Jump to content

Martin Brodeur - 2 years $9 million


Triumph

Recommended Posts

If Brodeur does go to another team, does Vanderbeek have enough $$$ to get the mural in the arena repainted?

He wont do that. If Marty left, he just doesnt finish his career here. There will still be #30 in the rafters and a Brodeur night once he retires.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He wont do that. If Marty left, he just doesnt finish his career here. There will still be #30 in the rafters and a Brodeur night once he retires.

I didn't mean he would repaint it out of spite but it would be really weird if Marty comes in as the away goalie and he's got a huge painting in the Devils arena.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I laugh at people who think Parise is irreplaceable. HE IS A BETTER VERSION OF BRIAN GIONTA WHO HAS NO WRIST SHOT. The team will survive if he leaves just like it did when we lost Holik, Gomez, Nieds, and Rafalkski.

I agree that he's not irreplaceable, but he's a big part of this team as it currently stands and we will not be as good without him unless we get someone else in here. Its a lot easier to swallow him leaving with Henrique and Kovy + we'll hopefully get Zajac locked up long term, because that dude is due for a raise next year.

That said, I dont think hes worth $8M a year, and if he walks because thats what he gets, we'll be better off in the long term. I really don't want us to go over $7M.

I didn't mean he would repaint it out of spite but it would be really weird if Marty comes in as the away goalie and he's got a huge painting in the Devils arena.

He will always be identified with this team, whether he finishes his career here or somewhere else. Michael Jordan has a friggin statue outside the United Center, yet played there with the Wizards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I laugh at people who think Parise is irreplaceable. HE IS A BETTER VERSION OF BRIAN GIONTA WHO HAS NO WRIST SHOT. The team will survive if he leaves just like it did when we lost Holik, Gomez, Nieds, and Rafalkski.

I don't think the pain of Parise's apparent departure will set in until Elias starts to fade. As of right now, we get a full year of Zajac at center and assuming Elias moves back to his natural position, we still have two of the top 10 LWs in the game and Henrique to fill the 2C spot.

As for Nieds, I would argue that a big part of our lack of playoff success up until this year was Lou's inability to adequately replace him for so many years. IMO, losing Parise falls somewhere in the middle of Nieds and the other three you listed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He will always be identified with this team, whether he finishes his career here or somewhere else. Michael Jordan has a friggin statue outside the United Center, yet played there with the Wizards.

Fair enough, I haven't watched the NBA since Petro died and the Nets got rid of Derrick Coleman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough, I haven't watched the NBA since Petro died and the Nets got rid of Derrick Coleman

Yea Im not much on the NBA at all, but its not a big deal if we have a tribute to Marty in the house and he goes somewhere else for a couple of years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They still have to spend around $9M counting whatever Gionta and Harrold got, so it ain't the money.

It could be the money if Marty wants 5-6 and Lou just doesnt want to give that to him. I think he wants more years than we're prepared to give + a raise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They still have to spend around $9M counting whatever Gionta and Harrold got, so it ain't the money.

Assuming Kovy/Elias on the left and Zajac/Henrique at center, hopefully a decent chunk of that is earmarked for a top 6 RW. I don't mind Zubrus as one of the top 6 but Clarkson needs to stay on the third line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It could be the money if Marty wants 5-6 and Lou just doesnt want to give that to him. I think he wants more years than we're prepared to give + a raise.

It's not the money. You're not getting it, they HAVE to spend this money on something. If they rolled snake-eyes on the FA market, they may HAVE to pay him something like that. Who else are you going to give the money to? It's floor psychology. If they miss on Parise and just decided to re-sign Marty and Bryce at similiar deals (to what they're making), they'd be 20 players at $54-55M. Considering anything else would be a fodder tackon, they'd pretty much be done.

Edited by maxpower
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not the money. You're not getting it, they HAVE to spend this money on something. If they rolled snake-eyes on the FA market, they may HAVE to pay him something like that. Who else are you going to give the money to? It's floor psychology. If they miss on Parise and just decided to re-sign Marty and Bryce at similiar deals (to what they're making), they'd be 20 players at $54-55M. Considering anything else would be a fodder tackon, they'd pretty much be done.

