Shanny & Rangers Cap

[Chadosaur]

Shanny signing is apparently official.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story/?ID...9&hubname=

One-year, $2.5 million plus up to $2.8 million more in bonuses. This leads me to a couple things. First, what\'s with a $2 million bonus just for playing in 10+ games? Why don\'t they just give him a $4.5 million base plus $.8 in bonuses? Do they have some sort of fear that he goes down in the first 10 games?

Second, assuming that he makes the 10 games and gets $4.5 total, where does that leave the Rangers in terms of cap room? Various estimates of the Rangers cap commitment (here and elsewhere) have said $41.3 or $43.8 before Shanny. Add his $4.5, and it\'s $45.8 or $48.3! Even assuming that the lower number is correct, do Lundqvist and Avery fit in? If the higher number is indeed correct, is there even space for Lundqvist alone!? Someone\'s gonna have to do some salary dumping...

[Blueorrfan]

I agree, I thought they might have gotten him a little cheaper. Where did you hear the contract specifics. Sounds a little bizarre to me.

[Thieving Giraffe]

From AP:

Under the collective bargaining agreement, players over 35 can sign one-year deals with bonuses that may push a team over the cap. If bonuses are reached, teams may exceed the cap by 7.5 percent, but whatever dollar amount they are over is deducted from the available spending total the following season.

[87Flyer]

very interesting numbers now that they have signed lundqvist to a 1 yr 4.25. not sure if avery fits at all now. would be nice if they could get the figures straightened out properly.

would think trying to do salary dumping after you\'ve gone over would be a lot more difficult than doing it beforehand.

[QStar]

87Flyer wrote:

very interesting numbers now that they have signed lundqvist to a 1 yr 4.25. not sure if avery fits at all now. would be nice if they could get the figures straightened out properly.

would think trying to do salary dumping after you\'ve gone over would be a lot more difficult than doing it beforehand.

I guess they might be aiming to go over the cap by Shanny\'s bonus amount and pay the piper next year when they are free of kasparitis\' dead weight.

But what about guys like Hossa and Callahan too?

[lanky522]

I maintain my assertion that the rangers should have traded one of gomez/drury a day after they signed them. They certainly don\'t need both, and it\'s unreal to have a second line center eating up as much cap space for the next 5 years as drury now is.

If they were smart, they would\'ve dished one of them to a team who was despirate for a center for a nice amount of draft choices AND/OR a young stud defender.

I would\'ve love to see a drury or gomez go to edmonton in a deal for joni pitkanen and draft picks... They would\'ve gotten pitkanen and the picks for free just by beating out other teams and signing both of these in demand centers.

They really don\'t need both guys. I think they will screw themselves in the long run if they keep both for even 50% of their contracts.

[Thieving Giraffe]

I think that would have been a bad long-term strategic move, Lanky. Start doing that and next thing you know, you\'ll have to offer no-trade clauses to anyone else you want to sign.

[hoopej2]

I maintain my assertion that the rangers should have traded one of gomez/drury a day after they signed them. They certainly don\'t need both, and it\'s unreal to have a second line center eating up as much cap space for the next 5 years as drury now is.

If they were smart, they would\'ve dished one of them to a team who was despirate for a center for a nice amount of draft choices AND/OR a young stud defender.

I would\'ve love to see a drury or gomez go to edmonton in a deal for joni pitkanen and draft picks... They would\'ve gotten pitkanen and the picks for free just by beating out other teams and signing both of these in demand centers.

They really don\'t need both guys. I think they will screw themselves in the long run if they keep both for even 50% of their contracts.

I agree with Giraffe, and no offense Lanky, but this is a ridiculous strategy. Don\'t you think that if a team was interested in Drury, they would have paid him as a UFA without having to give up a guy like Pitkanen and draft picks and still pay him way too much? No GM would be stupid enough to take on that deal.

Sure it would be great for NJ if they could pull it off but it would never happen. A different way to look at that scenario would be to consider you buying a TV set for $1000 and before you take it out of the box, you sell it to a \"friend\"(not for long) for $1500. Yeah it would be great to get that extra $500 for doing nothing but if the friend wanted the TV in the first place, he would have bought it himself at $1000.

Post edited by: hoopej2, at: 2007/07/12 09:58

[lanky522]

hoopej2 wrote:

I agree with Giraffe, and no offense Lanky, but this is a ridiculous strategy. Don\'t you think that if a team was interested in Drury, they would have paid him as a UFA without having to give up a guy like Pitkanen and draft picks and still pay him way too much? No GM would be stupid enough to take on that deal.

Sure it would be great for NJ if they could pull it off but it would never happen. A different way to look at that scenario would be to consider you buying a TV set for $1000 and before you take it out of the box, you sell it to a \"friend\"(not for long) for $1500. Yeah it would be great to get that extra $500 for doing nothing but if the friend wanted the TV in the first place, he would have bought it himself at $1000.

I disagree, I think there\'s plenty of GM\'s who would pay (ahem Lowe).

Also the example you gave is flawed because your friend could goto the store and get the t.v. for the regular price. In this case, these guys are a limited commodity... It\'s more like somebody getting lucky and buying a brand new ps3 in stores for 500 dollars and selling it on ebay for 1000 once they are sold out in stores.

There\'s always going to be people willing to pay higher prices when they\'ve missed out initially... Always.

TG Wrote:

I think that would have been a bad long-term strategic move, Lanky. Start doing that and next thing you know, you\'ll have to offer no-trade clauses to anyone else you want to sign.

Since when do GM\'s think of long-term strategic plans? Was the ranger\'s GM\'s thinking long term when he gave Gomez and Drury 7 and 5 year deals (respectively)? No. Gm\'s that think long term don\'t sign players to 7 year deals when they have never played in that system, for that coach, or in that city before.

