serge 904 Posted July 5, 2011 Author Share Posted July 5, 2011 I hope Bozak improves to where I thought he'd be. He had some moments last year, but never really found his stride. I think this guy will be good...maybe this is the year?As for Phaneuf, it would be great to get a mean and healthy Dion, but this may not be required if Schenn keeps improving the way he's been going. Last year was a great effort and he has the size to be imposing at both ends of the ice.It will be interesting how and where Bozak fits in this year..Doesnt look like he will be playing with Kessel at all and wont get much PP time with the acquisition of Connolly...Now if Lombardi is somehow healthy I dont see a fit at all on the team for Bozak...With Lombardi injured he is probably the 3rd line Centre to start the season..However I can see Kadri/Colborne pushing him out of that spot really soon..Phaneuf was a different player the second half..The injury really took a toll on him..I hope you are right and we see that mean Dion out there..With Schenn, Aulie, Dion and Franson the Leafs defence is HUGE(in a size sense).. Link to post Share on other sites
MapleLeafpoker 1,462 Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Hi MLSE,Can you also send down Kessel, Schenn and Kulemin?Thanks!Love,Your Nascar brother from another mother,Carolina Link to post Share on other sites
serge 904 Posted July 6, 2011 Author Share Posted July 6, 2011 Hi MLSE,Can you also send down Kessel, Schenn and Kulemin?Thanks!Love,Your Nascar brother from another mother,CarolinaLOLYou might need to send back Staal and Skinner... Link to post Share on other sites
serge 904 Posted July 6, 2011 Author Share Posted July 6, 2011 Very impressed with the Bozak signing..I thought he was going to get slightly more but a cap hit of less than a $1 million is pretty good for both sides.The cap situation works differently for guys like this, his cap hit was huge last year at $3.725 because of the entry level contract...So now we are saving almost $3 million in cap space on Bozak.It will be interesting to where Schenn lands..It might be lower than his cap hit of $2.9 from last year..With one more task to do(signing Schenn) i think Burkie should take a well deserved vacation till late August, if its ok with Steve Simmons.EDIT:Bozak's numbers were reported wrong last night..Its 2 years at $3 million, so $1.5 million per..Still reasonable. Link to post Share on other sites
Babying 613 Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Very impressed with the Bozak signing..I thought he was going to get slightly more but a cap hit of less than a $1 million is pretty good for both sides.The cap situation works differently for guys like this, his cap hit was huge last year at $3.725 because of the entry level contract...So now we are saving almost $3 million in cap space on Bozak.It will be interesting to where Schenn lands..It might be lower than his cap hit of $2.9 from last year..With one more task to do(signing Schenn) i think Burkie should take a well deserved vacation till late August, if its ok with Steve Simmons.EDIT:Bozak's numbers were reported wrong last night..Its 2 years at $3 million, so $1.5 million per..Still reasonable.Did Schenn file for arbitration? You would think they must be very close to some long term deal since he did go with Burke to Afghanistan. Link to post Share on other sites
serge 904 Posted July 6, 2011 Author Share Posted July 6, 2011 Did Schenn file for arbitration? You would think they must be very close to some long term deal since he did go with Burke to Afghanistan.Schenn cant file for arbitration..They will sign him to a deal but will it be a long term ( 4plus) or a 2 year term? Link to post Share on other sites
serge 904 Posted July 6, 2011 Author Share Posted July 6, 2011 Some comments from Burke today:"Richards contract circumvents the salary cap. That's why we didn't sign him" "I do not believe players are going to play nine or 10 years on some of these contracts that have been signed"Burke on Tim Connolly: "We needed a centre ... We think it's an upgrade offensively." Said Franson was "obviously" the key to Preds deal. Link to post Share on other sites
mrdannyg 274 Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Very impressed with the Bozak signing..I thought he was going to get slightly more but a cap hit of less than a $1 million is pretty good for both sides.The cap situation works differently for guys like this, his cap hit was huge last year at $3.725 because of the entry level contract...So now we are saving almost $3 million in cap space on Bozak.It will be interesting to where Schenn lands..It might be lower than his cap hit of $2.9 from last year..With one more task to do(signing Schenn) i think Burkie should take a well deserved vacation till late August, if its ok with Steve Simmons.EDIT:Bozak's numbers were reported wrong last night..Its 2 years at $3 million, so $1.5 million per..Still reasonable.10 points for Zach for nailing Bozak's contract.Bolded actually had me laughing out loud. Link to post Share on other sites
