GM's not happy with Lamoriello

[PeteyNice]

He got a 1st round pick for nothing. You just stated one of the big reasons this deal should not have been allowed. The Sharks don't have to worry about ever paying the guy a salary, or ever seeing his face. This is the sort of salary dump the CBA was supposed to take care of. In addition, Malakhov says his knees are so shot that he couldn't play if he wanted to. That means he would never pass the physical required to play for San Jose. Whether or not there is verbiage in the CBA to specifically cover this is immaterial, IMO. The important thing is it is exactly the sort of thing that the CBA is supposed to prevent, and is not in the best interests of the game. What this comes down to is not so much that Lou a genius, but rather that Gary Bettman is incredibly weak-willed as a commissioner.

I really don't see the problem with the Malakhov deal. Teams do simillar things in the NBA all the time. San Jose had extra cap room they were not going to use and were able to leverage that for a first round pick. This is something the new CBA encourages. Cap room is an asset and has value, in this case that value was a first round pick.

[mcDevil]

I really don't see the problem with the Malakhov deal. Teams do simillar things in the NBA all the time. San Jose had extra cap room they were not going to use and were able to leverage that for a first round pick. This is something the new CBA encourages. Cap room is an asset and has value, in this case that value was a first round pick.

It is NOT something the new CBA encourages. In fact, there is specific verbiage to DIScourage it. As for the 1st-rounder-for-nothing, there are instances where blatantly 1-sided deals have been voided by the league, as this one should have been. I will have to research to dig up info on them. Either way, Malakhov, as a retired and permanently injured former player, is not a legitimate tradable asset.

[NJDF]

Does anyone else get the feeling that alot of NHL GM's were laughing at Lou behind closed doors and gossiping about how the wiley GM had cap stricken his team and were enjoying the prospect of NJ having to let go or trade key players to get under that cap? And then, the BEST GM in sports pulls a rabbit out of a hat and makes them all look naive. The hate him, they fear him, and they envy him. There are alot more crappy GMs than good ones and all this "talk" is SOUR GRAPES.

LOU IS THE BEST!!

GO DEVILS!!!

I could really care less what these other a$$hole GM's think. They would do the same thing if put in the same position if they could. It's bitterness, jealousy, and anger because it was these same crybabies that were ready to pounce on our roster. Now they're not getting any of our players. Boo-fvcking-hoo. These guys should shut the fvck up and worry about how their teams are gonna beat us. And if you're gonna make a comment, for the love of all that is holy, PUT A fvckING NAME BEHIND IT. I'm sick of these anonymous pussies who always have something to say, but never wanna admit who they are. fvck OFF.

Right on!! Could not have said it better myself....so I'll copy and paste yours.

GO DEVILS!!!

[SueNJ97]

A few things about this.

1. Is the NHL to blame for this? Yes, in a way. My problem with them is that Bettman came out and said he believed trading cap space was a circumvention (and specifically cited the deals done in the NBA as examples of why he felt that way). And that it was something he wouldn't allow, even though it isn't listed as an example of circumvention in the CBA, because the CBA says he can just veto anything he believes is a circumvention, above and beyond the list of examples, unless the CBA specifically permits it. So I guess what he really meant was that trading cap space is a circumvention if the cap space is attached to a player who signed a contract at the age of 35 or older and he actually signed his retirement papers. Look, I'm not blaming Lou for doing what he did. I'm saying that the Commissioner shouldn't have made statements that made the GMs believe the CBA would be interpreted one way when that's not true. Because in that case, what did Toronto buy out Domi for? He's sitting on their cap. Obviously, he refused to retire. I guess he wanted his money, or 2/3 or it, and they saw no other way out (they still have his full salary sitting against the cap). But they could have told him he wouldn't make the roster next year, he'd be sent to the minors, and suggest he refuse the assignment. They could have suspended him. He could have refused to sign retirement papers. Then he'd be suspended, no salary, with the same cap hit. They could have traded the cap space. However, maybe with his personal situation he couldn't afford to forgoe the 2/3 salary. But it is something to think about.

