|
|
Post by San Jose Sharks on Jul 13, 2016 20:44:30 GMT -5
Sharks are fielding offers on the following:
Pavel Datsyuk 79ov
Scott Hartnell 77ov
Brooks Orpik 75ov
One of these players will be moved to a cup contender for sure, but who will it be??? Hit me up and we'll figure something out.
|
|
|
|
Post by Corey Scott on Jul 13, 2016 20:46:45 GMT -5
I might have interest in Datsyk but it depends what the league ruling on his contract is. Obviously no interest in him if I get stuck with the 7.5 million cap for a year after this season at 55 overall rating.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andre Deblois on Jul 13, 2016 21:19:58 GMT -5
Just so that everyone is CLEAR about this situation, here is the wording on the inactive buyout rule: Inactivity BuyoutAny player who retires/defects/receives a career ending injury without retiring for cap purposes (i.e. Pronger, Savard...) and who was signed before he turned 35, and has no more then half his contract years after turning 35 can be bought out without any cap penalty. A perfect example of this is Ilya Kovalchuk. We can't predict what NHL stars will do, and because our contracts don't line up with the NHL's we could be on the hook without it being our fault. Players who are signed before the age of 35 and spend no more then half their contract as a 35+ player (say at 33 year old 2 years into a 3 year contract) could be reasonably expected to play to the end of their contract without incident. Therefore, no cap penalties will be attributed to the team. Any player who retires/defects/receives a career ending injury without retiring for cap purposes (i.e. Pronger, Savard...) and who was signed before he turned 35, but has more then half his contract years after turning 35 can be bought out with half the regular cap hit. This would be the case where a GM signs a 34 year old to a long term deal. There are reasonable doubts as to the players ability to live out his full contract and long term deals are given to such old players with a heavy dose of risk. Still not wholly unreasonable so only half of the usual cap hit for a buyout is a fair penalty. Any player who retires/defects/receives a career ending injury without retiring for cap purposes (i.e. Pronger, Savard...) and who was signed after he turned 35 can be bought out with regular cap implications. After the age of 35, it becomes a season to season game to continue playing or retire for many players. We need to treat them that way. If a GM hands out a long term deal to an aging player, knowing full well that said player can retire anytime, he deserves the full penalty. Datsyuk signed his current deal in February of 2014. He was 35 at the time, therefore no cap relief will be provided in the case of buyout next offseason. |
|
|
|
Post by Corey Scott on Jul 13, 2016 21:27:01 GMT -5
I might have interest in Datsyk but it depends what the league ruling on his contract is. Obviously no interest in him if I get stuck with the 7.5 million cap for a year after this season at 55 overall rating. we have an inactive buyout rule if you remember The same one about people over the age of 35 not being able to be bought out? Yeah, I remember. Just don't know how old he was when he originally signed and am too lazy to look it up. Also, either way its what 1/4 contract at minimum so not worth for me now that I think about it. |
|
|
|
Post by Edmonton Oilers on Jul 13, 2016 21:29:09 GMT -5
we have an inactive buyout rule if you remember The same one about people over the age of 35 not being able to be bought out? Yeah, I remember. Just don't know how old he was when he originally signed and am too lazy to look it up. Also, either way its what 1/4 contract at minimum so not worth for me now that I think about it. andre just confirmed that above |
|
|
|
Post by San Jose Sharks on Jul 14, 2016 8:26:13 GMT -5
Even though I wasn't the Gm to extend that long crazy offer??? It reads to me that it's all about penalizing the Gm who overextends players near thier retirement age.
I feel this is a great rule, however I'm an innocent victim here who inherited this contract, not the guy who proposed it. I feel strongly it falls into that first category with no penalty
|
|
|
|
Post by Corey Scott on Jul 14, 2016 8:31:24 GMT -5
You traded for it (I assume). If they had the rule so that you could just trade away the player and there would be no penalty then that would be a pretty useless rule. I might still have interest at the trade deadline. I figure someone out there won't mind taking the contract later on if I include a pick but I won't have interest until then.
|
|
|
|
Post by Edmonton Oilers on Jul 14, 2016 8:49:50 GMT -5
Even though I wasn't the Gm to extend that long crazy offer??? It reads to me that it's all about penalizing the Gm who overextends players near thier retirement age. I feel this is a great rule, however I'm an innocent victim here who inherited this contract, not the guy who proposed it. I feel strongly it falls into that first category with no penalty You decided to acquire the player at the tail-end of his career. You traded the assets. You made the decision. Don't play the innocent card here. We aren't punishing anyone and that's not what the rule is for. |
|
|
|
Post by Philadelphia Flyers on Jul 14, 2016 11:24:20 GMT -5
Lol that's like asking if we can just remove any player we want off our rosters that we don't want anymore.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bryan Hull on Jul 14, 2016 18:50:11 GMT -5
you got him from me joe you had a real hard-on to get him at the time so whatever happens is your own fault not the leagues rules on this matter.
|
|
