Sounds like we're getting screwed

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
If we lose to the Canes we have a 12.5% chance to get the # 1 pick. Same as all 8 play in losers. Not a bad consolation lottery ticket if we get beat.
 
If the Rangers are eliminated by the ‘Canes, then their pick could go one of two routes:
  1. They’ll have an opportunity to win the Phase 2 lottery drawing. All eight losing teams will have equal odds — 12.5% — of landing the No. 1 pick.
  2. If they don't win the Phase 2 lottery, they’ll end up in the No. 9 through No. 14 range, depending on the other teams that are eliminated in the qualifying round.
 
Rangers would need several upsets in the qualifying round to have a shot at moving up into the top 12 should they lose to Car. A lot of WC teams (Win, Minn, Chi, Ari) have fewer pts % than the Rangers and if those teams get eliminated they will slot ahead.
 
First of course you want to win. But winning most likely means Boston in round 1, which will be really tough. So worst case if they lose to the Canes it isn't terrible to get a 12.5% shot at # 1, or pick 9-14. And still have a second 1st round pick (Canes or Leafs).

Not a bad position to be in.
 
Oh I agree. Although I think there is a decent chance they would not get Boston should they beat the Canes. Not that facing TB or Was would be any better for them.
 
I really don't understand the NHL. From what I have been reading they are closing in on a new CBA that will keep the cap flat at 81.5 mill the next two seasons. Unless there are also two non-cap impacting compliance buyouts in the CBA, which I don't think there are, how does that work? It truly blows my mind how the NHL operates, and the players accept it. Betteman is really awful, and the game simply does not grow as a result.

Think about no cap growth the next two seasons combined with no compliance buyouts. You might as well break up any decent team now, because no shot they can stay together. This is what Betteman wants. Teams breaking up all the time. Hard cap and no flexibility. Adds expansion teams and gives them huge advantages right out of the gate, I have said it before, it makes a league look like a minor league operation when a brand new expansion team makes the Finals.

Really is a joke how the NHL is run. As a Ranger fan get ready to say goodbye to kids over the next year or two since we won't be able re-sign them all, and forget about to adding anyone. To me this is even more reason to strike while the iron is hot. Need to deal a kid or two and the second 1st round pick for a proven C and/or LD.
 
Disagree. NBA is a joke. You already know going into the season that 2 or 3 teams have a chance. The rest of them are wasting their time. Baseball has very little competitive balance. The NFL has turnover all the time. The NHL does a lot like the NFL. The reason more people don't watch it is because minorities in cities tend to be poor and can't afford to play it. So they don't watch it. it's a white sport. You don't usually lose kids in the NHL until they are 26-27 when they are no longer kids and usually are overpaid at that point. You can keep the majority of your team together for a long time. You just have to be smart and not give out stupid contracts with NTC or NMC's like they did with Smith and Staal. You have to be really shrewd. They should not offer Fast or Strome a contract and should move them in the off-season. These are the moves you have to make if you want to keep your best players. You don't pay Strome 5.5 or Fast 4 million. You save that money to lock up Fox and Lindgren who will be a top d pairing for you over the next 5-7 years.

When Hank is off the books you pay Kakko early if he is getting better as well as Chytil. You use that 10 million for those 2 guys and lock them up to 4 year deals. Whining about the salary cap in hockey is moronic. It was the ability to spend more which made the Rangers a crappy team for years.
 
Last edited:
I disagree with the hockey structure. I am totally fine with a cap, it is too low and restrictive though. That is my issue. Allow some flexibility. There is ZERO in the NHL. Also you are right, you have to be shrewd. Again the issue with the hockey structure is one bad deal and you are f'd. Again way too restrictive. You almost have to be perfect with your deals to keep a team together for more than a few years. That is not right IMO.

I do agree though Strome should go, and we should trade for a legit # 2 C and use the 5.5 lined up for Strome to pay him. And Fast will not be here. That one isn't even worth discussing. Unless he takes 2.5 or something like that, he'll be gone.

I hope for one compliance buyout, but if not next season will be tight and it will be very interesting to see how Gorton maneuvers this offseason.
 
Maybe instead of doing a flat buyout of Lundqvist they can eat 4m and someone will take him for one year, hoping with the extra rest he'll have had they catch lightning in a bottle.
 
