New CBA Gives Rangers Options to Deal with Wade Redden

[chilly666]

Now that the CBA has been ratified by NHL owners, the New York Rangers have to decide how to proceed with Wade Redden.

In the old CBA, it wasn't too difficult to figure out. Because a player could be "buried" in the minors and not count against the team's NHL salary cap, sending Redden to the AHL farm team in Hartford was simple and easy.

Out of sight, out of mind, off the salary cap.

But there's a provision in the new CBA that doesn't allow the hiding of NHL contracts in the minors, save the first $900,000. So Redden, with a cap hit of $6.5 million in each of this season and next, means the Rangers are now faced with using valuable cap space on a player who is not remotely part of coach John Tortorella's plans.

Ideas Here


personally i see them going with #3 and will be bought out next summer

[straka91]

Originally Posted by chilly666

Ideas Here


personally i see them going with #3 and will be bought out next summer

There is another option the guy left out, wait for Gaborik to get hurt and make Redden the 13th forward. LOLz.

[JKidd]

I don't like not being able to bury guys in the minor leagues. As far as I'm concerned, the player goes through waivers and is still getting paid his NHL salary, just at the AHL level. If no other team wanted the guy, then he shouldn't count against "his" NHL teams salary cap as - essentially - a penalty.

Either way, option 2 sounds best.

[Gunslinger]

Does'nt the new CBA allow the teams (I forget the exact phrase) which allows teams two opportunities to "eat" a salary/cut it and not have it count against the cap? Each team is allowed two of these provisions I believe. Hopefully somebody smarter than me can expand on this or correct me if I am wrong.

[mikebflorida]

That sure is a nice deal for the players.

I am a guy who thinks that if you sign a contract, it should be honored but if the guy isn't giving 100% and is not living up to it, well......

I think contracts should be stat or incentive based anyway but I'm kind of kooky that way. Either way, it's the Rangers fault for signing him to such a ludicrous contract, they should have to suck it up.

[hi_from_ca]

Originally Posted by Gunslinger

Does'nt the new CBA allow the teams (I forget the exact phrase) which allows teams two opportunities to "eat" a salary/cut it and not have it count against the cap? Each team is allowed two of these provisions I believe. Hopefully somebody smarter than me can expand on this or correct me if I am wrong.

My understanding (not fact, just what I think the new CBA says) is that the compliance buy outs can only happen after this season and next. They are stuck with his contract for this year.

[antonio106]

Originally Posted by mikebflorida

That sure is a nice deal for the players.

I am a guy who thinks that if you sign a contract, it should be honored but if the guy isn't giving 100% and is not living up to it, well......

I think contracts should be stat or incentive based anyway but I'm kind of kooky that way. Either way, it's the Rangers fault for signing him to such a ludicrous contract, they should have to suck it up.

I mostly agree with this. However, the inevitable difficulty with bonuses or incentive based contracts is the team micro-managing, trying to save money. Say your team's not in a playoff race, guy has 49 goals. Provision in his contract says he gets another $2 mil if he hits the 50 goal mark. Do you dress him in the last game of the season? Now, mine's a ridiculous example, but it shows how a team could use that as a stick; players want bankable money, since you can't have a purely commission based system in a sports league.

I don't care what they do with Redden. As posters on here know, I also don't think we should have a salary cap. There are better ways to control parity in the league (i.e., gate sharing), but the league doesn't have the stomach to make the rich Original Six teams shoulder the burden. The Rangers and Leafs are proof that salary caps don't work; one Stanley Cup between the two of them in over 45 years. This ain't baseball.

[Gunslinger]

Originally Posted by hi_from_ca

My understanding (not fact, just what I think the new CBA says) is that the compliance buy outs can only happen after this season and next. They are stuck with his contract for this year.

Thats what I thought. Thanks for the info. Thats a whole lotta cap hit for a guy they obviously don't want. Ouch.

[chilly666]

Per agent Don Meehan, given permission today by NYR to speak to NHL teams about Redden, who will not be invited to camp...

Link

[Plateworker]

The Rangers told Redden to stay home for the rest of the year so he does not hurt himself

[FurnaceFace]

There must be one team that has some intrest in him. Isnt there? A last rond draft pick a bag of pucks ???

[I_am_Belak_2]

Originally Posted by FurnaceFace

There must be one team that has some intrest in him. Isnt there? A last rond draft pick a bag of pucks ???

Him, possibly. His contract, NO.

[Gunslinger]

Originally Posted by FurnaceFace

There must be one team that has some intrest in him. Isnt there? A last rond draft pick a bag of pucks ???

Originally Posted by I_am_Belak_2

Him, possibly. His contract, NO.

Belak's right. Not at that price or anything remotely close to it.

[BROKEN*ORBITAL]

I dont have team payrolls in front of me but if there's a team that needs money on the books to reach the cap floor, Redden is always a candidate.

[chilly666]

all are at the cap floor currently