Mike Milbury on WFAN 7/1/05

[GentlemanOfLeisure]

Mike Milbury was on WFAN this morning and said that the league is close to a deal that would have roll backs and a hard cap. He also said contracts will be rolled back otherwise it would be "utter caos". Meaning, a player like Scott Niedermayer doesnt become a FREE AGENT this year because he never finished up his previous contract.

Click to read more...

 

[Tiki]

Mike Milbury was on WFAN this morning and said that the league is close to a deal that would have roll backs and a hard cap. He also said contracts will be rolled back otherwise it would be utter kaos. Meaning, a player like Scott Niedermayer doesnt become a FREE AGENT. he will still have a year left on his contract. unless New Jersey buys him out.

Well I kinda hope that Mike is Wrong about the contract roll back. I'd think offseason chaos would be much more interesting.

 

[Grandpabuzz]

Well I kinda hope that Mike is Wrong about the contract roll back. I'd think offseason chaos would be much more interesting.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[CREW99AW]

Well I kinda hope that Mike is Wrong about the contract roll back. I'd think offseason chaos would be much more interesting.

I hope Mad Mike's correct.

Isles defense would be catching a big break.Hamrlik and Aucoin would still be nyi.

 

[reckoning]

I hope Mad Mike's correct.

Isles defense would be catching a big break.Hamrlik and Aucoin would still be nyi.

Great. The idiot will probably go and trade them now.

 

[Nich]

he is the worst GM in all of hockey, so he probably will

 

[Sotnos]

I hope Mad Mike's correct.

I do too. If that's the case, Tampa only has St. Louis to sign and they're good to go.

 

[mooseOAK*]

Mike Milbury was on WFAN this morning and said that the league is close to a deal that would have roll backs and a hard cap. He also said contracts will be rolled back otherwise it would be "utter caos". Meaning, a player like Scott Niedermayer doesnt become a FREE AGENT this year because he never finished up his previous contract.

How did you get that meaning out of "rolled back"?

 

[GSC2k2*]

Mike Milbury was on WFAN this morning and said that the league is close to a deal that would have roll backs and a hard cap. He also said contracts will be rolled back otherwise it would be "utter caos". Meaning, a player like Scott Niedermayer doesnt become a FREE AGENT this year because he never finished up his previous contract.

Well, not having head the interview, you seem to be inferring that the year would not come off the contracts because he made the remark about utter chaos.

I think you are jumping the gun. He probably was referring to the chaos that would happen if there were no 24% rollback. Without the rollback there would still be a ton of players available, and 24% less cap space to fit them in, and several more teams capped out, with several teams WAAAAY capped out, and there woiuld be a huge problem with even more buyouts being forced. I do not read into Milbury's comments (to the extent reported by you) that the year will stay on the contracts.

Wishful thinking from a Devil fan?

 

[GentlemanOfLeisure]

How did you get that meaning out of "rolled back"?

Mike Francessa asked Mike Milbury and i am paraphrasing.

How are you going to field a team when the agreement is reached in such a short amount of time?

MM- Well, were in a better situation than most teams, but we're probably going to have to "Roll or Toll" the contracts.

Chris Russo- What do you mean ROll? or Toll?

MM- That means pull everyone's contract back a year. Otherwise there would be too many free agents. It would be utter chaos.

I dont know if MM said Roll or Toll, but that was his meaning either way.

 

[AH]

makes no sense.

It is Milbury after all.

Maybe teams have the option of making players play under last year's contract, if they choose to? So a guy like Aucoin would not be a free agent and the Isles can make him play for whatever his 04-05 salary would have been - 24% ?

 

[Isles72]

I have to agree that it really would be utter chaos if they dont honour the 04-05 contracts

if they honour the 04-05 contracts its going to burn the big spenders who have to spend even more $$ on buyouts .

 

[GentlemanOfLeisure]

makes no sense.

It is Milbury after all.

Maybe teams have the option of making players play under last year's contract, if they choose to? So a guy like Aucoin would not be a free agent and the Isles can make him play for whatever his 04-05 salary would have been - 24% ?

That's exactly what he meant. Though if the islanders dont want say aucoin under the previous contract, they could cut buy him out. Thought Milbury did not say that. But that's what i assume could happen.

 

[GentlemanOfLeisure]

I have to agree that it really would be utter chaos if they dont honour the 04-05 contracts

if they honour the 04-05 contracts its going to burn the big spenders who have to spend even more $$ on buyouts .

Very true. For the Devils it would mean keeping Niedermayer another year at 9mill per. -24% but that's a lot of money for the New NHL. That might spell the end of Scott Stevens as a devil and probably jeff friesen.

