Ok, a deal . . . what next? Some details, it is from Strachen though

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
Bruwinz37 said:
This lottery should have everyone get an even shot. Think about it, if last year's contracts are gone (which is what it looks like) then that is 300+ FAs at least. Couple that with guys who have retired over the last 4 years or went back to Europe it makes no sense to base THIS draft on past TEAM perfromance. A lottery where everyone gets an equal shot at Crosby would be great for fan interest and a great way to get back up and running.


Sparing the 400 posts to follow, which follow 40,000 posts going back and forth on this issue, I will summarize the opposing position:

:p:
 

norrisnick

The best...
Apr 14, 2005
28,809
13,309
Epsilon said:
And why exactly would a player like Lidstrom agree to do that when after getting bought out for 5 million, he can get 5 or 6 million a year from another team?

Fans seem to be under the illusion that any player who is bought out will happily sign with his original team for the balance of his contract. Why would a player do this when they can just bank the buyrate money and then go looking for a longterm, big-money deal elsewhere? It makes practically no sense.

I'm assuming those type of deals would be prearranged situations "Hey would you be ok with us buying out your deal and re-signing you for the balance to free up some 'technical' cap space?" Hell, they could sweeten the pot by a couple hundred K. But really why would it matter to Lidstrom if he gets $7.6 over the year or $5M now and $2.6M over the year? Doesn't hurt him any.

I guarantee you no GM would buy out a guy he is meaning to keep without having it all worked out beforehand.

That said it won't happen because that loophole will be quickly filled, but it really isn't that crazy of a scenario. Provided of course the player wants to stay.
 

Steve L*

Registered User
Jan 13, 2003
11,548
0
Southampton, England
Visit site
Spungo said:
It's one time only. It's only for this byear to allow teams to get under the cap. After this year, if you buy out a player, it counts towards your cap.
I know its only for this year, will you be happy if the NYI but out Yashin and then resign him at 500K a year freeing up a massive amount of cap space?
 

Steve L*

Registered User
Jan 13, 2003
11,548
0
Southampton, England
Visit site
Jaded-Fan said:
Actually that is absolutely wrong. One source reported that. On the radio. Never linked. Almost every other source reported that it would be a weighted draft. If you want to see the links regarding a weighted draft being the option chosen provided at the time wade through that thread on the subject that had to have hit 200 plus posts.

This Strachen article is a new twist as it claims opposite what everyone else had, that the BOG took the decision away from Bettman.
Of course you would say that, youve been bleating on in every thread about handicapping big market teams at every oppotunity. You only see what you want to see.
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
Steve L said:
Of course you would say that, youve been bleating on in every thread about handicapping big market teams at every oppotunity. You only see what you want to see.

I said it because it is fact . . . which I have linked over and over. Look here:

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=146743

Almost 400 friggin' posts on the subject so I am not going to do so again for you, but I linked several times there. For every source that says that there will be a 1-30 lottery there must be 10 that say that it will be weighted. Fact . . . not diatribe or opinion as you are posting here.

And 'bleating on in every thread about handicapping big market teams at every oppotunity?' . . . Bull . . . I have never argued for handicapping anyone, only shot down clearly erroneous posts such as this one. My entire point has always been that fans of teams who claim that their teams are going to suffer armegedon (in the hopes of getting a 1-30 draft) are crying wolf, as shown in other posts elsewhere by them where they spout off on how their teams will not be touched and that the stanley cup is theirs for the taking . . . and they also are going to sign 40 FA's that they can of course fit under the cup.

I happen to agree with the less delusional parts of their claims. Certain teams for the short term, next year and the year after, will be better than others, much better than some. Therefore 1-30 is idiocy if you look to the purpose behind a draft. There, I have stated my position for the thousandth time. Maybe you will get it this time and see that it has nothing to do with 'handicapping' anyone. Quite the opposite actually.
 
Last edited:

A Good Flying Bird*

Guest
Jaded-Fan said:
I said it because it is fact . . . which I have linked over and over. Look here:

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=146743

Almost 400 friggin' posts on the subject so I am not going to do so again for you, but I linked several times there. For every source that says that there will be a 1-30 lottery there must be 10 that say that it will be weighted. Fact . . . not diatribe or opinion as you are posting here.

