Quoting: OldNYIfan
I’m on the opposite side. Why should two dozen teams get an unexpected boon that erases an advantage half a dozen other teams had legitimately achieved?
I’ve had this discussion with a knowledgeable colleague whose opinion I greatly respect. The question turns on the issue of “fairness.” There are six teams (Anaheim, Boston, Carolina, Colorado, Los Angeles*, Toronto) who have successfully negotiated the cap challenge and have no awful contracts to unload. My position is that fairness dictates offering the same value to every team; therefore, these teams (and anyone else who chooses to do so) should be allowed to buy out the contract of any player who is on their roster on July 14 (or whatever other cut-off date you choose). My esteemed friend says “fairness” means having all teams play by the same rules. That would be fine if all teams started at the same point, but they don’t.
Let me ask you this: suppose the League decreed that all teams would get TWO “compliance buy-outs.” Doesn’t the inequity of this become obvious? Such a rule would actually benefit only a handful of teams – maybe 5 at the most. The fact that the other 26 teams have a theoretical option that they won’t really be able to exercise doesn’t make this “fair.”
*The Kings present another issue -- what about contracts that were terminated (Kovalchuk)?
I understand this viewpoint, and I gotta admit there's some sense to it.
Regardless, this compliance buyout is still a buyout, namely that teams must pay to the player to get rid of its contract. This way it just doesn't effect the cap.
However, my viewpoint regarding the issue is that this potential buyout is a way to cope for the teams in a pickle due to unforeseen circumstances, and the circumstance is the penalty itself. It's natural that some teams get hurt by it more than others, and it feels more of a punishment for the teams not in that pickle, but it's not meant to be one, Every team gets the same way to cope with it. If the team has done well enough financially and don't have to get rid of anyone, they save some actual money in there. They don't have to pay anything to anyone.
Two buyouts should be considered only if the cap lowers significantly (more than $4M or so) - however as far as we know it that is not going to be the case.
My stance is the same, as a way to cope with the current situation teams should be let to buyout one of their players that have played at least 1 game during the said season and the players has been part of the roster after the deadline. Otherwise it becomes cap circumvention, which is already somewhat forbidden by the rules. No one should be able to abuse the bad situation some other teams are in, as far as the issue of "fairness" in concerned.
As for the terminated contracts, well the player isn't anymore part of that team, therefore there's nothing to buyout. I'm not exactly sure what the money difference is between an actual buyout and the cap penalty, but I don't think it's a significant one.