Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Reeeeead
It’s being analyzed because it’s already a sunk cost, and makes sense from both s financial and cap perspective... and he’s in charge of hockey decisions. The writer was simply speculating... there’s nothing concrete here to eliminate other possibilities. That’s the frustrating part.
I would think the owners might have been interested in a strategy of using inflation to their advantage... 1.9m annually in 7-8 years time is going to be a small fraction of the cap at a growth rate of 5+ percent, especially with new media contracts expected to increase growth rate of league revenue. If a buyout was not a option in comparison to keeping a Lucic cap hit on the books for 4 years at over 5M, I really have to ask why?
|
Trelving hinted sounds like a pretty good assumption that the ownership wasn't on board with a buy out to me.
I honestly don't think I'm making leaps here.
They wanted him gone
Owners didn't want to buy him out
That made taking a contract back that you can't buy out palpable.