HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Vancouver Canucks
Notices

Buyout clause - Do we use it?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-02-2013, 01:20 PM
  #126
ginner classic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Kitsilano
Posts: 6,436
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luck 6 View Post
I can't believe we're considering buying out Booth. The guy was pretty damn good for us, but kept getting injured when he started to roll. Plus, he was playing on a team where all of our core offensive players essentially had terrible years, yet he's somehow expected to have a career high? Booth gets another season, that's for sure.
He gets this season if there is one. After that, cap compliance drives all decision making.

ginner classic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2013, 01:38 PM
  #127
lush
@jasonlush
 
lush's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,279
vCash: 500
Considering we are currently debating whether to buyout Ballard or Booth you have to admit that's a pretty good problem to have.

To me, given the Canucks have deeper pockets than most teams there is probably a team out there with 2 bad contracts they want to get rid of, and would be willing to trade one of them to the Canucks along with a prospect/pick or other positive value assets that the Canucks can turn around and use their buyout on.

I haven't read this whole thread but I'm sure someone else has presented this idea as well. I say this with the expectation that whatever the cap ends up being, teams will have the 10% or whatever it is leeway next summer and this whole sequence of events would occur then because I don't see this working during a shortened season with the cap going down unless it involved Luongo and even then it might not be possible.

lush is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2013, 03:06 PM
  #128
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 44,731
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
If we could find a taker for Ballard for a 7th round pick or whatever, we could trade Luongo to Florida for some nice prospects and take their worst contract off their hands and subsequently amnesty that player...

y2kcanucks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2013, 03:18 PM
  #129
Scottrockztheworld*
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,301
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
If we could find a taker for Ballard for a 7th round pick or whatever, we could trade Luongo to Florida for some nice prospects and take their worst contract off their hands and subsequently amnesty that player...
Thats what I've been thinking. Maybe someone like Jovo? Think the suggestions of Vinny & DiPietro are a little bit too out there. Heck maybe even Komi

Scottrockztheworld* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2013, 03:22 PM
  #130
Seatoo
Never Stop Poasting
 
Seatoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: The Interior of BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,718
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
If we could find a taker for Ballard for a 7th round pick or whatever, we could trade Luongo to Florida for some nice prospects and take their worst contract off their hands and subsequently amnesty that player...
Ballard is worth more than a 7th but I agree with the rest of what you are saying! With the amnesty buyout I could stomach one of Komi, Jovo, Upshall or Kopetchky type salary dump along with more significant pieces.

Seatoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2013, 03:24 PM
  #131
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 44,731
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seatoo View Post
Ballard is worth more than a 7th but I agree with the rest of what you are saying! With the amnesty buyout I could stomach one of Komi, Jovo, Upshall or Kopetchky type salary dump along with more significant pieces.
Well I was just throwing the 7th out there for arguments sake, but I agree he's probably worth more.

I wonder if this would be enough to put is back into Bjugstad+ territory or Huberdeau territory? Doubt it but would be interesting.

__________________
May 17, 2014: The day nightlife changes in Vancouver...ask me how.
y2kcanucks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2013, 04:30 PM
  #132
MISC*
Negged.
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,691
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
I wonder if this would be enough to put is back into Bjugstad+ territory or Huberdeau territory? Doubt it but would be interesting.
We were never in that territory. Only you think we have been.

More like Jovo and Ellerby for Luongos contract.

MISC* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2013, 04:35 PM
  #133
dave babych returns
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,936
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MISC View Post
We were never in that territory. Only you think we have been.

More like Jovo and Ellerby for Luongos contract.
That is just as crazily off in the other direction.

dave babych returns is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2013, 04:36 PM
  #134
MISC*
Negged.
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,691
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave babych returns View Post
That is just as crazily off in the other direction.
Obviously.

MISC* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2013, 04:51 PM
  #135
dave babych returns
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,936
vCash: 500
Indeed.

dave babych returns is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2013, 05:26 PM
  #136
Proto
Registered User
 
Proto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 8,861
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
Well I was just throwing the 7th out there for arguments sake, but I agree he's probably worth more.

I wonder if this would be enough to put is back into Bjugstad+ territory or Huberdeau territory? Doubt it but would be interesting.
Bjugstad +??

