mjlegend 155 Report post Posted March 19, 2009 This may be whqat Brian Burke is talking about, but he's such a dick I don't want to listen to him. When you trade a player with more than one year left on his contract, the cap hit for those future years won't be the average of the entire contract, but the average of the years remaining on the deal. This provides the cost certainty the owners were claiming they were looking for, plus it frees up cash for other players. Let's say the Rangers want to dumb Scott Gomez this off-season. The team that gets him in a trade only has to count the 33.5 million over the next five years (6.7 million) against the cap instead of the full thrust of the 7.357 million they'd have to take otherwise. Or Wade Redden at 6.2 million instead of 6.5 million. Provide a provision that he can't be traded back to the team that signed him. Make sure the other provisions in the CBA are adhered to (no backloading more than 50 per cent of each contract year, etc.) Players won't want to front-load contracts anymore, but that's a part of the bargaining process and I don't feel too sorry for them because they'll get the money in the contract regardless of who it's from. What do we think? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Datsyerberger 279 Report post Posted March 19, 2009 Let's say the Rangers want to dumb Scott Gomez this off-season. I think that's a hilarious Freudian slip. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
P. Marlowe 748 Report post Posted March 19, 2009 (edited) Not a bad idea. Thought, this would really matter on cotracts like Zetterberg's or Lecavalier's. Edited March 19, 2009 by P. Marlowe Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MacK_Attack 108 Report post Posted March 19, 2009 Burke's proposal is to actually allow teams to trade eat a small amount cap space in a trade. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Datsyerberger 279 Report post Posted March 19, 2009 Burke's proposal is to actually allow teams to trade eat a small amount cap space in a trade. Gee, I wonder why the GM of Jeff Finger would want that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MacK_Attack 108 Report post Posted March 19, 2009 (edited) Gee, I wonder why the GM of Jeff Finger would want that. Finger has played pretty well for the Leafs. I don't mind him. He's the kind of guy Burke likes...goes into the corners, blocks shots, kills penalties. Never does anything flashy, but never does anything dumb. The last thing Burke has right now is a cap problem. Edited March 19, 2009 by MacK_Attack Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CenterIce 83 Report post Posted March 19, 2009 Gee, I wonder why the GM of Jeff Finger would want that. Burke has been asking for this for a while, even while he was still with Anaheim. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thedisappearer 291 Report post Posted March 19, 2009 The last thing Burke has right now is a cap problem. Give it three years, two years before he leave the organization in flames. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
eva unit zero 271 Report post Posted March 19, 2009 Being able to deal cap space for certain years? It would have to be done properly, but it could definitely work. A limit, such as "you cannot take upon more cap space than you have traded away in the deal" should probably be included in such a rule. As far as the idea of a player's cap number changing when he is traded, that should not happen. If his cap number would be different after the trade, than it should have been different before the trade as well. The cap number should either be identical to the player's yearly salary and change each year, or it should be the contract average regardless or movement. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Doggy 130 Report post Posted March 19, 2009 (edited) This may be whqat Brian Burke is talking about, but he's such a dick I don't want to listen to him. When you trade a player with more than one year left on his contract, the cap hit for those future years won't be the average of the entire contract, but the average of the years remaining on the deal. This provides the cost certainty the owners were claiming they were looking for, plus it frees up cash for other players. Definitely not. It'll never happen and with good reason. It's a matter of accounting. The salary cap represents a proportion of the league's revenues it feels is appropriate to financially flourish. When you drop cap numbers that allows more than that figure to be spent on player salaries and goes completely against the CBA a year was wasted to compose and agree to. However I agree teams should be allowed to eat an agreed portion of a players cap number in order to consummate a trade. Edited March 19, 2009 by Doggy Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ZigZagYourTorso 8 Report post Posted March 19, 2009 I know it's off subject....but I remember before we resigned Datsyuk a lot of the people here on the boards were all for us trading Datsyuk straight up for Gomez. Geez would we have regretted that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SweWings 45 Report post Posted March 19, 2009 I know it's off subject....but I remember before we resigned Datsyuk a lot of the people here on the boards were all for us trading Datsyuk straight up for Gomez. Geez would we have regretted that. Oh... this almost made me throw up my breakfast... Gross... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Batigol2k 0 Report post Posted March 19, 2009 Sounds to me like it would be smarter to trade similar quality (more expensive) players when they have "Zetterberg"-like contracts. Zetterberg's new contract: 73 mln/12 years = 6.1 mln/year Zetterberg's last 4 years: 12.35 mln/4 years = 3.1 mln/year If you trade Zetterberg when his contract expires in 4 years you can gain 3 mln cap space a year. It might be a bit far fetched but it is possible. Then I rather see cap hits based on the same calculation, meaning Detroit can keep Zetterberg for the following cap hits: 2009/2010: 73.0 mln / 12 years = 6.1 mln 2010/2011: 65.6 mln / 11 years = 6.0 mln 2011/2012: 57.9 mln / 10 years = 5.8 mln .. 2018/2019: 5.4 mln / 3 years = 1.8 mln 2019/2020: 2.0 mln / 2 years = 1.0 mln 2020/2021: 1.0 mln / 1 year = 1.0 mln Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
