Tuukka contract coming ?

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

    Re: Tuukka contract coming ?

    In response to MeanE's comment:

    In response to goodnewsbears' comment:

     

     


    He did.  That's why they were playing in the second round.

     

     



    You call that standing on his head, I call it doing what he is supposed to do.  Here is a quote that concerns me and others regarding that Sabres series.

     

     "It was clear after Boston's loss in Game 5 last Friday in Buffalo that Rask was beginning to tire. When the team returned home early Saturday morning, the players were given the day off. During practice on Sunday, Rask was on the ice, but was his participation was limited during drills."

    Tuuka played 49 annd 57 regular season games the 2 years prior to 2009-2010 why was he so tired?  It's an excuse.  Marty played 59 games during the regular season at the age of 40 and than another 24 in the playoffs!  Yet at 22 he couldn't handle 45 regular season games?  There are RED flags, if you choose not to see them, that's your perogative.



    I concur. 

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from goodnewsbears. Show goodnewsbears's posts

    Re: Tuukka contract coming ?

    In response to MeanE's comment:


    You call that standing on his head, I call it doing what he is supposed to do.  Here is a quote that concerns me and others regarding that Sabres series.

     

     "It was clear after Boston's loss in Game 5 last Friday in Buffalo that Rask was beginning to tire. When the team returned home early Saturday morning, the players were given the day off. During practice on Sunday, Rask was on the ice, but was his participation was limited during drills."

    Tuuka played 49 annd 57 regular season games the 2 years prior to 2009-2010 why was he so tired?  It's an excuse.  Marty played 59 games during the regular season at the age of 40 and than another 24 in the playoffs!  Yet at 22 he couldn't handle 45 regular season games?  There are RED flags, if you choose not to see them, that's your perogative.




    Whose quote is that?

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from MeanE. Show MeanE's posts

    Re: Tuukka contract coming ?

    In response to goodnewsbears' comment:
    [


    Whose quote is that?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Does it matter? Is it not a quote that you have heard 1,000 times before on bdc and other outlets.  That is the excuse I hear most often associated with Tuukka Rask and his rookie season.  Oh yeah, and to add to the why excuse.  He was a super thin guy!  That's teh other one that we have heard.  

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from goodnewsbears. Show goodnewsbears's posts

    Re: Tuukka contract coming ?

    In response to MeanE's comment:

    Does it matter? Is it not a quote that you have heard 1,000 times before on bdc and other outlets.  That is the excuse I hear most often associated with Tuukka Rask and his rookie season.  Oh yeah, and to add to the why excuse.  He was a super thin guy!  That's teh other one that we have heard.  




    Of course it matters whose quote it was.  Who said it?

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

    Re: Tuukka contract coming ?

    In response to SoxFanInIL's comment:

    In response to Bookboy007's comment:

     

    In response to shuperman's comment:

     

    If some team wants to give up multiple 1st rounders for rask i say let him go.  

     

     



    Great Googily Moogily!!  Nuts.  You don't let your only proven NHL starter walk when you have a perennial contender that depends heavily on an aging monster defenseman.  Khudobin still hasn't played enough NHL games to lose his rookie status (I don't think he qualifies as a rookie because of his age).  18 games from Khudobin and you're willing to let Rask walk for picks?  Madness!

     

    Svedberg has been the best European prospect pickup the Bruins have had since the drafted Krejci, and the best Swede since Axelsson.  And it wouldn't be a stretch to say that a record like his AHL record would make him the best Swedish prospect th Bruins have developed in their history.  But he hasn't faced the NHL yet.  Subban may have been untouchable, but I don't want the Bruins' season to rest on him next year, either.  Sooooo, letting Rask walk is nuts.  Working with him to manage the one year, negotiated reduction in the cap?  Muuuuuch better.

     




    I think they are playing a dangerous game with Rask. He patiently waited at the end of the bench while TT finished up. Then he signs a team-friendly 1 yr deal while lesser proven goalies like Schneider... on a team with already one obscenely paid goalie already- gets a long term deal. Now we are going to jerk him around some more? If I was him Id say OK, keep the contracts at 1 year until Im a UFA and Ill catch ya later.  Somebody will commit to him.

     

    Rask showed some stones with this years contract, both from his persepective and looking out for the B's.  Didnt whine about the deal at all like some people would.  Look at how players in the NHL are dropping like flies with injuries every week... its time for TR to get some security.

