Some teams spending like proverbial drunken sailors
Under the theory I think that the league will never penalize them for these signings or gut their teams under the terms of a new CBA. It seems sort of like the situations of people buying property near an airport runway and building a big 'ol house and then suing because of the noise (there are cases like that btw).
Opinions? Mine are obvious by raising the issue. It is one thing to have a high salary from prior years, but especially if after all of this warning, in this year of uncertainly, a team lards on salary and dares the league to hammer them for it I say hammer away. They are just asking for it. Any contrary views?
Under the theory I think that the league will never penalize them for these signings or gut their teams under the terms of a new CBA. It seems sort of like the situations of people buying property near an airport runway and building a big 'ol house and then suing because of the noise (there are cases like that btw).
Opinions? Mine are obvious by raising the issue. It is one thing to have a high salary from prior years, but especially if after all of this warning, in this year of uncertainly, a team lards on salary and dares the league to hammer them for it I say hammer away. They are just asking for it. Any contrary views?
Probably should be moved to the NHL board or Transactions board, but I tihnk the big market teams will expect current contracts to be grandfathered in to the CBA, so taking on salary now might give them a competitive advantage.
Still, just because Niewendyk and Roberts were signed at 3 million each doesn't mean that the sky is caving in. Let's wait to see what people pay Demitra, Palffy, and Kovalev.
Probably should be moved to the NHL board or Transactions board, but I tihnk the big market teams will expect current contracts to be grandfathered in to the CBA, so taking on salary now might give them a competitive advantage.
Still, just because Niewendyk and Roberts were signed at 3 million each doesn't mean that the sky is caving in. Let's wait to see what people pay Demitra, Palffy, and Kovalev.
S L
True, thus far Toronto is the worst of the 'screw everyone else' offenders that I can see ......... how about Balfour getting $22 million over the next two years in addition to those two signings? Last year Toronto had a $61 million plus payroll. While most teams have held back they just larded on almost 17 million ($16.75 million) commited to just three players next year. And committed $11 million more to one of them for a second season. Bettman warned teams that his intent is a hard cap and that they should plan accordingly. Of course none of us know what will happen, but for one team to commit almost half of what the teams have announced as a target range ($35 million or so) to three players and then just dare the league not to allow them to be exempted if a Cap is instituted is a thumb in the eye to the league. To be honest they should be hammered in some way if a Cap is instituted as the alternative, rewarding those actions, would be even worse. I can see granfathering in past actions but actions this summer to that extent? As I said it just is a poke in the eye to the rest of the league as far as I can see and will only open the flood gates to the other big spenders who got the NHL to where it is now in the first place.
Meh, Toronto is one of the few teams in the NHL that will always make money no matter what, and they're wealthy enough to pay whatever fine the new CBA would toss at them. Heck even if it were draft picks, they'd just build through the FA market like they do now.
True, thus far Toronto is the worst of the 'screw everyone else' offenders that I can see ......... how about Balfour getting $22 million over the next two years in addition to those two signings? Last year Toronto had a $61 million plus payroll. While most teams have held back they just larded on almost 17 million ($16.75 million) commited to just three players next year. And committed $11 million more to one of them for a second season.
Ehm, Belfour is reportedly getting 6 mil per year, for 2 years guaranteed with a 2 million signing bonus. There is a team option for a third year, which if not picked up will result in a buyout at 2 mil. Ie besides the signing bonus Belfour gets 6, not 11 million...
Last time I checked 3.75+3+6=12.75 and not 16.75 btw...
Bettman was quoted as saying teams that spend do so "at their own peril". That doesn't sound like an endorsement.
by the way. how would you design this grandfathering of big contracts? does steve konowalchuk's $1.5m count against the cap number but Sakic's $10m does not? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
My guess is that if contracts are grandfathered they will allow teams to play over the cap. But they will not be allowed to add any new salary numbers and any salary that comes off the payroll will not be allowed to be replaced til after the team gets under the cap number. So, grandfathering Jagr's $11m contract may allow the Rangers to start next season as much as $11m over the cap, but it would not any additional players. the contract will be grandfathered, not excempted.
I think its also worth mentioning that its my feeling that those contracts will not be grandfathered. Teams like Boston that are holding steady will end up in the catbird seat. Teams that are way over the cap will have to make some salary dump trades.
With lang and datsyuk, do the red wings really need another multi million dollar contract at center? with Lidstrom making $10m and playing 30:00 a game, do they really need 7 figure contracts with schneider and chelios? I don't think so.
See, as a Toronto fan, I don't really know what to say about this, because only recently has the team become such a heavy spending one, and it hasn't really gotten the club much of anywhere.
