Quote:
Originally Posted by Aarongavey
The Flames were a contending team for the past 7-8 years. Like every single contending team in NHL history they did not retain on any salary. I cannot think of a contending team that has. Like every contending team they did buyout contracts and pay guys not to play for them. For contending teams that is the equivalent of retaining salary and the Flames did it 6 times over the past 9 years (one of the higher numbers in the NHL). I suspect that as the Flames transition to a rebuild that organizational enthusiasm to do the equivalent of retention during contending years will be transferred to doing it on retention in a rebuilding team.
|
The list I looked at, at Capfriendly.com went back to 2014. I personally don't remember The Flames ever retaining salary otherwise, but could totally be wrong on that.
Retaining salary in a trade to me is totally different from the expense of buying out a contract and In no way the equivalent. IMO there is a significant difference in paying someone not to play anymore, thanks to agreements within the salary cap vs. paying them to play somewhere else.
Again, all of these players current deals are good value contracts and should be seen as such, the rest is ifs and buts and not necessarily reality.