HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=3)
-   -   Rich Teams May Benefit from Buy-Outs (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1431391)

caley 05-17-2013 11:47 AM

Rich Teams May Benefit from Buy-Outs
 
http://www2.canada.com/theprovince/n...c-84a547703ea1

Quote:

In a nutshell, the league's welfare teams can send their contract problems to rich teams, who will make them go away. The rich teams charge an asset or two for what will be a buyout service.
His hypothetical situation is if the Islanders were interested in Luongo (and Botchford says they're not), in theory they could send a good asset (Say Nino Niederreiter) to the Canucks along with Rick DiPietro in exchange for Luongo. The Islanders get a good goalie on a bad deal, the Canucks get a good young player and buy-out DiPietro. As it's a compliance buy-out, the Canucks don't have to worry about the cap hit of DiPietro's buy-out, just the real dollars they actually have to pay him which you excuse by saying, at least the Luongo deal is off the books.

It's an interesting idea, one I haven't seen bandied around these boards too often. We saw something similar a couple years back when the Islanders wanted out from under Trent Hunter's deal and sent him to New Jersey for Brian Rolston. The Isles were banking on Rolston rebounding (he didn't), and the Devils bought out Hunter within days of acquiring him.

Botchford specuates that it could facilitate a Luongo deal with Florida if the Canucks were willing to take back Scottie Upshall's contract in return. And Florida is a team I've heard does not have the money to make a compliance buy-out (Their beat writer speculated as much on a question about Ed Jovanovski a month or so back), so there could be something there.

It's an interesting thing to consider. Teams like Phoenix (Zbynek Michalek has two more years with a $4 million cap hit); NY Islanders (DiPietro); or New Jersey (Travis Zajac's $5.75 cap hit) who might want to get out from under contracts but don't have the money to do so, could move said player along with an asset (Draft pick or prospect) to a rich team willing to pay the money to buy them out.

DevilChuk* 05-17-2013 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caley (Post 66207293)
http://www2.canada.com/theprovince/n...c-84a547703ea1



His hypothetical situation is if the Islanders were interested in Luongo (and Botchford says they're not), in theory they could send a good asset (Say Nino Niederreiter) to the Canucks along with Rick DiPietro in exchange for Luongo. The Islanders get a good goalie on a bad deal, the Canucks get a good young player and buy-out DiPietro. As it's a compliance buy-out, the Canucks don't have to worry about the cap hit of DiPietro's buy-out, just the real dollars they actually have to pay him which you excuse by saying, at least the Luongo deal is off the books.

It's an interesting idea, one I haven't seen bandied around these boards too often. We saw something similar a couple years back when the Islanders wanted out from under Trent Hunter's deal and sent him to New Jersey for Brian Rolston. The Isles were banking on Rolston rebounding (he didn't), and the Devils bought out Hunter within days of acquiring him.

Botchford specuates that it could facilitate a Luongo deal with Florida if the Canucks were willing to take back Scottie Upshall's contract in return. And Florida is a team I've heard does not have the money to make a compliance buy-out (Their beat writer speculated as much on a question about Ed Jovanovski a month or so back), so there could be something there.

It's an interesting thing to consider. Teams like Phoenix (Zbynek Michalek has two more years with a $4 million cap hit); NY Islanders (DiPietro); or New Jersey (Travis Zajac's $5.75 cap hit) who might want to get out from under contracts but don't have the money to do so, could move said player along with an asset (Draft pick or prospect) to a rich team willing to pay the money to buy them out.

I love how Zajac's contract is considered an albatross based on 48 games when he hasn't even played a single game under that contract yet. Consider it overpayment.. but to putting it on par with DiPietro and Luongo's contracts is laughable.

boredmale 05-17-2013 12:03 PM

Is it true(I heard a few people mention this, never seen it verified) that teams can only buy out players who played for them before this season? If that is the case then the trade and buyout option is void.

Djp 05-17-2013 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boredmale (Post 66207903)
Is it true(I heard a few people mention this, never seen it verified) that teams can only buy out players who played for them before this season? If that is the case then the trade and buyout option is void.

that is the uncertainty.

These complaince/amnesty buyout periods are to be two times during the year...once in June/July after the season but before UFA period kicks on and in September after the arbitration hearings.

