Larry Brooks reports in Slap Shots that several GM's have stated the possibility that the NHL may allow "Amnesty Buyouts," for the 2010/11 season. I guess those buyouts would be similar to those that were permitted prior to the new CBA, as when the Rangers were allowed to buyout Holik, with no cap hit. Now, how is this fair, when Lou seems to be putting a team on the ice that may not even make the playoffs this season, so his team will be in great cap shape for the 2010/11 season. Isn't that the whole idea of the cap to punish stupidity? Didn't Lamoriello have to give up a first round pick when he made a stupid mistake to San Jose to get under the cap, while in the beginning of the 2010 season, all the Flyers will have to do is buyout Brier without any consequence? That really sucks and if this goes down. Lou must demand compensation if it does!
Lou mismanaged the Cap when it was going up, a very difficult thing to do, one might imagine, so he had to pay the price.
All indications for 2010-11 is that the Cap is going down, perhaps even as much as 10% (~5M). This isn't old news as it has been speculated since early last season.
Teams that heeded the economical warnings shouldn't get ****ed over by seeing their closest rivals (Rangers and Flyers in our case) automatically improve with no consequences.
Now, if the Cap were to drop 20%, this would be necessary and just about every team in the NHL would need to do it. But people are estimating a nearly $50M cap.
Lou mismanaged the Cap when it was going up, a very difficult thing to do, one might imagine, so he had to pay the price.
All indications for 2010-11 is that the Cap is going down, perhaps even as much as 10% (~5M). This isn't old news as it has been speculated since early last season.
Teams that heeded the economical warnings shouldn't get ****ed over by seeing their closest rivals (Rangers and Flyers in our case) automatically improve with no consequences.
Now, if the Cap were to drop 20%, this would be necessary and just about every team in the NHL would need to do it. But people are estimating a nearly $50M cap.
I agree that Lou had to pay, but are the Devils to be treated different from the Flyers, Rangers and Chicago? And I understand you're other point.
I can't imagine any fair way to get compensated if this were to happen, maybe extra draft picks? And even that has its drawbacks, because who decides who gets compensated with picks, and what round do they come in? All the same, I doubt that the NHL will allow amnesty buyouts, because it would be deliberately subverting/violating the CBA to help teams in a disproportionate manner. Bettman may be an idiot, and every other day he gets accused of having a bias for one team or another, but even he wouldn't be stupid enough to do something this blatant to rescue the big market teams that have overspent. The NHLPA would also fight hard against this because they don't want to see more players getting bought out of their lucrative contracts, which is what would happen. And we must also remember, this is Larry Brooks reporting here. Several thousand grains of salt are needed.
I agree that Lou had to pay, but are the Devils to be treated different from the Flyers, Rangers and Chicago? And I understand you're other point.
I don't think Lou is the type of guy to use the buyout clause, even though he has a couple obvious (at least from out p.o.v.) candidates in White and Pandolfo.
But, if Lou had to legally get himself under the Cap according to how the CBA is written, then so should the likes of PHI, NYR, and CHI. There were "amnesty buyouts" before 2005-06 where the following occured:
NYR - buysout Holik and his $6.84M cap hit
PHI - buysout Amonte and his $5.82M cap hit
PHI - buysout LeClair and his $6.84M cap hit
DET - buysout Derian Hatcher, Ray Whitney, and Darren McCarty for $9.2M of cap hits
among others, of course, but Lou has never used the buyout clause.
My point isn't about how good the Devils will be, but how teams like Chicago and Philly are loading up without any concern with the cap going down in 2010 and may be bailed out buy the league. That dowsn't bother you, especially after it cost the Devils a first round pick?
I don't think Lou is the type of guy to use the buyout clause, even though he has a couple obvious (at least from out p.o.v.) candidates in White and Pandolfo.
But, if Lou had to legally get himself under the Cap according to how the CBA is written, then so should the likes of PHI, NYR, and CHI. There were "amnesty buyouts" before 2005-06 where the following occured:
NYR - buysout Holik and his $6.84M cap hit
PHI - buysout Amonte and his $5.82M cap hit
PHI - buysout LeClair and his $6.84M cap hit
DET - buysout Derian Hatcher, Ray Whitney, and Darren McCarty for $9.2M of cap hits
among others, of course, but Lou has never used the buyout clause.
well allowing buyouts prior to the first cap year made sense since the GM's made those moves without knowing of a cap or how much the cap would be. Now the GM's are making these moves knowing full well that the cap could/will go down next year. I'm sorry they are digging their own graves and the NHL should not bail them out with buyouts. There are teams that will be well below the cap threshold that will be willing to take their overpaid pieces(except Wade Redden).
well allowing buyouts prior to the first cap year made sense since the GM's made those moves without knowing of a cap or how much the cap would be. Now the GM's are making these moves knowing full well that the cap could/will go down next year. I'm sorry they are digging their own graves and the NHL should not bail them out with buyouts. There are teams that will be well below the cap threshold that will be willing to take their overpaid pieces(except Wade Redden).
yeah, i didnt really make that clear in my post. some teams needed to shed tons of $ even after the 24% rollback - PHI, NYR, and DET especially - which is why it didn't count against the cap.
i had no problem with it then because you couldn't expect GMs in 2003-04 to have prepared for a ~$39M hardcap payroll in 2005. the players got paid and many NHL teams were allowed to operate smoothly into the new CBA.
The problem is that no one forced Lou not to sign any free agents or to not resign his own players. He could have spent money just like the other teams, but he chose not to. They can't compensate him because he didn't spend money on free agents. That was his own decision. It's not like all the other general managers tricked him. The Devils will just have more cap space than other teams to spend next year. If they choose to.
My point isn't about how good the Devils will be, but how teams like Chicago and Philly are loading up without any concern with the cap going down in 2010 and may be bailed out buy the league. That dowsn't bother you, especially after it cost the Devils a first round pick?
Those teams took a chance that the league would take some measures to ease the constraints of a lowering salary cap. It looks as though they may have guess right if they thought that this would happen. It looks like Lou disagreed and didn't think teams would be given some type of relief. It looks like he guessed wrong. He shouldn't be compensated for that. Again those other teams still might have problems resigning their own RFA's. The Devils on the other hand will probably have plenty of cap space. That would be their reward.
you dont do stupid moves/signings and then HOPE that the league will bail you out of it, im sorry.
im not saying we deserve compensation, but still
Gm's like Sather and Holmgren probably figured they would recieve some type of relief. If so, they took a calculated risk. That doesn't seem stupid to me. Just like Lou took a "risk" by not spending because he didn't think teams would get cap relief.
I wouldn't feel bad for those teams that overspent if they didn't get relief. But I'm not going to feel bad for teams like the Devils either. They all made their own decisions.
Gm's like Sather and Holmgren probably figured they would recieve some type of relief. If so, they took a calculated risk. That doesn't seem stupid to me. Just like Lou took a "risk" by not spending because he didn't think teams would get cap relief.
I wouldn't feel bad for those teams that overspent if they didn't get relief. But I'm not going to feel bad for teams like the Devils either. They all made their own decisions.
im sorry but your whole argument is flawed. is it OK to drive while drunk because you might not get caught? obviously not. its not a calculated risk. they made stupid ass moves and if they get bailed out for it, its a joke
