|
Post by RangersRon on Oct 15, 2009 12:21:24 GMT -5
I actually trully believe that if a GM wants to spend big on potential, that is his choice and his problem or not. I don;t believe either of these guys will be below 63 but on the other side I do not believe that either one will be n the 67 range either. I may be wrong and if so, I was wrong. I can live with that. Not first time in my life believe me!
All I a saying is if there is another ruling decison, that it should not be done just for sake of getting it done because a few people are upset over what these chose to pay for potential. I seen worse in UFA spending on no potenial here. Look at my 3.5 mil for a guy who just signed and has not played yet this year. but he serves what i need today, not potential plus I get him for one year and more if I chose to keep him.
These two players ( probably others) but the two main ones are the problems of the GM's who signed them, plus Ray only gave his guy one year contract which was smart because that can be adjusted with OV, so he will get this players potential possibly at a discount later or he can just let him go back in mix if he does not deliever.
It is the GMs choice and they have to live with it, no one else has to., Plus if these guys stay at 64, they are stuck with them anyway so they cannot drop them and both should be at least 64 next year - MAYBE!
|
|
|
Post by Philly on Oct 15, 2009 12:41:21 GMT -5
I actually trully believe that if a GM wants to spend big on potential, that is his choice and his problem or not. I don;t believe either of these guys will be below 63 but on the other side I do not believe that either one will be n the 67 range either. I may be wrong and if so, I was wrong. I can live with that. Not first time in my life believe me! All I a saying is if there is another ruling decison, that it should not be done just for sake of getting it done because a few people are upset over what these chose to pay for potential. I seen worse in UFA spending on no potenial here. Look at my 3.5 mil for a guy who just signed and has not played yet this year. but he serves what i need today, not potential plus I get him for one year and more if I chose to keep him. These two players ( probably others) but the two main ones are the problems of the GM's who signed them, plus Ray only gave his guy one year contract which was smart because that can be adjusted with OV, so he will get this players potential possibly at a discount later or he can just let him go back in mix if he does not deliever. It is the GMs choice and they have to live with it, no one else has to., Plus if these guys stay at 64, they are stuck with them anyway so they cannot drop them and both should be at least 64 next year - MAYBE! Well said coach!! If anyone thinks I'm droppin Brunnstrom - don't hold your breath, I'm already considering him for my re-sign so no one can attempt to snatch him during FA next season.
|
|
|
Post by Sharky on Oct 15, 2009 12:42:07 GMT -5
RFA salaries do not go down. If he payed 3.5 million for his player today, when his contract is up he will have to pay at least 3.5 million to keep him.
|
|
|
Post by Philly on Oct 15, 2009 12:48:34 GMT -5
RFA salaries do not go down. If he payed 3.5 million for his player today, when his contract is up he will have to pay at least 3.5 million to keep him. That is incorrect, Jake It depends on OV rating they could go up in some cases or go down
|
|
|
Post by Sharky on Oct 15, 2009 12:49:09 GMT -5
You know, whether Jake likes to admit it or not, hes a fuckin hypocrite. Nobody got in your face when you signed Shea Weber for 6.5 million and kept him in the farm for longer than he deserved... so why try to "adjust" things now? because its not favouring you? dude... this isnt the first time you've picked a fight with me, and I've shut my mouth for a while... Perhaps we have different philosophies... or mayeb we just have similar philosophies and my teams just getting better... I swear to god some of you act like your 10 years old. Grow up man. Stop taking things so personally. Once again, what does Shea Weber have anything to do with this? I didn't drop him. I'm not arguing that we can't send players to the farm, I'm arguing that we shouldn't be able to sign a 3rd line player (Leino) for almost 6 million dollars per year and then drop him the next year when you realize "hey, a third liner isn't worth that". I want people to honor their contracts, and, like Jon said "eat what they take". This isn't about fucking people over, its about making them responsible for what they do.
|
|
|
Post by Sharky on Oct 15, 2009 12:50:59 GMT -5
RFA salaries do not go down. If he payed 3.5 million for his player today, when his contract is up he will have to pay at least 3.5 million to keep him. That is incorrect, Jake No its not. RFAs are reposted at their current salary if its above what the payscale dictates.
|
|
|
Post by Philly on Oct 15, 2009 12:52:28 GMT -5
you couldn't drop him cause he had a 64 ov, what if was 63 ov.
|
|
|
Post by Philly on Oct 15, 2009 12:53:33 GMT -5
That is incorrect, Jake No its not. RFAs are reposted at their current salary if its above what the payscale dictates. What? No they are not
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2009 12:55:07 GMT -5
You know, whether Jake likes to admit it or not, hes a fuckin hypocrite. Nobody got in your face when you signed Shea Weber for 6.5 million and kept him in the farm for longer than he deserved... so why try to "adjust" things now? because its not favouring you? dude... this isnt the first time you've picked a fight with me, and I've shut my mouth for a while... Perhaps we have different philosophies... or mayeb we just have similar philosophies and my teams just getting better... I swear to god some of you act like your 10 years old. Grow up man. Stop taking things so personally. Once again, what does Shea Weber have anything to do with this? I didn't drop him. I'm not arguing that we can't send players to the farm, I'm arguing that we shouldn't be able to sign a 3rd line player (Leino) for almost 6 million dollars per year and then drop him the next year when you realize "hey, a third liner isn't worth that". I want people to honor their contracts, and, like Jon said "eat what they take". This isn't about fucking people over, its about making them responsible for what they do. Ok... so then what do you suggest? Lets say that Ville Leino is a third liner for the entirety of this contract... how do we prevent GM's from spending a fortune on potential versus actual talent ?
|
|
|
Post by Philly on Oct 15, 2009 12:55:47 GMT -5
Morris went down a mil due to his new salary based on OV rating
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2009 12:56:54 GMT -5
Mind you... I dont think that spending for potential is a problem... fine, if you want to have the GM accoutn for some of his salary if he decides to drop him then fine... I can undertand that we should have some accountability.. However, I'm just questioning the time of this decision... why now?
|
|
|
Post by Philly on Oct 15, 2009 13:01:17 GMT -5
We dont worry about making money, but one important feature of the leauge is the cap. The new RFA payscale and rule changes have made a chnage (ie that if you give a guy a 1 year deal at 10 mil, and next year he gets a shitty rating he will only get paid 500 000) that we didnt think about beforehand. I think that we need to find ways to make guys accountable for their actions. Before it was that guys never had a decrease in salary As per the rules: Example 2: Joe Johnson is a 24 and under free agent. Last season he made $2,000,000, however his new OV rating is a 64, therefore according to the chart his new yearly salary should be $1,000,000. However, as mentioned above, because his prior years salary was higher, we would then average both salaries to determine the players current salary. $2,000,000 + $1,000,000 / 2 = $1,500,000. Old higher salary + new lower salary divided by two So, by your example given, his salary could be no less than $5,250,000. Not 500,000 Read this Jake, maybe I'm misunderstanding you.
|
|
|
Post by MontyBurns on Oct 15, 2009 13:02:35 GMT -5
thats an easy one.
we just saw alot of guys get majorly overpaid, and were worried about it
|
|
|
Post by Philly on Oct 15, 2009 13:08:59 GMT -5
thats an easy one. we just saw alot of guys get majorly overpaid, and were worried about it Check out the silent bids, they still are, why is that, cause you can't even pull a shit player out of there without a struggle on a depleted list.
|
|
|
Post by Hawks on Oct 15, 2009 13:35:27 GMT -5
I think we are all over-reacting a bit to something very very minor.
Lets relax and get Unassigned done so we can get the season started.
|
|