     



    Yeah, SoxFan, but the plan I outlined above actually gives him 9 years of security at about $5.5M/yr over two deals signed with very few games in between - hopefully 16W worth.  I wouldn't ask Rask to sign a 1 yr deal unless I had every intention of coming back in the new fiscal year and signing him for the max length.  That's showing him how much you value both the "stones" and commitment to helping the team ice a winner that he's shown.

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

    Re: Tuukka contract coming ?

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

    In response to Bookboy007's comment:

     

    NAS - every time I try to reply to your posts, I hit some glitch...


    Yes!  I've been working on that for almost two years!

     



    Aaaaaand the Beaky Buzzard post comes back to bite me in the azz.

    If I could post a .gif of someone walking into something, I would.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from islamorada. Show islamorada's posts

    Re: Tuukka contract coming ?

    If in fact PC had a verbal with Rask to do exactly as you say, then it is circumvention of the Cap.  My my, if JJ won't use Savard's LITR money for cap space, why would he circumvent a CBA he helped to create with lower cap in 2014?  

     

    In response to Bookboy007's comment:

    In response to SoxFanInIL's comment:

     

    In response to Bookboy007's comment:

     

    In response to shuperman's comment:

     

    If some team wants to give up multiple 1st rounders for rask i say let him go.  

     

     



    Great Googily Moogily!!  Nuts.  You don't let your only proven NHL starter walk when you have a perennial contender that depends heavily on an aging monster defenseman.  Khudobin still hasn't played enough NHL games to lose his rookie status (I don't think he qualifies as a rookie because of his age).  18 games from Khudobin and you're willing to let Rask walk for picks?  Madness!

     

    Svedberg has been the best European prospect pickup the Bruins have had since the drafted Krejci, and the best Swede since Axelsson.  And it wouldn't be a stretch to say that a record like his AHL record would make him the best Swedish prospect th Bruins have developed in their history.  But he hasn't faced the NHL yet.  Subban may have been untouchable, but I don't want the Bruins' season to rest on him next year, either.  Sooooo, letting Rask walk is nuts.  Working with him to manage the one year, negotiated reduction in the cap?  Muuuuuch better.

     




    I think they are playing a dangerous game with Rask. He patiently waited at the end of the bench while TT finished up. Then he signs a team-friendly 1 yr deal while lesser proven goalies like Schneider... on a team with already one obscenely paid goalie already- gets a long term deal. Now we are going to jerk him around some more? If I was him Id say OK, keep the contracts at 1 year until Im a UFA and Ill catch ya later.  Somebody will commit to him.

     

    Rask showed some stones with this years contract, both from his persepective and looking out for the B's.  Didnt whine about the deal at all like some people would.  Look at how players in the NHL are dropping like flies with injuries every week... its time for TR to get some security.

     

     



    Yeah, SoxFan, but the plan I outlined above actually gives him 9 years of security at about $5.5M/yr over two deals signed with very few games in between - hopefully 16W worth.  I wouldn't ask Rask to sign a 1 yr deal unless I had every intention of coming back in the new fiscal year and signing him for the max length.  That's showing him how much you value both the "stones" and commitment to helping the team ice a winner that he's shown.

     




     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from MeanE. Show MeanE's posts

    Re: Tuukka contract coming ?

    In response to Bookboy007's comment:

     

    Yeah, SoxFan, but the plan I outlined above actually gives him 9 years of security at about $5.5M/yr over two deals signed with very few games in between - hopefully 16W worth.  I wouldn't ask Rask to sign a 1 yr deal unless I had every intention of coming back in the new fiscal year and signing him for the max length.  That's showing him how much you value both the "stones" and commitment to helping the team ice a winner that he's shown.

     



    I like your thought process regarding cap circumvention, but I don't think that Tuukka's agent will go for it.  Isn't all the risk on his client?  What if Tuukka were to accept another 1 year deal and he tweaked his hammy or knee really bad in October that required season ending surgery before the 8 year deal was approved?  In addition, PC & Tuukka's agent have a pretty frosty relationship if my memory serves me. 

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: Tuukka contract coming ?

    In response to bostonfan191646's comment:

    The dream of Mike Smith continues.

    when healthy he was good.




    I always appreciated a goalie who had to look behind him into the net after every wrist shot.

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

    Re: Tuukka contract coming ?