And 'bleating on in every thread about handicapping big market teams at every oppotunity?' . . . Bull . . . I have never argued for handicapping anyone, only shot down clearly erroneous posts such as this one. My entire point has always been that fans of teams who claim that their teams are going to suffer armegedon (in the hopes of getting a 1-30 draft) are crying wolf, as shown in other posts elsewhere by them where they spout off on how their teams will not be touched and that the stanley cup is theirs for the taking . . . and they also are going to sign 40 FA's that they can of course fit under the cup.

I happen to agree with the less delusional parts of their claims. Certain teams for the short term, next year and the year after, will be better than others, much better than some. Therefore 1-30 is idiocy if you look to the purpose behind a draft. There, I have stated my position for the thousandth time. Maybe you will get it this time and see that it has nothing to do with 'handicapping' anyone. Quite the opposite actually.


bleat on, brutha
 

leafaholix*

Guest
Steve L said:
Of course you would say that, youve been bleating on in every thread about handicapping big market teams at every oppotunity. You only see what you want to see.
...

"John Muckler said what on the radio? PROVE IT! PROVE IT! you're making it up. prove it with a link! i don't care if 20 people heard this, you have to prove it! get me a link to the audio to the unedited version of this conversation, i want it authorized as well... so some stupid big market fans haven't tampered with it! muckler's lying and making stuff up! it's a figment of your imagination, all 20 of you!"

...

"strachan... hmm... interesting. i believe him to be credible."


:sarcasm:
 

London Knights

Registered User
Jun 1, 2004
831
0
Jaded-Fan said:
Significant, in my opinion, as big Al is a shill for Toronto. You would think that his opinion would, as it almost always done, skew toward something that would be beneificial to his home boys. The fact that he perhaps for the first time ever is skewing this opinion toward something that Toronto would not want seems to me interesting and perhaps says that he is hearing something.

Strachan a schill for Toronto? What bizzaro world is this. If the season wasn't cancelled this would have been article #227 on how the leafs won't win because Peddie is stealing Pat's cigars or some other inane rag of an article.

Strachan has been a schill for the PA over the course of the lockout, not the Leafs.

I don't get the subjectiveness though. If it benefits cutting into the PA then it is ok to cite other leagues, but the moment it is something that could benefit the players it is bad?
You are running the risk of exposing a player to 29 other teams by cutting him. That is risk enough.

There are several things that make the buyout system workable with teams being able to resign their own players.

1) Contract renegotiation looks a lot better on a player. Alfredsson deferred money when the Senators had a franchise with an owner paying bills with penny rolls. It looked good for him and I'm sure the Seantors fans gave Muppet the proverbial pat on the back for his move for the team.

2) Buyouts don't look good. They essentially amount to the team saying we don't think you are worth what you are making and we are willing to pay you to not play for us at your contract. It is a more negative aspect of the "cut" in salary.

3) Buying out a player doesn't give you a guaranteed return on the player. If you pay Yashin 5 million in a buyout and then offer him 500,000 to give him a "5.5 million dollar deal", another team can offer him 1-2 million more and you lose out on Yashin as well as losing money.

One way to make sure the system isn't abused though woudl be to put a limit on the number of buyouts you are allowed...or at least limit the amount of money possible to spend on buyouts.
 

PanthersRule96

Registered User
Jun 15, 2003
6,048
0
Visit site
FrenchKheldar said:
Can you say New York Rangers? Colombus and Atlanta both won the lottery once (Nash and Kovalchuk) during the past 4 seasons. Is there anybody else? The Panthers did won the lottery once or twice but never picked 1st if I recall correctly and they also haven't made the playoffs since 99... So Crosby to the Rangers, it's not rigging, it's good rules management...
This is good for FLA though because they won the lottery twice but didn't pick first overall due to really smart trades to get Horton and Bouwmeester. If they end up getting the first or second overall pick and are in it because they never made the pick, then that is some really awesome moves by Dudley.
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
PanthersRule said:
This is good for FLA though because they won the lottery twice but didn't pick first overall due to really smart trades to get Horton and Bouwmeester. If they end up getting the first or second overall pick and are in it because they never made the pick, then that is some really awesome moves by Dudley.

I believe that all that I ever read on this said that if this happened it would apply to the winner of the first pick not the drafting party . . . . likely for that reason. If you trade you got something for the pick.
 

