Jump to content

Parise update: Team-elected arbitration looking likely


ghdi

Recommended Posts

Niedermayer

The Devils couldn't offer him a long-term deal going into the lockout, and then they offered him a maximum deal coming out of the lockout.

Rafalski

The Devils kept Rafalski as a UFA twice, and lost him once.

Gomez because of free-agency, and correct me if I'm wrong but Gomez was an RFA the year prior and we missed the chance at locking him up long term and took him to arbitration.

And? Would you really want to have Scott Gomez on a long-term deal at 6M per? So, yes, the Devils 'lost' Gomez, but they appear to have made the right decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought after the Kovi contract max deals could only be up to 6 years. Is that wrong?

Uh... yeah..

Actually that is incorrect deals can be longer than 6 years but here are the stipulations regarding said deals:

1. While players and clubs can continue to negotiate long-term contracts (five years or longer) that include contract years in a player's 40s, for purposes of salary-cap calculation the contract will effectively be cut off in the year of the contract in which the player turns 41.

This basically means that if a 33-year-old player signs an eight-year contract, the amount owed to him in the first seven years of the contract will be averaged for the purposes of salary-cap computation. Then, in Year 8 of the contract, the salary he will make for that particular season will determine his salary-cap hit for that season.

So, if Kovalchuk's contract applied to this rule, the average of what he's owed in the first 13 years would be applied to the Devils salary cap from 2010-2023 and the cap hit would be $7.15 million because he is reportedly due to make $93 million across that span. Then, per the reported terms, the cap hit would change to $3 million in 2023-24 (as Kovalchuk turns 41 in April of that season) and $4 million in 2024-25.

2. In any long-term contract that averages more than $5.75 million for the three highest-compensation seasons, the cap charge will be a minimum of $1 million for every season in which the player is 36-39 years of age. That $1 million value will then be used to determine the salary cap hit for the entire contract. If the contract takes the player into his 40s, the previous rule goes into effect.

For example, Savard's contract reportedly calls for him to make $525,000 per season in the final two years of his seven-year, $28 million deal. He will be 38 and 39 in those seasons. If his contract was subject to these new regulations, for purposes of calculating the salary cap the final two years on his deal will reflect as if he was making $1 million. That would make his reported $4 million cap hit go up to $4.14 million.

The club and player still can agree to a contract that pays a player less than $1 million when he is at those ages, but for salary-cap purposes the number applied to the team's annual average salary will be $1 million.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Lou fvck this up, well im not too sure what i would do but it would surely not be an happy thing or something i would want my kids to do

i dont buy the "waiting for the cap announcement" thing, sure it could be a problem for next season but hey in 2013 we have about 17millions coming off the book and not too many players to resign then (Palmieri, Brodeur maybe, pelley, white, salvador, fayne,backup goalie)... why cant they just built a contract with a structure that the first year is something they can afford that year and adjust the rest of the contract with something fair to Zach

While i understand that there's a lot going on... Lou had all season long and a long time from the end of the season now and havent even started the discussions. its one thing to wait til last minute to pull a move, i guess there's a reason but why can't he just reach and let Zach and his agents know what his plans are... he's leaving them in the dark waiting now why on hell can't he just give them a little information on why he's waiting or his plan.

Lou is seriously pissing me off

Link to comment
Share on other sites

colin white. david clarkson. paul martin was signed through 1 year of UFA, so was brian gionta. the devils haven't had a contract end before ufa like this in a long time.

i don't think he can accept his QO if the devils elect for arbitration.

I was suspicious about White that he may have been re-upped, but the other ones were "second contracts", no? I don't consider those to be the same thing, like Zajac. I'm talking about the "one year squeeze play" where the player goes RFA and then immediately UFA, they never seem to clean up that mess in the RFA year. They let it play out.

as for taking the QO and running, I meant if they *didn't* offer arbitration and he went RFA.

Edited by maxpower
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was suspicious about White that he may have been re-upped, but the other ones were "second contracts", no? I don't consider those to be the same thing, like Zajac. I'm talking about the "one year squeeze play" where the player goes RFA and then immediately UFA, they never seem to clean up that mess in the RFA year. They let it play out.