    In response to MeanE's comment:

    In response to Bookboy007's comment:

     

     

    Yeah, SoxFan, but the plan I outlined above actually gives him 9 years of security at about $5.5M/yr over two deals signed with very few games in between - hopefully 16W worth.  I wouldn't ask Rask to sign a 1 yr deal unless I had every intention of coming back in the new fiscal year and signing him for the max length.  That's showing him how much you value both the "stones" and commitment to helping the team ice a winner that he's shown.

     

     



    I like your thought process regarding cap circumvention, but I don't think that Tuukka's agent will go for it.  Isn't all the risk on his client?  What if Tuukka were to accept another 1 year deal and he tweaked his hammy or knee really bad in October that required season ending surgery before the 8 year deal was approved?  In addition, PC & Tuukka's agent have a pretty frosty relationship if my memory serves me. 

     



    I don't think it's circumvention.  Both transactions are legal.  And you could re-up Tuukka before he plays a game on that one year deal.  You could sign the one-year extension during the Cup parade, then the 8 year extension after the draft, and Rask wouldn't play a single game in between the two - zero risk.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: Tuukka contract coming ?

    "but I don't think that Tuukka's agent will go for it.  Isn't all the risk on his client?"

    I don't it is cap circumvention either but a good point on Tuukka's agent. Altough I tend to think that Rasks agent thinks his client is going to get a big payday no matter what city he is in Mean. Hoping the latter actually.

    Doesn't matter Subban is better at on ice goalie drills anyways tee hee

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from MeanE. Show MeanE's posts

    Re: Tuukka contract coming ?

    In response to Bookboy007's comment:

    I don't think it's circumvention.  Both transactions are legal.  And you could re-up Tuukka before he plays a game on that one year deal.  You could sign the one-year extension during the Cup parade, then the 8 year extension after the draft, and Rask wouldn't play a single game in between the two - zero risk.

     



    Are you positive on this Book?  It seems like signing a one year deal and an 8 year extension in the same month would not be allowed under the CBA.  Your idea is out of the box and a good one, it just doesn't pass the smell test.  It is similar to what the patriots are  trying to do with the RFA signing yesterday, but they are front loading instead of back loading with their 1 year offer.  If Pitt doesn't match, they will sign long term extension, but 1st year must remain at offer price.  

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from islamorada. Show islamorada's posts

    Re: Tuukka contract coming ?

    Two legal contracts is correct.  Yet, Kovy's contract was legal at first.  Circumventing the cap as defined in the CBA is still in the hands of the Commissioner/Board of Governors. Signing a one year deal then a month or so later signing a long term deal would be circumventing the cap.  The new CBA addresses the variances in contracts enough so to view the hypothetical Rask scenario posed as circumventing the cap despite the "legal contracts".  Why would JJ allow PC to do such bastardization of the new CBA.  Doubt it.  Oh well, I made my point clearer.  

     

    http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/id/21176/breaking-down-the-nhls-new-cba

    Salary variance: No more than 35 percent year-over-year and no year less than 50 percent of the highest year. 
    This was a key get for the NHL, its response to wiping out the "cheat deals" -- otherwise known as the back-diving contracts such as Roberto Luongo’s and Marian Hossa’s -- which tacked on low salaries at the end of the contract to bring down the average salary and cap hit. The league’s first volley on this was 5 percent (year-over-year) back in October before moving to 10 percent last month. This week, the league moved to 30 percent before finally going to 35 percent Saturday/Sunday. It’s a higher variance than the NHL wanted, but the league gets to eliminate back-diving deals nonetheless.

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

    Re: Tuukka contract coming ?

    The Bruins have the right to sign Rask to an extension this season.  If it's a one-year extension, they have a right to extend that deal any time after July 1 when the new season begins (or whatever the day is now when contracts expire and UFAs become free game).

    This could happen for reasons other than simply wanting to manage the cap.  For example, Rask is an RFA.  The Bruins do not want to let Rask get to RFA status, but they are also having trouble agreeing to a long-term deal.  Both sides agree to a one year extension of the current terms with the intent to continue negotiation on a long-term deal after July 1st.  If no long-term deal is forthcoming, Rask will be a UFA in what should be a much better year for UFAs.  The sides then agree to a deal three weeks into the FA period after seeing what the market will bear for goalies.  Imagine that Jimmy Howard isn't about to sign a 6 year extension, for example, and he and Ray Emery both sign market-setting deals (what is it about former Seniorita goaltenders these days?  Last year, it was Elliott; this year, Emery.  What's next?  Pascale Leclaire comes out of the woodwork and leads the Oilers to a Cup?).

