Richards to NYR
#21
Posted 02 July 2011 - 11:46 AM
#22
Posted 02 July 2011 - 11:56 AM
We could have paid him this, but Hudler at nearly $3m is so much better!We could have paid him at that price, instead of paying Ericsson.
Should've signed Richards and just cut Hudler....
- Drake_Marcus likes this
#23
Posted 02 July 2011 - 11:59 AM
Yet I'm sure most of them still say, "In Kenny We Trust" before every meal.
You need to get over it.
Your pessimism is borderline Mindfly-like.

#24
Posted 02 July 2011 - 12:12 PM
I suppose I can take that to an extent.
I just love how everyone on here calls this signing by the rangers dumb and the Franzen signing by Holland as "genius".
Talk about homerism.
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 $$$$ is bargain. For crying out loud, Leino makes more per season than Franzen.
- Heroes of Hockeytown, Drake_Marcus and hooon like this
#25
Posted 02 July 2011 - 12:13 PM
#26
Posted 02 July 2011 - 12:43 PM
Um, you do realize that Franzen (basically a 30 goal scorer, and outside of last season, has been a playoff beast) is paid almost half of what Richards just got? Richards gets 6.5 mil, while Franzen gets 3.9 mil. I am trying to figure out how in todays grossly overpaid market, a 30 goal scorer for 3.9 mil is an albatross? 3.9 for a 30 goal guy is a bargain in todays NHL. But go ahead and use a poor example to try and benefit your argument somehow. You can compare Z to Richards as they make similar money. Franzen does not. While the length may be similar, the $$$$ 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.
#27
Posted 02 July 2011 - 12:59 PM
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 by dawings1905, 02 July 2011 - 01:00 PM.
#28
Posted 02 July 2011 - 01:04 PM
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.
#29
Posted 02 July 2011 - 04:00 PM
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.
#30
Posted 02 July 2011 - 04:05 PM
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.

Thanks TeeMan!
"We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas
of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage" --H.P. Lovecraft
#31
Posted 02 July 2011 - 05:23 PM
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.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.
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.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.
No, you know what we are, we're good. You can't do what we do every single day and not be good." - Mike Babcock
#32
Posted 02 July 2011 - 05:57 PM
#33
Posted 02 July 2011 - 07:02 PM
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

#34
Posted 02 July 2011 - 11:28 PM
They are circumventing their own system....that's gonna come back and boot them in the ass in a few years....
#35
Posted 03 July 2011 - 12:38 AM
#36
Posted 03 July 2011 - 12:47 AM
What they are paid in a given year is how much they affect the cap. Plain and simple.
Edited by Doc Holliday, 03 July 2011 - 12:48 AM.

#37
Posted 03 July 2011 - 11:13 AM
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.
#38
Posted 03 July 2011 - 09:32 PM
Yea, but you don't want him signed for 9 years.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
I think we're going to miss another season of hockey at the next round of negotiations, this CBA is a mess.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....
Red Wings
Tigers
Roughriders
Lions
Spartans
Pistons
#39
Posted 03 July 2011 - 11:00 PM
That just creates other loopholes. You can still front load contracts, and just stagger multiple contracts so high years coincide with other low years.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.
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.
#40
Posted 03 July 2011 - 11:22 PM
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??!!
Similar Topics
| Topic | Forum | Started By | Stats | Last Post Info | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
McNeil on the air for the next hour |
General Discussion | mtuhockey7 |
|
|
|
trade idea for next year |
General Discussion | nyqvististhefuture |
|
|
|
ECSF - (6) New York Rangers vs. (4) Boston Bruins |
General Discussion | Hockeytown0001 |
|
|
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users














