Toggle sidebar

Waived: Wade Redden bought out (1/18: Signs with STL [$1M])

Jonathan. said:
As a 12th/13th forward. What's the issue with that? At the minimum, he can skate the puck out of the D-Zone better than anyone we'd have on the 4th line.
Click to expand...

He straight up quit on 2 teams now after getting paid. He was OK for the Rangers in his first season and was one of the many who quit on Renney because he felt he deserved a more up-tempo system. His tenure in Montreal was nothing short of embarrassing.

This is a team gearing up for a Stanley Cup run. You really want to inject that sort of presence into the locker room (again)? No thanks.
 
Tawnos said:
I'm relatively certain that the NHLPA has a legitimate grievance when these players are told to stay at home.
Click to expand...

Not seeing it.

The players could argue that the team is in breach of their contract by not allowing them to play, the team can then concede breach and suggest a remedy that the player walk awy from the remaining terms.

If the players has a problem with the direction the team is going, they have their rights to walk away from the situation.

The players and the PA would have a legit grievance if the team told them to stay home and then wouldn't let them out of their contracts if that was the choice the players made.

If the player is harmed, they have remedies available to them.

Forcing the team to play them at any level is not one of them.

This early buyout is more of a courtesy than anything. These guys are getting bought out no matter what, why embarrass the players by making them wait?

It has nothing to do with potential greivances.
 
silverfish said:
Dubinsky had 16 points in 17 games for the same team. You wouldn't want him back?

Kreider only had 12 points in 33 Whale games, but it's okay to pencil him on the third line in every situation.

I understand the disagreement some feel towards bringing Gomez back, but not for the statistics that you cited.
Click to expand...
Ok. How about the fact that he couldn't score one damn goal in an entire calendar year. Is that better?
 
Gomez had a hand in getting Renny canned, Torts is a guy that would remember that and prevent the signing.

Coaches are a Fraternity as well.
 
Henriks Broadway Hat said:
Ok. How about the fact that he couldn't score one damn goal in an entire calendar year. Is that better?
Click to expand...

Yes, that is a better argument. In fact, http://didgomezscore.com/ is one of my favorite websites ever created.

I watched a fair-share of Montreal Canadiens games with Gomez on the team. I think the guy can still play at the NHL level. I think it was a tough situation for him (and everyone else in Montreal) the past couple of years because let's be honest, they were never a great team; and I'll agree that Gomez was way out of his element earning that money, and playing top-6 minutes when (but more specifically, where) he played.

On the other hand, I'm in no way shape or form opposed to bringing in another veteran guy here who has gone the distance, and has proven himself to once be a formidable NHL center, specifically a playmaker, to have in the locker room around Stepan along with Richards. I think it would be poor judgement to ignore the fact that there is a capable 3C on the open market right now who damn sure will be ready to prove his worth, and save his career, on a 1 year deal. I think it would be poor judgement for the Rangers to ignore that fact when they have Brian Boyle at 3C, and could explore the opportunity to inexpensively make Boyle a 4C, giving the team that much more depth.
 
Renney is the link to the Wings interest in Redden

Tom lost his job in Redden's first year

There's plenty of financial flexibility to sign Redden, as the Wings are nearly $9 million below the salary cap. The questions for the Wings are: Will Redden improve the defense? He could, because he's a good passer and should help generate offense from the back end. He hasn't played in the NHL for two seasons, but the Wings have a way of bringing out the best in has-beens.
Click to expand...

http://www.freep.com/article/201301...troitRedWings+(freep.com+|+Detroit+Red+Wings)

How the mighty have fallen.
 
ugh I don't really get how people continue to think that Redden will contribute offensively in any way at this point. He might have once been a good passer but that died long ago
 
RangerBoy said:
https://twitter.com/JimCerny/status/291603456479879169
Click to expand...

mqdefault.jpg


I would never ever take Gomez back.
 
Greivance? Where was the PA when Montreal sent Laraque home in January 2010 and told him to wait for a buyout in June? Montreal continued to pay the full player salary. The PA lost the Kovalchuk case. The PA struck out in Alberta trying to get the Alberta labor board to declare the NHL lockout illegal.
 
pld459666 said:
Not seeing it.

The players could argue that the team is in breach of their contract by not allowing them to play, the team can then concede breach and suggest a remedy that the player walk awy from the remaining terms.

If the players has a problem with the direction the team is going, they have their rights to walk away from the situation.

The players and the PA would have a legit grievance if the team told them to stay home and then wouldn't let them out of their contracts if that was the choice the players made.

If the player is harmed, they have remedies available to them.

Forcing the team to play them at any level is not one of them.