2. Now, do I really think this situation will come along all that often? No, I don't. The odd thing about it was that it was simply a cap hit and no salary. The player was technically suspended and therefore would have to report to collect any money. And, it appears, he doesn't want to sign retirement papers. Is that likely to happen with, say, Sean Burke? It doesn't look like it, he reported to the minors and wants his money. If Turgeon gets sent to the minors, would he refuse to report? Would Brindy? I don't know. But that's what it would take. They'd have to refuse to report and refuse to retire. That's the way you would get cap space without a salary attached.

[Triumph]

It is NOT something the new CBA encourages. In fact, there is specific verbiage to DIScourage it. As for the 1st-rounder-for-nothing, there are instances where blatantly 1-sided deals have been voided by the league, as this one should have been. I will have to research to dig up info on them. Either way, Malakhov, as a retired and permanently injured former player, is not a legitimate tradable asset.

Malakhov is not retired. He's not permanently injured, either.

Deals have never been voided for being too one-sided, or else Tony Amonte would never have been a Flyer, and Alexei Kovalev never would have been a Ranger.

[SueNJ97]

Malakhov is not retired. He's not permanently injured, either.

Deals have never been voided for being too one-sided, or else Tony Amonte would never have been a Flyer, and Alexei Kovalev never would have been a Ranger.

Yes, actually, there was one deal which was voided for being one sided. Remember when Milbury was going to trade Palffy to the Rangers for nothing but money and Bettman said no. He told everyone that you had to have some semblance of players going the other way who would play, somewhere in the organization - which is exactly what Millbury didn't want because Isles ownership refused to spend $$$ and Milbury had no budget for anything at that point. Which is why he wanted the $$$ and nothing else. Which is why the fact that Bettman said he was opposed to trading a retired player's cap space made some sense. The fact that Malakhov could technically show up at the Shark's door and demand his $$$ is the one thing that allows this to work, sort of.

[LizDevil30]

I don't think the Malakhov deal is a sort of. He can show up to play. He is not retired and has not been deemed medically unfit. There is nothing underhanded about this deal nor does it circumvent the CBA. Wasn't Roenick to the Kings a salary dump? And the Rags deal with the Caps for Jagr was a doosy.

[SueNJ97]

I don't think the Malakhov deal is a sort of. He can show up to play. He is not retired and has not been deemed medically unfit. There is nothing underhanded about this deal nor does it circumvent the CBA. Wasn't Roenick to the Kings a salary dump? And the Rags deal with the Caps for Jagr was a doosy.

Jagr's deal from the Caps to the Rangers was under the old CBA. The only odd thing about it was that the part of his salary that Washington is responsible for does not hit their salary cap. It was grandfathered in that way. In some ways, it may not be fair, considering the fact that Colorodo still has deferred bonus payments for both Blake and Sakic from the old CBA hitting their cap, which I simply don't understand, they should not have those left, they were supposed to be gone under this CBA, deferred payments, including bonus payments, were supposed to be gone, but those were also grandfathered in. Blake doesn't even play for the Avs anymore and they have that on their cap. But I guess he did play for them at the time the CBA was negotiated, Jagr wasn't a Cap anymore.

Roenick was going to show up to play. There was no doubt about it. While Philly may have had to bribe the Kings with a draft pick to take him, there is no doubt JR was going to show up to play.

My point a few posts above was if Bettman hadn't come out and said that he wouldn't approve trading Cap space maybe he wouldn't look like a fool when he approves what is clearly a cap space trade, except for the signature on the retirement papers.

Once again, I'm not saying Lou did anything wrong in trying, and suceeding, in getting approval for this deal. But when the people in charge of the NHL make a big deal out of saying "We won't allow" and then "allow" something that comes within an inch of it you can see why people have a very hard time (a) seeing the diference and (b) believing what they say. What this did is define exactly what they meant by "We won't allow". And what they will allow looks a hell of alot like what they said they wouldn't allow. It's just that the guy can't sign his retirement papers, and lots of other "stuff" has to be thrown in so that the NHL can say, "See? There was other stuff in there!!!". So now we know. This is, btw, the way CBAs are supposed to work. It's just that often the people in charge look just this idiotic.

