Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
jagknife

Richards picks Rangers

103 posts in this topic

With the 2 extra rules the "spirit" of the CBA is now much more well defined. The spirit isn't broken if these 2 new rules are followed, even if we can see it's still a silly contract.

I think you confused "spirit" with "letter". Both contracts were within the letter of the CBA as it existed at the time. Both contracts also clearly go against the spirit of those rules. If the league was able to get away with arguing that the spirit of the CBA was violated the first time, they should be able to get away with it this time. It doesn't even matter if they end up losing at the hearing; a contract that was clearly written to test the limit of the rules needs to be examined. If Bettman lets this through without so much as a comment, it's further proof that he's a fraud.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rangers suck.

(Someone had to say it.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

parise can be given this deal and be totally legal:

13/78 - 6MM cap:

12-12-10-8-8-6-6-6-6-1-1-1-1

that's a 5/50, 10/75, 13/78 deal.

so it's a cap hit of 10 to 7.5 to 6

now, coming off the knee injury, and with the type of player parise is, i think it's a pretty big risk. but if you're betting on some sort of roll back or something like that after next year, you can worry about it then.

this deal makes parise and the devils (and the eventual bottom feeder who trades for this contract at its end) happy. and it says fvck you to the league too.

While this is a very well constructed idea for a contract, something tells me Vanderbeek is not going to pay all that money upfront. Look at the Greene contract; he is clearly trying to preserve cash now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Rags are def contenders with Richards now. Let's not be bias here they also signed him to a cap friendly deal as well.

However, it's funny we tried to do this with Kovy last year and we get punished yet the sabres and rags do it they get nothing. WTF? Makes no sense

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While this is a very well constructed idea for a contract, something tells me Vanderbeek is not going to pay all that money upfront. Look at the Greene contract; he is clearly trying to preserve cash now.

Greene's deal didn't need front loading. The pending gilfilan sale might also be a thorn too. They might have to wait a year or two for the big years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you confused "spirit" with "letter". Both contracts were within the letter of the CBA as it existed at the time. Both contracts also clearly go against the spirit of those rules. If the league was able to get away with arguing that the spirit of the CBA was violated the first time, they should be able to get away with it this time. It doesn't even matter if they end up losing at the hearing; a contract that was clearly written to test the limit of the rules needs to be examined. If Bettman lets this through without so much as a comment, it's further proof that he's a fraud.

I nailed what the spirit would be the first time, I feel like I understand it. I think you're right in some ways in what you're saying, I was just simplifying things.

Since the league specifically says a deal like this is ok then It is within the spirit, since the spirit is the sum of the rules. There were no specific rules like this when Kovy signed the spirit was more vague and the devils were way more aggressive. The new rules specifically explain this deal is within the new specific rules, and specific rules define the spirit. .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Rags are def contenders with Richards now. Let's not be bias here they also signed him to a cap friendly deal as well.

However, it's funny we tried to do this with Kovy last year and we get punished yet the sabres and rags do it they get nothing. WTF? Makes no sense

Dude we have known for years that you are a Rangers fan. Please stick to your Rangers forums or stop pretending to be a Devils fan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Rags are def contenders with Richards now. Let's not be bias here they also signed him to a cap friendly deal as well.

However, it's funny we tried to do this with Kovy last year and we get punished yet the sabres and rags do it they get nothing. WTF? Makes no sense

Lol just because they added Richards and Rupp doesn't mean they're contenders. Richards will fail like all free agents that sign with the rangers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dude we have known for years that you are a Rangers fan. Please stick to your Rangers forums or stop pretending to be a Devils fan.

You assume like I care what you think. I'm a Devils fan through the thick and thin but I'm also not bias.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who gives a flying Fvck what they do.....lets worry about us.....do we really need a thread on rags deals...how about putting it under FA moves....but thread about a Ragger....please.

Edited by hit the post

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol just because they added Richards and Rupp doesn't mean they're contenders. Richards will fail like all free agents that sign with the rangers

I thought Rupp was a bad signing for them. He isn't worth 1.5 mil when they just signed Fedotenko who was cheaper and better. Seems Mr. Sather can't go 1 year without signing some bottom 4th liner Lol.

Richards isn't Drury, Redden, or Blowmez. He'll make them a top 5 team in the east and at least a 2nd round playoff team. Though I wonder how he'll do the later years but it's stupid how he will be getting 1 mil for the last three years. Any bets on him actually playing through those years?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who gives a flying Fvck what they do.....lets worry about us.....do we really need a tread on rags deals...how about putting it under FA moves....but a tread about a Ragger....please.

