Rock Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 Malakhov situation unsettled http://www.northjersey.com/page.php?qstr=e...2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk2 Tuesday, December 20, 2005 By TOM GULITTI STAFF WRITER WEST ORANGE - Devils general manager Lou Lamoriello will be busy enough after temporarily taking on the coaching duties after Larry Robinson resigned Monday. Now he might also have to deal with a controversy with defenseman Vladimir Malakhov. Although Lamoriello said Monday that Malakhov informed him Saturday night that he was going to retire, the 37-year-old defenseman's agent said otherwise. "He's definitely not retired," said John Kotler, the assistant for Malakhov's agent, Paul Theofanous. "He has requested a leave of absence to deal with some internal, personal and medical issues.'' Lamoriello said he was unaware of any medical issues that were bothering Malkahov and that he rejected Theofanous' request for a leave of absence. "Vladimir told me he was going to retire and then his representative asked that he be allowed to have some time off to go home," Lamoriello said. "I told him it was not in the best interest of the club for him to do that." Lamoriello considers Malakhov to no longer be on his team, but Theofanous will no doubt try to get the Devils to pay at least part of the remainder of his contract. With 50 games remaining, Malakhov has approximately $2.2 million left on his $3.6 million annual salary for this season and another $3.6 million coming next season. Still, it appears the Devils have a good case to clear Malakhov's salary from their cap. "If Malakhov leaves the Devils' team without permission, he is subject to suspension without pay and the possible termination of his contract," NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly said in an e-mail. "If Malakhov is no longer performing services for the Devils, and they are not paying him - either because he has been suspended or his contract is terminated - the balance of this year's salary will come off the Devils' cap." WELCOME BACK: Malakhov's departure opened the door for defenseman Dan McGillis and Tommy Albelin to return to the Devils. McGillis cleared waivers Saturday and was to be assigned to Albany, but Lamoriello called him at 1 a.m. Sunday to tell him to remain in New Jersey. Albelin, 40, was expected to sign with the team before Monday's midnight holiday roster freeze went into effect. He has been practicing with the team all season, but was not under contract. WELCOME BACK II: Left wing Patrik Elias, who has been working his way back from hepatitis A, practiced with the team Monday for the first time this season. He compared it to his first day of training camp and hopes to be ready to play in a game within two or three weeks. "I would love to say two to three weeks," he said. "That's how long training camp lasts." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insanity_gallops Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 Malakhov situation unsettled "Vladimir told me he was going to retire and then his representative asked that he be allowed to have some time off to go home," Lamoriello said. "I told him it was not in the best interest of the club for him to do that." <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Never go against the family, Vlad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LizDevil30 Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 So Vlad makes a decision, the agent balks and wants to change it. Good luck and goodbye. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadDog2020 Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 There's no controversy here. Malaschmuck tells Lou he's retiring. Agent finds out, sh!ts himself, tries to do some damage control to be able to recoup some of the money. I don't see a controversy. The agent is a moron. That's the only thing I see here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exit56 Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 Well the agent could argue Malakhov is the idiot for walking away from 6M Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacDevil Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 There's no controversy here. Malaschmuck tells Lou he's retiring. Agent finds out, sh!ts himself, tries to do some damage control to be able to recoup some of the money. I don't see a controversy. The agent is a moron. That's the only thing I see here. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well now maybe you want to remove the "I hate Vladimir Malakhov" from you signature. If not for something else then for the classy decision he made in relieving our Salary Cap and possibly walking away from 5.5 + mill. I already forgave him for all turnovers that lead to the opponents Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadDog2020 Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 Well now maybe you want to remove the "I hate Vladimir Malakhov" from you signature. If not for something else then for the classy decision he made in relieving our Salary Cap and possibly walking away from 5.5 + mill.I already forgave him for all turnovers that lead to the opponents Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IMissTerreri Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 I won't remove it until we're absolutely sure he's not gonna cost us any more money against the cap this year. The other thing (and someone PLEASE fill me in on this) is that over on Hockey's Future, some posters said that Bob MacKenzie said on TSN last night that if a plyer over 35 retires with years left on a multi-year deal, the money for next year WILL count against next year's cap. I pray this isn't true, but I'm not removing my sig until he's gone completely with no financial ramifications for us to deal with. