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

Redden

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-05-2010, 12:04 PM
  #101
Boom Boom Geoffrion*
CarciLOL
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: NYC
Country: Greece
Posts: 7,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadHookUp View Post
Here is a question for you all. If someone was willing to take Redden on re-entry waivers, would you be willing to do that? Similar to Avery's situation. Be on the hook for only 3million, but be totally rid of him?
Terrible scenario for the Rangers. 3.25M cap hit for the next 4 seasons. His replacement isn't going to be free. We're not saving that much $$$ this route. We'd be better off keeping his ass down in Hartford.

Maybe it's just blind hope, but the way Redden responded to being benched is a good thing. I think there's a small possibility that his pride steps up if he's sent down. That's the best situation for the Rangers, aside from trading his rights which isn't likely to happen.

I wonder if Sather or anybody have discussed stuff like this with Wade.

Listen, Wade, you on this roster is just not working out. We're demoting you to Hartford. We hope you refuse assignment. Let's just terminate your contract, so you can become a UFA and sign anywhere cause it's not working.

23M is owed to Redden. That's a lot of money. I'd sweat it out in Hartford and keep the money, but that's just me.

Boom Boom Geoffrion* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-05-2010, 12:12 PM
  #102
rangerjoe
Registered User
 
rangerjoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 676
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
I don't know when it can be done. I'm just saying I don't see them sending him down and that, obviously, is going greatly impact the offseason.
I agree 100% with you, I don't see the Rangers demoting him to Hartford...Redden and his bad contract are here to stay.

rangerjoe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-05-2010, 12:18 PM
  #103
MPJohnny5
Registered User
 
MPJohnny5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 447
vCash: 500
You guys see the deal Seidenberg just signed? Deals like this just make me even sicker over the Redden contract. Like pouring salt on a wound

MPJohnny5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-05-2010, 12:43 PM
  #104
Boom Boom Geoffrion*
CarciLOL
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: NYC
Country: Greece
Posts: 7,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SRT4Johnny View Post
You guys see the deal Seidenberg just signed? Deals like this just make me even sicker over the Redden contract. Like pouring salt on a wound
Dennis shouldn't have gotten much more. They may very well regret that contract down the road, even though it's priced right. He hasn't been exceptional throughout his career.

Boom Boom Geoffrion* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-05-2010, 01:33 PM
  #105
eco's bones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Elmira NY
Country: United States
Posts: 12,436
vCash: 500
There's little chance the Rangers are going to make any real progress unless and until they dump Redden--however they manage to do that. They won't have the money to go on the market this summer and there isn't that many of their top prospects who (possibly) seem ready to go--McDonagh (if he signs), maybe Sanguinetti or Sauer on D--Wiese, Byers (3rd, 4th line material) on offense. Getting rid of Wade would allow us at least to make some decent improvements on the free agent market. Not doing it puts us in a bind. Either our younger players step up more or it's likely the team regresses even more.

I've said before that I think it's a hard decision to make on someone who no doubt is a good guy--but he's lost it and good teams become good at least in part because they do make hard decisions.

eco's bones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-05-2010, 01:36 PM
  #106
RangerFan10
Registered User
 
RangerFan10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Long Island/Plattsbu
Country: United States
Posts: 5,327
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to RangerFan10
Quote:
Originally Posted by SRT4Johnny View Post
You guys see the deal Seidenberg just signed? Deals like this just make me even sicker over the Redden contract. Like pouring salt on a wound
Jay Bouwmeester signed pretty much an identical contract to Redden's a year later.

RangerFan10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-05-2010, 03:03 PM
  #107
rangerfan_79
Registered User
 
rangerfan_79's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 541
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to rangerfan_79
Quote:
Originally Posted by eco's bones View Post
There's little chance the Rangers are going to make any real progress unless and until they dump Redden--however they manage to do that. They won't have the money to go on the market this summer and there isn't that many of their top prospects who (possibly) seem ready to go--McDonagh (if he signs), maybe Sanguinetti or Sauer on D--Wiese, Byers (3rd, 4th line material) on offense. Getting rid of Wade would allow us at least to make some decent improvements on the free agent market. Not doing it puts us in a bind. Either our younger players step up more or it's likely the team regresses even more.

