Burke wants GM's to be able to accumulate dead money

[CenterIce 83]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=3127623

[FinRedWing 172]

Kenny's not a huge trader anyway,this would possibly only make other teams better.

So as a Wings fan,I'd pass.

[StormJH1 231]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=3127623

Yeah, I don't know how I feel about that. The GM's post-lockout surprised me--the whole point of the salary cap was to suppress player salaries and make the sport more financially viable, but you look at some of the deals for Briere, Drury, Dustin Penner, Brad Richards, Bryan McCabe, and Zdeno Chara, I really don't know if that is happening. I like trades and trade rumors, but the NFL seems to do just fine with practically no in-season trading of any significance.

I suppose Burke has a point, but I don't like the idea that you can still be paying "dead money" on a high-priced star you traded away, and yet not have that money count against the cap. I would think having a shared cap responsibility would grant teams flexibility in trades, but it undermines the cap to offer that type of loophole.

[Izzy24 44]

I don't have any objections to this, it doesn't seem like a big deal.

[rick zombo 3,739]

Here's an idea. Don't overpay for a player. Then you'll have an easier time trading them.

[Grittzkey 1]

Whatever it takes to get more trades happening, i love trades.

[Airborn 0]

Makes sence to me.

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

Here's an idea. Don't overpay for a player. Then you'll have an easier time trading them.

Why do that? The GM's bitched about how they couldn't run a profitable franchise, now here they are trying to figure out a way to overpay players again. It drives me nuts.

Though honestly I'm betting this would benefit the Red Wings because of their deep pockets. They could take a gamble on a player by paying him a high salary, but still have an out if he doesn't live up to expectations. They could take the payroll hit to be rid of him, and I'm betting it's not gonna count against the cap.

[auxlepli 17]

Here's an idea. Don't overpay for a player. Then you'll have an easier time trading them.

Agreed.

Burke is an idiot. I can't believe he has 25 other GMs in his corner.

[A.T.Hun 0]

Seems like somebody's regretting that Todd Bertuzzi deal already . . .

[Duck Guy 86]

Seems like somebody's regretting that Todd Bertuzzi deal already . . .

NOOO NEVER!!! I already got my bert jersey so he has to do good.. 2 assists last night vs. queens he doing ok... anyways.. this would be a excellent thing to do in the NHL iam also a fan of anything that promotes more trades..

[BringHomeTheCup! 0]

Kenny's not a huge trader anyway,this would possibly only make other teams better.

So as a Wings fan,I'd pass.

Or, could it convince Kenny to deal more often?

Why do that? The GM's bitched about how they couldn't run a profitable franchise, now here they are trying to figure out a way to overpay players again. It drives me nuts.

Though honestly I'm betting this would benefit the Red Wings because of their deep pockets. They could take a gamble on a player by paying him a high salary, but still have an out if he doesn't live up to expectations. They could take the payroll hit to be rid of him, and I'm betting it's not gonna count against the cap.

Based on how things like this have went down in the past (Jagr to NYR deal) and how it happens in other sports (the A-Rod to NYY deal) the NHL most likely would require whatever portion of a players salary that wasn't traded to count against that teams cap. Example: Wings trade Kronwall with half of his salary to the Pens for Whitney. The Wings would still be responsible for 50% of Kronwall's salary for whatever length of time the teams agreed to, while also being responsible for Whitney's entire salary.

[auxlepli 17]

McKenzie seems to think most of the League is opposed to Burke's idea.

http://www.tsn.ca/blogs/mckenzie/?id=223720

I wonder who is right McKenzie or Burnside. It's probably about 50-50.

On taking back salary when making a trade: The league is generally opposed to the concept because there is a sense it might favor the teams with bigger budgets and the league also wants to protect GMs from getting in over their heads on financial commitments to players not playing on their team, but a number of GMs, including Anaheim's Burke, spoke in favor of it, albeit with restrictions. The concept discussed would limit the amount of salary a team could pay for a traded player to $1 million per transaction and $2 million in total in any given year.

What became clear is that the existing rules are not going to change for this season and if there's going to be a change, it will occur in the off-season in time for next season, and only with approval of the NHL Players' Association. Clubs have been asked to make their feelings known on an individual basis to the league and the league will respond when it gets a clearer picture of how many clubs are in favor of changing the rules on trading players and eating salary to make it happen.

[ben_usmc 253]

I don't like the idea, I like parady in the league. Plus it would piss Burke off if he doesn't get it. Besides I like having players around for a while.

[Airborn 0]

I don't get where this would inspire bigger contracts or benefit higher revenue teams at all. Each team would still have their cap number, they would just now have the opportunity to eat some salary in a trade that would count against their cap.

[edicius 3,269]

I bet the two biggest supporters of this are Burke and Lamoriello, two people that can't manage the cap properly.

[auxlepli 17]

... they (larger revenue teams) would just now have the opportunity to eat some salary in a trade that would count against their cap.

Exactly.

Smaller revenue teams wouldn't be able to do that.

[Superman54 91]

Trades always entertain me so im all for it.