Trevor Linden not optimisic

[jstewismybastardson]

see, i told you you'd have to word it better than i did haha.. it should be a mutual thing to restructure it.. if the flyers think timonen isn't worth the 6.5 mil anymore they cant just restructure for the sake of restructuring.. i guess what would make it work how i want it to is to allow players to initiate a restructuring to decrease the salary (cap hit), not owners.. i dont wanna see guys like timonen make less money just because.. he's playing in the NHL, why would he want a new contract?

that concept is strictly for the players (redden, souray, walker, shelley (please), i'm sure there are quite a few more) who are stuck in the AHL cause of their contract.. if given the option, i would think some of them would approach management and offer to restructure? if they dont want to and they're content playing in the AHL, then so be it.. if i were in their position though i would want to restructure

nope dont like the concept ... like i said, not fair to the players to have to reneg. a contract when they suck (or in a position of weakness) and not have the ability to reneg. when they are in a position of strength

as for the bold ... a mechanism exists for that ... thats what the buyout is for ... and Ill bet the agents of the players you listed called the players respective gms daily to ask them for a buyout

 

[dash]

I think if the owners decide they want to get rid of guaranteed contracts, we fans could be looking at another long lockout...

 

[awaz]

nope dont like the concept ... like i said, not fair to the players to have to reneg. a contract when they suck (or in a position of weakness) and not have the ability to reneg. when they are in a position of strength

as for the bold ... a mechanism exists for that ... thats what the buyout is for ... and Ill bet the agents of the players you listed called the players respective gms daily to ask them for a buyout

they wont HAVE to.. it will be their choice, that's my point.. if they wanna make 7 mil and play in the minors for 10 years, by all means, go for it, i just think they should have a different route available

and how many buyouts have we had? like 7? tops. buyouts very rarely make cap sense to do, so teams dont do it.. if you wanna make buyouts viable in terms of cap, that's a solution too.. but 2/3rds of the remaining for twice the duration very rarely makes sense for teams to do..

they put a lot of time and effort in to 'screwing' teams and players that sign a bad contract, why? why not give them options? all 'sticking it to them' for signing a dumb contract is result in wasted money on watering down the talent in the NHL.. IMO its bad for business to screw people on bad contracts.. it might feel good, and feel righteous cause stupid people deserve to be punished, but it doesn't make the game better

 

[awaz]

i'm thinking the point of making buyouts and stuff hurt so much on the cap was to force teams to be smarter with their money, keeping contracts down, and therefore allowing more teams to be able to afford good players.. but that didnt work.. the increase in the cap floor has provided the avenue for weaker teams in terms of finances to make big splashes (by overpaying guys like the panthers did, which priced them out of a lot of the top team's budget).. so now you just have teams that cant afford players, bidding higher than teams that could afford them, but cant under the cap.. also probably not ideal, but it renders harsh cap penalties for buyouts pretty useless in my mind

 

[SLY]

they wont HAVE to.. it will be their choice, that's my point.. if they wanna make 7 mil and play in the minors for 10 years, by all means, go for it, i just think they should have a different route available

and how many buyouts have we had? like 7? tops. buyouts very rarely make cap sense to do, so teams dont do it.. if you wanna make buyouts viable in terms of cap, that's a solution too.. but 2/3rds of the remaining for twice the duration very rarely makes sense for teams to do..

they put a lot of time and effort in to 'screwing' teams and players that sign a bad contract, why? why not give them options? all 'sticking it to them' for signing a dumb contract is result in wasted money on watering down the talent in the NHL.. IMO its bad for business to screw people on bad contracts.. it might feel good, and feel righteous cause stupid people deserve to be punished, but it doesn't make the game better

One could say it is bad for business to always allow a "cop out" as well.

 

[Comeds]

I think if the owners decide they want to get rid of guaranteed contracts, we fans could be looking at another long lockout...

If teams can terminate a contract at any time, then the player should be able to as well.
It drives me crazy in the NFL when a team cuts a player in the middle of his contract and fans often understand or even like it. But if a player wants a new contract he is often thought greedy, poor teammate, etc by both the fans and the media.