This early buyout is more of a courtesy than anything. These guys are getting bought out no matter what, why embarrass the players by making them wait?
It has nothing to do with potential greivances.
Click to expand...

The NHLPA's grievance was on the grounds that keeping a player "at home" has a direct negative impact on future earnings in the form of their next contracts. This has nothing to do with courtesy, but enabling hockey players to play hockey instead of being paid to NOT play and likely erode/diminish their skills while sitting out (feel free to insert a snarky comment here about Gomez and Redden's already diminished skills, LOL).
 
Gomez, Redden, Drury are part of a past that did not work out in any way and that we need to leave behind us.

I get a laugh at the people thinking we treated Redden badly though. As far as I know he continued to cash all his checks--multiple millions of $ for massive underperformance. You could say it about all three of the above but especially about Redden. I get another laugh at people thinking Redden is going to resurrect the player he was the first half of his career. That player was on the way to disappearing even before Sather signed him 5 or so years ago. What's left is pretty much an empty shell.
 
MortUWary said:
The NHLPA's grievance was on the grounds that keeping a player "at home" has a direct negative impact on future earnings in the form of their next contracts. This has nothing to do with courtesy, but enabling hockey players to play hockey instead of being paid to NOT play and likely erode/diminish their skills while sitting out (feel free to insert a snarky comment here about Gomez and Redden's already diminished skills, LOL).
Click to expand...

Then the players had every right not to report and seek a contract else where.

This is not a matter of the team wanting the player to stay home and not allowing them out of their deals.

This is a matter of the team protecting it's rights under the CBA to ensure that the targeted buyout doesn't get hurt preventing the buyout.

This is not a matter of the team looking to horde away a player so that no one else got them.

if the player were concerned about future earnings and atrophy setting in on their already diminished skill set, then walk awy from the current deal and sign where you want for how much you want.

Where's the problem?
 
They made it to the conference finals! And Gomez enabled them to sign Cammaleri and Gionta!
 
Redden will be a nice 3rd pair option for a team. Nothing more, nothing less. This notion that he could possibly still be a counted-on puck mover who significantly aids the breakout died 5 years ago.
 
Well I'm glad the last chapter of that summer has now come to an end. I remember how Sam & Joe were trying to defend Redden any way imaginable - probably under an MSG mandate to talk up Gomez, Drury and Redden.

Redden fell down -> Sam: "Must be something wrong with his skates"

Redden lost the puck -> Sam: "Redden has a problem with his sticks"
 
I'm confused here, I thought we wouldn't be allowed to use our amnesty buyout till the summer.
 
RussianRangersFan said:
I'm confused here, I thought we wouldn't be allowed to use our amnesty buyout till the summer.
Click to expand...

It's a deal between the NHL and the NHLPA. They wanted a fair solution for guys like Redden so that they wouldn't have to sit at home, because the team doesn't want to risk injury before the buyout. This way the team gets its buyout and the player can still play the game.
 
pld459666 said:
Then the players had every right not to report and seek a contract else where.

This is not a matter of the team wanting the player to stay home and not allowing them out of their deals.

This is a matter of the team protecting it's rights under the CBA to ensure that the targeted buyout doesn't get hurt preventing the buyout.

This is not a matter of the team looking to horde away a player so that no one else got them.

if the player were concerned about future earnings and atrophy setting in on their already diminished skill set, then walk awy from the current deal and sign where you want for how much you want.

Where's the problem?
Click to expand...

The problem is that you don't understand how unions work. Allowing a player to not report and run the risk of the team getting out if the contract sets a horrible precedent for union membership, who would never allow that to happen. This is not the NFL: these contracts are guaranteed so you're bound by the terms in the contract. If you don't want the player then buy him out, which is the only legal way to get out of the contract if the player doesn't violate the terms.

Banishing to the AHL was a convenient loophole the new CBA closed. This was necessary for the NHL and NHLPA to allow before the offseason for the betterment of these two players. Regardless of how bad they played for us and how bad their contracts are, this was the correct course of action for all parties involved, especially the union and union membership.
 
tomcatNYR said:
It's a deal between the NHL and the NHLPA. They wanted a fair solution for guys like Redden so that they wouldn't have to sit at home, because the team doesn't want to risk injury before the buyout. This way the team gets its buyout and the player can still play the game.
Click to expand...

Sounds good to me. So this will act as one of our amnesty buyouts? Won't take a cap hit or anything right?

That sure does give us some more freedom to add someone on a 1 year deal or something.
 
One way or the other, the merits of the grievance don't matter. The threat of the grievance was enough to force a solution because there was a solution there to be agreed on. The benefit to the team is not having to go through the grievance process, whether you were confident it would turn out in your favor or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom