:30 PM
  #25
we want cup
Ants in the Pants
 
we want cup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Minneapolis
Country: United States
Posts: 11,036
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Levitate View Post
There's no way the NHLPA agrees to a 15% salary rollback. There's just no way that will happen.
You're right, there has to be a better way...... TWO buyouts per team!


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan. View Post
They need to get rid of the hard cap.

If we want to spend 80M a year, we should be able to. Just have to pay another 30M or whatever over the league cap into a fund for the poooooooooooor teams.
Ding ding ding! We have a winner!

we want cup 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 11:28 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.