Toggle sidebar

Ryane Clowe

  • Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
They will give him a 5 year deal, and by year 3 of that contract, this board will be chock full of Clowe-bashing. By year 4, Clowe will be dealt somewhere for the next set of role players and reclamation projects, and the cycle of retooling on the fly will continue. Championships, meanwhile, will continue to evade the team.
 
broadwayblue said:
The most you would give him is two years? That's equally preposterous as giving him 8.
Click to expand...

I dont think so. You can always re up him again in 2 years. If you give him an 8 year contract then your ****ed if it doesnt work out. Who is going to want that contract in year 3 if he is horrible and looks like Drury out there? There is no more buyouts, that would be a terrible risk.
 
NYR Sting said:
They will give him a 5 year deal, and by year 3 of that contract, this board will be chock full of Clowe-bashing. By year 4, Clowe will be dealt somewhere for the next set of role players and reclamation projects, and the cycle of retooling on the fly will continue. Championships, meanwhile, will continue to evade the team.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with the bolded really at all, but you never know who's going to win. If you're so sure they're going to lose - what's the point of even following?
 
NYR Sting said:
They will give him a 5 year deal, and by year 3 of that contract, this board will be chock full of Clowe-bashing. By year 4, Clowe will be dealt somewhere for the next set of role players and reclamation projects, and the cycle of retooling on the fly will continue. Championships, meanwhile, will continue to evade the team.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I want to avoid an extension at all costs, but that's probably not going to happen.
 
Green Blob said:
The most I give him is a 2 year contract. If he won't take that, well then goodbye and we keep our 2nd round pick.

Really disappointing to hear those contracts demands. Guess thats why Sharks had to unload him.
Click to expand...

Who do you replace Clowe with next year if you don't resign him? 5 years should be what the Rangers look at. 5/18-20M.
 
Clowe's contract demands are a moving target. Russo reported Clowe wants 5 years/$25M. CSN Bay Area reported Clowe wants 6 years. Kyper reported the Rangers and Kent Hughes have agreed on parameters. Whatever that means.
 
StaporNY said:
Who do you replace Clowe with next year if you don't resign him? 5 years should be what the Rangers look at. 5/18-20M.
Click to expand...

Who knows, I haven't looked through all the UFAs but id rather go a year without a Clowe then sign him for 5. People need to realize he is declining. In 2-3 years there is a very strong possibility that he will not be an effective player at all except for dropping the gloves. Dont we learn anything from these long term contracts?
 
NYR Sting said:
They will give him a 5 year deal, and by year 3 of that contract, this board will be chock full of Clowe-bashing. By year 4, Clowe will be dealt somewhere for the next set of role players and reclamation projects, and the cycle of retooling on the fly will continue. Championships, meanwhile, will continue to evade the team.
Click to expand...

Yea I can see this happening unless we win a cup. if there was a timid smiley I'd post it. I have no problem risking a 3 year 4.5 mil per but some ridiculous 5 year deal unless it's some uber discounted 3 mil per would drive me nuts. I believe he's going to be a great player for his role for another 2 years but then again I thought Richards would give us at least 3
 
NYR Sting said:
They will give him a 5 year deal, and by year 3 of that contract, this board will be chock full of Clowe-bashing. By year 4, Clowe will be dealt somewhere for the next set of role players and reclamation projects, and the cycle of retooling on the fly will continue. Championships, meanwhile, will continue to evade the team.
Click to expand...

Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?

I jest a little here, but I have to admit you make a good point. The difference that I see now as compared to say the years immediately following the lock out is the Rangers prospect pipeline. It's better than it has been in a long time. Would you agree with that?
 
Pizza said:
Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?

I jest a little here, but I have to admit you make a good point. The difference that I see now as compared to say the years immediately following the lock out is the Rangers prospect pipeline. It's better than it has been in a long time. Would you agree with that?
Click to expand...

I would. Although back when Callahan, Dubi and Anisimov were coming up, with Staal, Girardi and Sauer was a pretty good time. Prucha, Dawes, Tom Pyatt as well.
 
Jersey Girl said:
I wouldn't even go that high, but no worries because that's not enough to get it done anyway.
Click to expand...
hehe, a Sharks fan came over here when the deal was confirmed, and said that Clowe likely wanted a good contract to end his career with.

In the ballpark of 5 - 6 years, at 5 - 6 mill each year.

I shudder at the thought in all honesty :)

EDIT : ahh, here it is :)
 
ecemleafs said:
u cant just retire and end it in this cba. the caphit remains.
Click to expand...

Not the full cap-hit. What counts is the difference between the cap-hit and actual salary for the remaining years of the contract.

If Richards retires when he reaches his $1M years his cap penalty would be $6.667M - $1M = $5.667M/year for the remaining years.

Since contracts cannot be front-loaded in the same manner under the new CBA, Clowe retiring before the end of his contract would likely carry little to no penalty at all.
 
