Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Devilsfan118

2014 UFA Signing Thread

922 posts in this topic

Came here to post about Brassard.

 

$5 million? A year? For five years? Really? For what!?!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lmfao that's an awful deal. Brassard's a nice player, but not that nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rangers are in a real tough spot with centers, because they don't have any in their organization, and while they have some interesting prospects, I don't think any are bringing back a center.  So it's either sign Brassard long-term or gamble on a UFA.  The UFA centers this coming year are Spezza, Vermette, Krejci, Fisher, B. Richards.  I can't imagine Krejci makes it to 7/1/2015, and that's a pretty dire list otherwise.

 

NJ will likely be in this spot in 2 years and it will not be pleasant.

 

EDIT:  Forgot about J.T. Miller, but I'm not sure how they feel about him.

Edited by Triumph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He'll get bought out after 2 or 3 poor years.  Lou is making the Rangers look bad.  I guess they're banking on him turning into a 2nd line center.  I don't know if he's good enough or ever will be good enough to justify this deal.  This deal also makes him very hard to trade if he doesn't pan out to being worth that much.  I just don't see how the Rangers come close to last seasons performance.  I just don't see it with their roster.  They've added Glass, Stempniak, Lombardi, then retained Zucs, Brassard, and Kreider.   Unless Brassard and Zucs take the next steps in their developments, I don't see them coming as close as they did this past season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They also front-loaded the contract as much as possible which suggests they will trade him in 3 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're 100% win now, this is their 2 year window, that's why they can't wait on miller to grow into a second line center.

5 mil is perfectly fine for a second line center, but I'm not going to argue that brassard is that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

$5M is about the going rate for 2nd/3rd line centers.  Weiss, Bolland, now Brassard.  Basically if you play center and work a PP and are 30 years old or younger you will make 4.5M in UFA if you get a multi-year deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They also front-loaded the contract as much as possible which suggests they will trade him in 3 years.

Yeah, but doesn't the cap hit remain the same even if the contract is front-loaded?  It will still be a 5m hit that won't change right?  I don't see how that makes him any easier to trade. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but doesn't the cap hit remain the same even if the contract is front-loaded?  It will still be a 5m hit that won't change right?  I don't see how that makes him any easier to trade. 

 

It makes him easier to trade for a team with shallow pockets. Having a guy play for you for a $5 million cap hit while only getting paid say 3 or 4 million isnt bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate it. But that's the market. Rather than chance it with him going UFA like Staal, Zuccarello and St. Louis, Slats opted to lock him up. I don't like where the league's headed. Put together a post on Brassard, the Rangers uncertain future and the league.

 

Tri's 100 percent correct on their center situation. By next summer, they'll have 11 million tied into Stepan and Brassard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He'll get bought out after 2 or 3 poor years.  Lou is making the Rangers look bad.  I guess they're banking on him turning into a 2nd line center.  I don't know if he's good enough or ever will be good enough to justify this deal.  This deal also makes him very hard to trade if he doesn't pan out to being worth that much.  I just don't see how the Rangers come close to last seasons performance.  I just don't see it with their roster.  They've added Glass, Stempniak, Lombardi, then retained Zucs, Brassard, and Kreider.   Unless Brassard and Zucs take the next steps in their developments, I don't see them coming as close as they did this past season.

 

Lou has done similar on vets. I am not a fan of long-term contracts and hate NTC's. I will say the $4 he gave Henrique looks like a bargain. Especially if he can continue to light the lamp. Stepan will get $6 by comparison next summer. In today's NHL, there's more emphasis on younger players contributing. This year, the pressure is on Miller or Lindberg to fill a void. The Devils have locked in on Merrill, Larson and Gelinas to hold up their D. At some point, you either sink or swim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with Brassard isn't age - he'll be 31 at the end of this contract.  It's that he might not be that good.  Lou has made many mistakes in free agency but one of the things he's pretty good at is avoiding big contracts to soft-minute scorers who don't do anything else well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seeing the same things in the NHL and the NBA. The secondary players are getting rich while the top top end talent are getting screwed (or an easier way of saying it...they aren't getting what they should). These contracts are becoming the norm for players like Brassard but everyone is shocked when Kane and Toews get their $10 million contracts.

 

Looking back to when the cap was introduced and before that in the late 90s, the best players aren't getting paid more at all. Everyone else is though. An If you look at the NBA contracts signed from 1996-1998, you'll see the exact same things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seeing the same things in the NHL and the NBA. The secondary players are getting rich while the top top end talent are getting screwed (or an easier way of saying it...they aren't getting what they should). These contracts are becoming the norm for players like Brassard but everyone is shocked when Kane and Toews get their $10 million contracts.

 

Looking back to when the cap was introduced and before that in the late 90s, the best players aren't getting paid more at all. Everyone else is though. An If you look at the NBA contracts signed from 1996-1998, you'll see the exact same things.