I see no way that there will not be an extended work stoppage.

 

[dboy97]

I don't think I can think anything more stupid at this time than another fucking lockout. Hmm we almost killed the game before and now we are looking strong what can we do now? I know, let's have a lockout. BRILLIANT!

 

[awaz]

One could say it is bad for business to always allow a "cop out" as well.

why?

i'll agree that just allowing a buyout whenever you want without a strict punishment is dumb cause then you'll just have teams singing guys to crazy contracts and buying them out if it doesn't work, but thats why a player-started restructuring of a contract to allow them to play in the NHL is a better idea.. IMO.. then the owner still has to be concerned with spending all that money on an AHL player if it doesn't work out, so they wont offer a ridiculous contract

take a paycut to play in the NHL, or get rich in the AHL, players option. i dont see a problem w/ that.. if i were a player i would put that up as a suggestion to be honest.. and obviously the owners would like that, having a chance to not have to pay a guy 5 mil/year to play in the AHL, they would be rainbows about that

the only potential problem i would see with that is 'team-oriented' guys, guys that want to win and play in the NHL, would have a strong barganing chip by saying 'hey if i dont play up to it and you have to waive me, i'll renegotiate'.. but is giving a team-oriented, strong work ethic, good character guy, a leg up on the competition really a bad thing?

although, i suppose you introduce some grey area and teams saying "i'm gunna waive you if you dont perform to your contract (which is a subjective matter)".. contracts would end up including "if you dont get _ goals and _ assists, we have the right to waive you".. basically reverse incentive contracts.. players wouldn't like that.. hmm.. i stumped myself (perhaps this is what jstew was getting at?)

i dno, there's gotta be a solution to NHL talent playing in the AHL because of a bad contract.. i know they shouldn't have signed the deal in the first place, but its still bad for the game when there's NHL caliber players that cant play in the NHL because they're overpaid

 

[DChero]

why?

i'll agree that just allowing a buyout whenever you want without a strict punishment is dumb cause then you'll just have teams singing guys to crazy contracts and buying them out if it doesn't work, but thats why a player-started restructuring of a contract to allow them to play in the NHL is a better idea.. IMO.. then the owner still has to be concerned with spending all that money on an AHL player if it doesn't work out, so they wont offer a ridiculous contract

take a paycut to play in the NHL, or get rich in the AHL, players option. i dont see a problem w/ that.. if i were a player i would put that up as a suggestion to be honest.. and obviously the owners would like that, having a chance to not have to pay a guy 5 mil/year to play in the AHL, they would be rainbows about that

the only potential problem i would see with that is 'team-oriented' guys, guys that want to win and play in the NHL, would have a strong barganing chip by saying 'hey if i dont play up to it and you have to waive me, i'll renegotiate'.. but is giving a team-oriented, strong work ethic, good character guy, a leg up on the competition really a bad thing?

although, i suppose you introduce some grey area and teams saying "i'm gunna waive you if you dont perform to your contract (which is a subjective matter)".. contracts would end up including "if you dont get _ goals and _ assists, we have the right to waive you".. basically reverse incentive contracts.. players wouldn't like that.. hmm.. i stumped myself (perhaps this is what jstew was getting at?)

i dno, there's gotta be a solution to NHL talent playing in the AHL because of a bad contract.. i know they shouldn't have signed the deal in the first place, but its still bad for the game when there's NHL caliber players that cant play in the NHL because they're overpaid

Don't they already have the option to restructure? If a player wanted to take a pay cut, can they now?

 

[puckhead]

Don't they already have the option to restructure? If a player wanted to take a pay cut, can they now?

no.
buy-out is only option now.

 

[DChero]

no.
buy-out is only option now.

Bastards! I thought they could restructure during FA signing.

 

[DevilishWon]

I already emailed my account manager and she said of course that they feel strongly that there will be no lock out. I asked what happens with my money Ive already paid for next year she said she's not sure what they will do.

The team will have the money invested earning interest that they'll keep....WTF did you think would happen?