Let's Go Blues

theohall wrote:

glen a richter wrote:... that they'd resort to mass transit and a lot of people don't know how mass transit works unless they're going directly to Penn Station.

Not understanding mass transit in NYC????? How stupid are these people??? Everything related to mass transit is color-coded. I have been there once - never having been there before - and guided around a family of 15 people simply following the color codes.

AFAIK, most hockey fans are technically savvy which means understanding simple color codes should be easy.

Making the trip??? An entirely different proposition.

You'd be surprised how many people know "Get on the train in your town, take it to Penn Station, get off the train." and that's it. We do have a website called hopstop that can eliminate a lot of the confusion. Anyway, to get somewhat back on topic: it would probably be for the better if the Islanders stayed in the metro area because we all know how Wang operates with regard to long term contracts (Rick DiPietro) and what goes best with a long distance relocation but making a big free agent splash to help win over the new fanbase? The team couldn't afford it. Hopefully the new CBA eliminates nonsense like DiPietro's contract, and Weber's offer sheet. But let's face it, the owners employ the GM, the GM dishes out the insane contracts, then the owners are the ones who want to radically change the CBA to eliminate the damage done by these huge contracts. If I was a pro athlete and someone threw this kind of change at me, I'd jump all over it like Oprah on a baked ham. It's not the players faults the GM's are fools. The owners need to reign in their management teams, that's the bottom line.

glen a richter wrote:You'd be surprised how many people know "Get on the train in your town, take it to Penn Station, get off the train." and that's it. We do have a website called hopstop that can eliminate a lot of the confusion. Anyway, to get somewhat back on topic: it would probably be for the better if the Islanders stayed in the metro area because we all know how Wang operates with regard to long term contracts (Rick DiPietro) and what goes best with a long distance relocation but making a big free agent splash to help win over the new fanbase? The team couldn't afford it. Hopefully the new CBA eliminates nonsense like DiPietro's contract, and Weber's offer sheet. But let's face it, the owners employ the GM, the GM dishes out the insane contracts, then the owners are the ones who want to radically change the CBA to eliminate the damage done by these huge contracts. If I was a pro athlete and someone threw this kind of change at me, I'd jump all over it like Oprah on a baked ham. It's not the players faults the GM's are fools. The owners need to reign in their management teams, that's the bottom line.

AFAIK, GMs have to have Owner's approval to offer some ridiculous contract, which puts it back on the Owners, period.

theohall wrote:

glen a richter wrote:You'd be surprised how many people know "Get on the train in your town, take it to Penn Station, get off the train." and that's it. We do have a website called hopstop that can eliminate a lot of the confusion. Anyway, to get somewhat back on topic: it would probably be for the better if the Islanders stayed in the metro area because we all know how Wang operates with regard to long term contracts (Rick DiPietro) and what goes best with a long distance relocation but making a big free agent splash to help win over the new fanbase? The team couldn't afford it. Hopefully the new CBA eliminates nonsense like DiPietro's contract, and Weber's offer sheet. But let's face it, the owners employ the GM, the GM dishes out the insane contracts, then the owners are the ones who want to radically change the CBA to eliminate the damage done by these huge contracts. If I was a pro athlete and someone threw this kind of change at me, I'd jump all over it like Oprah on a baked ham. It's not the players faults the GM's are fools. The owners need to reign in their management teams, that's the bottom line.

AFAIK, GMs have to have Owner's approval to offer some ridiculous contract, which puts it back on the Owners, period.

Then they shouldn't be bitching now and putting next season in jeopardy. Do they care or don't they care? Fight it out amongst yourselves without risking the loss of all or part of yet another season. Hockey has become the model for labor dysfunction while baseball is the model of labor perfection, and that's just ass backwards.

