Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
- - - - -

NHL will Allow Teams Two Contract Buyouts for '13-'14. Who are yours?


  • Please log in to reply
122 replies to this topic

#91 SamJamIam

SamJamIam

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,697 posts
  • Joined: 27-November 11

Posted 05 January 2013 - 04:01 AM

And if we have a buy out left but still need to drop $4-5M after Ballard is dropped and Luongo traded, who would you pick? That's the only real argument for dropping him, is if we have no other choice in order to get under $60M next year but still be able to re-sign Edler and our other up and comers.


Honestly, I don't think the talk about what happens if buyouts are allowed are firmly rooted in reality. People act like this is a situation that is only happening to the Canucks. Ultimately buyouts make very little sense because of the following:

High spending teams are forced to buyout good players. Those players are then expected to take a smaller paycheck to play somewhere else. Their market value is going to plummet. Bettman seems to think this means teams will then be able to scoop up a sweet deal for a capable player to replace the one they bought out. Sure, some guys are a little overpaid but the Reddens and Gomezs of the NHL are a tiny minority.

Poorer teams will not use the buyouts as most of them don't have players with sizable contracts and can't afford to buyout the few that do (DiPietro). Their low profits will likely also mean that they won't have the money to be picking up players who used to make what their first liners each make. Mid level teams will now be near the cap. Shedding a contract to pick up someone else may work out, but when you add the cost of a buyout to the new player's salary, it's not such a nice deal. Many will not feel its worth the risk and/or cost. Finally you have high spending players just ditching good players and having holes to fill with...what? There isn't another Booth that we can get for cheap. We'd be lucky to get a decent 4th liner and subsequently bumping our other players up to fill the space.

We end up with a significantly worse team and other teams don't get much better and good players are left with no jobs because no one can afford to pick them up. It's just a crap scheme and I can see why Gillis doesn't like buyouts. The smart thing to do is simply negotiate a more slowly declining cap and have each team resign players for their new, lower market value as their contracts expire. Anything else is just pointless and hurts the game without putting much money back in owners' pockets.

Edited by nateb123, 05 January 2013 - 04:04 AM.

  • 0

#92 Markus Alexander Cody

Markus Alexander Cody

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,640 posts
  • Joined: 25-April 07

Posted 05 January 2013 - 04:08 AM

Mason Raymond.
  • 0

Posted Image

credit to allons-y

Certainly going to be our #1 defensemen. Give him a couple more years to improve his game and he'll be our new and improved version of Matthias Ohlund in no time

Posted Image

^Truth


#93 Lundymaphone

Lundymaphone

    K-Wing Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 52 posts
  • Joined: 12-January 11

Posted 06 January 2013 - 02:29 AM

Ballard is a definite yes. Very good for a bottom 2 guy, serviceable 4th but just too damn expensive for what he is. The debate is essentially Luongo or Booth. Luongo certainly has a much higher trade value, but the complications in moving him may end up with him not being moved (or moved for relatively little). Frankly Booth still has a potential role on the team, and it is not as though he is unmovable. I would probably choose Luongo simply to get that contract off the books, the risk in keeping him is too great given the opportunity. Contrary to the (semi) popular opinion, you are not getting 3 firsts and Bozak from Toronto for Luongo and a 2nd...The danger with Ballard of course is that the Canucks are dangerously low on quality defensive depth as it is. With Ballard gone there is a bottom 2 role to fill (let alone serviceable 7th's, 8ths). Plus there is the issue of who plays top 4 during an injury, Tanev is the only current candidate, and even he is a big maybe.

Edit: As the OP stated, choosing Raymond/Malhotra makes no sense due to their relatively small contracts and the upcoming UFA status. Plus Raymond is still a serviceable player. The face off machine's status is a bit more up in the air.

Edited by Lundymaphone, 06 January 2013 - 02:31 AM.

  • 1

#94 wai_lai416

wai_lai416

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,595 posts
  • Joined: 11-April 06

Posted 06 January 2013 - 06:18 AM

lol.. if MG end up buying out Luongo and Ballard. Sorry he's going to go down in my books just as bad of a gm as Burke and Nonis was. Not handling the goalie situation properly ie trade Luongo while there was a some what decent package rather than trying to rob other teams and now end up getting nothing for it. and trading away our 1st in 2010 and Grabner for nothing once again. and imagine kassian and booth doesn't pan out either.... I like Garrison.. .but if all goes according to history.. he'll not pan out either.. all the players we have ever gotten from Florida or played for Florida never works out in vancouver.. Jovo was the only exception.
  • 0

#95 wai_lai416

wai_lai416

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,595 posts
  • Joined: 11-April 06

Posted 06 January 2013 - 06:23 AM

i'm going to vote Ballard and Kesler for the amnesty buy out. i love kesler and the way he competes, but for all we know.. he's not damaged goods and chances are he won't get that to the pace he was at couple years ago.
  • 1

#96 Bodee

Bodee

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,257 posts
  • Joined: 26-May 11

Posted 06 January 2013 - 07:46 AM

Booth and Garrison for me.