But on the other hand, shouldn't the Toronto Maple Leafs be able to spend more on their players than, say, the Pheonix Coyotes? I'm all for a cap but I don't think we should penalize rich teams. Besides which, obviously you can't just spend like crazy, the Rangers did that forever, got only one cup out of it and apparently couldn't keep it up, as they just let loose a bunch of high-cost players.
What's sad is that small-market teams sometimes have to over-pay to get talent.
I don't think it's true. It's easy to say this because small markets team tend to play to victim more often then they are.
When your team s*cks , it's harder to get a good player or to keep your good players because the player mostly want to win the cup more than have more money.
The L.A Kings will have a tough time getting good players to sign when every good player they had are now gone.
The Flames did re-sign Simon & it's a small market team. I'm sure Simon could have gotten more from elsewhere but the team is now a winning team so it's easier to convince your players to stay with the team.
Meh, Toronto is one of the few teams in the NHL that will always make money no matter what, and they're wealthy enough to pay whatever fine the new CBA would toss at them. Heck even if it were draft picks, they'd just build through the FA market like they do now.
You are talking about a soft cap and luxury tax.
Bettman claims to be heading for a hard cap. In that case you cut players until you get below the cap. There is no room to maneuver and no tax or fine for going over.
Under the theory I think that the league will never penalize them for these signings or gut their teams under the terms of a new CBA. It seems sort of like the situations of people buying property near an airport runway and building a big 'ol house and then suing because of the noise (there are cases like that btw).
Opinions? Mine are obvious by raising the issue. It is one thing to have a high salary from prior years, but especially if after all of this warning, in this year of uncertainly, a team lards on salary and dares the league to hammer them for it I say hammer away. They are just asking for it. Any contrary views?
What is wrong with a team operating under the current CBA, and taking the "risk" (a.k.a., making the assumption) that the next CBA will not be dramatically different from this one? Just because Bettman and some owners want you to believe it will be, and just because some fans are apparently sure that it must be (just like they are sure of a long strike ) doesn't make it so.
Your analogy is flawed, because the airport property owners are taking advantage of the law. (Besides, such declarations, i.e., airport noise and any buyers' acknowledgement of such, would be written into any RE contract.) Here, nothing at all is being taken advantage of. Just teams conducting business. Fans of poorer teams may take issue, but life's unfair, you know?
You are suggesting that, on the pure assumption that draconian measures will be forthcoming in the next CBA, teams with more resource$ should tie their hands behind their back today and operate at a disadvantage (i.e., like poorer/cheaper teams) in advance. Sorry, the dumbing down of franchises, the artificial "evening out" of the playing field that some (fans of inferior teams) seemingly live for , is yet to take place. (And hopefully, never will. )
See, as a Toronto fan, I don't really know what to say about this, because only recently has the team become such a heavy spending one, and it hasn't really gotten the club much of anywhere.
But on the other hand, shouldn't the Toronto Maple Leafs be able to spend more on their players than, say, the Pheonix Coyotes? I'm all for a cap but I don't think we should penalize rich teams. Besides which, obviously you can't just spend like crazy, the Rangers did that forever, got only one cup out of it and apparently couldn't keep it up, as they just let loose a bunch of high-cost players.
Just so you all get the point, I am not really against grandfathering in contracts should there be a hard cap, but to take on a huge amount of salary this year when everyone knows that a hard cap is at least is the goal seems to be pushing the intent behind why teams might feel generous toward grandfathering in large salaries . . . it is taking advantage, and you can see where teams may feel a bit less 'charitable' toward those who took on lots of salary this year as opposed to teams who have large payrolls remaining because of long term large contracts . . .the Isles with Yashin for instance, or the Rags/Caps for their shares of Jagr's salary . . . I have no problem at all with grandfathering situations like those that would drive those teams over a hard Cap if there was one. But any team that took on large salaries this year? Hammer them hard.
See, as a Toronto fan, I don't really know what to say about this, because only recently has the team become such a heavy spending one, and it hasn't really gotten the club much of anywhere.
But on the other hand, shouldn't the Toronto Maple Leafs be able to spend more on their players than, say, the Pheonix Coyotes? I'm all for a cap but I don't think we should penalize rich teams. Besides which, obviously you can't just spend like crazy, the Rangers did that forever, got only one cup out of it and apparently couldn't keep it up, as they just let loose a bunch of high-cost players.
Hum yes.. should we say:
Rich *with intelligent DG* teams:
Detroit
Colorado
*maybe Dallas few years ago*
Rich *with uh what is a DG*:
Rangers
Rangers
Rangers
bic*
Rangers
Toronto.
Look fine to me hehe
--
Some very well directed rich teams like Colorado ( beside crappy last year ) are very deadly. Think a normal payroll team could have signed: Roy, Sakic, Fosberg, Foote, Blake & co.?
Colorado and Detroit are the Yankees of the NHL for the last 10 years.
that it must be (just like they are sure of a long strike 
)