Here's a radical idea: You sign a player to a contract that is clearly designed to circumvent the cap, you forfeit your first round picks for the duration of that contract to whichever team finishes in last place each of those seasons, or you sign a player to that kind of contract, you pay a higher percentage in the revenue sharing. Don't cost us a (Franking) season of (Franking) hockey because you jackasses couldn't control your checkbooks.

glen a richter wrote:...
Here's a radical idea: You sign a player to a contract that is clearly designed to circumvent the cap, you forfeit your first round picks for the duration of that contract to whichever team finishes in last place each of those seasons, or you sign a player to that kind of contract, you pay a higher percentage in the revenue sharing. Don't cost us a (Frank) season of (Frank) hockey because you jackasses couldn't control your checkbooks.

THAT'S the problem. What does "clearly circumvent the cap" mean? We only have one line to look at and that's Kovalchuk's. Everything less than that is okay? I don't think so. There has to be concrete rules that can't be "interpreted."

Copy & Paste: "I'm not necessarily opposed to the longer term deals per se. What I don't like is what New Jersey got slapped for and that's the "purposeful avoidance of the salary cap." They need to close that loophole with re-drafting the rules to actually provide some clear guidance to GM's as to what's okay and what's not. My thought would be a rule stating that you can sign a player for any number of years that you want, but a certain % differential is not allowed. (E.g. You want to sign Kovy to a 14 year deal? Go right ahead. But you can't have more than a 50% difference in his salary year to year. Something like that. You could play with the specific %). It would discourage long-term deals without forbidding them and also reign in the salary cap circumvention concerns. Boom."

So to put a specific example on it: Weber's deal: (from TSN) "In total, Weber will make $14 million in each of the first four years; $12 million in years five and six; $6 million in each of the next four seasons; $3 million in year 11; and $1 million in each of the remaining years."

With my suggestion, if the Flyers wanted to pay Weber $14 million his first year, they'd be forbidden from paying him less than $7 million for the length of the contract. That would lob off EIGHT years of his contract and bump his cap hit up to a staggering $13.3 million per season.


In other words: the offer wouldn't have been made. Or at least not as long or with as great a differential amount in salary, which I think may violate the Kovalchuk rule anyway.

This would allow, e.g. a 10 year, $100 million contract, $10 million per. I see nothing wrong with THAT kind of contract, just the ones like Weber's. This is why I don't think there should be a year limit or "amount" limit, because if you want to keep a good player around for a very long time you should be able to: just not be able to play the system in the process.

I always thought that the maximum salary for a season should be the number that counts against the cap for the length of the contract.

Nashville to match.

kodos wrote:Nashville to match.

Beat me to it.

kodos wrote:Nashville to match.

How? Is Nashville really a better market than St. Louis?

Well that upsets the evening out of things in the east. Oh well.

Well as I see it as long as Detroit didn't get any major player signage this off season makes this me happy. But I also hate seeing Nashville with any sort of star power.

Very surprised. Thought for sure they'd take the 4 picks.

A funny thing happened today, while I was at work someone came in wearing a Blue Jackets shirt. Me and a co worker asked him if he was fan and what he thought of the trade. Sure enough in Southern Illinois there is a Blue Jackets fan, and he pretty much said Columbus still got screwed. They could have gotten more picks out of this.

One thing I don't understand about RFAs- if their team matches the offer the other team makes, is the RFA forced to re-sign with their current team? Or do they still have the option to choose to sign the deal with the new team?

gaijin wrote:One thing I don't understand about RFAs- if their team matches the offer the other team makes, is the RFA forced to re-sign with their current team? Or do they still have the option to choose to sign the deal with the new team?

Forced to sign with current team. This is why they are "restricted."

theohall wrote:

gaijin wrote:One thing I don't understand about RFAs- if their team matches the offer the other team makes, is the RFA forced to re-sign with their current team? Or do they still have the option to choose to sign the deal with the new team?

Forced to sign with current team. This is why they are "restricted."

Which is why I found it kind of funny that throughout this whole episode you could tell through Weber's quotes how excited he was to be heading to Philly but he would always caveat it with something rosy like "but then again I've been in Nashville my whole career and would enjoy remaining a Predator"