HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Toronto Maple Leafs
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Trading Cash?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-14-2011, 03:38 PM
  #1
EzraCurrier
Registered User
 
EzraCurrier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 144
vCash: 500
Trading Cash?

I know since Burke has come on board there has been alot of talk about the Leafs being able to make favorable trades based on taking on salary from teams hurting financially. The Franson trade seems like the first good example of this but one thing I was wondering about is the rare trades that have actual dollars going the other way.

Lets say for instance that Florida drafts first overall next year, drafts a player along the same lines of a tavares/stamkos, a couple years later still can't fill the stands and need cash desperately. Could the Leafs offer say 25 million cash in a deal along with minor assets to pull off a trade? Or is there some sort of cap on that? I always wondered why more deals don't actually include cash, especially with teams that are hurting financially.

Discuss!

EzraCurrier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2011, 03:39 PM
  #2
dubey
Outrage Hobbyist
 
dubey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: the 6ix w/ my woes
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,131
vCash: 500
Not under the current CBA

dubey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2011, 03:41 PM
  #3
EzraCurrier
Registered User
 
EzraCurrier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 144
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dubey View Post
Not under the current CBA
I wonder if thats something they may put into the next CBA, I think Burke was pushing for something along those lines with trading actual cap space among teams.

EzraCurrier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2011, 03:48 PM
  #4
Inigo Montoya
Registered User
 
Inigo Montoya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Newmarket, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,794
vCash: 500
Burke has been vouching for it to the NHL for quite sometime but it isn't legal under the current CBA. I'm sure under the new negotiations he will do his best to make it possible.

Inigo Montoya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2011, 03:50 PM
  #5
EzraCurrier
Registered User
 
EzraCurrier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 144
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Burt Chance View Post
Burke has been vouching for it to the NHL for quite sometime but it isn't legal under the current CBA. I'm sure under the new negotiations he will do his best to make it possible.
it could be a slippery slope, on the one hand it would help out teams with financial issues, on the other hand it would set a price to just outright buy a player, which could cause some teams to sell off their best players if they can't get fans in the stands.

EzraCurrier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2011, 04:13 PM
  #6
The Podium
Formerly chrisx101
 
The Podium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,994
vCash: 500
Wasn't Cash the main asset going back to Edmonton in the Gretzky deal? I know at one point it was allowed but not under the current CBA

The Podium is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2011, 04:24 PM
  #7
Leafssss
Registered User
 
Leafssss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: CANADA
Posts: 4,167
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisx101 View Post
Wasn't Cash the main asset going back to Edmonton in the Gretzky deal? I know at one point it was allowed but not under the current CBA
I believe it was.

I would be happy to see cash exchanges in the NHL, would put the Leafs in a good position. We could almost "buy" our players.

Leafssss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2011, 04:28 PM
  #8
EazyB97
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 28,931
vCash: 500
I'm doubtful they'll allow straight cash exchanges, but they may allow taking a portion of a player salary in a trade.

EazyB97 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2011, 04:58 PM
  #9
Squiffy
Victims, rn't we all
 
Squiffy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,548
vCash: 500
EZ has it right. Straight cash, no way, destroys the point of the cap and attempted parity, but portions of salary, or cap room, is what Burke advocates.

Doubt it happens that said.

P.S Yes, McNall paid Pocklington I think 15 million cold hard cash for Wayne.

Squiffy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2011, 05:13 PM
  #10
exporta
Registered User
 
exporta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,285
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisx101 View Post
Wasn't Cash the main asset going back to Edmonton in the Gretzky deal? I know at one point it was allowed but not under the current CBA
I am pretty sure cash was a large part of the deal, but Edmonton still got Carson (who had a 50 goal season), Martin Gelinas, and 3 1st round picks.

The cash amount was $15 000 000.

You'd have to think a 55 goal sophomore is an attractive piece. Injuries hauled his development, but did score 49 in his 1st season with the Oilers.

exporta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2011, 05:36 PM
  #11
My Sweet Shadow
Registered User
 
My Sweet Shadow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Sioux Lookout, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,667
vCash: 500
The whole point of the last CBA and the new one coming up is about equality among the big market and small market teams; the salary cap, revenue sharing, etc. Allowing for cash trades like in the NBA and MLB would be the opposite of that. It would basically let big market teams buy players from the smaller market teams.

