RADICAL CAP MOVE....WOULD IT WORK??

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from macdogcharm. Show macdogcharm's posts

    RADICAL CAP MOVE....WOULD IT WORK??

    I think we all agree....that the best cap move when Sturm & Savard return, would be to move Ryder & Wheeler...or demote Ryder & move Wheeler. Having said that....without a taker(s)...that may not be possible. Would the following work....When Rask plays....we don't dress Thomas....when Thomas plays....we don't dress Rask. Instead we go with a low priced goalie bench  warmer. When a player sits out....does his salary NOT count against the cap that day? If so...would this goalie shuffle PLUS demoting Ryder be enough? Because if we could keep Wheeler, and he comes around....PLUS we keep Sturm, Savard and everyone else...would this be the best scenario?
    Side effect of course would be, if starting goalie got hurt, we would be in trouble...but statistaically...most goalie changes mid-game are because of poor performance, and an effort to "shake things up"...meaning....the game is mostly lost when you switch goalies mid-stream anyway.
    Just a radical thought....is it possible?
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from 306bruinsfan. Show 306bruinsfan's posts

    Re: RADICAL CAP MOVE....WOULD IT WORK??

    No it wouldn't work.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from BadHabitude. Show BadHabitude's posts

    Re: RADICAL CAP MOVE....WOULD IT WORK??


    Here's what I would do.  I would demote Ryder - I believe you could bring him back up if someone else got hurt.

    Here's my radical idea.  Package Thornton and Wheeler for an enforcer who can get on the score board a little more often, like Chris Neil.  Add in a future consideration (pick, prospect) and I think the team would be stronger than it is now.

    You're as strong as your 4th line.  With an enforcer that can put up a few more points on the board I'd like that line a lot better.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from duinne. Show duinne's posts

    Re: RADICAL CAP MOVE....WOULD IT WORK??

    In Response to RADICAL CAP MOVE....WOULD IT WORK??:
    [QUOTE]I think we all agree....that the best cap move when Sturm & Savard return, would be to move Ryder & Wheeler...or demote Ryder & move Wheeler. Having said that....without a taker(s)...that may not be possible. Would the following work....When Rask plays....we don't dress Thomas....when Thomas plays....we don't dress Rask. Instead we go with a low priced goalie bench  warmer. When a player sits out....does his salary NOT count against the cap that day? If so...would this goalie shuffle PLUS demoting Ryder be enough? Because if we could keep Wheeler, and he comes around....PLUS we keep Sturm, Savard and everyone else...would this be the best scenario? Side effect of course would be, if starting goalie got hurt, we would be in trouble...but statistaically...most goalie changes mid-game are because of poor performance, and an effort to "shake things up"...meaning....the game is mostly lost when you switch goalies mid-stream anyway. Just a radical thought....is it possible?
    Posted by macdogcharm[/QUOTE]

    LOL, that would be a new and different, but decidedly obvious, method of cap circumvention, which would violate the CBA. So, no. Pas possible.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Kurako. Show Kurako's posts

    Re: RADICAL CAP MOVE....WOULD IT WORK??

    No. Players who are on the Active Roster still count against the cap even if they don't dress. The only way to remove them from the cap is to send them to minors but that won't work for Thomas as he has a no movement clause which bars demotion to the minors.

    Sounds like cap circumvention to me. You should ask the Devils to give you a job Wink

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Orrthebest. Show Orrthebest's posts

    Re: RADICAL CAP MOVE....WOULD IT WORK??

    In order to remove a player from the salary cap you have to expose them to waivers.  Either of our goalies are likely to be claimed for free on waivers.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from bruins8. Show bruins8's posts

    Re: RADICAL CAP MOVE....WOULD IT WORK??

    CHRIS NEIL AN ENFORCER?  HAHAHA  DID U NOT READ WHAT MCGRATTON SAID ABOUT HIM?...MAN SOME OF YOU DONT HAVE A CLUE
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from McKodiak5. Show McKodiak5's posts

    Re: RADICAL CAP MOVE....WOULD IT WORK??

    I've been there. So confused by how the cap works and how it is calculated. The answers are out there. You will find the way.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: RADICAL CAP MOVE....WOULD IT WORK??