Hockey is the only sport where you don't see players trying to tell GM's and owners how to run their teams. Where you don't hear players complaining about coming back to work during this virus. The only sport where you don't hear any bitching about contracts or see players trying to draw attention to themselves. Bettman is going a great job. There was a point years ago where he was not good. However, he's got the league running like a well oiled machine now. Players are getting paid a lot more. NHL players seem very happy.
 
There have been plenty of players that expressed concern about returning to play. The reason why you may not hear it is because hockey gets the least amount of coverage on the major sports networks. Aside from that, its tough to argue against any of the points you made.
 
I think the players in hockey give up way too much to the owners. They essentially bend over and say whatever you want have at it. Now as a fan you might love it because it means no strikes or lockouts and games get played, but for fans of the bigger market teams/the teams willing to spend, it is a bad thing. I mean you agree to a flat cap for 2 or 3 seasons AND you get zero compliance buyouts? That's ridiculous, and the players should be ashamed of themselves. At least say hey if the cap isn't going up at all, give teams one compliance buyout to create some cap space to sign/re-sign players.

I think it goes down this way for two reasons:

1. The money isn't as big or available in hockey, so the sport in general doesn't have the riches other sports do - not even close.
2. The hockey players just want to play above all else. That hurts their bargaining power when many players say forget holding out or taking a stand, I want to play. They break ranks, and therefore the owners win.

Good high level for the fans since we don't lose games, but bad for flexibility and I think growth of the sport.
 
Key Changes to the upcoming CBA
As the NHL and NHLPA work to finalize and ratify a new CBA extension, here’s the biggest changes you should know.
  1. The new extension is for six years with an option to extend for one more.
  2. Players can opt-out of RTP this summer without having an underlying condition and can’t be penalized.
  3. Cap ceiling will remain at $81.5 million and can’t go up until revenue hits $4.8 billion.
  4. Escrow will be 20% next season and work its way down to 6% by the 2023-24 season. This is what Artemi Panarin wanted players to hold out for.
  5. Olympic participation at least for the next two Games
  6. No conditional picks for signing with the team a player was traded to. Ex: no upgrading a 2nd round pick for a 1st if that player signs with the team that traded for him.
  7. No Move/Trade follows the player. In the past if a player was traded before his clause kicked in, the new team could opt out. Think Derek Stepan and PK Subban.
  8. Players in Europe no longer needed to clear waivers if they signed a deal by December 15th.
  9. NHL minimum salary will go from $700,000 to $750,000 next season.
  10. No more front loading deals. The NHL has lowered the salary variability from the first year to the last to 35%. Originally it was 50%. This takes away a little bit of power from teams like the Toronto Maple Leafs and the New York Rangers who are notorious for front loading contracts to land free agents.
 
So who knows when the cap will go up. And # 10 is a shot to the bigger money teams as well. Outside of # 4, I don't know what the players get out of this (minimum going up 50 K is not a huge gain - and with the cap staying flat actually hurts more players I think).

The NHLPA continues to get shafted time and time again by the owners.
 
Getting closer. July 13th now the target date for camp and August 1st for start of the qualification round! I'll still only believe it when I see it but, good to see them making progress on the CBA and resumption of play.
 
BTW - # 6 shows just how restrictive the NHL rules are:

No conditional picks for signing with the team a player was traded to. Ex: no upgrading a 2nd round pick for a 1st if that player signs with the team that traded for him.

So the Zucc trade condition where we would have gotten a 1st instead of a 2nd if he re-signed in Dallas, cannot happen now. That makes zero sense to me. Why eliminate that ability? What harm was it causing to allow that? Just about everything the NHL does is geared towards limiting flexibility and creativity. It really drives me crazy how the players get steamrolled. I know most fans don't care because they keep playing, but it is ridiculous now.
 
RangersFan said:
BTW - # 6 shows just how restrictive the NHL rules are:

No conditional picks for signing with the team a player was traded to. Ex: no upgrading a 2nd round pick for a 1st if that player signs with the team that traded for him.

