Curmudgeon Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 Apparently, the league will try to establish a one-time buyout clause in the next CBA. It would be designed for teams to offload a bad contract and subtract the salary from their cap, thus giving them a lot of space. The team would still have to payout all or most of the contract, but the player would become an UFA. This would work for Montreal getting rid of Gomez and maybe the Islanders getting rid of DiPietro. I'm sure there are other examples. If Vancouver had a choice to offload a contract, I'm thinking it might be Ballard's. I think there is a legitimate trade market for Luongo, but I'm not sure Ballard is tradeable. Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hobble Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 When you say "one-time buyout" does that a team can only buy out one player a season under this new rule? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xbox Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 Ballards play has increased. We don't have a Gomez, Komisarek, DiPietro. If Luongo CANT be traded then we should keep him We should keep our free clause. Why use it right away? Same with MTL they shouldnt waste in on Gomez who is almost done anyways. Guy should be making 900K a yr not 7M When you say "one-time buyout" does that a team can only buy out one player a season under this new rule? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 This will be known as the Wade Redden clause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xbox Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 This will be known as the Wade Redden clause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 It will benefit the player more than the team though. The team can wipe a player from the cap if they just waive and demote him. If this clause is acted upon, then the player can at least sign somewhere else. Just like if they were bought out like what the current cba says they 'should' do. It means that teams like the Rangers can continue signing players to ridiculous contracts and then having no repurcussions on them. Actually, nothing changes for them. Hooray for losing a season for no reason. Cheers. TOML Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xbox Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 It will benefit the player more than the team though. The team can wipe a player from the cap if they just waive and demote him. If this clause is acted upon, then the player can at least sign somewhere else. Just like if they were bought out like what the current cba says they 'should' do. It means that teams like the Rangers can continue signing players to ridiculous contracts and then having no repurcussions on them. Actually, nothing changes for them. Hooray for losing a season for no reason. Cheers. TOML Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 Or maybe they would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Anderson Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 Or maybe they wouldn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hockeyville88 Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.