the best rated Western team in the BRHL2

Islanders GM · Senior Member

the best rated Western team in the BRHL2

capsgm · Senior Member

holy crap!

NYRGM · Senior Member

ahhhhh The luxury of being able to play Joey T on the 2nd line.

Great work George, keep up the good work-Joe NYRGM

Sabres_Luke · Guru

NYRGM wrote:

Great work George, keep up the good work-Joe NYRGM

And Dave.

But yeah- Frig tough for the rest of the league now.

Sabres · Guru

Still confused how the frig Dumont and Markov signed for 1.95 and 2.25 respectively...

Panthers · Senior Member

Especially since part of the reason I traded Markov was that he wanted 4.5+

Hawks_G · Guru

Sabres wrote:

Still confused how the frig Dumont and Markov signed for 1.95 and 2.25 respectively...

Easy. The guys that we couldn't sign long term we signed to one year deals. Dumont signed for $2.25 M in the NHL so the savings were negligible.

We negotiated one year deals on purpose....not by accident. It is no secret that next year we might have some cap problems trying to resign guys.....but just like Sweet Lou Lamoriello, you have to make your square pegs fit in round holes.

I called Markov personally asking him to take a one year deal for the good of the team. He said..."No problem chief....just make sure plenty of vodka in my fridge."

biggrin

Sabres_Luke · Guru

Technically though George- a 1 year deal is more beneficial to your team for another reason you're not stating, and the reason is that a 1 year deal still makes him a RFA. If you signed him for 2 years the contract should be less since you'd lose him. This way you keep him for wayyy under what he's worth, and you still get to resign him long term this next year.

Hawks_G · Guru

Sabres_Luke wrote:

Technically though George- a 1 year deal is more beneficial to your team for another reason you're not stating, and the reason is that a 1 year deal still makes him a RFA. If you signed him for 2 years the contract should be less since you'd lose him. This way you keep him for wayyy under what he's worth, and you still get to resign him long term this next year.

I didn't say it wasn't more beneficial, but it is the same as it is in the NHL. How much would Joni Pitkanen in Edmonton make in a long term deal? It has happened a multitude of times that a player has signed a lower one year deal instead of an expensive long term deal.

RFAs are the most prone, especially since we don't have arbitration rights here in the good old BRHL2. If you want to debate that point you will have to go to the league though....I personally have no opinion on whether or not we should have binding arbitration.

It was a strategy we committed to, to do everything possible to win a championship this year. If it kills our ability to keep our core together long term, the so be it. But that is what we have done.

Sabres · Guru

I dont understand how the signings work at all. Isnt it suppose to be in the best interest of the player? If thats the case, the only argument that he has is that he had a team that looks to compete, so players MIGHT be willing to sign cheaper for a chance at a cup.

The BOD IMO should really be looking at a players big picture. I think that a signing for below market value would only occur when two scenarios arrive at the same time.

1.) The player has already made a relatively high amount of money in his career. (ie at least 15-20M total in his years)
2.) The team he's signing with has been the team he's been with for a long time (this wont be an impact until year 3-4) OR he wants to win a cup and the team displays qualities where it is a legit top 5 cup contending team.

Im not sure if those circumstances really came into play for Dumont, and not even Markov.

Pretty much every player should have a desire to test the free agent market unless a team ponies up like 80-90% of what is the "Free Agent Standard" for a player of his quality. Players only really make a ton of money in the NHL when they are signed as free agents except for exceptional players.

Once again this is just my opinion on how to make things a bit more realistic. Take it for what its worth.

-- Edited by Sabres at 15:56, 2007-09-13

Hawks_G · Guru

Sabres wrote:

I dont understand how the signings work at all. Isnt it suppose to be in the best interest of the player? If thats the case, the only argument that he has is that he had a team that looks to compete, so players MIGHT be willing to sign cheaper for a chance at a cup.

The BOD IMO should really be looking at a players big picture. I think that a signing for below market value would only occur when two scenarios arrive at the same time.

1.) The player has already made a relatively high amount of money in his career. (ie at least 15-20M total in his years)
2.) The team he's signing with has been the team he's been with for a long time (this wont be an impact until year 3-4) OR he wants to win a cup and the team displays qualities where it is a legit top 5 cup contending team.

Im not sure if those circumstances really came into play for Dumont, and not even Markov.

