section 110 Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 http://tsn.ca/nhl/news_story/?ID=179719&hubname=nhl Bob McKenzie, TSN.ca Staff 10/3/2006 11:17:24 AM Suffice to say, the natives are restless. The natives, in this case, are NHL general managers who aren't happy with how New Jersey Devils' GM Lou Lamoriello has apparently extricated himself from a salary cap conundrum that, at one point, looked as though it might cause him to gut his team. Now, though, with two moves over the last few days, Lamoriello looks as though he has deftly gotten cap relief to the tune of $7.1 million. That isn't to say he isn't going to be tight against the cap when the season opens and that all his problems are behind him, but he should at least be able to sign some of the players Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
section 110 Posted October 3, 2006 Author Share Posted October 3, 2006 A fair analysis. It won't surprise me if Clarke is one of the GM's crying foul here despite his Roenick maneuver. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
threestars Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 And about the whole LTIR.....he spelt it out exactly, you have to have independent confirmation that the player really is unfit to play.....so it isn't just a way of getting shot of older players who wish to retire. GMs may not like it, but if they were in a similar situation, they'd use it I am sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
section 110 Posted October 3, 2006 Author Share Posted October 3, 2006 Despite Lou's integral role in crafting the CBA, he did not forecast the Mogilny injury issue. I'm sure if another team did this I'd be frustrated, but it's within the letter of the law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammyk Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 A fair analysis. It won't surprise me if Clarke is one of the GM's crying foul here despite his Roenick maneuver. You'd think Clarke would fess up to saying it and not be anonymous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SueNJ97 Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 What I think will be interesting is to see whether GMs, or the league, are angry enough to demand that the clauses be re-written to prevent some of these things in the next CBA. Or whether they learn to live with them. They should be applied fairly across all teams (if Brindy is injured, Carolina should get LTIR) for the duration of the CBA. If the league and the GMs are really troubled by this, they have recourse - fix it in the next CBA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MantaRay Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 If the other GM's doubt that Mogilny is unable to play, they can trade for him. I am sure Lou won't ask for much. The Malakhov deal was a two way street with SJ and was approved by the league. I would assume other GM's had knowledge of the deal prior to it being "consumated" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GOLDORAK Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 They had over ONE YEAR to get the CBA done right. That's more than enough time to discover and close any loopholes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emptynet Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 As usual, Lou found a loop hole. Isnt that what high priced lawyers are for, for finding loop holes? Some GM's will never learn... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SueNJ97 Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 You'd think Clarke would fess up to saying it and not be anonymous. Yes, I think he would. Especially since he already said some things about the Mogilny LTIR before the NHL granted it, on the record. So, in fact, did Sather. I may not like either one of them but they at least don't hide behind anonymous quotes. Although in Clarke's case maybe he should. It might help him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-Devil Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 I doubt this came from Clarke. This smells more like a GM who was in constant contact with the Devils office the last 2 weeks asking about the availability of their key players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exit56 Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 there's an expression we use in the MMO games like World of Warcraft for people like this.. CRY MORE NOOB They rewrite the whole NHL ruleset to make it so our strengths are minimized, especially Brodeur's puck handling ability, and we suck it up and still win a division title. WAAAAH We get our ass in a sling with a couple of bad signings, and Lou figures out a way to make it work.. Within the rules.. WAAAAH These guys sound like my 5 week old daughter... Crying a lot for no reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diabolical Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 You would think most of these GM's would be pleased Lou and set a precedent for finding a legal way to circumvent this disaster. I am sure it is primarily division or conference rivals who are angry over this situation. After all Lou has been showing them up for almost 2 decades. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SueNJ97 Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 there's an expression we use in the MMO games like World of Warcraft for people like this..CRY MORE NOOB They rewrite the whole NHL ruleset to make it so our strengths are minimized, especially Brodeur's puck handling ability, and we suck it up and still win a division title. WAAAAH We get our ass in a sling with a couple of bad signings, and Lou figures out a way to make it work.. Within the rules.. WAAAAH These guys sound like my 5 week old daughter... Crying a lot for no reason. Not exactly for no reason. The league came out and said that the 35-and-older-clause superceded everything else in the CBA. Which, it seems, isn't exactly true. What they really should have said was, it supercedes every section of the CBA where we inserted it to over-ride the section. Because that does seem to be what happened, intentionally or not. They either meant to leave the section with LTIE 35-and-older clause free, or they screwed up. In any case, that's what happened. So