Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
Come to think of it. How much money is tied up league-wide on previous buyouts? So many teams that have had to do it, so is it possible that there is no major disadvantage because of it? If all teams do it, then it becomes a form of cost of doing business.
Does it help the Flames that the Oilers had to buy out Sekera when the Flames had to do the same with Brouwer? Fast forward a few years and we will have the same question with the only difference being the names of players.
Ideally you want no dead cap space. But that's hard to do in this league bacause some GMs are a lot more aggressive about winning. So if fear of overpaying is stopping you from trading for or signing players you want (need), then are you actually further ahead?
It's nice to win every trade, RFA negotiation or sign players to bargain deals. But bargain shopping doesn't translate to success on the ice. Sure, it gives us something to boast about. Tre the wizard and all.
But in the end it is about winning hockey games and that's hard to do without top end talent.
Heard yesterday that Vegas is looking to add Shattenkirk. How is that possible? Cap hell, buyouts and all? Rich get richer while we hope to sign Turris, Ryan or Duclair to bargains  |
Believe it or not, the total amount of buyouts league-wide, since they have been available, is $599M