RowdyCanuck Posted April 11, 2020 Share Posted April 11, 2020 (edited) Dumb question......could we say sign petey this summer for a big long term contract and just buy it out and sign him to a lower amount?....... Edited April 11, 2020 by RowdyCanuck Grammar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted April 11, 2020 Share Posted April 11, 2020 2 minutes ago, RowdyCanuck said: Dumb question......could we say sign petey this summer for a big long term contract and just buy it out and sign him to a lower amount?....... Last time you weren’t allowed to re-sign a player for a year after you bought him out. A rule to make these types of shenanigans not happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwijibo Posted April 11, 2020 Share Posted April 11, 2020 (edited) 28 minutes ago, Provost said: We don't know that it would cost Montreal $51 million of $55 million to buy Price out. The compliance buyout rules aren't the same as normal buyouts and are a one time negotiated deal with their own rules. There is almost no way that they don't include the bonuses as a straight 2/3rds buyout, they aren't going to negotiate an agreement which makes bought out players MORE than whole, which would happen with the idea you floated... Price can still go earn money elsewhere on top of his buyout as he becomes a free agent. Again, it will be the NHLPA who needs the compliance buyouts more than the league does. The league gets their 50% regardless and compliance buyouts cost them extra on top of that. What compliance buyouts save is players getting dinged for huge escrow and UFAs only being able to get contracts at a fraction of current market values (if they can even find a job) because there is no money in the system to pay them. I believe there is $54 million remaining for the full value of his contract, so the likeliest scenario would be a straight 2/3rds of that so he would get around $36 million... saving them $18 million in real dollars. Assuming a $5.5 million top end replacement for 6 years... that is another $33 million to replace him. So in effect they would be paying an extra $2.5 million in cash a year for 6 years to buy themselves $5 million in cap space for each of those years. That isn't a hard pill for one of the highest value teams in the league to swallow if it is going to net out to more success. Two extra playoff series in that 6 years probably pays that difference in terms of real dollars. Current buyout rules don’t include bonus money in the 2/3 calculation. That’s why so many recent contracts have maximum bonus money. If you’re telling me the NHLPA will willingly waive that point for a compliance buyout I have a Nigerian prince with an investment opportunity that you should speak with. They waive that right this one time and it’s that much more difficult for them to try to keep it in the next CBA. Also. In my brief research online it appears that past compliance buyouts used the same formula as standard buyouts, (with the obvious difference of not counting against the cap). So I don’t know why you would think they’d switch it up this time around Edited April 11, 2020 by qwijibo 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwijibo Posted April 11, 2020 Share Posted April 11, 2020 11 minutes ago, RowdyCanuck said: Dumb question......could we say sign petey this summer for a big long term contract and just buy it out and sign him to a lower amount?....... No. The rules of the last compliance buyouts prohibited a team from resigning a bought out player for a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted April 11, 2020 Share Posted April 11, 2020 1 minute ago, qwijibo said: Current buyout rules don’t include bonus money in the 2/3 calculation. That’s why so many recent contracts have maximum bonus money. If you’re telling me the NHLPA will willingly waive that point for a compliance buyout I have a Nigerian prince with an investment opportunity that you should speak with. They waive that right this one time and it’s that much more difficult for them to try to keep it in the next CBA. You are entirely ignoring the large part of my post that explained that. 1. The NHLPA is going to be the one that is pushing for compliance buyouts. They don’t get to also just decide that all the terms of that are the most favourable to them as well. The league doesn’t have to agree to anything and it saves them money to not have compliance buyouts at all. 2. Compliance buyouts are not the same as regular buyouts. Stop conflating the two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwijibo Posted April 11, 2020 Share Posted April 11, 2020 1 minute ago, Provost said: You are entirely ignoring the large part of my post that explained that. 1. The NHLPA is going to be the one that is pushing for compliance buyouts. They don’t get to also just decide that all the terms of that are the most favourable to them as well. The league doesn’t have to agree to anything and it saves them money to not have compliance buyouts at all. 2. Compliance buyouts are not the same as regular buyouts. Stop conflating the two. I’m not confusing anything. In the past two instances of compliance buyouts the same formula as standard buyouts applied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RowdyCanuck Posted April 11, 2020 Share Posted April 11, 2020 32 minutes ago, Provost said: Last time you weren’t allowed to re-sign a player for a year after you bought him out. A rule to make these types of shenanigans not happen. Ah. Well maybe cause of what's going on they will let it go cause it would actually fill in the loses faster. 