If the Canucks could get Bjugstad and a decent NHL bottom-six forward for Luongo + I'd be ecstatis -- and I'm a huge Luongo fan. I think Bjugstad is going to be a difference maker.

Proto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2013, 05:40 PM
  #137
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 44,731
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proto View Post
Bjugstad +??

If the Canucks could get Bjugstad and a decent NHL bottom-six forward for Luongo + I'd be ecstatis -- and I'm a huge Luongo fan. I think Bjugstad is going to be a difference maker.
Be careful not to overrate Bjugstad. It seems like people value picks and prospects more than proven elite NHL talent. Such a shame.

y2kcanucks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2013, 06:10 PM
  #138
m9
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,081
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ginner classic View Post
I agre with this. I think it'll be realtively easy to find a taker for Ballard. If Booth sucks, we are stuck with him. My vote is for Booth (if any).

In order of liklihood:
  • Booth
  • Ballard
  • A player included in the trade return from Luongo
  • Garrison
  • Burrows
Nobody else is potentially overpaid
Garrison and Burrows, two guys that have yet to play a game under their new contracts, have no business being on this list. Malhotra would easily be ahead of either of those guys. Just crazy that these guys are even brought up in this thread.

m9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2013, 06:14 PM
  #139
Proto
Registered User
 
Proto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 8,861
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
Be careful not to overrate Bjugstad. It seems like people value picks and prospects more than proven elite NHL talent. Such a shame.
It has nothing to do with that. Luongo has decent-but-not-exceptional trade value because it's hard to trade goaltenders. There's a much higher risk for the receiving team than a team trading for an elite forward/defenseman. If you trade for an elite forward/defender and the player loses a step, you can still find a utility for them. For a goaltender there's the one spot and that's it. It's just not the same sort of trade.

And Bjugstad looks like something special from what I've seen of him. I think he's an impact player.

Proto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2013, 06:19 PM
  #140
Proto
Registered User
 
Proto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 8,861
vCash: 500
As per earlier discussion about buying out another team's player before next summer. If it were possible, I'm sort of curious what value people would put on basically trading 10 million dollars to another team. Or 20. And whether another team would do it, or if the blowback from their own fans would be too high.

Proto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2013, 08:23 PM
  #141
opendoor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,763
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wisp View Post
Why would the League put rules in place that hurt struggling teams weighed down by bad contracts on them? Why would the PA be opposed to more salary cap space opening up?

Each team gets one player to amnesty in the current proposal and Vancouver is one of the few rich teams who is in a position where they wouldn't have to use theirs. We're likely the only team capable of executing this scenario.
Because nothing the NHL has offered in these negotiations suggests to me that they're interested in allowing rich teams to effectively buy assets from poorer teams cap free. There's a reason they designed the 2005 buyouts to avoid this very scenario and I suspect they'll put rules in place this time as well. Who knows, maybe I'm wrong but I've seen very little evidence that the NHL negotiating committee is interested in allowing that kind of thing.

opendoor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2013, 09:08 PM
  #142
Wisp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,024
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
Because nothing the NHL has offered in these negotiations suggests to me that they're interested in allowing rich teams to effectively buy assets from poorer teams cap free. There's a reason they designed the 2005 buyouts to avoid this very scenario and I suspect they'll put rules in place this time as well. Who knows, maybe I'm wrong but I've seen very little evidence that the NHL negotiating committee is interested in allowing that kind of thing.
Nothing suggests this? really? You might want to think about your answer a bit more next time, because you're obviously not paying attention.

the current CBA proposal turns salary and cap space into tradeable assets. This is something both players and owners want..They want player movement to be less restrictive than it is, and want to give poor teams mechanisms that let them trade more competively.

Wisp is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2013, 09:48 PM
  #143
opendoor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,763
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wisp View Post
Nothing suggests this? really? You might want to think about your answer a bit more next time, because you're obviously not paying attention.

I have been paying attention and I'm very well versed on the ins and outs of the CBA and the negotiations.

Quote:
the current CBA proposal turns salary and cap space into tradeable assets. This is something both players and owners want..They want player movement to be less restrictive than it is, and want to give poor teams mechanisms that let them trade more competively.
The ability to retain cap space and salary in a trade still maintains a system where cap and salary paid are related to one another. A poorer team can retain some of the cap hit to facilitate a trade but they also have to pay the salary. It's not like rich teams can just buy players under that scenario which would be the case with what people are suggesting with the buyouts.

