The only thing I can see happening with this contract not counting toward the books is if he takes an amnesty buyout like Redden (isn't that what happened?) then signs something like a X year deal for <$1m per (not sure that is even legal with the new CBA). Either way, he's in Tampa Bay for a long long long long time.
i was thinking the same. can't think of anybody else who would be worth using the amnesty on, and we could basically release and re-sign to a more cap-friendly deal on the whole, maybe allowing Vinny to get similar dollars when you add up amnesty plus new deal. don't know the inticracies of the amnesty buyout structure, so not sure how practical this is, though
Brought this idea up before, but IF I remember right somebody explained, that it woudn't be allowed
I assume it's a calendar year and not a season, right? Otherwise...Correct. Specifically prohibited because it would, in effect, be a means of cap circumvention.
vinny, with his increasing physicality and alarming decline in explosiveness and scoring touch (since the first big shoulder injury), will probably be capable of being a top 3rd line center and very useful PK\PP player til the day he retires. unfortunately, until that day, he gets paid like he's steve stamkos potting 50 goals a year. i just don't think there's a team in the league that would choose to take on that combo of salary and ability.
what year does his cap number start to decline? the ugliest part of this deal is the fact that it was always taken as a given that the salary cap would continue to rise and make this deal less egregious. instead, it now seems it'll take time for the cap just to get back to this year's level
7.7m for seven more years. Vinny will retire a Bolt, no team wants that contract.
Looking at the way Montreal played last night, not even they would take him. He would slow them down way too much
Fleece Columbus, or move Vinny to wing where he can use his power and put someone with speed at centre.