Jump to content

Oct. 1, Sens vs Habs, 7:30 PM


dlbalr

Recommended Posts

Now the latest stupidity by the owners is caving into lockout proof contracts.

Yeah they are already undermining the next lockout. 1/2 the guys in the league won't give a damn how long the lockout is cause they already got their money. This is probably the stupidest thing I have seen in a long time. They are in effect negotiating against themselves before the lockout even happens. I always like to say I can fix almost anything, but I can't fix stupid. Some of these GM's are living proof of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah they are already undermining the next lockout. 1/2 the guys in the league won't give a damn how long the lockout is cause they already got their money. This is probably the stupidest thing I have seen in a long time. They are in effect negotiating against themselves before the lockout even happens. I always like to say I can fix almost anything, but I can't fix stupid. Some of these GM's are living proof of that.

There were lockout-proof contracts before the last CBA came up as well, either done by heavy signing bonus or, more commonly, a low salary in that one particular season. They started in the couple of years leading up to the end of the CBA but no one really thought anything of it at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There were lockout-proof contracts before the last CBA came up as well, either done by heavy signing bonus or, more commonly, a low salary in that one particular season. They started in the couple of years leading up to the end of the CBA but no one really thought anything of it at the time.

Well they are a lot more common now, and I see no good purpose for them, if I am a GM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well they are a lot more common now, and I see no good purpose for them, if I am a GM.

If it means that the player accepts a slightly reduced AAV and they have an owner willing to 'guarantee' a higher portion of that money, there's a purpose for them. If used as a negotiating tool in return for the lower AAV, it's okay. Not so much when it's demanded day one by the agent. Then I have an issue with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it means that the player accepts a slightly reduced AAV and they have an owner willing to 'guarantee' a higher portion of that money, there's a purpose for them. If used as a negotiating tool in return for the lower AAV, it's okay. Not so much when it's demanded day one by the agent. Then I have an issue with them.

O'Reilly got term, $ and a lockout/escrow proof contract.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

O'Reilly got term, $ and a lockout/escrow proof contract.

And that was stupid of Buffalo who certainly didn't get any sort of discount for giving him that protection. The Sabres have a knack for throwing a lot of money as signing bonuses in the past and that may have come back to bite them here. Subban has a heavy lockout protected deal too and it didn't give the Habs any sort of discount so that's bad as well.

Gallagher, on the other hand, also has a bit of lockout protection in that his lowest salary comes in one of the CBA termination years. His deal is more of a bargain; it could be suggested that he may have taken a slightly lower AAV to structure the deal so that he gets more guaranteed money by putting as much as possible in the first five years before the CBA comes up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...