Oh.  I don't know.  If you ask me, top end talent gets overpaid.  If players were inclined to take less money, it gives management more flexibility in improving their team in other areas.  I don't see how there can be an argument from us, as fans, that players don't need to be paid as much as they are. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem seems to be that top end talent don't usually make it to July 1st, thus don't get overpaid as badly

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh.  I don't know.  If you ask me, top end talent gets overpaid.  If players were inclined to take less money, it gives management more flexibility in improving their team in other areas.  I don't see how there can be an argument from us, as fans, that players don't need to be paid as much as they are. 

 

I dislike this thinking. Alexander Ovechkin should take less money so Matt Niskanen gets $7 million or Brooks Orpik gets $5 million+? Kane and Toews should take less money so the Blackhawks can sign Oduya, Shaw and Saad, who probably will jump at a chance to maximize their value when they become free agents, anyway?

 

Then there is no guarantee ownership even spends to the cap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dislike this thinking. Alexander Ovechkin should take less money so Matt Niskanen gets $7 million or Brooks Orpik gets $5 million+? Kane and Toews should take less money so the Blackhawks can sign Oduya, Shaw and Saad, who probably will jump at a chance to maximize their value when they become free agents, anyway?

 

Then there is no guarantee ownership even spends to the cap.

 

Alex Ovechkin is the one guy who didn't take less money - he got $9.5M on a $56.8M cap, plus he got 13 years.  But yeah, Kane and Toews are both underpaid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dislike this thinking. Alexander Ovechkin should take less money so Matt Niskanen gets $7 million or Brooks Orpik gets $5 million+? Kane and Toews should take less money so the Blackhawks can sign Oduya, Shaw and Saad, who probably will jump at a chance to maximize their value when they become free agents, anyway?

 

Then there is no guarantee ownership even spends to the cap.

 

I imagine the union members understood that this would be a consequence and agreed to accept it.  By definition there are more of these middling type players than there are top echelon types, so it's something that would be expected.

 

Ultimately, this comes down to whether you agree with a salary cap as a philosophical matter.  If you want a twenty-five to thirty team NHL league with markets of varying strengths, a salary cap, or some other types of labor control, are necessary.  If it worked like European soccer where there's no draft, no salary cap, no entry level contracts, you would basically have a ten team league.  In the 2005 lockout, the NHL said that half or more of the teams could not continue as going concerns without a salary cap.  If you look around the league today, there's no reason to believe that was bluster. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I imagine the union members understood that this would be a consequence and agreed to accept it.  By definition there are more of these middling type players than there are top echelon types, so it's something that would be expected.

 

Ultimately, this comes down to whether you agree with a salary cap as a philosophical matter.  If you want a twenty-five to thirty team NHL league with markets of varying strengths, a salary cap, or some other types of labor control, are necessary.  If it worked like European soccer where there's no draft, no salary cap, no entry level contracts, you would basically have a ten team league.  In the 2005 lockout, the NHL said that half or more of the teams could not continue as going concerns without a salary cap.  If you look around the league today, there's no reason to believe that was bluster. 

 

I don't know that they 'knew' this.  And indeed the front-loaded contracts were a bit of a work-around.  What happens is that players so often re-up with their own teams because other teams can't offer the same kind of contract without upsetting their team's applecart.  Rare is the team that leaves room for a superstar player without having a big contract depart themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know that they 'knew' this. And indeed the front-loaded contracts were a bit of a work-around. What happens is that players so often re-up with their own teams because other teams can't offer the same kind of contract without upsetting their team's applecart. Rare is the team that leaves room for a superstar player without having a big contract depart themselves.

don't want to devolve this into a parise thread, but it would be real interesting to see how that offseason would have went league wide under this cba.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

don't want to devolve this into a parise thread, but it would be real interesting to see how that offseason would have went league wide under this cba.

Under this CBA, Parise would still be a Devil. No question about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Under this CBA, Parise would still be a Devil. No question about it.

extremely debatable, i don't agree. 

 

I really believe Parise left not because of the money, but because he wanted to play back in Minnesota

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

extremely debatable, i don't agree.

I really believe Parise left not because of the money, but because he wanted to play back in Minnesota

I actually agree with you about that. Which is why I say he'd still be a Devil- because under this CBA, the Devils could offer him the most money and term. This CBA is set up to help teams keep their best players. If we were playing by the current rules in the summer of 2012, Zach stays on an 8-year $50 mil (give or take a dollar here or there) extension.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While it's still a moot point right now, if the current CBA was in place back in the summer of 2012, I would say it's still at best a 50/50 chance he would have stayed.  Parise really wanted to play with his boytoy Suter and they even structured their deals to make sure they get the same.  I would imagine they would have worked something out with Minn to get 7-year matching deals as well.

 

But again this is a moot point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While it's still a moot point right now, if the current CBA was in place back in the summer of 2012, I would say it's still at best a 50/50 chance he would have stayed.  Parise really wanted to play with his boytoy Suter and they even structured their deals to make sure they get the same.  I would imagine they would have worked something out with Minn to get 7-year matching deals as well.

 

But again this is a moot point.

 

The difference is that he probably would have been traded.  The limit on years give a team some amount of certainty as to whether they can re-sign a player.  You know you can outbid everyone else.  If the player still says no, you know he wants to play elsewhere. 

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