View Single Post
Old
01-02-2013, 09:48 PM
  #143
opendoor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,129
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wisp View Post
Nothing suggests this? really? You might want to think about your answer a bit more next time, because you're obviously not paying attention.

I have been paying attention and I'm very well versed on the ins and outs of the CBA and the negotiations.

Quote:
the current CBA proposal turns salary and cap space into tradeable assets. This is something both players and owners want..They want player movement to be less restrictive than it is, and want to give poor teams mechanisms that let them trade more competively.
The ability to retain cap space and salary in a trade still maintains a system where cap and salary paid are related to one another. A poorer team can retain some of the cap hit to facilitate a trade but they also have to pay the salary. It's not like rich teams can just buy players under that scenario which would be the case with what people are suggesting with the buyouts.

I guess we'll see, but I'll be shocked if the NHL lets teams trade a player for the sole purpose of a compliance buyout. They designed the 2005 ones to expressly eliminate this possibility. Perhaps more importantly, the elimination of the ability of rich teams to use their cash for off cap spending to create an advantage (front loaded deals and buried salary are the two biggest examples) has been one of the biggest driving forces of this CBA's negotiations.

I've been wrong many times before, so who knows. But I don't really see the logic in thinking that the NHL will set their contract variance and off cap spending rules in stone but then turn around and allow rich teams to spend tens of millions of dollars that aren't subject to the cap in order to effectively buy valuable assets from poor teams.

opendoor is offline   Reply With Quote