jagknife Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 9 years/ $6.5m AAV Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RSC Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 Unsurprised. Can't wait for his game to go to hell and for us to be laughing at the Rangers again! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SterioDesign Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 expensive for a guy who never scored 30 goals in 11 seasons... but not as expensive as i thought it could be Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jagknife Posted July 2, 2011 Author Share Posted July 2, 2011 Kyperos says Richards left money on the table to sign on Broadway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 expensive for a guy who never scored 30 goals in 11 seasons... but not as expensive as i thought it could be I'm going to guess it was front loaded with small years at the end to lower the cap hit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mayday Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 Not horrible if he can put up 90 points...we'll see if he can break the curse Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 Nick Kypreos @RealKyper #NHL news. Front loaded money Richards should make 50M in first 5 yrs in New York. Big price as #Rangers win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJDevs4978 Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 Nick Kypreos@RealKyper #NHL news. Front loaded money Richards should make 50M in first 5 yrs in New York. Big price as #Rangers win. lol what a shock, $50 million out of $58.5 million before the last four years. So it's a 5-50 (10) masquerading as a 9-58.5 (6.5) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadDog2020 Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 Hopefully, it turns out to be the worst decision of his career. lol what a shock, $50 million out of $58.5 million before the last four years. So it's a 5-50 (10) masquerading as a 9-58.5 (6.5) Right. Think the league will say anything? Nah, it's not the Devils. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Random Poster Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 Kyperos says Richards left money on the table to sign on Broadway. The worst kept secret in the league came to fruition today. He was always going to go sign with the Rangers. He had nothing to lose by dragging it out a day and see who threw him what and if the Rangers would blink. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadDog2020 Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 Kyperos says Richards left money on the table to sign on Broadway. He left future Stanley Cups on the table too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 Right. Think the league will say anything? Nah, it's not the Devils. It fits within the explicit guidelines. If the leagues voids the contract they'll lose in arbitration and the contract will happen anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msweet Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 http://spectorshockey.net/wordpress/2011/07/02/richards-signs-with-rangers/ Various sources today report Brad Richards has signed a nine-year deal worth $6.5 million per season average salary with the New York Rangers. SPECTOR’S NOTE: The deal is believed worth a total of $58.5 million, and Nick Kypreos reports it is heavily front-loaded, with Richards making $50 million in the first five years. Ultimately, I’m not surprised that he chose the Rangers, and it is certainly a cap friendly deal for the Rangers, as there were some estimates he could go as high as $8 million per season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msweet Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 Larry Brooks not happy http://twitter.com/#!/NYP_Brooksie Rangers did exactly what they said they wouldn't do, get into a bidding war and give an excessive deal. Rangers should have approx $3.5M of space after signing their Group II's... For a a very good player who has never quite been in the spotlight, the heat will be on Brad Richards in NY, that's for sure... Deal is 9/$58.5 M Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RSC Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 Right. Think the league will say anything? Nah, it's not the Devils. Imagine the sh!tstorm Bettman would cause if we had signed Richards to a contract like this the year after the Kovalchuk saga? But it's cool, it brings another Original 6 team *this* much closer to a Cup. Fvck the "rules" (what those are, only the NHL truly knows, anyway). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJDevs4978 Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 (edited) He left future Stanley Cups on the table too. And the Ranger cycle of life continues, sign the biggest name of UFA, then trade/buyout/send said UFA to the minors after two years to make room for the next big UFA. It fits within the explicit guidelines. If the leagues voids the contract they'll lose in arbitration and the contract will happen anyway. And what were the 'guidelines' before the Kovy contract? Luongo could be signed till he was 43 but Kovy couldn't till he was 44, so that extra one year was worth a first, third and $3 million? Please. Edited July 2, 2011 by NJDevs4978 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jagknife Posted July 2, 2011 Author Share Posted July 2, 2011 I'm just wondering, are we really going to go down the path and become on-par with Red Sox fans pre-2004 where we seriously cry about every other deal out there just