24 minutes ago, qwijibo said: No. The rules of the last compliance buyouts prohibited a team from resigning a bought out player for a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ballisticsports. Posted April 11, 2020 Share Posted April 11, 2020 On 4/1/2020 at 10:09 PM, qwijibo said: So explain this to me. The nhl will make money by paying players to not play for them, and then spending the money on other players who might be better? How is that making the owners money? I agree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mll Posted April 11, 2020 Share Posted April 11, 2020 (edited) 11 hours ago, Provost said: We don't know that it would cost Montreal $51 million of $55 million to buy Price out. The compliance buyout rules aren't the same as normal buyouts and are a one time negotiated deal with their own rules. There is almost no way that they don't include the bonuses as a straight 2/3rds buyout, they aren't going to negotiate an agreement which makes bought out players MORE than whole, which would happen with the idea you floated... Price can still go earn money elsewhere on top of his buyout as he becomes a free agent. Again, it will be the NHLPA who needs the compliance buyouts more than the league does. The league gets their 50% regardless and compliance buyouts cost them extra on top of that. What compliance buyouts save is players getting dinged for huge escrow and UFAs only being able to get contracts at a fraction of current market values (if they can even find a job) because there is no money in the system to pay them. I believe there is $54 million remaining for the full value of his contract, so the likeliest scenario would be a straight 2/3rds of that so he would get around $36 million... saving them $18 million in real dollars. Assuming a $5.5 million top end replacement for 6 years... that is another $33 million to replace him. So in effect they would be paying an extra $2.5 million in cash a year for 6 years to buy themselves $5 million in cap space for each of those years. That isn't a hard pill for one of the highest value teams in the league to swallow if it is going to net out to more success. Two extra playoff series in that 6 years probably pays that difference in terms of real dollars. Last time the rules were the same as a regular buyouts with the buyout cap hit simply not appearing on the books. They are part of the players' share though and that affects escrow. Article 50.9 (i) (ii): [...] Such Compliance Buy-Outs shall be effectuated on the same terms as are set forth in Paragraph 13 of the SPC, except that (i) there shall be no charge against the Club's Averaged Club Salary in any League Year on account of a Compliance Buy-Out and (ii) any amounts paid pursuant to a Compliance Buy-Out shall be counted against the Players' Share in the League Years in which they are paid. Compliance buyouts are treated like regular buyouts and are included in the players' share of HRR as the amounts they receive through a buyout is considered player salary. The league is already operating on an artificially increased cap where the commitment to players' is more than 50% of HRR. The more there is committed towards players, the wider the gap to 50% of HRR and the more they have to pay back to the league. Edited April 11, 2020 by mll 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Provost Posted April 11, 2020 Share Posted April 11, 2020 (edited) 5 hours ago, mll said: Last time the rules were the same as a regular buyouts with the buyout cap hit simply not appearing on the books. They are part of the players' share though and that affects escrow. Article 50.9 (i) (ii): [...] Such Compliance Buy-Outs shall be effectuated on the same terms as are set forth in Paragraph 13 of the SPC, except that (i) there shall be no charge against the Club's Averaged Club Salary in any League Year on account of a Compliance Buy-Out and (ii) any amounts paid pursuant to a Compliance Buy-Out shall be counted against the Players' Share in the League Years in which they are paid. Compliance buyouts are treated like regular buyouts and are included in the players' share of HRR as the amounts they receive through a buyout is considered player salary. The league is already operating on an artificially increased cap where the commitment to players' is more than 50% of HRR. The more there is committed towards players, the wider the gap to 50% of HRR and the more they have to pay back to the league. That is exactly why I don’t believe that if compliance buyouts come along... that they will be under the old rules. They won’t do them if all they do is make the situation worse in terms of how much the players are getting overpaid. They will have to figure out something entirely different. Even before all of