PDA

View Full Version : The system is the problem!!!



liltedspop
07-20-2010, 11:54 AM
the solution to this whole mess that was created with this cap issue is the same system that MLB has in place. I for 1 hope in the new cba that this is addressed, implement a luxury tax & make it a hefty 1 make it 100 to 150% of the overage is to paid into a pool but heres the catch the proceeds of that pool can only go to teams who choose to be at a set figure lets say for arguments sake 85 to 90% of the cap ceiling, meaning lets use the fishsticks as an example they can get they cant hover around the set basement # what ever it might be collectively bargained at & expect to reap the benefits of the money paid into the pool by teams who spend over the set threshold & that would deff. keep teams from jumping lets say 20 mill. over but allow teams who want to invest their profits back into the club. I see it as a fair way to still have a cap & still remain fair to the teams that are presently penalized under the existing cap for having more profitable franchises than the others. I would love to hear your guys thoughts on this!
__________________

SLY WILLIAMS
07-20-2010, 12:10 PM
I understood the need for a cap but I would prefer another way also. I'm so tired of taking about contracts and cap hits instead of guys actual hockey skills

rocowear21
07-20-2010, 12:21 PM
Why cant the rangers turn around and make a deal like this for staal.

rocowear21
07-20-2010, 12:22 PM
I am not saying 6 million a year. But give him a contract that runs 10 years for a cap hit of 4.5 a year with money front loaded and I would be very happy

Redfish
07-20-2010, 12:24 PM
I am not saying 6 million a year. But give him a contract that runs 10 years for a cap hit of 4.5 a year with money front loaded and I would be very happy

I'd be up for that; and it seems like a contract structure that may suit both parties. Good suggestion.

nyr1980
07-20-2010, 12:42 PM
It would be nice to see them take advantage of that loophole in the system

great88
07-20-2010, 01:15 PM
dont worry they'll patch up that loophole real soon!

doubt anyone else will get away with pulling that sort of ****.
its way to lop side and unfair towards the PA and their agreements

devils gave themselves way too many outs and really pulled one
over everybody's head with this sort of contract.

Devils management is a bunch of sharp shrewd business men
they should also be in the used car sales business, or oil business.

bravo to them , if they get away with this.....

rocowear21
07-20-2010, 01:40 PM
That is why I say we try and do it now. Staal is not a superstar like all these other contract signings were. Players like hossa, Kovi, ext. are going to finishing there careers with this team. Sather really needs to pull the trigger on this and take advantage of it while he can. In no way should this be a issue to our organization. Get it done. Like I said before a 10 year deal money front loaded or whatever and with a cap hit of 4.5 a year sounds very fair.

mmmrevolver93
07-20-2010, 01:51 PM
That is why I say we try and do it now. Staal is not a superstar like all these other contract signings were. Players like hossa, Kovi, ext. are going to finishing there careers with this team. Sather really needs to pull the trigger on this and take advantage of it while he can. In no way should this be a issue to our organization. Get it done. Like I said before a 10 year deal money front loaded or whatever and with a cap hit of 4.5 a year sounds very fair.

Realistically i think lundqvist is going to be our 10 year guy. And hopefully Kreider can be a late blooming super star as well. I agree staal is not a superstar but i think we have to be smart if we are going to trade him, for bobby ryan id pull the trigger, brendyn schenn i would as well... young players, i dont want someone elses aging superstar that is not going to help this team in the long run. The more i think about it, the less i want richards or thorton.. honestly what is it going to do for us? we are not going to be contenders.. at best, they will have a good year for us and then want a fortune when the year ends, and we already gave up talent for them. Guys that are locked up or are going to be locked up should be sather's priority. Right now id say bobby ryan is that guy, jason spezza is an option but i highly doubt he is available, and id like to see that he can get back to that star caliber quality. Schenn is a guy i really like and could even be on the team this year and could probably step in and try centering gaborik. He is a much better prospect than we have.

nyr1980
07-20-2010, 02:00 PM
id like to see them do a deal like that for staal- ideally though you would like to see a lower cap hit than that with the super long deal. His hit will be around 4.5 with a 3-6 year deal now i think

rocowear21
07-20-2010, 02:03 PM
To be honest with ya. I dont see the rangers signing Henrick to that kind of contract. Dont get me wrong I love everything he does for our team night in and out. He is the reason we make the playoffs or just miss it. If it wasnt for him we would have been 30 games back last year. But I dont see longevity in Henrick. The dude plays way to many games. His knees are already a issue. As is his hip. I do not want to see us sign him to that long of a deal. Plus I think he is already one of the highest paid goaltenders. No one really ever mentions that. Now he does deserve that money but I would take ryan miller over lundquist in a heart beat. Especially with that steal contract buf has on him.