My Sweet Shadow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2011, 06:09 PM
  #12
Zrinski
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 831
vCash: 500
It won't be brought back, but it'd be amazing for us if it was. As others have said we essentially bought Franson for 7 mil over the next 2 years, be great to be able to do something like that every year without losing cap space.

Zrinski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2011, 06:18 PM
  #13
jaateloauto
Nothing is overrated
 
jaateloauto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Country: Finland
Posts: 1,002
vCash: 500
Trading cash would suck. For everyone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EzraCurrier View Post
it could be a slippery slope, on the one hand it would help out teams with financial issues, on the other hand it would set a price to just outright buy a player, which could cause some teams to sell off their best players if they can't get fans in the stands.
Slippery slope? Really? You're going with that?

jaateloauto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2011, 07:32 PM
  #14
Rockinz
Leafs 4 the cup
 
Rockinz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Leaf Land
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,111
vCash: 500
not sure it would fly but you never know...

Rockinz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2011, 07:35 PM
  #15
contour
Registered User
 
contour's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,669
vCash: 500
I wouldn't be in support of cash. I don't like the concept of teams "buying" players. I like it the way it is now, even if the Leafs have to suffer.

contour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2011, 07:37 PM
  #16
TehDoak
I Like Eich
 
TehDoak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 20,837
vCash: 903
Taking on a bad contract+ stashing them in the minors = trading cash. That is what Buffalo did in the Regehr deal

TehDoak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2011, 07:54 PM
  #17
Joey Hoser
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Guelph
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,700
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaateloauto View Post
Slippery slope? Really? You're going with that?
The slippery slope argument has it's place.

For example, making it so that a contracts average salary is the overall caphit for each year allows teams to pay less for a player as he ages, but it's slipped right down to downright obscene 1 million dollar seasons for guys who make 10+ during the "real" years of the deal.

That may not actually be a true "slippery slope" situation now that I think about it, but it still illustrates the point that if something is possible, teams will run with it as far as they can if they think it's to their benefit.

Joey Hoser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2011, 08:09 PM
  #18
I am Canadian
Foreverly Hopeful
 
I am Canadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,335
vCash: 500
Hockey doesn't have enough quality players to populate every team.


Last edited by I am Canadian: 07-14-2011 at 08:40 PM.
I am Canadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2011, 03:49 PM
  #19
indigobuffalo
Portage and Main
 
indigobuffalo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Winnipeg MB
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,939
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zrinski View Post
It won't be brought back, but it'd be amazing for us if it was. As others have said we essentially bought Franson for 7 mil over the next 2 years, be great to be able to do something like that every year without losing cap space.
Last year it was Gardiner + Lupul.

Year before it was Aulie + Phaneuf.

indigobuffalo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2011, 08:29 PM
  #20
Hero
Buffy is Back
 
Hero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 20,293
vCash: 500
This CBA was totally against it, and I dont see that changing.

Hero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2011, 08:58 PM
  #21
jaateloauto
Nothing is overrated
 
jaateloauto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Country: Finland
Posts: 1,002
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joey Hoser View Post
The slippery slope argument has it's place.

For example, making it so that a contracts average salary is the overall caphit for each year allows teams to pay less for a player as he ages, but it's slipped right down to downright obscene 1 million dollar seasons for guys who make 10+ during the "real" years of the deal.

That may not actually be a true "slippery slope" situation now that I think about it, but it still illustrates the point that if something is possible, teams will run with it as far as they can if they think it's to their benefit.
First thing anyone should know when making a rulebook: everything that can be abused, will be abused. But loopholes aren't the same thing as slippery slopes. I don't see that this rule change would in any way be a slippery slope for other rules to be made.

Not to mention that the loophole you mentioned is actually illegal according to the CBA, which is why there have been rulings on the subject.

jaateloauto is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:49 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.