The issue is...you trade for player X in June/July then rather unexpectidly your team got hammered in salary arbitration talks with your RFAs where you are now over the cap so a player has to go...can you release the player you traded for....that is the uncertainty.

I have been unable to find something clear cut on this. The only thing is you have bee on the roster by certain dtes. Is one of these dates in the summer after the draft---like September 1st? The trade deadline is one of these dates.

CREW99AW 05-17-2013 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caley (Post 66207293)
http://www2.canada.com/theprovince/n...c-84a547703ea1



His hypothetical situation is if the Islanders were interested in Luongo (and Botchford says they're not), in theory they could send a good asset (Say Nino Niederreiter) to the Canucks along with Rick DiPietro in exchange for Luongo. The Islanders get a good goalie on a bad deal, the Canucks get a good young player and buy-out DiPietro. As it's a compliance buy-out, the Canucks don't have to worry about the cap hit of DiPietro's buy-out, just the real dollars they actually have to pay him which you excuse by saying, at least the Luongo deal is off the books.

It's an interesting idea, one I haven't seen bandied around these boards too often. We saw something similar a couple years back when the Islanders wanted out from under Trent Hunter's deal and sent him to New Jersey for Brian Rolston. The Isles were banking on Rolston rebounding (he didn't), and the Devils bought out Hunter within days of acquiring him.

Botchford specuates that it could facilitate a Luongo deal with Florida if the Canucks were willing to take back Scottie Upshall's contract in return. And Florida is a team I've heard does not have the money to make a compliance buy-out (Their beat writer speculated as much on a question about Ed Jovanovski a month or so back), so there could be something there.

It's an interesting thing to consider. Teams like Phoenix (Zbynek Michalek has two more years with a $4 million cap hit); NY Islanders (DiPietro); or New Jersey (Travis Zajac's $5.75 cap hit) who might want to get out from under contracts but don't have the money to do so, could move said player along with an asset (Draft pick or prospect) to a rich team willing to pay the money to buy them out.

I see the writer ignores that...
1.Barclay's with 69 extra luxury suites will bring in an extra $35m per season.
2. Forbes says Wang has lost $4m and $8m in the last two seasons.
3.This season, Wang qualifies for a 1/2 share of revenue sharing in the new cba.
4.Isles announced weeks ago, selling 1,000 new full Season Ticket plans.
5. Wang has bought out Yashin, Witt and Bates.
6.DiPietro's $1.5m buyout is doable for Wang.
7.Wang is exploring selling the team.
8.Wang has turned the business side of the team over to Ratner's group. That group has used the isles, as a key part to their NVMC development bid. This led to speculation that Ratner and Mikhail Prokhorov will buy the team from Wang.

caley 05-17-2013 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DevilChuk (Post 66207527)
I love how Zajac's contract is considered an albatross based on 48 games when he hasn't even played a single game under that contract yet. Consider it overpayment.. but to putting it on par with DiPietro and Luongo's contracts is laughable.

I just picked the teams with financial questions and picked their worst contracts. Zajac for 8 years at that cap hit is probably a bad contract. That said, I didn't scroll down far enough to New Jersey's defence and should probably replace Zajac with Anton Volchenkov's dreadful deal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CREW99AW (Post 66208785)
I see the writer ignores that...
1.Barclay's with 69 extra luxury suites will bring in an extra $35m per season.
2. Forbes says Wang has lost $4m and $8m in the last two seasons.
3.This season, Wang qualifies for a 1/2 share of revenue sharing in the new cba.
4.Isles announced weeks ago, selling 1,000 new full Season Ticket plans.
5. Wang has bought out Yashin, Witt and Bates.
6.DiPietro's $1.5m buyout is doable for Wang.
7.Wang is exploring selling the team.
8.Wang has turned the business side of the team over to Ratner's group. That group has used the isles, as a key part to their NVMC development bid. This led to speculation that Ratner and Mikhail Prokhorov will buy the team from Wang.

It was a hypothetical.

DevilChuk* 05-17-2013 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caley (Post 66209171)
I just picked the teams with financial questions and picked their worst contracts. Zajac for 8 years at that cap hit is probably a bad contract. That said, I didn't scroll down far enough to New Jersey's defence and should probably replace Zajac with Anton Volchenkov's dreadful deal.


