Don Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 After tonight, he's probably REGRETTING signing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Succubus Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 After tonight, he's probably REGRETTING signing. lol, he looked pissed after a few of the goals. But of course I'm estatic he'll be in NJ until he retires. Don't be a contrarian! Everyone loves Marty! Jump on the bandwagon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucifersDog Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 6 years too bad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 In the regular season, you can have Patrick Lalime in net and do fine. But in the playoffs, you've got to have that elite-level goaltender or you're finished. Devils got an outstanding deal for Brodeur - every other top level goaltender is paid more. Brodeur will retire a Devil and will retire as one of the top 5 greatest goaltenders of all time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
njdevils2003champs Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 (edited) So in the future, we'll see 4, 3, and 30 hanging from the Newark Arena Edited January 28, 2006 by njdevils2003champs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SueNJ97 Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 My point is that even an all-world goalie is not worth more than $4 million a year, Marty got more because of his history with the organization. First, you have to think about what the salary cap is going to be from year to year. If it actually goes up a couple of million per year, in the end, Marty will wind up being under-paid, because salaries for "all-world" goalies will rise. If it goes down, he's going to give some of that money back through escrow anyway. Second, with other goalies, including those who make more, you are paying them 80% of their salary and their agent 20%. So, with Turco, who signed for $5.7M per year, he'll actually get less than $4.6M of that per year. The rest goes to the agent. That's part of why salaries go up so much, to cover the agent's fee. With Marty, you're paying him his salary (well, then there is escrow, taxes and alimony payments to Melanie, etc). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SC Devs Fan Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 Whew! His will make him easier to trade. Just kidding. Only superstar we've ever drafted. Glad he's staying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voros19 Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 (edited) nvmd Edited January 28, 2006 by Voros19 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MantaRay Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 All I am saying is that I think Marty got a very good deal, but I don't see any team that is serious about winning signing a goalie for more the that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 All I am saying is that I think Marty got a very good deal, but I don't see any team that is serious about winning signing a goalie for more the that. Not only is this blatantly false, but any team that wants to win has to sign a goalie for at least this much or find one in their minor league system or someone else's. We got the best one for the least price. Some teams are doing well with unknown goalies - those guys will eventually be paid Marty money if they're any good. There are only 4 active goalies (excluding Brodeur) with Stanley Cup championships - and guess what, 3 of them were brought in at a high price by the eventual Cup winner (Belfour, Hasek, Khabibulin), and the other one is Chris Osgood. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucifersDog Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 I like the fact that Marty's new contract eliminated the "no trade" condition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 I like the fact that Marty's new contract eliminated the "no trade" condition. What are you talking about? He has a clear no-trade clause. Too bad the Devils keep winning, eh GetReal? Are you going to Stevens' jersey retirement? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MantaRay Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 Not only is this blatantly false, but any team that wants to win has to sign a goalie for at least this much or find one in their minor league system or someone else's. We got the best one for the least price.Some teams are doing well with unknown goalies - those guys will eventually be paid Marty money if they're any good. There are only 4 active goalies (excluding Brodeur) with Stanley Cup championships - and guess what, 3 of them were brought in at a high price by the eventual Cup winner (Belfour, Hasek, Khabibulin), and the other one is Chris Osgood. Yes, like Khabibulan, Theodore, Raycroft, Etc. Sorry, but I no longer see this as the case. As I said, no team that is serious about winning is going to destroy their cap money on one player-especially a goalie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LizDevil30 Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 What are you talking about? He has a clear no-trade clause.Too bad the Devils keep winning, eh GetReal? Are you going to Stevens' jersey retirement? There was one article, I think on TSN, that said there wasn't a no trade clause. But ALL the other articles said there was. I highly doubt Marty would've signed long term without one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucifersDog Posted January 29, 2006 Share Posted January 29, 2006 http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story/?ID=152546&hubname= The contract will pay Brodeur $5.2 million a year starting next season but does not include a no-trade clause. He'll be 40 years old at the end of the new deal following the 2011-12 season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyDevil86 Posted January 29, 2006 Share Posted January 29, 2006 There was one article, I think on TSN, that said there wasn't a no trade clause. But ALL the other articles said there was. I highly doubt Marty would've signed long term without one. The article in the Bergen record said that the contract included a no-trade clause. Personally I think that it does include a no-trade clause because Marty wants to stay here, he signed this long-term deal and everyone knows that his kids are here in Jersey. 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.