+1. Its a good signing for them but it doesnt need to be analyzed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You assume like I care what you think. I'm a Devils fan through the thick and thin but I'm also not bias.

All of your posts are about the Rangers, and most of them are about how good they are. Richards is going to single-handedly take a team that had to rely on the Hurricanes losing so they could back their way into the playoffs and make them a top 5 team in the East?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Richards alone doesn't scare me, yeah he'll put up 20-25 goals for the Rags and 60 assists, but Richards feeding Gaborik the puck scares me. Gaborik finally has a center with skill that can feed him the puck. If (GIGANTIC IF) he can stay healthy now he'll easily get 50+ this year.

But that still doesn't match what I expect this year from Kovy, Elias and Parise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you think the league can go in front of a judge with the new rules in places and get Richards contract voided? I don't think they can. So it's not no longer being "tough" it's about understanding they can't win.

If it makes people feel better Parise can sign a deal that takes him until 40 and is silly front loaded and it will be approved too.

The league went in place in front of a "judge" (arbitrator) with no rules in place last time and won. The difference this time is that the PA is not a rudderless ship, so they don't want to fight it.

The 250% year in Ehrhoff's deal and this 5% backend are total scams. I'm not saying book these guys and send them off to the arbitrator, I'm saying that since they're clearly not serious about that, give the untaken penalty back. You can't give back what is already taken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While this is a very well constructed idea for a contract, something tells me Vanderbeek is not going to pay all that money upfront. Look at the Greene contract; he is clearly trying to preserve cash now.

No, it's just a logical structure for a player of that age and tenure. You can't write these kinds of deals for younger players because they are not going to take years where they WILL play and get peanuts. You write them for middle aged guys who probably WON'T play the peanut years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of your posts are about the Rangers, and most of them are about how good they are. Richards is going to single-handedly take a team that had to rely on the Hurricanes losing so they could back their way into the playoffs and make them a top 5 team in the East?

Not single handedly.....they also signed Rupp. :rofl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh okay so the fact that kovalchuk's contract ends when he was 44 doesn't matter. gotcha. i assume a contract signed when a player is 25 taking him until his 75th birthday with only 80% of the $ in the first 2/3rds of the deal would be just okay.

You're just not going to admit this is bad because it would ruin your emotionless droid gimmick. You don't even have to get angry and threaten anyone or demand vengence.

Just admit it: That's a bad contract that violates the mysterious spirit of the CBA. "spirit of the CBA" defined to mean "we wrote this this in two weeks in a rush and jesus christ, we missed alot of stuff."

Edited by maxpower

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I nailed what the spirit would be the first time, I feel like I understand it. I think you're right in some ways in what you're saying, I was just simplifying things.

Since the league specifically says a deal like this is ok then It is within the spirit, since the spirit is the sum of the rules. There were no specific rules like this when Kovy signed the spirit was more vague and the devils were way more aggressive. The new rules specifically explain this deal is within the new specific rules, and specific rules define the spirit. .

So in other words, because it fits the letter of the rule, it also fits the spirit of the rule. I can see where you're coming from, but we'll have to agree to disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're just not going to admit this is bad because it would ruin your emotionless droid gimmick. You don't even have to get angry and threaten anyone or demand vengence.

Just admit it: That's a bad contract that violates the mysterious spirit of the CBA. "spirit of the CBA" defined to mean "we wrote this this in two weeks in a rush and jesus christ, we missed alot of stuff."

no, i really don't see a problem with it. don't get upset because NJ was too stupid to realize that the NHL was waiting for this fight.

also your point about a rudderless ship is totally ridiculous - the PA and NHL negotiated rules about these sorts of deals, and these contracts do not violate those rules. the NHL realized that the devils had got them on the 2nd kovalchuk deal, knew they wouldn't win a challenge there, saw the problem with allowing contracts of that nature, and basically folded - the rules they got don't stop contracts like this, and both sides knew that.

Edited by Triumph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried. Whatever. Obviously Bill Daly wrote an amazing document that is NOT full of loopholes and nebulous situations and we just broke all of the rules that were defined in said amazing docuement, even if same said imaginary rules were not broken in the same manner in the last week.

5% in the last 1/3rd of a deal is definitely in the "spirit" of the CBA, so it be written, so it be done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried. Whatever. Obviously Bill Daly wrote an amazing document that is NOT full of loopholes and nebulous situations and we just broke all of the rules that were defined in said amazing docuement, even if same said imaginary rules were not broken in the same manner in the last week.

