• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
unsaddleddonald

Does this annoy you?

Rate this topic

33 posts in this topic

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/hockey/rangers/2011/06/25/2011-06-25_richards_race_favors_rangers.html

does any one else find it annoying that teams are able to bail themselves out of terrible contracts by sending players to the minors? Chicago doing with Huet last summer, the Oilers doing it with Souray, the Rangers doing it with Wade Redden. In my opinion, these teams should have to deal with the stupidity they bring upon themselves. Its an absolute cop out and they humiliate these players in the process by sending them to the minors. I hope the next CBA corrects this.

Rick D likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.nydailyne...rs_rangers.html

does any one else find it annoying that teams are able to bail themselves out of terrible contracts by sending players to the minors? Chicago doing with Huet last summer, the Oilers doing it with Souray, the Rangers doing it with Wade Redden. In my opinion, these teams should have to deal with the stupidity they bring upon themselves. Its an absolute cop out and they humiliate these players in the process by sending them to the minors. I hope the next CBA corrects this.

What do you propose? A league mandate that players signed MUST play in the NHL regardless of their performance? That sounds dumb. Did you ever think that these players are humiliating themselves by being bad hockey players and not living up to their contracts? Huet is getting 5+million to play in the Swiss National League and be close to his family. Poor guy!

Edited by Frank the Tank

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/hockey/rangers/2011/06/25/2011-06-25_richards_race_favors_rangers.html

does any one else find it annoying that teams are able to bail themselves out of terrible contracts by sending players to the minors? Chicago doing with Huet last summer, the Oilers doing it with Souray, the Rangers doing it with Wade Redden. In my opinion, these teams should have to deal with the stupidity they bring upon themselves. Its an absolute cop out and they humiliate these players in the process by sending them to the minors. I hope the next CBA corrects this.

Things like that may hurt them during Free Agency, Players see how they treated Huet. That may turn some players and agents off.

P. Marlowe likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you say in NA? What goes around comes around? At least, I heard something like that... Assume you're Logan Couture, a second line center negotiating a new contract with highly competitive SJS. Will you give them a kind of discount? Will you believe them if they say we are not trading you? What if Red Wings are not making play-offs and Lidstrom is available (hypothetical, I know)? What if you signed cheap and play above expectations? Are you sure they won't trade you for a good chance to get a cup? What's about Van Riemsdyk? Claude Giroux? How do you think Campbell feels now? More likely than not he will never get a chance to come close to the play-offs... It is sunny in Florida but what if he actually likes hockey and wants to compete?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's very annoying. There's a salary cap for a reason. If you send a player to the minors/overseas...you should be responsible for 50% of his salary against that years cap. Only way I can think of to solve it.

Above poster is correct about same agents/players being 'turned off' by how players are treated this way....but that seems like too small of a penalty to me.

Wish we could have a soft cap with a 'luxury tax' in the NHL....oh well.

Rick D and Uncle Danny like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/hockey/rangers/2011/06/25/2011-06-25_richards_race_favors_rangers.html

does any one else find it annoying that teams are able to bail themselves out of terrible contracts by sending players to the minors? Chicago doing with Huet last summer, the Oilers doing it with Souray, the Rangers doing it with Wade Redden. In my opinion, these teams should have to deal with the stupidity they bring upon themselves. Its an absolute cop out and they humiliate these players in the process by sending them to the minors. I hope the next CBA corrects this.

I think it's silly that this is allowed. More, it's unfair, because whereas richer teams can simply take bad contracts and shove them into the minors, the teams with less money can't afford ot do so.

Rick D likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you propose? A league mandate that players signed MUST play in the NHL regardless of their performance? That sounds dumb. Did you ever think that these players are humiliating themselves by being bad hockey players and not living up to their contracts? Huet is getting 5+million to play in the Swiss National League and be close to his family. Poor guy!

My issue isn't with the player, its with the GM's and the team's management. Glen Sather is getting bailed out by this loophole: he gets to stuff a veteran in the minors and he is hoping that Chris Drury's injury is bad enough that he can put him on long term IR. That doesn't sound a little disgusting to you? And the result is now he gets a free shot at Brad Richards...so he can throw more stupid contracts around. It is ridiculous how he doesn't have to pay for his mistakes of offering terrible contracts. I just feel like GMs should not be able to be bailed out like that so easily...

