Nev 1,085 Report post Posted July 2, 2011 Um, you do realize that Franzen (basically a 30 goal scorer, and outside of last season, has been a playoff beast) is paid almost half of what Richards just got? Richards gets 6.5 mil, while Franzen gets 3.9 mil. I am trying to figure out how in todays grossly overpaid market, a 30 goal scorer for 3.9 mil is an albatross? 3.9 for a 30 goal guy is a bargain in todays NHL. But go ahead and use a poor example to try and benefit your argument somehow. You can compare Z to Richards as they make similar money. Franzen does not. While the length may be similar, the $$$$ is bargain. For crying out loud, Leino makes more per season than Franzen. In 3, 4, 5, 6 years time? In 7, 8, 9, 10 years time? That's my problem with the contract, not the value, but the length. For a 30 year old, on the back of a couple of half-decent seasons. Franzen is already struggling with his knees, admitted to phoning it in during the regular season and was MIA during the playoffs. And he's actually getting paid a lot more than 3.9 mil right now, thats just his cap hit. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dawings1905 2 Report post Posted July 2, 2011 (edited) In 3, 4, 5, 6 years time? In 7, 8, 9, 10 years time? That's my problem with the contract, not the value, but the length. For a 30 year old, on the back of a couple of half-decent seasons. Franzen is already struggling with his knees, admitted to phoning it in during the regular season and was MIA during the playoffs. And he's actually getting paid a lot more than 3.9 mil right now, thats just his cap hit. Cap hit is all that matters to us fans, and Z is having back problems that may at some point cut his career short. They both have contracts until they are 40. So if you have a problem with one, then you should have a problem with the other if your criteria is what is mentioned above. Funny thing is....For how "crappy" Franzens season was, he still led the team in goals. IMO it is still about the cap hit, and 3.9 is nowhere near 6.66. His cap hit is a bargain. As far as 6,7,8,9 or 10 years time, well heck......3.9 might be league minimum by then. Edited July 2, 2011 by dawings1905 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BostonBruinsDan1924 53 Report post Posted July 2, 2011 $6.5 million is a lot of money to pay someone at the end of a 9 year contract. All of these high contracts is what got them into trouble in the first place, hope this move to Winnipeg pays off. Because there was a lot of mediocre talent signed into high contracts. Then again....he'll retire before the contract is done because of either another concussion or injury. Good luck to the NYR for wasting money and not getting a Cup either. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BostonBruinsDan1924 53 Report post Posted July 2, 2011 Brad Richards salary break down by the numbers year by year: YR1 $12M...YR2 $12M...YR3 $9M...YR4 $8.5M...YR5 $7M...YR6 $1M...YR7 $1M... YR8 $1M. $10M SB + $2M the first year...$8M SB + $4M salary the second. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Drake_Marcus 890 Report post Posted July 2, 2011 We could have paid him at that price, instead of paying Ericsson. For nine years at a 6.5 mil cap hit? You crazy. We could have paid him this, but Hudler at nearly $3m is so much better! Should've signed Richards and just cut Hudler.... Hudler's a UFA in less than a year. Richards will be 40 when his contract is up. f*** no. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Heroes of Hockeytown 694 Report post Posted July 2, 2011 In 3, 4, 5, 6 years time? In 7, 8, 9, 10 years time? That's my problem with the contract, not the value, but the length. For a 30 year old, on the back of a couple of half-decent seasons. The idea is he's supposed to retire before then. But if he hangs on for a little too long then signing a guy like Richards would just add to the problem. Having three guys on long contracts eating a bunch of cap space and using roster spots but not contributing up to their cap hits would be a huge drain on the team. Franzen is already struggling with his knees, admitted to phoning it in during the regular season and was MIA during the playoffs. And he's actually getting paid a lot more than 3.9 mil right now, thats just his cap hit. He's lazy during the season but he still scored 30 goals. He was hurt in the playoffs so he couldn't continue his run of three straight years at or above PPG; I forgive him. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BostonBruinsDan1924 53 Report post Posted July 2, 2011 Also remember this...if we go into a lockout come 2012-2013 Richards is guaranteed $8M no matter what. So who is laughing while they skip to the bank...hope he isn't sucking on a lollipop that day LMFAO! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Never_Retire_Steve 35 Report post Posted July 3, 2011 Wait a second, Kenny didn't sign Richards? Wait another second, Richards didn't accept a discount to come to a contender like Detroit? Wait a minute, Detroit wasn't even in Richards' top 5 choices?? I don't believe that by reading previous posts/topics on him before July 1, I'm still confident that Richards will come here at a cap hit of about $6 million Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BostonBruinsDan1924 53 Report post Posted July 3, 2011 Brad Richards, Christian Ehrhoff Prove Circumvention Still An Issue In NHL They are circumventing their own system....that's gonna come back and boot them in the ass in a few years.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BostonBruinsDan1924 53 Report post Posted July 3, 2011 So in his new contract they spread the SB over more years which would take more off the base salary hence why the Salary and Cap hit are millions apart. Come CBA time it's gonna be a mess and another lock out because the greedy are just getting greedier again. This is why Richards has the $8M guarantee but no part of his AVV base. If they lock out in 2012-2013...he was smart. You can inflate the SB's by years and dollars to the AVV but isn't actually part of the salary...so the AVV makes the cap. The higher the cap goes teams like Florida won't exist in a few years. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but would go against everything uncle Gary has been pushing for for so many years. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Doc Holliday 1,888 Report post Posted July 3, 2011 (edited) Why not get rid of the "cap hit"? What they are paid in a given year is how much they affect the cap. Plain and simple. Edited July 3, 2011 by Doc Holliday Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BostonBruinsDan1924 53 Report post Posted July 3, 2011 After a good night sleep I'm going to use the New Jersey Devils & Kovalchuck contract issue last season to explain a point. A year ago, the NHL used the lack of specific language on long-term contracts to say the Devils/Kovalchuk violated the spirit of he CBA. In putting in the Kovalchuk amendment, the NHL actually lost power in that area. It can say nothing about deals like Richards', Erhoff. The NHL gave the agents/players/teams exact guidelines and they're being used quite effectively to keep down cap hits on long-term deals. Remember when it was being portrayed as if the NHL was forcefully taking power away from the NHLPA? The Devils did get the 2nd Kovalchuk contract approved out of it, which was a positive because otherwise he might not be a Devil right now. But, overall, the NHL and the Devils both came out as losers from what transpired last summer in the Kovalchuk saga. The Devils were harshly penalized. The league lost power. Kovalchuk and the NHLPA membership came out as winners. The NHLPA almost hurt the Devils as much as the NHL did. It lost an arbitration case it probably should not have and it sold the Devils down the river by agreeing to let the NHL penalize them and giving up the right to appeal that. The NHLPA protected its membership by getting NHL to agree to not to take away cap space from Devils. But Devils still lost picks, $ 3mil. That said, the NHL will certainly try to fix this again in the next CBA negotiations, coming soon. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Barrie 900 Report post Posted July 4, 2011 I don't believe that by reading previous posts/topics on him before July 1, I'm still confident that Richards will come here at a cap hit of about $6 million Yea, but you don't want him signed for 9 years. Brad Richards, Christian Ehrhoff Prove Circumvention Still An Issue In NHL They are circumventing their own system....that's gonna come back and boot them in the ass in a few years.... I think we're going to miss another season of hockey at the next round of negotiations, this CBA is a mess. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Buppy 1,720 Report post Posted July 4, 2011 Why not get rid of the "cap hit"? What they are paid in a given year is how much they affect the cap. Plain and simple. That just creates other loopholes. You can still front load contracts, and just stagger multiple contracts so high years coincide with other low years. The Ehrhoff and Richards deals are fine, nothing like the rejected Kovy deal. The Kovy deal was bad because it took the principle to a ridiculous extreme. What was it? 44 years old originally? 