[Triumph]

Yes, actually, there was one deal which was voided for being one sided. Remember when Milbury was going to trade Palffy to the Rangers for nothing but money and Bettman said no. He told everyone that you had to have some semblance of players going the other way who would play, somewhere in the organization - which is exactly what Millbury didn't want because Isles ownership refused to spend $$$ and Milbury had no budget for anything at that point. Which is why he wanted the $$$ and nothing else. Which is why the fact that Bettman said he was opposed to trading a retired player's cap space made some sense. The fact that Malakhov could technically show up at the Shark's door and demand his $$$ is the one thing that allows this to work, sort of.

The Palffy deal was voided because IIRC he was dealt for too much $. I believe there was a clause that limited transactions to only 1.5 million. I wouldn't be surprised if this were the case, given the absurd amount of cash that changed hands in the Gretzky deal.

He was not traded for just cash either.

[Derek21]

It is in the best interest of the game. This rule was a poorly written rule to try and prevent front loaded contracts to veterans and instead turned into something much more. The rule should be followed to the letter and nothing greater and that is what the league did.

That is the problem. It was confusing to begin with. And that is how Lamoriello took advantage of it.

I hear that some media people still can't even get an official copy of that 'new CBA.' You'd think after a year, that wouldn't be a problem.

[RowdyFan42]

I hear that some media people still can't even get an official copy of that 'new CBA.' You'd think after a year, that wouldn't be a problem.

What, they want a professionally printed and bound copy? They can download it from both the NHL's website (before the redesign, not sure if it's still there now) and the NHLPA's website... unless PDFs hurt their heads too much...

[sammyk]

http://nhlpa.com/CBA/2005CBA.asp

[mcDevil]

I don't think the Malakhov deal is a sort of. He can show up to play. He is not retired and has not been deemed medically unfit. There is nothing underhanded about this deal nor does it circumvent the CBA. Wasn't Roenick to the Kings a salary dump? And the Rags deal with the Caps for Jagr was a doosy.

Not only did Roenick play for L.A., but he is STILL playing. Roenick is not even a guy the Flyers wanted to trade, but only did under the extraordinary opportunity to sign the best player in the league. Roenick had just finished #5 in scoring on the Flyers with 47 points in 62 games, including 10 PPG and 12 PPA. He then followed that up with an outstanding playoffs, with 13 points in 18 games, including a series-winning overtime goal, all after playing his way out of a shattered jaw. He was a real asset being sent to the Kings, not a guy his team thought flat out sucked anymore and wanted to get rid of.

Malakhov, on the other hand, has stated publicly that he will NEVER play again, and what's more, he has stated that his knees are shot, making it impossible for him to pass a physical even if he changed his mind, and therfore INELIGIBLE TO BE TRADED. He is being traded for a player that is already under contract in another country that has no desire to come over here, and a nobody defenseman.

Ergo, one was a real trade, the other a pure salary dump.

As for Malakhov "not" being retired - Please. Just because the guy doesn't sign paperwork doesn't mean we all have to close our eyes and make-believe. When he turns 55 will you still say "he could show up and play"? It's the sort of thinking that a REAL commissioner would quickly dismiss. Heck, I bet Gary Bettman didn't even pick up the phone to try to talk to Malakhov or his agent directly. He is a pi$$ poor commissioner.

Edited October 6, 2006 by mcDevil

[Triumph]

Not only did Roenick play for L.A., but he is STILL playing. Roenick is not even a guy the Flyers wanted to trade, but only did under the extraordinary opportunity to sign the best player in the league. Roenick had just finished #5 in scoring on the Flyers with 47 points in 62 games, including 10 PPG and 12 PPA. He then followed that up with an outstanding playoffs, with 13 points in 18 games, including a series-winning overtime goal, all after playing his way out of a shattered jaw. He was a real asset being sent to the Kings, not a guy his team thought flat out sucked anymore and wanted to get rid of.

