The real issue with Tim Thomas' contract.

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from 306bruinsfan. Show 306bruinsfan's posts

    The real issue with Tim Thomas' contract.

    First of all, I'd just like to say that I am not a TT hater.  I am a TT contract hater.  I don't necessarily believe the cap hit was too high but the length of the contract was two or so years too long.  I've felt this way since the day it was signed.

    Now to the issue that I am seeing: In 2012-2013 Tim Thomas will still carry a $5M cap hit for the Bruins.  This is also the year that Tuuka Rask will be entering into a new contract.  Everyone talks about how decent a $6.3M cap bit between two goaltenders is very reasonable.  IMO, when it comes time for Rask to renew his contact, I highly doubt it will be for similar money.  Depending on his next two seasons, Rask could demand a substantial raise.  This could leave the Bruins with a total cap hit for their goaltenders at around $8M+ that year.  That is steep for a goaltending duo and will definitely hurt the teams development IMO.

    Is anyone else worried about this or am I the only one?
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: The real issue with Tim Thomas' contract.

    How about this scenario:

    Rask chokes and Thomas plays at a decent level for the rest of his contract.

    What do all of you crystal ball "the contract is too long" crybabies think of that?
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Raskman. Show Raskman's posts

    Re: The real issue with Tim Thomas' contract.

    In Response to The real issue with Tim Thomas' contract.:
    First of all, I'd just like to say that I am not a TT hater.  I am a TT contract hater.  I don't necessarily believe the cap hit was too high but the length of the contract was two or so years too long.  I've felt this way since the day it was signed. Now to the issue that I am seeing: In 2012-2013 Tim Thomas will still carry a $5M cap hit for the Bruins.  This is also the year that Tuuka Rask will be entering into a new contract.  Everyone talks about how decent a $6.3M cap bit between two goaltenders is very reasonable.  IMO, when it comes time for Rask to renew his contact, I highly doubt it will be for similar money.  Depending on his next two seasons, Rask could demand a substantial raise.  This could leave the Bruins with a total cap hit for their goaltenders at around $8M+ that year.  That is steep for a goaltending duo and will definitely hurt the teams development IMO. Is anyone else worried about this or am I the only one?
    Posted by 306bruinsfan


    Thomas' NMC expires June 30/2012.  I'm pretty sure PC wasn't expecting those two to both be playing for us after that point.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from BlackandGold24. Show BlackandGold24's posts

    Re: The real issue with Tim Thomas' contract.

    What if Thomas gets traded by then? Maybe he retires. There's a lot of things that could happen before then that might change the situation.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Crowls2424. Show Crowls2424's posts

    Re: The real issue with Tim Thomas' contract.

    TT will be eligible for Medicare in 2012-13.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Raskman. Show Raskman's posts

    Re: The real issue with Tim Thomas' contract.

    In Response to Re: The real issue with Tim Thomas' contract.:
    What if Thomas gets traded by then? Maybe he retires. There's a lot of things that could happen before then that might change the situation.
    Posted by BlackandGold24


    TT retiring does NOT give us cap relief.  Joys of a 35+ contract.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from BlackandGold24. Show BlackandGold24's posts

    Re: The real issue with Tim Thomas' contract.

    In Response to Re: The real issue with Tim Thomas' contract.:
    In Response to Re: The real issue with Tim Thomas' contract. : TT retiring does NOT give us cap relief.  Joys of a 35+ contract.
    Posted by Raskman


    Really? Then maybe he gets traded by then.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from duinne. Show duinne's posts

    Re: The real issue with Tim Thomas' contract.

    by 2012-13, this team could look radically different. It's a reach to be worrying about two years down the road.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from 306bruinsfan. Show 306bruinsfan's posts

    Re: The real issue with Tim Thomas' contract.

    Dude, this has nothing to do with a crystal ball.  All I am saying is that if Tuuka succeeds, the Bruins won't be able to resign him going into his next conract.  And if they do, they will be strapped for cap space which will hurt the team's overall development.  TT is going to be 39 when he finishes his contract.  That is extremely old for a goaltender.  I have no doubt that he will play at a "decent" level for the rest of his contract.  But we'll likely lose a solid up-and-coming goaltender because of the length of TT's contract.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from 306bruinsfan. Show 306bruinsfan's posts

    Re: The real issue with Tim Thomas' contract.

