Truth & Rumors > NHL

NHL offer would cap-size Rangers

Views
12885
Comments
51

08:30 AM ET 12.31 | Assuming there is an NHL season, which at this point is clearly no guarantee, some teams may not like how a new CBA affects their rosters. If the NHL has its way, the Rangers will be hit with a $5.875 million cap charge for Wade Redden this season even if -- and when -- the defenseman clears waivers and is assigned to the AHL Whale for the third straight year. That would increase the Blueshirts' 2012-13 cap charge to approximately $64.535 million for a shadow roster featuring two goaltenders, six healthy defensemen plus Michael Sauer, who is expected to be sidelined all year with post-concussion syndrome; and 13 forwards, thus leaving around $5.665 million of space with Michael Del Zotto and, presumably, Matt Gilroy yet to be signed.

New York Post

Wade Redden, Getty Images Wade Redden, Getty Images
December 31, 2012  09:00 AM ET

That will teach the Rangers to mess with the Butt Goblin

December 31, 2012  09:00 AM ET

amazing how this works out. Owners getting all huffy about what....THEY DID THEMSELVES!!!!

December 31, 2012  09:14 AM ET
QUOTE(#2):

amazing how this works out. Owners getting all huffy about what....THEY DID THEMSELVES!!!!

Pretty sad actually Spiny. And if you dont like it they are going to take their teams and leave the sandbox...hrmmmphhh....

December 31, 2012  09:41 AM ET

The biggest problem in the NHL is the large vs small market teams, or the traditional hockey markets vs the non-traditional markets. My compromise among owners would be that any team can amnesty a player if they are over the cap every year and it doesn't count against the cap for that year. There will be a one-time amnesty clause just like the NBA did, but why not have one each year? With a salary cap a big market team will never be able to pull a NY Yankees and just gobble up every free agent, but an amnesty clause each year will give them some cushion since they are the ones spending against the cap each year, while many of the small market teams are only spending to the salary floor each year.

December 31, 2012  09:44 AM ET
QUOTE(#4):

Pretty sad actually Spiny. And if you dont like it they are going to take their teams and leave the sandbox...hrmmmphhh....

harrumpf

December 31, 2012  09:56 AM ET
QUOTE(#2):

amazing how this works out. Owners getting all huffy about what....THEY DID THEMSELVES!!!!

Are we sure there's an 'e' in Wade?

December 31, 2012  10:08 AM ET
QUOTE(#2):

amazing how this works out. Owners getting all huffy about what....THEY DID THEMSELVES!!!!

Seriously. I don't feel bad for any team when the cap gets lowered. One thing you heard for the past year was the cap was definitely going down. Then what did a lot of teams do, signed up to the existing cap. So now they will be in trouble for a bit.

December 31, 2012  10:08 AM ET

"Assuming there is an NHL season ...."

The NY post (as usual) begins with the wrong assumption. The best we can hope for is 1/2 a season. Even that would be assuming too much at this point.

December 31, 2012  10:10 AM ET

A picture of Wade Redden in a Rangers uniform...you would hear stories, but who knew they actually existed!

December 31, 2012  10:20 AM ET
QUOTE(#8):

Seriously. I don't feel bad for any team when the cap gets lowered. One thing you heard for the past year was the cap was definitely going down. Then what did a lot of teams do, signed up to the existing cap. So now they will be in trouble for a bit.

Exactly ! I stated long ago that if my Flames stupidly drove up their salaries last year , they have themselves to blame if they have to skate 12 forwards this year.

December 31, 2012  10:22 AM ET
QUOTE(#10):

A picture of Wade Redden in a Rangers uniform...you would hear stories, but who knew they actually existed!

nicely done...and to top it off, he has control of the puck...a sight I rarely saw as a Rangers' fan!

December 31, 2012  10:24 AM ET
QUOTE(#2):

amazing how this works out. Owners getting all huffy about what....THEY DID THEMSELVES!!!!