Malakhov, on the other hand, has stated publicly that he will NEVER play again, and what's more, he has stated that his knees are shot, making it impossible for him to pass a physical even if he changed his mind, and therfore INELIGIBLE TO BE TRADED. He is being traded for a player that is already under contract in another country that has no desire to come over here, and a nobody defenseman.

Ergo, one was a real trade, the other a pure salary dump.

As for Malakhov "not" being retired - Please. Just because the guy doesn't sign paperwork doesn't mean we all have to close our eyes and make-believe. When he turns 55 will you still say "he could show up and play"? It's the sort of thinking that a REAL commissioner would quickly dismiss. Heck, I bet Gary Bettman didn't even pick up the phone to try to talk to Malakhov or his agent directly. He is a pi$$ poor commissioner.

You're incorrect.

Who says Malakhov can't change his mind? The thing about his knees may or may not be true - the Devils never IR'd him last year, but surely they would have were he physically unable to play. He might pass an NHL physical - just because Dr. Malakhov thinks his knees are incapable of playing doesn't mean they are according to a doctor.

If he's not retired and under contract, he's eligible to be traded. If he'd shown up to training camp and put himself on IR like Mogilny, the Devils might not've had to waste a 1st round pick in order to ship him off, though they would've had to pay him some part of his contract.

Why should Bettman have to talk to Malakhov? Should someone have also had to talk to Alex Korolyuk too? 'Hey Alex, do you want to play in the NHL for that 1.3 million dollar contract that's waiting for you in perpituity, even though you're probably making as much in Russia with far less taxes and far lower living expenses?' After all, they're in the same situation. By your logic, the Devils shouldn't be allowed to deal for Korolyuk unless Alex expresses some interest in playing in the NHL - Alex hasn't signed his NHL retirement papers either, but apparently those don't matter to you.

Bill Daly is the one who is more involved with evaluating trades, and he's got to give Lou the ability to trade a suspended player who has not signed his retirement papers. It's pretty simple. And of course, you ship the blame on Bettman, who has little or nothing to do with this whole thing, which tells me you're the typical NHL fan who thinks Bettman is responsible for everything wrong with hockey.

[RowdyFan42]

Why do I get the feeling that despite his username, mcDevil is not a Devils fan?

[mcDevil]

You're incorrect.

Who says Malakhov can't change his mind? The thing about his knees may or may not be true - the Devils never IR'd him last year, but surely they would have were he physically unable to play. He might pass an NHL physical - just because Dr. Malakhov thinks his knees are incapable of playing doesn't mean they are according to a doctor.

If he's not retired and under contract, he's eligible to be traded. If he'd shown up to training camp and put himself on IR like Mogilny, the Devils might not've had to waste a 1st round pick in order to ship him off, though they would've had to pay him some part of his contract.

Why should Bettman have to talk to Malakhov? Should someone have also had to talk to Alex Korolyuk too? 'Hey Alex, do you want to play in the NHL for that 1.3 million dollar contract that's waiting for you in perpituity, even though you're probably making as much in Russia with far less taxes and far lower living expenses?' After all, they're in the same situation. By your logic, the Devils shouldn't be allowed to deal for Korolyuk unless Alex expresses some interest in playing in the NHL - Alex hasn't signed his NHL retirement papers either, but apparently those don't matter to you.

Bill Daly is the one who is more involved with evaluating trades, and he's got to give Lou the ability to trade a suspended player who has not signed his retirement papers. It's pretty simple. And of course, you ship the blame on Bettman, who has little or nothing to do with this whole thing, which tells me you're the typical NHL fan who thinks Bettman is responsible for everything wrong with hockey.

Nothing, absolutely NOTHING indicates that he will change his mind. It comes down to the intent of the trade, which is clearly circumvention. Why should he have talked to Malakhov? Because he needs to determine whether or not he is a legitimately tradeable commodity. IT IS HIS JOB. And Koryluk isn't counting against anybody's cap space.

