[Speculation] Could Coronavirus Lead to the Return of Compliance Buyouts?

[qwijibo]

49 minutes ago, SILLY GOOSE said:

I'd say suspension/cancellation of the season is categorically different tho, depending on how things play out.

It is. But it isn’t.  Regardless.  There’s really nothing for the league to do.  The best, most fair way to react is to do nothing.  
 

You can’t reverse the trades. That punishes the teams that traded away the assets in good faith. 
You can’t give picks to teams that did make trades as compensation.  It punishes every episode that didn’t make a trade by pushing back their picks.  Even if it didn’t, how do you come up with a fair formula to decide what constitutes reasonable compensation from case to case? 
You can’t.  
 

No. The teams that traded away assets for other assets took a chance. It didn’t work out.  The end result isnt that different from any other season when a team pays a price for a rental player and then falls short of the cup.  Like I said, buyer beware. 

[Junkyard Dog]

20 hours ago, Vanuckles said:

Could not disagree more on all your points lol... just going to have to agree to disagree. Roussel is still a very useful player. Just because he's having a bit of an off year because of a late start doesn't mean he's useless for God's sake what is it with fans and memory loss. He's fine. He's on pace for a ~30 point season over 82 which is solid for a 3rd liner, and he provides lots of other intangibles. His contract is not even remotely close to being a bad contract. Don't just look at his last 20 games and say "he's completely useless" 

Useless is the only word I would describe Roussel this year. What role does Roussel play on this team?

 

Does he PK? nope. Should he be on the PP? nope. Does he bring grit? nope. What does he do? He has currently been a huge disappointment this year and has brought nothing to this team. Spending most of his time playing with our two best secondary scorers outside the top 6 on a sheltered line with Jake and Gaud. They can spend the money elsewhere easily.

 

At least Beagle has a role and plays it well. Hell even Sutter does and he's worse than Beagle. You can even say Eriksson has been more useful haha.

 

11 hours ago, theo5789 said:

Reason why I don't buy out Roussel is because I think he has trade value, even if it's a low pick. Baertschi has no value at this point and may be at negative value. Teams may be more interested with one year left, but we may still have to retain to get a minimal return and this defeats the purpose. Roussel was just starting to gel with Gaudette before the season was cut short.

Gaud can do a lot better. Roussel's been invisible all year. Gaud's line is pretty streaky too so I wouldn't put much thought into them play a couple alright games, they've done that all year then disappear for a stretch. Also have to account for Ferland possibly coming back. Either way we need guys who bring a lot of elements whether that be play physical D&some scoring, etc. Roussel literately plays zero roles on this team and doesn't bring any sort of redeeming aspects like grit(Mac/Ferland), even Eriksson is used on the PK.

 

If we had a 2nd buyout Roussel easy. 3M is gonna buy you a lot better than Roussel. 3M can get you someone that actually plays a role. Doubt we get more than one though.

[theo5789]

2 hours ago, Junkyard Dog said:

Gaud can do a lot better. Roussel's been invisible all year. Gaud's line is pretty streaky too so I wouldn't put much thought into them play a couple alright games, they've done that all year then disappear for a stretch. Also have to account for Ferland possibly coming back. Either way we need guys who bring a lot of elements whether that be play physical D&some scoring, etc. Roussel literately plays zero roles on this team and doesn't bring any sort of redeeming aspects like grit(Mac/Ferland), even Eriksson is used on the PK.

 

If we had a 2nd buyout Roussel easy. 3M is gonna buy you a lot better than Roussel. 3M can get you someone that actually plays a role. Doubt we get more than one though.

I'm not arguing for hanging on to him and keeping as a lock. All I'm saying is he has some trade value. If he's bought out, he's one of the first players that will find a new team. In the meantime, he isn't completely useless as suggested IMO so it's less risk to hang onto him and see if we can find a trade partner. Right now, Sven has little to no value for us and probably negative value in a trade. He is dead cap that we should be ridding ourselves of. Our cap is at its tightest for next season, so it's the season that we need to focus on clearing up room while not hurting the team. Just the removal of Eriksson will help us long term cap-wise as well in we are also thinking longer term.

[VegasCanuck]

I heard a report a couple of weeks ago and commented on it in the End of Season thread if I remember right. I can't remember which interview it was, but it was speculated that with the best case scenario that the cap remains flat at its current level, and worst case, that it drops down below 80 million again, NHL might give teams 1 compliance buyout at their discretion. Even if we were able to do this and get rid of LE, it would still make things tight if the cap actually dropped.

 

I could also see the NHL and NHLPA negotiating a scaled reduction in player salaries to compensate. I have not heard this reported anywhere, this is completely my speculation, but maybe something like:

20/21 season, salaries are reduced by 20% on existing contracts

21/22 season, salaries are reduced by 10% on existing contracts

22/23 season, all salaries return to normal rates.