I guess we'll see, but I'll be shocked if the NHL lets teams trade a player for the sole purpose of a compliance buyout. They designed the 2005 ones to expressly eliminate this possibility. Perhaps more importantly, the elimination of the ability of rich teams to use their cash for off cap spending to create an advantage (front loaded deals and buried salary are the two biggest examples) has been one of the biggest driving forces of this CBA's negotiations.

I've been wrong many times before, so who knows. But I don't really see the logic in thinking that the NHL will set their contract variance and off cap spending rules in stone but then turn around and allow rich teams to spend tens of millions of dollars that aren't subject to the cap in order to effectively buy valuable assets from poor teams.

opendoor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2013, 10:22 PM
  #144
Proto
Registered User
 
Proto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 8,861
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
Because nothing the NHL has offered in these negotiations suggests to me that they're interested in allowing rich teams to effectively buy assets from poorer teams cap free. There's a reason they designed the 2005 buyouts to avoid this very scenario and I suspect they'll put rules in place this time as well. Who knows, maybe I'm wrong but I've seen very little evidence that the NHL negotiating committee is interested in allowing that kind of thing.
Keep in mind that all of the amnesty buyouts will come 100% off of the players' HRR share.

Proto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2013, 11:16 PM
  #145
ginner classic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Kitsilano
Posts: 6,436
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by m9 View Post
Garrison and Burrows, two guys that have yet to play a game under their new contracts, have no business being on this list. Malhotra would easily be ahead of either of those guys. Just crazy that these guys are even brought up in this thread.
Have you been following along?

Compliance buyouts would not take place until the summer of 2013. So if Malhotra, Lappiere, Higgins, Edler, Raymond are UFA.....what does this leave? Sedins? Kesler? Hamhuis? Bieksa?

I put them in order of most likely....I did not say the last few options were likely...just more likely than Dan and Hank. To be clear....Bieksa would be the next name on that list.

ginner classic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 03:03 AM
  #146
LetsBeReality
Registered User
 
LetsBeReality's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Narnia
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,132
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ginner classic View Post
Have you been following along?

Compliance buyouts would not take place until the summer of 2013. So if Malhotra, Lappiere, Higgins, Edler, Raymond are UFA.....what does this leave? Sedins? Kesler? Hamhuis? Bieksa?

I put them in order of most likely....I did not say the last few options were likely...just more likely than Dan and Hank. To be clear....Bieksa would be the next name on that list.


Why bother talkign about something that's so unlikely, it pretty much has zero chance.

From the top of your list. Booth. Fans all over scream for years that Kesler needs a big forward to play on his wing that can keep up and drive the net and when we get him, after less than a season with the team, he's number one on a buy-out list.

This is the list, IF there even was a list:

Ballard





That's it.

LetsBeReality is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 09:14 AM
  #147
Proto
Registered User
 
Proto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 8,861
vCash: 500
2 compliance buyouts per team on the table from NHL now.

Proto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 09:16 AM
  #148
Canucker
Registered User
 
Canucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Prince Rupert, BC
Posts: 17,499
vCash: 500
Quote:
Michael Grange‏@michaelgrange

A couple of encouraging details: #NHL has agreed to two compliance buyouts/team in 2013-14; and variance on contracts in 20% range now
Makes things a little more interesting if true. Nice to see the NHL actually moving...makes me laugh at all their blowhard threats earlier in the process (and at all the people who took them serious).

Canucker is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 09:20 AM
  #149
ItsAllPartOfThePlan
Registered User
 
ItsAllPartOfThePlan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,970
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Proto View Post
2 compliance buyouts per team on the table from NHL now.
Wow...could use one for ourselves and one from a trade. Or both from trades if Aqua is willing to pony up the money. Could really set ourselves up nicely here.

IF a small market team needs to unload a contract, we could get picks (i.e a first round) or a great prospect for buying out that contract.

ItsAllPartOfThePlan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2013, 09:37 AM
  #150
Jumex
Registered User
 
Jumex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Salisbury, UK
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 159
vCash: 450
Per @Real_ESPNLeBrun
Another detail emerging: NHL has upped its compliance buyout offer to 2 per team, up from 1 prior to 2013-14 season.

Edit...Way too Late

Jumex is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:35 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.