Pretty much every player should have a desire to test the free agent market unless a team ponies up like 80-90% of what is the "Free Agent Standard" for a player of his quality. Players only really make a ton of money in the NHL when they are signed as free agents except for exceptional players.

Once again this is just my opinion on how to make things a bit more realistic. Take it for what its worth.

-- Edited by Sabres at 15:56, 2007-09-13

That might be the case when it comes to resigning a UFA, which we can only tag, we can't sign a long term deal with our own UFAs.

When it comes to RFAs, they negotiate what they can, and without arbitration they can hold out and that is about it.....and historically what they have done.

We had options to tie up these guys long term, and actually Backstrom was a sweet long term deal, but again, it tied up a lot of money long term.

In my opinion, if you want to eliminate the one year cheaper deals, then lobby for an arbitration process. If the team walks, then the player is UFA.

Sabres_Luke · Guru

Hawks_G wrote:

I didn't say it wasn't more beneficial, but it is the same as it is in the NHL.

How is signing markov for 1 year making him still a RFA for 2 and some change anything close to the NHL?

Markov would never sign for 1, and if he did it would be more expensive not less as you were aluding to before with this: Easy. The guys that we couldn't sign long term we signed to one year deals.

My point is only this George- You act like having a 1 year deal should be cheaper than 2 years- when you lose his rights after 2 years which means if anything he should be more expensive. Not ever 1 year deal should be cheaper- depends on the circumstances.

Hawks_G · Guru

Sabres_Luke wrote:

Hawks_G wrote:

I didn't say it wasn't more beneficial, but it is the same as it is in the NHL.

How is signing markov for 1 year making him still a RFA for 2 and some change anything close to the NHL?

Markov would never sign for 1, and if he did it would be more expensive not less as you were aluding to before with this: Easy. The guys that we couldn't sign long term we signed to one year deals.

My point is only this George- You act like having a 1 year deal should be cheaper than 2 years- when you lose his rights after 2 years which means if anything he should be more expensive. Not ever 1 year deal should be cheaper- depends on the circumstances.

I hate to repeat myself, but in the NHL, many many times has an RFA signed a one year deal cheaper than what he would a long term deal.

Just like Pitkanen in Edmonton this year for $2.4 million as an RFA. I am sure, if he signed for longer it would be for more money.

The same goes for many RFA NHL players that sign a one year deal to avoid arbitration. If we had an arbitration process, maybe these players wouldn't sign and go to arbitration.

If the teams were to lock them up long term they would pay more but get off cheaply on a one year deal, which we did.

Michal Ryder signed a $2.95 M one year deal in Montreal.
Trent Hunter for $1.55 M
Chris Kelly $1.26 M

Cheaper one year deals happen all the time. The only thing different is the NHL has arbitration, and we don't.

I don't know why I am taking the time to explain it all to you, because as a hockey fan, you know all of this.

And like I said, if you want to lobby for a change, arbitration is your best bet.

HOTLANTA · Guru

if markov was wanting 4.5 + in florida and signed for half that in chicago is about the funniest thing ive heard in awhile one team 4.5+ million.. same player different team 2.25 cuz ur tight to the cap and still need to stay under... freaking funny i think with his nhl and brhl deal a HILARIOUS 3.5 million in difference 5.7 to 2.25 this is funny. a 4 yr nhl deal to a 1 yr deal brhl2 so three years difference on the deals.... hemsky got a 6 year nhl deal i signed him for 4 years brhl2 so 2 less years than his nhl deal so should i have got him for like roughly 3 mill less than his nhl deal so 1 mill a season?????? i just find this humourous, i could find 20-40 examples of this though..... (please moderator dont delete this as it is only an opinion)

oh an ps george those guys ur talking about are guys who still are trying to prove to be top tier nhl guys like hunter, kelly, etc etc,, the good ones like markov... gomez one year deal was 5 mill same as briere another good player like markov is.. (sure from arbitrator but still 1 year at BIG money) then when they sign long term they get BIGGER money..

-- Edited by HOTLANTA at 20:07, 2007-09-13

-- Edited by HOTLANTA at 20:09, 2007-09-13

Eric_Isles · BRHL2 Co-Commish

HOTLANTA wrote:

if markov was wanting 4.5 + in florida and signed for half that in chicago is about the funniest thing ive heard in awhile one team 4.5+ million.. same player different team 2.25 cuz ur tight to the cap... freaking funny. (please moderator dont delete this as it is only an opinion)

Not that years offered has anything to do with contracts...