Question of the Week: Would YOU buyout Lecavalier?

If you have been listening to the Marek vs. Wyshynski podcast* then you might have heard a hypothetical question come up once or twice on whether you would buy out player X (with no repercussions to your cap hit) if you had one free buyout allowed after the NHL's next Collective Bargaining Agreement has been renegotiated and ratified.

Why would you do this? Let's say for instance that the new CBA causes the cap to down next season or they change how they calculate the cap which currently just keeps increasing every single season at a pretty high rate. Or maybe you just have a bad contract that you want to get out of, and a free buyout could help out how your team in constructed.

So this question got me thinking whether the other writers at Raw Charge would consider buying out Vincent Lecavalier, here's what I asked:

If during the summer during the new CBA negotiations there is an option to buyout ONE player on your team with no repercussions to your team in the future, do you buyout Lecavalier? Why or why not?

Our answers after the jump and let us know in the comments on what YOU would do

Cassie McClellan - Managing Editor Raw Charge

I don't know that Vincent Lecavalier should be bought out, even without it being counted against the cap, though his contract is certainly an issue. It isn't necessarily the monetary amount that's the problem; it's the length. When I first saw the numbers after he'd signed it, my very first thought was (mostly in regards to the length), "No good can come of this."

I think a better option instead would be if renegotiation of standing contracts is on the table - and gets accepted - during the CBA discussions. Otherwise, this whole thing is going to get ugly. There's no way that Vinny's going to be able to finish out this contract as it stands and maintain a good public standing, no matter where he may be playing.

Would buying him out help the team? Probably. But he's practically an institution in Tampa, and seeing him go would mean an end of an era for the Lightning. I think someone who's meant so much to that community deserves better treatment than that. But, in the end, hockey is a business, so...I don't know. It's hard for me to even imagine a Lightning team without Vinny.

Clare Austin - Staff Writer

One free buyout in 2012--do I choose Vinny? Not unless Ohlund retires. Ohlund contributes less and even if he plays again he's a drain on the team's defense. Worse still is the possibility that he could never play again and the Lightning would have to keep paying him until 2016 as long as he chose not to retire. Vinny's not at that point yet.

IF Ohlund retired and freed the team of his contract then I'd consider Vinny's contract. Or IF the buyout would come in, say, three years, I'd consider it. But at this point, I'd rather pay Vincent Lecavalier an obscene amount of money to be the team's second highest scorer than to pay Mattias Ohlund to sit on his couch for 4 years.

Clark Brooks - Staff Writer / Ridiculously inconsistent trickle of consciousness

Anything having to do with salary management is completely beyond my comprehension, and I mean ANYTHING and COMPLETELY. For example, I'm pretty sure if I can find a way to get my car to run on dreams and starlight between now and Friday at 2:00, my check to the phone company won't bounce. So I would keep Vinny around. Then maybe I could ask him to give me some of his old, used money.

Matt Amos - Staff Writer / Don't Trade Vinny

*Bangs head against desk repeatedly.
No, give Ohlund his Social Security check.
Or buy a gun and shoot me.

*If you haven't been listening to Marek vs. Wyshynski, then why haven't you?

Disclaimer: This is by no means a suggestion that we should buy out Lecavalier and it's not even a serious question since there is no such clause of each team getting a free buyout, we're just having fun here.