 

[CREW99AW]

Great. The idiot will probably go and trade them now.

actually the isles have resisted trade offers for Hamrlik.
Since the summer of 2003,the isles have had unsucessful extension talks with Hamrlik.There's a rumor they tried getting Aucoin to sign a $3.5m a yr extension.They were able to sign Niinimaa to a 3 yr/$9m extension.


now that both players can see the league was serious about a salary cap,I'm hoping both will sign reasonable extensions.

 

[GSC2k2*]

Mike Francessa asked Mike Milbury and i am paraphrasing.

How are you going to field a team when the agreement is reached in such a short amount of time?

MM- Well, were in a better situation than most teams, but we're probably going to have to "Roll or Toll" the contracts.

Chris Russo- What do you mean ROll? or Toll?

MM- That means pull everyone's contract back a year. Otherwise there would be too many free agents. It would be utter chaos.

I dont know if MM said Roll or Toll, but that was his meaning either way.

Thanks for the clarification, but if I may be so bold, it certainly sounds like Milbury's preference as opposed to what he knows. Being as thick as a plank like he is, he certainly realizes through the dim recesses of his brain that he is over his head, and even more so in a dynamic environment of 500-600 FA's, so that is what HE wants.

If there is anytihng I am sure of, it is that GM's preferences are not even a small factor in what is being negotiated. They are, as a group, clueless as businessmen.

 

[GSC2k2*]

I have to agree that it really would be utter chaos if they dont honour the 04-05 contracts

if they honour the 04-05 contracts its going to burn the big spenders who have to spend even more $$ on buyouts .

We need tyo get away from the language of whether or not the 04-05 contracts are "honoured". The terms of the contracts themselves provide that they are for the time period that has now passed. To "honour" the contracts is to respect and abide by the terms thereof, at least as I consider the meaning of "honour". To honour the contracts, they would all expire by a year.

Using the term "honour" implies to me that the owners are triyng to get around the contract. As shown above, that is 180 degrees away from the truth.

The correct legal term is in fact "toll".

 

[Morbo]

I continue to believe there is ZERO chance 2004-2005 contracts will be honoured, tolled, maintained, or otherwise repeated over again.

For some teams it would be great, but a lot of owners aren't going to be salivating at the prospect of not only re-paying an expired year, but then on top of that having to be in the same buyout position they are now in a year's time in many cases.

I just don't believe it's going to happen.

 

[London Knights]

he is the worst GM in all of hockey, so he probably will

It's probably better than not having them. Knowing Millbury he would probably just say they weren't very good and sign himself to play the positions or something like that.

At least this way he can trade both for a retired player or something like that.

 

[DARKSIDE]

I continue to believe there is ZERO chance 2004-2005 contracts will be honoured, tolled, maintained, or otherwise repeated over again.

For some teams it would be great, but a lot of owners aren't going to be salivating at the prospect of not only re-paying an expired year, but then on top of that having to be in the same buyout position they are now in a year's time in many cases.

I just don't believe it's going to happen.

Why can't it happen, this is supposed to be about negotiating not an all out massacre by the NHL? The owners will have to give up something or if they decide they want it all their way, the CBA might not get ratified.

 

[DARKSIDE]

Very true. For the Devils it would mean keeping Niedermayer another year at 9mill per. -24% but that's a lot of money for the New NHL. That might spell the end of Scott Stevens as a devil and probably jeff friesen.

It would be $7million @ -24% would come out to $5.3mil.

 

[Sotnos]

I continue to believe there is ZERO chance 2004-2005 contracts will be honoured, tolled, maintained, or otherwise repeated over again.

To me it seems more likely to happen than not, if only because of the sheer number of players who won't have contracts if those contracts are considered served. It'd be total chaos IMO, but who knows.

but a lot of owners aren't going to be salivating at the prospect of not only re-paying an expired year, but then on top of that having to be in the same buyout position they are now in a year's time in many cases.

What do you mean by the bolded phrase? I don't understand.

 

[p.l.f.]

does this mean that players signed prior to the lockout (like roberts and nieuwendyk) are not free agents and have a yr left on it?

 

[AH]

To me it seems more likely to happen than not, if only because of the sheer number of players who won't have contracts if those contracts are considered served. It'd be total chaos IMO, but who knows.

I am thinking it might happen as well, which is why we keep hearing of the rumours that allows teams to have a one time buyout of 2 players without that amount counting against the cap.

When you look at the 05-06 committed payrolls, only Detroit is above the proposed 38 million cap (they have something like 38.5 for 16 players). Every other team is below the cap already. So why have a buyout clause to under the cap when 29 teams are already there. ???

 

[thinkwild]

What Milbury said makes perfect sense. The rollback is the key. But if players are going to take a rollback, the contract has to be extended like Nolans. Maybe they will let all players with a team option to sign, to convert that into a player option to sign or something.

Thats a funny expression - roll or toll. Very apt. Take the rollback and extension or pay the one time buyout toll. Good thing the owners put together a $300mil contingency fund that can be used for this very purpose.