Jag68Sid87

Sullivan gots to go!
Oct 1, 2003
35,575
1,249
Montreal, QC
Yeah, it's a little confusing when you start thinking about who actually made the first overall selection and who won the lottery. If we go back the four years, Pittsburgh finished last overall in 2003-04 but Washington won the lottery. And they kept the pick, so clearly Washington would be weighted accordingly. In 2002-03, the Carolina Hurricanes were last overall but the Panthers won the lottery. Pittsburgh wound up with the first pick. In 2001-02, the Atlanta Thrashers were last overall but Florida was the lottery winner. Columbus wound up picking first. And finally, in 2000-01, the Islanders were last overall, but Atlanta won the lottery and took Kovalchuk (can someone confirm this, I don't recall but I assume that's how it went down).

So, if we use the lottery winners, then only three teams would be weighted accordingly: The Caps, Cats and Thrashers. And then I would assume they would weigh the Cup winners as well as frequent playoff participants over the course of 4 seasons.

Personally, I say just make the first round a 1-30 free-for-fall and get the draft lottery show on television. Despite the fact that I would love to see the Pens get Crosby, and that I would despise seeing him in a Leafs uni or a Devils uni (to name two), I would still prefer to see the drama of a 1-30 lottery. It would be exactly what the sport would need to kickstart the new era.

As for the buyouts, I think one thing they should do is force players to become UFA's even if the player has an agreement to restructure. If you at least give an organization one day to make contact with the player, that contractual agreement he had with his former club could be matched or surpassed from an outside team. It would add a little more spice to this already infernal off-season.
 

Ola

Registered User
Apr 10, 2004
34,597
11,595
Sweden
Bruwinz37 said:
This lottery should have everyone get an even shot. Think about it, if last year's contracts are gone (which is what it looks like) then that is 300+ FAs at least. Couple that with guys who have retired over the last 4 years or went back to Europe it makes no sense to base THIS draft on past TEAM perfromance. A lottery where everyone gets an equal shot at Crosby would be great for fan interest and a great way to get back up and running.

IMO its not as simple as that. A team is successful over a long period of time, and sucks for a long period of time. Lets say your a fan of one team, team a, that sucked for a long time, while a you biggest rivalty, team b, have had success over a long period of time. Team b gets the 1st overall pick and your team gets the 30th overall pick. With 30 teams in the league only so many can be successful. Is it fair for Chicago fans if Detroit gets Crosby?
 

reckoning

Registered User
Jan 4, 2005
7,012
1,251
Ola said:
IMO its not as simple as that. A team is successful over a long period of time, and sucks for a long period of time. Lets say your a fan of one team, team a, that sucked for a long time, while a you biggest rivalty, team b, have had success over a long period of time. Team b gets the 1st overall pick and your team gets the 30th overall pick. With 30 teams in the league only so many can be successful. Is it fair for Chicago fans if Detroit gets Crosby?

Is it fair? Why has Detroit been more successful than Chicago? Let`s see: better coaching, better management, better scouting, better drafting, better player development. Using your logic, every year the top five teams should each have to give their best player to one of the worst five teams. Would that be fair?
 

NYR469

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
5,785
0
Visit site
the part about teams not being able to resign players they buyout will most likely only apply to buyouts this summer...

this summer they are allowing buyouts with no hit against the cap because those contracts were signed under the old system so instead of penalizing teams for something they did under the old rules they are giving them a get out of jail free card to an extent. but they don't want teams to give out 67% buyouts and then resign the guys at 1/3 the price to get around the cap for the next several years...(besides every team will buyout guys so you can't resign your own guy but you can sign someone elses guy).

this rule probably won't apply in the future because in the future if you want to buyout a guy there will probably be a hit against the cap, they aren't going to give teams a free pass on contracts they signed under the new system. so after that hit it will probably make less sense for teams to try to beat the system this way.
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
Newsguyone said:
bleat on, brutha

Do you have nothing better to support your position/counter my arguments and linked articles and facts than a basic 'your mother wears army boots' sort of statement? I am duly impressed.

There are arguments to be made for every argument, both sides. I can enjoy debates with those that disagree with me, often times even more than discussing things with ones who agree with me. But I would prefer an actual debate with someone who can make a coherent argument. I suspect that you can do better. Step up and try to shoot down my thoughts above.
 

FLYLine27*

BUCH
Nov 9, 2004
42,410
14
NY
Steve L said:
Well since may 18th, just about everyone has reported it will be an unweighted draft.

If its just up to Bettman then noone apar from him knows what system he will come up with.


Everyone reported a unweighted draft? If I remember correctly it was one or two sites then a few more said "according to (Insert site or author here) there will be a unweighted draft. Since then its been completely quiet on the matter...cept for e-mail I got from Daly saying there was no truth to a "unweighted" draft a month ago which half of you laughed at me about. Things can change though of course.
 