I just gave you two examples and you're going to tell me they never do it. I can give you two examples where they didn't - Holik and Gomez. Both of whom went for the money and both of whom probably regret it at least somewhat (although Holik's neural net processor would never let him feel regret), and both of whom you don't really have any idea whether they discussed a long-term deal before it went to that point. My point wrt Gionta and Martin is that neither were in a situation where they had one year of RFA left, like you are mentioning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just gave you two examples and you're going to tell me they never do it. I can give you two examples where they didn't - Holik and Gomez. Both of whom went for the money and both of whom probably regret it at least somewhat (although Holik's neural net processor would never let him feel regret), and both of whom you don't really have any idea whether they discussed a long-term deal before it went to that point. My point wrt Gionta and Martin is that neither were in a situation where they had one year of RFA left, like you are mentioning.

Paul Martin go UFA in 2008 or 2009 without that contract? If it's 2008, yeah, then that was someone who was re-upped. Gio's situation I don't remember, I thought that was the one where they let him float in RFA because they couldn't book him on the cap.

Either way, neither of them were taken to arbitration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul Martin go UFA in 2008 or 2009 without that contract? If it's 2008, yeah, then that was someone who was re-upped. Gio's situation I don't remember, I thought that was the one where they let him float in RFA because they couldn't book him on the cap.

Either way, neither of them were taken to arbitration.

2008. gionta would have also been UFA in 2008. gionta signed for 3 years and martin signed for 4 - gionta gave up 1 year, martin 2.

Edited by Triumph
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well boss I realized that you were saying he was wrong and I was just giving him the explanation so relax a little bit

That's really what I was looking for, so I appreciate the explanation. It's amazing how easy it is for some to use sarcasm hiding behind their keyboard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still trying to figure out why this is news? What exactly changed in the last 2 weeks since the last TG post that there was no contract negotiations on going?

Did anyone else seriously think that a deal would be done prior to the draft? Did anyone else think that Lou wouldn't elect to choose arbitration so Zach cant get offers? Again, there is a fairly long window after the draft and probably after the coaching decision is made where the 2 sides can have their full attention to the negotiations and get a deal done. This is how I saw it since the end of the season. Not sure why everyone is concerned Zach would take it as a slight. His dad was in the nhl, I'm sure he's known there is a business side to this game since he was 10 years old. If he was truly concerned that he is being overlooked. He or his agent could get in touch with Lou and ask. Every quote I've seen he's said he wants to be on this team and thinks the team wants him as well. He's not disappointed and that he understands so why the big fuss.

Now. A week before the arbitration date and they haven't started talking, I'll get concerned.

Other than Nieds(and possibly Rafalski), Lou signs who he really wants to sign.

I know it's all new with all the instant news with twitter and blogs and such, but I still like the fact that Lou holds his cards close to his vest. Of course as a fan I'd like to know ever single detail of whats going on, but that's not how you should run a franchise. I also prefer hearing status quo then misinformation.

Maybe it's just me though. I would think if you have been a fan of this team for more then a couple years, you would be used to it by now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just read two articles on Parise. Both were well done.

http://www.dekingdevils.com/20110611-devils-will-file-arbitration-for-parise/ This one is a quick blog giving his thoughts on the situation.

http://sportshaze.com/new-york-city/new-jersey-devils/2011-nhl-rumors-new-jersey-devils-expected-to-take-zach-parise-to-arbitration-3989 this one goes more in depth on the situation

I highly recommend you read both.

I just want Parise to be locked up for a long time. Hopefully this doesn't turn into the Kovalchuk sage 2.0

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not going to go crazy yet, but it will be pathetic if a team with the means to keep Parise, a star, loses him. Teams like Nashville lose players like Parise in the prime of their career. NJ shouldn't ... unless there's some brother we don't know about who Parise wants to play with. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not going to go crazy yet, but it will be pathetic if a team with the means to keep Parise, a star, loses him. Teams like Nashville lose players like Parise in the prime of their career. NJ shouldn't ... unless there's some brother we don't know about who Parise wants to play with. :D

scary enough Zach have a brother in the Rangers system lol

Edited by SterioDesign
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought he was a goalie in the devils system?

Jordan was in the Devils' system, we let him loose cause he underperformed consistently. They picked him up, but last I remember they let him go too...

EDIT: Parise was signed in the KHL before getting his tryout with the Rangers, that's the last I could find in my 30 seconds of pretending to care.

Edited by jagknife
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jordan was in the Devils' system, we let him loose cause he underperformed consistently. They picked him up, but last I remember they let him go too...

EDIT: Parise was signed in the KHL before getting his tryout with the Rangers, that's the last I could find in my 30 seconds of pretending to care.

Jordan Parise played last season for Lørenskog in Norway. The year before he split time for Klagenfurter AC in Austria and the Wheeling Nailers in the ECHL. Prior to that he spent the year playing for EC Salzburg in Austria. Seems to be carving out a decent career overseas.

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.