    In Response to Re: The real issue with Tim Thomas' contract.:
    In Response to The real issue with Tim Thomas' contract. : Thomas' NMC expires June 30/2012.  I'm pretty sure PC wasn't expecting those two to both be playing for us after that point.
    Posted by Raskman


    His NMC has been waived at this point.  So far, no takers.  I realize it is a bad year for trying to get rid of a goalie based on the market but I doubt PC will be able to trade an aging goaltender with that high of a cap hit.  Then again stranger things have happened.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Raskman. Show Raskman's posts

    Re: The real issue with Tim Thomas' contract.

    The only thing that scares me is the CBA ending.  If the owners get their way and get a lower cap ceiling, then it could be sickening in the next season.  Does anyone know off the top of their head what happens to contracts that would be in their final year during a lost season?  I would assume those players would be free agents, but I don't know that for sure.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Raskman. Show Raskman's posts

    Re: The real issue with Tim Thomas' contract.

    In Response to Re: The real issue with Tim Thomas' contract.:
    In Response to Re: The real issue with Tim Thomas' contract. : His NMC has been waived at this point.  So far, no takers.  I realize it is a bad year for trying to get rid of a goalie based on the market but I doubt PC will be able to trade an aging goaltender with that high of a cap hit.  Then again stranger things have happened.
    Posted by 306bruinsfan


    He reportedly waive it, but we don't know to how many teams and that was just for a trade.  There is no chance he waived it outright.  If his NMC expires then he can be waived.  Sending him to the minors doesn't do us any good and neither does buying him out, but it's something more then just trying to make a deal.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from lordy4. Show lordy4's posts

    Re: The real issue with Tim Thomas' contract.

    A player cannot be sent to the minors with a no-movement clause without the player approving the move. There is no way Thomas approves a move to Providence.

    Thomas hasn't completely waived his no-trade clause. He has waived it for a certain number of teams, just like Gagne did. 

    Here is a scenario that could happen. Rask plays well this year and come trade deadline time, the Sharks Niitymaki-Greiss experiment isn't working. The Sharks would then be in a position to upgrade the position. Then, you may have a possible suitor for Thomas. I don't see anything happening until then unless an injury happens
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: The real issue with Tim Thomas' contract.

    Actually, in a worst case scenario where Thomas and Rask both have $5M cap hits, a new CBA would be the best solution.  If they do push the ceiling down the move will come with an amnesty period where teams can buy out contracts - just like  last time.  The Bruins planned on teams not getting amnesty or roll-backs or any of the provisions that kept star players from flooding the market because idiots overspent.  The didn't count on an amnesty. Now that there's a precedent, I don't see them, or any of about 20 teams, agreeing to a new CBA that doesn't let them escape their mistakes.

    Again....
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: The real issue with Tim Thomas' contract.

    Oh yeah, just for consistency's sake - the only problem with the Thomas contract is that it's a 35+ deal.  If it wasn't, the Bruins could ship TT to Providence in the last year when Tuukka's second contract expires.  If they had to, they could buy him out.  He could say F this and retire.  But that slip of attentiveness caused all of these threads.  That's it.  If it wasn't a 35+ deal, I don't think anyone would have a huge problem with it - except those "TT haters": they see him floppin', they be hatin' - you know, those guys.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from bruinsfan084evr. Show bruinsfan084evr's posts

    Re: The real issue with Tim Thomas' contract.

     thomas wants to remain a bruin,so its been said   so let it be  people

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from mxx. Show mxx's posts

    Re: The real issue with Tim Thomas' contract.

    For NAS, what does your crystal ball say?

    I assume your C ball is telling you everyone one of the top 6 forwards craps out, Rasks sticks it up and then Hamil takes the bus from PVD to join Wheeler and lead the NHL in scoring with TT in net and the Bs on the way to the finals..... Come on...Man!----what and how the heck do you know anything better than any other fan on here?

    If the TT contract was a fair deal an not a huge ancor to the Bs, then why is Chia having such a hard time dealing him? Chia screwed up big time on a number of deals and TT's deal was a huge mistake ---- he can't find anyone to take his mistake away from Bs in a trade --- keep thinking the TT contract is good because the risk of Rask failing is so great--- smart thinking, right! I'm sure you like the Ference and Ryder deals becuase Chara and Horton wll stick it up, right?

