: News Article:
TSN Talking about the Habs and the deadline
View Single Post
02-26-2009, 03:06 PM
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Originally Posted by
#11 Saku Koivu
Are you certain of this Ozy? Not that I'm doubting you, but logically, it wouldn't make much sense. You are replacing apples with oranges. I'm under the impression that you can replace Lang's 4M annual salary with another guy who has up to a 4M annual salary, and not replace Lang's 4M with a guy whose prorated amount is up to 4M. I could be wrong, I just always assumed it was like that, and that is how it makes sense in my mind.
Well, I had the same exact impression that you did, and its still not 100% clear to me. I do find it illogical, but when you look at the several CBA clauses that have to do with this, I don't know how else to put it.
First they say that teams have to calculate on a daily basis what the entire roster amounts to, in terms of yearly salary. I once thought that they calculated this with a prorated amount for each single game, salary divided by 82, but its not the case.
Then, on the LTIR clause, they say that a team with an injured player on LTIR will be able to add the amount of the player's cap hit to their cap, in effect, extending their cap by this amount. Which is fine, because it is still on the same basis as calculating the daily cap, they use yearly numbers.
But then, when they speak of transactions/trades, they say teams only recieve the prorated amount of the cap hit, and also EXCHANGE the rest of the prorated amount of the cap hit of the players we send. (an example of this would be Rivet, we had to include, in the daily calculations after he was gone, the prorated amount of Rivet's contract that he spent with us, even tho he was gone). Anyway, this is how I understood it. At first I thought only the payable salary was prorated, but that the cap remained the same, but it seems BOTH are prorated. So this means with Bouillon being on LTIR, we can put Schneider's prorated cap hit of 1,6 under Bouillon's total cap hit of 1,85.
Anyway, I'm not saying this is gospel truth, but from the many many discussions i've had with many people and the many readings I did of the CBA, this seems to be the case, altho I entirely agree that I might be mistaken, as this CBA is really not good at providing GOOD examples of complicated situations that mixes many clauses.
Originally Posted by
You said Laraque + for Cole. Usually the first guy you mention is the major part of the deal, not the "+". Anyone who thinks the Oilers would need Laraque right now, obviously hasn't seen them play.
Stortini, MaCintyre, Strudwick...
That's your interpretation. Also I didn,t say +. I said Laraque+ somethingsomething.... meaning it would take much more than Laraque. I know I might be asking too much of your brain with this, but don't you realize I just didn't care who was included in the rest of the deal, that the point was to have a deal that included both Cole and Laraque? That it might be why I added somethingsomething.... Also, the point of not putting a + after Cole should be indicative that HE was the major piece in the trade. But I guess this logical deduction is way too much to ask from you.
But its way easier for you to interpret it this way, so you might try to make me look bad. Try all you want, I don't care, people around here know me and know I don't make half-assed proposals. Only those who put words in my mouth end-up thinking that.
And its not a question of needing him, but a question of wanting him, those are two different things, and neither you nor I know the true philosophy proned by Lowe and his thoughts. He might just want one more big guy.
Now repeat after me, Burke wasn't the one who traded for Whitney today. Burke wasn't the one who traded for Luongo either. Come on, you'll get it.
Last edited by Habs10Habs: 02-27-2009 at
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Ozymandias