Comments on: THIS AND THAT

By: DannyLeafs

DannyLeafs — Sun, 24 Apr 2011 08:37:44 +0000

You also have to consider whether or not Richard's thinks he can make a difference in that case. Right now, simply adding Richard's to a team in 8th could potentially make them a contender if he is the type of player they are truly missing. That makes sense. However, if the Rangers moved Gaborik, and didn't take much back in terms of immediate help, and then add Richard's, how much does that team really improve? I think Richards in place of Gaborik is an improvement, but honestly it's not enough to make the Rangers into a contender IMO. The Rangers do have the benefit of some good young players coming up, and clearing the books of Drury in the following year, but terms of immediate impact, he may not think it's really worth it if they move Gaborik.

By: DannyLeafs

DannyLeafs — Sat, 23 Apr 2011 21:23:04 +0000

The term makes a difference because it lets you have more time to get the salary down. If the term was say 5 years and you wanted to pay the player 8 million in his first year you can only get one .5 million year in there to bring down the average (8-4-2-1-.5). However if you take the same contract and stretch it out past when the player expects to play you could have something like (10-5-5-3-1.5-1-.5-.5-.5) which has a lower cap hit, but allows the player to make more money over the years in which is actually likely to play. So the 50% rule was cir*****vented by extending the contract.

The new rule allows for different calculations, and left the door open for the NHL to deny contracts that it once accepted. First off, if a player has years where he makes over a million a season, and years where he makes under a million a season on the same contract, the years that are on the end that are under a million are now calculated as 1 million in salary. That actually doesn't make a huge difference anymore, but its a start. Next is that contracts that are over a certain length and bridge a certain age for the player (I think it's 39), the cap hit is calculated using a 5 year average from the current season onward. That way the low cap hit of small cap hit years only really come into play once the player actually starts approaching that age. So if you sign a 32 year old to a 10 year deal with a structure that is heavily weighted in teh first 5 seasons, the cap hit in the first year of the deal won't be lessened whatso ever by adding cheap years on the end, thus making them less attractive. That's the ammendment that has been negotiated. It will likely never be truly enforced as the ammendment basically only applies to contract types taht are no longer beneficial, and are now unlikely to occur.

By: realistic_leafs_fan

realistic_leafs_fan — Fri, 22 Apr 2011 07:33:11 +0000

I was referring to the core already in place. I doubt he moves any of the following unless it's a can't miss type of trade.

Kulimen, Grabo, Phaneuf, Schenn, Kessel, Lupul, Aulie, Reimer, Armstrong.

I really don't see him moving any of these guys. I very good team can be built around this group.

I could see him moving Kadri or any of the others for the right player. He shouldn't have to touch the above core to get a deal done as the cupboards are well stocked with prospects and picks.

By: 420xLEAFS

420xLEAFS — Fri, 22 Apr 2011 06:38:45 +0000

it was meant to be dbagish just like cam has been. ive been here for 9 or 10 years… ive read a lot of cam posts.

By: NonLeafFansAreGay

NonLeafFansAreGay — Fri, 22 Apr 2011 01:35:53 +0000

BRUINS ARE HORRIBLE LMAO LOLOLOL

By: NonLeafFansAreGay

NonLeafFansAreGay — Fri, 22 Apr 2011 01:31:38 +0000

lmfao are you still here? I guess you have nothing else to do sicne the boston ruins will be out in the first round.

HAHAHAA

By: dumbassdoorman

dumbassdoorman — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 14:46:38 +0000

He will trade a core prospect for the right player

By: realistic_leafs_fan

realistic_leafs_fan — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 13:44:28 +0000

So it's more what I thought then. GM's found a loophole and exploited it. But that doesn't make them illegal, it means they are against the intentions of the true Salary cap-player contract part of the CBA.

I don't understand if "a contract can't drop more than 50% of the highest paid year - or something like that" already exists, how have they gotten around that. Many approved contracts by the League drop more than 50% of the highest paid year...how does length of contract change anything? If a player gets $6mil in any year and then the last 5 years are at $1mil...how does term make a difference?

I admit, I don't understand your point or how GM's got around that then. I can't see how term makes a difference if the CBA already states what you posted. I don't see how term makes a difference.

By: realistic_leafs_fan

realistic_leafs_fan — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 13:28:20 +0000

Umm...debunked the whole thing.

Giguere IS a veteran goalie. He has said nothing about NOT adding to his D core.

So really, we are talking about whether he will use picks or prospects to trade for a centre if needed. Which I should have mentioned the prospects as well in my posts.To clarify, I think he would trade prospects as long as it does not touch the core group he is building around. I also wrote that without listening to any of Burke's comments. I don't have time to research everything everyone has ever said or wrote...I write what I think...right or wrong.

Well, I guess you got me again. I'm way off as usual.LOL

By: realistic_leafs_fan

realistic_leafs_fan — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 13:17:18 +0000

No one is going to laugh at you. It's a horrible thing to deal with at any age. Hold your head high.