Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
I will concede this point to you as soon as you provide an example of a short term contract that circumvents the cap.
I mean, if you don't see how a deal like DiPietro's is different than Luongo's I'm not sure how to explain it. People were talking about the Luongo type of contract that front loads a contract. There are short term deals that are front loaded too, Komisarek's for instance, but again that wasn't really the topic at hand.
And one of the reasons people are putting "circumvents" or derivations of that word in quotations is that some, including me, don't really feel that deals of that nature circumvent the cap
You are wrong; it is not the cap circumvention that hamstrings a team - it is the length of the contract.
Um, alright. But the discussion was about Burke's stance about deals that "circumvent" the cap. Not deals that are of a certain term. The point being made was that Burke's principles against the cap circumventing deals are hurting the team because lots of players want to sign deals of that nature and Burke's position essentially rules the Leafs out of the discussion for those players.
Long-term deals are a separate issue and while you can make the argument that the same discussion can be had about Burke's stance on them and how it benefits the team, it doesn't change the fact that the New York Islanders, and specifically the contracts they handed out to Alexei Yashin and Rick DiPietro are not examples of what was being discussed in the post you quoted.
Wasn't the first team to start the long term contracts the New York Islanders? First with DiPietro and then Yashin? How is that working out for them?
Well, no. Yashin signed his deal before DiPietro and before the cap. Either way, neither contract is an example of front loading a contract and "circumventing" the cap.
I know we probably stand little chance of attracting either of these two, but the one thing that really bothers me about Burke is that his ridiculous stance on "cap circumventing" deals takes the leafs out of the running before we even have a chance to be considered.
Yeah, but you can't argue with success!
If I owned the team, I'd insist he changed that stance or I'd fire him, unless it's ownership that is telling him not to sign deals like this.
I really don't understand how he can operate in this manner, I could see a scenario where we lose Kessel because we refuse to give him a deal like this.
It infuriates me to no end. It's hard enough to build a Cup contender, and yet you handicap yourself even more with some idiotic self-imposed "principles"?
If McClement replaces Armstrong on the roster, the Leafs are saving $500,000 (taking into account the Armstrong buyout) per year and have a better player.Not replacing Armstrong though, they are totally different players. Looks to be replacing Connoly, Lombardi or Steckel in some capacity.
Cap hit goes down, but it guarantees NHL money for Frattin if he has to spend any time with the Marlies.
no one is speaking of Jonkinen whom may be a good short term fit, far better than Connelly
Rumor has it that leafs after Bernier who is unhappy in LA.
"he will be testing free agency if a deal is not in place by Sunday."
- Pat Brisson
So, posturing for more money from NJ most likely. Still...one can dream...
McKenzie said he hasn't used an agent in a long time.
The contract would have to be quite a bit bigger to pay the agent and still have more money for himself than going without an agent.
I think this means there's a real chance he leaves NJ.
Hopefully Burke can get him a contract that makes sense. Perfect, perfect guy for the blue and white.
The thing is, there's almost no way the contract he gets will make sense. That's the only reason I want Burke to stay far away from those negotiations.