|
Post by mslarose27 on Jun 26, 2009 14:01:36 GMT -5
I'm fine with us being a budget team. Yeah, it sucks because we can lose players that way when they play themselves to a bigger contract that what JR might have them slotted at...but at the same time, in a small market, it makes financial sense. Especially when we've only made a profit two of the eleven years we've been in NC. I do think Erik and Chad both would like to stay, but can't blame either one of them for looking else where. For different reasons, this might be their last shot to sign the "big money" deals. I hope at least one of them is still here because it'd be a shame to lose two fan favorites. That's my practical, sensible, everything happens for a reason side...my emotional side is screaming SIGN THE FREAKING CONTRACT CHAD! lmao
|
|
|
Post by mscaniac on Jun 26, 2009 15:18:22 GMT -5
On the topic of the cap they have finally released the official number.
Quote: 2009-10 salary cap set at $56.8 million Friday, 06.26.2009 / 3:45 PM / News By NHL.com Staff For the first time since the NHL returned from the work stoppage in 2005-06, the League will not see a significant increase in the salary cap.
The NHL and NHLPA agreed Friday -- on the same day the Entry Draft will take place in Montreal -- to set the cap number for 2009-10 at $56.8 million, up just $100,000 from $56.7 million in 2008-09. The floor is $40.8 million and the mid-range limit is $48.8 million.
When the League first introduced the cap in 2005-06, teams were forced to keep salaries under $39 million. That figure rose to $44 million the following season and jumped to $50.3 million in '07-08 before rising again for the just-concluded season.
With the cap ceiling remaining almost where it was last season, general managers will be trying to find ways to improve their teams without the benefit of the extra room they've enjoyed in previous years. Teams expected to have more space to maneuver -- such as the Montreal Canadiens, Los Angeles Kings and New York Islanders -- could have a decided advantage over teams up against the cap -- such as the Detroit Red Wings and Philadelphia Flyers and Boston Bruins -- when free agency gets under way July 1.
|
|
|
Post by turncoat on Jun 26, 2009 19:27:40 GMT -5
I think Toronto also has quite a bit to work with.
|
|
|
Post by mscaniac on Jun 29, 2009 10:40:08 GMT -5
Latest update on Cole and LaRose.. still no good news.
Quote: Rutherford: no change on Cole, LaRose
Submitted by chipalexander on 06/29/2009 - 10:41 Tags: Canes Now | Jim Rutherford
Will Erik Cole and Chad LaRose sign new contracts with the Hurricanes before Wednesday and the start of free agency?
"I don't know. It's tough to read," general manager Jim Rutherford said today. "I really don't know. There has not been any change in terms of getting closer together."
Cole and LaRose are unrestricted free agents and Rutherford had said he hoped to quick negotiate with the forwards after the playoffs ended and reach an agreement. He said both had been offered multi-year contracts.
"Originally, we were looking at a one-year contract with Erik, but before leaving for the draft we moved it to two years," Rutherford said. "You put out the best deal you can. We think we've made both of them fair offers. But what we think is fair and what they think is fair can be two different things."
Rutherford said there had been no further movement with defenseman Dennis Seidenberg and that Seidenberg would test the free-agent market on July 1.
The Canes' other unrestricted free agent, forward Ryan Bayda, has been offered a two-way contract and likely will test the market, as well, Rutherford said.
"That does mean we do not want Ryan back," Rutherford said. "We would like to keep our options open at that position with so many young players coming along. I can understand why Ryan might like to go into July to see if he can get a one-way contract."
Seidenberg was a top-four defenseman for the Canes last season, but Rutherford said the team would not be actively looking to make a trade or at free agents to fill the void. He again mentioned veteran defenseman Frantisek Kaberle and sound very optimistic that Anton Babchuk, a restricted free agent, would return.
"Babchuk, with Joni Pitkanen, could round out our top four," he said.
|
|
|
Post by dewaltgirl on Jun 29, 2009 12:20:24 GMT -5
It sounds like, as I expected, the length of contract might be the sticking point for Erik.
QUITE happy to hear we didn't throw a one-year at Bayda again. I think that hurt us this year during those games we couldn't send him down to Albany and he just sat in the Press Box.
|
|
|
Post by mscaniac on Jun 29, 2009 13:11:46 GMT -5
Well they started out at a year then increased it to two.. I think that's fair, if he wants a longer contract than that by all means let him go test the waters. IMO it's about time JR stopped handing out never ending contracts and NTC's especially with all our "youngsters" that we should need room for in the next few years. I think someone is going to snatch Bayda but if not I'm with you DG he doesn't need to be sitting in the press box.
|
|
|
Post by dewaltgirl on Jun 29, 2009 13:32:18 GMT -5
I agree, we don't need to be giving out long-term contracts without knowing what future caps will be set at and especially in this economy. I can't blame Erik for looking for some stability though. He has to be tired of moving his family back and forth and if he can get that out of some other team, I'm sure he'll take it.
If someone else grabs up Bayda, then I'm happy for him. He too has to be looking for stability with his family but we have so many players of his "type" already on our roster that I'm not for giving him a one-way at all.
|
|
|
Post by turncoat on Jun 29, 2009 15:16:20 GMT -5
I will just be glad when all this is settled.....the sooner the better.
|
|
|
Post by mscaniac on Jun 29, 2009 15:23:09 GMT -5
But even if Erik were to get a long term contract that sure isn't any guarantee he is going to stay here.. look what happened with Justin and others too I'm sure. He could still be traded again at any time so I don't really understand the "stability" factor.
|
|
|
Post by dewaltgirl on Jun 29, 2009 15:27:28 GMT -5
A longer contract would make it more difficult to trade him. Other teams aren't going to want to take the length along with him. Justin only has 1 or 2 left on his contract doesn't he?
|
|
|
Post by mscaniac on Jun 29, 2009 15:56:16 GMT -5
A longer contract would make it more difficult to trade him. Other teams aren't going to want to take the length along with him. Justin only has 1 or 2 left on his contract doesn't he? I thought it was three when he was traded but I could very well be old and senile and incorrect! LOL
|
|
|
Post by mslarose27 on Jun 29, 2009 15:58:51 GMT -5
I think Justin has one more year left, maybe two. I believe he's up after this coming season. I think it's definately length with Erik. I don't blame him for wanting to stick here but think 2 years is pretty fair.
|
|
|
Post by dewaltgirl on Jun 29, 2009 15:58:59 GMT -5
You're probably right. LOL I've been remembering things completely wrong lately so....
|
|
|
Post by Ells on Jun 29, 2009 19:40:01 GMT -5
JWill is signed out to 7/1/11, technically.
|
|
|
Post by Melindaaaaaa [26] on Jun 29, 2009 23:50:50 GMT -5
And Erik has never been one to sign a long term contract. Two years is a good deal for him.
I love him to death, but he pisses me off come this time of year.
|
|