    So that could go down, and there's no reason not to let that go down, so....

    I wouldn't be slimy about it, either.  I'd call the league office and say hey, look - this looks to be a legit manoeuver to create some flexibility with a declining Cap.  Would you consider it "circumvention"?  What about if we kept the total length of the deal to 1+5 years, so it doesn't go beyond the limit set by the new CBA?  (or whatever tweaks they needed to see).  I don't think they'd like it much, but I think they'd let it ride.  The only reason the Kovalchuk deal got hammered was because it allowed the Devils to pay Kovalchuk way more money than the cap was supposed to allow - thus circumventing the spending limit.  This doesn't do that.  The variance language in the new CBA prevents teams from back-diving contracts so guys retire when owed the $500K that brings the contract average down.  There's no question of Rask walking away from the one year salary, and I wouldn't think it could be a super steal salary - something similar to what he makes now at least.

    The only doubt I have is whether the CBA says you can't talk about an extension until the final year of the deal.  If you can't even talk about it, then you can't talk about the second contract, which would make it a violation.  But then, there go all of the conversations like the one for Tuukka's last deal - "If you take the one year deal and show you're a top goalie in the league, then we'll have to step up on the next deal...."

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

    Re: Tuukka contract coming ?

    Detroit just signed Howard, 6 years for $31.8 mill or $5.3 per season:

     

    http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=420473

     

    Perhaps this will mirror what Rask may get?

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

    Re: Tuukka contract coming ?

    Thanks Book, your point was made well enough.  

     

    In response to Bookboy007's comment:

    The Bruins have the right to sign Rask to an extension this season.  If it's a one-year extension, they have a right to extend that deal any time after July 1 when the new season begins (or whatever the day is now when contracts expire and UFAs become free game).

    This could happen for reasons other than simply wanting to manage the cap.  For example, Rask is an RFA.  The Bruins do not want to let Rask get to RFA status, but they are also having trouble agreeing to a long-term deal.  Both sides agree to a one year extension of the current terms with the intent to continue negotiation on a long-term deal after July 1st.  If no long-term deal is forthcoming, Rask will be a UFA in what should be a much better year for UFAs.  The sides then agree to a deal three weeks into the FA period after seeing what the market will bear for goalies.  Imagine that Jimmy Howard isn't about to sign a 6 year extension, for example, and he and Ray Emery both sign market-setting deals (what is it about former Seniorita goaltenders these days?  Last year, it was Elliott; this year, Emery.  What's next?  Pascale Leclaire comes out of the woodwork and leads the Oilers to a Cup?).

    So that could go down, and there's no reason not to let that go down, so....

    I wouldn't be slimy about it, either.  I'd call the league office and say hey, look - this looks to be a legit manoeuver to create some flexibility with a declining Cap.  Would you consider it "circumvention"?  What about if we kept the total length of the deal to 1+5 years, so it doesn't go beyond the limit set by the new CBA?  (or whatever tweaks they needed to see).  I don't think they'd like it much, but I think they'd let it ride.  The only reason the Kovalchuk deal got hammered was because it allowed the Devils to pay Kovalchuk way more money than the cap was supposed to allow - thus circumventing the spending limit.  This doesn't do that.  The variance language in the new CBA prevents teams from back-diving contracts so guys retire when owed the $500K that brings the contract average down.  There's no question of Rask walking away from the one year salary, and I wouldn't think it could be a super steal salary - something similar to what he makes now at least.

    The only doubt I have is whether the CBA says you can't talk about an extension until the final year of the deal.  If you can't even talk about it, then you can't talk about the second contract, which would make it a violation.  But then, there go all of the conversations like the one for Tuukka's last deal - "If you take the one year deal and show you're a top goalie in the league, then we'll have to step up on the next deal...."




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

    Re: Tuukka contract coming ?

    In response to jmwalters' comment:

    Detroit just signed Howard, 6 years for $31.8 mill or $5.3 per season:

     

    http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=420473

     

    Perhaps this will mirror what Rask may get?



    Howards #'s don't compare to Rask though. Detroit may have just threw a wrench into PC's plans. To look at this in a positive way. A lot of teams are against the cap ceiling next season. A lot of the teams that aren't are pretty set with their goalie situation.

     

Share