I think Lu is still crucial for us either as a saviour if CS ------ the bed or in a trade.

If losing Garrison means keeping Edler then that works for me. I am not saying Garrison is a bust, how could he be he hasn't even put on the jersey for us yet, however he was not/and isn't the player I was looking for..............which brings me to Booth.

I don't think his first season was a failure, it's just I saw too many things I didn't like and above all, like Garrison, he was not what I thought we needed or what we were looking for. A big in your face sniper who could bully defences and play if required with the Sedins.

So that is my opinion and I know MG is not going to jettison Garrison now but I quite honestly think Ballard is more in the mould of what we need.

Edited by Bodee, 06 January 2013 - 07:47 AM.

  • 0
Kevin.jpg

#97 Bodee

Bodee

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,257 posts
  • Joined: 26-May 11

Posted 06 January 2013 - 08:00 AM

The real question is, which player that gets bought out can we sign cheap for our second or third line?

Sign Scott Gomez for 1 mil to be our third line center?


No more wee guys!
  • 0
Kevin.jpg

#98 n00bxQb

n00bxQb

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,917 posts
  • Joined: 05-July 09

Posted 06 January 2013 - 08:00 AM

i'm going to vote Ballard and Kesler for the amnesty buy out. i love kesler and the way he competes, but for all we know.. he's not damaged goods and chances are he won't get that to the pace he was at couple years ago.

:lol: So this morning, you've suggested we should let Edler walk and we should buy out Kesler. :picard:

You know we could TRADE Kesler if we really wanted to get rid of him, right? He actually would have substantial trade value.
  • 0

#99 BuretoMogilny

BuretoMogilny

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,602 posts
  • Joined: 26-August 12

Posted 06 January 2013 - 08:04 AM

My question is, who would trade for Luongo now? They know the Canucks probably won't continue with both Lu and Schneider so why wouldn't they just wait until the Canucks are forced to buy him out? Then they can sign him without mortgaging the future.


This is going to be the challange now...I agree...but then again, alot of teams will still need a goalie...its now a game of chicken. If there are multiple suiters then MG doesn't have to buy him out, as there is buying tension, if not and its only Toronto...we may be hooped...

Edited by BuretoMogilny, 06 January 2013 - 08:05 AM.

  • 0

#100 Bodee

Bodee

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,257 posts
  • Joined: 26-May 11

Posted 06 January 2013 - 08:08 AM

"Wisniewski just came off a season in which he scored 10 goals and 53 points in 81 games. Since arriving in Vancouver, Ballard has had 15 points in 126 games. At that rate, Ballard will need 445 total games with us to reach what Wiz got in that one season."
That kind of biased statement probably sounded good in your head. Unfortunately it withers in black and white.
  • 0
Kevin.jpg

#101 Spyderr

Spyderr

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,522 posts
  • Joined: 05-July 08

Posted 06 January 2013 - 09:31 AM

trade lu buyout ballard and booth sign edler and jarome freaking iginla
  • 0
Come on LU

#102 JasetheCanuck

JasetheCanuck

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 257 posts
  • Joined: 05-January 12

Posted 06 January 2013 - 11:23 AM

Raymond and Booth. I still believe Ballard can serve as a partner for Tanev, or at least mentor him a little.
  • 0

Posted Image



Ebbett is as useful as a North Korean ballot box.


#103 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,690 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 06 January 2013 - 12:01 PM

With the cap being 64mil for '13-14 apparently, the situation isn't all that dire. Perhaps no buyouts are needed. But we'll see.
  • 0
Posted Image

#104 Bodee

Bodee

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,257 posts
  • Joined: 26-May 11

Posted 06 January 2013 - 12:09 PM

Raymond and Booth. I still believe Ballard can serve as a partner for Tanev, or at least mentor him a little.


If Raymond goes to Chicago, Philly or Detroit............we will live to regret it. And who will replace him at that price.............I'm not talking about a 8-10 min guy with little to offer I'm talking about a 14 min regular player.

Edited by Bodee, 06 January 2013 - 12:11 PM.

  • 1
Kevin.jpg

#105 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,516 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 06 January 2013 - 02:10 PM

Honestly, I don't think the talk about what happens if buyouts are allowed are firmly rooted in reality. People act like this is a situation that is only happening to the Canucks. Ultimately buyouts make very little sense because of the following:

High spending teams are forced to buyout good players. Those players are then expected to take a smaller paycheck to play somewhere else. Their market value is going to plummet. Bettman seems to think this means teams will then be able to scoop up a sweet deal for a capable player to replace the one they bought out. Sure, some guys are a little overpaid but the Reddens and Gomezs of the NHL are a tiny minority.
...