this, the escrow was going to be huge. The cap ceiling assumption is that some teams will spend above and below the calculated midpoint. If you look at team salaries, almost all of them were above the midpoint with none near the floor. A bunch of teams were way above the ceiling due to LTIR and LTIR counts towards their share of HRR too. They are going to have to do something to resolve this now that a real calculation including lost revenue from a truncated season and no playoffs would probably end up being 30-50% escrow and the cap ceiling lowering by many millions next year. They are going to have to find a way to spread the pain over a longer period of time. Agreeing ahead of time to a flat cap for several years until things even out is probably in the cards, it will give cost certainty to teams and avoid the cap significantly lowering in one season and then slowly rising again. Escrow is a big deal to players so I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see an agreement for a flat cap for a 3-5 year range so that we recoup these one time losses and then eat into escrow until it is gone. They are also going to have to find a release valve for players share of HRR in the short term. A compliance buyout outside the system is a relatively easy way to do that. The PA would love it as it adds to their overall take of money, and probably half the teams would love it as it gives them a get out of jail free card for bad contracts.... especially if it is paid out at less than the full freight of the contract obligation. The only parties that won’t love it are the league HQ (who also know there has to be “some” sort of pain like this figured out), and the few players bought out who won’t be able to recoup their lost earnings... which will be very few. Even Eriksson could probably make up the difference. A pure 2/3rds payouts including bonuses would lose him about $2.66 million over two years. Would some team look at him as a veteran and pay him $1.33 million as a depth defensive guy? Probably. The point is that we are in uncharted territory so assuming old rules from years ago will apply is just not likely to be accurate. We don’t know what a new “one-off” agreement is going to look like. Thankfully due to sharing of HRR, both sides are more a partnership than ever before and should be able to work it out. Edited April 11, 2020 by Provost 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentSam Posted April 15, 2020 Share Posted April 15, 2020 Pretty sure the league, and other leagues will cancel remainder of seasons in the next 2 weeks.. This is the discussion taking place now, and rightfully so... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildcam Posted April 15, 2020 Share Posted April 15, 2020 On March 24, 2020 at 11:01 AM, Jimmy McGill said: why the hate on Myers? he's pretty effective with the right partner. I agree with you, Myers plays big mins against other teams best players....We are a much better team with Myers, happy with signing... Avg mins per game... 1. Edler - 22:37 2. Hughes 21:53 3. Myers 21:30 4.Tanev 19:32 5 Stetcher 15:21 - I put Stetcher a head of Benn and Fantenberg ...Stetcher is regular not scratched... 6.Benn 16:17 7..Fantenberg 15:55 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ballisticsports. Posted April 16, 2020 Share Posted April 16, 2020 6 hours ago, SilentSam said: Pretty sure the league, and other leagues will cancel remainder of seasons in the next 2 weeks.. This is the discussion taking place now, and rightfully so... I would think Jan. would be the earliest myself 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentSam Posted April 16, 2020 Share Posted April 16, 2020 20 minutes ago, ba;;isticsports said: I would think Jan. would be the earliest myself Crazy times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coastal.view Posted April 16, 2020 Share Posted April 16, 2020 On 4/11/2020 at 9:30 AM, Provost said: That is exactly why I don’t believe that if compliance buyouts come along... that they will be under the old rules. They won’t do them if all they do is make the situation worse in terms of how much the players are getting overpaid. They will have to figure out something entirely different. Even before all of this, the escrow was going to be huge. The cap ceiling assumption is that some teams will spend above and below the calculated midpoint. If you look at team salaries, almost all of them were above the midpoint with none near the floor. A bunch of teams were way above the ceiling due to LTIR and LTIR counts towards their share of HRR too. They are going to have to do something to resolve this now that a real calculation including lost revenue from a truncated season and no playoffs would probably end up being 30-50% escrow and the cap ceiling lowering by many millions next year. They are going to have to find a way to spread the pain over a longer period of time. Agreeing ahead of time to a flat cap for several years until things even out is probably in the cards, it will give cost certainty to teams and avoid the cap significantly lowering in one season and then slowly rising again. Escrow is a big deal to players so