digitalmonkey 929 Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Some comments from Burke today:"Richards contract circumvents the salary cap. That's why we didn't sign him" "I do not believe players are going to play nine or 10 years on some of these contracts that have been signed"Burke on Tim Connolly: "We needed a centre ... We think it's an upgrade offensively." Said Franson was "obviously" the key to Preds deal. DownGoesBrown Down Goes BrownI wonder if any GMs believe the Franson trade circumvents the rules against big market teams buying players for cash considerations. Link to post Share on other sites
digitalmonkey 929 Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Now this is something Steve Simmons should jump on. Link to post Share on other sites
serge 904 Posted July 6, 2011 Author Share Posted July 6, 2011 Now this is something Steve Simmons should jump on.Why because its the truth?Richards and Ehrhoff contracts circumvent the cap..Burke has said he wont sign these sort of deals..Simple as that..The NHL will have these type of deals disallowed in the near future. Link to post Share on other sites
digitalmonkey 929 Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Why because its the truth?Richards and Ehrhoff contracts circumvent the cap..Burke has said he wont sign these sort of deals..Simple as that..The NHL will have these type of deals disallowed in the near future.You're missing the point.The league is allowing these contracts and Burke's personal issues with these type of contracts is handicapping his team. Is he the GM of the Toronto Maple Leafs or is he a part of some secret moral police? Link to post Share on other sites
serge 904 Posted July 6, 2011 Author Share Posted July 6, 2011 You're missing the point.The league is allowing these contracts and Burke's personal issues with these type of contracts is handicapping his team. Is he the GM of the Toronto Maple Leafs or is he a part of some secret moral police?This is your opinion...The Buffalo Sabres and the New York Rangers are the ones that will be handicapped in the future.. Link to post Share on other sites
Dubey 1,035 Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 I don't really understand why players want these front loaded contracts. They must really trust their financial planners.Personally, since I do not trust myself to spend and save wisely, if I were an NHL player, I would ask for a rear loaded contract, so I keep getting a raise every year.5 year deal 1/2/3/4/5 FCHL style. 2.5 cap hit. I can almost guarantee that this would be more personally satisfying, plus I'd definitely have more money in the bank at the end of 5 years than a 5/5/3/1/1 kind of deal. Link to post Share on other sites
serge 904 Posted July 6, 2011 Author Share Posted July 6, 2011 I don't really understand why players want these front loaded contracts. They must really trust their financial planners.Personally, since I do not trust myself to spend and save wisely, if I were an NHL player, I would ask for a rear loaded contract, so I keep getting a raise every year.5 year deal 1/2/3/4/5 FCHL style. 2.5 cap hit. I can almost guarantee that this would be more personally satisfying, plus I'd definitely have more money in the bank at the end of 5 years than a 5/5/3/1/1 kind of deal.pretty simple really...Brad Richards wont be playing more than 6 years to collect on the last 3 years of his deal. Link to post Share on other sites
mrdannyg 274 Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 You're missing the point.The league is allowing these contracts and Burke's personal issues with these type of contracts is handicapping his team. Is he the GM of the Toronto Maple Leafs or is he a part of some secret moral police?I agree with you. Burke has made it clear he isn't avoiding these contracts out of planning considerations, but because he disagrees with them. If it was the former, that would be acceptable, though presumably he would have to allow for possible exceptions. I do like that he isn't hurting future teams by sticking the 2017 Maple Leafs with a $4M cap hit for a 38-year old Erhoff or Richards, for example.How do buyouts work? i.e. if a team wants to buy Richards out for the last 3 years of his deal, how much do they have to pay him? I know he's subject to waivers - is it all based on his current and future salary, or is the cap hit relevant? Link to post Share on other sites
digitalmonkey 929 Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 This is your opinion...The Buffalo Sabres and the New York Rangers are the ones that will be handicapped in the future..You're claiming the Sabres and Rangers will be handicapped by the length of contract and amount of money. However, it's not the cap hit or length we are talking about here. We are talking about the structure of the contract. That is what Burke takes issue with. He says he refuses to structure a contract if it appears to be cap circumvention even if it is allowable under NHL/CBA rules. If that's a directive he's getting from his boss(es) then fine, but if that's just his personal issue then it's ridiculous because he's handicapping his team. Link to post Share on other sites