 

This would ONLY be on existing deals, teams would be expected to negotiate new deals based on the current NHL revenue circumstances.

[Provost]

46 minutes ago, VegasCanuck said:

I heard a report a couple of weeks ago and commented on it in the End of Season thread if I remember right. I can't remember which interview it was, but it was speculated that with the best case scenario that the cap remains flat at its current level, and worst case, that it drops down below 80 million again, NHL might give teams 1 compliance buyout at their discretion. Even if we were able to do this and get rid of LE, it would still make things tight if the cap actually dropped.

 

I could also see the NHL and NHLPA negotiating a scaled reduction in player salaries to compensate. I have not heard this reported anywhere, this is completely my speculation, but maybe something like:

20/21 season, salaries are reduced by 20% on existing contracts

21/22 season, salaries are reduced by 10% on existing contracts

22/23 season, all salaries return to normal rates.

 

This would ONLY be on existing deals, teams would be expected to negotiate new deals based on the current NHL revenue circumstances.

I can't see the scaling of salaries agreed to like that.  It means players with existing contracts (which is most of them) voting to give some money back to the owners to then spend like crazy people on the few UFAs out there.

Increasing escrow would take money evenly out of each player's pocket based on the existing formulas in place... similar to what you are saying but more fair and using existing CBA language.

I am confident there will be some sort of negotiated deal to even out the escrow a little so there isn't a huge hit this year... but at the cost of a flat cap for longer.

[VegasCanuck]

2 hours ago, Provost said:

I can't see the scaling of salaries agreed to like that.  It means players with existing contracts (which is most of them) voting to give some money back to the owners to then spend like crazy people on the few UFAs out there.

Increasing escrow would take money evenly out of each player's pocket based on the existing formulas in place... similar to what you are saying but more fair and using existing CBA language.

I am confident there will be some sort of negotiated deal to even out the escrow a little so there isn't a huge hit this year... but at the cost of a flat cap for longer.

Doing this type of scaling would only be in the event of a larger rollback of the current cap due to extreme conditions. I didn't fully flesh out the idea, just floated it as a loose concept. If it was to be put forward by the NHL to the NHLPA, I would think (hope), that the losses would be bridged across both sides. So, if there was a huge roll back in the cap, players might agree to roll back existing contracts by X% if the owners agree to a one year increase in revenue sharing by Y% above the current 50/50 revenue split. Something that would spread the pain from this across both sides equally.

 

Again, this is just a really rough concept, percentages that I was using were just pulled out of my ass

 

[milk and honey]

On 3/24/2020 at 9:03 AM, Alain Vigneault said:

Eriksson + Beagle/Roussel/Ferland/Myers much more worth it.

 

You can suck up 1 year of 3M for Baer.  Not the same with the other guys above.

Honestly Myers will be the scapegoat very very soon. Good name on paper buy not the best for stats or on the eye. Not overly physical for his size either. 

 

I was the fan of the signing but I understand now why most jets fan were ready to let him without much of a fight thank goodness he signed for less then 6m

[VegasCanuck]

So, this is Eklund and I know how everyone feels about him, but he's reporting it as well, that its being considered to help teams over the hump of a flat salary cap:

 

If this were to happen, would allow us to erase the whole LE issue.

 

https://hockeybuzz.com/blog/Eklund/Rumor-Teams-get-1-Mulligan-Buyout-when-we-return-Who-Would-You/1/104994

 

[JM_]

34 minutes ago, VegasCanuck said:

So, this is Eklund and I know how everyone feels about him, but he's reporting it as well, that its being considered to help teams over the hump of a flat salary cap:

 

If this were to happen, would allow us to erase the whole LE issue.

 

https://hockeybuzz.com/blog/Eklund/Rumor-Teams-get-1-Mulligan-Buyout-when-we-return-Who-Would-You/1/104994

 

If Eklund said it that means it officially isn't going to happen. 

[Provost]

 It will be interesting to look beyond who we would buy out (obvious), but also what other impacts it would have.

 

There will be a bunch of solid NHL veterans suddenly available who are legit players but just overpaid on terrible contracts.  Can you scoop up a local guy like Turris for $1-2 million on a one year contract?  He can play centre or wing.  Seabrook, Ladd, P.K. Subban, Tyler Johnson, Gostisbiere?  Lots of names of real players who could end up on the market and be worried more about resurrecting their careers and/or winning than money which they would have already pocketed 

.

 

Will it also reduce the price for UFAs to have a bunch more on the market?

 

Can we weaponize it and trade away another bad contract to be bought out by another team who doesn’t have one of their own to really worry about.

[mll]

1 hour ago, Jimmy McGill said:

If Eklund said it that means it officially isn't going to happen. 

The Board of Governors would need to approve the measure.   Could come down to how influential the different owners are.

 

As chairman of the Board would Jacobs even want to promote a compliance buyout.   If the cap stays flat the Bruins might not have any use for one, and they've just paid a 1st round pick to off-load Backes.