Edited October 6, 2006 by mcDevil

[LizDevil30]

Nothing, absolutely NOTHING indicates that he will change his mind. It comes down to the intent of the trade, which is clearly circumvention. Why should he have talked to Malakhov? Because he needs to determine whether or not he is a legitimately tradeable commodity. IT IS HIS JOB.

Guess you don't like the trade? What are you going to say if Malakhov does decide to give it another go?

[Triumph]

Nothing, absolutely NOTHING indicates that he will change his mind. It comes down to the intent of the trade, which is clearly circumvention. Why should he have talked to Malakhov? Because he needs to determine whether or not he is a legitimately tradeable commodity. IT IS HIS JOB.

That's not his job - it's Bill Daly's job.

Again - if Alex Korolyuk never intends to come back to the NHL, should his rights be allowed to be dealt? You didn't answer that.

[mcDevil]

That's not his job - it's Bill Daly's job.

Again - if Alex Korolyuk never intends to come back to the NHL, should his rights be allowed to be dealt? You didn't answer that.

Daly, Bettman, they're all the same beast to me. Bottom line is, neither of them did their homework.

Alex Korolyuk does not count against anybody's cap space, as he is not 35 or over. That is the key difference here.

Guess you don't like the trade? What are you going to say if Malakhov does decide to give it another go?

I'm going to say "Good luck with the physical there, pal."

[Devils731]

I think Daly did do his homework, he just disagress with what mcdevil thinks, which is fine. The problem is mcdevil is making assumptions he can't know or prove and that is where his thinking and blame goes awry.

[Triumph]

Daly, Bettman, they're all the same beast to me. Bottom line is, neither of them did their homework.

Alex Korolyuk does not count against anybody's cap space, as he is not 35 or over. That is the key difference here.

There's no difference. If you can't trade Malakhov, you can't trade Korolyuk - both are players who have no intention of returning to the NHL.

How should Daly and Bettman have done their homework? Should they show up in Miami and offer Malakhov retirement papers? Maybe sign them for him? That's the homework to be done - that's why there are retirement papers. Maybe bring along a mind-reader too, and a soothsayer, so they can predict the future about whether or not Malakhov wants to return.

Edited October 6, 2006 by Triumph

[LizDevil30]

There's no difference. If you can't trade Malakhov, you can't trade Korolyuk - both are players who have no intention of returning to the NHL.

How should Daly and Bettman have done their homework? Should they show up in Miami and offer Malakhov retirement papers? Maybe sign them for him? That's the homework to be done - that's why there are retirement papers. Maybe bring along a mind-reader too, and a soothsayer, so they can predict the future about whether or not Malakhov wants to return.

I bet his agent wants him to return. Wasn't he the one insisting that Vlad wasn't retired?

[Derek21]

This was posted on OTG from a Wings fan earlier:

Last season the Devils got an exemption for Patrick Elias. This was not a LTI thing, it was an exemption. Lou was one of the biggest supporters of the cap and helped put it in place. He asked for an exemption for Patrick Elias before the cap went in effect so the NHL said okay and granted it. It was sort of like a one-time freebie, like the buyouts without a cap hit.

The Detroit Red Wings asked for a similar exemption for Jiri Fischer, and GM Ken Holland was told something would definitely be done. Then the league backed off and recently told Holland all the Wings could get was LTI for Fischer. Looking at Fischer's situation, perhaps the league should've granted it. Lucky Lou.

ETA -- FREEP:

"I talked to the league a number of times and was given hope that Jiri Fischer would not count against the cap, but as it played itself out, there was nothing in the CBA to allow Fischer to be off the cap," general manager Ken Holland said.

Any thoughts???

[Devils731]

What exactly was the Fischer situation before the CBA was signed? I just don't know it that well.

['7']

A perplexing situation...you know Lou got screwed over as well during the lockout since they passed a rule change specifically geared toward limiting Brodeurs effectiveness as a puckhandler. The Brodeur Trapezoid. Maybe this is the NHL cutting him a break.

None of us know what goes on in the smoke filled rooms.