6 years at league minimum (possibly below by that time)? Plus I think another 1 or 2 years at a low rate. NJ just went way too far with it. Nothing is perfect. You'll either have loopholes, or you'll be too restrictive. At most, the rule as it stands needs a little tweaking. Maybe lower the amount that salary can go up or down. Maybe change the AAV cutoff from 40 to 37 or 38. Maybe make any deal that extends beyond 35 count as a 35+ contract. Nothing that should take more than a day or two to negotiate. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BostonBruinsDan1924 53 Report post Posted July 4, 2011 Max Talbot contract with Flyers violates NHL CBA http://twitter.com/#...719589504499712 LOL I called it right...just a matter of time when a front loaded contract will catch someones eye. Can you say RE-STRUCTURE??!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hooon 1,089 Report post Posted July 4, 2011 In 3, 4, 5, 6 years time? In 7, 8, 9, 10 years time? That's my problem with the contract, not the value, but the length. For a 30 year old, on the back of a couple of half-decent seasons. Franzen is already struggling with his knees, admitted to phoning it in during the regular season and was MIA during the playoffs. And he's actually getting paid a lot more than 3.9 mil right now, thats just his cap hit. Wow he can lead the team in goals even when he is "phoning it in"? That just makes his contract even better, imo. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Buppy 1,720 Report post Posted July 4, 2011 Max Talbot contract with Flyers violates NHL CBA http://twitter.com/#...719589504499712 LOL I called it right...just a matter of time when a front loaded contract will catch someones eye. Can you say RE-STRUCTURE??!! That's a very minor technicality because someone didn't pay attention to the math. To lump it in with the long-term deals is stupid. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BostonBruinsDan1924 53 Report post Posted July 4, 2011 That just creates other loopholes. You can still front load contracts, and just stagger multiple contracts so high years coincide with other low years. The Ehrhoff and Richards deals are fine, nothing like the rejected Kovy deal. The Kovy deal was bad because it took the principle to a ridiculous extreme. What was it? 44 years old originally? 6 years at league minimum (possibly below by that time)? Plus I think another 1 or 2 years at a low rate. NJ just went way too far with it. Nothing is perfect. You'll either have loopholes, or you'll be too restrictive. At most, the rule as it stands needs a little tweaking. Maybe lower the amount that salary can go up or down. Maybe change the AAV cutoff from 40 to 37 or 38. Maybe make any deal that extends beyond 35 count as a 35+ contract. Nothing that should take more than a day or two to negotiate. Ehrhoff's deal is fine...the back end of his deal is over the NHL min. MINIMUM PLAYER SALARY The minimum NHL player salary in 2005-06 and 2006-07 will be $450,000; $475,000 in 2007-08 and 2008-09; $500,000 in 2009-10 and 2010-11, and $525,000 in 2011-12 (to the extent the CBA is extended by the Union). http://www.capgeek.com/players/display.php?id=121 You can inflate the SB's (Signing Bonus) by years and dollars to the AVV (Average Value) but isn't actually part of the salary...so the AVV makes the cap. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BostonBruinsDan1924 53 Report post Posted July 4, 2011 2005 NHL CBA This might help... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Buppy 1,720 Report post Posted July 4, 2011 Ehrhoff's deal is fine...the back end of his deal is over the NHL min. MINIMUM PLAYER SALARY The minimum NHL player salary in 2005-06 and 2006-07 will be $450,000; $475,000 in 2007-08 and 2008-09; $500,000 in 2009-10 and 2010-11, and $525,000 in 2011-12 (to the extent the CBA is extended by the Union). http://www.capgeek.com/players/display.php?id=121 You can inflate the SB's (Signing Bonus) by years and dollars to the AVV (Average Value) but isn't actually part of the salary...so the AVV makes the cap. Yeah, I said Ehrhoff's deal was fine. Not really sure what this has to do with my post... And signing bonuses are irrelevent. For all intents and purposes they are the same as salary for the year in which they're earned. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BostonBruinsDan1924 53 Report post Posted July 4, 2011 Yeah, I said Ehrhoff's deal was fine. Not really sure what this has to do with my post... And signing bonuses are irrelevent. For all intents and purposes they are the same as salary for the year in which they're earned. Signing bonuses aren't apart of the salary, your mixing apples with oranges, but what ever... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
