Primal Optimist Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 You do realize this is not a 1-season CBA, don't you? Signing away 10 years of rights simply to make sure you make a couple months pay this year is only something a desperate fool would do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 You do realize this is not a 1-season CBA, don't you? Signing away 10 years of rights simply to make sure you make a couple months pay this year is only something a desperate fool would do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Money Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 This puts BOS, CGY, MIN in a tough position. I think VAN is ok assuming we Trade Luongo, and let Raymond and Maholtra walk at the end of the season. We'd probably have to make a choice between Ballard, Edler, or Booth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sapper Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 People are acting like it will only be the Canucks under the new terms - It's every team. Every team will have players that are in the same situation and it will be players who will have to face the fact that only a few select will get the big money - the rest will have to lower expectations. If any team wants to spend stupid money on a couple of players that team will not be able to fill out the rest of the team with a winning roster - the lowered cap will result in a couple franchise players per team and everyone else sorting out the pecking order for the remaining cap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 Maximum salary cap of 60 million for next season? This is really killing teams who are good, and have money to spend like the Canucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gizmo2337 Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 Even if we trade Luongo, buy out Ballard, and let Raymond and Malhotra walk, we're still sitting at over 50 million for 2013-14, with only 11 players signed. Edler will probably have to go. I don't see how Calgary will be in a tough position. They only have 43.4 mil committed in 2013-14, with 14 signed. Philly will be in a tough position. They may have to buy out Briere. Or do they use this opportunity to shed Bryzgalov? That's still A LOT of salary to pay out simply to get rid of someone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rey Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 Eh, I wouldn't think about it until it's a done deal. January 11 seems to be the deadline to save the season. Fehr's taking it this far already, no reason why he shouldn't wait another couple weeks. Edit: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/nhl-makes-new-offer-in-bid-to-restart-talks/article6764756/ A week to negotiate. At least we'll know for certain if there will be a season or not this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 Why did the NHL take the offer off of the table again and cease negotiations if they are just going to come come back with a 'compromise' offer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Vintage Canuck- Posted December 28, 2012 Author Share Posted December 28, 2012 @BradZiemer If training camps open on Jan. 12, #Canucks won't be able to use Rogers Arena as Lady Gaga scheduled to do second of 2 shows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rey Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 Why did the NHL take the offer off of the table again and cease negotiations if they are just going to come come back with a 'compromise' offer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rey Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 @BradZiemer If training camps open on Jan. 12, #Canucks won't be able to use Rogers Arena as Lady Gaga scheduled to do second of 2 shows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Money Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 I still don't see how I am contradicting myself. You're just grasping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Money Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 Yes, very puzzling - if the NHL is indeed making "record profits", why would they want a smaller salary cap? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gizmo2337 Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 So how does MIN get under the cap next year? The only reasonable option I see is to trade or buy out Heatley? Or would they buy out Koivu? Surely, they wouldn't buy out Parise or Suter, and I can't see them letting all their prospects go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Money Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 I am getting the impression you really are just here fo the argument, and nothing more. I could give a rat about the real dollars and cents...i am more interested in watching NHL hockey soon... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 bad negotiation tactics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 So how does MIN get under the cap next year? The only reasonable option I see is to trade or buy out Heatley? Or would they buy out Koivu? Surely, they wouldn't buy out Parise or Suter, and I can't see them letting all their prospects go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Money Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 This cap reduction without rollback may actually benefit the Canucks. Any team that negotiated new contracts with key players in the last couple of years will likely be paying a premium. (See: the Wild stuck paying Parise and Suter over 7.5 until the end of time.) Whereas most of our key players - Sedin, Sedin, Kesler, Hamhuis - were signed a while back, and at less than the going rate. And even for a player like Edler, there won't be too many teams with abundant cap space to throw at him. And no one can offer him a gigantic, frontloaded, 10-year deal like Ehrhoff either. We may be able to match any offer from a competitor, along with a potentially longer contract (which they cannot). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 ^^^^ Excellent point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
73 Percent Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 This cap reduction without rollback may actually benefit the Canucks. Any team that negotiated new contracts with key players in the last couple of years will likely be paying a premium. (See: the Wild stuck paying Parise and Suter over 7.5 until the end of time.) Whereas most of our key players - Sedin, Sedin, Kesler, Hamhuis - were signed a while back, and at less than the going rate. And even for a player like Edler, there won't be too many teams with abundant cap space to throw at him. And no one can offer him a gigantic, frontloaded, 10-year deal like Ehrhoff either. We may be able to match any offer from a competitor, along with a potentially longer contract (which they cannot). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.