 

[JM_]

14 minutes ago, mll said:

The Board of Governors would need to approve the measure.   Could come down to how influential the different owners are.

 

As chairman of the Board would Jacobs even want to promote a compliance buyout.   If the cap stays flat the Bruins might not have any use for one, and they've just paid a 1st round pick to off-load Backes.

 

very good point, the Bruins would be very happy to screw over the rest of the league on this, and they could probably get away with it. 

[mll]

Just now, Jimmy McGill said:

very good point, the Bruins would be very happy to screw over the rest of the league on this, and they could probably get away with it. 

I also wonder if owners really want compliance buyouts.  

 

Arena workers are not all paid, teams are asking employees to take pay cuts and then somehow they find the money to spend on a compliance buyout.

 

Some might not be doing too well with their other businesses either.  The cost of those buyouts could be money used to keep people employed.  Some owners might be more focused on their social responsibility than just spending for their hockey team.  Who knows if there will even be people attending games initially and how long there will be revenue uncertainty.

 

[coastal.view]

1 hour ago, mll said:

The Board of Governors would need to approve the measure.   Could come down to how influential the different owners are.

 

As chairman of the Board would Jacobs even want to promote a compliance buyout.   If the cap stays flat the Bruins might not have any use for one, and they've just paid a 1st round pick to off-load Backes.

 

the other consequence that needs to be factored in to compliance buyouts

is that this is an expense that will need to be accounted for eventually

in determining future salary cap thresholds

this is not a neutral expense item

the players will end up paying a share of these buyout costs

[JM_]

2 hours ago, mll said:

I also wonder if owners really want compliance buyouts.  

 

Arena workers are not all paid, teams are asking employees to take pay cuts and then somehow they find the money to spend on a compliance buyout.

 

Some might not be doing too well with their other businesses either.  The cost of those buyouts could be money used to keep people employed.  Some owners might be more focused on their social responsibility than just spending for their hockey team.  Who knows if there will even be people attending games initially and how long there will be revenue uncertainty.

 

I guess you don't necessarily have to use them if its available, but who knows what the feeling in the room is with the governors. Really had to know. 

[VIC_CITY]

2 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I guess you don't necessarily have to use them if its available, but who knows what the feeling in the room is with the governors. Really had to know. 

They coud make things fun and turn the compliance buy out into a tradeable asset. That way it would also benefit teams that weren't in cap hell.

[JM_]

15 hours ago, VIC_CITY said:

They coud make things fun and turn the compliance buy out into a tradeable asset. That way it would also benefit teams that weren't in cap hell.

they'll probably just do away with cap recapture penalties... but not retroactively of course. I fully expect whatever Bettman does to screw us in some way or another. 

[86Viking]

On 3/30/2020 at 10:30 AM, Provost said:

 It will be interesting to look beyond who we would buy out (obvious), but also what other impacts it would have.

 

There will be a bunch of solid NHL veterans suddenly available who are legit players but just overpaid on terrible contracts.  Can you scoop up a local guy like Turris for $1-2 million on a one year contract?  He can play centre or wing.  Seabrook, Ladd, P.K. Subban, Tyler Johnson, Gostisbiere?  Lots of names of real players who could end up on the market and be worried more about resurrecting their careers and/or winning than money which they would have already pocketed 

.

 

Will it also reduce the price for UFAs to have a bunch more on the market?

 

Can we weaponize it and trade away another bad contract to be bought out by another team who doesn’t have one of their own to really worry about.

It might reduce the cost of pending UFA's or the teams with lots of cap space can offer more $ to the top guys and they sign with a lesser team and go for the pay cheque? If we can't retain Toffoli due to the cap maybe an option like Turris on the cheap like you suggest might be a route we end up going. I would take a chance at Turris at 1.5-2m vs keeping a guy like Leivo around, let him go and let MacEwen take a permanent bottom 6 role next year.

 

I wonder if the cap stays the same or goes down a bit if the asking price for Tanev, Markstrom or Toffoli would go down? Or they want to get paid we surely are going to lose 1 or 2 of them for sure. Seabrook would be a cheap RHD addition if we lost Tanev and Chicago bought him out.

[Kanukfanatic]

Let's face it, the NHL only cares about money.

 

And for NHL teams to make the maximum amount of money they need to ditch players making too much for what they provide. Especially as this pandemic has hit the billionaires in their fat wallets.

 

The players association will want to weigh getting big contracts for good players vs agreeing to a buy out for over the hill players. 

[qwijibo]

4 hours ago, Kanukfanatic said:

Let's face it, the NHL only cares about money.

 

And for NHL teams to make the maximum amount of money they need to ditch players making too much for what they provide. Especially as this pandemic has hit the billionaires in their fat wallets.

 

The players association will want to weigh getting big contracts for good players vs agreeing to a buy out for over the hill players. 

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?