While I'm not sure if Bettman believes that or not, it is a possibility that teams buyout more than they need to in hopes of acquiring a player out of UFA that otherwise wouldn't have been available. All under the guise of dropping a bad contract, and perhaps why the owners were arguing for it to begin with.

Clearly now with a year two cap of $64+M it's not likely the second buyout would be needed, but if it were, he'd be an obvious name in the discussion as his contract doesn't quite have the value that others on this team do.

Booth and Garrison for me.
...
So that is my opinion and I know MG is not going to jettison Garrison now but I quite honestly think Ballard is more in the mould of what we need.

Wow. wow... :sadno:
  • 0

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

Tanev is going to EDM. I can put my life savings down on it

 


#106 Dragonfruits

Dragonfruits

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,495 posts
  • Joined: 05-January 08

Posted 06 January 2013 - 02:35 PM

my bet is the first players to be bought out will be Wade Redden and Scott Gomez two of the worst contracts in the NHL
  • 0

#107 Dazzle

Dazzle

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,913 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 06

Posted 06 January 2013 - 04:16 PM

Ever heard of a NMC?


NMC if I recall correctly refers to a player being placed on waivers for the purposes of putting them in the minors. Can anyone confirm if it applies simply by putting a player on waivers for the purposes of a buyout?
  • 0
Posted Image --> THANKS EGATTI.

I have to say Dazzle's was the coolest. ROTFLOL


#108 Dazzle

Dazzle

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,913 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 06

Posted 06 January 2013 - 04:20 PM

No more wee guys!


There is nothing wrong with "wee" guys.

If Martin St. Louis was available on the market, everyone would be after him. :lol:

Anyway, the obsession with size is hilarious. Size doesn't mean crap if a player doesn't use it. Who cares if he is 6'4?

It seems the smaller guys tend to be the ones that play bigger too. (i.e. Burrows, Kesler) - by no means am I saying that those two are 'small' players. But they're both not 6'3 and up.
  • 0
Posted Image --> THANKS EGATTI.

I have to say Dazzle's was the coolest. ROTFLOL


#109 Vancanwincup

Vancanwincup

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 539 posts
  • Joined: 02-March 12

Posted 06 January 2013 - 05:31 PM

How do these buyouts work for the players ; if the team is clear of their cap hit , then :
1) Do these buyouts follow the same rules of a regular buyout. Where the player only gets a small portion of their salary over double the length of their remaining contract?

2)Do the players get their full salary?

3)Do other teams get to sign the player who have been bought out?

4) Is there a time period before other teams can sign these players and is it the length of the remaining contract?

5) Are the players that are bought out paid in full for their whole remaining contract in one lump sum?
  • 0

#110 Nuxfanabroad

Nuxfanabroad

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,905 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 07

Posted 06 January 2013 - 06:07 PM

Bear with me here, Bryzgalov seems an obvious candidate...
  • 0

#111 Canada Hockey Place

Canada Hockey Place

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,559 posts
  • Joined: 03-February 08

Posted 06 January 2013 - 07:07 PM

IDK. Playing around with capgeek calculator. I see that if the cap were lowered to a pro-rated 64.3m for this season, there'd be no need to buy-out anyone. Trading one of Ballard, Booth or Luongo would get VAN under that amount.

For example, if Ballard were traded, the returning player could carry a cap hit of 1.079m this season:

CAPGEEK.COM USER GENERATED ROSTER
My Custom Lineup
FORWARDS
Daniel Sedin ($6.100m) / Henrik Sedin ($6.100m) / Alexandre Burrows ($2.000m)
David Booth ($4.250m) / Ryan Kesler ($5.000m) / Chris Higgins ($1.900m)
Mason Raymond ($2.275m) / Maxim Lapierre ($1.000m) / Jannik Hansen ($1.350m)
Aaron Volpatti ($0.600m)* / Manny Malhotra ($2.500m) / Dale Weise ($0.615m)
Andrew Gordon ($0.538m)*
DEFENSEMEN
Dan Hamhuis ($4.500m) / Kevin Bieksa ($4.600m)
Alexander Edler ($3.250m) / Jason Garrison ($4.600m)
Andrew Alberts ($1.225m) / Chris Tanev ($0.900m)
Frank Corrado ($0.599m)*
GOALTENDERS
Roberto Luongo ($5.333m)
Cory Schneider ($4.000m)
------
CAPGEEK.COM TOTALS (follow @capgeek on Twitter)
(these totals are compiled with the bonus cushion)
SALARY CAP: $64,300,000; CAP PAYROLL: $63,235,278; BONUSES: $15,000
CAP SPACE (22-man roster): $1,079,722

* players selected for low cap hits.

