Lazerus : Le plafond de blanchiment des Coyotes a tourné en dérision le plafond salarial, mais qui va les arrêter ? (paroi payante)
—
Phozzwald
@Coyotes de l'Arizona
Lazerus : Le plafond de blanchiment des Coyotes a tourné en dérision le plafond salarial, mais qui va les arrêter ? (paroi payante)
—
Phozzwald
11 Comments
I have a hard time really understanding this, it is dubious at best but within the rules and from what I gather others have done it as well just maybe to not the extent that we do. Is it or is it no allowd?
Also what is up with Canada and their teams throwing a year long fit about the Yotes on any one thing this team does or doesn’t do.
Blame the CBA, blame the GMs that sign these long bloated contracts, then can’t use the player so replace with with another long bloated contract, and eventually have to sell off the cap space to other teams that don’t reach the cap, otherwise that GM can’t do anything, and might not even be cap compliant.
It’s within the rules, it benefits teams that need cap relief, others have done it and others will continue to do it in the future. The only people who have an issue with this are ignorant fans and media looking for another reason to dump on the Coyotes.
It doesn’t hurt anyone tho…
Even with this cap crunch we are still competitive in most games
A continuation of the latest Coyotes rage bait. Like when the Katie Strang stories dropped and spin offs of the same info kept things raging for months
No one. The big market owners love it because it lets them skirt the cap and they’re the only ones who have the power to change it.
Lazerous is an absolute clown. Same guy was very boldly in favor of Tampa Bay weaponizing LTIR to go OVER the cap for the playoffs the other year (which one could argue is way worse because it actually gives them a leg up to win a cup).
Everything we are doing is well within the realm of the rules. The rule will not change, at least any time soon. You know why? Because GMs actually enjoy the flexibility the current set up gives them in a hard cap world. GMs had zero problem with Tampa weaponizing LTIR because they all do it when possible too (looking at you Toronto). At the same time, GMs have zero problem with the Coyotes weaponizing LTIR to attain draft capital, because this rule gives them flexibility in the event of a bad contract or career ending injury.
Also, I vividly remember Lazerus praising Chicago for managing to offload that Hossa contract to create more cap space for themselves. Funny how he is so cool with it when it benefits his team, but otherwise it’s a mockery.
oh it’s a mockery when the coyotes use deliberately available loopholes but when other teams do it to circumvent the cap instead of the floor somehow that’s just smart business
I am so fucking tired of this narrative.
This is so funny considering they are operating within the rules of the CBA. Maybe marky boy should write about being upset at the cba instead. Another lame, low hanging fruit article
I completely understand if people are upset about the situation but it is either within the rules of the CBA or it isn’t, and it very obviously is.
So if you are upset about it, be upset with the league and the CBA, not the friggin Coyotes.
As I said on another forum, if the league wants to review teams using cap space as a trade resource, I get it and I’m fine with it. Let them review it and make a formal decision on rule changes one way or another. If they decide to make new rules to govern the scope of cap-weaponizing…hey, that’s the way she goes.
But I don’t get the sudden outrage that GMBA is doing this when: A. It’s been a thing for years and years now, B. We’re not the only ones doing it, we’re just the best at it, and C. They’re only now throwing tantrums about it because GMBA is essentially min/max’ing it as a resource and stockpiling an ungodly amount of draft capital. The past few years we’ve done it, it’s been nothing more than a « lol » and a meme.
I also hate to say it and be *that* guy, but I have a sneaking suspicion that if it was Chicago or Montreal doing it, the narrative would be less « This is bullshit, they’re gaming the system! » and more « Well, this is just part of the game, they need to rebuild and this is how you do it! Don’t hate the GM for being a GM! »