So the Zucc trade condition where we would have gotten a 1st instead of a 2nd if he re-signed in Dallas, cannot happen now. That makes zero sense to me. Why eliminate that ability? What harm was it causing to allow that? Just about everything the NHL does is geared towards limiting flexibility and creativity. It really drives me crazy how the players get steamrolled. I know most fans don't care because they keep playing, but it is ridiculous now.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure this change was one of the players' high priority demands Chuck. The condition was often taking a team out of the market for that player's services and suppressing value.

Zucc goes to Dallas, hits it off, plays well, and likes being there. His FMV is (for argument's sake) $5m. Zucc says hey this is really working out for us and I'd love to sign with you. Dallas says unfortunately, we like you but we really cant afford to give up that first round pick. Therefore we can't offer you more than $3m. Anything above that is too painful with the loss of our first. Zucc says really? Man, I'd even play here for $4m. Dallas says, sorry, $3m is all we can do. So now Zucc is forced to either take a dog shit contract with the team he wants to play for, or go to the open market where there is one less team bidding on his services, therefore suppressing value, and he will be on his third team in the span of 6 months. And even if he does decide on his own to test the open market, Dallas may still be heavily involved trying to keep him which pushes up the negotiations for his services. But instead, they sat it out because they wanted to keep their first.

Agents and players were both interested in seeing this practice to end. It increases a player's options and ability to maximize value.
 
I'll just say this, the rules in the NHL are geared towards lack of flexibility, lack of creativity, and lack of being able to keep teams together. Sum it all up that way. A rock hard cap. Limited ability to front load deals (which will limit traditional buyouts). Scaled back pick trade conditions. A flat cap for a few years at least. Expansion teams that come in and are given over the top rules to build their team (makes the league look like a 3rd rate league). No compliance buyouts in the new CBA despite the flat cap.

I get that you guys in here don't care, but the fans the NHL needs to attract to grow the game care. We need to attract those people. We need to grow TV dollars and demand. And all of these tight flexibility limiting rules kill the games appeal. Sadly it is not going to change, and will only get worse obviously. It is a shame because the game is so great, but the owners, commissioner, and complicit players don't seem to care.
 
You're on to something I think...I was talking with my new neighbor a few months back and we got to talking about sports...I told him I am a huge Rangers fan...He goes "Oh I didn't know you were from Texas"...I say, not the Texas Rangers, the New York Rangers...hockey. He said VERBATIM "I can't get into hockey, the fact that teams can't front load their multi-year contracts and the overall lack of creative contract flexibility is just unwatchable. I mean how can anyone actually enjoy watching a sport that doesn't offer compensatory draft picks when trading players to a team that eventually sign them to a long term contract extension?!"
 
Greyvtrayn said:
You're on to something I think...I was talking with my new neighbor a few months back and we got to talking about sports...I told him I am a huge Rangers fan...He goes "Oh I didn't know you were from Texas"...I say, not the Texas Rangers, the New York Rangers...hockey. He said VERBATIM "I can't get into hockey, the fact that teams can't front load their multi-year contracts and the overall lack of creative contract flexibility is just unwatchable. I mean how can anyone actually enjoy watching a sport that doesn't offer compensatory draft picks when trading players to a team that eventually sign them to a long term contract extension?!"
Click to expand...

“But neighbor, didnt you see that the owners, in a huge concession, consented to NHL players going back to the Olympics? Don’t you remember how exciting that was in 2010 and how many new fans got into the sport? TJ Oshie and Ryan Miller became household names!”

“Eh Grey, what’s even the point with no compliance buyouts.”
 
theProdigy223 said:
“But neighbor, didnt you see that the owners, in a huge concession, consented to NHL players going back to the Olympics? Don’t you remember how exciting that was in 2010 and how many new fans got into the sport? TJ Oshie and Ryan Miller became household names!”

“Eh Grey, what’s even the point with no compliance buyouts.”
Click to expand...

"But, the escrow situation has drastically improved in the players favor. If that doesn't spike your interest in the NHL I don't know WHAT will"
 
Greyvtrayn said:
"But, the escrow situation has drastically improved in the players favor. If that doesn't spike your interest in the NHL I don't know WHAT will"
Click to expand...

