Monday, September 27, 2010

Redden Waiving to Cause CBA Changes? (Updated)

Update, 4:50 p.m.:
Greg Wyshynski at Puck Daddy has more on this.

Original Post:
Ken Campbell at The Hockey News thinks that the Wade Redden waiving should lead to new CBA rules...

"The way it stands now, the only salaries that cannot escape the salary cap are for long-term deals for players 35 and older. But if a younger player signs a long-term deal, there is nothing keeping the team from burying his contract in the minors and taking it off the salary cap books the way the Rangers are sure to do with Redden and the Chicago Blackhawks will do this season with Cristobal Huet."

...another Ranger hit piece by the national hockey media. Every dig Campbell takes at the Rangers and Sather makes the article less and less credible.

Remember to follow me on Twitter & Facebook or e-mail me at nyrfan94@yahoo.com.

13 comments:

Kevin H. said...

Kevin, I fail to see how this is a "hit piece" on the Rangers. Everything the article says is absolutely consistent with most Rangers' fans criticisms of Sather and Dolan. And, while Redden is not a very good player by any standard, it is the high expectations set by his huge contract that made his poor play particularly intolerable. If he's not making $6+/per, he wouldn't be waived right now. This article is 100% dead on accurate. It's tough medicine to swallow, but I think the more the national media takes Sather to task the better, since maybe Dolan will finally wake up and realize how terrible Sather is.

-DO said...

This article makes Redden out to be a victim. That should be enough to make the article incredible.

"Redden, through no fault of his own other than declining play, now has to either play the next four years in the minors never to see the NHL again or not report to where the Rangers send him, which would void his contract."

C'mon! He SHOULD BE accountable for his declining play! Waiving him makes him accountable. If I took a job as a brain surgeon (which I am not, btw) because it paid $6.5 a year, the fact that I am fired 2 years later (or demoted to a clinic in Siberia because my contract is guaranteed) when my employer realizes I can't do the job shouldn't be too big of a surprise.

If Redden thought he was a $6.5 Mil defenseman when he signed this contract just because he had a few good years in Ottawa playing next to Chara (I could put up decent numbers playing next to Chara), then he (and/or his agent) is f'ing delusional. (We already know Sather is.) The risk of being waived to Hartford is one that he took when he accepted that absurd deal.

Kevin DeLury said...

Kev, a lot of what Campbell is saying may be true but to me it's like he's trying to insinuate the Rangers are getting away with something here. That's the way the CBA is structured and Campbell needs to get over it.

Kevin H. said...

But what was Redden supposed to do--not take the money?? That's laughable. Can you imagine that conversation?: "Um, you know Glen, I'm anticipating that my skills will deteriorate greatly in the next few years, so while I think your offer of $6.5M/per is generous, I'm going to ask that you lower it." Right.

This is all Glen Sather's fault, bottom line. Everyone on Earth knew that Redden was not worth anywhere near $6.5/M per. And, the article makes the very valid point that it could be seen as an inequity in the current CBA that a team with vast resources like the Rangers can simply cover over their idiot GM's mistakes by eating the money, and burying a player in the AHL. If Redden got this contract from a team with lesser resources, he'd still be playing because the team would have to live with its mistake (or hold its GM accountable). I'm very happy that the Rangers sent Redden to Hartford, and that we are one of the teams that has the resources to make this move, but I don't think Campbell's argument is incredible by a long shot.

Kevin H. said...

Kev - It is true that this is the way the CBA is structured. But as I read it, Campbell isn't saying the Rangers have done something to violate the CBA as it currently stands. He's saying that the CBA will likely be different in the future.

chris said...

i dont see how anyone can have a problem with this, the rangers are still paying him. you have to eaarn a spot at the nhl level

John said...

Seriously, is this guy the head of the players union or something? Instead of bashing a team for making the only move it could possibly make (is he saying that the Rangers shold keep Redden on the NHL roster even though he is at best an AHL player now?), how about puting out an argument that players need to have non-guaranteed contracts, so if they play like horse hockey for a period of time, they might actually be held accountable in the pocket! Sure the contract was ludicrous, but Sather is not doing anything that any other GM wouldn't do. Besides, Redden can still reject the assignment and become a free agent to get paid what he's worth.

-DO said...

@Kev H: I'm not saying he shouldn't take the big contract, I'm saying that the possibility of being sent to Hartford was part of the deal. It is a known risk and he took the deal with that risk. He could've tried for a No-Movement Clause if he didn't want to go to Hartford, although that probably would've meant a lower salary. If he or his agent had had any doubts about his ability to live up to the $6.5 Mil deal, maybe they should've tried to go this route (or maybe they tried and Sather rejected it).

I don't really see this as a CBA issue. The possibility of being sent to the minors b/c of cap issue is something players need to consider when making these crazy deals. Maybe Redden being sent down will cause players to give this possibility more consideration before they sign up for a deal like this.

Kevin H. said...

-DO: All valid points. And I think that's my point--that the issue is debatable, which means that Campbell's article is just one particular take on a debatable issue, not a hit job motivated by bias against the Rangers. I just don't share Kevin D.'s view that the national hockey media has it out for the Rangers. I think the luke-warm to negative coverage the team gets, for both their front office moves and on ice chances, is pretty well deserved.

Kevin DeLury said...

Kevin H., plenty of teams have buried mistakes over the years. Why does Campbell choose to make a federal case out of it now?

Kevin H. said...

Because given the amount of money and number of years left on Redden's contract, this is the mother of all mistakes.

chris said...

cristobal huet? wheres his article

LI Joe said...

the owners will eliminate this loophole in next cba so guys on 1 way deals will have to count vs cap - way to lower salaries and number of yrs. before new cba starts there will be an amnesty buyout like we did with holik