because we were the first team [and only] team the league went to war about? We played by the rules the league had set forth, they decided it wasn't fair anymore, we got burned [albeit unjustly] and now other teams are playing by the new rules and aren't getting penalized for following the rules. Yeah, I'm pissed that we got fleeced by the League and the arbitration-cherede, but when are we really going to stop buying stock into Kleenex for it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJDevs4978 Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 (edited) I'm just wondering, are we really going to go down the path and become on-par with Red Sox fans pre-2004 where we seriously cry about every other deal out there just because we were the first team [and only] team the league went to war about? We played by the rules the league had set forth, they decided it wasn't fair anymore, we got burned [albeit unjustly] and now other teams are playing by the new rules and aren't getting penalized for following the rules. Yeah, I'm pissed that we got fleeced by the League and the arbitration-cherede, but when are we really going to stop buying stock into Kleenex for it? Either after the next team gets punished for violating 'the spirit' of the CBA (not an actual rule mind you, just the 'spirit' of the rule) or after the ridonkulous front loading gets curtailed in the next CBA. Edited July 2, 2011 by NJDevs4978 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 And what were the 'guidelines' before the Kovy contract? Luongo could be signed till he was 43 but Kovy couldn't till he was 44, so that extra one year was worth a first, third and $3 million? Please. Exactly, there weren't specific guidelines. There are now. Are you saying the league would win a case to void this contract? I say there is extremely little chance the NHL could win voiding it because it fits within the new, well defined, guidelines. If the league can't win voiding the contract then there can be no punishment either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil Dan 56 Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 I'm just wondering, are we really going to go down the path and become on-par with Red Sox fans pre-2004 where we seriously cry about every other deal out there just because we were the first team [and only] team the league went to war about? We played by the rules the league had set forth, they decided it wasn't fair anymore, we got burned [albeit unjustly] and now other teams are playing by the new rules and aren't getting penalized for following the rules. Yeah, I'm pissed that we got fleeced by the League and the arbitration-cherede, but when are we really going to stop buying stock into Kleenex for it? When other teams give up a 1st, 3rd, and pile of money too? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amberite Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 The deal is not signed or finalized yet. The numbers can still change, so lets all calm down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJDevs4978 Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 Exactly, there weren't specific guidelines. There are now. Are you saying the league would win a case to void this contract? I say there is extremely little chance the NHL could win voiding it because it fits within the new, well defined, guidelines. If the league can't win voiding the contract then there can be no punishment either. And when the rules get changed mid-stream it's fair to get punished so severely based on what the rules became after you got dragged into court? Or it's fair to be punished when even the arbitrator who ruled against us found no collusive evidence? Of course the contract's not going to get voided, the NHL isn't getting away with having a league-friendly arbitrator this time around. It's not even about the contract getting voided, it's about arbitrarily being punished so severely when every other team violates the 'spirit' of the rule too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 And when the rules get changed mid-stream it's fair to get punished so severely based on what the rules became after you got dragged into court? Or it's fair to be punished when even the arbitrator who ruled against us found no collusive evidence? Of course the contract's not going to get voided, the NHL isn't getting away with having a league-friendly arbitrator this time around. It's not even about the contract getting voided, it's about arbitrarily being punished so severely when every other team violates the 'spirit' of the rule too. 1) The Devils were punished under the original rules. 2) I think the Devils were punished too severly but they put themselves in that spot. 3) No arbitrator in the world would void this contract. The league explicitly stating that this type of contract is legal makes it within the spirit of the CBA. 4) You can't be punished if you didn't break a rule. No rule broken here so no punishment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pumpkin cutter Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 I like Brad, I don't think anyone else disagrees. I'm just hoping he doesn't turn into another ranger casualty.. Have the rangers ever signed a big name ufa that has been successful? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
halfsharkalligatorhalfman Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 This is a good signing at a reasonable cap hit. 6.5 million is Wade Redden's cap hit. I was hoping for more. 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.