Edited by unsaddleddonald
Rick D likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you propose? A league mandate that players signed MUST play in the NHL regardless of their performance? That sounds dumb. Did you ever think that these players are humiliating themselves by being bad hockey players and not living up to their contracts? Huet is getting 5+million to play in the Swiss National League and be close to his family. Poor guy!

I think there should be a salary cut-off, over which a team must pay the buyout value of a player's contract if they want to stash him in the minors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's very annoying. There's a salary cap for a reason. If you send a player to the minors/overseas...you should be responsible for 50% of his salary against that years cap. Only way I can think of to solve it.

Above poster is correct about same agents/players being 'turned off' by how players are treated this way....but that seems like too small of a penalty to me.

Wish we could have a soft cap with a 'luxury tax' in the NHL....oh well.

In response to the bold - I'm pretty certain this will be pushed by the Don Fehr led NHLPA after the 2011/2012 season.

syntax likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was reading an article recently about this. I can't recall where it was- online or in print.

The gist of it was that the guys who go to the minors end up with more money than if they stayed in the NHL due to the fact that they get to keep it all whereas they have to put a certain amount into some sort of fund if they get the money whilst playing in the NHL.

The upshot was that they'd rather be playing in the NHL, but the extra money was a cool silver lining to the cloud.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was reading an article recently about this. I can't recall where it was- online or in print.

The gist of it was that the guys who go to the minors end up with more money than if they stayed in the NHL due to the fact that they get to keep it all whereas they have to put a certain amount into some sort of fund if they get the money whilst playing in the NHL.

The upshot was that they'd rather be playing in the NHL, but the extra money was a cool silver lining to the cloud.

The Emergency Assistance Fund?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Emergency Assistance Fund?

I don't believe they're the same fund. That is what their fines are used for. This is a different one that they have to give to because the players can't get more than a certain amount of the league's income in any given year.

I'll see if I can't find something online. I think they called it an escrow account.

EDIT to add:

I did a search and couldn't find the article I read, but I did find that there is some question about the information I had read. Basically, all players have to put a certain percentage into an escrow account and at the end of the year they get some of it back depending on the exact amount that the league made.

The problem with Redden and those kind of cases is that they are not paying in, but are used in some sort of figuring in the return of the money. It is all over my head.

Edited by 55fan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just say that you make it so something like 40% of their salary stays up. Then 33% buy-out makes more sense in the offseason and you could still get cap relief by sending someone down, just not total cap relief.

stevkrause likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just say that you make it so something like 40% of their salary stays up. Then 33% buy-out makes more sense in the offseason and you could still get cap relief by sending someone down, just not total cap relief.

Agreed completely, I hadn't given the actual % much thought, but this seems like a very easy way to solve it - one way contract sent down/shipped overseas - Part of it counts to the cap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wish we could have a soft cap with a 'luxury tax' in the NHL....oh well.

Me too. I'd actually be willing to miss another entire season to get a Luxury Tax.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/hockey/rangers/2011/06/25/2011-06-25_richards_race_favors_rangers.html

does any one else find it annoying that teams are able to bail themselves out of terrible contracts by sending players to the minors? Chicago doing with Huet last summer, the Oilers doing it with Souray, the Rangers doing it with Wade Redden. In my opinion, these teams should have to deal with the stupidity they bring upon themselves. Its an absolute cop out and they humiliate these players in the process by sending them to the minors. I hope the next CBA corrects this.

Personally I don't have a problem with this. The players humiliated themselves by playing to poorly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe someone can correct me... but i distinctly remember that teams had to include the cap numbers of waived AHL or overseas players at some point just before the start of the season. if so, this means its not really a perpetual loophole.

an aside; while I am ALL for punishing franchises that agree to silly contracts... I don't agree in punishing the individual player. waived players imho should get off scott-free and available as unrestricted free agents (unable to sign with waiving team for 1 year of course) no cap hits attached. of *course* this might bring up the notion of collusion, especially if there is a trade/signing in principle. they might have to let waived players stew out of the league for some arbitrary time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I don't have a problem with this. The players humiliated themselves by playing to poorly.