Yeah, and people say the younger generations have no responsibility. These old geezers can't stop themselves from giving crap contracts. There's telemarketers in India who have never seen a hockey game that knew the Redden contract was terrible. I think Redden's agent hung up the first time the offer was made thinking it was a joke. He didn't believe it until he called Slats back and confirmed

December 31, 2012  10:26 AM ET
QUOTE(#5):

The biggest problem in the NHL is the large vs small market teams, or the traditional hockey markets vs the non-traditional markets. My compromise among owners would be that any team can amnesty a player if they are over the cap every year and it doesn't count against the cap for that year. There will be a one-time amnesty clause just like the NBA did, but why not have one each year? With a salary cap a big market team will never be able to pull a NY Yankees and just gobble up every free agent, but an amnesty clause each year will give them some cushion since they are the ones spending against the cap each year, while many of the small market teams are only spending to the salary floor each year.

Yanks have won 1 title in 12 years and haven't been a major player in the free agent market since 2008. You might want to update your info. Now the Dodgers and Angels are taking every free agent but I guess it's only wrong when the Yanks do it.

December 31, 2012  10:35 AM ET

Season or not, if the owners cry again about not having enough money to sign their talent, I refer to the New Age Outlaws/DX from the Attitude era of WWF (now WWE)... If you don't like it, I got 2 words for you... ****!

December 31, 2012  10:43 AM ET
QUOTE(#5):

There will be a one-time amnesty clause just like the NBA did, but why not have one each year? With a salary cap a big market team will never be able to pull a NY Yankees and just gobble up every free agent, but an amnesty clause each year will give them some cushion since they are the ones spending against the cap each year,

The problem there is that is only so many teams that can afford to eat a salary blunder like those of Redden and Gomez. So allowing those teams the option of burying a horrible decision with no penalty will be seen as unleveling the playing field to the small market teams that can't afford the same luxury.

December 31, 2012  10:46 AM ET
QUOTE(#5):

With a salary cap a big market team will never be able to pull a NY Yankees and just gobble up every free agent, but an amnesty clause each year will give them some cushion since they are the ones spending against the cap each year, while many of the small market teams are only spending to the salary floor each year.

just a quick aside here...I call shenanagins on the Yankees remark...if you are to use them as an example, don't forget Texas,Anaheim (or whomever they are this year) Boston and The Mets

December 31, 2012  10:57 AM ET
QUOTE(#17):

just a quick aside here...I call shenanagins on the Yankees remark...if you are to use them as an example, don't forget Texas,Anaheim (or whomever they are this year) Boston and The Mets

Our Blue Jays are opening up the vault now also.

December 31, 2012  11:03 AM ET
QUOTE(#16):

The problem there is that is only so many teams that can afford to eat a salary blunder like those of Redden and Gomez. So allowing those teams the option of burying a horrible decision with no penalty will be seen as unleveling the playing field to the small market teams that can't afford the same luxury.

I still can't believe the Habs took Gomez off the Rangers hands with that ridculous contract.

December 31, 2012  11:03 AM ET
QUOTE(#17):

just a quick aside here...I call shenanagins on the Yankees remark...if you are to use them as an example, don't forget Texas,Anaheim (or whomever they are this year) Boston and The Mets

I already called that one out. The Dodgers in all likelihood will spend more than the Yanks this year

 
December 31, 2012  11:11 AM ET
QUOTE(#16):

The problem there is that is only so many teams that can afford to eat a salary blunder like those of Redden and Gomez. So allowing those teams the option of burying a horrible decision with no penalty will be seen as unleveling the playing field to the small market teams that can't afford the same luxury.

I agree completely and like that they don't want to do this. But how else do teams get below the new cap if they don't do this? What's the solution?

Comment

Remember to keep your posts clean. Profanity will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.


Truth & Rumors

MOST POPULAR

  1. 1
    Clippers, Warriors exchange barbs
    Views
    779
    Comments
    436
  2. 2
    Time to penalize NHL's perennial losers?
    Views
    997
    Comments
    273
  3. 3
    Report: Raiders to release Terrelle Pryor on Monday
    Views
    1301
    Comments
    59
  4. 4
    Will NFL owners blackball Donald Trump?
    Views
    1108
    Comments
    54
  5. 5
    Packers lovers have own dating site
    Views
    996
    Comments
    45

SI.com

SI Photos