It was a hypothetical.

Yep, Volchenkov's contract is miles worse than Zajac's. Most Devils fans are perfectly content with Zajac. We know what he brings and while I think it is a slight overpayment (.750-1M).. it's not worth losing him over. Definitely will not be buying him out anytime soon.

Volchenkov, on the other hand, has hopefully played his last game as a Devil.

Our financial situation is fine though (evidence by us handing Zajac a $40M contract). All has been rectified last off-season.

CoolburnIsGone 05-17-2013 12:51 PM

It really depends on how bad of a contract it is IMO. I think there's a lot less contracts that are still tradable with the thought process that the acquiring team would buy that player out. And while some teams dont have the money to buy out a contract, they could retain some salary in a trade now and not pay the full contract amount while replacing said player internally with a player with a much more affordable cap hit.

Lets use your example of Florida & Upshall who they probably won't buyout but could trade. If they retained half of his salary (which would be less than the buyout), that means they're on the hook for $3.5M of the remaining $7M he's owed on his contract. The buyout amount would be $4.667M for Upshall so they would be saving $1.167M in total money by doing that as opposed to what you suggest. They arent an upper cap team so retaining salary wouldnt hurt them for the next 2 yrs. They have plenty of options internally to fill his roster spot so they wouldnt want to take salary back in return. But a team might take a chance on Upshall with a $1.75M salary to play a 3rd line role, even for a mid round pick. I think a lot more teams would rather pursue that avenue then trading for compliance buyouts IMO.

CREW99AW 05-17-2013 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by caley (Post 66209171)
I just picked the teams with financial questions and picked their worst contracts. Zajac for 8 years at that cap hit is probably a bad contract. That said, I didn't scroll down far enough to New Jersey's defence and should probably replace Zajac with Anton Volchenkov's dreadful deal.


It was a hypothetical.


Even a hypothetical should look at all the angles: how much they lost the last few seasons, revenue sharing for the first time, buyout history, expected impact of moving in 1-2 seasons.

Snotbubbles 05-17-2013 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CREW99AW (Post 66210065)
Even a hypothetical should look at all the angles: how much they lost the last few seasons, revenue sharing for the first time, buyout history, expected impact of moving in 1-2 seasons.

People make up hypotheticals when they don't want to look at all the angles. That what a hypothetical is.

La Cosa Nostra 05-17-2013 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CREW99AW (Post 66210065)
Even a hypothetical should look at all the angles: how much they lost the last few seasons, revenue sharing for the first time, buyout history, expected impact of moving in 1-2 seasons.

Buying out Yashin saved them a lot more then if he continued to play out his contract. Wang has proven to be very cheap since buying the team. The Isles traded for Tim Thomas just to comply with the cap. He is a frugal owner and I'd bet anything that with him owning the team that the Isles will never spend to the cap.

NYR Viper 05-17-2013 02:34 PM

I don't believe that is possible as per the CBA. The player needed to be on the team prior to the last CBA being ratified. Teams can't trade fora player and than amnesty him.

Domino11 05-17-2013 02:54 PM

Every team will probably use there 2 buy out .... I know for a fact mtl is using there 2 loll Gomez and kaberleeeeeeee ! Why can't we trade some of those buy out so mtl would buy like phx or someone else that can't afford to buy so that we could buy out more dump contract

mouser 05-17-2013 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYR Boyler87 (Post 66213509)
I don't believe that is possible as per the CBA. The player needed to be on the team prior to the last CBA being ratified. Teams can't trade fora player and than amnesty him.

The MOU doesn't mention any restrictions that would stop a team from trading for a player then amnestying them.

Still, Yashin at an 8 year buyout was crazy enough. DiPietro at 16 years would be over the top.

Cogburn 05-17-2013 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mouser (Post 66214311)
The MOU doesn't mention any restrictions that would stop a team from trading for a player then amnestying them.

Still, Yashin at an 8 year buyout was crazy enough. DiPietro at 16 years would be over the top.

For all that speculation about not buying out new players, it seems there isn't really anything stopping it. Just curious, is there a clause about a buy out candidate being moved to another team, then resigned by the original team? That's about the only loophole that I think should be closed.

Brooklanders* 05-17-2013 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DevilChuk (Post 66207527)
I love how Zajac's contract is considered an albatross based on 48 games when he hasn't even played a single game under that contract yet. Consider it overpayment.. but to putting it on par with DiPietro and Luongo's contracts is laughable.

I don't know how anyone could defend Zajacs contract.
We realize Luongo and Sipietros are much worse but Travis was never worth that deal. It's like NJ was awarding him for Parise leaving.

PWJunior 05-17-2013 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mouser (Post 66214311)
The MOU doesn't mention any restrictions that would stop a team from trading for a player then amnestying them.

Still, Yashin at an 8 year buyout was crazy enough. DiPietro at 16 years would be over the top.

All your crazy, stupid buy outs are belong to us.

Frozenice 05-17-2013 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Domino11 (Post 66214199)
Every team will probably use there 2 buy out .... I know for a fact mtl is using there 2 loll Gomez and kaberleeeeeeee ! Why can't we trade some of those buy out so mtl would buy like phx or someone else that can't afford to buy so that we could buy out more dump contract

I'd like Montreal to buy out everybody on the team if it meant we could draft Reinhart and McDavid in the next two drafts. :yo:

mouser 05-17-2013 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cogburn (Post 66214959)
For all that speculation about not buying out new players, it seems there isn't really anything stopping it. Just curious, is there a clause about a buy out candidate being moved to another team, then resigned by the original team? That's about the only loophole that I think should be closed.

There is no clause that prevents a player from rejoining a team immediately after being traded to and bought out by another team.

Though depending on the situation the NHL would have the ability to punish the team for circumvention and not allow the re-signing if it thought anything shady was going on.

Freudian 05-17-2013 03:38 PM

Even rich teams care about money. I don't think any team would line up to pay DiPietro $24M this summer even if they get a prospect out of it. Paying for their own mistakes is easier to swallow.

PWJunior 05-17-2013 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freudian (Post 66215745)
Even rich teams care about money. I don't think any team would line up to pay DiPietro $24M this summer even if they get a prospect out of it. Paying for their own mistakes is easier to swallow.

Exactly. This whole trading for DP + asset scenario is pure fantasy just for that reason alone.

K2B 05-17-2013 03:51 PM

A poster on the Canucks board brought this up. For instance say VAN and PHI did a deal for Luongo(Hypothetical) Say it's Briere and a 1st rounder or prospect for Luongo. If Van buys out Briere, couldn't PHI just sign him to a cheaper contract?

Shorthander 05-17-2013 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by King Canuck (Post 66216193)
A poster on the Canucks board brought this up. For instance say VAN and PHI did a deal for Luongo(Hypothetical) Say it's Briere and a 1st rounder or prospect for Luongo. If Van buys out Briere, couldn't PHI just sign him to a cheaper contract?

Can Bettman call this cap circumvention and strip draft picks? Because he would be furious

CREW99AW 05-17-2013 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Layne Staley (Post 66213123)
Buying out Yashin saved them a lot more then if he continued to play out his contract. Wang has proven to be very cheap since buying the team. The Isles traded for Tim Thomas just to comply with the cap. He is a frugal owner and I'd bet anything that with him owning the team that the Isles will never spend to the cap.

Wang will make an extra $35m per season on Barclay's luxury suites alone.


In 2001 Wang bought the team, expecting a new arena. He boosted payroll significantly. It wasn't until 2007-2008 that he went cheap, with partisan pols blocking his development and limited on ice success.


Only hopeful out of town fans and media ignore his current loss amounts, his new revenue sharing, the boost this season's bought to season ticket sales and the increased revenue Barclays will bring.


Yeah, $1.5m per is a backbreaker:sarcasm:. Wang and Ratner's group, want a strong on ice product going into Brooklyn, so trade off bluechip talent to save that $1.5m per.

nickschultzfan 05-17-2013 05:16 PM

Obviously buy-outs were for rich teams who made past stupid decisions and signed terrible contracts.

The Buy-out Clause was the Wall Street Bailout of the CBA.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:10 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.