Z-Man Posted August 13, 2004 Share Posted August 13, 2004 (edited) This is amazing. 21 players currently under contract: $50,897,398.00 Add in Nieds estimated arbitration award of $7-9 million, along with the "alleged" signing of Brylin, and that pushes the payroll to about $60 million for 23 players. Oh yeah, we still need to sign a backup goalie. Why do I get a bad feeling they'll be some kind of 1997 Florida Marlins-type fire sale when the new CBA is signed? Edited August 13, 2004 by Z-Man Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJDevs4978 Posted August 13, 2004 Share Posted August 13, 2004 Let's not get melodramatic here (as this board's prone to do sometimes ). Lou's a lot of things but idiot isn't one of them. This spending spree this offseason is certainly atypical, but I have to believe he isn't spending any more than he's been authorized to spend. And I just cannot picture, under any circumstances - A) a $30 million HARD cap that the team has to be under before the next season, and B) Lou getting caught with his pants down having $30 million of payroll he can't move. Seriously, if the Devils did get down to a close enough payroll to the cap number and then it turned out there was no cap or a much higher cap than Bettman's been ranting about, everyone'd be screaming and hollering about that, and rightly so. As for the owner, I don't know 'how' rich he is but I do know he's a fan of the team and he's apparently willing to take a short-term loss until the Newark move so let's leave it at that for now and just thank goodness we're not the Nets Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice Man Posted August 13, 2004 Share Posted August 13, 2004 Just like the new owner of the Nets took care of that team. The amazing thing is the payroll is as high as it is so far and they still don't have a high talented offense. The $60 M plus includes Stevens' number so if he doesn't come back maybe that gets reduced. The real queston is how are season ticket sales going for the Devils, up or down? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#32 Posted August 13, 2004 Share Posted August 13, 2004 I would hardly take comfort if Lou's been given the green light to escalate payroll. Just because the new owner feels that he can afford a big payroll doesn't mean that he can. It's not uncommon in sports (especially hockey) for a new owner to come in, spend millions more in payroll, then realize it was not a fiscally sound move and have a firesale or sell the team. And no owner in their right mind would willing take a loss until a Newark arena happens when that is at least 4 years away and still not even a certainty. I don't have an apocalyptic outlook, but there certainly doesn't appear to be a silver lining to the payroll issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lateralous Posted August 13, 2004 Share Posted August 13, 2004 (edited) When Lou originally made qualifying offer to Kozlov, Friesen, etc. he mentioned that they would not start the season with that high of a payroll, but that he was simply protecting the teams assets. He also mentioned that he knows there are takers for all of the guys he's signed. We will probably see a few of the guys that we signed get "dumped", but even if it is just for 2nd round draft picks, it's better than nothing. Besides, Conte is pretty good at turning those late picks into good NHL players. My other theory is that Lou may know that this is the last year where we will have 3 hall of fame players in the line up for the foreseeable future. He may be gearing up for one more big run at the cup before we have to do some retooling. For all the talk about the system, IMO it is the big 3 in the back that makes us a legitimate cup contender every year as opposed to a good team like St Louis that never makes it past the 2nd round. Lou and Conte are very good at replenishing our system with good players late in the draft every year, but getting players the level of Stevens, Brodeur and Nieds is a different story. Edited August 13, 2004 by PhillyDevil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted August 13, 2004 Share Posted August 13, 2004 (edited) PhillyDevil's got it. With a new CBA that lowers UFA age, Friesen, Kozlov, Niedermayer, Rafalski, and Stevens are UFAs. That's 24 million off the books, if Lou chooses to drop Niedermayer and Rafalski. No one has been able to answer this question: if the owners lock out the players for a full season, do their contracts still elapse as though there was a season, or no? Edited August 13, 2004 by Triumph Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insanity_gallops Posted August 13, 2004 Share Posted August 13, 2004 It was my understanding that, unless there was a certain clause put into the contract specifically addressing the potential lockout situation, that the players' contracts would still take into account this upcoming season - even if no hockey was played. Similarly, except in certain contracts where players are guaranteed otherwise (Niedermayer contract rumors), players will not receive any money from their contracts this year if there is no season. Then again, I could be entirely incorrect on this... in which case I'd love some clarification. 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.