$1,129,722 if Booth were traded.
$2,213,055 if Luongo were traded.

So I'm thinking the buy-out option would be unnecessary.
  • 1
Quando omni flunkus moritati

#112 Rick Rypien

Rick Rypien

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,338 posts
  • Joined: 02-November 07

Posted 06 January 2013 - 07:12 PM

Depending on how they perform; Booth and/or Ballard
  • 0
Posted Image

#113 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,690 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 06 January 2013 - 07:27 PM

Aw, nobody likes Booth the bear-killer?

He's goin' nowhere.
  • 0
Posted Image

#114 Westcoasting

Westcoasting

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,329 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 10

Posted 06 January 2013 - 07:30 PM

Aw, nobody likes Booth the bear-killer?

He's goin' nowhere.


I'm hoping he can shoot a bigger bear this coming hunting season... love all the anti hunting fanatics here!!
  • 2

#115 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,516 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 06 January 2013 - 07:41 PM

IDK. Playing around with capgeek calculator. I see that if the cap were lowered to a pro-rated 64.3m for this season, there'd be no need to buy-out anyone. Trading one of Ballard, Booth or Luongo would get VAN under that amount.
...
So I'm thinking the buy-out option would be unnecessary.

As you say, depending on who comes back for whoever we trade, we might not need to use the buyout at all. Next summer after this one, if there really is an issue with significantly lower HR where the cap drops dramatically, then we might want to consider using them and feel lucky to have saved them, but we'll see what happens with any deals that are made and if they use a buyout this summer.
  • 1

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

Tanev is going to EDM. I can put my life savings down on it

 


#116 Millerdraft

Millerdraft

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,509 posts
  • Joined: 02-March 04

Posted 07 January 2013 - 01:25 AM

Ballard & whatever salary dump Tallon wants us to expunge in return for the Luongo "for prospects that Gillis wants" trade.

Upshall's 2-year/$7m if it's a "this season" trade, Brian Campbell's 3-years/$21.43m if it's at the draft?
  • 1

Kassian.... Taylor Pyatt 3.0

Lies. He's more of a Steve Bernier. Hopefully his talent level goes up so he can become like a Taylor Pyatt.


#117 Nuck-Shot

Nuck-Shot

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,373 posts
  • Joined: 08-March 07

Posted 07 January 2013 - 03:08 AM

What sounds stupid to me is that if all these big names get bought out teams like Columbus and the islanders will get those big names
  • 0
Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

#118 Bodee

Bodee

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,257 posts
  • Joined: 26-May 11

Posted 07 January 2013 - 05:14 AM

There is nothing wrong with "wee" guys.

If Martin St. Louis was available on the market, everyone would be after him. :lol:

Anyway, the obsession with size is hilarious. Size doesn't mean crap if a player doesn't use it. Who cares if he is 6'4?

It seems the smaller guys tend to be the ones that play bigger too. (i.e. Burrows, Kesler) - by no means am I saying that those two are 'small' players. But they're both not 6'3 and up.


Wee guys who would fit into our team are like hens teeth. You mentioned one, there is probably Briere and Parise as well. However because of our present roster we just can't afford anyone else who is small and lacks pushback. That is all I'm saying.

And yes you can have someone like Oreo who was a giant mallow but I didn't say sign just any big/average size guy, we need the next acquisition to have physicality and pushback as well as talent.
  • 0
Kevin.jpg

#119 DCR

DCR

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 329 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 10

Posted 07 January 2013 - 12:48 PM

Trade Luongo for roster player and prospects, buy out Ballard and either Raymond or Malhotra.


Buying out Ballard makes sense: Buying out either Raymond or Malhotra is ludicrous.

The buyout doesn't apply until after this season, at which time both Raymond and Malhotra become UFAs. There is no point wasting an amnesty buyout on a pending UFA. It would be stupid if it wasn't impossible.
  • 0

#120 Millerdraft

Millerdraft

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,509 posts
  • Joined: 02-March 04

Posted 08 January 2013 - 01:37 AM

Wee guys who would fit into our team are like hens teeth. You mentioned one, there is probably Briere and Parise as well. However because of our present roster we just can't afford anyone else who is small and lacks pushback. That is all I'm saying.

And yes you can have someone like Oreo who was a giant mallow but I didn't say sign just any big/average size guy, we need the next acquisition to have physicality and pushback as well as talent.


Ryane Clowe, UFA July 1st 2014.
  • 0

Kassian.... Taylor Pyatt 3.0

Lies. He's more of a Steve Bernier. Hopefully his talent level goes up so he can become like a Taylor Pyatt.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.