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from pauly1. Show pauly1's posts

    Re: The real issue with Tim Thomas' contract.

    In Response to Re: The real issue with Tim Thomas' contract.:
    How about this scenario: Rask chokes and Thomas plays at a decent level for the rest of his contract. What do all of you crystal ball "the contract is too long" crybabies think of that?
    Posted by Not-A-Shot
    I agree that is a very real possibility. If rask did not play the way he did last year the TT bashing would be minimal.

    But this is a whole new year.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from SoxFanInIL. Show SoxFanInIL's posts

    Re: The real issue with Tim Thomas' contract.

    In Response to Re: The real issue with Tim Thomas' contract.:
    In Response to Re: The real issue with Tim Thomas' contract. : I agree that is a very real possibility. If rask did not play the way he did last year the TT bashing would be minimal. Posted by pauly1


    No it wouldn't.  TT was mediocre before his 1 miracle season behind the league's best defense.  It was great that Rask stepped up last year, but TT was awful all season, regardless of what his little fans say.

    TT was benched not only because Rask played well, but because TT was awful.

    I see Kovy got over $100 million today.  I remember insisting early in the season, the Bruins should offer their "defending Vezina" (chuckle) goalie to Atlanta for Kovy, the goal scorer.  People said I was crazy, that I was a hater (I am, because he's awful).  Still a perfect trade.

    And today?  The Bruins can't give the Pylon away, while teams fought over Kovy to give him over 100 million dollars over 17 years.

    I should gloat, but I thought the trade possibility with no Kessell in October was painfully obvious. Pity.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from SoxFanInIL. Show SoxFanInIL's posts

    Re: The real issue with Tim Thomas' contract.

    In Response to Re: The real issue with Tim Thomas' contract.:
    How about this scenario: Rask chokes and Thomas plays at a decent level for the rest of his contract. What do all of you crystal ball "the contract is too long" crybabies think of that?
    Posted by Not-A-Shot


    We think the contract was hideous at the signing and remains hideous, regardless of what Rask does.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from pauly1. Show pauly1's posts

    Re: The real issue with Tim Thomas' contract.

    In Response to Re: The real issue with Tim Thomas' contract.:
    In Response to Re: The real issue with Tim Thomas' contract. : No it wouldn't.  TT was mediocre before his 1 miracle season behind the league's best defense.  It was great that Rask stepped up last year, but TT was awful all season, regardless of what his little fans say. TT was benched not only because Rask played well, but because TT was awful. I see Kovy got over $100 million today.  I remember insisting early in the season, the Bruins should offer their "defending Vezina" (chuckle) goalie to Atlanta for Kovy, the goal scorer.  People said I was crazy, that I was a hater (I am, because he's awful).  Still a perfect trade. And today?  The Bruins can't give the Pylon away, while teams fought over Kovy to give him over 100 million dollars over 17 years. I should gloat, but I thought the trade possibility with no Kessell in October was painfully obvious. Pity.
    Posted by SoxFanInIL
    His numbers would indicate he was not terrible, inconsistent yes, terrible no. If he had a little goal support his season would have taken on a whole new look. 
    The team played better in front of Rask, ask Price how that feels. 
    That being said when the deal for TT was made I for one said a 3 year deal would be much more appealing.
    If Rask falters this year and there is no TT, then what??
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from BruinsCountry. Show BruinsCountry's posts

    Re: The real issue with Tim Thomas' contract.

    In Response to Re: The real issue with Tim Thomas' contract.:
    For NAS, what does your crystal ball say? I assume your C ball is telling you everyone one of the top 6 forwards craps out, Rasks sticks it up and then Hamil takes the bus from PVD to join Wheeler and lead the NHL in scoring with TT in net and the Bs on the way to the finals..... Come on...Man!----what and how the heck do you know anything better than any other fan on here? If the TT contract was a fair deal an not a huge ancor to the Bs, then why is Chia having such a hard time dealing him? Chia screwed up big time on a number of deals and TT's deal was a huge mistake ---- he can't find anyone to take his mistake away from Bs in a trade --- keep thinking the TT contract is good because the risk of Rask failing is so great--- smart thinking, right! I'm sure you like the Ference and Ryder deals becuase Chara and Horton wll stick it up, right?
    Posted by mxx



    Patience Mxx, patience.  As we get closer to the season, and then into training camp and the season itself, the market for a top goalie like Thomas is likely to grow.  Until we know who the Bruins get for Thomas or his $5 mill cap space, it's still WAY too early for you or anyone else to make the pronouncement that "TT's deal was a huge mistake".  The market for goalie appears to have shifted in the past year, but that said, no one wins the Cup without outstanding goaltending.   