Jaded-Fan

Registered User
Mar 18, 2004
52,446
14,304
Pittsburgh
FLYLine4LIFE said:
Everyone reported a unweighted draft? If I remember correctly it was one or two sites then a few more said "according to (Insert site or author here) there will be a unweighted draft. Since then its been completely quiet on the matter...cept for e-mail I got from Daly saying there was no truth to a "unweighted" draft a month ago which half of you laughed at me about. Things can change though of course.


Agreed . . . there has been reporting on both sides of the issue (though more on the side of a weghted draft - I am not even sure if the 1 in 30 one was anywhere else but on one radio station one time). And nothing since until the Strachen article (for whatever that is worth) yesterday that added the twist of it being thrown completely into Bettman's lap after deep contention each way.
 

mooseOAK*

Guest
The Messenger said:
Owners would use it as a weapon against players.... "Restructure or we will buy you out"...

Restructure or we will reward you with millions of dollars for doing nothing for us in the future.

Quite the threat.
 

Mess

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
86,912
11,862
Leafs Home Board
mooseOAK said:
Restructure or we will reward you with millions of dollars for doing nothing for us in the future.

Quite the threat.
You mean just like Leclair Nolan Guerin Holik etc . Not all players want to live the team and city they play for ..

Bottom line : Some players would find it hard to refuse management if they came a calling ..

If Colorado wanted to retain Forsberg it just got a lot harder .. Sakic and Blake can't renegotiate to make room ..

All this does is as you say force players to take millions and get millions in buyouts .. Owners would have tried to renegotiate instead of making the payouts ..

Its great for cap strapped teams actually because bought out players from other teams could offer their services to contenders when then have 2/3 of their Salary in hand ..

Going to mess with Bettman's parity concept perhaps ..
 

mooseOAK*

Guest
The Messenger said:
You mean just like Leclair Nolan Guerin Holik etc . Not all players want to live the team and city they play for ..

Bottom line : Some players would find it hard to refuse management if they came a calling ..

If Colorado wanted to retain Forsberg it just got a lot harder .. Sakic and Blake can't renegotiate to make room ..

All this does is as you say force players to take millions and get millions in buyouts .. Owners would have tried to renegotiate instead of making the payouts ..

Its great for cap strapped teams actually because bought out players from other teams could offer their services to contenders when then have 2/3 of their Salary in hand ..

Going to mess with Bettman's parity concept perhaps ..

Please. The NHLPA isn't going to let a bunch of bought out players go off and depress the marketplace for the rest of them by taking pittances to play in their favourite place because they just got a windfall of cash.

Which also means that the team paying the 2/3 buyout is stuck paying roughly the same amount for an equivalent player to the one they just paid a ton of money to go away.

This buyout stuff doesn't make sense.
 

victor

Registered User
Sep 6, 2003
3,607
0
The Messenger said:
Its great for cap strapped teams actually because bought out players from other teams could offer their services to contenders when then have 2/3 of their Salary in hand ..

Hmmmnnn.

Toronto or Tampa.

Same money.

Better weather.

Defending stanley cup champions.




Better hope you're not right.
 

ti-vite

Registered User
Jul 27, 2004
3,086
0
The Messenger said:
Its great for cap strapped teams actually because bought out players from other teams could offer their services to contenders when then have 2/3 of their Salary in hand ..

Players are given a check for 2/3 (or 1/3 if younger) of contract value over twice contract length, or if specified lump sum adjusted based on prime.
 

Mothra

The Groovy Guru
Jul 16, 2002
7,717
2
Parts Unknown
Visit site
Jaded-Fan said:
Some points from the Article:

* After the announcement, a 17-24 day moratorium on all transactions to ratify the agreement, get everyone up to speed on a very very complex CBA, and to allow the agents, the players and the teams the time needed to determine their respective strategies

* Players still pressing for honoring last years contracts

* Buyouts will definately not allow the player to return to the team that bought him out - Al does not much like this idea

*The Draft - Bettman Decides
The moratorium also gives the GMs time to find out what kind of draft system commissioner Gary Bettman intends to impose upon the league. At their own meeting, the GMs almost came to blows over this contentious issue and finally left it to the commissioner to decide.

Common sense would dictate that Bettman would craft a system that is heavily weighted in favour of the teams that missed the 2004 playoffs.


http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/WinnipegSun/Sports/2005/07/03/1115113-sun.html

Cool.....so we know GMGM is there. I like the Caps chances more and more
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->