I already said this in the other thread, but anyone operating under the delusion that the floor will stay where it is deserves the bad contracts that will end up on their books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not the money. You're not getting it, they HAVE to spend this money on something. If they rolled snake-eyes on the FA market, they may HAVE to pay him something like that. Who else are you going to give the money to? It's floor psychology. If they miss on Parise and just decided to re-sign Marty and Bryce at similiar deals (to what they're making), they'd be 20 players at $54-55M. Considering anything else would be a fodder tackon, they'd pretty much be done.

I realize they need to make the floor, but they may not want to pay Marty that money.

So they just throw $5M-$6M at a 40 year old goaltender? They're obviously going with the idea that they're going to re-sign Zach. No need to throw money away now when nothing is certain with him. If Zach doesn't re-sign, then I can see Marty getting that sort of money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I already said this in the other thread, but anyone operating under the delusion that the floor will stay where it is deserves the bad contracts that will end up on their books.

If there's a rollback, the floor DOES stay where it is, you need to operate on the assumption that while the prices may change, the scale will stay the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there's a rollback, the floor DOES stay where it is, you need to operate on the assumption that while the prices may change, the scale will stay the same.

The floor is the biggest issue in the CBA for the owners. Look at how many teams are going to be at the cap this year - almost none. That's because teams are hitting their internal budgets. The league can't support a floor this high without significant revenue sharing. I don't think the cap will be touched - maybe it will be, but not significantly - and I doubt very much that there will be a rollback, the players are dead set against that.

Edited by Triumph
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The floor is the biggest issue in the CBA for the owners. Look at how many teams are going to be at the cap this year - almost none. That's because teams are hitting their internal budgets. The league can't support a floor this high without significant revenue sharing. I don't think the cap will be touched - maybe it will be, but not significantly - and I doubt very much that there will be a rollback, the players are dead set against that.

If there isn't a change the % paid to the players, where the rollback would come from, we're going to be waiting awhile for the season to start. With this system, by lowering the floor, don't you HAVE to change the % paid out? Otherwise you're still paying that money out through escrow at the end of the day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there isn't a change the % paid to the players, where the rollback would come from, we're going to be waiting awhile for the season to start. With this system, by lowering the floor, don't you HAVE to change the % paid out? Otherwise you're still paying that money out through escrow at the end of the day.

You can change the revenue split - obviously that's getting changed - but you could artificially keep the salary cap where it is and/or change the escrow system (or maybe even do away with it entirely). My point is that the floor and cap won't be $14M apart anymore, and it's best to operate as though that's the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can change the revenue split - obviously that's getting changed - but you could artificially keep the salary cap where it is and/or change the escrow system (or maybe even do away with it entirely). My point is that the floor and cap won't be $14M apart anymore, and it's best to operate as though that's the case.

The escrow system is NEEDED with linkage and more needed if they're going to play with the floor without moving the cap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The floor is the biggest issue in the CBA for the owners. Look at how many teams are going to be at the cap this year - almost none. That's because teams are hitting their internal budgets. The league can't support a floor this high without significant revenue sharing. I don't think the cap will be touched - maybe it will be, but not significantly - and I doubt very much that there will be a rollback, the players are dead set against that.

so do the owners want to make it so there is no cap floor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The owners would love that. The players not so much.

ok stupid question why would the players hate that, i mean cap floor or no cap floor players like crosby and parise are going to make there money. no disrespect to some players but some of them should not be making the money they are making, panthers over paid for a lot of there players last year to make the cap floor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok stupid question why would the players hate that, i mean cap floor or no cap floor players like crosby and parise are going to make there money. no disrespect to some players but some of them should not be making the money they are making, panthers over paid for a lot of there players last year to make the cap floor

You answered your own question with the last part of your post. Do you really think the union will agree to have the floor done away with completely when so many members of their constituency are being well overpaid for the purpose of reaching the floor? Of course not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You answered your own question with the last part of your post. Do you really think the union will agree to have the floor done away with completely when so many members of their constituency are being well overpaid for the purpose of reaching the floor? Of course not.

after i hit the reply button i realized that i did answer my own question

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.