\GoBillsInDallas/ Posted January 6, 2009 Report Posted January 6, 2009 http://www.courierpostonline.com/article/2...RTS04/901060347
deluca67 Posted January 6, 2009 Report Posted January 6, 2009 Couldn't happen to a nicer team. :lol: The 'Curse of B-Rod' strikes. :death:
Strow Posted January 6, 2009 Report Posted January 6, 2009 a few things wrong with that article, one is Danny played center he for the most part and while in Phoenix. He was switched to wing in Philly cause he can't back check with all the money in his back pocket. Never knew he had a no trade clause that makes his deal even better. Why would anyone have a contract now with huge numbers at the end of the deal when the player is on the down slide? The names they drop to trade other than the last one are guys a few teams might look at and for not that much. Love to see the destruction of that team.
tom webster Posted January 6, 2009 Report Posted January 6, 2009 Where's the destruction? The team is loaded with forwards and will try to move one for help on the back end. Wish Buffalo had the same problems.
deluca67 Posted January 6, 2009 Report Posted January 6, 2009 Where's the destruction? The team is loaded with forwards and will try to move one for help on the back end. Wish Buffalo had the same problems. I wish Buffalo had blue-liner to give up for one of those forwards. I doubt anyone would take Tallinder.
Buffalo Wings Posted January 6, 2009 Report Posted January 6, 2009 Hey....we could use another center! :rolleyes:
inkman Posted January 6, 2009 Report Posted January 6, 2009 I doubt anyone would take Tallinder. I doubt someone would not take Tallinder, just depends on the price. He's played well lately.
deluca67 Posted January 6, 2009 Report Posted January 6, 2009 I doubt someone would not take Tallinder, just depends on the price. He's played well lately. Tallinder as part of a package maybe.
stenbaro Posted January 6, 2009 Report Posted January 6, 2009 It wont happen at his contract numbers and the Flyers wont trade him here ya wouldnt think but even I would take him back at this point and I was a staunch supporter to letting him go 2 years ago...He could only upgrade our center position and he would probably make the roy vanek line even better by taking some heat off them just by playing with Hecht and Pominville..Wishfull thinking..
shrader Posted January 6, 2009 Report Posted January 6, 2009 The non-Briere stuff in that article bugs me a bit. Is it suggesting that the Flyers are trying to get JVR to leave college right now, mid-season? That would be bush league, just like it was last year with the Islanders and Okposo. And yes, I realize that none of you care.
nfreeman Posted January 6, 2009 Report Posted January 6, 2009 It wont happen at his contract numbers and the Flyers wont trade him here ya wouldnt think but even I would take him back at this point and I was a staunch supporter to letting him go 2 years ago...He could only upgrade our center position and he would probably make the roy vanek line even better by taking some heat off them just by playing with Hecht and Pominville..Wishfull thinking.. I'd take Briere back in a second, but not at that salary/cap hit. For that much cash, you need a true star, and one without that much of an injury history.
carpandean Posted January 6, 2009 Report Posted January 6, 2009 Where's the destruction? The team is loaded with forwards and will try to move one for help on the back end. Wish Buffalo had the same problems. I must have missed the part about moving one for help on the backend. They have to move one or two forwards for picks/prospects, plus put their 7th/8th defensemen on waivers just to clear room for Briere to come back to the roster. Side question for cap experts: anyone know how the cap hit for LTIR is calculated? I know that you get cushion equal to the cap hit in order to exceed the cap, but if the player returns, is the cushion prorated to the time out? A player on roster is counted for 186 days, but if they are out for 30 days, do they get a cushion equal to 30/182*total cap hit to offset that portion of their hit? The players traded or put on waivers (assuming that they clear) will still be counted for the days that they were on the roster, so only (roughly) half of their cap hit would be saved.
Kristian Posted January 6, 2009 Report Posted January 6, 2009 I doubt someone would not take Tallinder, just depends on the price. He's played well lately. Unfortunately, while we may not be the only team in the league with a self-imposed salary cap, I'm 99% certain we're the only team with a self-imposed trade deadline, namely August 1st.
frisky Posted January 6, 2009 Report Posted January 6, 2009 I remember when I was watching TV and reading articles a couple of years ago that some media people were discussing the way theat the contract was structured with bigger money on the back end and the length of the contract. They way I interpreted what they were saying at the time was that the big money teams could afford these types of contracts with the option of buying out the rest when they started to declining. It sounded like these teams (ie the Cryers and NYR) were projecting the usefulness of the player for a few years and the buy out on the back end was like a signing bonus.
shrader Posted January 6, 2009 Report Posted January 6, 2009 I remember when I was watching TV and reading articles a couple of years ago that some media people were discussing the way theat the contract was structured with bigger money on the back end and the length of the contract. They way I interpreted what they were saying at the time was that the big money teams could afford these types of contracts with the option of buying out the rest when they started to declining. It sounded like these teams (ie the Cryers and NYR) were projecting the usefulness of the player for a few years and the buy out on the back end was like a signing bonus. The big money was actually front loaded, just like the deal Edmonton offered Vanek. You have the rest right though. The players get the meat of their salary in the early years and then the team can cheaply buy them out later if they need to. It spreads out the cap hit over a few extra seasons. Here's the way Briere's salary is structured.
carpandean Posted January 6, 2009 Report Posted January 6, 2009 I remember when I was watching TV and reading articles a couple of years ago that some media people were discussing the way theat the contract was structured with bigger money on the back end and the length of the contract. They way I interpreted what they were saying at the time was that the big money teams could afford these types of contracts with the option of buying out the rest when they started to declining. It sounded like these teams (ie the Cryers and NYR) were projecting the usefulness of the player for a few years and the buy out on the back end was like a signing bonus. Not sure what you mean about the bigger money being on the backend. The bigger money is up front. Briere's salaries are: 10, 8, 8, 7, 7, 7, 3, 2. Those last two years are designed for a buyout -- since the amount is based on a fraction of remaining salary -- and to lower the total cap hit. He'll be 36-37 years old in those last two year. Basically, it's like signing him to a 6 year, $47 million contract ($7.83 million cap hit) with a 2 year, $5 million extension ($2.5 million cap hit), but they get a more manageable $6.5 million cap hit during the first six years and can buy out the last two years for a very low figure (half of the remaining $5 million over twice the remaining years; i.e., $0.625 million for each of four seasons.) Edit: Shrader beat me to it.
inkman Posted January 6, 2009 Report Posted January 6, 2009 Here's the way Briere's salary is structured. They can buy him out cheap (5 Mil) in 3 years.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.