Also, I think it\'d be considered thinking about the future if they traded one of these guys for draft picks and/or young studs with lots of potential, don\'t you? I mean they could get something pretty good for their future basically for free by signing a guy for a couple of days/weeks... that\'s not bad.

I maintain that this is a good idea still (while edmonton is still looking for a primier top line guy).

Post edited by: lanky522, at: 2007/07/12 11:25

[BrianSTC]

lanky522 wrote:

In this case, these guys are a limited commodity... It\'s more like somebody getting lucky and buying a brand new ps3 in stores for 500 dollars and selling it on ebay for 1000 once they are sold out in stores.

Drury and Gomez were overpayed by the Rangers in the first place...
7 million for a player (Drury) that has yet to crack 70 points!!??
Does anyone here think Drury or Gomez are the same caliber players as Thornton or Iginla??

As for your ps3 example...
Don\'t we make fun of those people that pay double the price on ebay?

[lanky522]

BrianSTC wrote:

Drury and Gomez were overpayed by the Rangers in the first place...
7 million for a player (Drury) that has yet to crack 70 points!!??
Does anyone here think Drury or Gomez are the same caliber players as Thornton or Iginla??

As for your ps3 example...
Don\'t we make fun of those people that pay double the price on ebay?

I don\'t disagree that they were overpaid to start with... I very much agree with you. But I also don\'t think that the ps3 is worth $500.00 to start with either... Yet people still paid nearly double on ebay.

I do think that the people who come through and pay more than the \"original price\" are stupid. I would think that edmonton (or whatever team took drury/gomez off of their hands) was stupid as well. I was arguing that it\'d be a good move from NYR standpoint (not from the standpoint of the idiot who gives them something).

Yes we make fun of people that pay double price for stuff on ebay, but just as in real life, there are no shortage of \"dumb\" people acting as GM\'s in the NHL.

I doubt this will happen this year, but it just seems to me that NYR made a pitch to both guys (and probably briere too), and probably didn\'t expect to get both. When they did, instead of figuring out how to keep the two of them (and their huge contracts), I think they should\'ve thought of ways to capitalize on their fortune and try to trade one of them before teams went after \"secondary\" centers (like comrie etc...).

I don\'t know, I just keep thinking of how close to the salary cap they are now, and how it wasn\'t necessary. They don\'t NEED both guys. They\'ve got a great shot at winning it all with just one of them. If they traded one, they could possibly get their hands on the likes of souray or some good quality puck moving defender which is where they really need help as far as I\'m concerned... They don\'t have room on their powerplay for another forward... They do (very much so) have room on their powerplay for a good defender who can boom some shots on goal...

Post edited by: lanky522, at: 2007/07/12 13:49

[repenttokyo]

lanky522 wrote:

Since when do GM\'s think of long-term strategic plans? Was the ranger\'s GM\'s thinking long term when he gave Gomez and Drury 7 and 5 year deals (respectively)? No. Gm\'s that think long term don\'t sign players to 7 year deals when they have never played in that system, for that coach, or in that city before.

Also, I think it\'d be considered thinking about the future if they traded one of these guys for draft picks and/or young studs with lots of potential, don\'t you? I mean they could get something pretty good for their future basically for free by signing a guy for a couple of days/weeks... that\'s not bad.

I maintain that this is a good idea still (while edmonton is still looking for a primier top line guy).<br><br>Post edited by: lanky522, at: 2007/07/12 11:25

i think they are definitely thinking long term. you have to consider things like trading these players in the future to rebuild with young players at one point. If a GM wants a player for 5 years, but can get him for 7, then after 5 years he can trade him away for prospects / draft picks and he comes out ahead, especially with a front loaded contract.

It\'s more complicated than it seems. What kind of trust would a GM be able to engender amongst players if he made a habit of signing someone for just a few days and trading them away? No one would want to sign for that person with that hanging over their head.

Post edited by: repenttokyo, at: 2007/07/12 15:07

[Thieving Giraffe]

Tokyo hits it on the head, I think. With the exception of Lowe and a couple of others, I do think that they at least try to think long-term. It\'s just that sometimes they get panicky and feel that it\'s necessary to pull the trigger on a deal to save their jobs.

Also, in the case of my point, by long-term I meant as early as next season. Start signing and immediately trading players and the repercussions will be just as immediate.

[Ned Flanders]

I\'d agree with everyone who has said that the Gomez and Drury deals are too long.....

However, one thing you can say about both guys is that they produce in the playoffs.........Gomez has 29 points in 25 games over the last three postseasons (and the two years before that he had 12 and 14 points while helping his team to go deep)....He has a couple of cups under his belt and that can\'t hurt his value either.

Drury has 31 points in 34 games over the last two postseasons and before that as we know was an important part of several Avalanche cup runs.

If the salary cap continues to increase as it has been, these deals may not cause the Rangers the cap headaches in the future that many people are expecting................I\'d rather be the team that lands two of the top free agents (both of whom are in their late 20s-30ish) as opposed to a team like Toronto who seems to consistently over-pay for second tier free agents who will be washed up in the middle of their contracts as opposed to toward the end of them.

[bogans]

The problem with trading one of them right away is the Rangers currently have all of the advantages in signing free agents. e.g. playing in MSG, biggest stage in the world, having more money, original 6 franchise, biggest city in the world, organization that treats its players well, etc, etc. The Rangers use this advantage fully. I bet there were teams out there offering just as much for both of these guys, I mean they were in very high demand. But the Rangers beat out the other teams because both guys \"wanted to play on the biggest stage in the world.\" If you were to trade one of the two the next day, next time the Rangers need a big free agent, I doubt any of those advantages work to their favor and they lose the guy. Because that is not the type of organization players want to deal with.