MadDog2020 Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 (edited) So, I've asked you to name them and all you have come up with is Gomez. Richards and Redden were compliance, which everyone had with the new CBA. Drury was an injury. They are never as bad as everyone claims because the only people who think they have serious cap issues are the people on this site. This year, you can say they had issues as it was obvious they could not sign all 4 RFA's, so they made a trade. Yup, guess Anaheim bailed them out. I see Kreider and Hayes have come up, so I am sure you are excited for next season. You probably don't realize Dan Boyle will come off the books, which is $4.5MM, they'll get about $2.5MM if Yandle is not re-signed. So, when they can then easily sign Kreider and Hayes, are you going to cry about them being bailed out again? Yes they can, 2001 called, they want their excuse back. Yes, it was a 3-year experiment. Supposedly, they may have a vote on LV and QC in September, so I think a lot will hinge on that and any re-alignment won't actually happen until those teams start playing. IMO, if in September they vote to add the teams, add them next season and bang it all out together. They got out of the deals, didn't they? Their cap wasn't negatively affected in the long term, was it? Their cap would've been negatively affected in the long term if they couldn't get out of said deals, wouldn't it? Bottom line is they got off the hook for every mistake they made, and haven't dealt with serious cap consequences for pretty much any of them. I guess I should partially retract what I said about never losing players they don't want to, you guys are right that they most likely preferred to keep Hagelin. Edited July 30, 2015 by MadDog2020 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Yep. You can pretty much count on it. The compliance buyouts were introduced at a very convenient time for some teams. But I'm sure that's just a coincidence. [emoji57] That was the idea. The cap dropped 6 million dollars between 2012-13 and 2013-14, and they got rid of the ability to bury salary in the minors. There were going to have to be compliance buyouts for it to make any sense, it was just a question whether there would be 1 or 2, and enough teams pushed for 2 that they went with 2. Another dumb deal the Rangers got out of was the Brashear deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jagknife Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 Yes, it was a 3-year experiment. Supposedly, they may have a vote on LV and QC in September, so I think a lot will hinge on that and any re-alignment won't actually happen until those teams start playing. IMO, if in September they vote to add the teams, add them next season and bang it all out together. Thought so, I hope they at least change the playoff format. The whole 3 teams per "division" make it and the last two are up to WC bothers me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satans Hockey Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 Thought so, I hope they at least change the playoff format. The whole 3 teams per "division" make it and the last two are up to WC bothers me I wish they would go back to seeding of 1 to 8. I hate the divisional playoff because it takes away the advantage of playing lower seeds throughout the playoffs if you're a high seed. The NHL always seems like out of the top 4 leagues that they mess with rules and changes the most. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeski Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 The NHL always seems like out of the top 4 leagues that they mess with rules and changes the most. YES. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
njdevsftw Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 (edited) Wow. The Voracek deal seems a bit crazy. Edited July 31, 2015 by njdevsftw Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadDog2020 Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 Wow. The Voracek deal seems a bit crazy.8 for 66 does seem excessive, but Philly really had no choice if they wanted to keep him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJDevs4978 Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 (edited) So, I've asked you to name them and all you have come up with is Gomez. Richards and Redden were compliance, which everyone had with the new CBA. Drury was an injury. They are never as bad as everyone claims because the only people who think they have serious cap issues are the people on this site. This year, you can say they had issues as it was obvious they could not sign all 4 RFA's, so they made a trade. Yup, guess Anaheim bailed them out. Redden was also off their cap for YEARS in the minors before the compliance ever came to play. They also managed to flip Gaborik and his big contract only to replace him with Nash and his big contract, and they'll probably flip him and sign some other big contract. Holik's another big contract that magically was able to be bought out at the right time after lockout #2 with a 39 million cap Edited July 31, 2015 by NJDevs4978 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJ Eco Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 (edited) They got out of the deals, didn't they? Their cap wasn't negatively affected in the long term, was it? Their cap would've been negatively affected in the long term if they couldn't get out of said deals, wouldn't it? Bottom line is they got off the hook for every mistake they made, and haven't dealt with serious cap consequences for pretty much any of them. I guess I should partially retract what I said about never losing players they don't want to, you guys are right that they most likely preferred to keep Hagelin. To be fair to both sides, we (the Devils) are not without our own fault or shadiness either. Didn't Lou invent the whole "trading an injured player/dead contract" scheme. I forgot who the player was (was it Malakhov?) but Lou was one of the first. Also, the Kovalchuk debacle will go down in history as probably the only situation of its