I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see an agreement for a flat cap for a 3-5 year range so that we recoup these one time losses and then eat into escrow until it is gone. They are also going to have to find a release valve for players share of HRR in the short term. A compliance buyout outside the system is a relatively easy way to do that. The PA would love it as it adds to their overall take of money, and probably half the teams would love it as it gives them a get out of jail free card for bad contracts.... especially if it is paid out at less than the full freight of the contract obligation. The only parties that won’t love it are the league HQ (who also know there has to be “some” sort of pain like this figured out), and the few players bought out who won’t be able to recoup their lost earnings... which will be very few. Even Eriksson could probably make up the difference. A pure 2/3rds payouts including bonuses would lose him about $2.66 million over two years. Would some team look at him as a veteran and pay him $1.33 million as a depth defensive guy? Probably. The point is that we are in uncharted territory so assuming old rules from years ago will apply is just not likely to be accurate. We don’t know what a new “one-off” agreement is going to look like. Thankfully due to sharing of HRR, both sides are more a partnership than ever before and should be able to work it out. i agree you have identified a key current problem with nhl contracts i disagree that this could or might change without a full renegotiation of the collective agreement this is a very complex issue that touches on too many other issues (inclusion/share of expansion fees into the revenue calculator?) it does not really lend itself to a temporary fix type model the nhl and nhlpa need to come up with a temporary fix to deal with revenue shortfalls due to this virus they are unlikely to create entirely new tools to achieve this (tools which deviate from the current arrangement) they most likely will rely on tools available in the current collective agreement the solution will be a band aid your approach will require a full revamp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted April 16, 2020 Share Posted April 16, 2020 17 hours ago, SilentSam said: Pretty sure the league, and other leagues will cancel remainder of seasons in the next 2 weeks.. This is the discussion taking place now, and rightfully so... The answer is empty arenas, games on TV only. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bissurnette Posted April 16, 2020 Share Posted April 16, 2020 It just occurred to me that assuming every team gets 1 compliance buyout (which is likely imo), the Flames will buy out Lucic's contract and he wanted to come here before he signed in Edmonton. We could see him sign here for cheap ~1mill contract and he could play on the 4th line and finally provide that grit and intimidation we've been needing. A 4th line of Lucic - Beagle - Motte could wreak havoc on the opposition all year 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruilin96 Posted April 16, 2020 Share Posted April 16, 2020 2 hours ago, Vanuckles said: It just occurred to me that assuming every team gets 1 compliance buyout (which is likely imo), the Flames will buy out Lucic's contract and he wanted to come here before he signed in Edmonton. We could see him sign here for cheap ~1mill contract and he could play on the 4th line and finally provide that grit and intimidation we've been needing. A 4th line of Lucic - Beagle - Motte could wreak havoc on the opposition all year Lucic at 1 million would be ok. We could also get rid-off Loui's 6 million with the buy out. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentSam Posted April 16, 2020 Share Posted April 16, 2020 3 hours ago, aGENT said: The answer is empty arenas, games on TV only. But then what? Teams, Trainers, Coaches, Management go into full quarantine away from Homes , Families, for 2-4 months? Thats a stressful environment.. then how does Flying with gear and unloading into other arenas ect ect.. Your only hoping that something serious dosent result from that.. isn’t that why myself and others here are off work right now.. We are all trying to contain this by not engaging. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted April 16, 2020 Share Posted April 16, 2020 44 minutes ago, SilentSam said: But then what? Teams, Trainers, Coaches, Management go into full quarantine away from Homes , Families, for 2-4 months? Thats a stressful environment.. then how does Flying with gear and unloading into other arenas ect ect.. Your only hoping that something serious dosent result from that.. isn’t that why myself and others here are off work right now.. We are all trying to contain this by not engaging. I have a feeling teams will play in a select few, possibly neutral, arenas for starters. Everyone involved with the team would need to be tested REGULARLY. All staff, players etc would need to continue social distancing when not on ice. This also presumes we've all been aloud back out to some degree by then. There's ways to do it while minimizing risks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now