5% in the last 1/3rd of a deal is definitely in the "spirit" of the CBA, so it be written, so it be done.

And if Brad Richards' deal had had a tail? You know, like the Kovalchuk deal that the league approved? How about these numbers added on to Richards' deal? 2 million in 2021/22, 3 million in 2022/23, 3 million in 2023/24, 4 million in 2024/25? I mean - those are large amounts of money, hard to say Brad wouldn't try to play for those, right? Does he hate money? That deal I just made up is 13 years, 72 million, a 5.53M cap hit - more than 1M less than what the current deal has. It has 79% of the money in the first 2/3rds of the contract, that sounds reasonable for a declining player.

You seem to be totally ignoring the fact that the PA and NHL addressed this issue last summer, and they came out of it with rules, and that's the end of the discussion on the matter.

Edited by Triumph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And if Brad Richards' deal had had a tail? You know, like the Kovalchuk deal that the league approved? How about these numbers added on to Richards' deal? 2 million in 2021/22, 3 million in 2022/23, 3 million in 2023/24, 4 million in 2024/25? I mean - those are large amounts of money, hard to say Brad wouldn't try to play for those, right? Does he hate money? That deal I just made up is 13 years, 72 million, a 5.53M cap hit - more than 1M less than what the current deal has. It has 79% of the money in the first 2/3rds of the contract, that sounds reasonable for a declining player.

Except there's an amendement now on contracts over 40 which affects the cap hit for those years iirc. And Richards' deal doesn't have any such tail, now you're throwing out a silly hypothetical. In a way that'd be even more ridiculous than the current deal, having 7 years and 15 million at the back end of a 6-57.

I honestly think you and 731 work for the league you have such a vested interest in defending the NHL's obvious double standard. Front-loaded money is proportionally worse in other deals than in either Kovy deal, but apparently it's okay not to be punished for that and it's okay not to be punished for contracts that go to 42 and 43 years old but heaven forbid it goes up to 44, off with your high draft picks and three million dollars!

I still fail to see how the Devils violating the spirit of the CBA differ from other teams violating the spirit in similar manner. One more year on the age of a contract and an arbitration ruling that found no collusion on the Devils part is the only thing anyone can use for an argument and age wasn't a barometer in the CBA. How is a one-year age difference the only way violating the spirit of the CBA gets you punished, and punished so severely?

Edited by NJDevs4978

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except there's an amendement now on contracts over 40 which affects the cap hit for those years iirc. And Richards' deal doesn't have any such tail, now you're throwing out a silly hypothetical. In a way that'd be even more ridiculous than the current deal, having 7 years and 15 million at the back end of a 6-57.

If the NHL had gone to war over the 2nd Kovalchuk contract and lost, I think this is what you would see on a lot of these deals - tails moving upwards, as the Kovalchuk deal has. But hey at least the contract would have less of a percentage in the first 2/3rds of the deal!

I honestly think you and 731 work for the league you have such a vested interest in defending the NHL's obvious double standard. Front-loaded money is proportionally worse in other deals than in either Kovy deal, but apparently it's okay not to be punished for that and it's okay not to be punished for contracts that go to 42 and 43 years old but heaven forbid it goes up to 44, off with your high draft picks and three million dollars!

The only deals that rival the Kovalchuk deal are the Savard and Pronger deals - Savard's career is probably over and Pronger's is a 35+.

I still fail to see how the Devils violating the spirit of the CBA differ from other teams violating the spirit in similar manner. One more year on the age of a contract and an arbitration ruling that found no collusion on the Devils part is the only thing anyone can use for an argument and age wasn't a barometer in the CBA. How is a one-year age difference the only way violating the spirit of the CBA gets you punished, and punished so severely?

It's a two year age difference. And yes, the league should have done something about those deals beforehand, but that doesn't excuse the Devils. My contention is that the Devils should have been smarter about the whole thing - they knew the league was looking to crack down, and they gave them a great opportunity to do so by including more years at a minimum salary than any of these other deals had combined. Also 'the league' isn't a nebulous entity - I am sure that Brian Burke and the small market GMs were crying foul about these deals for a while, and they wanted blood.

Edited by Triumph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Richards alone doesn't scare me, yeah he'll put up 20-25 goals for the Rags and 60 assists, but Richards feeding Gaborik the puck scares me. Gaborik finally has a center with skill that can feed him the puck.

Agreed. Rangers got a whole lot more scary. Signing Richards with a cap hit of 6,5 mill is nothing short of a steal when you consider Rolstons 5 mill hit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0