kind. Until a full tell-all report is written by Lou one day that tells me otherwise, til the day I die I will believe that it wasn't Kovalchuk's decision to leave the Devils for the KHL. At the time, I remember most of the league's fans reacting in our favor, like "Damn, Devils got screwed," or "Good riddance, have fun in the KHL!" or stuff like that. But if I were an opposing fan (and now looking back), I'd be way more skeptical. I have no doubt there was a 10 person meeting at the NHL offices between Bettman, Vanderbeek, Lou, and the owners, and the Kovalchuk scenario was drawn up there to facilitate the sale of the organization to Harris & co. We'll never know how close to the brink Vanderbeek pushed us to financially/ownership-wise, because of that meeting and because of what Kovalchuk did. If I WERE a Rangers or Flyers fan, this would piss me off. Edited July 31, 2015 by DJ Eco Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DevsMan84 Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 To be fair to both sides, we (the Devils) are not without our own fault or shadiness either. Didn't Lou invent the whole "trading an injured player/dead contract" scheme. I forgot who the player was (was it Malakhov?) but Lou was one of the first. Also, the Kovalchuk debacle will go down in history as probably the only situation of its kind. Until a full tell-all report is written by Lou one day that tells me otherwise, til the day I die I will believe that it wasn't Kovalchuk's decision to leave the Devils for the KHL. At the time, I remember most of the league's fans reacting in our favor, like "Damn, Devils got screwed," or "Good riddance, have fun in the KHL!" or stuff like that. But if I were an opposing fan (and now looking back), I'd be way more skeptical. I have no doubt there was a 10 person meeting at the NHL offices between Bettman, Vanderbeek, Lou, and the owners, and the Kovalchuk scenario was drawn up there to facilitate the sale of the organization to Harris & co. We'll never know how close to the brink Vanderbeek pushed us to financially/ownership-wise, because of that meeting and because of what Kovalchuk did. If I WERE a Rangers or Flyers fan, this would piss me off. Why would the new owners want to get rid of Kovy? Yeah his contract will be ugly towards the end, but for the next few years he is a marquee name, something we really haven't had the past couple of seasons outside of maybe a past-his-prime Jagr. I still think it was a case of Kovy wanting to have more money (less taxes and no escrow over there), playing in an easier league with less games and being home. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derlique Posted July 31, 2015 Author Share Posted July 31, 2015 Why would the new owners want to get rid of Kovy? Yeah his contract will be ugly towards the end, but for the next few years he is a marquee name, something we really haven't had the past couple of seasons outside of maybe a past-his-prime Jagr. I still think it was a case of Kovy wanting to have more money (less taxes and no escrow over there), playing in an easier league with less games and being home. 80 million (or whatever he had left) is still a huge financial commitment. I doubt that many more seats would be filled with Kovalchuk here. Attendance wasnt a disaster last year and it was a pretty ****** on-ice product Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lateralous Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 (edited) To be fair to both sides, we (the Devils) are not without our own fault or shadiness either. Didn't Lou invent the whole "trading an injured player/dead contract" scheme. I forgot who the player was (was it Malakhov?) but Lou was one of the first. Also, the Kovalchuk debacle will go down in history as probably the only situation of its kind. Until a full tell-all report is written by Lou one day that tells me otherwise, til the day I die I will believe that it wasn't Kovalchuk's decision to leave the Devils for the KHL. At the time, I remember most of the league's fans reacting in our favor, like "Damn, Devils got screwed," or "Good riddance, have fun in the KHL!" or stuff like that. But if I were an opposing fan (and now looking back), I'd be way more skeptical. I have no doubt there was a 10 person meeting at the NHL offices between Bettman, Vanderbeek, Lou, and the owners, and the Kovalchuk scenario was drawn up there to facilitate the sale of the organization to Harris & co. We'll never know how close to the brink Vanderbeek pushed us to financially/ownership-wise, because of that meeting and because of what Kovalchuk did. If I WERE a Rangers or Flyers fan, this would piss me off. I'm not sure it was that much of a conspiracy. I seem to remember Kovy was making a lot of noise during the last lockout about staying in Russia if the escrow got too big, etc. Frankly, I don't think Lou ever wanted that long term deal with Kovy, especially if you believe that it eventually cost him Parise. I think it was probably as simple as Lou saw the Kovys unhappiness as an opportunity to get out of a deal that he thought would hamstring the team long term. With JVBs financial troubles, the new recapture penalties and Kovys back issues, all items that were not as prevalent at the time the deal was signed, JVB probably had a change of heart about that contract as well. Edited July 31, 2015 by Lateralous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJ Eco Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 Why would the new owners want to get rid of Kovy? Yeah his contract will be ugly towards the end, but for the next few years he is a marquee name, something we really haven't had the past couple of seasons outside of maybe a past-his-prime Jagr. I don't think they were thinking in terms of individual players at the time, and I don't think the order came directly from them either. I think the owners were fine with purchasing the team at a very fair price and settling all of Vanderbeek's debt. But if you look at everything included in the deal as assets, the building and the property was a hugely appreciating asset. Kovalchuk's contract was what would quickly become a depreciating $90+ million asset. And I'd guess that caused some trepidation, and Lou came up with a plan. I'm sure Kovy did have some feelings of longing to go back to the KHL, and Lou played on those feelings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshall Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 Wow. The Voracek deal seems a bit crazy. Proven elite scorer who can do it on his own and only 25 and he'll be UFA in a year? That's the going rate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SterioDesign Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 Proven elite scorer who can do it on his own and only 25 and he'll be UFA in a year? That's the going rate. well elite scorer.... can we wait til he scores 25 goals at least before saying he's an elite scorer? