Posted 3:12 AM ET | Comments 14

Filed Under:   Leafs  

February 4, 2008 11:38 AM ET | Delete
part of me feels the same way, however I feel you also need to look long term and if a team gets a rep for treating their star players so badly its going to hurt them in the long run. those players got their NTC because of their past play and a recongnition from the team that they are very valuable to the team.

February 4, 2008 12:55 PM ET | Delete
you cant just demote whoever you want. Tucker and McCabe for example cant be demoted - pure and simple - its in their contract. But, you can pursuade them to waive their no trade for a specific list of teams - and that isnt hard to do. No Trades very very rarely literally mean No Trades. Typically, its just a sign of respect where players can have some say in their next destination. But, you can waive guys like Raycroft, Bell, Kilger, Pohl, Belak - you can also easily trade guys like Kaberle, Gill and Tucker. Pretty easy to clear $15-$20M of cap space without even making any real tough decisions...

February 4, 2008 2:28 PM ET | Delete
It's called a one way contract...you cannot demote anyone you want.

February 4, 2008 3:00 PM ET | Delete
Often times the one-way contract just means that if a person gets 'demoted' (waived) they need to clear waivers before they can arrive at their minor league team. (see Mark Recchi)

February 4, 2008 3:42 PM ET | Delete
its not a 1 way contract in this case (ie not like Recchi) - McCabe has a specific clause which prevents him from going on waivers... eitherway, you dont want to put McCabe on waivers. There would be takers for McCabe, but, personally, I wouldnt move him - replacing him would be much more expensive and you probably would not get anyone nearly as good.

February 4, 2008 7:57 PM ET | Delete
Yeah, that's the key. Even if Toronto were able to actually waive their players on the block, they wouldn't get anything for them in return if another team picked them up. You think Toronto WANTS to give up Sundin, Kaberle, etc? No, but they have to in order to rebuild.

February 4, 2008 8:30 PM ET | Delete
You can demote anyone he would just have to clear waivers. The only reason I would take a hard ass approach is if these guys want to stay and drag the leafs down. I'd much rather Fletcher trade and get assests back for them. But if we have to demote them to scare them into dropping the NTC do it. I'd rather losse McCabe off waivers and save a boatload in cap space. He isn't worth the money. With new management will come new players especialy if its a respected guy like bowman, Holland etc. Its not that big a deal even if we had to waive some of these guys the main thing is getting some cap space. McCabe is ussless anyways his defense is as poor as they come.

February 4, 2008 8:35 PM ET | Delete
Anyone who would like to question me on this should do their homework and read this http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog.php?post_id=9172

February 4, 2008 9:09 PM ET | Delete
If a team takes a guy off waivers you are free of hiss cap hit. If he is a vet he must pass through waivers. If he is picked up on re-ebtry waivers the team pays half the salary of that player. if he is not picked up and he is demoted to the minors his cap hit will not affect that teams salary cap. They still must pay that players salary they just do not absorb the cap hit.

February 4, 2008 11:59 PM ET | Delete
McCabe has a no-movement clause. At the end of the year we can buy him out, but before we do, we'd have to waive him (only way we could) to see if anybody wanted that contract, before buying him out.I would much rather carry him and his salary than buy him out. He isn't that bad at all!

February 5, 2008 1:37 PM ET | Delete
I know he isn't that bad everyone knows about his NTC but the leafs are not going to be contenders for atleast 3 years down the road. We would be better off getting rid of him and either forcing him into a trade for young assests or gaining valuable cap space.

February 5, 2008 1:45 PM ET | Delete
Im almost willing to Guarentee McCabe would pass throught waivers. No one wants that Salary. Right now no one can really afford it. You have to look at the terms of the agreement. No team will take a chance on him for that kind of money when they wont be able to move him after. McCabe has 3 more years at 5.75 million he clearly isn't in the company of a pronger who make just over 6. The 5.75 million isn't all that bad of a gamble if you could turn around and move the guy if things dont work out. But holding onto McCabe for 3 more years is stupidity. There will be highly toughted RFA coming up in the next few years. I'd much rather have that cap space to throw an offer sheet in or be able to trade for an sign a great young talent.

February 5, 2008 3:13 PM ET | Delete
duckyjets - I will try and explain this again for you. McCabe not only has a no trade clause, but, also has a no movement clause. You cannot put him on waivers - period. Also, McCabes contract is front end loaded. So, his cap hit is $5.75M, but, his actual salary paid drops significantly after next year (to around $4M) - making him very very easy to move at that point (as alot of teams need to hit Cap Minimums - not every team has a max cap issue). McCabe is the 5th highest scoring D-Man over the last 5 years, he blocks alot of shots and the Leafs record with and without him in the lineup says all you need to know about him. Teams would love McCabe. He had a rough start this year, then settled in nicely. If you think you can replace any of his skill set for less then $5.75M, you are dreaming. Look at what Edmonton paid Souray and what Montreal paid Hamrlik - and I would take McCabe over either of those guys without question. Heck, look at what Pitts paid Gonchar and Philly paid Hatcher and those contracts were signed after the lockout...

February 5, 2008 5:33 PM ET | Delete
Well JFJ is more of an idiot then I thought then. Im sure that the constant boo's and the media will drive McCabe out of town regardless of the no-movement clause