Lockout discussion thread 2.0
View Single Post
11-07-2012, 11:31 PM
Avatar of the Year*
Join Date: Nov 2012
Originally Posted by
You and the other people with similar posts are right. Many teams have bad contracts, but that of Gomez is among the worst, and unlike NYR with Redden we can't (or won't?) bury him in the minors. When I wrote that incorrect post, I had not thought about it enough.
A good solution to the "players keep their contracts" issue, and the 50/50 issue, would be to:
- go to 50/50 very rapidly
- have no rollback of salaries
- Allow one or two buyouts per team, and have buyouts costs come out of the owner's share.
IMO this is "fair" as some players are more deserving of their contracts than others, lol. I'd be surprised if it happens though.
That said, getting rid of Gomez would be bad for the tank :-;
I don't understand how the rollback and the 50/50 could work together. Assuming there is no rollbacks and all the existing salaries and cap hits stay the same, wouldn't that just make it harder to fit in new contracts within the new 50/50 salary cap because players will have to take considerably much less compared to their other teammates who are less valuable. Say a guy like Brad Richards who has a cap hit of 7.8m and a salary of 12m next year then there's Gaborik who is a ufa at the end of next year...there is no way the rangers will be able to offer him anything like 7.8m under the new cap.
Also on another note, if we buy out Gomez then I hope that ends our tanking. Last season was brutal, I'd rather we spend his 7m on a reliable ufa or a player we can acquire through a trade. We've invested enough in the future for us to no longer tank, and we also have 4 picks in the first two rounds. Our farm team is starting to look good and promising, we have some great new players in the chl. It's time to go into a win-now mode and the new management looks much better than the cluster f... we went through since the lockout.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by ottawa