Eating Salary

[arizonabay]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=3127623

At the GM meetings, apparently Brian Burke is going to bring up the possibility of changing the CBA to allow teams to eat salary in a trade. I don't think that's a horrible idea, but from what I understood it sounded like the salary the team eats wouldn't count against the cap. It doesn't say specifically whether it would or not, but they talk about the rich teams being able to take advantage of it more and Burke proposing a maximum amount of money for a team to eat total.

Did I miss something or is this the impression other get as well? And your thoughts on it?

[Brodeur]

Originally Posted by arizonabay

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?id=3127623
I don't think that's a horrible idea, but from what I understood it sounded like the salary the team eats wouldn't count against the cap.

It would count against the cap, as Burke also mused that there be a maximum of 4 million dollars in "dead money" per year.

So if for instance, Burke had agreed to eat half a million dollars on Bryzgalov's contract, a team like Tampa Bay might have been much more interested. The Ducks would have that half million counting against their cap for this year but they might have gotten a draft pick for it.

It's an interesting idea, although with the hard cap in place teams like the Rangers/Leafs would still have to stay under the cap and not take on bloated contracts with no regard a la Pavel Bure back in the day.

[arizonabay]

Originally Posted by Brodeur

It would count against the cap, as Burke also mused that there be a maximum of 4 million dollars in "dead money" per year.

So if for instance, Burke had agreed to eat half a million dollars on Bryzgalov's contract, a team like Tampa Bay might have been much more interested. The Ducks would have that half million counting against their cap for this year but they might have gotten a draft pick for it.

It's an interesting idea, although with the hard cap in place teams like the Rangers/Leafs would still have to stay under the cap and not take on bloated contracts with no regard a la Pavel Bure back in the day.

But then there's the discussion of New Jersey sending Mogilny and McGillis to the AHL and not counting against the cap. And the worry that rich teams could take advantage would seem to say it doesn't go against the cap, since if it did count it wouldn't benefit a rich team more than a poor team.

[Brodeur]

Originally Posted by arizonabay

But then there's the discussion of New Jersey sending Mogilny and McGillis to the AHL and not counting against the cap. And the worry that rich teams could take advantage would seem to say it doesn't go against the cap, since if it did count it wouldn't benefit a rich team more than a poor team.

The McGillis/Mogilny thing already happened and is legal in this CBA as the Kings are doing the same thing with Dan Cloutier. Basically a contract in the minors won't count (except for the 35 and older multiyear contract clause).

Off hand, it might seem like it benefits the rich clubs since they can buy their way out of a mistake more easily if this rule were in place. But the money doesn't magically disappear, it becomes dead cap money.

Say the Rangers decide after this season that Scott Gomez is not worth 7 million a season. They'd have a hard time finding another team that did think he was worth that much. But if the Rangers ate 2 million, they might find a handful of squads willing to take Gomez at 5 million. But the Rangers would then have 2 million in dead cap space for the remainder of Gomez's contract.

Or on the other end, the Coyotes could offer to eat a couple million off of Jovanovski's contract to make himself more attractive to other teams. But the Rangers would need the same cap space and assets as somebody like Buffalo.

There's no way Bettman would approve a new rule where clubs to eat salaries and have it circumvent the cap.

[dano]

Think of it in terms of rich clubs are constrained by the CAP and other clubs are constrained by budgets. The rich teams can afford to eat salary, the other clubs can't afford to spend to the CAP to begin with...

Basically, the rich teams will be making the deals with each other...

It's a shame that meaningful revenue sharing, something the players fought hard for during the lockout, never happened...

[arizonabay]

My confusion with the article comes from the talk of eating salary in a trade being in the same vein as hiding a contract in the AHL (which I know is legal and happened/happens, I don't have a problem with that). And if it counted against the cap, I don't see why there'd have to be a cap on how much dead money you can have because obviously GM's wouldn't want to have too much of their salary cap taken up by this dead money. It'd have to be a GM's job to manage that money, like with buyouts. A cap on dead money would seem to indicate, to me, then money outside of the salary cap. Do you get what I am saying and getting from the article?

[dano]

Originally Posted by arizonabay

Do you get what I am saying and getting from the article?

Yes...

[Brodeur]

Originally Posted by arizonabay

And if it counted against the cap, I don't see why there'd have to be a cap on how much dead money you can have because obviously GM's wouldn't want to have too much of their salary cap taken up by this dead money.

I wouldn't mind a cap on it. More or less saves GMs from themselves and creating a horrid mess for their successors.

I don't mind what Burke is trying to propose as long as the hard cap remains in place. The NBA cap gives me a headache.