    So as Kurako points out, this wouldn't work because the players are still on the active roster and so still counted against the Cap.  But there's nothing here that would count as "circumventing the Cap" or even suggest it.  L'affaire Kovalchuk has everyone jumping on any attempt to manage the edges of the Cap as "circumventing" it.  There's a huge difference between managing within the scope of the CBA and trying to knock its teeth out.

    Teams routinely bounce players exempt from waivers back and forth to the minors.  Think about every time you hear about a guy being sent to the minors immediately after a game - that's done to avoid a roster day's worth of salary.  That's basically what the OP is suggesting here.  There's nothing wrong with this.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Kurako. Show Kurako's posts

    Re: RADICAL CAP MOVE....WOULD IT WORK??

    BB, the circumvention thing was an attempt at a joke. I don't really think it's circumvention Laughing

    Of course there's nothing wrong with moving players on 2-way contracts.

    Even a one way contract can be sent down but the player would have to clear waivers on the way down and again on the way up.

    The danger with the waiver game is any team can claim a waived player. Reclaim waivers are worse since you still end up with half the salary on the books. Have a look at Dallas who are still picking up half the tab for Avery (although in his case they were glad to get shot of him!)

    You can't waive Tim Thomas due to his no movement clause.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: RADICAL CAP MOVE....WOULD IT WORK??

    I'm not sure that's true.  I think you could waive TT if you wanted to, but you couldn't then assign him to the minors.  Basically, you'd be dangling him out there in the hope that someone makes a run at him.

    Yeah, I didn't think you were serious re: cap consideration, but duinne uses that phrase too, and I have been hearing all sorts of perfectly valid and creative strategies to wring every dime's worth of value out of salary dollars called "circumvention" ever since the Kovalchuk thing.  You never know who might think anything other than adding everyone's annual salary together is "circumvention"

    That's what I should have gone as for Hallowe'en.  OooOOoooOOOOoOoOooo!
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Kurako. Show Kurako's posts

    Re: RADICAL CAP MOVE....WOULD IT WORK??

    I've been spending too much time reading the CBA thanks to that other thread!

    You can't trade, loan or waive a player with a no trade clause. Buy-outs and terminations are still allowed but who know that may be covered by a clause somewhere else.

    Article 11.8 (b):

    "A no-move clause may prevent the involuntary relocation of a player, whether by Trade, Loan or Waiver claim.  A no-move clause, however, may not restrict the Club's buy-out and termination rights as set forth in this Agreement.  Prior to exercising its Ordinary Course Buy-Out rights pursuant to Paragraph 13 of the SPC hereof, the Club shall, in writing in accordance with the notice provisions in Exhibit 3 hereof, provide the Player with the option of electing to be placed on Waivers.  The Player will have twenty-four (24) hours from the time he receives such notice to accept or reject that option at his sole discretion, and shall so inform the Club in writing, in accordance with the notice provisions in Exhibit 3 hereof, within such twenty-four (24) hour period.  If the Player does not timely accept or reject that option, it will be deemed rejected."
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from duinne. Show duinne's posts

    Re: RADICAL CAP MOVE....WOULD IT WORK??

    In Response to Re: RADICAL CAP MOVE....WOULD IT WORK??:
    [QUOTE]I'm not sure that's true.  I think you could waive TT if you wanted to, but you couldn't then assign him to the minors.  Basically, you'd be dangling him out there in the hope that someone makes a run at him. Yeah, I didn't think you were serious re: cap consideration, but duinne uses that phrase too, and I have been hearing all sorts of perfectly valid and creative strategies to wring every dime's worth of value out of salary dollars called "circumvention" ever since the Kovalchuk thing.  You never know who might think anything other than adding everyone's annual salary together is "circumvention" That's what I should have gone as for Hallowe'en.  OooOOoooOOOOoOoOooo!
    Posted by Bookboy007[/QUOTE]

    Doesn't matter what I think; it's the NHL that's going to be incredibly skittish about anything that remotely smacks of cap circumvention until the CBA is rewritten to cover every single aspect. If I were a GM, I'd be very certain to vet any move with the NHL, just for the CYA factor. 
     
     

Share