View Single Post
12-31-2012, 05:55 AM
RangerBoy's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,865
vCash: 500
Brooks has some more information

The league’s proposal mandates that clubs be charged the difference between a player’s NHL cap hit and the NHL minimum salary (proposed $625,000) for those athletes on one-way deals who are assigned to another pro league.

The NHL wants to apply the charge to players on existing contracts while the NHLPA has proposed that the charge be applied only against players who sign contracts going forward.
New wrinkle.

Under the NHL proposal, teams would be allowed one “compliance buy-out” that would not count against cap space, but the league stipulation is that these buy-outs could only take place next June.

The risk under this scenario is that a player such as Redden targeted for a compliance buy-out — or, for example Scott Gomez in Montreal and perhaps Vincent Lecavalier at Tampa Bay — might suffer an injury serious enough during the season that would render him ineligible to be bought out.

Pushing all compliance buy-outs to next year not only creates unnecessary risk for teams, but would also increase the number of free agents on the market while teams deal with limited cap space.

The union is expected to propose that compliance buy-outs be permitted before this season.

So under the NHL proposal,the compliance buyouts can't be executed until the summer. Redden would count against the Rangers $70.2M cap with a cap hit of $5.875M. The Rangers would play with a $64.535M cap.

I would tell Redden to stay home. Don't come to camp. Pay him. If Redden wants to play,he has to break his contract and forfeit the remaining $7M plus remaining over the next few years. If he wants to play in the NHL again,he needs to play. He can't afford to sit out an entire season.

The NBA allowed their teams to amnesty a player for their 66 game season.

RangerBoy is offline