shestYORKin Posted October 10, 2021 Share Posted October 10, 2021 guess they meant it when they said he’s here for good. damn close to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Long live the King Posted October 10, 2021 Share Posted October 10, 2021 Doesn't matter. He's gonna set the franchise record for career and single season goals, win a couple cups and they'll retire #93. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangers Posted October 11, 2021 Share Posted October 11, 2021 2 minutes ago, Long live the King said: Doesn't matter. He's gonna set the franchise record for career and single season goals, win a couple cups and they'll retire #93. L'Chaim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew a Penalty Posted October 11, 2021 Share Posted October 11, 2021 13 minutes ago, Long live the King said: Doesn't matter. He's gonna set the franchise record for career and single season goals, win a couple cups and they'll retire #93. For the franchise goals record he'd need 271 more goals so about 30 goals per season for the next 9 seasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted October 11, 2021 Author Share Posted October 11, 2021 14 minutes ago, Drew a Penalty said: For the franchise goals record he'd need 271 more goals so about 30 goals per season for the next 9 seasons. Not after he scores 75 goals next season. Amirite @Art Panarini!? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Long live the King Posted October 11, 2021 Share Posted October 11, 2021 (edited) 25 minutes ago, Drew a Penalty said: For the franchise goals record he'd need 271 more goals so about 30 goals per season for the next 9 seasons. If he scores 45 per for the next 4 years, then he only needs 18 per in the final 5. Edited October 11, 2021 by Long live the King 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozzy Posted October 11, 2021 Share Posted October 11, 2021 Great News!!! I Love it!!! Glad to see they got this done....another feather in the cap for Drury! ..now on to Strome and Fox....I'm confident that will go just as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted October 11, 2021 Share Posted October 11, 2021 10 hours ago, Phil said: And they are giving up something — a full year of potential salary as a UFA No they're not. If they want 8 years they can resign with their current team. It's a lever to keep teams together. I can easily say you're viewing it only from the players perspective, you usually do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted October 11, 2021 Author Share Posted October 11, 2021 2 hours ago, Pete said: No they're not. If they want 8 years they can resign with their current team. It's a lever to keep teams together. I can easily say you're viewing it only from the players perspective, you usually do. I take their side, absolutely, but this is literally a concession. They have the option for seven years, unrestricted, or eight, if they sign with their current team before unrestricted, currently. Your suggestion is to move from seven to six, just because. They're not actually getting anything new for it. They're simply being told "seven is now six." To which, my response would be, "in exchange for what?" They're neogoating with the NHL here in this would be argument. So what are "the players"getting for one less year of unrestricted security? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LindG1000 Posted October 11, 2021 Share Posted October 11, 2021 This is a good piece of work for both sides here. Mika's earned every penny, the Rangers get a top tier center at a reasonable discount. Huge fan. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted October 11, 2021 Share Posted October 11, 2021 13 minutes ago, Phil said: I take their side, absolutely, but this is literally a concession. They have the option for seven years, unrestricted, or eight, if they sign with their current team before unrestricted, currently. Your suggestion is to move from seven to six, just because. They're not actually getting anything new for it. They're simply being told "seven is now six." To which, my response would be, "in exchange for what?" They're neogoating with the NHL here in this would be argument. So what are "the players"getting for one less year of unrestricted security? It's an incentive to stay with their current team. If you want to go to the highest bidder from an AAV perspective, there's a trade off. I'm not in the CBA negotiations. I don't have to decide what the concessions would be. I'm just a dude on a message board. No one is paying me to figure this out LOL. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude Posted October 11, 2021 Share Posted October 11, 2021 13 minutes ago, Phil said: I take their side, absolutely, but this is literally a concession. They have the option for seven years, unrestricted, or eight, if they sign with their current team before unrestricted, currently. Your suggestion is to move from seven to six, just because. They're not actually getting anything new for it. They're simply being told "seven is now six." To which, my response would be, "in exchange for what?" They're neogoating with the NHL here in this would be argument. So what are "the players"getting for one less year of unrestricted security? The argument could be made that they had been given too much to begin with and that the formula hasn't been working. These big cap hits have affected a lot of older players ability get contracts. 3 years ago, older vets weren't signing one year league minimum deals to latch on to a team. These contracts that are being signed are already known that the term is really just to make the cap hit smaller and that there is little intent of finishing the deal all the way through. This stuff is still in Hossa territory. The league will need another lockout very soon. When 3rd year players are making 9 million, it's just a matter of time the lower tier players make up that difference. I love Fox and want him locked up long term, but I have serious issue with a player going from ELC to top paid at his position. There should be a bridge deal in between that's mandatory. The league can't sustain this again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Posted October 11, 2021 Share Posted October 11, 2021 No, a player should be paid for the years he's most productive. That's 23ish to 30ish. The UFA deals where you're playing players for the backside of their careers is a dated philosophy that the league can't shake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted October 11, 2021 Author Share Posted October 11, 2021 42 minutes ago, Pete said: It's an incentive to stay with their current team. If you want to go to the highest bidder from an AAV perspective, there's a trade off. I'm not in the CBA negotiations. I don't have to decide what the concessions would be. I'm just a dude on a message board. No one is paying me to figure this out LOL. I know that, LOL. That's why I said you're only viewing this from the perspective of a fan. That wasn't a slight. I'm saying it literally. In reality, the two sides would treat it like any other facet of CBA negotiations. In this case, the players are being asked to give up one fewer year of unrestricted security, so they'd only do so in exchange for something else from the league (who have expressly desired shorter contract length, anyway). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted October 11, 2021 Author Share Posted October 11, 2021 24 minutes ago, The Dude said: The argument could be made that they had been given too much to begin with and that the formula hasn't been working. These big cap hits have affected a lot of older players ability get contracts. 3 years ago, older vets weren't signing one year league minimum deals to latch on to a team. These contracts that are being signed are already known that the term is really just to make the cap hit smaller and that there is little intent of finishing the deal all the way through. This stuff is still in Hossa territory. The league will need another lockout very soon. When 3rd year players are making 9 million, it's just a matter of time the lower tier players make up that difference. I love Fox and want him locked up long term, but I have serious issue with a player going from ELC to top paid at his position. There should be a bridge deal in between that's mandatory. The league can't sustain this again. Yes, they can, just as they have been for the last number of seasons. The cost is an ever-reducing market for unrestricted free agents, which is a better reflection of what that market should be anyway. Gone are the days of giving Travis Moen a four- or five-year deal at the age of 31. That's a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LindG1000 Posted October 11, 2021 Share Posted October 11, 2021 The league can sustain this because they just tripled their TV revenue and that will - eventually, and shortly - start re-infusing the cap. This contract is buyout proof, but SUPER tradeable, because by the time he's a 35 year old with an 8.5m cap hit, he's also due a rather modest 14 million of that contract (after the SB is paid in July) over three seasons for a cap hit much higher than that. Worry about it when you need to. Mika got his 5x11 (basically), then the team got term for cap hit mitigation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted October 11, 2021 Author Share Posted October 11, 2021 There's also a not insignificant chance he just rides out the life of the deal, or 90% of it. It's extremely telling that his trade protection ends seven days before the trade deadline in the final year of his contract when he'll have an $8.5 million cap hit and a $1 million salary — both prorated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude Posted October 11, 2021 Share Posted October 11, 2021 20 minutes ago, Phil said: Yes, they can, just as they have been for the last number of seasons. The cost is an ever-reducing market for unrestricted free agents, which is a better reflection of what that market should be anyway. Gone are the days of giving Travis Moen a four- or five-year deal at the age of 31. That's a good thing. But you're replacing them with endless amounts of Marian Hossa contracts that are set to bring players to age 40... I don't see how that's any better. Teams are going to be like the Rangers were and have 10 million in dead cap space going towards buy outs. Some teams can't sustain that. They shouldn't have to. Either allow a certain amount of compliance buy outs every 5 years, or cap the UFA years to a lower #. Are other capped leagues handling out guaranteed 8 year contracts anymore? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted October 11, 2021 Author Share Posted October 11, 2021 4 minutes ago, The Dude said: But you're replacing them with endless amounts of Marian Hossa contracts that are set to bring players to age 40... I don't see how that's any better. Teams are going to be like the Rangers were and have 10 million in dead cap space going towards buy outs. Some teams can't sustain that. They shouldn't have to. Either allow a certain amount of compliance buy outs every 5 years, or cap the UFA years to a lower #. Are other capped leagues handling out guaranteed 8 year contracts anymore? What endless amount? The Marian Hossa's of the league will continue to get Marian Hossa deals. The Travis Moens won't. They'll be forced to recognize they need to earn their money fast and early or they'll get eaten up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LindG1000 Posted October 11, 2021 Share Posted October 11, 2021 22 minutes ago, Phil said: There's also a not insignificant chance he just rides out the life of the deal, or 90% of it. It's extremely telling that his trade protection ends seven days before the trade deadline in the final year of his contract when he'll have an $8.5 million cap hit and a $1 million salary — both prorated. That's such an interesting and smart provision. I hadn't noticed that. And yeah, I can see Mika being 35 and still worth 8-9% of the cap. That would, of course, require a near 100M cap, but in 7 years that might be where we're at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LindG1000 Posted October 11, 2021 Share Posted October 11, 2021 13 minutes ago, The Dude said: But you're replacing them with endless amounts of Marian Hossa contracts that are set to bring players to age 40... I don't see how that's any better. Teams are going to be like the Rangers were and have 10 million in dead cap space going towards buy outs. Some teams can't sustain that. They shouldn't have to. Either allow a certain amount of compliance buy outs every 5 years, or cap the UFA years to a lower #. Are other capped leagues handling out guaranteed 8 year contracts anymore? I think most other leagues have landed on shorter contracts as the norm. The only league that routinely gives out longer contracts is the MLB. Most NFL contracts don't go more than 4 years+option, and the NBA has a concrete 4 season max deal. That's a CBA negotiation. It won't change. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted October 11, 2021 Author Share Posted October 11, 2021 I'd be interested to see what the NBA's model is. That'd be the closest the NHL might one day aspire to replicate, but not without an actual lockout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LindG1000 Posted October 11, 2021 Share Posted October 11, 2021 Just now, Phil said: I'd be interested to see what the NBA's model is. That'd be the closest the NHL might one day aspire to replicate, but not without an actual lockout. 4 year max, but salary maximums are linked to years in the league. So a player who hasn't been in the league for more than 6 years can't make more than $28 million and that number is linked to a cap, so it changes every year. There are slightly different rules for staying with a team versus leaving a team (players on their original teams for a certain number of years are eligible for "supermax" contracts with special rules that allow the players to make something like 35% of the cap. Obviously the NBA roster size is smaller (15 active players, at least 8 playing), so there's more of the pie for each player, but a similar series of principles likely makes some sense. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Long live the King Posted October 11, 2021 Share Posted October 11, 2021 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rizz GAWD Lav No Cap FrFr Posted October 11, 2021 Share Posted October 11, 2021 17 hours ago, Phil said: Not after he scores 75 goals next season. Amirite @Art Panarini!? At the all star break, book it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now