rocowear21
07-20-2010, 02:05 PM
id like to see them do a deal like that for staal- ideally though you would like to see a lower cap hit than that with the super long deal. His hit will be around 4.5 with a 3-6 year deal now i think

Yeah I would like to see a lower cap hit then that but I think he would bite with a deal for 4.5 for 10 years. The dude is way young and the contract would basically end at the end of his prime. He would be locked up for many years to come, It would help our team figure our cap situation out for years to come. To tell you the truth the first pairing of del zotto with staal really makes me excited.

dashripdot
07-21-2010, 10:01 AM
I understood the need for a cap but I would prefer another way also. I'm so tired of taking about contracts and cap hits instead of guys actual hockey skills

Actually, this points up the silliness of the cap concept. NBA has a soft cap that teams can essentially "circumvent" within the CBA's rules, so it's not much of a cap. NFL teams in an uncapped year are spending less than anybody expected. MLB doesn't have one, of course, and no team is in financial dire straits (which the cap was supposedly designed to prevent from happening), except for those where the personal finances of the owners are a mess (LA Dodgers, TX Rangers).

In the NHL, Bettman insisted on the cap to save the owners from themselves (not to make the league more competitive, as is often assumed). Strange that businessmen who made hundreds of millions or billions (and almost none of whom inherited the lion's share of their riches), and who then acquire a toy like a major sports frachise, don't operate it like a business. The NHL's (and others) cap was instituted to prevent franchises from financially imploding because many of these guys cannot resist spending beyond the means of their individual fiefdoms. Bettman, however, let the Hossa, Pronger and Zetterberg (and other) contracts proceed (in essence, a NBA-like softening of the supposedly hard cap). Now it's gone too far for Bettman's taste. Scrap the cap, let the badly-managed teams overspend (they'll win some, but lose a lot). Let the better-managed teams prosper (it's harder work, but more rewarding for the smaller market teams when they win).

SLY WILLIAMS
07-21-2010, 10:10 AM
The cap is to level the playing field. It looks horrible for the league to have franchises go under or for smaller poorer cities not to be able to compete. Maybe some sort of revenue sharing luxury tax (similar to the MLB) would be a better answer than the cap. The NBA has a luxury tax and a cap.

In the NBA often much of the talk is about contracts lately. In the NHL often much of the talk is about contracts lately. Even in the NFL guys are cut or kept not based on abilities but based on contracts. I understand the needs to make a more level playing field BUT I feel all this contract talk day after day, week after week takes a lot away from actual talk about the game

dashripdot
07-21-2010, 10:28 AM
The cap is to level the playing field. It looks horrible for the league to have franchises go under or for smaller poorer cities not to be able to compete. Maybe some sort of revenue sharing luxury tax (similar to the MLB) would be a better answer than the cap. The NBA has a luxury tax and a cap.

In the NBA often much of the talk is about contracts lately. In the NHL often much of the talk is about contracts lately. Even in the NFL guys are cut or kept not based on abilities but based on contracts. I understand the needs to make a more level playing field BUT I feel all this contract talk day after day, week after week takes a lot away from actual talk about the game

Leveling the field is the smoke and mirrors of it. Plenty of "small market" teams compete consistently well in MLB, and many don't, but that's a function of good vs. poor personnel management, not how much money is spent on major league players. As for revenue sharing and the luxury tax I can point to the fans' experience here in Pittsburgh: The Pirates' owner takes the central fund (TV, licensing, merchandise, etc. revenues) plus the revenue sharing money which, together, is about $75 -80 mil per year total, and then spends less than $40 mil on player salaries and development (such as scouting and Dominican academies). The Marlins got taken to the woodshed over this practice in the offseason. The Pirates are next if they don't start spending the money on the product they put on the field. Steinbrenner was noted for his position on this: he didn't mind spending a lot and being taxed, as long as the competition's money wasn't being pocketed instead of being reinvested by the recipients of the corporate welfare.