NYR Sting said:
They will give him a 5 year deal, and by year 3 of that contract, this board will be chock full of Clowe-bashing. By year 4, Clowe will be dealt somewhere for the next set of role players and reclamation projects, and the cycle of retooling on the fly will continue. Championships, meanwhile, will continue to evade the team.
Click to expand...

I hate this attitude. Really.

96.66% of NHL teams fail to win a championship each and every year. That's the cold reality of how difficult it is to win the Stanley Cup. If failing to win the Cup is your measure of success, then the overwhelming majority of teams are miserable failures every year. There has to room for a broader definition of "success" than simply winning the Cup. The odds are terribly long against each and every team every year.

If the Rangers make the playoffs this year, they'll have been a playoff team for 7 out of the last 8 years having gone to the semi finals at least once. How many other teams can say that? I realize the ultimate goal is championships, but that sets the bar impossibly high. I realize it's disappointing to not go deeper, more consistently, every year. But parity, loser points, salary caps, etc... have watered down the NHL to the point where nearly every team is in the picture nearly all season long.
 
haohmaru said:
I hate this attitude. Really.

96.66% of NHL teams fail to win a championship each and every year. That's the cold reality of how difficult it is to win the Stanley Cup. If failing to win the Cup is your measure of success, then the overwhelming majority of teams are miserable failures every year. There has to room for a broader definition of "success" than simply winning the Cup. The odds are terribly long against each and every team every year.

If the Rangers make the playoffs this year, they'll have been a playoff team for 7 out of the last 8 years having gone to the semi finals at least once. How many other teams can say that? I realize the ultimate goal is championships, but that sets the bar impossibly high. I realize it's disappointing to not go deeper, more consistently, every year. But parity, loser points, salary caps, etc... have watered down the NHL to the point where nearly every team is in the picture nearly all season long.
Click to expand...

Well, the feeling is mutual, because I absolutely loathe this attitude. The point isn't that a championship must be won, and certainly not every year. But success should be measured by how often the team has a serious chance to win a championship, and for this team, that has happened once, last season.

This team has accomplished a whole boatload of mediocrity. They made the playoffs a bunch of times when Lundqvist dragged in awful teams that had no business being there. One of their series wins was against what might be one of the worst teams to ever qualify for the playoffs in tha Atlanta team.

One real contender in 8 years, and major changes to the roster every 2-3 years.

Sustained Success? That's a joke. The only thing that has been sustained is mediocrity. Just because this team finally figured out how to develop good complimentary players doesn't mean that we should all line the Canyon of Heroes and jump for joy. That's not nearly enough, and so far, that's about the only thing they've gotten right.
 
NYR Sting said:
Well, the feeling is mutual, because I absolutely loathe this attitude. The point isn't that a championship must be won, and certainly not every year. But success should be measured by how often the team has a serious chance to win a championship, and for this team, that has happened once, last season.

This team has accomplished a whole boatload of mediocrity. They made the playoffs a bunch of times when Lundqvist dragged in awful teams that had no business being there. One of their series wins was against what might be one of the worst teams to ever qualify for the playoffs in tha Atlanta team.

One real contender in 8 years, and major changes to the roster every 2-3 years.

Sustained Success? That's a joke. The only thing that has been sustained is mediocrity. Just because this team finally figured out how to develop good complimentary players doesn't mean that we should all line the Canyon of Heroes and jump for joy. That's not nearly enough, and so far, that's about the only thing they've gotten right.
Click to expand...

See my post in the other thread.
 
In the salary cap NHL,there are no great teams. Chicago had a great team in 2010. The cap and their success forced them to make major changes. Has Chicago won a playoff series since winning the Cup? The other dynasty in Pittsburgh hasn't come close to the Cup since winning it in 2009. Losing Crosby is a huge blow to the Cup hopes. He will return by the playoffs. No time to form chemistry with Iginla and the other new players. Pitt has lost in the first round twice in the last 2 years. Crosby and Malkin were out in 11. They were both healthy last year when Philly beat them. Those are two teams people point to because they tanked and built themselves back up. Boston won the Cup after Chicago and Pitt. They didn't tank and basically give away seasons.
 
Green Blob said:
I dont think so. You can always re up him again in 2 years. If you give him an 8 year contract then your ****ed if it doesnt work out. Who is going to want that contract in year 3 if he is horrible and looks like Drury out there? There is no more buyouts, that would be a terrible risk.
Click to expand...

Well I think we all know that he isn't signing a 2 year deal, and we didn't give up a 2nd and a 3rd to bring him here for two months. So the question is what does he get? Clearly 7-8 years isn't happening either. In the end I'd guess he gets somewhere around 4-5 years. Certainly the back end of that deal would likely be a problem...but when is that not an issue with contracts today?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom