What is Burke trying to accomplish?

Delray · Post by **Delray** » Mon Nov 26, 2007 8:14 am

Can someone please explain this to me? Not sure the impact.

http://www.tsn.ca/blogs/mckenzie/?id=223693

levelheaded · Post by **levelheaded** » Mon Nov 26, 2007 8:47 am

Ughh... I hope the ability to trade salary doesn't ever come into effect. You'd have teams like the Rangers (and Ducks *cough* BERTUZZI AND SCHNEIDER *cough*) pawning off their mistakes to teams with a ton of cap space so they could go out and sign more players to ridiculous contracts. Sometimes Burke annoys me a fair bit.

Jyrki21 · Post by **Jyrki21** » Mon Nov 26, 2007 2:20 pm

levelheaded wrote:Ughh... I hope the ability to trade salary doesn't ever come into effect. You'd have teams like the Rangers (and Ducks *cough* BERTUZZI AND SCHNEIDER *cough*) pawning off their mistakes to teams with a ton of cap space so they could go out and sign more players to ridiculous contracts. Sometimes Burke annoys me a fair bit.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what Burke wants, but if the players are being sent to teams with no cap space, then that's no different from how it is now. He wants to be able to retain salary when sending a player away (as it used to be), doesn't he? In a sense that penalizes the high-spending teams even more -- they don't have the player, and they're still paying him. But the cap is still there.

Again, unless I've misunderstood, as that article is way too long to capture my interest.

levelheaded · Post by **levelheaded** » Mon Nov 26, 2007 3:21 pm

Jyrki21 wrote:
levelheaded wrote:Ughh... I hope the ability to trade salary doesn't ever come into effect. You'd have teams like the Rangers (and Ducks *cough* BERTUZZI AND SCHNEIDER *cough*) pawning off their mistakes to teams with a ton of cap space so they could go out and sign more players to ridiculous contracts. Sometimes Burke annoys me a fair bit.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what Burke wants, but if the players are being sent to teams with no cap space, then that's no different from how it is now. He wants to be able to retain salary when sending a player away (as it used to be), doesn't he? In a sense that penalizes the high-spending teams even more -- they don't have the player, and they're still paying him. But the cap is still there.

Again, unless I've misunderstood, as that article is way too long to capture my interest.

No No I get that, I'm just saying that if they were able to hold onto a bit of salary when trading a player it would be EASIER for the richer clubs to unload their mistakes on other clubs and try again.

ClamRussel · Post by **ClamRussel** » Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:13 pm

...how about teams have to LIVE with their mistakes and start to THINK ahead before signing players to STUPID contracts.

waste of time & energy.

Burke thinks too much, among other things.

Joe Rockhead · Post by **Joe Rockhead** » Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:37 pm

I THINK Burke won a Stanley cup last season.

I also think he asembled at team in Vancouver that with some very minor tinkering ( Goalie) could have done the same.

I would have him and his awsome brash ,no bull, got my players back G.M style than Dave HoHum Nonis any day.

I agree that the suspensions to Downey and Boulerice were a reaction to the pussy medias whining more than a logical look at what happened.

I htink if players like Keseler want to run around and stir up shit when there down 8-2 but don't want to back it up like a man they should shoulder some responsibility for having there head in the saand and not protecting themselves.

Personaly I'd rather put my hands up than take a stick in the head. Keseler seems to perfer the stick. I've never seen anyone eat as much wood ( composite material) as he does.

I feel bad for Boulerice! The media basicaly gave the Flyers G.M no choice but to release the guy.Keseler should have defended himself.

DonCherry4PM · Post by **DonCherry4PM** » Mon Nov 26, 2007 8:24 pm

Joe Rockhead wrote:I htink if players like Keseler want to run around and stir up shit when there down 8-2 but don't want to back it up like a man they should shoulder some responsibility for having there head in the saand and not protecting themselves.

Personaly I'd rather put my hands up than take a stick in the head. Keseler seems to perfer the stick. I've never seen anyone eat as much wood ( composite material) as he does.