    With $5 million of cap space via the Gagne deal,  Philly now has the funds to get the top goalie they've been lacking for about three decades.  The moving of Gagne may set off a wave of goalie deals and signings that could lead to Thomas being dealt, along with a defenseman (Ferrence?  Stuart?), for the good offensive defenseman the B's still need to be a legit Cup contender this coming season.  With Rask likely to continue on his sucessful career path and assuming good health, B's should be fine in net with Rask and an inexpensive veteran back-up (there are plenty of 'em out there still, though Auld would have been my preference).  The next week or so may be interesting.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: The real issue with Tim Thomas' contract.

    In Response to Re: The real issue with Tim Thomas' contract.:
    For NAS, what does your crystal ball say? I assume your C ball is telling you everyone one of the top 6 forwards craps out, Rasks sticks it up and then Hamil takes the bus from PVD to join Wheeler and lead the NHL in scoring with TT in net and the Bs on the way to the finals..... Come on...Man!----what and how the heck do you know anything better than any other fan on here? If the TT contract was a fair deal an not a huge ancor to the Bs, then why is Chia having such a hard time dealing him? Chia screwed up big time on a number of deals and TT's deal was a huge mistake ---- he can't find anyone to take his mistake away from Bs in a trade --- keep thinking the TT contract is good because the risk of Rask failing is so great--- smart thinking, right! I'm sure you like the Ference and Ryder deals becuase Chara and Horton wll stick it up, right?
    Posted by mxx


    I don't play the crystal ball game.  Guessing is a game of fools, but being upset about what the guess is...that's downright silly.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: The real issue with Tim Thomas' contract.

    In Response to Re: The real issue with Tim Thomas' contract.:
    In Response to Re: The real issue with Tim Thomas' contract. : No it wouldn't.  TT was mediocre before his 1 miracle season behind the league's best defense.  It was great that Rask stepped up last year, but TT was awful all season, regardless of what his little fans say. TT was benched not only because Rask played well, but because TT was awful. I see Kovy got over $100 million today.  I remember insisting early in the season, the Bruins should offer their "defending Vezina" (chuckle) goalie to Atlanta for Kovy, the goal scorer.  People said I was crazy, that I was a hater (I am, because he's awful).  Still a perfect trade. And today?  The Bruins can't give the Pylon away, while teams fought over Kovy to give him over 100 million dollars over 17 years. I should gloat, but I thought the trade possibility with no Kessell in October was painfully obvious. Pity.
    Posted by SoxFanInIL


    Gloat about what?  Atlanta wouldn't have taken that deal. 
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Raskman. Show Raskman's posts

    Re: The real issue with Tim Thomas' contract.

    In Response to Re: The real issue with Tim Thomas' contract.:
    In Response to Re: The real issue with Tim Thomas' contract. : No it wouldn't.  TT was mediocre before his 1 miracle season behind the league's best defense.  It was great that Rask stepped up last year, but TT was awful all season, regardless of what his little fans say. TT was benched not only because Rask played well, but because TT was awful. I see Kovy got over $100 million today.  I remember insisting early in the season, the Bruins should offer their "defending Vezina" (chuckle) goalie to Atlanta for Kovy, the goal scorer.  People said I was crazy, that I was a hater (I am, because he's awful).  Still a perfect trade. And today?  The Bruins can't give the Pylon away, while teams fought over Kovy to give him over 100 million dollars over 17 years. I should gloat, but I thought the trade possibility with no Kessell in October was painfully obvious. Pity.
    Posted by SoxFanInIL


    You're assuming TT would've waived his NMC to go to Atlanta.  I couldn't see him doing that.
     

Share