ajs510 122 Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 This is your opinion...The Buffalo Sabres and the New York Rangers are the ones that will be handicapped in the future..Only if the rules change and you can't bury salary in the AHL or loan it to Europe anymore. The Rangers got out from under Redden's cap hit...REDDEN, at $6.5 million per for 6 years. That should tell you everything you need to know about the possibility of teams actually being real-world handicapped, handcuffed, "up against it" or otherwise troubled by any contract they care to dish out. The only team I've actually seen have salary cap issues to the point of having to part with players to resolve them was Chicago...and a lot of that was the fact that they won the Cup and had to pay cap-relevant bonuses, then give big raises to a lot of the guys who got them there. I'll finish with this...the Islanders gave Alexei Yashin a 10 year contract worth $71 million. Silly? Probably, but that's mostly due to the player the deal was given to. Hurting them? Not in the least...they bought the deal out, they carry a $2 million cap hit from now until eternity, and they're fighting to reach the cap floor. Long term deals aren't handicapping anyone from doing anything. Link to post Share on other sites
ajs510 122 Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 I don't really understand why players want these front loaded contracts. They must really trust their financial planners.Personally, since I do not trust myself to spend and save wisely, if I were an NHL player, I would ask for a rear loaded contract, so I keep getting a raise every year.5 year deal 1/2/3/4/5 FCHL style. 2.5 cap hit. I can almost guarantee that this would be more personally satisfying, plus I'd definitely have more money in the bank at the end of 5 years than a 5/5/3/1/1 kind of deal.It's not entirely the players, it's the agents. Don't forget that they take 15% of everything and they definitely want as much of their money as they can get right now in a suitcase. Link to post Share on other sites
serge 904 Posted July 6, 2011 Author Share Posted July 6, 2011 You're claiming the Sabres and Rangers will be handicapped by the length of contract and amount of money. However, it's not the cap hit or length we are talking about here. We are talking about the structure of the contract. That is what Burke takes issue with. He says he refuses to structure a contract if it appears to be cap circumvention even if it is allowable under NHL/CBA rules. If that's a directive he's getting from his boss(es) then fine, but if that's just his personal issue then it's ridiculous because he's handicapping his team.Is it allowable under the CURRENT rules? YesIs it cap circumvention?Absolutely it is.The length surely comes into play...To circumvent the cap you HAVE to sign Richards to a stupid 9 year contract...We all know that Brad Richards most likely will not be playing in the NHL in the last 3 years of the contract. So yes length comes into play..Burke hasnt signed any contracts for longer than 5 years. He believes that when you sign a contract that long, you are hurting your teams chances when it comes to cap flexibility.I guarantee you these contracts will not be allowed in the next CBA... Link to post Share on other sites
SBriand 4 Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 The point of this conversation is right . <---there you are . <-----somewhere over here Link to post Share on other sites
digitalmonkey 929 Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Serge, are you claiming that GMs should base their actions on rules that may or may not come into place instead of rules that are currently in place? Link to post Share on other sites
serge 904 Posted July 6, 2011 Author Share Posted July 6, 2011 Serge, are you claiming that GMs should base their actions on rules that may or may not come into place instead of rules that are currently in place?Burke has his own beliefs and rules ..Its assinine in his(my) opinion to sign Christian Ehrhoff to a 10 year deal for $40 million...or Brad Richards to a 9 year deal. Link to post Share on other sites
digitalmonkey 929 Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Burke has his own beliefs and rules ..Its assinine in his(my) opinion to sign Christian Ehrhoff to a 10 year deal for $40 million...or Brad Richards to a 9 year deal.You're still missing the point. I'm starting to think it may be intentional.Burke issue is NOT with the 10 year-$40 million offer. His issue is with the structure of the contract. Link to post Share on other sites
serge 904 Posted July 6, 2011 Author Share Posted July 6, 2011 You're still missing the point. I'm starting to think it may be intentional.Burke issue is NOT with the 10 year-$40 million offer. His issue is with the structure of the contract.And you are missing the point , the both are related..You cant circumvent the cap and sign Ehrhoff unless its a 10 year deal. Ehrhoff is receiving $18 million of his $40 Million in the first two years..To achieve this you have the circumvent the cap and sign him to a 10 year deal...He wont be playing in the NHL for 10 years...Why is it so hard for people to get, Brian Burke believes that these contracts are "cheating" and he refuses to participate... Link to post Share on other sites
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