BGDave
Grumpy Old Man
Once upon a time, the Maple Leafs and Lightning had a deal in place that would have sent Vincent Lecavalier to Toronto along with another asset under the condition that he would be bought out using a compliance buyout, which would was a cap-free loophole put in place following the 2012-13 lockout. Tampa Bay would have then re-signed Lecavalier to a more team-friendly contract. The trade was vetoed by the league on the grounds that it was cap circumvention.
I know this is ancient history, but shouldn't things like compliance buyouts be considered assets, and therefore capable of being monetized?
For me, I think they should. IMO a compliance buyout is an asset just like cap room. Cap room allows teams like Arizona to monetize their cap space when they take on worthless contracts of injured players in return for other assets (players, picks etc).
If the League will allow farcical "trades" like the Hossa deal (and yes, my team has done them also) then why shouldn't the Lecavalier deal be acceptable?
As I said, ancient history, but we have another approx 8 weeks till training camp and I am getting antsy.