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neb00rs Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 (edited) Wow. The Voracek deal seems a bit crazy. Standard contract in 2015 for a top FA forward entering his prime. Edited July 31, 2015 by Neb00rs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshall Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 well elite scorer.... can we wait til he scores 25 goals at least before saying he's an elite scorer? I meant pointscorer, not goalscorer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matteau#32 Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 They got out of the deals, didn't they? Their cap wasn't negatively affected in the long term, was it? Their cap would've been negatively affected in the long term if they couldn't get out of said deals, wouldn't it? Bottom line is they got off the hook for every mistake they made, and haven't dealt with serious cap consequences for pretty much any of them. I guess I should partially retract what I said about never losing players they don't want to, you guys are right that they most likely preferred to keep Hagelin. Something EVERY team was allowed to do. How can they lower the salary cap as much as they did and then tell team they are stuck with what they had. 1/2 the league would have been screwed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matteau#32 Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 Redden was also off their cap for YEARS in the minors before the compliance ever came to play. They also managed to flip Gaborik and his big contract only to replace him with Nash and his big contract, and they'll probably flip him and sign some other big contract. Holik's another big contract that magically was able to be bought out at the right time after lockout #2 with a 39 million cap Redden was not the only player buried in the minors by their team at the time. As for Holik, the contract was signed before there was a salary cap (and the Devils had offered him almost as much money). Again, how could they impose the cap and tell the teams they were stuck with what they had? Most teams would not have been able to even have 20 players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matteau#32 Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 I wish they would go back to seeding of 1 to 8. I hate the divisional playoff because it takes away the advantage of playing lower seeds throughout the playoffs if you're a high seed. The NHL always seems like out of the top 4 leagues that they mess with rules and changes the most. Look at the standings. This year, Eastern Conference would have matched up exactly as it did in each round. Last year, only difference was in the 3-6; 4-5 match-up. Rangers would have played Montreal in first round and Flyers would have played Tampa. Thought so, I hope they at least change the playoff format. The whole 3 teams per "division" make it and the last two are up to WC bothers me I love the divisional play-offs, but would rather just go back to top-4 per division. You finish 5th with a better record than another 4th place team? Too bad. Rangers got screwed by it in 88, but benefitted in 85. In a few years, the 3rd place team in the Smythe had a better record than the division champ in the norris. Too bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 I wish they would go back to seeding of 1 to 8. I hate the divisional playoff because it takes away the advantage of playing lower seeds throughout the playoffs if you're a high seed. The NHL always seems like out of the top 4 leagues that they mess with rules and changes the most. This really wasn't that big an advantage. It used to be when the league was 21 teams, but with 30 teams and how evenly matched things are, it's really just luck what your matchups turn out to be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadDog2020 Posted August 6, 2015 Share Posted August 6, 2015 (edited) Well apparently, Patrick Kane is the subject of a police investigation: http://deadspin.com/report-patrick-kane-is-the-subject-of-a-police-investi-1722435625?utm_campaign=socialflow_deadspin_facebook&utm_source=deadspin_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow Edited August 6, 2015 by MadDog2020 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neb00rs Posted August 6, 2015 Share Posted August 6, 2015 Well apparently, Patrick Kane is the subject of a police investigation: http://deadspin.com/report-patrick-kane-is-the-subject-of-a-police-investi-1722435625?utm_campaign=socialflow_deadspin_facebook&utm_source=deadspin_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow Update, 10:28 a.m.: WKBW-TV in Buffalo cites sources claiming police are “investigating an alleged incident involving...Kane and a woman that began at a bar in Evans.” I am astonished. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadDog2020 Posted August 6, 2015 Share Posted August 6, 2015 I am astonished.I know, shocking right? [emoji57] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DevsMan84 Posted August 6, 2015 Share Posted August 6, 2015 Tim Graham of the Buffalo News is saying it's a rape investigation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.