Mike Milbury on WFAN 7/1/05

[DARKSIDE]

Yashin has no bearing in this case. His was during the course of an active CBA, this is during the course of an expired CBA. Plus the cases of Mogilny, Belfour, and whoever else got paid for injuries sustained last season as well as Nolan's extra year clause in the event of lockout tip the legal scales directly towards the owners.

When it comes to players that were paid for being injuried, just minus what they were paid from their upcoming salaries. I think that could work.

 

[OpAck]

Have you considered the possibility that Yashin, who wants to be in New York, will renegotiate his deal?

Alot of Milbury bashing and I am not a Milbury apologist but don't think for a minute this franchise would have survived without Yashin, Peca, Aucoin and Osgood being brought in. They did what they had to do to sell tickets. I had gone to too many games with 5,000 of my closest friends to think otherwise. At least he gave you some insight today.

I also wondering how Luongo will look in his new streamlined equipment and tightfitting jersey, hmmm

I absolutely believe the isles will attempt to renegotiate Yashin's contract. I don't know what would come out of it, but indeed, it may happen.

As for the team selling tickets, you're absolutely right...for a good number of years, there was nothing for an islander fan to get excited about. Wang wanted to go in one direction and that was to bring in talent. So they got a former Hart finalist, a Selke winner, a former 20-goal/season defenseman, and went that extra mile by bringing in a former Jennings/Stanley Cup winning goalie in Osgood. And in doing that, Wang also made a statement by signing Yashin to a very long term deal. This would show that he meant business, yet today, it wasn't all that smart an idea. But the team has made the playoffs the last three years, and the season ticket base has grown from that paltry 5,000.

Sure beats the late 90's when the Isles had absolutely nothing to look forward to and were destined for Portland.

 

[Mess]

It's really not the best thing for the NHL. If you look at teams that are still greatly over the cap after the rollback (Our beloved Maple Leafs), they will have to spend alot of money on just buying players out. And possible players that said they would come back for alot cheaper.

Unless a good handful of those players agree to renegotiate...

That was the gamble the Leaf took .. and few teams .. They signed all their players going to the lockout either hoping that it would have some effect on the end result of the camp limit or grandfathering or even gave them an advantage with team chemistry in a 1/2 season should there have been one ....

But they were warned .. Nobody's fault but their own ..

If you supported a restrictive cap system then you got what you wished for a healthy NHL but your team would need to adapt to the new rules and if that means no new players or costly buyouts that is what needs to happen unfortunately ..

Like I said above you have to but your July madness off a year and live with the current team ..

Players could still renegotiate lower deals to stay . If players want to work together with their managment teams then that is always a legal and available option ..

 

[norrisnick]

When it comes to players that were paid for being injuried, just minus what they were paid from their upcoming salaries. I think that could work.

It isn't that simple if the argument is whether or not to maintain that year of their contracts. If this becomes a legal battle (which I doubt it will) Yashin's case won't apply due to the circumstances but injured players that were paid according to their contracts would (as well as Owen Nolan's special clause which implies that a lockout would void that year otherwise).

 

[DARKSIDE]

It isn't that simple if the argument is whether or not to maintain that year of their contracts. If this becomes a legal battle (which I doubt it will) Yashin's case won't apply due to the circumstances but injured players that were paid according to their contracts would (as well as Owen Nolan's special clause which implies that a lockout would void that year otherwise).

All I can say is that it sounds like Milbury said something he wasn't supposed to, but he did, very clearly. And Lou was later interviewed, he neither admitted nor denied, he just said that not everyone will be happy but must have a positive attitude going into a new CBA. Mike has lose lips and it sounds like we have some pissed off GM's. Don't know what it all means, but I hope we find out shortly.

 

[Mess]

When it comes to players that were paid for being injuried, just minus what they were paid from their upcoming salaries. I think that could work.

how this injured players are handled if Contracts are honoured will be interesting .

Mogilny got paid his full 2004-05 Salary via leafs and insurance as far as I would guess he is officially a UFA as of today July 1st ..

In the case of Nolan and Belfour they got partial payments and missed only partial parts of the season ..

I think buyouts in the case of Nolan or Belfour would be less the money they received during the lockout .. This could save the Leafs a little as I can't see a player getting rewarded twice .. If the player was kept I wonder if his full Salary would count against the cap or would it be less last years payout??

Interesting to see how the CBA handles these things ..

 

[GSC2k2*]

I still like the paying the buyout toll metaphor, it seems more apt. What time period would they be tolling to extend? The amount of time to make a decision on whether to buyout? Or is it because they were time-barred from making RFA offer sheets and UFA offers on time? But then what is the or roll referring to?

Admittedly it does make an excellent metaphor in this circumstance in the manner you suggest.

If the contracts would be extended, then the time period tolled is the contract for the player to provide the services. Instead of the time period in the contract (i.e., 2004-2005, the service period is tolled.

Some periods may need to be tolled, such as QO's. This is why they are putting in 16 hour days.

I suppose the "or roll" part refers to the contract terms rolling over, either to FA or the next contract year (as the case may be, depending on the duration of the contract).