I still feel some of these contracts are constructed to be so distasteful that no team can match it... regardless of the player's output. I bet the devils could put Ilya Kovalchuk and his silly contract on waivers and it will likely pass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe someone can correct me... but i distinctly remember that teams had to include the cap numbers of waived AHL or overseas players at some point just before the start of the season. if so, this means its not really a perpetual loophole.

an aside; while I am ALL for punishing franchises that agree to silly contracts... I don't agree in punishing the individual player. waived players imho should get off scott-free and available as unrestricted free agents (unable to sign with waiving team for 1 year of course) no cap hits attached. of *course* this might bring up the notion of collusion, especially if there is a trade/signing in principle. they might have to let waived players stew out of the league for some arbitrary time.

Very good point, maybe combine the 2 ideas. If a one way player is sent down, or not on the main roster for X amount of days, when healthy, in one NHL season, they can opt out of their contract the following off season and in the meantime, while waived, the club sending them down is still responsible for 40% of the caphit... maybe even put in some arbitration buyout clause, where the can opt out, but the offending club is still monitarilly responsible for a portion of their contract, almost an imposed buy out, at the players discretion... then add the X amount of time clause, after opting out, to be allowed to re-sign for collusion protection...

For all the idiocy that occurs on this board at times, then there are ideas like that in this thread that give me hope!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For all the idiocy that occurs on this board at times, then there are ideas like that in this thread that give me hope!

Shhhhh... don't say that so loud it will attract the wrong kind of posts!

Besides, you can expect smart statements from smarter fans. Just think about the boards for some of the OTHER teams in the league! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/hockey/rangers/2011/06/25/2011-06-25_richards_race_favors_rangers.html

does any one else find it annoying that teams are able to bail themselves out of terrible contracts by sending players to the minors? Chicago doing with Huet last summer, the Oilers doing it with Souray, the Rangers doing it with Wade Redden. In my opinion, these teams should have to deal with the stupidity they bring upon themselves. Its an absolute cop out and they humiliate these players in the process by sending them to the minors. I hope the next CBA corrects this.

A lack of capital letters at the beginning of a sentence...yes, it annoys me. Using "any one" instead "anyone" annoys me. Leaving out the word "it"...oh yes, that's annoying. The teams having recourse to deal with substandard performances from players making a lot of money...not so annoying.

Zetts, stevkrause and Majsheppard like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lack of capital letters at the beginning of a sentence...yes, it annoys me. Using "any one" instead "anyone" annoys me. Leaving out the word "it"...oh yes, that's annoying. The teams having recourse to deal with substandard performances from players making a lot of money...not so annoying.

Sorry, I would have taken more time proof reading this had I known my 6th grade English teacher was critiquing it....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I don't have a problem with this. The players humiliated themselves by playing to poorly.

The thing is, that's not necessarily true. Redden was sent down because Sather wanted his cap space; the Rangers still spent to the cap without Redden's $6m. He trades his best defenseman, Rosival, for a mediocre winger in Wolski. Then near the end of the year, Sather decides to add a defenseman because he realizes trading Rosival was dumb. Uh oh, he can't call up Redden because he'd be snapped up on waivers instantly. So he trades for McCabe, who's not even as good as Redden.

The biggest problem with the expensive players not counting against the cap is the waiver system and players like Redden, where you get players stuck in the minors. The cap applies to the NHL roster, and the team still has to pay all of the salaries. You might argue that a small market team couldn't keep a guy like Redden down and ignore it. The purpose of the cap, and the "Players' Share" as it's called, is to determine how much NHL teams can spend on their active roster, and how much revenue the players are entitled to. The only change that could be argue for is instead of determining the Players' Share by active roster, determine it by contracts signed to players of a certain experience level, similar to how waivers work. That way the contracts still count, but the cap isn't affected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I would have taken more time proof reading this had I known my 6th grade English teacher was critiquing it....

Maybe you should strive to write better than a 6th grader in public instead.

Edited by CaliWingsNut
55fan and stevkrause like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0