Hockey Night in Canada's Scott Morrison delivers his insights into the world of hockey, on and off the ice.
Burke's proposal has merit, but will it have legs?
Comments (9)
Tuesday, November 6, 2007 | 05:23 PM ET
By Scott Morrison
So, Anaheim Ducks general manager Brian Burke is proposing that the NHL allow teams retain a portion of a player's salary in a trade.
It is the same proposal Burke launched a year ago, you might recall, and it is still a good one.
The purpose is to inspire a little more trading activity in the NHL and to create a buzz. You might have noticed, there haven't been a lot of trades this season and there haven't even been a lot of serious trade talks and, by extension, rumours. There is a reason why everyone is so focused on the game, dissecting it, and fixating on the flaws, real or imagined.
There is nothing else of consequence to talk about.
Because of the salary cap, making deals early in the season, or any time leading up to the trade deadline is difficult. But under Burke's proposal, say you were able to retain $500,000 or $1 million of a player's salary, well then moving that expensive player might be a lot easier to do. Suddenly, the team that is receiving the $3 million player only has $2 million on its books and falling under its cap.
Teams would only be able to retain a certain amount, say a couple of million in salary, over the course of a season.
But proposal can't hurt, although the argument going back is that there is "dead" money in the system.
Most agree, though, that being able to trade a portion of a player's salary would inspire an otherwise dormant trade market, help teams and create some interest that is sorely lacking.
Having said that, the lower revenue teams aren't likely to support something that will help the big spenders even more. Even if they did, the Players' Association would have to agree to amending the CBA and there are no guarantees they would support it.
The good news is, Burke is a determined man and won't give up the fight. The bad news is, it could be a long fight.
Meantime, feel free to debate the merits of the new game ...
« Previous Post | Main | Next Post »
This discussion is now Open. Submit your Comment.
« Previous Post | Main | Next Post »
Post a Comment
Viewpoint »
About the Author
Scott Morrison, the recipient of the Hockey Hall of Fameís 2006 Elmer Ferguson Memorial Award, has been covering hockey for 25 years. The Toronto native began his career at the Toronto Sun in 1979. After spending more than 11 years as a hockey writer and columnist at the paper, Morrison became Sports Editor in 1991 and led the section to being named one of North America's top-ten sports sections in 1999 - the first sports section in Canada to receive the AP Sports Editors North American Award. Scott, a former two-term president of the Professional Hockey Writers' Association, joined Rogers Sportsnet in 2001 as Managing Editor, Hockey, and is currently both a commentator on Hockey Night in Canada and a columnist for CBC.ca.
Recent Posts
- Listen to Grapes - touch icing is dangerous
- Friday, March 21, 2008
- Pronger's suspension not enough, but not far off
- Tuesday, March 18, 2008
- NHL standings should not reward division leaders
- Wednesday, March 12, 2008
- Neck guards, like visors, will be a player’s choice
- Thursday, March 6, 2008
- Sens' problems deeper than Paddock
- Wednesday, February 27, 2008
- Subscribe to Viewpoint
Archives
- March 2008 (4)
- February 2008 (14)
- January 2008 (9)
- December 2007 (8)
- November 2007 (9)
- October 2007 (8)
- September 2007 (5)
- July 2007 (1)
- June 2007 (7)
- May 2007 (8)
- April 2007 (12)
- March 2007 (5)
- February 2007 (5)
- January 2007 (7)
- December 2006 (6)
- November 2006 (8)
- October 2006 (8)
Comments (9)
fleury14forever
Ummm... I thought this was already happening (Jagr-Washington to NYRangers a few years ago)??? I was under the impression that the Caps were still eating a chunk of that old exhorbitant contract...
Posted November 15, 2007 07:55 PM
hockey fan
edmonton
If Burke was so concerned about an exciting NHL product he wouldn't build such a defensive team; and one which led the league in major penalties last year.
Posted November 8, 2007 06:54 PM
blue
Kitchener
About dumping the no-trade clause: some of these players have lives and families and friends in a community, especially if they've been playing with that team for years. No matter how much money these guys make, they still deserve the chance to settle down if they find a place they want to stay. Some of them have families, with kids in school. How many of us would take a job with an employer who reserved the right to tell us to uproot everything and move every couple of years or less, and screw our wishes? Even for the kind of money hockey players make? It takes a certain kind of person to do that and it's unreasonable to expect that all NHL players would. The no-trade clause is humane. Furthermore, reasons of decency and understanding aside, I don't think you'd ever get the player's association to agree to let that one go. Therefore, really a non-issue.
Aside from that, as a fairly recent conversion to hockey fandom, the game provides me with hours of free entertainment on Saturday nights, so why on earth would I complain? I think the game's fine. Leave it alone, and let the guys play.
Posted November 7, 2007 11:34 PM
JD
Vancouver
To me, the NHL is slowly becoming less and less exciting and watchable. The game has been seriously damaged by the suits and owners. Lawyers and execs who have never laced a skate. Control this and control that and pay the top players way too much because, bottom line, the 'real problem' is that there are way too many teams in this league.
In today's world it seems that no-trade-clause players eventually go through the motions and just pick up the chegue like wild west gunslingers. No allegiance and no attachment. It's jus' business. Could any team today win a Stanley Cup with Marcus Naslund as team captain? Oh, you can't trade him. Great. Go Predators Go.
Posted November 7, 2007 05:41 PM
Jeff
Kingston
It seems most teams have an over-priced player who isn't living up to their contract, so leave it alone. I do however like the idea of getting rid of no-trade clauses.
Posted November 7, 2007 04:58 PM
BChandler
Burnaby
Not a bad idea of Burke's. Trades are always an interesting part of the game and it might just allow teams to trade more often as opposed to the present Trade Deadline flurry we now see while using cap space creatively.
Posted November 7, 2007 04:46 PM
Dingus McGee
Calgary
If you want more trades get rid of the "no trade" clause in contracts. That way you could trade anybody anywhere. Bye bye Wade Redden.
Posted November 7, 2007 02:35 PM
Dan
Calgary
As long as the absorbed salary is counted in that team's cap hit, I don't see what the problem is.
Big spending teams already have options to deal with players making too much. They can already buy a player out for 2/3 of the money and cap hit (see Guerin, Yashin...), or better still, pay a player their full salary in the minors with zero cap hit whatsoever (see Kaspiritis, Cloutier...), which a smaller market team might not have the option of.
Posted November 7, 2007 11:35 AM
Laker
BC
So if a player is traded 1/2 through the season the whole salary counts towards the cap of the team he gets traded to?
I hope I am reading that wrong. Seems to me it should be the remainder, in this case 1/2 that would count toward the cap.
If Burke's idea came to fruition what about getting creative with salaries by paying a player increasing, or decreasing amounts per game. So for example if you had a player who would make a good rental, have his pay high at the start of the season, decreasing as the season goes on to ensure he is good trade bait for a team in playoff position????
Posted November 6, 2007 07:11 PM