“You know, I almost went to a hockey game when I was in Vegas last year. A friend suggested that it was a great time because the team was competitive and there was a great crowd. But then I found out they were an expansion team, and they were only competitive because of permissive draft rules limiting the number of skaters a team could protect and only exempting players that were on ELCs and not those on their first contracts but still RFA eligible upon expiration. Disgusting. I walked out. Haven’t talked to the friend since. Other than the entire new fan base created in a new city key to the NHL’s growth model, especially with the potential revenue streams from sports gambling that could enable new growth initiatives, what new fan would ever watch this?”

:)
 
Funny stuff. You guys keep living in your fantasy worlds of how hockey is valued and viewed in this country. Thinking there is this big hockey fan base, despite what the money tells you, and despite what some folks say about no one caring about hockey in this country.

If you want hockey to stay battling to be the 4th sport in the US bunched with other lesser sports, let's keep on keeping on. Your responses actually are perfect, and I bet align with some of the folks who run the game, nothing to see here. I actually would like to see the game grow and become on par with other big US sports. And having a closed minded inflexible system does not help.
 
My man, we all want to see hockey keep growing. The point is that these details of the CBA are not going to make or break new fans, especially considering the other concessions the owners and league agreed to. Specifically, allowing NHL players to go back to the Olympics is the single biggest thing they can do to generate new fans and build some buzz. New York City bars were absolutely electric in 2010 and 2014 while team USA was playing. I was watching games with friends who hadnt watched hockey in years. Yet you didnt mention that as something that will help the league.

Further, establishing interest in new markets is a good thing, not a bad thing. It was a crazy to see Vegas go so far their first year, but what new fans were turned off by that? Who thinks that hurt the NHL's image among potential fans? The only people who didnt like it are the true fans like us, who arent going anywhere anyway. It is far better for a new franchise to be competitive and generate local interest early than to flail for years, never build a fansbase and then be forced to move or fold.

Unfortunately coronavirus has crushed league bottom lines, and the financial condition of the teams weighed heavily on the decision to keep the cap flat. Who knows if fans will be back in indoor arenas next year? What kind of new filtrations systems will teams have to fund? Even if fans get in, will there be a cap? Will they play a full season? Even if they end up playing 82 games, many teams will be in the red. You cant expect them to agree to a higher cap in that environment, when deeper pocket owners like the Dolans can still spend up to the cap and other teams face bankruptcy. Competitive balance will go right out the window.

Hockey has been the 4th sport for years now because of the barriers to entry for many young people, whether through expense of equipment or geographical and climate limitations. Where I grew up I had one friend who played ice hockey because the closest facilities were over an hour away. He had practice at midnight. The rest of us played football, baseball, basketball, soccer, lacrosse, etc. No wonder why not many people in my hometown follow hockey very much. CBA details are not what keeps them away.
 
Neither of us said that hockey is highly valued in this country. It's pretty clear that is it behind AT LEAST the NFL, NBA, MLB, NCAA (football and basketball) and PGA. You could even argue it is behind UFC. But what Prodigy said is 100% correct. The collective bargaining agreements play no role in that whatsoever. Considering how varied the other professional sports CBAs are is proof positive. It's about marketing, media presence and quality of product.
 
If they don't bring back Fast, send Smith to Hartford(or deal him somehow), and move HL with maybe 3-4m retained, they probably could keep both Strome/DA. DiGisueppe is a good 4th liner at his $ and maybe Barron is ready pretty quickly. I always Letteiri was decent but he may always be blocked. I don't know if Fontaine is considered NHL caliber. I'm not all that big on Lemieux but he'll be around another year probably.
 
DiGisueppe sucks. He fools you into thinking he's decent but when you look at the big picture, he never produces.
 
Lemieux better get his shit together quick. Even to be a 4th liner. On one hand we need him because he will hit, piss off the other team and will stand up to heavyweights like Wilson. On the other hand, he's got a bad rap with the officials. He needs to figure it out soon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
Okay now, buying or selling?
Replies
25
Views
1K
migman91
M
C
Rick Nash is playing “awful” and “shrinking” in the playoffs
2
Replies
48
Views
2K
Messiah717
Messiah717
kreidertime
Going with Zac Jones is a moronic move of epic proportions
Replies
20
Views
1K
kreidertime
kreidertime
M
Rangers 4 pens 3
Replies
2
Views
478
kreidertime
kreidertime
C
This Road trip
Replies
26
Views
2K
BigDaddyAl1973
BigDaddyAl1973

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top