Louisville 112 Report post Posted November 8, 2007 TSN Bob Mckenzie - Anaheim Ducks general manager Brian Burke has once again proposed that NHL teams be able to trade a portion of a player's salary if they so choose, but the league doesn't seem to have any appetite to alter its existing rules. Being able to trade "salary" would clearly help re-vitalize a dormant trade market, but don't hold your breath waiting for it to happen. What do you guys think? Trading salaries makes sense to me, we'd definitely see more big name players move around. How long would it take for this to actually be a reality? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest GordieSid&Ted Report post Posted November 8, 2007 What do you guys think? Trading salaries makes sense to me, we'd definitely see more big name players move around. How long would it take for this to actually be a reality? can somebody explain to me what this means, to "trade salaries". I've never heard of this before so....... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NeverForgetMac25 483 Report post Posted November 8, 2007 can somebody explain to me what this means, to "trade salaries". I've never heard of this before so....... Burke isn't making as much money as Holland and he's pissed about it. He wants to trade salaries with him. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
edicius 3,269 Report post Posted November 8, 2007 Anything that Burke proposes has absolutely zero worth, by way of it being proposed by Burke. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Opie 308 Report post Posted November 8, 2007 I think it is like baseball when you trade a player Arod for example, the Yankees only had to pay half of his salary Texas picked up the other half. I assume that is what he is referring to, because I believe right now if you trade a guy his whole salary goes with. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
up2here 41 Report post Posted November 8, 2007 can somebody explain to me what this means, to "trade salaries". I've never heard of this before so....... What he means is that one team continues to pay part of the players salary. Its a good idea in my opinion. It would allow teams to unload players who make so much money that they are "untradebale". See Nikolai Khabibulin,Sergei Fedorov,Jose Theodore. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SweWings 45 Report post Posted November 8, 2007 Might add more dynamic I suppose. Will it happen? - I doubt it. The PA will go nooooo Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BlueMonk 102 Report post Posted November 8, 2007 Burke is right, as usual. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
union drone 0 Report post Posted November 8, 2007 I thought that this already existed, at least in a limited form. Wasn't Washington still paying a decent sized chunk of Jagr's salary as recently as last season?!? Or is my memory failing me? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vangvace 12 Report post Posted November 8, 2007 Might add more dynamic I suppose. Will it happen? - I doubt it. The PA will go nooooo Out of curiousity why do you think that the PA would say no? I think the NFL does this as well. It might help short term but would cause worse cap hell IMO. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
up2here 41 Report post Posted November 8, 2007 Burke is right, as usual. The New CBA does not allow it. The Jagr trade happened under the old one. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
datsyukonethree 0 Report post Posted November 8, 2007 That's so bogus it's unbelievable. This might encourage trades, but it'll also encourage salary inflation. There's no way the NHL will let it happen. Burke is an idiot. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
haroldsnepsts 4,826 Report post Posted November 8, 2007 That's so bogus it's unbelievable. This might encourage trades, but it'll also encourage salary inflation. There's no way the NHL will let it happen. Burke is an idiot. That's my gut on it. The key is for these idiots not to pay players so much that it makes them untradeable. This kind of out will only encourage the behavior. Jeez, the lockout was only a few years ago and already the owners are trying to find ways to inflate players salaries. NIce work Burke. First the Niedermayer scam, now this. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DraperFan MN 0 Report post Posted November 8, 2007 Yeah, I really don't see the value in this, and the horrible example we can look at is the NBA. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Grittzkey 1 Report post Posted November 9, 2007 I cant say that i care either way, but i wouldnt mind seing it happen. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bannedforlife 403 Report post Posted November 9, 2007 Jeez, the lockout was only a few years ago and already the owners are trying to find ways to inflate players salaries. NIce work Burke. First the Niedermayer scam, now this. You mean Niedergate? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BringHomeTheCup! 0 Report post Posted November 9, 2007 Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong, but when the Caps traded Jagr to the Rangers didn't the Caps agree to continue paying part of Jagr's salary (pre-lock out/pre-cap)? I know this may differ from what Burke would like, but it's similar in concept. Just another way for that white-haired weasel in Duckville to bend the rules in his favor Jagr to NYR happened before the new CBA was in place. The old CBA didn't have any rules against this. I don't understand how this would hurt anything, or as suggested above, encourage salary inflation. I see it as a great way for a team like Tampa Bay to acquire a goaltending fix without spending too much. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Barrie 900 Report post Posted November 9, 2007 Burke isn't making as much money as Holland and he's pissed about it. He wants to trade salaries with him. Good one man! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
YoungGuns1340 1 Report post Posted November 9, 2007 How many handicaps does Burke need to work under a cap? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BringHomeTheCup! 0 Report post Posted November 9, 2007 IMHO the owners should've gone the way of a "soft cap" with a "luxury tax" (a fine that will could cost 25 to 50 cents for each $1 over the proposed cap)...This way a team can go over the cap for needed help. I don't think the soft cap would solve anything. A guy like Mike I would spend that extra $$ anyhow. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
akustyk 84 Report post Posted November 9, 2007 Jeez, the lockout was only a few years ago and already the owners are trying to find ways to inflate players salaries. NIce work Burke. First the Niedermayer scam, now this. do you mean the very same whiny "TSN is licking my ass" Brian who cried a river about Kevin Lowe trying to fetch Lupul(?) and "how some GM's inflate player contracts with so much effort put into new CBA"? double standards, Brian, right? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vangvace 12 Report post Posted November 9, 2007 I don't understand how this would hurt anything, or as suggested above, encourage salary inflation. I see it as a great way for a team like Tampa Bay to acquire a goaltending fix without spending too much. It would cause teams to have an artificial salary cap that is below league max, even if that team were to want to spend to league max. This is know in the NFL as salary cap hell. TB would gain from this but whichever team that they happened to trade with takes a cap hit on a player isn't there for a season, if not multiple seasons. A good example would be with the Wings. How much would $1-3 million in dead cap space hurtover the next couple seasons? Other desperate GMs would more likely go even higher than that in dead cap. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Opie 308 Report post Posted November 9, 2007 A team like Nashville could trade half of it's team away and still keep their salaries on the books and actually make the cap floor if not maybe even go above it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LIDDYGIBBY5 1 Report post Posted November 9, 2007 Might add more dynamic I suppose. Will it happen? - I doubt it. The PA will go nooooo I think that the PA would be all for it. GM's would give higher salaries because now they would be able to actually trade a high end player if the season is a wash instead of being stuck with them. Yeah, I really don't see the value in this, and the horrible example we can look at is the NBA. I wish the NHL had half of the NBA's numbers. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