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> So that's so strange - I work on the floor below the NHL offices in midtown, and a guy on the elevator said to another guy something like "I am talking with Ted about Malakov." I started talking to them, and they said something about the salary definitely coming off the cap for this year, but not for next year because he's old. I didn't post this because I thought he was joking around with me . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 (edited) What rule in the CBA says "if a player retires his salary comes off the cap...except for next season in the case of the player being old"? I dunno, that just seems like a rule both the NHL and the NHLPA would hate, so why would they put it in there? Edited December 21, 2005 by Devils731 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voros19 Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 I won't remove it until we're absolutely sure he's not gonna cost us any more money against the cap this year. The other thing (and someone PLEASE fill me in on this) is that over on Hockey's Future, some posters said that Bob MacKenzie said on TSN last night that if a plyer over 35 retires with years left on a multi-year deal, the money for next year WILL count against next year's cap. I pray this isn't true, but I'm not removing my sig until he's gone completely with no financial ramifications for us to deal with. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That's fvcking retarded...What is the rationale for that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadDog2020 Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 That's fvcking retarded...What is the rationale for that? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> There is none. it's fvcking stupid... but apparently true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sundstrom Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 i'm wondering if this is to prevent long term deals that front load contracts and add ridiculously long years (like what we had once talked about for brodeur) to make the cap number reasonable, and then have the player retire. just a thought. hope it's not true Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vinnie Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 i'm wondering if this is to prevent long term deals that front load contracts and add ridiculously long years (like what we had once talked about for brodeur) to make the cap number reasonable, and then have the player retire.just a thought. hope it's not true <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That makes sense. Hopefully his contract will be terminated because he missed a game without permission. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mddevsfan Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 I'm beginning to think that there actually IS NO CBA! The owners and players are just making stuff up as they go along. If this wasn't the case, the league would certainly have RELEASED THE CBA TO THE PUBLIC BY NOW!!! I would think there are better ways to prevent frontloading of contracts, like say, a rule that says "the value of a contract my not decrease in successive years." Much more intelligent than some stupid rule the punishes a team for having a player retire. And if this was legit, wouldn't this have come up already when Hull retired? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sundstrom Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 And if this was legit, wouldn't this have come up already when Hull retired? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> hull was not signed for next year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mddevsfan Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 hull was not signed for next year. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> My bad. Has anyone else retired this year? If so, were any of them signed for next year? I still find it hard to believe that this would not have come up until now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueSkirt Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 hull was not signed for next year. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> i thought Hull had a two year deal w/ PHO ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueSkirt Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 and I could only see this retiree-salary rule come into place for a team that is at the floor of the CBA. Such that they signed a guy to a fat contract to reach the floor, but had no intentions of paying him at all. If the guy retires & does not get paid, how can that caount AGANIST you ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacDevil Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 I started talking to them, and they said something about the salary definitely coming off the cap for this year, but not for next year because he's old. I didn't post this because I thought he was joking around with me . . . <{POST_SNAPBACK}> some posters said that Bob MacKenzie said on TSN last night that if a plyer over 35 retires with years left on a multi-year deal, the money for next year WILL count against next year's cap. What !?!?!?!??! Just tell me I'm dreaming Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weekes Head Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 According to NewJerseyDevils.com, Malakhov is "suspended," not retired. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 As much as that rule makes sense the Devils could just waive Malakhov and then have him retire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sundstrom Posted December 21, 2005 Share Posted December 21, 2005 again...he's gone. and he's off the cap forever. it's just a matter of whether the devils pay him or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.