dmann422 Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 $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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RizzMB30 Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jagknife Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek21 Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek21 Posted July 27, 2014 Share Posted July 27, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devilsrule33 Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RizzMB30 Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derlique Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devilsrule33 Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmann422 Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadDog2020 Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Onddeck Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadDog2020 Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DevsMan84 Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DevsMan84 Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 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. Possibly but just maybe. Devils were hot going into the trade deadline and remained pretty hot until the SCF. Doubt they would have traded him when they had a shot at winning the cup that year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devilsfan118 Posted July 28, 2014 Author Share Posted July 28, 2014 Possibly but just maybe. Devils were hot going into the trade deadline and remained pretty hot until the SCF. Doubt they would have traded him when they had a shot at winning the cup that year. Think about it though - no one was talking about the Cup that year at the trade deadline. And what did Kovy fetch a few seasons prior? A 1st, B-level prospect, and a roster player? I'd have happily parted ways with him if he hadn't already signed an extension under this CBA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DevsMan84 Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 Think about it though - no one was talking about the Cup that year at the trade deadline. And what did Kovy fetch a few seasons prior? A 1st, B-level prospect, and a roster player? I'd have happily parted ways with him if he hadn't already signed an extension under this CBA. And out of those which is still on Atlanta/Winnipeg? Just that 1st in a way by that was used as part of the big trade that included Byfuglien. I think NJ got the better of that deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadDog2020 Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 And out of those which is still on Atlanta/Winnipeg? Just that 1st in a way by that was used as part of the big trade that included Byfuglien. I think NJ got the better of that deal. I actually think Cormier is still in the Winnipeg organization, surprisingly enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek21 Posted July 28, 2014 Share Posted July 28, 2014 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. I wouldn't have given him 5 years. More like 3. Brassard has yet to produce 20 goals or 50 points in a season. His possession time was 53.5 percent. Right in line with Zuccarello (53.8) and Pouliot (55.1). The quality of competition should be tougher for Brass and Zucc on the second line. I wouldn't necessarily call him a soft minute scorer. He'll get his nose dirty. He's been a solid performer the last two postseasons. Now that he's got his contract, there'll be more pressure to perform consistently. 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.