I've said before that I think it's a hard decision to make on someone who no doubt is a good guy--but he's lost it and good teams become good at least in part because they do make hard decisions.
The Rangers being stuck with Wade Redden may force them to play the kids similar to when the salary cap was instituted. A blessing in disguise maybe?

When Drury's contract expires having a few more young players inserted in the lineup with experience combined with more cap space could be a good combination to then add another top UFA player when all the other pieces are in place.

rangerfan_79 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-05-2010, 05:11 PM
  #108
eco's bones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Elmira NY
Country: United States
Posts: 12,436
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rangerfan_79 View Post
The Rangers being stuck with Wade Redden may force them to play the kids similar to when the salary cap was instituted. A blessing in disguise maybe?

When Drury's contract expires having a few more young players inserted in the lineup with experience combined with more cap space could be a good combination to then add another top UFA player when all the other pieces are in place.
The other side of the coin for sure. Might mean higher draft picks the next couple seasons as well. Might be hard to watch the next couple years.

eco's bones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-05-2010, 05:38 PM
  #109
DrAStuart
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 404
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boom Boom Geoffrion View Post
Terrible scenario for the Rangers. 3.25M cap hit for the next 4 seasons. His replacement isn't going to be free. We're not saving that much $$$ this route. We'd be better off keeping his ass down in Hartford.

Maybe it's just blind hope, but the way Redden responded to being benched is a good thing. I think there's a small possibility that his pride steps up if he's sent down. That's the best situation for the Rangers, aside from trading his rights which isn't likely to happen.

I wonder if Sather or anybody have discussed stuff like this with Wade.

Listen, Wade, you on this roster is just not working out. We're demoting you to Hartford. We hope you refuse assignment. Let's just terminate your contract, so you can become a UFA and sign anywhere cause it's not working.

23M is owed to Redden. That's a lot of money. I'd sweat it out in Hartford and keep the money, but that's just me.
But there's another potential scenario if, as you say, "his pride steps up" after being sent down...

Let's say he goes to Hartford (cuz no one claims him when waived)...Let's say his pride kicks in and he starts to perform well...so they call him back up and someone claims a new and improved Redden for half price, leaving NYR with a 3+M/year bill for a guy who's doing well for another team

Now wouldn't that be a kick in Slats...

DrAStuart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2010, 08:33 AM
  #110
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 29,823
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfgaze View Post
Sather certainly seems to be letting Tortorella influence how he shapes the team...
Based on....?

__________________
SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2010, 11:15 AM
  #111
Janerixon
Registered User
 
Janerixon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 3,730
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
Based on....?
Sather stated when Brash was signed that Torts wanted Brash because he could provide the enforcer aspect of the game and help with the forecheck.

Torts also benched Kotalik trying to get his game in check, Sather traded him.

Torts was unhappy with Gilroy, he was sent to the minors and Eriksson was acquired at the deadline, then called up and played during the stretch run while Gilroy watched.

I think Torts is giving Sather feedback and telling him who he wants and what he wants. I defintely remember Torts saying he wanted Brash here which seemed stupid then and even worse now.

Janerixon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2010, 12:39 PM
  #112
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 29,823
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Janerixon View Post
Sather stated when Brash was signed that Torts wanted Brash because he could provide the enforcer aspect of the game and help with the forecheck.
Hardly a reason for Slats to listen to him again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Janerixon View Post
Torts also benched Kotalik trying to get his game in check, Sather traded him.
Sather traded him because he was a malcontent, not playing well and movable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Janerixon View Post
Torts was unhappy with Gilroy, he was sent to the minors and Eriksson was acquired at the deadline, then called up and played during the stretch run while Gilroy watched.
How do you know it wasn't Slats idea to add a vet d-man?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Janerixon View Post
I think Torts is giving Sather feedback and telling him who he wants and what he wants. I defintely remember Torts saying he wanted Brash here which seemed stupid then and even worse now.
I don't think Torts has the authority to say to Sather, "Bury $26M in Hartford."

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2010, 12:46 PM
  #113
HockeyGuy1985*
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 6,501
vCash: 500
“A player’s contract isn’t going to get him a spot on the team if he doesn’t earn it, and that goes for everyone." - Sather

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/range...#ixzz0q61Uf7Dm

HockeyGuy1985* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2010, 12:47 PM
  #114
t3hg00se
Registered User
 
t3hg00se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,392
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to t3hg00se
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
Sather traded him because he was a malcontent, not playing well and movable.
I wonder who else that describes.

t3hg00se is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2010, 12:48 PM
  #115
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 29,823
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by t3hg00se View Post
I wonder who else that describes.
Movable?

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2010, 12:49 PM
  #116
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 29,823
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyGuy1985 View Post
“A player’s contract isn’t going to get him a spot on the team if he doesn’t earn it, and that goes for everyone." - Sather

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/range...#ixzz0q61Uf7Dm
$26M+ says that's just idle chatter.

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2010, 04:19 PM
  #117
Janerixon
Registered User
 
Janerixon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 3,730
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
Hardly a reason for Slats to listen to him again.

Sather traded him because he was a malcontent, not playing well and movable.

How do you know it wasn't Slats idea to add a vet d-man?

I don't think Torts has the authority to say to Sather, "Bury $26M in Hartford."
I never said that Torts could do a better job than Sather or that he has the answers to our problems, you asked for examples of Sather taking input from Torts... Torts wanted Brashear, Torts benched and scratched Kotalik, demoting him to the 4th line. Do you really think that Torts and Sather didn't discuss how bad Kotalik was playing here, and Sather asked Torts what he thought? Or you think he just traded him out of the blue?

As for Eriksson, that one you may be correct on, but obviously Torts told Sather the GM who demotes players to Hartford that Gilroy needed some work on his defensive game. I highly doubt that Sather called Torts into his office and said I am demoting Gilroy, I am sure Torts had a part in that and when he came back his game still wasn't back to what it was at the start of training camp and he was watching the games from the press box every night down the stretch run.

Do i think torts has the authority to bury Redden, of course not. If Redden does not earn a spot in camp Torts can scratch him every game and let him rot, making Sather look even worse. Obviously it will be a joint decision, but I am sure Sather has final say on that one. According to the Post article you have to earn jobs this year, so lets see if he earns it? I will be shocked if he does, people normally don't regress that badly and then come back after 2 seasons of being useless.

Janerixon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2010, 04:52 PM
  #118
HockeyGuy1985*
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 6,501
vCash: 500
Get off the GM/coach relationship.

If you think that Tortorella hasnt said a thing or two to Sather about a number of the players on this team, youre simply delusional.

HockeyGuy1985* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2010, 05:00 PM
  #119
Crease
Registered User
 
Crease's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,833
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HockeyGuy1985 View Post
“A player’s contract isn’t going to get him a spot on the team if he doesn’t earn it, and that goes for everyone." - Sather

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/range...#ixzz0q61Uf7Dm
That's generally something you hear from the coach, not from the GM who signed the players to those contracts.

Crease is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2010, 05:37 PM
  #120
HockeyGuy1985*
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 6,501
vCash: 500
Actually, you can bet that quote/ideology came from Tortorella first. Sather is just re-hashing it.

Do you really think he would be saying that if Renney was still coach?

HockeyGuy1985* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2010, 05:50 PM
  #121
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 29,823
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Janerixon View Post
I never said that Torts could do a better job than Sather or that he has the answers to our problems, you asked for examples of Sather taking input from Torts... Torts wanted Brashear, Torts benched and scratched Kotalik, demoting him to the 4th line. Do you really think that Torts and Sather didn't discuss how bad Kotalik was playing here, and Sather asked Torts what he thought? Or you think he just traded him out of the blue?
It's not a question of doing a better job. It's a question that three offseason acquisitions (presumably that Torts had a say on) didn't finish the year with the team. I think Torts said I need a guy for the PP and Slats got Kotalik. He wanted an enforcer and he got Brashear.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Janerixon View Post
As for Eriksson, that one you may be correct on, but obviously Torts told Sather the GM who demotes players to Hartford that Gilroy needed some work on his defensive game. I highly doubt that Sather called Torts into his office and said I am demoting Gilroy, I am sure Torts had a part in that and when he came back his game still wasn't back to what it was at the start of training camp and he was watching the games from the press box every night down the stretch run.
I think every team that thinks they can make the playoffs always looks to add a vet d-man.

