Buyout clause - Do we use it?
 

I am rather curious what people think about the 1 season, 1 player buyout clause that this cba "could" have.

The question is, do we use it?.

The only people we would/could/should use it on is.

Keith Ballard
or
david booth

Imo I would rather just keep both players, then buy either out, what do you guys think.

Is the buyout rate still going to be 2/3 of the remainder of the contract? Surprised the NHL didn't try to get that lowered to 1/2 or less. To get paid 2/3 of the rest of your contract because you aren't living up to the deal is pathetic IMO.

I'd probably go Ballard over Booth.

If you assume about 60% of the season 48 games will be played, then Ballard is due $8.4 million for the 2 years from 13-15, plus about $2.5 million for a shortened season.

That's $10.9 million. So, the buyout will cost about $7.2 million give or take.

Is it possible that if(when?) the Canucks trade Luongo they get some overpaid player back in the package and use the buyout on that player? Or is this buyout only applicable to players already on the roster when a new cba goes into affect?

I don't think we buyout anyone.

There aren't any better options in FA than Ballard. Considering that the Canucks are going for the cup and the cap isn't going down until NEXT season (from what I understood), I think you bite the bullet, keep Ballard & go for it.

If it is I think we have the winning guess who its used on

I was thinking about this earlier. Can you buy out a guy then resign him in this particular buyout agreement? Buy out Ballard and sign him again for like 1.5. Ask him if he wants a raise then do this. I doubt you can resign a guy you buy out though. Sure be nice to get his insane cap hit off our books.

Ballard, no no no question.

He is by far the most overpaid player on our team. Can't wait to cut him loose.

By the looks of it, they're looking to punish cap circumventing contracts even though the assumption was they'd be grandfathered into the old CBA. If so, I wonder if Luongo might be who we'd buyout, just to get out from under this 5.3M caphit after he retires.

If anyone gets bought out, it'll be Ballard. He hasn't played up to his salary yet, and he doesn't have the off-season injury leading to lack of off-season training excuse anymore. He's stuck in AV's doghouse, and GMMG retained AV. I think Booth will bounce back once Kesler returns to 100%. Luongo is owed way too much, cap recapture formula or not.

I think with the flexibility that has been offered in the new potential CBA which keeps being part of the package, and with the inevitable growth of the league by the time Luongo retires, the deal would hurt less in the long term. Not to mention how expensive it would be for the club in general. We have lots of money, but we don't have millions to piss away for something that is correctable. That's just bad business.

The good news is, it also makes him more valuable in the shorter term.

If Burrows is terrible in 12-13 (if there is a season) I would entertain the notion of buying him out with the idea of using the money saved to resign Edler/Higgins/Lappy

Lol...never going to happen. Burrows will retire a Canuck.

:laugh: That's like saying if Kesler is terrible this season, we should buy him out.

The way I look at it he is gettin older and if he had a terrible year I'd consider it, I never said I wanted to!

Even if he has a bad year, Booth would be bought out before Burrows. :facepalm:

If Gretzky slips to under 200 points, buy his sorry ass out and use the money to sign Keith. Keith is younger.


Wow.

Brent > Keith!

I would have to guess then Detroit has lost a fair bit of stroke with the league given that they have two such contracts on their team.

Why is it "pathetic"? If you sign a contract and end up not wanting to honor it, you should have to pay a good portion of it back.

I'd prefer not to buyout anyone at this point.

Flip side is that the player isn't honoring it either because he's no playing up to it. But I agree that they should honor it.

Crown tracts should all be performance based in a perfect world.

Looking at the current roster? Use it on Ballard.

However, I'm not convinced Ballard can't be traded for a pick. Booth is the other candidate, but my opinion of him is generally positive and I think he's worth the sticker price.

What I expect to happen is for us to take back some salary in a trade and use the amnesty on that.

There's no flip side. The players honor their contracts by reporting to their hockey clubs and playing where they're told. Their is no contractual obligation to put up points or score goals.

With the roster as it is now, Booth. Canucks have no depth on D other than Alberts. Whereas at forward, there are a number of candidates for the 3rd line, as well as a few prospects (Kassian, Schroeder, Jensen) who arguably, could replace Booth next year.

The most interesting thing about this is this: what players will suddenly be available as UFAs that weren't before? I think we still need a third line center (Sorry Manny, I don't trust that eye), and their are a number of players who would be perfect if their contracts weren't so obnoxious.

I'm thinking of guys like Gomez, Horcoff, Lecavalier (from least to greatest, obviously). Unthinkable to have them on our team with their current contracts, but making Manny money, playing a third line role?

Should be interesting on who becomes available.

I agree, I don't think we should buy out either Ballard or Booth.