I feel bad for Boulerice! The media basicaly gave the Flyers G.M no choice but to release the guy.Keseler should have defended himself.

Wow... just wow..... Please tell me that is an attempt at sarcasm.

jchockey · Post by **jchockey** » Mon Nov 26, 2007 9:12 pm

Hey, if teams want to take on bad contracts, why not?

If Burke has found a suitor for Schneider or Bertuzzi, the only thing that's stopping him are salary issues. If the other GM is willing to eat up Schneider or Bertuzzi's salary, then let him eat it up.

I agree with Burke, salaries should be able to be traded.

ClamRussel · Post by **ClamRussel** » Mon Nov 26, 2007 10:33 pm

jchockey wrote:I agree with Burke, salaries should be able to be traded.

Why, so stupid GMs can offer more stupid contracts? So they can cover their own bad GM skills by throwing more money at the problem?
a la the Rangers pre-cap

ClamRussel · Post by **ClamRussel** » Mon Nov 26, 2007 10:35 pm

Joe Rockhead wrote:I feel bad for Boulerice! The media basicaly gave the Flyers G.M no choice but to release the guy.Keseler should have defended himself.

Jyrki21 · Post by **Jyrki21** » Tue Nov 27, 2007 5:45 am

levelheaded wrote:No No I get that, I'm just saying that if they were able to hold onto a bit of salary when trading a player it would be EASIER for the richer clubs to unload their mistakes on other clubs and try again.

I still think, in a cap era, it penalizes the team much more to not have the overpriced player and yet still be paying him a percentage, than to have the overpriced player and be paying him. If Burke took back $1M of Bryzgalov's salary for a 7th-rounder, all it does is push him closer to the cap, and still need to pay a backup goalie.

Remember, the beauty of salaries tied to revenue is that no matter what Glen Sather does, he can't actually escalate salaries on his own.

showtyme21 · Post by **showtyme21** » Tue Nov 27, 2007 6:29 am

It would be easier to trade players if the system was changed to allow salaries to be covered by the team unloading, but I don't think that you would see much of a change in the $$$ doled out by GM's.

First of all, I don't think that this will be allowed by the GM's, because I think they really want to start promoting some continuity of the players on their teams. This is the first way of promoting the game, by providing the "franchise" players, and maintaining the continuity.

Second, if they do decide to allow this policy, poor teams benefit as well. There is still going to be a price to take on a player with a large salary, and it generally won't be just the benefit of the discount. They will receive draft picks or other incentives which will help in the general development of the team...

I think that the GM's (and fans) need to realize that parity is going to be the norm, and that this type of policy change won't change things as much as people think. Using the Devils as an example, I don't think that Lou would've been able to change any of his mistakes (ala Mogilny or Malakhov??) by paying for part of their salaries as part of his cap and trading them...There still needs to be a team willing to take them...

And I believe there is a limit in Burkie's proposal of $2 and $4 million... Not a lot of big issues going to come up with those numbers.

Sorry for the incoherent post...I'm at work, and I can't think straight yet.

jchockey · Post by **jchockey** » Tue Nov 27, 2007 8:46 am

ClamRussel wrote:
jchockey wrote:I agree with Burke, salaries should be able to be traded.
Why, so stupid GMs can offer more stupid contracts? So they can cover their own bad GM skills by throwing more money at the problem?
a la the Rangers pre-cap

Think about it this way, if you were Burke and you were trying to unload Bertuzzi's $4m contract, and you find a taker, why wouldn't you unload it? If the ONLY thing that prevents this from working out is salary, then why not absorb $1m of that contract and let the other team absorb the other $3m? It facilitates player movement and provides flexibility in a hard cap league. Let's be honest here, the only way a team can improve dramatically is by trading (during the season anyway), and if salaries prevent that, then there are no improvements (or lack thereof) to be made.

In the long-run bad contracts ruin a team anyway (NY Rangers, Toronto) so the majority of the GMs have learned from that. There are still a select few who are still too stupid to figure this out, and will take on bad contracts, but to be honest that doesn't and shouldn't concern Burke.