Gilroy going down was someone's decision. I'm sure both had a say.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Janerixon View Post
Do i think torts has the authority to bury Redden, of course not. If Redden does not earn a spot in camp Torts can scratch him every game and let him rot, making Sather look even worse. Obviously it will be a joint decision, but I am sure Sather has final say on that one. According to the Post article you have to earn jobs this year, so lets see if he earns it? I will be shocked if he does, people normally don't regress that badly and then come back after 2 seasons of being useless.
Look, the fact is in all the decisions mentioned previously are not comparable to Redden. He's owed $26M. And then they need to pay for a replacement. That's a lot of money to eat.

Making your boss look bad is a recipe for getting fired. Torts knows that. And he's done nothing here to make himself a desirable candidate should he get fired.

Scratching Redden is the worst possible scenario. All you have is wasted cap space and a wasted roster space.

Torts might say he wants Redden in Hartford. It's not his call. Sather may not be in the position to make it happen. At the end of the day, it's Slats' call. Does he want to do it? Can he get Dolan to OK paying a guy 6.5M to play minor league hockey? It's easy to say yes when it's not our money.

Sather might say that roster spots have to be earned. It's a nice sound bite. We know that salary will play a factor in any decision. It has to.

My point is this: it's all well and good to create scenarios for the offseason where the Rangers add a big money item. All that is predicated on dumping Redden. I just don't think that's a safe assumption — let alone a sure thing.

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2010, 06:19 PM
  #122
HockeyGuy1985*
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 6,501
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
It's not a question of doing a better job. It's a question that three offseason acquisitions (presumably that Torts had a say on) didn't finish the year with the team. I think Torts said I need a guy for the PP and Slats got Kotalik. He wanted an enforcer and he got Brashear.



I think every team that thinks they can make the playoffs always looks to add a vet d-man.

Gilroy going down was someone's decision. I'm sure both had a say.



Look, the fact is in all the decisions mentioned previously are not comparable to Redden. He's owed $26M. And then they need to pay for a replacement. That's a lot of money to eat.

Making your boss look bad is a recipe for getting fired. Torts knows that. And he's done nothing here to make himself a desirable candidate should he get fired.

Scratching Redden is the worst possible scenario. All you have is wasted cap space and a wasted roster space.

Torts might say he wants Redden in Hartford. It's not his call. Sather may not be in the position to make it happen. At the end of the day, it's Slats' call. Does he want to do it? Can he get Dolan to OK paying a guy 6.5M to play minor league hockey? It's easy to say yes when it's not our money.

Sather might say that roster spots have to be earned. It's a nice sound bite. We know that salary will play a factor in any decision. It has to.

My point is this: it's all well and good to create scenarios for the offseason where the Rangers add a big money item. All that is predicated on dumping Redden. I just don't think that's a safe assumption — let alone a sure thing.

Whos call is it to scratch Redden?

Sather can sign anyone he wants, the coach decides who plays.

This is above all else.

..and whether or not you think its a waste of cap space to sit Redden, its an even bigger waste having him on the ice. You think somehow having him on the ice is going to make him earn his contract even more? by what, a whopping 4%?

HockeyGuy1985* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2010, 06:42 PM
  #123
SupersonicMonkey*
DROP THE PUCK
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 15,193
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fitzy Duke of NY View Post
Well, the reason is it isn't any fun to predict a summer that doesn't involve Redden being sent down. If he stays up, then a lot of things that could improve this team probably won't happen...

A rookie dman may not get a job (Sanguinetti, ect.)
We have less space to acquire free agent #1
Rozsival becomes more likely to be dealt

All of these things coupled with Redden staying is pretty bad for the franchise in the eyes of most fans. There really is no plausible way, outside of personal performance improvement on the part of certain players for this team to improve this offseason if Redden isn't sent down.

We post it, because we hope it happens.
That's it, in a nut shell.

SupersonicMonkey* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2010, 07:20 PM
  #124
Janerixon
Registered User
 
Janerixon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 3,730
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
It's not a question of doing a better job. It's a question that three offseason acquisitions (presumably that Torts had a say on) didn't finish the year with the team. I think Torts said I need a guy for the PP and Slats got Kotalik. He wanted an enforcer and he got Brashear.

I think every team that thinks they can make the playoffs always looks to add a vet d-man.

Gilroy going down was someone's decision. I'm sure both had a say.

Look, the fact is in all the decisions mentioned previously are not comparable to Redden. He's owed $26M. And then they need to pay for a replacement. That's a lot of money to eat.