they live with it. But it isn't what they said earlier (in May and July, I believe). Then, Bettman and Daly said certain things that intimated that you can't trade cap space, it is a circumvention (even though it isn't in the CBA, Bettman was talking about NBA-cap-space trades and actually said it wasn't in the best interests of the game for the NHL to go there). So GMs must have been sure Malakhov was stuck in NJ on the cap. I admit still don't quite get this one. Unless the league contacted Vlad and demanded he sign his retirement papers and he said no...and they thought back to Bryan Berard. Who said he was retired, didn't sign the papers, Toronto didn't retain his rights because he said he was retired and all of a sudden he's back, has himself declared a UFA and signs with someone else, after TO had spent quite a bit of $$$ helping him rehab and supporting him. He just left. His choice, but I'm sure the league remembers that players can just decide to unretire, no matter what they say, if they don't sign. And then he could decide to fight NJ for the money. In any case, if he won't/doesn't sign the papers, the league could decide he was still a tradeable commodity and as long as the two teams put enough other stuff in there, there is nothing that can be done about it, at least under the current CBA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eldon Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 These kind of articles make me laugh. Anonymous GM, what a coward. Speak out that you're unhappy with the league for OK'ing either the LTI or approving the SJ trade. And put your name to it. So what else is new. More people in hockey hate the Devils. Bring it on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
section 110 Posted October 3, 2006 Author Share Posted October 3, 2006 Loopholes are one reason why we have lawyers - to settle the issues that arise from ambiguous language in contracts. I'm sure Lou got his legal team all over this section of the CBA and had extensive discussions with the league and its counsel to determine if Mogilny's injury trumped the 35 year old clause. An interesting side note - I believe that the chief outside counsel for the league and a primary outside lawyer that represents the Devils work for the same law firm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrHockey Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 "Lou Lam is lying. I know Mogilny can still play because he's 3rd in league scoring in NHL '07 on my Xbox." /anonymous GM Seriously though, if the CBA can be interpreted to allow these transactions, so be it. Some of this griping smells of sour grapes. I find that many sports GM's, particularly those in the NHL, do not have a keen business acumen or a strong grasp of the rules that govern their own business. Once again, Lou Lam shows why he is the best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puckrock Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 Ditto for the New York Islanders with retired goalie cum GM Garth Snow and the Toronto Maple Leafs with the retired Tie Domi. Get your mind out of the gutter, Bob!! On Sunday, Lamoriello traded veteran defenceman Vladimir Malakhov and a first-round pick to the San Jose Sharks in exchange for forward Igor Korolyuk and defenceman Jim Fahey. Stay with me here, but isn't his name Alexander?! We love ya, Bob. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sammyk Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 Get your mind out of the gutter, Bob!! He spelled it right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueSkirt Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 It's funny because at first many thought the Devs would get the relief on Malkhov - because he deserted, but not Mogilny because he was demoted last year. Now it tuens out that Mogilny's relief is more legitimate than Malakhov's relief. The NHL should fix the loophole that allows trading of cap space. If the guy is hurt then the LTI thing is fine with me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chico Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 Lou is the eff'n man! Yes he created this situation...but he's also well on his way to fixing it. As Devils fans we are most fortunate to have him as the GM. It will be a sad, sad day in the Devils' Nation when he moves on. All hail Lou! Mmm kool-aid. Chico Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centralnj Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 These anonymous GMs were probably circling like vultures waiting for the fire sale, and are now eating sour grapes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sundstrom Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 i actually have no problem trading cap space. it's an asset. why shouldn't a team be able to trade an asset. the devils had to give up a 1st rounder to dump malakhov. i'm surprised the devils couldn't get a team like washington or pittsburgh that had even more room than SJ and much less chance of competing this year to make a deal for less. pitt and wash have the cap space this year. getting more picks could make them much stronger later on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils731 Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 I can't believe GMs are actually complaining about the Devils getting cap relief for Mogilny. Do they not see that allowing legitimate injuries to come off the cap at any age makes the most sense for the entire league? Imagine if a team signed a superstar like Jagr at 35 to a 3 year deal at 7 mil a year and then he suffers a broken leg and can never play again, would these anonymous GMs really want this 7 million in salary decimating that team for years to come? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LizDevil30 Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 (edited) This would've been avoided if the NHLPA has decent leadership and the balls to protect all its players. An athlete's career is short enough, and many play successfully until at least 40. Teams should not be penalized for signing an older player. If Almo was signed at 34 there would be no outrage. The whole thing is ridiculous. Edited October 3, 2006 by LizDevil30 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.