Mogilny: Too Hurt to Play
According to TSN, an independent medical expertise revealed that Alexander Mogilny cannot play for the Devils due to an hip injury. So, the Devils will save 7.1 million in two days and now, there cap problems are long gone. Looks like Sweet Lou find a way to avoid penalties regarding the cap.
Latrappe's take: Let's not talk about conspiracy here but this is a very odd situation. Hockey writers are wondering about the Malakhov deal and I'm sure, behind the scene, that some GM's are absolutly furious about the way Sweet Lou got away with it. For sure, in the future, the Devils will be a target regarding offer sheet. For those who think that Wilson is a genius because he got a first rounder, think twice. 3.6 million for a first rounder is a very steep price to pay. Especially when there's no guarantee that this guy will ever skate on an NHL ice.
Matt's take: I am confused. According to the CBA, if a player is 35 or over when he signs a deal, his contract will always count against the cap even if it is due to injury or early retirement. Mogiliny was 35 when he signed the deal, so it makes no sense. If anyone can clarify this, that would be awesome. Also, for those who say, "You did the same with Zhamnov as the Devils did with Mogiliny." Incorret. Zhamnov was 34 when he signed, so if he gets hurt it is covered by the NHL, and his cap value is erased. Mogiliny was 35, so his cap value should stay.
Latrappe's take: Let's not talk about conspiracy here but this is a very odd situation. Hockey writers are wondering about the Malakhov deal and I'm sure, behind the scene, that some GM's are absolutly furious about the way Sweet Lou got away with it. For sure, in the future, the Devils will be a target regarding offer sheet. For those who think that Wilson is a genius because he got a first rounder, think twice. 3.6 million for a first rounder is a very steep price to pay. Especially when there's no guarantee that this guy will ever skate on an NHL ice.
Matt's take: I am confused. According to the CBA, if a player is 35 or over when he signs a deal, his contract will always count against the cap even if it is due to injury or early retirement. Mogiliny was 35 when he signed the deal, so it makes no sense. If anyone can clarify this, that would be awesome. Also, for those who say, "You did the same with Zhamnov as the Devils did with Mogiliny." Incorret. Zhamnov was 34 when he signed, so if he gets hurt it is covered by the NHL, and his cap value is erased. Mogiliny was 35, so his cap value should stay.
posted by Latrappe at 9:28 AM
11 Comments:
um...you do not pay players who do not play (when its them that choose not to)... lew was/is shrewed and those of you upset about his deals will have to grow up a little. this is the real world and he is playing by the same rules everyone else is.
"For those who think that Wilson is a genius because he got a frist rounder, think twice. 3.6 millions for a first rounder is a very steep price to pay. Especially when there's no guaranty that this guy will ever skate on an NHL ice."
Then why did he do it? Because he's stupid? Because there is some comspiacy with another GM? I think he did it because he may have gotten a prime a first round pick in return for 3.6 million in cap space (not real dollars). That's a good deal. And it is likely that he'll be able to move that cap overhead at the trade deadline. You just watch--I doubt this is Mogolny's last trade.
Oh, and the only Hockey writer I've read so far who has had anything to say about all this? He used the word "Genius." I'm afraid you guys are out in left field on this one. Were you really thinking the B's could get Gionta?
It's not a grow up thing but i suggest you to go on tsn.ca and read Bob mcKenzie's paper regarding the whole thing. You will see that there's lots of GM who want answers on various issues...
"You just watch--I doubt this is Mogolny's last trade."
I of course meant Malakhov.
I never though that the B's would have land Gionta. This whole thing with Lamoriello will open a " can of worms " and that's my whole point here. Even the Mogilny situation is troubling. Yes, he' hurt for sure and there's no doubt about it but how many team will use that strategy to relieve them self from a salary who hurt them in the cap? The Cap was implented to restore balance through the league. Those two trades could kill that balance, in the future, and i'm not the only one to think that way. There's lots of peoples who want answers right now.
"The Cap was implented to restore balance through the league."
Then answer me this simple question and maybe I'll understand your point of view: how does forcing a team to report under the cap the salary of two players who cannot and will not ever play restore balance?
Making a team work with less salary because of injury or retirement is what doesn't seem fair to me--and this is all that is being circumvented here. I for one was glad the Bruins didn't get stuck with Zhamnov.
The players on the ice will still be under the cap. Is there some subtelty regarding players retiring and unretiring that I'm missing here? If so, you haven't done a very good job of explaining just what the issue is.
Of course, when you look at the Devils situation, those players will not restore the balance throught the league. But ,in the future, what will happend if a team, by using the LTI list, is able to keep one of their markee player instead of losing him?. The cap " suppose " that,at one extend,teams will have to make choice regarding their roster. By making those choice,some very good players will be avaible and help the weaker teams to get in the mix. That's why the league shutdonw for a year. That's the very danger i see there. If 6,7 or 8 teams decide to play by Lamoriello rules; it will hurt the league.
lets set things straight...san jose pays nothing. get it they get 1st rounder for nothing!!
second boston did the exact same thing with zhamnov as the moligny case.
hello mcfly, is this that hard to understand.
What did you say, Biff?
I asked, "how does forcing a team to report under the cap the salary of two players who cannot and will not ever play restore balance?"
And latrappe answered, "But ,in the future, what will happend if a team, by using the LTI list, is able to keep one of their markee player instead of losing him?."
You didn't answer my question. How is that any different from getting rid of salary in some other way to keep a player? Is not the important thing that the players actually out on the ice have a combined salary under the cap? If this were a way around that, I'd see your point. So they don't always have to count players who don't play. So what?
Look at it the other way 'round: why should a team that suffered the misfortune of a star player having a career-ending injury have to be penalized for it? If you can explain why penalizing a team for retiring or injured players is important, then you need to do that. This was, in fact, my original question.
If you want people to get what the problem is you guys are going to have to make a logical argument rather than just repeat the same hyperbole over and over again.
On the new CBA, a 35 years old + players who sign a multi-years contract will count against the cap whatever the situation: retirement, injury etc... It was the case of Mogilny and his salary should have counted against the cap but there's a breach in the new CBA because there's nothing in it on the Long term injury list and the 35+ clause. That's why people were surprise that that Mogilny's salary was tooked off. If the breach didn't exist, Mogilny's salary who have counted against the cap and the Devils would be in trouble.
There's several GM around the league that are furious because they have a 35+ players on their cap and cannot do anything with them. That's why there's a controversy regarding Mogilny's salary.
Post a Comment
<< Home