Making your boss look bad is a recipe for getting fired. Torts knows that. And he's done nothing here to make himself a desirable candidate should he get fired.

Scratching Redden is the worst possible scenario. All you have is wasted cap space and a wasted roster space.

Torts might say he wants Redden in Hartford. It's not his call. Sather may not be in the position to make it happen. At the end of the day, it's Slats' call. Does he want to do it? Can he get Dolan to OK paying a guy 6.5M to play minor league hockey? It's easy to say yes when it's not our money.

Sather might say that roster spots have to be earned. It's a nice sound bite. We know that salary will play a factor in any decision. It has to.

My point is this: it's all well and good to create scenarios for the offseason where the Rangers add a big money item. All that is predicated on dumping Redden. I just don't think that's a safe assumption let alone a sure thing.
Singn,
I actually agree on your points with Brash, Kotalik, and Gilroy.

I do think Torts can ask for Sather to demote him if he doesn't earn a spot and you are correct Sather makes the call and may say, "my hands are tied, he stays here." But as Hockeyguy pointed out Torts can scratch him, and hey maybe Sather fires him for that... but it is Torts call and if he feels Redden doesn't deserve to be out there and hurts the team, he has to do whats best for the team or he can be Sather's puppet. Torts does not strike me as anyone's puppet, we can say many things about him, but that's one I'd never venture to say. Ron Low was a puppet.

I feel there are 2 scenarios that predicate if Sather waives Redden and send shim to hartford to start the season
1) UFA as said, if we sign a big name and need room
2) If he has another garbage camp, Sather claims you have to earn your job and wants kids to earn jobs... well having a 6.5 million dollar 3rd pair declining d-man block sanguinetti or another kid from gaining experience sounds pretty detrimental to me.

I see your points, there is defintely a Torts - Sather relationship, Sather may have the final decision as to who he signs and who he gets rid of, but Torts can bench or scratch a player if they aren't up to his standards and deal with the consequences.

Janerixon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2010, 06:18 AM
  #125
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,847
vCash: 500
Redden has $23 million remaining.

Torts was very emphatic about wanting to change the room.

Quote:
The bywords from John Tortorella during the head coach's press briefing on breakup day were "character" and "core," as in, the Rangers needing more character players in the 2010-11 locker room but having a good young core on which to build.

"I wasn't crazy about the room," Tortorella said after the franchise's first playoffs miss in five seasons. "I'm not indicting [captain] Chris Drury or [alternate captain] Ryan Callahan or the leadership group, but I think some people need to be weeded out.

"I'm not talking about the core players, [but] I didn't think we had a strong room and I still don't," Tortorella said. "We have work to do there. When we traded for Jody Shelley, everybody told me he had good character. We don't have enough.

"It can't be the coaches being in there all the time. The last thing I want to do is indict Chris Drury because I love the guy, but I think some guys need to be bumped out."

Tortorella did not name names, but the inference is that Wade Redden figures prominently in the conversation. Redden, who played on the third pair all season, has four years remaining on his contract at an annual $6.5-million-per-cap hit.
http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/range...aFuQIETwdiga8J

Nothing has changed in the past 7 weeks. There are probably other players Torts wants off the team. If the Rangers don't want to make the changes,then fire the coach. He has made it pretty clear that he wants certain guys off the team.

They can't trade Redden. Buying him out makes zero sense. 8 year cap hit.

In the new CBA and there will be a new CBA in the next year or two,teams could/will get the chance to buy out players and not have it count against the cap. Compliance buyouts occurred when the current CBA was signed.

It's not like that possibility hasn't been discussed

Quote:
The only real option on Redden is to send him to the AHL and eat his contract. A buyout next summer doesn't solve anything because the Rangers would still carry a $2 million cap hit from him for the next eight years.

I guess if you're New York, there's also the hope that when the next collective-bargaining agreement is negotiated, whether that's after next season or the season after that (the NHL Players' Association has the option of extending it a seventh year), teams will once again get a one-time shot at buying out their worst contract without cap implications, which was the case in August 2005, when the last CBA started. That would be an opportune time for the Rangers to deal with Redden.
http://espn.go.com/nhl/blog/_/name/l...ers-fit-souray

RangerBoy 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 04:12 PM.

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.